RESUMO
Nintedanib is a disease-modifying agent licensed for the treatment of IPF. Data on Polish experience with nintedanib in IPF are lacking. The present study aimed to describe the safety and efficacy profiles of nintedanib in a large real-world cohort of Polish patients with IPF. This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study of IPF patients treated with nintedanib between March 2018 and October 2021. Data collection included baseline clinical characteristics, results of pulmonary function tests (PFTs), and a six-minute walk test (6MWT). Longitudinal data on PFTs, 6MWT, adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and treatment persistence were also retrieved. A total of 501 patients (70% male) with a median age of 70.9 years (IQR 65-75.7) were included in this study. Patients were followed on treatment for a median of 15 months (7-25.5). The majority of patients (66.7%) were treated with the full recommended dose of nintedanib and 33.3% of patients were treated with a reduced dose of a drug. Intermittent dose reductions or drug interruptions were needed in 20% of patients. Over up to 3 years of follow-up, pulmonary function remained largely stable with the minority experiencing disease progression. The most frequent ADRs included diarrhea (45.3%), decreased appetite (29.9%), abdominal discomfort (29.5%), weight loss (32.1%), nausea (20.8%), fatigue (19.2%), increased liver aminotransferases (15.4%), and vomiting (8.2%). A total of 203 patients (40.5%) discontinued nintedanib treatment due to diverse reasons including ADRs (10.2%), death (11.6%), disease progression (4.6%), patient's request (6.6%), and neoplastic disease (2.2%). This real-world study of a large cohort of Polish patients with IPF demonstrates that nintedanib therapy is safe, and is associated with acceptable tolerance and disease stabilization. These data support the findings of previously conducted clinical trials and observational studies on the safety and efficacy profiles of nintedanib in IPF.
RESUMO
Background: Pirfenidone and nintedanib are considered as the standard of care in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), but there is no consensus as to which of these two agents should be regarded as first-line treatment. Objective: To provide real-world data on therapeutic decisions of pulmonary specialists, particularly the choice of the antifibrotic drug in patients with IPF. Methods: This was a multicenter, prospective survey collecting clinical data of patients with IPF considered as candidates for antifibrotic treatment between September 2019 and December 2020. Clinical characteristics and information on the therapeutic approach were retrieved. Statistical evaluation included multiple logistic regression analysis with stepwise model selection. Results: Data on 188 patients [74.5% male, median age 73 (interquartile range, 68-78) years] considered for antifibrotic therapy were collected. Treatment was initiated in 138 patients, while 50 patients did not receive an antifibrotic, mainly due to the lack of consent for treatment and IPF severity. Seventy-two patients received pirfenidone and 66 received nintedanib. Dosing protocol (p < 0.01) and patient preference (p = 0.049) were more frequently associated with the choice of nintedanib, while comorbidity profile (p = 0.0003) and concomitant medication use (p = 0.03) were more frequently associated with the choice of pirfenidone. Age (p = 0.002), lung transfer factor for carbon monoxide (TLCO) (p = 0.001), and gastrointestinal bleeding (p = 0.03) were significantly associated with the qualification for the antifibrotic treatment. Conclusion: This real-world prospective study showed that dose protocol and patient preference were more frequently associated with the choice of nintedanib, while the comorbidity profile and concomitant medication use were more frequently associated with the choice of pirfenidone. Age, TLCO, and history of gastrointestinal bleeding were significant factors influencing the decision to initiate antifibrotic therapy.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pirfenidone is an antifibrotic agent approved for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). The drug is available for Polish patients with IPF since 2017. The PolExPIR study aimed to describe the real-world data (RWD) on the Polish experience of pirfenidone therapy in IPF with respect to safety and efficacy profiles. METHODS: This was a multicentre, retrospective, observational study collecting clinical data of patients with IPF receiving pirfenidone from January 2017 to September 2019 across 10 specialized pulmonary centres in Poland. Data collection included baseline characteristics, pulmonary function tests (PFTs) results and six-minute walk test (6MWT). Longitudinal data on PFTs, 6MWT, adverse drug reactions (ADRs), treatment persistence, and survival were also collected up to 24 months post-inclusion. RESULTS: A total of 307 patients receiving pirfenidone were identified for analysis. The mean age was 68.83 (8.13) years and 77% were males. The median time from the first symptoms to IPF diagnosis was 15.5 (9.75-30) months and from diagnosis to start of pirfenidone treatment was 6 (2-23) months. Patients were followed on treatment for a median of 17 (12-22.75) months. Seventy-four patients (24.1%) required dose adjustments and 35 (11.4%) were chronically treated with different than the full recommended dose. A total of 141 patients (45.92%) discontinued therapy due to different reasons including ADRs (16.61%), death (8.79%), disease progression (6.51%), patient's own request (5.54%), neoplastic disease (3.91%) and lung transplantation (0.33%). Over up to 24 months of follow-up, the pulmonary function remained largely stable. The median annual decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) during the first year of pirfenidone therapy was -20 ml (-200-100) and during the second year was -120 ml (-340-30). Over a study period, 33 patients (10.75%) died. CONCLUSIONS: The PolExPIR study is a source of longitudinal RWD on pirfenidone therapy in the Polish cohort of patients with IPF supporting its long-term acceptable safety and efficacy profiles and reinforce findings from the previous randomised clinical trials and observational studies.
