4.2 Article

Cyclosporin A in the Treatment of Acute Exacerbation of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

Journal

INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 49, Issue 2, Pages 109-115

Publisher

JAPAN SOC INTERNAL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.2169/internalmedicine.49.2359

Keywords

idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; acute exacerbation; cyclosporin A; corticosteroids

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Acute exacerbation (AE) of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is considered to be a nearly fatal condition during the clinical course of IPF, as it is unresponsive to most conventional therapies. Subjects and Methods To evaluate the efficacy of cyclosporin A (CsA) for AE of IPF, we conducted a retrospective study on autopsied IPF cases who developed AE and were treated with corticosteroids (CS) combined with CsA. The subjects comprised 11 males with a mean age of 69.9 years. The clinical features and prognosis of the CsA-treated group was compared to a group of 11 autopsied IPF cases with a mean age of 68.7 years who developed AE and were treated with CS alone (non-CsA-treated group). Results CS pulse therapy followed by CS maintenance treatment were conducted in all cases of AE. Patients in the CsA-treated group received in addition a low dosage of CsA (100-150 mg). Although 7 out of 11 patients in the CsA-treated group died of AE per se, 4 patients survived the AE. Only 2 patients died during the first episode of AE. In comparison, 7 out of 11 patients in the non-CsA-treated group died during the first episode of AE. The mean survival period after the first onset of AE was 285 days in the CsA-treated group and 60 days in the non-CsA-treated group. The prognosis of the CsA-treated group therefore was significantly better than that of non-CsA-treated group after AE of IPF. Conclusion Administration of CsA combined with CS may be efficacious in the treatment of AE of IPF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available