Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Survival and course of lung function in the presence or absence of antifibrotic treatment in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: long-term results of the INSIGHTS-IPF registry

Jürgen Behr, Antje Prasse, Hubert Wirtz, Dirk Koschel, David Pittrow, Matthias Held, Jens Klotsche, Stefan Andreas, Martin Claussen, Christian Grohé, Henrike Wilkens, Lars Hagmeyer, Dirk Skowasch, Joachim F. Meyer, Joachim Kirschner, Sven Gläser, Nicolas Kahn, Tobias Welte, Claus Neurohr, Martin Schwaiblmair, Thomas Bahmer, Tim Oqueka, Marion Frankenberger, Michael Kreuter
European Respiratory Journal 2020 56: 1902279; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02279-2019
Jürgen Behr
1Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik V, LMU Klinikum, University of Munich, Munich, Germany
2Comprehensive Pneumology Center (CPC), Lungenforschungsambulanz, LMU Klinikum und Helmholtz Zentrum, Munich, Germany
3Asklepios Fachkliniken, München-Gauting, Germany
4German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: juergen.behr@med.uni-muenchen.de
Antje Prasse
4German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Germany
5Klinik für Pneumologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany
6Fraunhofer Institute ITEM, Hannover, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Antje Prasse
Hubert Wirtz
7Abteilung für Pneumologie, Department Innere Medizin, Neurologie und Dermatologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AöR, Leipzig, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dirk Koschel
8Zentrum für Pneumologie, Fachkrankenhaus Coswig, Coswig, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Pittrow
9Institut für Klinische Pharmakologie, Medizinische Fakultät, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
10GWT-TUD GmbH, Pharmacoepidemiology, Dresden, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for David Pittrow
Matthias Held
11Department of Internal Medicine, Respiratory Medicine and Ventilatory Support, Medical Mission Hospital, Central Clinic, Würzburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jens Klotsche
12Epidemiologie, Deutsches Rheuma-Forschungszentrum, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stefan Andreas
13Lungenfachklinik Immenhausen und Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Kardiologie und Pneumologie, Göttingen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Stefan Andreas
Martin Claussen
4German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Germany
14LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Großhansdorf, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christian Grohé
15Klinik für Pneumologie – ELK, Berlin Buch, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Henrike Wilkens
16Klinik für Innere Medizin V, Pneumologie, Universitätsklinikum, Universitätskliniken des Saarlandes, Homburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lars Hagmeyer
17Krankenhaus Bethanien, Klinik für Pneumologie und Allergologie, Zentrum für Schlaf- und Beatmungsmedizin; Institut für Pneumologie, Universität zu Köln, Solingen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Lars Hagmeyer
Dirk Skowasch
18Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II, Universitätsklinikum, Bonn, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joachim F. Meyer
19Lungenzentrum München, LZM Bogenhausen-Harlaching, Städtisches Klinikum München GmbH, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joachim Kirschner
20Center for Internal Medical Studies CIMS, Bamberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sven Gläser
21Klinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin B, Forschungsbereich Pneumologie und Pneumologische Epidemiologie, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany
22Klinik für Innere Medizin – Pneumologie und Infektiologie, Vivantes Klinikum Neukölln und Spandau, Berlin, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicolas Kahn
23Center for Interstitial and Rare Lung Diseases, Pneumology, Thoraxklinik, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nicolas Kahn
Tobias Welte
4German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Germany
5Klinik für Pneumologie, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Tobias Welte
Claus Neurohr
24Abteilung für Pneumologie und Beatmungsmedizin, Klinik Schillerhöhe, Gerlingen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin Schwaiblmair
25Medizinische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum, Augsburg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Bahmer
14LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Großhansdorf, Germany
26Abteilung für Innere Medizin I, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tim Oqueka
27II Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsklinikum, Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marion Frankenberger
2Comprehensive Pneumology Center (CPC), Lungenforschungsambulanz, LMU Klinikum und Helmholtz Zentrum, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Kreuter
4German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Germany
23Center for Interstitial and Rare Lung Diseases, Pneumology, Thoraxklinik, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Objective There is a paucity of observational data on antifibrotic therapy for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). We aimed to assess the course of disease of IPF patients with and without antifibrotic therapy under real-life conditions.

Methods We analysed data from a non-interventional, prospective cohort study of consecutively enrolled IPF patients from 20 interstitial lung disease expert centres in Germany. Data quality was ensured by automated plausibility checks, on-site monitoring, and source data verification. Propensity scores were applied to account for known differences in baseline characteristics between patients with and without antifibrotic therapy.

Results Among the 588 patients suitable for analysis, the mean±sd age was 69.8±9.1 years, and 81.0% were male. The mean±sd duration of disease since diagnosis was 1.8±3.4 years. The mean±sd value at baseline for forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusion capacity (DLCO) were 68.6±18.8% predicted and 37.8±18.5% predicted, respectively. During a mean±sd follow-up of 1.2±0.7 years, 194 (33.0%) patients died. The 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 87% versus 46% and 62% versus 21%, respectively, for patients with versus without antifibrotic therapy. The risk of death was 37% lower in patients with antifibrotic therapy (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.45; 0.87; p=0.005). The results were robust (and remained statistically significant) on multivariable analysis. Overall decline of FVC and DLCO was slow and did not differ significantly between patients with or without antifibrotic therapy.

Conclusions Survival was significantly higher in IPF patients with antifibrotic therapy, but the course of lung function parameters was similar in patients with and without antifibrotic therapy. This suggests that in clinical practice, premature mortality of IPF patients eventually occurs despite stable measurements for FVC and DLCO.

Abstract

Survival was significantly higher in antifibrotic-treated (AT) IPF patients, but the course of lung function parameters was similar in AT and non-AT patients, suggesting that functional stability alone may not safeguard against premature mortality in IPF https://bit.ly/2RDsrVY

Introduction

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a severe respiratory disease characterised by progressive scarring of the lung, leading to respiratory failure and death within 3–5 years from diagnosis [1]. Effective treatments are still limited. The antifibrotic treatments pirfenidone and nintedanib have been shown to slow disease progression as measured by annual rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) [2], but their effect on lung function and survival under clinical practice conditions warrants further exploration.

As randomised controlled studies on antifibrotic treatments have limitations in terms of their generalisability due to patient selection/exclusion and duration of follow-up, observational data in unselected IPF patients are needed to provide a more comprehensive picture. A number of registries have been initiated in various countries to provide such real-life data [3–8], but their follow-up is limited to 1–2 years only.

The database of the INSIGHTS-IPF (Investigating Significant Health Trends in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis) registry, one of the largest IPF registries worldwide, offers the opportunity to analyse the course of disease and long-term effectiveness of antifibrotic therapy in IPF. The aims of the present analysis were 1) to describe and compare cohorts of patients with and without antifibrotic therapy; 2) to assess the correlation between antifibrotic drug use and lung function; and 3) to test the correlation between antifibrotic drug use and survival.

Methods

Design and parameters

The INSIGHTS-IPF registry is a nationwide, investigator-initiated observational study. The registry has been continuously enrolling consecutive incident and prevalent patients in routine clinical care across 20 pulmonary specialist centres in Germany since November 2012. Patients aged ≥18 years with a study-site diagnosis of IPF according to the 2011 American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society/Japanese Respiratory Society/Latin American Thoracic Association IPF guideline [9] after provision of written informed consent can be enrolled, with no explicit exclusion criteria. The registry's structure, methodology, and regulatory aspects, as well as a detailed description of the baseline characteristics of the patient cohort, have been reported previously [10–12]. The study has been approved by the ethics committee at the Technical University of Dresden and various local ethical committees. All patients provided informed consent before their data were documented in the registry.

Data were collected at enrolment (baseline) and at subsequent 6- to 12-month intervals. At each follow-up visit, all clinical events, including hospitalisation and acute exacerbations (as judged by the treating physician), as well as deaths that occurred during the study period, were recorded by each site. At each visit, if available, a range of routine pulmonary function tests were documented, including FVC, diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO), the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and 6-min walk distance (6MWD). The gender, age and physiology (GAP) index was calculated based on available data [13].

The treating physician was requested to judge the overall clinical course of IPF at baseline and each follow-up visit by the categories stable disease, slow progression, rapid progression, no judgement possible. Physiological changes between baseline and 2-year follow-up were categorised as stable if FVC did not change or was improved by ≥5%; as a moderate decrease if decreased by >5–10%; or as a significant decrease if decreased by >10%.

Quality measures

All data were collected using a standardised internet-based case report form with secure electronic data transfer to the central database. Quality measures included automated plausibility checks at data entry, statistical checks on data quality (focusing on missing values and outliers) as well as on-site monitoring and source data verification performed in the majority of centres (>70%).

Data analysis

Data were summarised by descriptive statistics including mean±sd and absolute and relative frequencies at baseline and each subsequent follow-up assessment. Data analysis comprised the period between the first documentation in the registry in December 2012 until the data cut-off point in December 2018. The analyses follow the intention-to-treat principle, which means that each patient with at least one dose of antifibrotic therapy is assigned to the treatment group.

The entire observation period was considered for each patient in the registry in order to compare outcomes, in terms of mortality and pulmonary function test results, between patients who were treated with antifibrotic therapy and those who were not. Patients in the registry who had never been treated with an antifibrotic therapy were assigned to the control group. The first observation in that group was the registry enrolment visit. Patients who started an antifibrotic therapy before enrolment into the registry (start date >10 days before, e.g. as participant in a clinical study) were excluded because of the nonavailability of clinical data at treatment start. The data were divided into individual treatment episodes for patients who started pirfenidone and/or nintedanib during the observation period. For these patients, the first observation was the initial treatment visit. If a patient was treated with pirfenidone and nintedanib (in sequence) during follow-up, then two treatment episodes were assigned (one for each drug) for the pulmonary function and 6MWD tests at the corresponding time point. In contrast, the risk of mortality was analysed for the last available antifibrotic treatment episode in patients who were treated with pirfenidone followed by nintedanib, or vice versa, during follow-up. All patients with a follow-up period of ≥3 months were included in the analyses. In addition, a follow-up interval of 2 years was considered. The primary analysis for lung function tests and 6MWD is based on the observed values in the registry. Since the number of missing values in lung function tests (FVC baseline 4.5%, follow-up 20.7%; DLCO baseline 16.2%, follow-up 31.9%) and 6MWD (baseline 14.1%, follow-up 57.3%) were substantial, we applied the technique of multiple imputation for those variables to estimate the missing values as sensitivity analyses. Patients with a missing lung function test tended to be on a less severe disease course compared to patients with available lung function test. Preliminary analyses showed that mortality, age and comorbidities were associated with the absence of the considered variables. Therefore, the first sensitivity analysis used an imputation model including the predictor variables age, sex, number of comorbidities, IPF duration, mortality, antifibrotic therapy and the lung function and 6MWD results from the prior visit. The number of imputations was set to 10. As a second sensitivity analysis, the last observation carried forward method for lung function and 6MWD was used as well. The third sensitivity analysis used the imputation of missing values by the worst possible value (FVC, DLCO and 6MWD of 0) for patients who died.

Propensity score

INSIGHTS-IPF is an observational study and thus allocation to treatment was not randomly assigned. Consequently, various patient characteristics at baseline may be imbalanced, possibly leading to biased results and conclusions. The standard approach to deal with this problem is to model the probability of treatment assignment by the physician (propensity score) based on the clinical characteristics at treatment start in order to balance the characteristics of the two considered groups of patients [14–16]. The propensity score was estimated by a logistic regression model that included the covariates sex, age, smoking status, number of comorbid diseases, IPF disease duration, FVC % predicted, 6MWD, concomitant therapy with steroids and the global assessment of the disease course by the physician at baseline. A weight value (inverse probability of treatment weighting) was calculated for each patient based on the propensity score [17]. All statistical comparisons between patients with and without antifibrotic therapy were weighted to balance the two groups regarding the clinical characteristics at treatment start.

In the primary analysis, the course of the pulmonary function (FVC % pred and DLCO % pred) and 6MWD tests were analysed by weighted linear mixed models to account for the possibility of two treatment episodes for a single patient (additional cluster variable) and the longitudinal study design based on the observed values. An interaction term treatment × time was included into the weighted linear mixed models to test for differences in change in the three considered parameters by treatment. Secondary analyses of lung function and 6MWD included the imputed data, which employed two imputation methods: last observation carried forward and worst-case imputation. The risk of mortality was analysed by a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model weighted by the propensity score. The proportional-hazards assumption was tested on the basis of Schoenfeld residuals after fitting the Cox regression model.

Data were analysed using Stata 12.1 (Stata Statistical Software: release 12; StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

588 patients were deemed suitable for the present analysis. The mean age of the study population was 69.8 years, with a large male preponderance (81.0%). The mean±sd duration of symptoms before the baseline visit was 3.5±4.2 years and time between diagnosis and study enrolment was 1.8±3.4 years. 58% of the patients had disease duration of <12 months and 47% of <6 months. The mean Borg dyspnoea score was 2.2±2.4, and the GAP index stages were as follows: stage I in 20.4% of the patients, stage II in 49.9% of the patients and stage III in 29.7% of the patients. In terms of lung function parameters at baseline, the mean±sd FVC was 68.6±18.8% pred and the DLCO was 37.8±18.5% pred. Health-related quality of life as measured on the 100-point visual analogue scale was 59.6±23.6. As current therapy at baseline, prednisone was reported in 23.6% and N-acetylcysteine in 25.5% of patients.

The mean±sd follow-up time was 1.2±0.7 years (maximum of 2 years) for the total sample, 1.2±0.5 years for patients receiving antifibrotic therapy and 1.0±0.7 years for patients who had never been treated with antifibrotic therapy. 334 treatment episodes under antifibrotic therapy (168 pirfenidone, 166 nintedanib) were reported for 298 patients in our registry, resulting in 36 (12%) patients with two episodes. Among these, pirfenidone was the first antifibrotic drug in 29 patients. Seven patients switched from pirfenidone to nintedanib within 3 months after discontinuation of pirfenidone; the other 22 patients started nintedanib on average 13 months after discontinuation of pirfenidone (table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Characteristics of patients in the total analysed cohort and by presence or absence of antifibrotic treatment

Generalised linear mixed models were used to analyse the pulmonary function and 6MWD tests. These models included all antifibrotic therapy treatment episodes, and were based on the observed values. During the 2 years of follow-up, mean FVC % pred remained almost stable (figure 1ai; β for change in follow-up −0.42, 95% CI −1.44–0.60; p=0.416), with no significant differences between the two groups (β for time × therapy −0.65, 95% CI −1.82–0.52; p=0.274). Predicted DLCO showed a similar course in both groups (figure 1bi), with no significant decline in DLCO (β for change in follow-up −1.05, 95% CI −2.40–0.30; p=0.127) in follow-up and no significant differences between the two groups (β for time × therapy −0.40, 95% CI −2.56–1.77; p=0.721). Results for the 6MWD test were available in 89% of patients at baseline; however, this measurement was compromised by a high rate of missing data during follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in the course of 6MWD results over time (β for change in follow-up −14.8, 95% CI −25.6–4.1; p=0.076), considering the observed values (figure 1ci). The primary analysis was repeated in patients with disease duration of ≤12 months at enrolment (prevalent patients, figure 1a-c,ii). A slightly better course of FVC % pred, DLCO % pred and 6MWD was observed in patients with antifibrotic therapy; however, the difference was not statistically significant. The sensitivity analyses using imputed data and data obtained by the last observation carried forward approach resulted in comparable results to those of the primary analysis. If an FVC of 0% was imputed in patients who died during follow-up, patients never on antifibrotic therapy tended to have a slightly, but not significantly stronger FVC decline. The decline in DLCO was worse in patients with antifibrotic treatment, although when imputation of the worst individual value was implemented, there were no significant differences between groups.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Change in a) forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted, b) diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) % predicted and c) 6-min walk distance (6MWD) over the 2-year follow-up (β=interaction term time × therapy to estimate the difference in change during 2-year follow-up in the considered parameter between patients with and without antifibrotic therapy). i) All patients; ii) patients with a disease duration <12 months at enrolment.

The risk of mortality was analysed for the last available treatment episode in patients who were treated with pirfenidone (n=139) and nintedanib (n=159) in follow-up. A total of 194 (33.0%) patients died during follow-up. A total of 79 (41%) patients died of IPF-related reasons (20% respiratory failure, 8% respiratory infection/pneumonia), followed by complicating comorbidity (8%) and other causes not related to IPF (9%). The reason of death was unknown for 71 (37%) patients.

Overall mortality was substantially lower in patients treated with antifibrotic therapy. The risk of death for any reason was 37% lower in patients with antifibrotic therapy compared with those without such therapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.45–0.87; p=0.005; figure 2). This result was robust (and remained statistically significant) on multivariable analysis, as reported in table 2. Analysis for both antifibrotic drugs approved for treating IPF, nintedanib and pirfenidone, revealed no statistically significant difference in overall mortality between the two drugs (HR for pirfenidone versus nintedanib 1.39, 95% CI 0.87–2.22; p=0.164).

FIGURE 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2

Risk of mortality within 2 years by antifibrotic treatment (by propensity score weighted Kaplan–Meier survival curves).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Risk of mortality estimated by a multivariable Cox regression model

In patients treated with antifibrotics, the risk of IPF-related death was not (statistically significantly) lower compared to patients without such therapy (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45–1.25; p=0.266), while the risk of death for unknown reason was 56% lower in patients with antifibrotics (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26–0.75; p=0.003). Due to the lower numbers of events in this subgroup analysis, this result should be interpreted with caution.

We tested the hypothesis whether survival differs between patients with stable FVC (i.e. ≤10% decline during follow-up) compared to patients with worsening of FVC of >10% during follow-up, regardless of therapy. The risk of mortality was slightly higher in such patients with disease progression compared to stable IPF patients (HR 1.34, 95% CI 0.89–2.02; p=0.163). This result was confirmed while adjusting for the effect for antifibrotic treatment.

The risk of mortality was additionally analysed in patients with disease duration of <12 months prior to study enrolment. The risk of death in the subsample of incident patients was 64% lower in patients treated with antifibrotic therapy compared to controls (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25–0.78; p=0.003). The result was confirmed in multivariable analysis.

Discussion

The present analysis of the large and contemporary INSIGHTS-IPF registry indicates that patients on antifibrotic therapy appear to survive significantly longer than IPF patients without antifibrotic therapy. The lower overall mortality risk in the patients treated with antifibrotic medication was mainly driven by patients with unknown cause of death. The statistically nonsignificant relationship between antifibrotic therapy and IPF-related deaths might be due to the low number of recorded IPF-related deaths (79.4% of deaths).

Compared with the recently published observational data from the EurIPF registry, patients in INSIGHTS-IPF were nearly identical in terms of total lung capacity (70.0% pred versus 71.2% pred), FVC (68.4% pred versus 68.3% pred) and FEV1 (110% pred versus 111% pred), while DLCO was lower in our study (42.1% pred versus 37.8% pred) [18]. A subset of IPF patients with long-term follow-up within the EurIPF registry were analysed by Kaplan–Meier analysis (without propensity score matching) in correlation with the date of first IPF diagnosis. The analysis of this subset found that median survival on antifibrotic drugs was 123.1 months (censored cases inclusive, range 84–162 months), compared with a median survival of 68.3 months in patients treated with any other medication including immunosuppressive therapies (censored cases inclusive, range 54–83 months). Functional follow-up data from the EurIPF registry were not reported. Another difference between our data and those of the EurIPF registry, besides the larger number of patients and the statistics applied in our cohort, is the fact that pirfenidone was used in the vast majority (83%) of the EurIPF registry cohort, while in our study population nintedanib and pirfenidone where almost equally distributed, slightly favouring nintedanib (53.3%).

Interestingly, we observed a similar stable course of lung function parameters (FVC and DLCO) over time in both groups, with and without antifibrotic therapy, while overall mortality was considerably higher in the group not treated with antifibrotics. At first glance, our data could provide a basis for a hypothesis that stable physiological measurements such as FVC and DLCO alone may not provide a safeguard against premature mortality in IPF. Lung function measurement every 6–12 months is common practice and thus employed in our registry. However, such measurements may be less sensitive to detect differences in the course of IPF compared to highly standardised serial measurements at shorter intervals, which are commonly applied in clinical trials. Moreover, missing lung function data may have contributed to blunt differences of the slope of FVC and DLCO decline between patients with and without antifibrotic therapy. In this context, it is noteworthy that hospital-based FVC measurements, compared with unsupervised daily home measurements, have been suggested to be less sensitive in detecting progression of fibrosis and in predicting subsequent prognosis [19]. However, a recent clinical treatment trial using daily home spirometry for the primary end-point revealed potential technical and practical obstacles associated with this methodology [20].

The phenomenon of emphysema blunting the decline of FVC in both groups may have contributed to this observation, but the prevalence of emphysema as reported by the investigators was low in both groups. In addition, the higher preponderance of steroid-treated patients in the group not treated with antifibrotics may be considered to potentially contribute to a higher mortality in this group. However, the mean prednisone dosage in our study (given to a quarter of patients in our study) was 14 mg·day−1. In the INPULSIS study the maximum dose was 15 mg·day−1 and in the ASCEND study, prednisone was only allowed if given for another indication [21, 22]. Nonetheless, we cannot exclude that unbalanced steroid medication has contributed to the observed difference. Finally, antioxidant drugs (N-acetylcysteine) were less commonly used in the antifibrotic therapy arm. The impact of these drugs on prognosis is still under discussion, and thus a bias cannot be fully excluded [23, 24]. In consideration of all the limitations our data should be taken as a signal of caution that stability of FVC and DLCO may not always protect from premature mortality in the absence of antifibrotic therapy in a fatal disease such as IPF. The common practice, still widely used, of withholding antifibrotic therapy from physiologically stable IPF patients may therefore set these patients on a path of increased risk of dying [25].

Another important aspect of our study is the fact that all patients were enrolled solely based on investigator judgement. Therefore, the cohort of patients enrolled included all the imponderabilities of diagnosis in this complex disease that occur in daily practice. The observed difference in survival in favour of antifibrotic therapy is an important argument for the clinical application of these drugs, even though a causative argument cannot be made from our study. This observation is therefore in accordance with recent clinical trials showing that antifibrotic therapies are effective in progressive fibrotic interstitial lung diseases other than IPF [20, 26, 27].

Our data do not identify a cause for the difference in overall mortality between patients with and without antifibrotic therapy. However, we can speculate that acute exacerbation may have contributed substantially to this difference.

A number of limitations need to be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings. The major limitation of this study is that patients with existing (prevalent) and newly diagnosed (incident) IPF were documented, which may potentially cause lead time bias regarding mortality. This is especially important since time to diagnosis was ∼1 year longer in the never-treated population, which could indicate a “healthy survivor effect” [28]. Furthermore, there was no randomisation between the group of patients who had never been treated with an antifibrotic therapy and patients who were treated with an antifibrotic drug. To account for bias by indication, we calculated a propensity score to estimate the probability of being treated with an antifibrotic drug in our registry based on clinical characteristics. However, there may exist unmeasured variables that cannot be included in the propensity score model that may have impacted the association between antifibrotic therapy and mortality. Furthermore, accompanying therapies such as anti-oxidant or anti-acid therapy may have impacted the results of our analysis. In addition, we had to account for a high proportion of missing values in the pulmonary function tests and in the 6MWD test in the follow-up data, which could have affected our results. The fact that only ILD specialty centres participated in the INSIGHTS-IPF registry may limit the generalisability of our study.

In conclusion, we were able to demonstrate a significant lower all-cause mortality in IPF patients treated with antifibrotic drugs when compared to a matched cohort of IPF patients not treated with antifibrotic drugs. Moreover, our analysis provides a basis for the hypothesis that stability of lung function parameters over time, especially FVC and DLCO, in untreated IPF patients may be misleading as our data indicate that stability of these parameters probably do not protect from premature death.

Shareable PDF

Supplementary Material

This one-page PDF can be shared freely online.

Shareable PDF ERJ-02279-2019.Shareable

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the patients for their participation in the registry. The authors acknowledge the sustained valuable contribution of Silke Geier (deceased in September 2019) to this registry.

Footnotes

  • This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov with identifier number NCT01695408. The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

  • Conflict of interest: J. Behr reports grants and personal fees from Boehriger Ingelheim, personal fees from Actelion, Roche, Galapagos, Promedior, BMS and MSD, during the conduct of the study.

  • Conflict of interest: A. Prasse reports grants and personal fees from Roche/InterMune and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: H. Wirtz reports personal fees from Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: D. Koschel has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: D. Pittrow reports personal fees from Actelion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Biogen, Shield and MSD, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Held has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: J. Klotsche has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: S. Andreas reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Claussen reports personal fees from Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: C. Grohé has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: H. Wilkens reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Actelion, Biotest, GSK, Pfizer and Bayer, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: L. Hagmeyer has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: D. Skowasch reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: J.F. Meyer reports personal fees for lectures from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: J. Kirschner has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: S. Gläser reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, personal fees from Roche, Actelion, Berlin Chemie and Astra, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: N. Kahn has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: T. Welte reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Roche, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: C. Neurohr reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Schwaiblmair has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: T. Bahmer reports grants from German Center of Lung Research (DZL), personal fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK and Novartis, outside the submitted work.

  • Conflict of interest: T. Oqueka has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Frankenberger has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Kreuter reports grants and personal fees from Roche/InterMune and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work.

  • Support statement: This study and all costs associated with the development and publication of this manuscript were funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. The company has no influence on the conduct of the study or interpretation of data, or reporting. The study was supported with an unrestricted educational grant by Boehringer Ingelheim, Germany. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

  • Received November 26, 2019.
  • Accepted April 7, 2020.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2020
https://www.ersjournals.com/user-licence

References

  1. ↵
    1. Raghu G,
    2. Rochwerg B,
    3. Zhang Y, et al.
    An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT clinical practice guideline: treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. An update of the 2011 clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 192: e3–e19. doi:10.1164/rccm.201506-1063ST
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Rochwerg B,
    2. Neupane B,
    3. Zhang Y, et al.
    Treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a network meta-analysis. BMC Med 2016; 14: 18. doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0558-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Wuyts WA,
    2. Dahlqvist C,
    3. Slabbynck H, et al.
    Baseline clinical characteristics, comorbidities and prescribed medication in a real-world population of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: the PROOF registry. BMJ Open Respir Res 2018; 5: e000331.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Jo HE,
    2. Glaspole I,
    3. Goh N, et al.
    Implications of the diagnostic criteria of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in clinical practice: Analysis from the Australian Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Registry. Respirology 2019; 24: 361–368. doi:10.1111/resp.13427
    OpenUrl
    1. Pesonen I,
    2. Carlson L,
    3. Murgia N, et al.
    Delay and inequalities in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: the case of two Nordic countries. Multidiscip Respir Med 2018; 13: 14. doi:10.1186/s40248-018-0126-7
    OpenUrl
    1. Bouros D,
    2. Daniil Z,
    3. Papakosta D, et al.
    Design, rationale, methodology, and aims of a Greek prospective idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis registry: Investigating Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis in Greece (INDULGE IPF). Respiration 2018; 96: 41–47. doi:10.1159/000487244
    OpenUrl
    1. O'Brien EC,
    2. Durheim MT,
    3. Gamerman V, et al.
    Rationale for and design of the Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis-Prospective Outcomes (IPF-PRO) registry. BMJ Open Respir Res 2016; 3: e000108.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Doubková M,
    2. Švancara J,
    3. Svoboda M, et al.
    EMPIRE Registry, Czech Part: impact of demographics, pulmonary function and HRCT on survival and clinical course in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Clin Respir J 2018; 12: 1526–1535. doi:10.1111/crj.12700
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Raghu G,
    2. Collard HR,
    3. Egan JJ, et al.
    An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT statement: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011; 183: 788–824.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Kreuter M,
    2. Swigris J,
    3. Pittrow D, et al.
    Health related quality of life in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in clinical practice: insights-IPF registry. Respir Res 2017; 18: 139.
    1. Behr J,
    2. Kreuter M,
    3. Hoeper MM, et al.
    Management of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in clinical practice: the INSIGHTS-IPF registry. Eur Respir J 2015; 46: 186–196.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Behr J,
    2. Hoeper MM,
    3. Kreuter M, et al.
    Charakteristika und Versorgung der idiopathischen Lungenfibrose. [Characteristics and management of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: INSIGHTS-IPF registry]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2012; 137: 2586–2588.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Ley B,
    2. Ryerson CJ,
    3. Vittinghoff E, et al.
    A multidimensional index and staging system for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 684–691. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-156-10-201205150-00004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Agoritsas T,
    2. Merglen A,
    3. Shah ND, et al.
    Adjusted analyses in studies addressing therapy and harm: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA 2017; 317: 748–759.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Ferdinand D,
    2. Otto M,
    3. Weiss C
    . Get the most from your data: a propensity score model comparison on real-life data. Int J Gen Med 2016; 9: 123–131.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Austin PC
    . An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 2011; 46: 399–424.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Cole SR,
    2. Hernán MA
    . Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 168: 656–664.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    1. Guenther A,
    2. Krauss E,
    3. Tello S, et al.
    The European IPF registry (eurIPFreg): baseline characteristics and survival of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Respir Res 2018; 19: 141. doi:10.1186/s12931-018-0845-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Russell AM,
    2. Adamali H,
    3. Molyneaux PL, et al.
    Daily home spirometry: an effective tool for detecting progression in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 194: 989–997. doi:10.1164/rccm.201511-2152OC
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Maher TM,
    2. Corte TJ,
    3. Fischer A
    , et al. Pirfenidone in patients with unclassifiable progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 147-157. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30341-8
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Richeldi L,
    2. du Bois RM,
    3. Raghu G, et al.
    Efficacy and safety of nintedanib in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 2071–2082. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1402584
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. King TE Jr.,
    2. Bradford WZ,
    3. Castro-Bernardini S, et al.
    A phase 3 trial of pirfenidone in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 2083–2092. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1402582
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    1. Behr J,
    2. Bendstrup E,
    3. Crestani B, et al.
    Safety and tolerability of acetylcysteine and pirfenidone combination therapy in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Respir Med 2016; 4: 445–453. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(16)30044-3
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Oldham JM,
    2. Ma SF,
    3. Martinez FJ, et al.
    TOLLIP, MUC5B, and the response to N-acetylcysteine among individuals with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 192: 1475–1482. doi:10.1164/rccm.201505-1010OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Maher TM,
    2. Swigris JJ,
    3. Kreuter M, et al.
    Identifying barriers to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis treatment: a survey of patient and physician views. Respiration 2018; 96: 514–524. doi:10.1159/000490667
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Flaherty KR,
    2. Wells AU,
    3. Cottin V, et al.
    Nintedanib in progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases. N Engl J Med 2019; 381: 1718–1727. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Distler O,
    2. Highland KB,
    3. Gahlemann M
    , et al. Nintedanib for systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 2518–2528.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Delgado-Rodriguez M,
    2. Llorca J
    . Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004; 58: 635–641. doi:10.1136/jech.2003.008466
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 56 Issue 2 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 56 (2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Survival and course of lung function in the presence or absence of antifibrotic treatment in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: long-term results of the INSIGHTS-IPF registry
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Survival and course of lung function in the presence or absence of antifibrotic treatment in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: long-term results of the INSIGHTS-IPF registry
Jürgen Behr, Antje Prasse, Hubert Wirtz, Dirk Koschel, David Pittrow, Matthias Held, Jens Klotsche, Stefan Andreas, Martin Claussen, Christian Grohé, Henrike Wilkens, Lars Hagmeyer, Dirk Skowasch, Joachim F. Meyer, Joachim Kirschner, Sven Gläser, Nicolas Kahn, Tobias Welte, Claus Neurohr, Martin Schwaiblmair, Thomas Bahmer, Tim Oqueka, Marion Frankenberger, Michael Kreuter
European Respiratory Journal Aug 2020, 56 (2) 1902279; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02279-2019

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Survival and course of lung function in the presence or absence of antifibrotic treatment in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: long-term results of the INSIGHTS-IPF registry
Jürgen Behr, Antje Prasse, Hubert Wirtz, Dirk Koschel, David Pittrow, Matthias Held, Jens Klotsche, Stefan Andreas, Martin Claussen, Christian Grohé, Henrike Wilkens, Lars Hagmeyer, Dirk Skowasch, Joachim F. Meyer, Joachim Kirschner, Sven Gläser, Nicolas Kahn, Tobias Welte, Claus Neurohr, Martin Schwaiblmair, Thomas Bahmer, Tim Oqueka, Marion Frankenberger, Michael Kreuter
European Respiratory Journal Aug 2020, 56 (2) 1902279; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02279-2019
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Shareable PDF
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Interstitial and orphan lung disease
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Original Articles

  • Viable virus aerosol propagation by PAP circuit leak
  • Ambulatory management of secondary spontaneous pneumothorax
  • Systematic assessment of respiratory health in illness susceptible athletes
Show more Original Articles

Interstitial lung disease

  • GLPG1205 for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a phase 2 RCT
  • Air pollutants, genetic susceptibility and risk of incident IPF
  • Nintedanib plus chemotherapy for NSCLC with IPF
Show more Interstitial lung disease

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society