Search

Background: Acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis has become an important outcome measure in clinical trials. This study aimed to explore the concept of suspected acute exacerbation as an outcome measure.Methods: Three investigators retrospectively reviewed subjects enrolled in the Sildenafil Trial of Exercise Performance in IPF who experienced a respiratory serious adverse event during the course of the study. Events were classified as definite acute exacerbation, suspected acute exacerbation, or other, according to established criteria.Results: Thirty-five events were identified. Four were classified as definite acute exacerbation, fourteen as suspected acute exacerbation, and seventeen as other. Definite and suspected acute exacerbations were clinically indistinguishable. Both were most common in the winter and spring months and were associated with a high risk of disease progression and short-term mortality.Conclusions: In this study one half of respiratory serious adverse events were attributed to definite or suspected acute exacerbations. Suspected acute exacerbations are clinically indistinguishable from definite acute exacerbations and represent clinically meaningful events. Clinical trialists should consider capturing both definite and suspected acute exacerbations as outcome measures. © 2013 Collard et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Background: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored IPF Clinical Research Network (IPFnet) studies enrolled subjects with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) to evaluate drug therapies in treatment trials. An adjudication committee (AC) provided a structured review of cases in which there was uncertainty or disagreement regarding diagnosis or clinical event classification. This article describes the diagnosis and adjudication processes., Methods: The diagnostic process was based on review of clinical data and high-resolution CT scans with central review of lung biopsies when available. The AC worked closely with the data coordinating center to obtain clinical, radiologic, and histologic data and to communicate with the clinical centers. The AC used a multidisciplinary discussion model with four clinicians, one radiologist, and one pathologist to adjudicate diagnosis and outcome measures., Results: The IPFnet trials screened 1,015 subjects; of these, 23 cases required review by the AC to establish eligibility. The most common diagnosis for exclusion was suspected chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis. The AC reviewed 88 suspected acute exacerbations (AExs), 93 nonelective hospitalizations, and 16 cases of bleeding. Determination of AEx presented practical challenges to adjudicators, as necessary clinical data were often not collected, particularly when subjects were evaluated outside of the primary study site., Conclusions: The IPFnet diagnostic process was generally efficient, but a multidisciplinary adjudication committee was critical to assure correct phenotype for study enrollment. The AC was key in adjudicating all adverse outcomes in two IPFnet studies terminated early because of safety issues. Future clinical trials in IPF should consider logistical and cost issues as they incorporate AExs and hospitalizations as outcome measures., Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00517933, NCT00650091, NCT00957242; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.