Medical treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a respiratory disorder with a poor prognosis. Our objective is to assess the comparative effectiveness of 22 approved or studied IPF drug treatments. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 2 April 2021. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for adult patients with IPF receiving one or more of 22 drug treatments. Pairs of reviewers independently identified randomised trials that compared one or more of the target medical treatments in patients with IPF. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis. We calculated pooled relative risk (RR) ratios and presented direct or network estimates with 95% credibility intervals (95% CI), within the GRADE framework. RESULTS: We identified 48 (10 326 patients) eligible studies for analysis. Nintedanib [RR 0.69 (0.44 to 1.1), pirfenidone [RR 0.63 (0.37 to 1.09); direct estimate), and sildenafil [RR (0.44 (0.16 to 1.09)] probably reduce mortality (all moderate certainty). Nintedanib (2.92% (1.51 to 4.14)), nintedanib+sildenafil (157 mL (-88.35 to 411.12)), pirfenidone (2.47% (-0.1 to 5)), pamrevlumab (4.3% (0.5 to 8.1)) and pentraxin (2.74% (1 to 4.83)) probably reduce decline of overall forced vital capacity (all moderate certainty). Only sildenafil probably reduces acute exacerbation and hospitalisations (moderate certainty). Corticosteroids+azathioprine+N-acetylcysteine increased risk of serious adverse events versus placebo (high certainty). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Future guidelines should consider sildenafil for IPF and further research needs to be done on promising IPF treatments such as pamrevlumab and pentraxin as phase 3 trials are completed.

Sildenafil for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have a poor overall prognosis and there are few evidence-based drug therapies that reduce mortality. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether sildenafil reduces mortality, disease progression and adverse side effects. METHODS: We reviewed randomized controlled studies (RCTs) from MEDLINE, Cochrane registry of clinical trials, and EMBASE. Our outcomes of interest included mortality, change in FVC, acute exacerbations and hospitalizations and adverse drug effects leading to discontinuation. We used an inverse variance fixed effects meta-analysis method to calculate pooled relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD). RESULTS: A total of 4 studies were included in the systematic review. Sildenafil probably reduces mortality when compared to placebo or to standard care, [RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.04); moderate certainty]. Pooled estimates showed sildenafil may not alter the rate of change of FVC [MD 0.61% (95% CI -0.29 to 1.52)], or DLCO [MD 0.97% (95% CI 0.04 to 1.90)] (both low certainty). Pooled estimated showed sildenafil may not reduce the number of hospitalizations or acute exacerbations, [RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.98); low certainty]. There is probably no difference in drug discontinuation due to adverse effects when comparing sildenafil to the control group, [RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.56, 1.10); moderate certainty]. CONCLUSION: Sildenafil probably reduces all-cause mortality in IPF patients. More studies need to be done to confirm the magnitude and reliability of the point estimate.

Impact of predictive model-directed end-of-life counseling for Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: To validate a predictive model for identifying Medicare beneficiaries who need end-of-life care planning and to determine the impact on cost and hospice care of a telephonic counseling program utilizing this predictive model in 2 Medicare Health Support (MHS) pilots. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from 2 MHS pilot programs that used a randomized controlled design. METHODS: A predictive model was developed using intervention group data (N = 43,497) to identify individuals at greatest risk of death. Model output guided delivery of a telephonic intervention designed to support educated end-of-life decisions and improve end-of-life provisions. Control group participants received usual care. As a primary outcome, Medicare costs in the last 6 months of life were compared between intervention group decedents (n = 3112) and control group decedents (n = 1630). Hospice admission rates and duration of hospice care were compared as secondary measures. RESULTS: The predictive model was highly accurate, and more than 80% of intervention group decedents were contacted during the 12 months before death. Average Medicare costs were $1913 lower for intervention group decedents compared with control group decedents in the last 6 months of life (P = .05), for a total savings of $5.95 million. There were no significant changes in hospice admissions or mean duration of hospice care. CONCLUSIONS: Telephonic end-of-life counseling provided as an ancillary Medicare service, guided by a predictive model, can reach a majority of individuals needing support and can reduce costs by facilitating voluntary election of less intensive care.