4.7 Article

Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and statins on survival in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

期刊

CHEST
卷 126, 期 2, 页码 438-446

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0012-3692(15)31155-7

关键词

angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; statins; treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study objectives: To assess the clinical relevance of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme-A reductase inhibitors (statins) in the context of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Background: IPF is a progressive interstitial lung disease for which there is no effective treatment. ACEI and statins have been shown to possess antifihrotic properties in experimental models in vitro and in vivo. Design, setting, and patients: Retrospective review of the effects of ACEI and statins on survival of 478 patients with IPF seen at Mayo Clinic Rochester from 1994 through 1996. Fifty-two patients (11%) were receiving ACEI, 35 patients (7%) were receiving statins, and 5 patients (1%) patients were receiving both at their initial visit. Results: For subjects receiving ACEI, the median survival from the index visit was 2.2 years, compared to 2.9 years for subjects not receiving ACEI (p = 0.088). The median survival was 2.9 years if patients were receiving statins or not (p = 0.573). There was also no significant difference in survival between patients with IPF receiving either ACEI or statins vs those receiving neither at the index visit (2.5 years vs 3 years, respectively; p = 0.066). After adjusting for age, gender, recommended OF treatment, smoking status, prior oxygen use, FVC, diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension, there were no differences in survival between those subjects receiving either ACEI, statins, or both vs neither. Conclusions: These data do not suggest a beneficial effect of ACEI and/or statins on survival in patients with IPF.

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