Evidence Hub

Nintedanib plus Sildenafil in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

Kolb M, Raghu G, Wells AU, Behr J, Richeldi L, Schinzel B, Quaresma M, Stowasser S et al.

New England Journal of Medicine, 2018

274 participants · 265 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nintedanib is an approved treatment for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). A subgroup analysis of a previously published trial suggested that sildenafil may provide benefits regarding oxygenation, gas exchange as measured by the diffusion capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DlCO), symptoms, and quality of life in patients with IPF and severely decreased DlCO. That idea was tested in this trial.

METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with IPF and a DlCO of 35% or less of the predicted value to receive nintedanib at a dose of 150 mg twice daily plus sildenafil at a dose of 20 mg three times daily (nintedanib-plus-sildenafil group) or nintedanib at a dose of 150 mg twice daily plus placebo three times daily (nintedanib group) for 24 weeks. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the total score on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) at week 12 (the total score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating worse health-related quality of life). Secondary end points included measures of dyspnea and safety.

RESULTS: A total of 274 patients underwent randomization. There was no significant difference in the adjusted mean change from baseline in the SGRQ total score at week 12 between the nintedanib-plus-sildenafil group and the nintedanib group (-1.28 points and -0.77 points, respectively; P=0.72). A benefit from sildenafil treatment was not observed with regard to dyspnea as measured with the use of the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 274 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free