FVCsJust from re-reading the NR on IPF results, it seems that the +10ml FVC was an approximate average. The thing about measuring FVCs is that it can be a bit subjective due to the way it is measured. Basically, the patient breathes through a mouthpiece and volumes and flows are measured via computer program. There can naturally be a lot of variation in results due to things like patient effort and coaching effectiveness by the technicians. That being said, there are strict guidelines on reproducibility between manouvers for it to be considered a valid spirometery. As an example, if an patient doesn't take coaching well and consistently gives poor effort, that can still be considered within guidelines if they can consistently reproduce their results.
The part of the NR I found interesting was the measurement of DLCO, which measures how well carbon monoxide diffuses across the alveoli into capillaries. This is a way to measure how well gas (CO2 and O2) exchange occurs in the lungs. The NR only gave a readout of the baselines (which seems really odd to me). But there was anecdotal evidence (whether true or not) previously posted on this BB of patients no longer needing supplemental oxygen, an improvement in DLCO could be a reason for that. As such, indicating that there has been an improvement in the fibrotic lung. (ie fibrosis in the lung will impair gas exchange). Of course this all stems from these ftrials to provide statistical significance. There was a previous post on this BB stating that the trials did provide statistical significance ( not sure if they were being serious) but t I think it's important to reiterate that this was not the case. That being said, I hope that most readers of this BB realize how powerful (whether positive or negative) the phrase "statistically significant" really is when it comes to a NR/science.