Search

Aim: To assess the relationship between air pollution and the mortality of IPF. Methods: The probability of death was analyzed from 32 IPF patients diagnosed in our ILD Unit from 2011 to 2019 and it was related to the values of (CO, NO2, PM2.5, PM10, O3 and SO2) in Madrid during that period. Results: Thirty-two patients were reviewed with a mean age of 66±10 years at the time of diagnosis, 7 (21.9%) of them were women. The average of the pollutants from the three months prior to the date of death of the 11 patients was (34.4%) patients who died was SO2=9.518±4.397μg/m2, NO2=58.910±8.819μg/m2, CO=0.390±0.104mg/m2, O3=38.778±15.309 μg/m2, PM2,5=12.371±2.138 μg/m2 PM10= 23.583±5.196 μg/m2 and the average air in the previous three months to the last clinic visit in 21 (65,6%) patients who are still alive was SO2 =8.736±1.719 μg/m2, NO2=56.216±9.586μg/m2, CO=0.237±0.106 mg/m2 O3=48.294±14,059 μg/m2 PM2,5=11.029±2,280 μg/m2 PM10=22.376±4,533 μg/m2 . Firstly, we observed that those 28 (87.5%) patients who were treated had no association with the probability of death [OR=7,500 (0.676-83.264)] (p=0.101) and after that we saw that pollution levels in all patients were not associated with the likelihood of dying: OR SO2= 1.154 (0.521-2.557) (p=0.723), OR CO=1.247 (0.970-1.602) (p=0.085), OR NO2 = 0.829 (0.468-1.468) (p=0.520), OR O3 = 0.944 (0.578-1.544) (p=0.820), OR PM2,5 = 0.646 (0.152-2.744) (p=0.554), OR PM10 = 1.302 (0.668-2.537) (p=0.439). Conclusion: There is no evidence to affirm that air pollution in Madrid is associated with the probability of death in IPF patients.

Methods: A restrospective analysis of 15 severe eosinophilic asthma patients treated previously with omalizumab with no satisfactory response or adverse events. They were switched to mepolizumab 100mg every 4 weeks or reslizumab 3mg/kg every 4 weeks. Demographic data, comorbidities, sensitization, asthma control test (ACT), quality life test (AQLQ), eosinophil and immunoglobulin E measurements, pulmonary function results, nitric oxide measurements, use of systemic corticosteroids and exacerbations previous and 1 year post anti-IL5 treatment. Results: Median on ACT pre anti-IL5 treatment was 12 (Q1:10; Q3:17) and post anti-IL5 was 21 (Q1:19; Q3:23). Median on AQLQ pre anti-IL5 was 3,9 (Q1:2,5; Q3:5,5) and post anti-IL5 5,6 (Q1:4;Q3:6,2). Median on exacerbations that required systemic corticosteroid pre anti-IL5 treatment was 3 (Q1:3;Q3:5) and post anti-IL5 was 0 (Q1:0;Q3:1). Median of exacerbations that required visiting an emergency service or hospitalization pre anti-IL5 was 2 (Q1:0;Q3:1) and post anti-IL5 was 0 (Q1:0;Q3:1). Reduction on oral corticosteroid dose was 5,8mg/day (CI 95%: 2,7; 8,9) on average 1 year post treatment. Statistical significance was observed in ACT and AQLQ change (p Statistical significance (p Conclusion: Anti-IL5 treatment in eosinophilic asthma patients with no satisfactory response to omalizumab improves asthma control and quality of life. It also reduces oral corticosteroid dose and exacerbation rate.