Consensus Development Conference
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A critical assessment of treatment options for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: To date, no management approach has proven to be efficacious for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Consequently, therapeutic options remain controversial and confusing for many clinicians. We sought to formally review available evidence on treatment options for IPF and to have a diverse panel of physicians rate the "appropriateness," "inappropriateness," or "uncertainty" of some of the available therapeutic options.

METHODS: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to review and rate multiple clinical scenarios for the treatment of IPF. The panel was composed of nine physicians from geographically diverse areas who received a systematic review on the risks and benefits of commonly used treatments for IPF as background.

RESULTS: A total of 324 clinical scenarios were rated: 25% as appropriate; 39%, uncertain; and 36%, inappropriate. The panel disagreed about 12% of the therapy indications in the final ratings, falling from 26% in the first-round ratings.

CONCLUSIONS: Key themes emerged from the consensus process. Lacking evidence for a definitive therapy, it was considered most appropriate to enroll eligible patients in clinical trials and refer eligible patients for transplant evaluation. For patients without access to clinical trials, the committee was not unanimous regarding treatment recommendations. It was considered inappropriate for patients with a confident diagnosis of IPF to be treated with corticosteroids as the sole agent: corticosteroids should be used in conjunction with azathioprine. With progressive disease despite such combination use, there was agreement for the use of interferon gamma-1b in patients unwilling or unable to participate in available clinical trials.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app