4.7 Article

Use of Mycophenolate Mofetil or Azathioprine for the Management of Chronic Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis

期刊

CHEST
卷 151, 期 3, 页码 619-625

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.10.029

关键词

azathioprine; hypersensitivity pneumonitis; interstitial lung disease; mycophenolate mofetil

资金

  1. Nina Ireland Program for Lung Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The treatment of chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (cHP) often includes systemic oral corticosteroids, but the optimal pharmacologic management remains unclear. The morbidity associated with prednisone has motivated the search for alternative therapies. We aimed to determine the effect of treatment with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or azathioprine (AZA) on lung function in patients with cHP. METHODS: Patients with cHP treated with either MMF or AZA were retrospectively identified from four interstitial lung disease centers. Change in lung function before and after treatment initiation was analyzed using linear mixed-effects modeling (LMM), adjusting for age, sex, smoking history, and prednisone use. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included: 51 were treated withMMFand 19 with AZA. Median follow-up after treatment initiation was 11 months. Prior to treatment initiation, FVC and diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO)% predicted were declining at amean rate of 0.12% (P <.001) and 0.10% (P <.001) per month, respectively. Treatment with either MMF or AZA was not associated with improved FVC (0.5% at 1 year; P =.46) but was associated with a statistically significant improvement in DLCO of 4.2% (P <.001) after 1 year oF treatment. Results were similar in the subgroup of patients treated with MMF for 1 year; the FVC increased nonsignificantly by 1.3% (P =.103) and DLCO increased by 3.9% (P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with MMF or AZA is associated with improvements in DLCO in patients with cHP. Prospective randomized trials are needed to validate their effectiveness for cHP.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据