Antacid Therapy and Disease Progression in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Who Received Pirfenidone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a potential risk factor for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) progression; however, the impact of antacid therapy (AAT) is under debate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of AAT on IPF progression in pirfenidone-treated patients. METHODS: This post hoc analysis included patients with IPF who received pirfenidone in 3 trials (CAPACITY [PIPF-004/PIPF-006] and ASCEND [PIPF-016]). Pulmonary function, exercise tolerance, survival, hospitalizations, and adverse events (AEs) over 52 weeks were analyzed by baseline AAT use. Disease progression was defined as a decrease in forced vital capacity (FVC) of ≥10%, a decrease in 6-min walking distance of ≥50 m, or death over 1 year. RESULTS: Of 623 patients, 44% received AAT. No significant differences were found at 52 weeks (AAT versus non-AAT, respectively) in disease progression (24.9 vs. 30.6%; p = 0.12), all-cause mortality rate (2.9 vs. 4.0%; p = 0.47), IPF-related mortality rate (1.1 vs. 2.0%; p = 0.37), all-cause hospitalization rate (16.1 vs. 18.3%; p = 0.48), or mean change in percent FVC (-2.7 vs. -3.1%; p = 0.44). A relative, but not absolute, FVC decline of ≥10% favored AAT (15 vs. 22%; p = 0.03). Severe gastrointestinal AEs (3.7 vs. 0.9%; p = 0.015) and severe pulmonary infections (3.7 vs. 1.1%; p = 0.035) were more frequent with AAT. CONCLUSIONS: AAT and pirfenidone had outcomes comparable to those of pirfenidone alone in patients with IPF, underscoring the need for prospective trials to elucidate the role of AAT with or without antifibrotic drugs as a treatment for IPF.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".