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.

Serious adverse events in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the placebo arms of 6 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a fatal interstitial lung disease characterized by irreversible loss of lung function and an unpredictable course of disease progression. METHODS: The safety data for patients with IPF who received placebo in 6 clinical trials were pooled to examine the categories and frequencies of serious adverse events (SAEs) in this population. RESULTS: In 1082 patients with IPF who received placebo, 673 SAEs were reported. Of these, 93 SAEs resulted in death (8.6% of patients). Respiratory-related conditions were the most frequently reported SAE (225 events, 16.33 per 100 patient-exposure years [PEY]), followed by infections and infestations (136 events, 9.87 per 100 PEY) and cardiac disorders (79 events, 5.73 per 100 PEY); these categories also had the most fatal outcomes (60, 10, and 10 deaths, respectively). The most frequently reported fatal respiratory-related SAEs were IPF and respiratory failure (38 and 11 patients, respectively), and the most frequently reported fatal infections and infestations and cardiac disorders were pneumonia (5 patients) and myocardial infarction (3 patients), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis has value as a comparator for safety in future studies of IPF and provides insights in the natural evolution of both IPF and common comorbidities.

A Phase 1b Study of Vismodegib with Pirfenidone in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.

INTRODUCTION: Components of the hedgehog signaling pathway are upregulated in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Vismodegib, a small-molecule inhibitor of hedgehog signaling, when used in combination with currently available antifibrotic therapy, may be more efficacious than antifibrotics alone. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of vismodegib plus pirfenidone in patients with IPF. METHODS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled in a phase 1b open-label trial to receive vismodegib 150 mg plus pirfenidone 2403 mg/day once daily. Key endpoints were safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics. Exploratory endpoints included change from baseline to week 24 in % predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) and University of California, San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (UCSD-SOBQ) scores, as well as pharmacodynamic changes in hedgehog biomarker C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 14 (CXCL14). RESULTS: All patients reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (AE), most frequently muscle spasms (76.2%). Serious AEs were reported in 14.3% of patients; one event of dehydration was considered related to vismodegib. One patient died due to IPF progression, unrelated to either treatment. More patients discontinued vismodegib than pirfenidone (42.9% vs. 33.3%, respectively). Changes from baseline to week 24 in % predicted FVC and UCSD-SOBQ scores were within known endpoint variability. In contrast to findings in basal cell carcinoma, vismodegib had no effect on circulating CXCL14 levels. CONCLUSION: The safety profile was generally consistent with the known profiles of both drugs, with no new safety signals observed in this small cohort. There was no pharmacodynamic effect on CXCL14 levels. Future development of vismodegib for IPF may be limited due to tolerability issues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02648048. Plain language summary available for this article. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Genentech, Inc.

Real-World Practice Patterns for Prevention and Management of Potential Adverse Events with Pirfenidone in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.

INTRODUCTION: Pirfenidone is an oral antifibrotic agent approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Real-world data on adverse event (AE) management for pirfenidone are limited. Strategies for managing potential antifibrotic therapy AEs were examined in a sample of US pulmonologists. METHODS: An online, self-administered survey was fielded to pulmonologists between April 10 and May 17, 2017. Pulmonologists were included if they spent > 20% of their time in direct patient care and had ≥ 5 patients with IPF on antifibrotic therapy. Participants answered questions regarding initiation of pirfenidone, dose titration, and management of potential AEs. RESULTS: A total of 169 pulmonologists participated. Gastrointestinal (GI) intolerance was the most important factor in implementing alternative titration schedules for pirfenidone. Approximately three-quarters of pulmonologists recommended the standard titration scheme for starting treatment; however, a range of titration schedules up to 8 weeks were described, with a 4-week schedule being most common. Pulmonologists reported that most patients treated with alternative titration schedules could achieve the full dose of pirfenidone. Pulmonologists who were most effective at mitigating pirfenidone-related GI AEs by advising dosing at mealtimes more frequently recommended taking pirfenidone during a substantial meal than pulmonologists who were less effective. For photosensitivity AEs, pulmonologists recommended sunscreen use, sun avoidance, wearing a hat, and ultraviolet protection factor clothing. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonologists reported that alternative titration schedules for initiating pirfenidone were common and can aid in maintaining the full dose. Proposed strategies to ameliorate pirfenidone-related GI and photosensitivity AEs included taking pirfenidone during a substantial meal and minimizing sun exposure, respectively. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd./Genentech, Inc. Plain language summary available for this article.