Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34895203›Full record

SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2021

Efficacy of antifibrotic drugs, nintedanib and pirfenidone, in treatment of progressive pulmonary fibrosis in both idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and non-IPF: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

James Patrick Finnerty, Aravind Ponnuswamy, Prosjenjit Dutta, Ammar Abdelaziz, Hafiz Kamil

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 119 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
19.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

119 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 194 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Prevalence and Prognostic Impact of Progressive Pulmonary Fibrosis.Tuberculosis and respiratory diseases · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Pulmonary fibrosis: Emerging targets and novel therapeutics.The Journal of international medical research · 2026
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

59 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

James Patrick FinnertyDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust, Liverpool Road, Chester, CH2 1UL, UK. james.finnerty@nhs.net.
Aravind Ponnuswamy
Prosjenjit DuttaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust, Liverpool Road, Chester, CH2 1UL, UK.
Ammar AbdelazizThe Walton Centre, Liverpool, UK.
Hafiz KamilDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust, Liverpool Road, Chester, CH2 1UL, UK.
Countess of Chester Hospital · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBWalton Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch questions To compare the efficacy of nintedanib and pirfenidone in the treatment of progressive pulmonary fibrosis; and to compare the efficacy of anti-fibrotic therapy (grouping nintedanib and pirfenidone together) in patients with IPF versus patients with progressive lung fibrosis not classified as IPF. STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsA search of databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted. Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials of pirfenidone or nintedanib in adult patients with IPF or non-IPF patients, and with extractable data on mortality or decline in forced vital capacity (FVC). Random effects meta-analyses were performed on changes in FVC and where possible on mortality in the selected studies.

results13 trials of antifibrotic therapy were pooled in a meta-analysis (with pirfenidone and nintedanib considered together as anti-fibrotic therapy). The change in FVC was expressed as a standardised difference to allow pooling of percentage and absolute changes. The mean effect size in the IPF studies was - 0.305 (SE 0.043) (p < 0.001) and in the non-IPF studies the figures were - 0.307 (SE 0.063) (p < 0.001). There was no evidence of any difference between the two groups for standardised rate of FVC decline (p = 0.979). Pooling IPF and non-IPF showed a significant reduction in mortality, with mean risk ratio of 07.01 in favour of antifibrotic therapy (p = 0.008). A separate analysis restricted to non-IPF did not show a significant reduction in mortality (risk ratio 0.908 (0.547 to 1.508), p = 0.71.

interpretationAnti-fibrotic therapy offers protection against the rate of decline in FVC in progressive lung fibrosis, with similar efficacy shown between the two anti-fibrotic agents currently in clinical use. There was no significant difference in efficacy of antifibrotic therapy whether the underlying condition was IPF or non-IPF with progressive fibrosis, supporting the hypothesis of a common pathogenesis. The data in this analysis was insufficient to be confident about a reduction in mortality in non-IPF with anti-fibrotic therapy. Trial Registration PROSPERO, registration number CRD42021266046.

Indexed as

Antifibrotic AgentsAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalCause of DeathHumansIdiopathic Pulmonary FibrosisIndolesPulmonary FibrosisPyridonesTreatment OutcomeAntifibrotic AgentsAnti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-SteroidalIndolesnintedanibpirfenidonePyridonesIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosisNintedanibPirfenidone

Identifiers

PMID34895203
PMCPMC8666028
OpenAlexW4200583142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.