Rationale: There is an urgent need for simple, cost-effective prognostic biomarkers for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF); biomarkers that show potential include monocyte count. Objectives: We used pooled data from pirfenidone and IFNγ-1b trials to explore the association between monocyte count and prognosis in patients with IPF. Methods: This retrospective pooled analysis included patients (active and placebo arms) from the following four phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trials: ASCEND (NCT01366209), CAPACITY (NCT00287729 and NCT00287716), and INSPIRE (NCT00075998). Outcomes included IPF progression (≥10% absolute decline in FVC% predicted, ≥50 m decline in 6-minute-walk distance, or death), all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality over 1 year. The relationship between monocyte count (defined as time-dependent) and outcomes was assessed using bivariate and multivariable models. Measurements and Main Results: This analysis included 2,067 patients stratified by monocyte count (at baseline: <0.60 × 10⁹ cells/L [n = 1,609], 0.60 to <0.95 × 10⁹ cells/L [n = 408], and ≥0.95 × 10⁹ cells/L [n = 50]). In adjusted analyses, a higher proportion of patients with monocyte counts of 0.60 to <0.95 × 10⁹ cells/L or ≥0.95 × 10⁹ cells/L versus <0.60 × 10⁹ cells/L experienced IPF progression (P = 0.016 and P = 0.002, respectively), all-cause hospitalization (P = 0.030 and P = 0.003, respectively), and all-cause mortality (P = 0.005 and P < 0.001, respectively) over 1 year. Change in monocyte count from baseline was not associated with any of the outcomes over 1 year and did not appear to be affected by study treatment. Conclusions: In patients with IPF, elevated monocyte count was associated with increased risks of IPF progression, hospitalization, and mortality. Monocyte count may provide a simple and inexpensive prognostic biomarker in IPF.

Background: Acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) is a severe complication associated with a high mortality. However, evidence and guidance on management is sparse. The aim of this international survey was to assess differences in prevention, diagnostic and treatment strategies for AE-IPF in specialised and non-specialised ILD centres worldwide. Material and Methods: Pulmonologists working in specialised and non-specialised ILD centres were invited to participate in a survey designed by an international expert panel. Responses were evaluated in respect to the physicians institutions. Results: Three hundred and two (65%) of the respondents worked in a specialised ILD centre, 134 (29%) in a non-specialised pulmonology centre. Similarities were frequent with regards to diagnostic methods including radiology and screening for infection, treatment with corticosteroids, use of high-flow oxygen and non-invasive ventilation in critical ill patients and palliative strategies. However, differences were significant in terms of the use of KL-6 and pathogen testing in urine, treatments with cyclosporine and recombinant thrombomodulin, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in critical ill patients as well as antacid medication and anaesthesia measures as preventive methods. Conclusion: Despite the absence of recommendations, approaches to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of AE-IPF are comparable in specialised and non-specialised ILD centres, yet certain differences in the managements of AE-IPF exist. Clinical trials and guidelines are needed to improve patient care and prognosis in AE-IPF.