4.3 Article

Impact of Azathioprine use in chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis patients

Journal

PULMONARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 60, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pupt.2019.101878

Keywords

Azathioprine; Interstitial lung disease; Hypersensitivity pneumonitis

Funding

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT Portugal) [DID/BIM/04293/2013]
  2. NORTE2020 - Programa Operacional Regional do Norte [NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000012]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Systemic corticosteroids are widely used in chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (CHP); however, there is not much evidence to support their use, besides being associated with significant side effects. Azathioprine (AZA) use is common in CHP, although not prospectively tested in randomized controlled trials. Our objective was to evaluate the lung function trajectory of CHP patients after AZA initiation, as well as to assess the safety profile of this drug. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients initiated on AZA following a multidisciplinary team diagnosis of CHP. The longitudinal trajectory of lung function in the first 2 years of treatment was assessed. Results: Thirty-five out of 62 patients (56.5%) remained on treatment after 2 years. AZA treatment was associated with a significant improvement in forced vital capacity (FVC) at 12 and 24 months (p = 0.015 and p < 0.001, respectively). A slight increase in total lung capacity (TLC) and 6-min walking test (6MWT) were also reported, although it did not reach statistical differences at the end of 2 years. No changes in diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) were observed. Conclusions: This is the first study identifying an improvement in lung function (FVC) of CHP patients on AZA treatment for 2 years. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and to more adequately select CHP patients who may benefit from AZA.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available