Cost-effectiveness of the anti-fibrotics for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The anti-fibrotic medications nintedanib and pirfenidone were approved in the United States for use in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis several years ago. While there is a growing body of evidence surrounding their clinical effectiveness, these medications are quite expensive and no prior cost-effectiveness analysis has been performed in the United States. METHODS: A previously published Markov model performed in the United Kingdom was replicated using United States data to project the lifetime costs and health benefits of treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with: (1) symptom management; (2) pirfenidone; or (3) nintedanib. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, strategies were ranked by increasing costs and then checked for dominating treatment strategies. Then an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for the dominant therapy. RESULTS: The anti-fibrotic medications were found to cost more than $110,000 per year compared to $12,291 annually for symptom management. While pirfenidone was slightly more expensive than nintedanib and provided the same amount of benefit, neither medication was found to be cost-effective in this U.S.-based analysis, with an average cost of $1.6 million to gain one additional quality-adjusted life year over symptom management. CONCLUSIONS: Though the anti-fibrotics remain the only effective treatment option for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and the data surrounding their clinical effectiveness continues to grow, they are not considered cost-effective treatment strategies in the United States due to their high price.

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.

Antifibrotic therapies reduce mortality and hospitalization among Medicare beneficiaries with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Additional real-world studies are needed to more fully elucidate the effectiveness of antifibrotic treatment in slowing the progression of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). OBJECTIVE: To compare mortality and hospitalization between Medicare beneficiaries with IPF who initiate antifibrotic therapy and those who did not receive treatment. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of Medicare beneficiaries using the 100% Medicare Research Identifiable File was conducted. We included patients aged 67 years and over diagnosed with IPF (≥ 1 inpatient or ≥ 2 outpatient claims with IPF diagnosis) during the study period (January 1, 2010-December 31, 2017). Patients who initiated antifibrotic treatment (pirfenidone or nintedanib) between October 15, 2014 (FDA approval date) and December 31, 2017 (ie, treated patients) were compared with those who did not receive treatment during a historical period (January 1, 2012-October 14, 2014) before the availability of antifibrotics (ie, untreated historical controls). Patients were matched by propensity score, and the outcomes, mortality, and hospitalization (all cause and respiratory related) were compared using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: We identified 4,641 treated patients and 4,641 propensity score-matched controls who met all study criteria; 352 treated patients who lacked matches were excluded from the study. Cox regression analysis of treated patients vs matched controls showed a significantly lower risk of mortality (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.57-0.68); lower risk of hospitalization (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.67-0.76; HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.64-0.76); and lower rate in number of hospitalizations per month (incident rate ratio [IRR] = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.60-0.71; IRR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.58-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that treatment with antifibrotics may confer a survival benefit and protection against all-cause and respiratory-related hospitalization for IPF patients. DISCLOSURES: This work was sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech, Inc. Corral is employed by Genentech, Inc. Reddy, Chang, Broder, and Gokhale are employed by Partnership for Health Analytic Research LLC, a health services research company, which was hired by Genentech to conduct this research. Mooney has received advisory board/consulting fees and research support from Genentech, unrelated to this work. Mooney also reports advisory board/consulting fees and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees from Imvaria; and grants from Celgene and Pliant, unrelated to this work. Through their employment with Partnership for Health Analytic Research, Reddy, Chang, Broder, and Gokhale have been compensated to conduct research for AbbVie, Akcea, ASPC, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boston Scientific Corporation, Celgene, Eisai, Ethicon, GRAIL, Helsinn, Illumina, Innovation and Value Initiative, Ionis, Jazz, Kite, Novartis, Otsuka, Pathnostics, PhRMA, Prothena, Sage, Verde Technologies, Genentech, Inc., Greenwich Biosciences, Inc., Mirum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi US Services, Inc., Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Dompe US, Inc., unrelated to this work. This research was presented as an abstract at CHEST 2020 Annual Meeting (virtual), October 18-21, 2020, and American Thoracic Society 2020 Virtual Meeting, June 2020.