Re-evaluation of diagnostic parameters is crucial for obtaining accurate data on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Background: The FinnishIPF registry is a prospective, longitudinal national registry study on the epidemiology of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). It was designed to describe the characteristics, management and prognosis of prevalent and incident IPF patients. The study was initiated in 2012. Methods: We present here results limited to five university hospitals. Patients with IPF were screened from hospital registries using ICD-10 diagnosis codes J84.1 and J84.9. All patients who gave informed consent were included and evaluated using novel diagnostic criteria. Point prevalence on the 31st of December in 2012 was calculated using the reported population in each university hospital city as the denominator. Results: Patients with ICD-10 codes J84.1 and J84.9 yielded a heterogeneous group - on the basis of patient records assessed by pulmonologists only 20-30 % of the cases were IPF. After clinical, radiological and histological re-evaluation 111 of 123 (90 %) of patients fulfilled the clinical criteria of IPF. The estimated prevalence of IPF was 8.6 cases/100 000. 60.4 % were men. Forty four percent of the patients were never-smokers. At diagnosis, the patients' mean age was 73.5 years and mean FVC was 80.4 % and DLCO 57.3 % of predicted. Conclusions: Our results suggest that hospital registries are inaccurate for epidemiological studies unless patients are carefully re-evaluated. IPF is diagnosed in Finland at a stage when lung function is still quite well preserved. Smoking in patients with IPF was less common than in previous reports.Peer reviewe

Achieving Thoracic Oncology data collection in Europe: a precursor study in 35 Countries

BACKGROUND: A minority of European countries have participated in international comparisons with high level data on lung cancer. However, the nature and extent of data collection across the continent is simply unknown, and without accurate data collection it is not possible to compare practice and set benchmarks to which lung cancer services can aspire. METHODS: Using an established network of lung cancer specialists in 37 European countries, a survey was distributed in December 2014. The results relate to current practice in each country at the time, early 2015. The results were compiled and then verified with co-authors over the following months. RESULTS: Thirty-five completed surveys were received which describe a range of current practice for lung cancer data collection. Thirty countries have data collection at the national level, but this is not so in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Data collection varied from paper records with no survival analysis, to well-established electronic databases with links to census data and survival analyses. CONCLUSION: Using a network of committed clinicians, we have gathered validated comparative data reporting an observed difference in data collection mechanisms across Europe. We have identified the need to develop a well-designed dataset, whilst acknowledging what is feasible within each country, and aspiring to collect high quality data for clinical research

Long-term efficacy and safety of α1 proteinase inhibitor treatment for emphysema caused by severe a`001 antitrypsin deficiency : an open-label extension trial (RAPID-OLE)

Background Purified α1 proteinase inhibitor (A1PI) slowed emphysema progression in patients with severe α1 antitrypsin deficiency in a randomised controlled trial (RAPID-RCT), which was followed by an open-label extension trial (RAPID-OLE). The aim was to investigate the prolonged treatment effect of A1PI on the progression of emphysema as assessed by the loss of lung density in relation to RAPID-RCT. Methods Patients who had received either A1PI treatment (Zemaira or Respreeza; early-start group) or placebo (delayed-start group) in the RAPID-RCT trial were included in this 2-year open-label extension trial (RAPID-OLE). Patients from 22 hospitals in 11 countries outside of the USA received 60 mg/kg per week A1PI. The primary endpoint was annual rate of adjusted 15th percentile lung density loss measured using CT in the intention-to-treat population with a mixed-effects regression model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00670007. Findings Between March 1, 2006, and Oct 13, 2010, 140 patients from RAPID-RCT entered RAPID-OLE: 76 from the early-start group and 64 from the delayed-start group. Between day 1 and month 24 (RAPID-RCT), the rate of lung density loss in RAPID-OLE patients was lower in the early-start group (−1·51 g/L per year [SE 0·25] at total lung capacity [TLC]; −1·55 g/L per year [0·24] at TLC plus functional residual capacity [FRC]; and −1·60 g/L per year [0·26] at FRC) than in the delayed-start group (−2·26 g/L per year [0·27] at TLC; −2·16 g/L per year [0·26] at TLC plus FRC, and −2·05 g/L per year [0·28] at FRC). Between months 24 and 48, the rate of lung density loss was reduced in delayed-start patients (from −2·26 g/L per year to −1·26 g/L per year), but no significant difference was seen in the rate in early-start patients during this time period (−1·51 g/L per year to −1·63 g/L per year), thus in early-start patients the efficacy was sustained to month 48. Interpretation RAPID-OLE supports the continued efficacy of A1PI in slowing disease progression during 4 years of treatment. Lost lung density was never recovered, highlighting the importance of early intervention with A1PI treatment. Funding CSL Behring

International comparisons of survival from lung cancer: pitfalls and warnings.

Population-based survival data can provide valuable comparative data on outcome but should be interpreted with caution. Differences in data collection and analysis, patient and tumor characteristics and treatment options can have an impact on reported results. Ideally, data from the whole population, including clinical-only diagnoses, should be reported and the methods of case identification described. The relative survival rates should preferably be given. Data on patient characteristics such as age, sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation should be described, together with tumor details such as pathology and clinical stage. Whenever possible, details on the use of treatments should be reported