Comparison of two antifibrotic treatments for lung fibrosis in post-COVID-19 syndrome: A randomized, prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Although pulmonary fibrosis secondary to COVID-19 infection is uncommon, it can lead to problems if not treated effectively in the early period. This study aimed to compare the effects of treatment with nintedanib and pirfenidone in patients with COVID-19-related fibrosis. METHODS: Thirty patients who presented to the post-COVID outpatient clinic between May 2021 and April 2022 with a history of COVID-19 pneumonia and exhibited persistent cough, dyspnea, exertional dyspnea, and low oxygen saturation at least 12 weeks after diagnosis were included. The patients were randomized to receive off-label treatment with nintedanib or pirfenidone and were followed up for 12 weeks. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of treatment, all pulmonary function test (PFT) parameters, 6MWT distance, and oxygen saturation were increased compared to baseline in both the pirfenidone group and nintedanib groups, while heart rate and radiological score levels were decreased (p<0.05 for all). The changes in 6MWT distance and oxygen saturation were significantly greater in the nintedanib group than in the pirfenidone group (p=0.02 and 0.005, respectively). Adverse drug effects were more frequent with nintedanib than pirfenidone, with the most common being diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. CONCLUSION: In patients with interstitial fibrosis after COVID-19 pneumonia, both nintedanib and pirfenidone were observed to be effective in improving radiological score and PFT parameters. Nintedanib was more effective than pirfenidone in increasing exercise capacity and saturation values but caused more adverse drug effects.

Feasibility and safety of treatment switch from Pirfenidone to Nintedanib in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a real-world observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis is a disease characterized by a devastating fibrosing process. Two anti-fibrotic agents, pirfenidone and nintedanib, have been found to alter the disease progression. In this study, we sought to determine whether switching treatment to nintedanib is feasible and safe in patients that had to discontinue treatment with pirfenidone due to side effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed patients that had to discontinue pirfenidone due to side effects. Patients were prospectively enrolled for treatment with nintedanib between March 2015 and June 2019. Side effects and Pulmonary Function Tests were recorded. RESULTS: 12 patients received nintedanib after discontinuing treatment with pirfenidone. Side-effects that led to discontinuation were diarrhea (33.3%), nausea (16.6%), photosensitivity (33.3%) and difficulty adhering to pirfenidone's dosage scheme (16.6%). After the initiation of nintedanib, diarrhea was the most common side effect (66.6%). Four patients of these patients could not tolerate the full dose of 300 mg daily and had to reduce it to 200 mg daily. No patient has had experienced liver damage. During the last twelve months of treatment with pirfenidone, mean ΔFCV was +2.47 ± 3.69%, mean ΔDLco was -0.36 ± 2.64% and mean difference of the distance walked during the 6MWT was 5 ± 56.48 meters. During the first year of treatment with nintedanib, mean ΔFCV was -1.32 ± 1.12% (p=0.68), mean ΔDLco was -1.59 ± 3.45% (p=0.54) and mean difference of the distance walked during the 6MWT was 14.17 ± 59 meters (p=0.078). 50% of patients had stable disease under pirfenidone (6-month FVC decline < 5% and/or 6-month DLco decline < 10%) vs. 50% under nintedanib, 33.3% had marginal 6-month decline (5% ≤ 6-month FVC ≤ 10% and/or (≤ 10% 6- month DLco decline ≤15%) under pirfenidone vs. 33.3% under nintedanib and 16.6% had disease progression (6-month FVC decline > 10% and/or 6-month DLco decline > 15%) under pirfenidone vs. 16.6% under nintedanib. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that nintedanib is a safe option for the treatment of patients that had to discontinue pirfenidone due to adverse reactions. Further studies with greater patient numbers are needed for accurate results concerning efficacy.

Pirfenidone vs. nintedanib in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Two antifibrotic drugs, pirfenidone and nintedanib, are licensed for the treatment of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). However, there is neither evidence from prospective data nor a guideline recommendation, which drug should be preferred over the other. This study aimed to compare pirfenidone and nintedanib-treated patients regarding all-cause mortality, all-cause and respiratory-related hospitalizations, and overall as well as respiratory-related health care costs borne by the Statutory Health Insurance (SHI). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study with SHI data was performed, including IPF patients treated either with pirfenidone or nintedanib. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity scores was applied to adjust for observed covariates. Weighted Cox models were estimated to analyze mortality and hospitalization. Weighted cost differences with bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals (CI) were applied for cost analysis. RESULTS: We compared 840 patients treated with pirfenidone and 713 patients treated with nintedanib. Both groups were similar regarding two-year all-cause mortality (HR: 0.90 95% CI: 0.76; 1.07), one-year all cause (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.95; 1.25) and respiratory-related hospitalization (HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.72; 1.08). No significant differences were observed regarding total (€- 807, 95% CI: €- 2977; €1220) and respiratory-related (€- 1282, 95% CI: €- 3423; €534) costs. CONCLUSION: Our analyses suggest that the patient-related outcomes mortality, hospitalization, and costs do not differ between the two currently available antifibrotic drugs pirfenidone and nintedanib. Hence, the decision on treatment with pirfenidone versus treatment with nintedanib ought to be made case-by-case taking clinical characteristics, comorbidities, comedications, individual risk of side effects, and patients' preferences into account.

Foresight regarding drug candidates acting on the succinate-GPR91 signalling pathway for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) treatment.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is the most common chronic liver disease, and it is a liver manifestation of metabolic syndrome, with a histological spectrum from simple steatosis to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). NASH can evolve into progressive liver fibrosis and eventually lead to liver cirrhosis. The pathological mechanism of NASH is multifactorial, involving a series of metabolic disorders and changes that trigger low-level inflammation in the liver and other organs. In the pathogenesis of NASH, the signal transduction pathway involving succinate and the succinate receptor (G-protein-coupled receptor 91, GPR91) regulates inflammatory cell activation and liver fibrosis. This review describes the mechanism of the succinate-GPR91 signalling pathway in NASH and summarizes the drugs that act on this pathway, with the aim of providing a new approach to NASH treatment.

Myeloperoxidase and associated lung disease: Review of the latest developments.

Myeloperoxidase (MPO) anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA) are often detected in association with a variety of lung pathologies, the most common being interstitial lung disease (ILD). A growing cohort of patients are being diagnosed with MPO-ANCA in the context of ILD without ANCA-associated vasculitis. Clinically and radiologically, there is little to differentiate this cohort from MPO-ANCA-negative ILD patients; however, the pathophysiology is likely different and different treatments are likely required. We present here a brief summary of the proposed pathophysiology of MPO-ANCA-positive ILD, and a more detailed review of the latest evidence on management, including monitoring for development of ANCA-associated vasculitis, immunosuppression, anti-fibrotics, and novel agents that have yet to be trialled in human experiments.

Antifibrotic drugs in lung transplantation and chronic lung allograft dysfunction: a review.

This review aims to provide an overview of pre-transplant antifibrotic therapy on peri-transplant outcomes and to address the possible role of antifibrotics in lung transplant recipients with chronic lung allograft dysfunction.Lung transplantation is an established treatment modality for patients with various end-stage lung diseases, of which idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and other progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases are growing indications. Theoretically, widespread use of antifibrotics prior to lung transplantation may increase the risk of bronchial anastomotic complications and impaired wound healing.Long-term graft and patient survival are still hampered by development of chronic lung allograft dysfunction, on which antifibrotics may have a beneficial impact.Antifibrotics until the moment of lung transplantation proved to be safe, without increasing peri-transplant complications. Currently, best practice is to continue antifibrotics until time of transplantation. In a large multicentre randomised trial, pirfenidone did not appear to have a beneficial effect on lung function decline in established bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome. The results of antifibrotic therapy in restrictive allograft syndrome are eagerly awaited, but nonrandomised data from small case reports/series are promising.