Low Rates of Discontinuation from the Program
As of the end of October 2014 (18 months since launch), 465 patients had been enrolled in IPF Care in the UK. The majority of patients (332/465 patients; 71%) were on pirfenidone therapy for less than 30 days at the time of enrollment into the program.
Of the 465 patients enrolled, 71 % (332 patients) remain in the program at the time of reporting (November 5, 2014). The average time on treatment for all enrolled patients was 239 days, with an average of 4.1 calls made per patient. The most common reasons for no longer participating in the program were permanent discontinuation of pirfenidone [n = 74 (16%)] and patient death [n = 51 (11%)]. Eight patients (2%) withdrew from the program for other reasons. Approximately half (49%) of all enrolled patients were on maintenance therapy (i.e., successfully titrated to receive a stable pirfenidone dose) at time of reporting, with smaller proportions of patients titrating treatment (9%) or temporarily not receiving treatment (5%), as shown in Fig. 1.
The most common reasons for stopping treatment and/or withdrawing from the program (aside from death) were AEs [n = 35 (8%)] and worsening symptoms [n = 12 (3%)], followed by treatment ‘not working’ [n = 5 (1%)], transplant [n = 3 (<1%)], wrong diagnosis [n = 1 (<1%)], other health issues [n = 1 (<1%)], and ‘other’ [n = 20 (4%)], with no reason specified for some patients [n = 5 (1%)]. Decisions to permanently stop treatment and/or withdraw from the program were more often led by the physician [n = 62 (13%)] as opposed to the patient [n = 15 (3%)] [not specified: n = 5 (1%)] with most withdrawals occurring during the second and third months of therapy [n = 24/82 (29%)], after patients had participated in, on average, 3.2 calls.
Patients Discuss a Wide Range of Topics, Not Always Pertaining to Pirfenidone Treatment
Data have been analyzed to investigate how the program is performing against its key objectives, and to ascertain what benefits it is providing for patients. A total of 823 calls (representing 239 patients) were analyzed. The average initial call length was 20.4 min and the average follow-up call length 19.7 min. A list of individual topics was identified (Table 1), and the frequency with which these topics were discussed during the calls was calculated.
Table 1 Frequency of individual topics discussed during calls in IPF Care in the UK (823 calls assessed)
The most frequently discussed topics (total mentions, all calls) during these conversations were not directly related to pirfenidone treatment (Fig. 2a). Patients were more likely to talk about test results (lung function tests, chest X-rays, and echocardiograms), oxygen and homecare/drug delivery (Fig. 2b). Other illnesses and associated treatments were also frequently discussed during the calls (Table 1).
AEs Occurred Early in Treatment, But the Majority of Affected Patients Continued on a Stable Maintenance Dose of Pirfenidone
In total, 267/823 (32%) calls included a mention of at least one AE. When analyzed by each individual communication, patients more frequently reported AEs from the second call (which would typically take place 1–2 months after treatment initiation) onwards (Fig. 3). The first call will usually take place while the patients are up-titrating their dose over a 14-day period (minimum). AEs are less likely to occur during this titration period, but may start to emerge once patients are receiving the maximum recommended daily dose of nine capsules, which would usually coincide with the timing of the second call. If an AE is reported during a conversation, a follow-up call to the patient will be made within 1–2 weeks to check if the self-management strategies advised by the nurse are effective. This accounts for the high percentage of subsequent calls discussing AEs as shown in Fig. 3. The occurrence of AEs early in treatment observed here is in agreement with previous safety assessments of pirfenidone in a clinical setting, which report that gastrointestinal and skin-related AEs tend to occur within the first 6 months of treatment and decrease in frequency over time [24].
When analyzed by number of patients, 140/239 patients (59%) reported at least one AE during these calls. Of these 140 patients who reported at least one AE, the majority (66%) remained on maintenance therapy, with a smaller proportion (13%) discontinuing treatment (Fig. 4).
Patient-Reported Satisfaction with the Program was High
Over the past 20 years, patient satisfaction surveys have gained increasing acceptance as sources of information for assessing and improving healthcare resources [29]. Research indicates that better ‘patient care experiences’ are associated with higher levels of adherence to prevention and treatment interventions, better clinical outcomes, better patient safety within hospitals, and less healthcare utilization [30]. A survey assessing patient satisfaction in IPF Care was performed to ascertain how patients feel about the program with regard to disease management and education. Patients diagnosed with IPF in the previous 12 months, who were participating in IPF Care for longer than 4 weeks and who were on maintenance therapy at the last point of contact, were sent a questionnaire by post consisting of eight questions related to their experience with the program (Fig. 5). Of the 100 survey questionnaires sent to patients, 44 completed responses were received.
Patient ratings suggested that IPF Care provided improvements in terms of feeling in control of their condition, knowing what to expect from treatment, and feeling confident about how their disease was managed (Table 2). The majority of patients also reported that the topics discussed with the specialist nurses were ‘the same’ or ‘similar’ to the topics discussed at clinic visits (Fig. 6). However, general feedback suggested that patients were more comfortable and relaxed discussing these topics over the phone with the nurse, as opposed to in a hospital or clinic environment. When asked to rate the importance of having specialist nurses as the IPF Health Coaches (1 = not at all important; 10 = essential), the average score was 8.7 (range 1–10; mode 10).
Table 2 Patient perception regarding disease, treatment and management before and after participation in IPF Care in the UK
Patients were asked to rate their agreement with the statement “I have stayed on Esbriet treatment longer than I would have done without the support of the IPF Care program” (1 = completely disagree, 10 = completely agree). The average score reported was 7.0 (range 1–10; mode 10). When asked to rate if they thought the program would be useful to other patients taking Esbriet (1 = extremely unlikely, 10 = definitely), the average score was 8.7 (range 5–10; mode 10). Patients were also asked to provide their reasons for the score they gave for this last question. Reasons provided by patients included: “Knowing support is a phone call away makes me feel less panicky”, “It provides a human element”, “It is helpful to know someone is keeping an eye on you”, “Being able to speak to someone over the phone about my problems has been very reassuring, rather than having to wait until my next clinic visit”, “The extra support is reassuring”, “There is always help on the end of the phone when you are struggling with breathing”, “Gives you more confidence and peace of mind”, “It enables me to discuss all aspects of IPF and ask questions that may seem insignificant”, “They have changed my life, they have given me freedom”, and “They put my mind at rest regarding the side effects”.
At the end of the survey, patients were asked to provide any other feedback about IPF Care. The following is a selection of comments: “Feels easier to ask trivial things—which are still important—of a nurse who rings up like a friend”, “Care and support is excellent”, “The IPF nurses are well trained”, “I like talking to my support nurse”, “I feel more relaxed talking to IPF Care support, as hospital environment does not always help you relax”, “With the lack of knowledge about this disease, any information is welcome”, “Staff are extremely helpful and have time to talk”, and “I feel this is very important to all patients”.
It should be noted that as only patients on maintenance therapy were chosen to participate in the survey, this may represent a selection bias. These patients were tolerating the full dose of pirfenidone with little or no AEs, and may therefore not have received as many calls from the IPF Care nurse as patients struggling with tolerating the full pirfenidone dose.