Long-Term Follow-Up of Patients With Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Treated With Pirfenidone or Nintedanib: A Real-Life Comparison Study.
disease progression
idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
mortality
nintedanib
pirfenidone
real-life
Journal
Frontiers in molecular biosciences
ISSN: 2296-889X
Titre abrégé: Front Mol Biosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101653173
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
09
07
2020
accepted:
13
08
2020
entrez:
26
10
2020
pubmed:
27
10
2020
medline:
27
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pirfenidone and nintedanib are the sole pharmacological therapies currently approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Limited comparison data is available in literature, despite they are both prescribed for mild-to-moderate disease. Here, we describe our almost 10 years real-life experience with antifibrotic treatment to investigate potential differences in terms of efficacy. We retrospectively recruited patients diagnosed with IPF and treated with pirfenidone or nintedanib at Siena Referral Center. Clinical, functional, safety and radiological data was collected at baseline and during the follow-up, according to our Center protocol. We retrospectively recruited 263 IPF patients (139 treated with pirfenidone and 124 with nintedanib) in the study. After 885.3 ± 559.5 days of observation, the median survival was 1224 days. No significant differences were found between pirfenidone and nintedanib in terms of survival and time to decline of forced vital capacity >10% ( Our results showed a similar effectiveness between pirfenidone and nintedanib in terms of mortality and functional disease progression. Both drugs confirmed their good tolerability profile and no new safety alerts were observed. Nintedanib was associated with a smaller reduction of DL
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pirfenidone and nintedanib are the sole pharmacological therapies currently approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Limited comparison data is available in literature, despite they are both prescribed for mild-to-moderate disease. Here, we describe our almost 10 years real-life experience with antifibrotic treatment to investigate potential differences in terms of efficacy.
POPULATION AND METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively recruited patients diagnosed with IPF and treated with pirfenidone or nintedanib at Siena Referral Center. Clinical, functional, safety and radiological data was collected at baseline and during the follow-up, according to our Center protocol.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We retrospectively recruited 263 IPF patients (139 treated with pirfenidone and 124 with nintedanib) in the study. After 885.3 ± 559.5 days of observation, the median survival was 1224 days. No significant differences were found between pirfenidone and nintedanib in terms of survival and time to decline of forced vital capacity >10% (
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our results showed a similar effectiveness between pirfenidone and nintedanib in terms of mortality and functional disease progression. Both drugs confirmed their good tolerability profile and no new safety alerts were observed. Nintedanib was associated with a smaller reduction of DL
Identifiants
pubmed: 33102528
doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2020.581828
pmc: PMC7498677
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
581828Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Cameli, Refini, Bergantini, d’Alessandro, Alonzi, Magnoni, Rottoli, Sestini and Bargagli.
Références
J Clin Med. 2020 Mar 11;9(3):
pubmed: 32168781
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2015 May;15(5):579-94
pubmed: 25831142
Respirology. 2020 Apr;25(4):410-416
pubmed: 31329360
Eur Respir Rev. 2017 Dec 6;26(146):
pubmed: 29212837
Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2016 Oct;40:95-103
pubmed: 27481628
Annu Rev Pathol. 2014;9:157-79
pubmed: 24050627
Eur Respir J. 2017 Jan 3;49(1):
pubmed: 28049168
Lancet. 2011 May 21;377(9779):1760-9
pubmed: 21571362
Respiration. 2017;94(5):408-415
pubmed: 28898890
Front Med (Lausanne). 2017 Nov 29;4:213
pubmed: 29238708
Pulmonology. 2019 May - Jun;25(3):149-153
pubmed: 30236523
N Engl J Med. 2014 May 29;370(22):2083-92
pubmed: 24836312
BMJ Open Respir Res. 2019 Mar 25;6(1):e000397
pubmed: 31179001
Lancet Respir Med. 2019 Jan;7(1):60-68
pubmed: 30224318
Thorax. 2018 Jun;73(6):581-583
pubmed: 28993537
Respir Res. 2018 Feb 22;19(1):32
pubmed: 29471816
Lung. 2016 Oct;194(5):739-43
pubmed: 27377558
Respir Med. 2019 Jul;153:44-51
pubmed: 31153107
BMC Pulm Med. 2018 Nov 23;18(1):177
pubmed: 30470213
Cancer Res. 2008 Jun 15;68(12):4774-82
pubmed: 18559524
Respir Med. 2019 Nov;159:105803
pubmed: 31670147
Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2020 Jan-Dec;14:1753466620906326
pubmed: 32066332
Inflammation. 2020 Feb;43(1):1-7
pubmed: 31297749
N Engl J Med. 2014 May 29;370(22):2071-82
pubmed: 24836310
Nitric Oxide. 2019 Aug 1;89:41-45
pubmed: 31054949
Respir Res. 2020 Jan 8;21(1):11
pubmed: 31915023
Eur Clin Respir J. 2016 Jul 18;3:32035
pubmed: 27435431
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011 Mar 15;183(6):788-824
pubmed: 21471066
Eur Respir J. 2005 Jul;26(1):153-61
pubmed: 15994402
ERJ Open Res. 2020 Jan 27;6(1):
pubmed: 32010718
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Sep 1;198(5):e44-e68
pubmed: 30168753
Intern Med. 2016;55(5):443-8
pubmed: 26935361
Respir Res. 2019 Jun 17;20(1):127
pubmed: 31208406
Respir Res. 2019 Jan 21;20(1):16
pubmed: 30665416
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017 Mar;23(3-b Suppl):S17-S24
pubmed: 28287347
Drugs R D. 2018 Mar;18(1):19-25
pubmed: 29209910