Efficacy and safety of nintedanib in patients with advanced idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The two 52-week INPULSIS trials investigated nintedanib versus placebo in patients with IPF, FVC ≥50% predicted and DLco 30-79% predicted. The 24-week INSTAGE trial investigated nintedanib plus sildenafil versus nintedanib alone in patients with IPF and DLco ≤35% predicted. We used data from INPULSIS and INSTAGE to compare the effects of nintedanib in patients with IPF with less versus more severe impairment in gas exchange at baseline. METHODS: Analyses were conducted in patients treated with nintedanib alone in the INPULSIS and INSTAGE trials and in patients treated with placebo in the INPULSIS trials. Outcomes included the rate of decline in FVC over 24 weeks, the proportions of patients who had a confirmed or suspected idiopathic acute exacerbation over 24 weeks, deaths over 24 weeks, and adverse events. Analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: In total, 638 and 136 patients received nintedanib alone in the INPULSIS and INSTAGE trials, respectively, and 423 patients received placebo in the INPULSIS trials. Rates of FVC decline were - 52.3 and - 66.7 mL/24 weeks in patients treated with nintedanib alone in INPULSIS and INSTAGE, respectively, and - 102.8 mL/24 weeks in patients treated with placebo in INPULSIS. Confirmed or suspected idiopathic acute exacerbations were reported in 0.6 and 3.7% of patients treated with nintedanib alone in INPULSIS and INSTAGE, respectively, and 2.1% of patients treated with placebo in INPULSIS. Deaths occurred in 2.0, 11.0 and 1.9% of patients in these groups, respectively. Diarrhoea adverse events were reported in 52.5 and 48.5% of patients treated with nintedanib alone in INPULSIS and INSTAGE, respectively, and 16.1% of patients treated with placebo in INPULSIS. CONCLUSIONS: Based on data from the INSTAGE and INPULSIS trials, nintedanib had a similar effect on FVC decline over 24 weeks, and a similar safety and tolerability profile, in patients with IPF and more versus less severe impairment in gas exchange. These data support the use of nintedanib in patients with IPF who have advanced disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: INPULSIS (NCT01335464 and NCT01335477); INSTAGE (NCT02802345).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".