Cited by 49Interstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary FibrosisChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchOccupational and environmental lung diseases

Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Treatments

Open access
Fleetwood, Kelly, McCool, Rachael, Glanville, Julie, Edwards, Susan C., Gsteiger, Sandro, Daigl, Monica, Fisher, Mark·2017·Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The antifibrotics pirfenidone and nintedanib are both approved for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) by regulatory agencies and are recommended by health technology assessment bodies. Other treatments such as N-acetylcysteine are used in clinical practice but have not received regulatory approval. No head-to-head trials have been conducted to directly compare the efficacy of these therapies in IPF. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of treatments for IPF. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted up to April 2015. Phase II/III randomized controlled trials in adults with IPF were eligible. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to compare pirfenidone, nintedanib, and N-acetylcysteine with respect to forced vital capacity (FVC) and mortality. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the NMA. For change from baseline in FVC, the NMA indicated that pirfenidone and nintedanib were more effective than placebo after 1 year (pirfenidone vs. placebo: difference = 0.12 liter (L), 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.03-0.21 L; nintedanib vs. placebo: difference = 0.11 L, 95% CrI = 0.00-0.22 L). There was no evidence that N-acetylcysteine had an effect on FVC compared with placebo (N-acetylcysteine vs. placebo: difference = 0.01 L, 95% CrI = -0.15-0.17 L). Patients treated with pirfenidone also had a lower risk of experiencing a decline in percent predicted FVC of ≥ 10% over 1 year (odds ratio [OR]: 0.58, 95% CrI = 0.40-0.88), whereas there was no conclusive evidence of a difference between nintedanib and placebo (OR: 0.65, 95% CrI = 0.42-1.02). The NMA indicated that pirfenidone reduced all-cause mortality relative to placebo over 1 year (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.52, 95% CrI = 0.28-0.92). There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality between nintedanib and placebo (HR: 0.70, 95% CrI = 0.32-1.55), or N-acetylcysteine and placebo (HR: 2.00, 95% CrI=0.46-8.62). CONCLUSIONS: Our primary analysis of the available evidence indicates that over 1 year, pirfenidone and nintedanib are effective at reducing lung-function decline, and pirfenidone may reduce the odds of experiencing a decline in percent predicted FVC of ≥10% compared with placebo in the first year of treatment. The results of our analysis also suggest that pirfenidone improves survival. DISCLOSURES: Fleetwood is an employee of Quantics Consulting. McCool and Glanville are employees of York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC). Quantics and YHEC received funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche for conducting the systematic review and network meta-analysis reported in this paper. Edwards, Gsteiger, and Daigl are employees of F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Fisher was employed by InterMune UK, a wholly owned Roche subsidiary, until July 2015. He is currently employed by FIECON, which has received funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche for consulting services. The systematic review and network meta-analysis reported in this paper were conducted by Fleetwood (Quantics Consulting) and McCool and Glanville (YHEC), funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. The original network analysis was funded by InterMune. Study concept and design were contributed by Edwards, Gsteiger, and Daigl, along with Fleetwood, McCool, and Glanville. Fleetwood, McCool, and Glanville collected the data, with assistance from Edwards, Gsteiger, and Daigl. Data interpretation was performed by Fleetwood and Fisher, with assistance from the other authors. The manuscript was written by Fleetwood, McCool, and Glanville, with assistance from Edwards, Daigl, and Fisher, and revised by all the authors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.3-b.s5

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses confirmed the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone in IPF.

    “A series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses confirmed the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone in the treatment of IPF [27–33].”

    From Emerging pharmacological options in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) (2024) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Conclusions (page not available in our copy) state that pirfenidone is effective for IPF, reducing lung-function decline over one year compared with placebo. The Results say that although a network was developed for treatment discontinuation, the article explores only lung-function and mortality outcomes; it does not establish pirfenidone’s safety. Thus this source supports the efficacy part of the claim, but not the safety part. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [5]5. National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK). Diagnosis and management of suspected idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. 2013. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Clinical Guidelines, No. 163. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/ PMH0068972/. Accessed February 9, 2017.
  2. [43]43. Miller MR, Hankinson J, Brusasco V, et al. Standardisation of spirom- etry. Eur Respir J. 2005;26(2):319-38.
  3. [47]47. Taniguchi H, Ebina M, Kondoh Y, et al. Pirfenidone in idiopathic pulmo- nary fibrosis. Eur Respir J. 2010;35(4):821-29.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fleetwood, K., McCool, R., Glanville, J., Edwards, S. C., Gsteiger, S., Daigl, M., & Fisher, M.
Affiliations
  • F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (CH)
  • York Health Economics Consortium, York, United Kingdom.
  • FIECON, St Albans, United Kingdom.
Corresponding author
Fleetwood, Kelly
Venue
Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy
Published
2017-03
Volume
23
Issue
3-b Suppl
Pages
S5-S16
ISSN
  • 2376-0540 (ISSN-L)
  • 2376-1032
OpenAlex
W2596468399
Cited by
49
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6
FWCI
1.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
F. Hoffmann-La Roche
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Interstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Occupational and environmental lung diseases
Keywords
idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, pirfenidone, nintedanib, N-acetylcysteine, antifibrotic therapy, forced vital capacity, all-cause mortality, treatment efficacy comparison, forced vital capacity decline
MeSH terms
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal, Enzyme Inhibitors, Humans, Indoles, Pyridones, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review