Published in:
Open Access 01-12-2022 | Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis | Research
Prevalence of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Japan based on a claims database analysis
Published in: Respiratory Research | Issue 1/2022
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a cryptogenic chronic interstitial pneumonia with progressive fibrosis and a poor prognosis. A substantial number of epidemiological studies have been conducted in Europe and the United States (US). In contrast, in Japan, only one study reported the prevalence of IPF (10.0 per 100,000 population) using clinical data (2003–2007) from one prefecture; thus, the nationwide prevalence of IPF remains unknown. This study aimed to estimate the nationwide prevalence of IPF in Japan using a nationwide claims database.
Methods
We extracted data from a Japanese claims database provided by Medical Data Vision (MDV database, April 2008–March 2019) containing data from approximately 28 million patients from 385 acute-care hospitals. Patients with IPF (those diagnosed with IPF at least once) from April 2017 to March 2018 were identified in the MDV database. The number of patients in the MDV database was extrapolated nationwide using the fourth NDB Open Data (April 2017–March 2018), and the prevalence was estimated using demographic data as denominators. The prevalence in the US, considering the same definition of IPF, was also calculated and compared with that in Japan.
Result
The number of patients with IPF in the MDV database was 4278. The estimated nationwide number of patients in Japan was estimated to be 34,040 (mean age: 73 years, percentage of men: 73%), and the prevalence was 27 per 100,000 population. In comparison with that in the US, the prevalence was similar in men and relatively lower in women until the age of 75–79 years, and it was notably lower in both sexes aged ≥ 80 years.
Conclusions
We report the nationwide IPF prevalence in Japan using data from claims databases for the first time. The prevalence estimated in this study was higher than that reported in a previous study. The difference might be due to differences in study settings and definitions of IPF. Further research should be performed to determine the prevalence more accurately and compare it with those in other countries.