IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nintedanib Versus Pirfenidone in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis in Belgium


  • C. Rinciog

    (Symmetron Limited)

  • A. Diamantopoulos

    (Symmetron Limited)

  • A. Gentilini

    (Symmetron Limited)

  • B. Bondue

    (Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB))

  • C. Dahlqvist

    (CHU UCL Namur Site Godinne)

  • A. Froidure

    (Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain))

  • W. A. Wuyts

    (University Hospitals Leuven)

  • S. Soulard

    (Boehringer Ingelheim)


Background Nintedanib (Ofev®) and pirfenidone (Esbriet®) are recommended by international guidelines as treatment options for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Objectives To compare the cost-effectiveness of nintedanib with that of pirfenidone for the treatment of IPF from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective. Methods The economic analysis used a Markov model that calculated outcomes over patient lifetime. Overall survival was assumed to be the same for the two comparators. Data from a network meta-analysis were used for loss of lung function, acute exacerbation events, safety and treatment discontinuation (for any reason). The health-state utility estimates in the model were calculated from EQ-5D scores collected in nintedanib studies. The assumed resource use for background care was also based on patient-level data that were categorised to fit the health states in the model and synthesised with costs and tariffs from Belgian national databases. Results Treatment with nintedanib resulted in an estimated total cost of €102,315, which was less than the total cost of treatment with pirfenidone (€113,313). Given the similarities in the survival and progression outcomes obtained with nintedanib and pirfenidone, the model predicted near equivalence in total QALYs (3.353 QALYs for the nintedanib arm and 3.318 for the pirfenidone arm). Results were largely driven by model assumptions underlying mortality, acute exacerbations and treatment discontinuation. Conclusions After performing a synthesis of the most recently published evidence for IPF patients and assuming a Belgian healthcare payer perspective, we found nintedanib to be more cost-saving than pirfenidone.

Suggested Citation

  • C. Rinciog & A. Diamantopoulos & A. Gentilini & B. Bondue & C. Dahlqvist & A. Froidure & W. A. Wuyts & S. Soulard, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Nintedanib Versus Pirfenidone in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis in Belgium," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 449-458, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:4:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-019-00191-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-019-00191-w

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item


    Blog mentions

    As found by, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Rita Faria’s journal round-up for 14th September 2020
      by Rita Faria in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-09-14 11:00:07

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:4:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-019-00191-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.