Real-world safety and effectiveness of pirfenidone and nintedanib in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveMultiple randomized controlled studies have shown that pirfenidone and nintedanib are effective and safe for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. This study aimed to evaluate their efficacy, safety, and tolerability in a real-world setting.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for real-world studies published up to March 3, 2023, on pirfenidone and nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

resultsA total of 74 studies with 23,119 participants were included. After 12 months of treatment, the change from baseline in percent predicted FVC (%FVC) was - 0.75% for pirfenidone and - 1.43% for nintedanib. The change from baseline in percent predicted DLCO (%DCLO) was - 2.32% for pirfenidone and - 3.95% for nintedanib. The incidence of acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) was 12.5% for pirfenidone and 14.4% for nintedanib. The IPF-related mortality rates of pirfenidone and nintedanib were 13.4% and 7.2%, respectively. The all-cause mortality was 20.1% for pirfenidone and 16.6% for nintedanib. In the pirfenidone group, 16.6% of patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events, and in the nintedanib group, 16.2% of patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. The incidence of adverse events was 56.4% and 69.7% for pirfenidone and nintedanib, respectively.

conclusionThe results of this study indicate that pirfenidone and nintedanib are both effective in slowing down the decline of lung function in IPF patients in real-world settings. The incidence of adverse events with pirfenidone is lower than that with nintedanib, but both are below the clinical trial data, and no new major adverse events have been observed. The discontinuation rates due to adverse reactions of the two drugs are consistent with clinical trial data, indicating good tolerability. However, the mortality rates and AE-IPF incidence rates of these two drugs in real-world settings are higher than those in previous clinical trials, with pirfenidone patients showing a higher mortality rate. Further large-sample studies are needed to investigate the risks of these drugs in these aspects. Additionally, we recommend that future real-world studies pay more attention to patients' subjective symptoms and conduct stratified analyses of the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone and nintedanib based on factors such as patients' baseline lung function, comorbidities, and age, in order to provide more personalized medication advice for IPF patients in clinical practice.