Dataset Information

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: systematic review, network meta-analysis and health economic evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a life-limiting lung disease with considerable impact on patients and carers as the disease progresses. Currently few treatments are available. We aimed to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of available treatments for IPF.

Methods

Systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness, quality of life and cost effectiveness were undertaken. Eleven bibliographic databases were searched from inception to July 2013 and studies were assessed for eligibility against a set of pre-defined criteria. Two reviewers screened references, extracted data from included studies and appraised their quality. An advisory group was consulted about the choice of interventions. A narrative review was undertaken and where feasible fixed effect and random effects meta-analysis were undertaken including a network meta-analysis (NMA). A decision-analytic Markov model was developed to estimate cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for IPF. Following best practice recommendations, the model perspective was of the national health service and personal social services, a discount rate of 3.5% for costs and health benefits was applied and outcomes were expressed as cost per quality adjusted life-year gained. Parameter values were obtained from the NMA and systematic reviews. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken.

Results

Fourteen studies were included in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which one evaluated azathioprine, three N-acetylcysteine [NAC] (alone or in combination), four pirfenidone, one nintedanib, one sildenafil, one thalidomide, two pulmonary rehabilitation, and one a disease management programme. Study quality was generally good. Evidence suggests that some effective treatments are available. In NMA only nintedanib and pirfenidone show statistically significant improvements. The model results show increased survival for five pharmacological treatments (NAC triple therapy, inhaled NAC, nintedanib, pirfenidone, and sildenafil) compared with best supportive care, at increased cost. Only inhaled NAC was cost-effective at current willingness to pay thresholds but it may not be clinically effective.

Conclusions

Few interventions have any statistically significant effect and the cost-effectiveness of treatments is uncertain. A lack of studies on palliative care approaches was identified and there is a need for further research into pulmonary rehabilitation and thalidomide in particular. A well conducted RCT on inhaled NAC therapy should also be considered.

SUBMITTER: Loveman E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4247619 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: systematic review, network meta-analysis and health economic evaluation.

Loveman Emma E Copley Vicky R VR Colquitt Jill L JL Scott David A DA Clegg Andy J AJ Jones Jeremy J O'Reilly Katherine M A KM Singh Sally S Bausewein Claudia C Wells Athol A

BMC pharmacology & toxicology 20141119

<h4>Background</h4>Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a life-limiting lung disease with considerable impact on patients and carers as the disease progresses. Currently few treatments are available. We aimed to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of available treatments for IPF.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness, quality of life and cost effectiveness were undertaken. Eleven bibliographic databases were searched from inception to July 2013 and studies were a ...[more]

PMID: 25410822

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of treatments for IPF.MethodsA 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.ResultsNine 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).ConclusionsOur 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.DisclosuresFleetwood 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.

Project description:BackgroundIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive interstitial lung disease with poor prognosis and a high economic burden for individuals and healthcare resources. Studies of the costs associated with the efficiency of IPF medications are scarce. We aimed to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness analysis to identify the optimum pharmacological strategy among all currently available IPF regimens.MethodsWe first performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched eight databases for eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published, in any language, between January 1, 1992 and July 31, 2022, that investigated the efficacy or tolerability (or both) of drug therapies for the treatment of IPF. The search was updated on February 1, 2023. Eligible RCTs were enrolled, with no restriction on dose, duration, or length of follow-up, if they included at least one of: all-cause mortality, acute exacerbation rate, disease progression rate, serious adverse events, and any adverse events under investigation. A subsequent Bayesian NMA within random-effects models was performed, followed by a cost-effectiveness analysis using the data obtained from our NMA, by developing a Markov model from the US payer's perspective. Assumptions were checked by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity approaches to identify sensitive factors. We prospectively registered the protocol (CRD42022340590) in PROSPERO.Findings51 publications comprising 12,551 participants with IPF were analysed for the NMA, and the findings indicated that pirfenidone and N-acetylcysteine (NAC) + pirfenidone were the most efficacious and tolerable. The pharmacoeconomic analysis showed that NAC + pirfenidone was associated with the highest potentiality of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of US$150,000 and $200,000, on the basis of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and mortality, with the probability ranging from 53% to 92%. NAC was the minimum cost agent. Compared with placebo, NAC + pirfenidone improved effectiveness by increasing QALYs by 7.02, and reducing DALYs by 7.10 and deaths by 8.40, whilst raising overall costs by $516,894.InterpretationThis NMA and cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that NAC + pirfenidone is the most cost-effective option for treatment of IPF at WTP thresholds of $150,000 and $200,000. However, given that clinical practice guidelines have not addressed the application of this therapy, large well-designed and multicentre trials are warranted to provide a better picture of IPF management.FundingNone.

Project description:BackgroundInternational guidelines recommend nintedanib (OFEV®) as an option for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of nintedanib versus pirfenidone, N-acetylcysteine and best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of IPF from a UK payer's perspective.MethodsA Markov model was designed to capture the changes in the condition of adults with IPF. Efficacy outcomes included mortality, lung function decline and acute exacerbations. Treatment safety (serious adverse events) and tolerability (overall discontinuation) were also considered. The baseline risk of these events was derived from patient-level data from the placebo arms of nintedanib clinical trials (TOMORROW, INPULSIS-1, INPULSIS-2). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to estimate the relative effectiveness of the comparator treatments. Quality of life and healthcare resource use data from the clinical trials were also incorporated in the economic model.ResultsNintedanib showed statistically significant differences against placebo on acute exacerbation events avoided and lung function decline. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the results were split between two treatments with relative low costs and modest effectiveness (BSC and N-acetylcysteine) and two that showed improved effectiveness (lung function) and higher costs (nintedanib and pirfenidone). All comparators were assumed to have similar projected survival and the difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was driven by the acute exacerbations and lung function estimates. In the base-case deterministic pairwise comparison with pirfenidone, nintedanib was found to have fewer acute exacerbations and resulted in less costs and more QALYs gained.ConclusionsCompared with BSC (placebo), nintedanib and pirfenidone were the only treatments to show statistical significance in the efficacy parameters. We found substantial uncertainty in the overall cost-effectiveness results between nintedanib and pirfenidone. N-Acetylcysteine was largely similar to BSC but with a worse survival profile. INPULSIS-1 and INPULSIS-2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01335464 and NCT01335477.

Project description:BackgroundSevere acute exacerbations (AE) of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) are medically untreatable and often fatal within days. Recent evidence suggests autoantibodies may be involved in IPF progression. Autoantibody-mediated lung diseases are typically refractory to glucocorticoids and nonspecific medications, but frequently respond to focused autoantibody reduction treatments. We conducted a pilot trial to test the hypothesis that autoantibody-targeted therapies may also benefit AE-IPF patients.MethodsEleven (11) critically-ill AE-IPF patients with no evidence of conventional autoimmune diseases were treated with therapeutic plasma exchanges (TPE) and rituximab, supplemented in later cases with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Plasma anti-epithelial (HEp-2) autoantibodies and matrix metalloproteinase-7 (MMP7) were evaluated by indirect immunofluorescence and ELISA, respectively. Outcomes among the trial subjects were compared to those of 20 historical control AE-IPF patients treated with conventional glucocorticoid therapy prior to this experimental trial.ResultsNine (9) trial subjects (82%) had improvements of pulmonary gas exchange after treatment, compared to one (5%) historical control. Two of the three trial subjects who relapsed after only five TPE responded again with additional TPE. The three latest subjects who responded to an augmented regimen of nine TPE plus rituximab plus IVIG have had sustained responses without relapses after 96-to-237 days. Anti-HEp-2 autoantibodies were present in trial subjects prior to therapy, and were reduced by TPE among those who responded to treatment. Conversely, plasma MMP7 levels were not systematically affected by therapy nor correlated with clinical responses. One-year survival of trial subjects was 46+15% vs. 0% among historical controls. No serious adverse events were attributable to the experimental medications.ConclusionThis pilot trial indicates specific treatments that reduce autoantibodies might benefit some severely-ill AE-IPF patients. These findings have potential implications regarding mechanisms of IPF progression, and justify considerations for incremental trials of autoantibody-targeted therapies in AE-IPF patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01266317.

Project description:Introduction. Given the lack of independent analyses comparing numerous pharmacotherapies for osteoporosis, the study objective was to identify the optimal osteoporosis treatment based on a woman's age, fracture history, and ability to tolerate oral bisphosphonates adopting practices recommended in the recently revised Canadian guidelines. Methods. A cost utility analysis from the health care system perspective compared alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, zoledronate, denosumab, and no pharmacotherapy using a Markov model incorporating data on fracture risk and their associated costs, mortality, and disutility and treatment effect. Stratified analysis was conducted based on age, fracture history, and ability to tolerate oral bisphosphonates. Expected lifetime outcomes were obtained through probabilistic analysis with scenario analyses addressing methodological and structural uncertainty. Results. For women able to tolerate oral bisphosphonates, risedronate and etidronate were dominated. Compared to no therapy, alendronate was either dominant or was associated with a low incremental cost per QALY (quality-adjusted life years) gained (ICER)-less than CAN$3,751 based on age and fracture history. In comparison with alendronate, both zoledronate and denosumab were either dominated or associated with a high ICER-greater than CAN$660,000 per QALY. For women unable to tolerate bisphosphonates, dependent on age and fracture history, the ICER for zoledronate versus no therapy ranged from CAN$17,770 to CAN$94,365 per QALY. For all strata, denosumab was dominated by zoledronate or had an ICER greater than CAN$3.0 million. Scenario analyses found consistent findings. Conclusions. Based on a threshold of CAN$50,000 per QALY, alendronate is optimal for osteoporotic women who can tolerate oral bisphosphonates regardless of age or fracture history. For women unable to tolerate oral bisphosphonates, zoledronate is optimal for women with previous fracture or aged 80 to 84 or over 90 with no previous fracture.

Dataset Information

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: systematic review, network meta-analysis and health economic evaluation.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: systematic review, network meta-analysis and health economic evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets