ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Long-term treatment with nintedanib and pirfenidone in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a comparative, real-world cohort study.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-Tuberculosis Lung Disease: Clinicopathologic Insights, Diagnosis, Prevention, and Management.MedComm · 2026Review
- Beyond scarring: a next-generation vision for pulmonary fibrosis management.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
- Antifibrotic Drugs Regulate the Expression of Epithelial Sodium Channels in the Lungs.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2026Article
- Integrative Perspectives on Pirfenidone: Mechanistic Insights, Pharmacodynamics, and Emerging Therapeutic Strategies for Fibrotic Disorders.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleLimited data exists on the long-term comparative efficacy and tolerability of pirfenidone and nintedanib, the two approved treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled IPF patients treated with either pirfenidone or nintedanib at our centre between 2017 and 2023. Progression-free survival (PFS), defined as time to death or ≥ 10% decline in % predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) and continuous FVC decline were compared between groups defined by antifibrotic type or treatment intensity (full or reduced). Time to drug dose reduction was also compared. Statistical analysis included Kaplan-Meier curves with Log-Rank tests, Cox proportional hazards models and linear mixed-effects models.
resultsA total of 292 IPF patients treated with pirfenidone (n = 142) or nintedanib (n = 150) were included with a mean follow-up time of 32.3 months (SD = 14.5). No significant differences in efficacy were observed between groups by antifibrotic type. Dose reduction was more frequent in the nintedanib group (59.3%) than pirfenidone group (16.9%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that patients on nintedanib had a 4-fold higher risk of dose reduction compared to those on pirfenidone (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between patients with dose reduction and those maintaining the full dose, both in the overall population and when stratified by antifibrotic type.
conclusionNintedanib and pirfenidone exhibited similar long-term efficacy. Dose adjustment was more frequent with nintedanib, however it did not have impact on clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.