RESUMEN
Pirfenidone and nintedanib are the only two drugs approved for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Both proved to be safe and well-tolerated in clinical trials, but real-world data and direct comparisons are scarce. This real-life study explored the safety profile of pirfenidone and nintedanib with a prolonged follow-up. We retrospectively collected clinical status, adverse events (AEs), and treatment changes from IPF patients who had started an antifibrotic treatment at our centre from December 2011 to December 2020, including 192 patients treated with pirfenidone and 89 with nintedanib. The majority of patients in both groups experienced one or more AEs during the follow-up. A higher proportion of AEs in the nintedanib group were effectively treated with behavioural modifications or additional medications compared with the pirfenidone group (52.5% vs. 40.6%, p = 0.04). Overall, a difference in the impact of AEs due to nintedanib versus pirfenidone resulted in a lower permanent discontinuation of therapy (8.3% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.02), with the latter being associated with a higher risk of drug discontinuation at 48 months after initiation (OR = 2.52, p = 0.03). Our study confirms the safety profile of antifibrotic drugs in IPF but highlights that AEs due to nintedanib are usually easier to manage and lead to fewer cases of permanent discontinuation of therapy.
RESUMEN
We examined the effects of chest wall strapping (CWS) on the response to inhaled methacholine (MCh) and the effects of deep inspiration (DI). Eight subjects were studied on 1 day with MCh inhaled without CWS (CTRL), 1 day with MCh inhaled during CWS (CWSon/on), and 1 day with MCh inhaled during temporary removal of CWS (CWSoff/on). On the CWSon/on day, MCh caused greater increases in pulmonary resistance, upstream resistance, dynamic elastance, residual volume, and greater decreases in maximal expiratory flow than on the CTRL day. On the CWSoff/on day, the changes in these parameters with MCh were not different from the CTRL day. Six of the subjects were again studied using the same protocol on CTRL and CWSon/on days, except that, on a third day, MCh was given after applying the CWS, but the measurements before and after the inhalation were made without CWS (CWSon/off). The latter sequence was associated with more severe airflow obstruction than during CTRL, but less than with CWSon/on. The bronchodilator effects of a DI were blunted when CWS was applied during measurements (CWSon/on and CWSoff/on) but not after it was removed (CWSon/off). We conclude that CWS is capable of increasing airway responsiveness only when it is applied during the inhalation of the constrictor agent. We speculate that breathing at low lung volumes induced by CWS enhances airway narrowing because the airway smooth muscle is adapted at a length at which the contractile apparatus is able to generate a force greater than normal.