Antifibrotic treatment adherence, efficacy and outcomes for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Spain: a real-world evidence study

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM BMJ Open Respiratory Research Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjresp-2023-001687
A. R. Romero Ortiz, B. Jiménez-Rodríguez, Cecilia López-Ramírez, Ángela López-Bauzá, María Pérez-Morales, José Antonio Delgado-Torralbo, Cristina Villalba Moral, B. Alcázar-Navarrete
{"title":"Antifibrotic treatment adherence, efficacy and outcomes for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Spain: a real-world evidence study","authors":"A. R. Romero Ortiz, B. Jiménez-Rodríguez, Cecilia López-Ramírez, Ángela López-Bauzá, María Pérez-Morales, José Antonio Delgado-Torralbo, Cristina Villalba Moral, B. Alcázar-Navarrete","doi":"10.1136/bmjresp-2023-001687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a rare disorder associated with increased mortality and morbidity. There are currently two drugs approved for IPF but their safety and efficacy profile in real-world settings in Spain is not well understood. Methods An observational, multicentre, prospective study was carried out among patients with IPF who started treatment with pirfenidone or nintedanib from 2015 to 2021. Data regarding clinical characteristics, drug adherence, safety profiles and clinical outcomes between these two drugs were collected. Results 232 patients were included in the analysis. There were no meaningful differences between both groups at baseline. Patients who started pirfenidone showed a decreased risk for treatment withdrawal compared with those starting nintedanib (HR 0.65 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.94; p=0.002)). Time to first adverse event and all-cause mortality was similar between study groups. Risk factors for withdrawal were female sex, diarrhoea and photosensitivity. Conclusions in this real-world study, both pirfenidone and nintedanib showed similar efficacy profiles. Pirfenidone was associated with less treatment discontinuations due to side effects.","PeriodicalId":9048,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2023-001687","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a rare disorder associated with increased mortality and morbidity. There are currently two drugs approved for IPF but their safety and efficacy profile in real-world settings in Spain is not well understood. Methods An observational, multicentre, prospective study was carried out among patients with IPF who started treatment with pirfenidone or nintedanib from 2015 to 2021. Data regarding clinical characteristics, drug adherence, safety profiles and clinical outcomes between these two drugs were collected. Results 232 patients were included in the analysis. There were no meaningful differences between both groups at baseline. Patients who started pirfenidone showed a decreased risk for treatment withdrawal compared with those starting nintedanib (HR 0.65 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.94; p=0.002)). Time to first adverse event and all-cause mortality was similar between study groups. Risk factors for withdrawal were female sex, diarrhoea and photosensitivity. Conclusions in this real-world study, both pirfenidone and nintedanib showed similar efficacy profiles. Pirfenidone was associated with less treatment discontinuations due to side effects.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
西班牙特发性肺纤维化患者的抗纤维化治疗依从性、疗效和结果:真实世界证据研究
背景特发性肺纤维化(IPF)是一种罕见的疾病,死亡率和发病率均有上升。目前有两种药物获准用于治疗 IPF,但在西班牙,人们对这两种药物在实际环境中的安全性和疗效还不甚了解。方法 对 2015 年至 2021 年期间开始接受吡非尼酮或宁替尼治疗的 IPF 患者进行了一项多中心前瞻性观察研究。研究收集了这两种药物的临床特征、用药依从性、安全性和临床疗效等方面的数据。结果 232 名患者被纳入分析。两组患者在基线上没有明显差异。与开始服用宁替达尼的患者相比,开始服用吡非尼酮的患者退出治疗的风险降低(HR 0.65 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.94; p=0.002))。各研究组发生首次不良事件和全因死亡率的时间相似。女性、腹泻和光敏感是停药的风险因素。结论 在这项真实世界研究中,吡非尼酮和宁替尼显示出相似的疗效。吡非尼酮因副作用而中断治疗的情况较少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
BMJ Open Respiratory Research RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
95
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Respiratory Research is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing respiratory and critical care medicine. It is the sister journal to Thorax and co-owned by the British Thoracic Society and BMJ. The journal focuses on robustness of methodology and scientific rigour with less emphasis on novelty or perceived impact. BMJ Open Respiratory Research operates a rapid review process, with continuous publication online, ensuring timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal publishes review articles and all research study types: Basic science including laboratory based experiments and animal models, Pilot studies or proof of concept, Observational studies, Study protocols, Registries, Clinical trials from phase I to multicentre randomised clinical trials, Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
期刊最新文献
Role of ethnicity and residency in active tuberculosis in Karakalpakstan: study protocol of a matched case-control study. Long-term mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease requiring acute non-invasive ventilation with and without obstructive sleep apnoea. High-flow nasal cannula in adults with chronic respiratory diseases during physical exercise: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient perspectives on knowledge gaps in hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Ventilator performances for non-invasive ventilation: a bench study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1