Physician characteristics associated with treatment initiation patterns in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Pirfenidone and nintedanib are oral antifibrotic agents approved for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Real-world data on factors that influence IPF treatment decisions are limited. Physician characteristics associated with antifibrotic therapy initiation following an IPF diagnosis were examined in a sample of US pulmonologists. An online, self-administered survey was fielded to pulmonologists between April 10, 2017, and May 17, 2017. Pulmonologists were included if they spent >20% of their time in direct patient care and had ≥5 patients with IPF receiving antifibrotics. Participants answered questions regarding timing and reasons for considering the initiation of antifibrotic therapy after an IPF diagnosis. A total of 169 pulmonologists participated. The majority (81.7%) considered initiating antifibrotic therapy immediately after IPF diagnosis all or most of the time (immediate group), while 18.3% considered it only some of the time or not at all (delayed group). Pulmonologists in the immediate group were more likely to work in private practice (26.1%), have a greater mean percentage of patients receiving antifibrotic therapy (60.8%), and decide to initiate treatment themselves (31.2%) versus those in the delayed group (16.1%, 30.5%, and 16.1%, respectively). Most pulmonologists consider initiating antifibrotic treatment immediately after establishing an IPF diagnosis all or most of the time versus using a "watch-and-wait" approach. Distinguishing characteristics between pulmonologists in the immediate group versus the delayed group included practice setting, percentage of patients receiving antifibrotic therapy, and the decision-making dynamics between the patient and the pulmonologist.

Correction to: Cardiovascular Risks, Bleeding Risks, and Clinical Events from 3 Phase III Trials of Pirfenidone in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.

In the Original Publication the colors of Figure 2 have been switched. The correct figures are given below.

Cardiovascular Risks, Bleeding Risks, and Clinical Events from 3 Phase III Trials of Pirfenidone in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed baseline cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, concomitant CV medication use, risk of major adverse cardiac events-plus (MACE-plus), and bleeding adverse events (AEs) in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in three randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trials of pirfenidone. METHODS: Patients in the pirfenidone phase III trials were included. Patients with unstable or deteriorating cardiac disease within 6 months before enrollment were ineligible. Medical history at baseline and concomitant CV medication use during treatment were reported. A retrospective, blinded review of AE preferred terms was conducted to identify MACE-plus and bleeding events. Subgroup analyses examined the impact of concomitant CV medication use on how pirfenidone treatment affected clinical outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 1247 patients were included [n = 623 pirfenidone (2403 mg/day) and n = 624 placebo]. The median age was 68 years, 74% were male, and 65% were current/former smokers. Commonly reported CV risk factors included hypertension (52%), obesity (44%), hypercholesterolemia (23%), and hyperlipidemia (23%). Pre-existing cardiac disorders included coronary artery disease (16%), myocardial infarction (5%), and atrial fibrillation (5%). Lipid-modifying agents (60%), antithrombotic agents (54%), and renin-angiotensin inhibitors (39%) were commonly used concomitant CV medications. The incidences of MACE-plus and bleeding events were similar between the pirfenidone and placebo groups (1.8% and 2.9% for MACE-plus events and 3.7% and 4.3% for bleeding events, respectively). Except for patients receiving heparin, pirfenidone had a beneficial effect compared with placebo on efficacy outcomes regardless of concomitant CV medications. CONCLUSIONS: CV risk factors and comorbidities and use of concomitant CV medications are common in patients with IPF. Pirfenidone did not appear to increase the risk of CV or bleeding events. Use of several concomitant CV medications, including warfarin, did not appear to adversely impact pirfenidone's beneficial effect on efficacy outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00287716, NCT00287729, and NCT01366209. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Genentech, Inc.

Efficacy of Pirfenidone in the Context of Multiple Disease Progression Events in Patients With Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Declines in percent predicted FVC (% predicted FVC), declines in 6-min walk distance (6MWD), and respiratory hospitalizations are events associated with disease progression and mortality in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The incidence of multiple events in the same patient over 12 months of pirfenidone treatment is unknown. METHODS: Patients who received pirfenidone 2,403 mg/d (n = 623) or placebo (n = 624) in the ASCEND (study 016; NCT01366209) and CAPACITY (studies 004 and 006; NCT00287716 and NCT00287729) phase III trials were included in this post hoc analysis. Disease progression events were defined as relative decline in % predicted FVC ≥ 10%, absolute decline in 6MWD ≥ 50 m, respiratory hospitalization, or death from any cause. The incidence of disease progression events over 12 months was assessed. RESULTS: The most frequent disease progression events were declines in % predicted FVC (pirfenidone vs placebo; 202 vs 304 events) and declines in 6MWD (pirfenidone vs placebo; 265 vs 348 events). Fewer patients who received pirfenidone had more than one progression event compared with placebo (17.0% vs 30.1%; P < .0001). Death following one or more progression event occurred less frequently in the pirfenidone group than in the placebo group (2.1% vs 6.3%; P = .0002). CONCLUSIONS: Pirfenidone significantly reduced the incidence of multiple progression events and death after a progression event over 12 months of treatment compared with placebo. These findings suggest that continued treatment with pirfenidone confers a benefit despite the occurrence of any single disease progression event. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; Nos. NCT01366209, NCT00287716, and NCT00287729; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Nonparametric confidence intervals for Tmax in sequence-stratified crossover studies.

Tmax is the time associated with the maximum serum or plasma drug concentration achieved following a dose. While Tmax is continuous in theory, it is usually discrete in practice because it is equated to a nominal sampling time in the noncompartmental pharmacokinetics approach. For a 2-treatment crossover design, a Hodges-Lehmann method exists for a confidence interval on treatment differences. For appropriately designed crossover studies with more than two treatments, a new median-scaling method is proposed to obtain estimates and confidence intervals for treatment effects. A simulation study was done comparing this new method with two previously described rank-based nonparametric methods, a stratified ranks method and a signed ranks method due to Ohrvik. The Normal theory, a nonparametric confidence interval approach without adjustment for periods, and a nonparametric bootstrap method were also compared. Results show that less dense sampling and period effects cause increases in confidence interval length. The Normal theory method can be liberal (i.e. less than nominal coverage) if there is a true treatment effect. The nonparametric methods tend to be conservative with regard to coverage probability and among them the median-scaling method is least conservative and has shortest confidence intervals. The stratified ranks method was the most conservative and had very long confidence intervals. The bootstrap method was generally less conservative than the median-scaling method, but it tended to have longer confidence intervals. Overall, the median-scaling method had the best combination of coverage and confidence interval length. All methods performed adequately with respect to bias.

Comparison of models for average bioequivalence in replicated crossover designs.

Average bioequivalence (ABE) has been the regulatory standard for bioequivalence (BE) since the 1990s. BE studies are commonly two-period crossovers, but may also use replicated designs. The replicated crossover will provide greater power for the ABE assessment. FDA has recommended that ABE analysis of replicated crossovers use a model which includes terms for separate within- and between-subject components for each formulation and which allows for a subject x formulation interaction component. Our simulation study compares the performance of four alternative mixed effects models: the FDA model, a three variance component model proposed by Ekbohm and Melander (EM), a random intercepts and slopes model (RIS) proposed by Patterson and Jones, and a simple model that contains only two variance components. The simple model fails (when not 'true') to provide adequate coverage and it accepts the hypothesis of equivalence too often. FDA and EM models are frequently indistinguishable and often provide the best performance with respect to coverage and probability of concluding BE. The RIS model concludes equivalence too often when both the within- and between-subject variance components differ between formulations. The FDA analysis model is recommended because it provides the most detail regarding components of variability and has a slight advantage over the EM model in confidence interval length.