BACKGROUND: Nintedanib is a potent intracellular inhibitor of tyrosine kinases and modulates the pathways involved in the development of fibrosis. We assessed nintedanib efficacy and safety in interstitial lung disease (ILD) patients.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify available articles (up to April 2022). We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining nintedanib efficacy and safety in patients with ILD with or without systemic sclerosis (SSc).
RESULTS: Meta-analysis of five RCTs including 2,470 patients with ILD (1,343 nintedanib group and 1,127 controls) revealed that the annual rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC) was significantly lower in the ILD group than in the control group (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.336; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.256-0.416, P<0.001). Stratification by disease type showed a low annual rate of change in FVC in patients with and without SSc (SMD = 0.389, 95% CI=0.294-0.478, P<0.001; SMD=0.177, 95% CI=0.013-0.340, P<0.00). The incidence of serious adverse events did not differ between the nintedanib and placebo groups; however, adverse events (AEs) and withdrawals due to AEs were significantly higher in the nintedanib group than in the placebo group (SMD =2.365, 95% CI=1.673-3.343, P<0.001; SMD =1.740, 95% CI= 1.385-2.185, P<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Nintedanib is effective for ILD with or without SSc. However, it increased the incidence of AEs and withdrawals due to AEs.
BACKGROUND: The antifibrotics pirfenidone and nintedanib are both approved for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) by regulatory agencies and are recommended by health technology assessment bodies. Other treatments such as N-acetylcysteine are used in clinical practice but have not received regulatory approval. No head-to-head trials have been conducted to directly compare the efficacy of these therapies in IPF.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of treatments for IPF.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted up to April 2015. Phase II/III randomized controlled trials in adults with IPF were eligible. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to compare pirfenidone, nintedanib, and N-acetylcysteine with respect to forced vital capacity (FVC) and mortality.
RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the NMA. For change from baseline in FVC, the NMA indicated that pirfenidone and nintedanib were more effective than placebo after 1 year (pirfenidone vs. placebo: difference = 0.12 liter (L), 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.03-0.21 L; nintedanib vs. placebo: difference = 0.11 L, 95% CrI = 0.00-0.22 L). There was no evidence that N-acetylcysteine had an effect on FVC compared with placebo (N-acetylcysteine vs. placebo: difference = 0.01 L, 95% CrI = -0.15-0.17 L). Patients treated with pirfenidone also had a lower risk of experiencing a decline in percent predicted FVC of ≥ 10% over 1 year (odds ratio [OR]: 0.58, 95% CrI = 0.40-0.88), whereas there was no conclusive evidence of a difference between nintedanib and placebo (OR: 0.65, 95% CrI = 0.42-1.02). The NMA indicated that pirfenidone reduced all-cause mortality relative to placebo over 1 year (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52, 95% CrI = 0.28-0.92). There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality between nintedanib and placebo (HR: 0.70, 95% CrI = 0.32-1.55), or N-acetylcysteine and placebo (HR: 2.00, 95% CrI=0.46-8.62).
CONCLUSIONS: Our primary analysis of the available evidence indicates that over 1 year, pirfenidone and nintedanib are effective at reducing lung-function decline, and pirfenidone may reduce the odds of experiencing a decline in percent predicted FVC of ≥10% compared with placebo in the first year of treatment. The results of our analysis also suggest that pirfenidone improves survival.
DISCLOSURES: Fleetwood is an employee of Quantics Consulting. McCool and Glanville are employees of York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC). Quantics and YHEC received funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche for conducting the systematic review and network meta-analysis reported in this paper. Edwards, Gsteiger, and Daigl are employees of F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Fisher was employed by InterMune UK, a wholly owned Roche subsidiary, until July 2015. He is currently employed by FIECON, which has received funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche for consulting services. The systematic review and network meta-analysis reported in this paper were conducted by Fleetwood (Quantics Consulting) and McCool and Glanville (YHEC), funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. The original network analysis was funded by InterMune. Study concept and design were contributed by Edwards, Gsteiger, and Daigl, along with Fleetwood, McCool, and Glanville. Fleetwood, McCool, and Glanville collected the data, with assistance from Edwards, Gsteiger, and Daigl. Data interpretation was performed by Fleetwood and Fisher, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by Fleetwood, McCool, and Glanville, with assistance from Edwards, Daigl, and Fisher, and revised by all the authors.
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is increasing every year. Pirfenidone and nintedanib were approved for treatment of IPF in 2014, but they received only a conditional recommendation for use and, thus, to date no drugs are strongly recommended for IPF. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of the currently approved drugs for IPF and N-acetylcysteine (NAC), the most debated drug in the last update of guidelines for IPF treatment.
METHODS: RCTs in IPF were identified searching from databases of published and unpublished studies. The influence of pirfenidone, nintedanib and NAC on clinical outcomes, safety, and mortality was assessed via pair-wise meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Ten papers (3,847 IPF patients; 2,254 treated; 1,593 placebo) were included in this study. Our results showed that both pirfenidone and nintedanib, but not NAC, were significantly effective in reducing FVC decline and the risk of FVC ≥10% decline in percent predicted over 12 months. Nintenadib significantly protected against the risk of acute exacerbation and mortality. Pirfenidone and nintedanib showed a similar and good safety profile, whereas NAC provided a signal for increased adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: The rank of effectiveness emerging from this meta-analysis represents an indirect indicator of potential differences between currently approved doses of pirfenidone and nintedanib. Direct comparisons are necessary to assess this matter, and well designed bench-to-bedside studies would permit to understand the potential of combined, sequential, or adjunctive treatment regimens in which perhaps NAC may have a role for specific clusters of IPF patients.
BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is an interstitial lung disease associated with high morbidity and mortality. Effective treatments for IPF are limited. Several recent studies have investigated novel therapeutic agents for IPF, but very few have addressed their comparative benefits and harms.
METHODS: We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the effects of different treatments for IPF on mortality and serious adverse events (SAEs). We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to August 2015. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach served to assess the certainty in the evidence of direct and indirect estimates. We calculated the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for each treatment. We included parallel group RCTs, including factorial designs, but excluded quasi-randomized and cross-over trials. Studies were only included if they involved adult (≥18 years of age) patients with IPF as defined by the 2011 criteria and examined one of the 10 interventions of interest (ambrisentan, bosentan, imatinib, macitentan, N-acetylcysteine, nintedanib, pirfenidone, sildenafil, prednisone/azathioprine/N-acetylcysteine triple therapy, and vitamin K antagonist).
RESULTS: A total of 19 RCTs (5,694 patients) comparing 10 different interventions with placebo and an average follow-up period of 1 year fulfilled the inclusion criteria. SUCRA analysis suggests nintedanib, pirfenidone, and sildenafil are the three treatments with the highest probability of reducing mortality in IPF. Indirect comparison showed no significant difference in mortality between pirfenidone and nintedanib (NMA OR, 1.05; 95 % CrI, 0.45-2.78, moderate certainty of evidence), pirenidone and sildenafil (NMA OR, 2.26; 95 % CrI, 0.44-13.17, low certainty of evidence), or nintedanib and sildenafil (NMA OR 2.40; 95 % CrI, 0.47-14.66, low certainty of evidence). Sildenafil, pirfenidone, and nintedanib were ranked second, fourth, and sixth out of 10 for SAEs.
CONCLUSION: In the absence of direct comparisons between treatment interventions, this NMA suggests that treatment with nintedanib, pirfenidone, and sildenafil extends survival in patients with IPF. The SAEs of these agents are similar to the other interventions and include mostly dermatologic and gastrointestinal manifestations. Head-to-head comparisons need to confirm these findings.
BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a form of chronic progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease of unknown origin. Recently, nintedanib and pirfenidone demonstrated efficacy in slowing disease progression and were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Although numerous treatments have been evaluated in IPF, none have shown significant decreases in mortality. The objective of this study was to identify all pharmacologic treatments evaluated for IPF and analyze their efficacy via Bayesian network meta-analysis and pairwise indirect treatment comparisons. This review did not evaluate the effect of steroid therapy.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published on or before August 2014. Studies were required to contain a randomized evaluation of nonsteroidal drug therapy for treatment of IPF and be published in English. Key outcomes of interest for this analysis were pulmonary function as measured by FVC as well as all-cause and respiratory-specific death. All outcomes were analyzed via a Bayesian framework.
RESULTS: Our review identified 30 eligible studies that evaluated 16 unique treatments. Under both the fixed-effect and random-effect models for respiratory-specific mortality, no treatments performed better than placebo. For all-cause mortality, pirfenidone and nintedanib had effects approaching significance with credible intervals slightly crossing the null under a fixed-effect model. Notably, for respiratory-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and decline in percent predicted FVC, nintedanib and pirfenidone were virtually indistinguishable and no clear advantage was detected.
CONCLUSIONS: Although two treatments have been approved for IPF on the basis of reduced decline in pulmonary function, neither one has a clear advantage on mortality outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The treatment landscape for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a devastating lung disease, is changing. To investigate the effectiveness of treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis we undertook a systematic review, network meta-analysis and indirect comparison.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane library for relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials of pirfenidone, nintedanib or N-acetylcysteine were eligible. Predefined processes for selecting references, extracting data and assessing study quality were applied. Our network meta-analysis of published data used a fixed effect model. For forced vital capacity measures a standardised mean difference approach was used and converted to odds ratios for interpretation.
RESULTS: Of 1076 references, 67 were retrieved and 11 studies included. Studies were of reasonable size, populations were similar, and the overall quality was good. Only two treatments, pirfenidone (odds ratio 0.62, 95% credible interval 0.52, 0.74) and nintedanib (0.41, 95% credible interval 0.34, 0.51) produced a statistically significant slowing in the rate of forced vital capacity decline compared with placebo. In an indirect comparison, results indicate that nintedanib is statistically significantly better than pirfenidone in slowing forced vital capacity decline (odds ratio 0.67, 95% credible interval 0.51, 0.88). Results were stable in scenario analysis and random effects models. Indirect comparisons of mortality were not statistically significant between nintedanib and pirfenidone.
CONCLUSIONS: Two treatments show beneficial effects and when compared indirectly nintedanib appears to have superior benefit on forced vital capacity. Limitations to indirect comparisons should be considered when interpreting these results, however, our findings can be useful to inform treatment decisions.
BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a life-limiting lung disease that generally affects people over 60 years old. The main symptoms are shortness of breath and cough, and as the disease progresses there is a considerable impact on day-to-day life. Few treatments are currently available.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and an analysis of cost-effectiveness of treatments for IPF based on an economic model informed by systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness and quality of life.
DATA SOURCES: Eleven electronic bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, were searched from database inception to July 2013. Reference lists of relevant publications were also checked and experts consulted.
METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened references for the systematic reviews, extracted and checked data from the included studies and appraised their risk of bias. An advisory group was consulted about the choice of interventions until consensus was reached about eligibility. A narrative review with meta-analysis was undertaken, and a network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed. A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to estimate cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for IPF. Parameter values were obtained from NMA and systematic reviews. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken. The model perspective is NHS and Personal Social Services, and discount rate is 3.5% for costs and health benefits.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which one evaluated azathioprine, three N-acetylcysteine (NAC) (alone or in combination), four pirfenidone, one BIBF 1120, one sildenafil, one thalidomide, two pulmonary rehabilitation, and one a disease management programme. Study quality was generally good, with a low risk of bias. The current evidence suggests that some treatments appear to be clinically effective. The model base-case results show increased survival for five pharmacological treatments, compared with best supportive care, at increased cost. General recommendations cannot be made of their cost-effectiveness owing to limitations in the evidence base.
LIMITATIONS: Few direct comparisons of treatments were identified. An indirect comparison through a NMA was performed; however, caution is recommended in the interpretation of these results. In relation to the economic model, there is an assumption that pharmacological treatments have a constant effect on the relative rate of per cent predicted forced vital capacity decline.
CONCLUSIONS: Few interventions have any statistically significant effect on IPF and a lack of studies on palliative care approaches was identified. Research is required into the effects of symptom control interventions, in particular pulmonary rehabilitation and thalidomide. Other research priorities include a well-conducted randomised controlled trial on inhaled NAC therapy and an updated evidence synthesis once the results of ongoing studies are reported.
STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002116.
FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
BACKGROUND: Most data on outcomes in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) pre-dates current guidelines. Data on rates of infection is sparse; the effect of low-dose corticosteroids and disease severity is unknown.
METHODS: We identified randomised-controlled trials of IPF and analysed rates of mortality, lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), IPF progression and acute exacerbations from the placebo arms. We standardised event rates and compared differences using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) between subgroups according to disease severity or use of low-dose immunosuppression.
RESULTS: Mortality was lower in trials that recruited patients with mild-moderate disease severities only, as compared to trials where patients with severe disease were allowed (188.6 vs 78.6 deaths per 1000 patient/years, IRR 0.30-0.59, p < 0.0001). No statistical difference was seen between trials permitting and excluding low-dose prednisolone use. LRTIs were found to be commoner in trials allowing low dose prednisolone use compared with those that did not (227.1 vs 63.4 infections per 1000 patient/years. IRR 2.56-5.13, p < 0.0001), and were less frequent in trials excluding patients with severe disease (153.9 vs 257.8 infections per 1000 patient/years, IRR 0.45-0.81, p = 0.0003). Acute exacerbations occurred less frequently in trials excluding severe disease (28.2 vs 122.9 exacerbations per 1000 patient/years, IRR 0.11-0.55, p < 0.0001). There was no difference between groups in rates of IPF progression.
CONCLUSION: Mortality is heterogeneous and dependent on entry criteria. Infection rates were high, both with and without immunosuppression, and were higher in severe disease. Consideration should be given to alternative outcomes to mortality in future IPF trials if severe disease is excluded.
Background: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a life-limiting lung disease with considerable impact on patients and carers as the disease progresses. Currently few treatments are available. We aimed to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of available treatments for IPF. Methods: Systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness, quality of life and cost effectiveness were undertaken. Eleven bibliographic databases were searched from inception to July 2013 and studies were assessed for eligibility against a set of pre-defined criteria. Two reviewers screened references, extracted data from included studies and appraised their quality. An advisory group was consulted about the choice of interventions. A narrative review was undertaken and where feasible fixed effect and random effects meta-analysis were undertaken including a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results: Fourteen studies were included in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which one evaluated azathioprine, three N-acetylcysteine [NAC] (alone or in combination), four pirfenidone, one nintedanib, one sildenafil, one thalidomide, two pulmonary rehabilitation, and one a disease management programme. Study quality was generally good. Evidence suggests that some effective treatments are available. In NMA only nintedanib and pirfenidone show statistically significant improvements. The model results show increased survival for five pharmacological treatments (NAC triple therapy, inhaled NAC, nintedanib, pirfenidone, and sildenafil) compared with best supportive care, at increased cost. Only inhaled NAC was cost-effective at current willingness to pay thresholds but it may not be clinically effective. Conclusions: Few interventions have any statistically significant effect and the cost-effectiveness of treatments is uncertain. A lack of studies on palliative care approaches was identified and there is a need for further research into pulmonary rehabilitation and thalidomide in particular. A well conducted RCT on inhaled NAC therapy should also be considered.
Nintedanib is a potent intracellular inhibitor of tyrosine kinases and modulates the pathways involved in the development of fibrosis. We assessed nintedanib efficacy and safety in interstitial lung disease (ILD) patients.
METHODS:
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify available articles (up to April 2022). We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining nintedanib efficacy and safety in patients with ILD with or without systemic sclerosis (SSc).
RESULTS:
Meta-analysis of five RCTs including 2,470 patients with ILD (1,343 nintedanib group and 1,127 controls) revealed that the annual rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC) was significantly lower in the ILD group than in the control group (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.336; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.256-0.416, P<0.001). Stratification by disease type showed a low annual rate of change in FVC in patients with and without SSc (SMD = 0.389, 95% CI=0.294-0.478, P<0.001; SMD=0.177, 95% CI=0.013-0.340, P<0.00). The incidence of serious adverse events did not differ between the nintedanib and placebo groups; however, adverse events (AEs) and withdrawals due to AEs were significantly higher in the nintedanib group than in the placebo group (SMD =2.365, 95% CI=1.673-3.343, P<0.001; SMD =1.740, 95% CI= 1.385-2.185, P<0.001).
CONCLUSION:
Nintedanib is effective for ILD with or without SSc. However, it increased the incidence of AEs and withdrawals due to AEs.
