Epidemiology, healthcare utilization, and related costs among patients with IPF: results from a German claims database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive form of fibrosing interstitial pneumonia with poor survival. This study provides insight into the epidemiology, cost, and disease course of IPF in Germany. METHODS: A cohort of incident patients with IPF (n = 1737) was identified from German claims data (2014-2019). Incidence and prevalence rates were calculated and adjusted for age differences compared with the overall German population. All-cause and IPF-related healthcare resource utilization as well as associated costs were evaluated per observed person-year (PY) following the initial IPF diagnosis. Finally, Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to assess time from initial diagnosis to disease deterioration (using three proxy measures: non-elective hospitalization, IPF-related hospitalization, long-term oxygen therapy [LTOT]); antifibrotic therapy initiation; and all-cause death. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of IPF was estimated at 10.7 per 100,000 individuals in 2016, 10.9 in 2017, 10.5 in 2018, and 9.6 in 2019. The point prevalence rates per 100,000 individuals for the respective years were 21.7, 23.5, 24.1, and 24.1. On average, ≥ 14 physician visits and nearly two hospitalizations per PY were observed after the initial IPF diagnosis. Of total all-cause direct costs (€15,721/PY), 55.7% (€8754/PY) were due to hospitalizations and 29.1% (€4572/PY) were due to medication. Medication accounted for 49.4% (€1470/PY) and hospitalizations for 34.8% (€1034/PY) of total IPF-related direct costs (€2973/PY). Within 2 years of the initial IPF diagnosis (23.6 months), 25% of patients died. Within 5 years of diagnosis, 53.1% of patients had initiated LTOT; only 11.6% were treated with antifibrotic agents. The median time from the initial diagnosis to the first non-elective hospitalization was 5.5 months. CONCLUSION: The incidence and prevalence of IPF in Germany are at the higher end of the range reported in the literature. The main driver for all-cause cost was hospitalization. IPF-related costs were mainly driven by medication, with antifibrotic agents accounting for around one-third of the total medication costs even if not frequently prescribed. Most patients with IPF do not receive pharmacological treatment, highlighting the existing unmet medical need for effective and well-tolerated therapies.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: Physician and patient perspectives on the pathway to care from symptom recognition to diagnosis and disease burden.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic progressive disease that requires ongoing care and is associated with considerable socioeconomic burden. We evaluated the IPF care pathway from symptom recognition to treatment. We describe the impact of IPF on healthcare resource use (HCRU), quality of life (QoL) and work impairment, and report differences in patient and physician perspectives using real-world data from France, Germany, Japan and the United States. METHODS: Quantitative, point-in-time data were collected as part of the Adelphi IPF II Disease Specific Programme™. Physician-reported data (patient demographics, medical history, diagnoses, treatment) were matched to patient-reported data (HCRU, QoL, work impairment). HCRU was measured as physician visits and hospitalizations. QoL and work impairment were measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaires. RESULTS: Overall, 244 physicians reported data on 1249 patients, 739 of whom self-reported data. Diagnostic delays of 0.8 (Germany) to 2.0 (Japan) years after symptom onset were reported; treatment initiation was further delayed. In all countries, patients more often reported symptoms in the survey than did their physicians. On average, patients underwent 7-10 clinical tests before diagnosis. Antifibrotic use increased from 57% (2016) to 69% (2019); only 50% of patients with moderate/severe IPF were satisfied with their treatment. The 12-month hospitalization rates were 24% (Japan) to 64% (United States). Patients reported low QoL (mean EQ-5D visual analogue scale: 61.7/100). CONCLUSION: Patients with IPF experience considerable diagnostic and treatment delays. More effective therapies and management are needed to reduce the disease burden.

Global incidence and prevalence of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive debilitating lung disease with considerable morbidity. Heterogeneity in epidemiologic studies means the full impact of the disease is unclear. METHODS: A targeted literature search for population-based, observational studies reporting incidence and/or prevalence of IPF from January 2009 to April 2020 was conducted. Identified studies were aggregated by country. For countries with multiple publications, a weighted average was determined. Incidence and prevalence data were adjusted for between-study differences where possible. The final model included adjusted estimates of incidence and prevalence per 10,000 of the population with 95% confidence intervals. As prevalence estimates vary depending on the definitions used, estimates were based on a specific case definition of IPF. RESULTS: Overall, 22 studies covering 12 countries met the inclusion criteria, with 15 reporting incidence and 18 reporting prevalence estimates. The adjusted incidence estimates (per 10,000 of the population) ranged from 0.35 to 1.30 in Asia-Pacific countries, 0.09 to 0.49 in Europe, and 0.75 to 0.93 in North America. Unadjusted and adjusted incidence estimates were consistent. The adjusted prevalence estimates ranged from 0.57 to 4.51 in Asia-Pacific countries, 0.33 to 2.51 in Europe, and 2.40 to 2.98 in North America. South Korea had the highest incidence and prevalence estimates. When prevalence estimates were compared to country-specific rare disease thresholds, IPF met the definition of a rare disease in all countries except South Korea. There were notable geographic gaps for IPF epidemiologic data. CONCLUSIONS: Due to differences in study methodologies, there is worldwide variability in the reported incidence and prevalence of IPF. Based on the countries included in our analysis, we estimated the adjusted incidence and prevalence of IPF to be in the range of 0.09-1.30 and 0.33-4.51 per 10,000 persons, respectively. According to these prevalence estimates, IPF remains a rare disease. For consistency, future epidemiologic studies of IPF should take age, sex, smoking status, and the specificity of case definitions into consideration.

The cost-effectiveness of bosentan in the United Kingdom for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension of WHO functional class III.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether bosentan or no active intervention, in addition to palliative care, is the more cost-effective first-line treatment option for patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (iPAH) or PAH associated with connective tissue disease (PAH-CTD) of WHO functional classification (FC) III in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A cost-utility model simulated the treatment of patients with PAH of FC III. Patients remained on the selected intervention until death or clinical deterioration to FC IV, which would trigger initiation of epoprostenol treatment. The initial first-line treatment choice was assumed to not affect survival, but to affect the time until clinical deterioration, with this assumption being relaxed in sensitivity analyses. The distribution of time to clinical deterioration was estimated from long-term clinical trial databases of bosentan and from published literature. Utility associated with FC was taken from published literature. Costs were sourced from published literature and from specialist PAH centers. The time horizon was that of patients' lifetimes, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5% per annum. RESULTS: In the base case, bosentan dominated no active intervention because of the longer time to clinical deterioration and therefore the reduced time, per patient, spent in FC IV, which was associated with high costs of epoprostenol and reduced utility. In sensitivity analyses, bosentan was estimated to be more cost-effective than no active intervention, provided that any survival benefit was not greater than 2 years for patients with iPAH and 1 year for those with PAH-CTD. CONCLUSIONS: Bosentan is likely to be a more cost-effective first-line therapy for patients with PAH FC III in the UK than no active intervention.