4.5 Article

Lung function outcomes in the INPULSIS® trials of nintedanib in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 146, 期 -, 页码 42-48

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2018.11.012

关键词

Vital capacity; Respiratory function tests; Pulmonary gas exchange; Interstitial lung diseases; Protein-tyrosine kinases

资金

  1. Boehringer Ingelheim

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In the INPULSIS (R) trials, nintedanib reduced the annual rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) versus placebo, consistent with slowing of disease progression. We characterised the effects of nintedanib on physiologic outcomes using pooled data from the INPULSIS (R) trials. Methods: Post-hoc analyses included changes in FVC over time, cumulative distribution of patients by change in FVC % predicted, and annual rate of decline in FVC in subgroups by diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLco) and composite physiologic index (CPI) at baseline. Changes from baseline in DLco and oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry (SpO(2)) were pre-specified. Results: Nintedanib significantly reduced FVC decline versus placebo from week 12. A higher proportion of patients treated with nintedanib than placebo had an improvement or no decline in FVC % predicted, whereas a smaller proportion had absolute declines in FVC >= 5% or >= 10% predicted from baseline to week 52. The effect of nintedanib on FVC decline was similar in patients with baseline DLco > 40% versus <= 40% predicted or CPI <= 45 versus > 45. There were no significant differences between nintedanib and placebo in change from baseline in DLco % predicted, CPI, or SpO(2) at week 52. However, change (deterioration) in CPI was significantly lower with nintedanib versus placebo in patients with CPI > 45 at baseline (1.0 versus 2.9) and CPI > 55 at baseline (-1.2 versus 3.3). Conclusions: A range of physiologic outcome measures in the INPULSIS (R) trials support the effect of nintedanib on reducing disease progression in patients with IPF.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据