Physician Views: Ofev approved, Esbriet label updated – what impact on IPF-treating pulmonologists in the EU5?
The European idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) community appears to have benefited from a number of recent developments.
Last month, Boehringer Ingelheim's Ofev was approved as the second treatment for IPF in the region, while towards the end of last year, the label for Esbriet – a competing therapy already available in the region – was updated to include a mortality benefit.
Furthermore, Esbriet was integrated into the portfolio of Swiss Big Pharma player Roche last year following its acquisition of InterMune, a move that should hopefully improve patient access.
Much focus on the IPF market has been in the US where both Ofev and Esbriet were approved in the fourth quarter of 2014 (Esbriet was approved in Europe during 2011, but InterMune was required to carry out additional Phase III studies to secure US clearance).
See Physician Views Poll Results: The idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) market – let battle commence.
However, approval of Boehringer Ingelheim's drug will now intensify competition in the EU market where between 80,000 and 100,000 patients are believed to suffer from IPF.
To better ascertain how this competitive dynamic may play out, FirstWord is this week polling pulmonologists based in the EU5 markets (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK) to ascertain their views towards both products. Specifically we are asking them...
How important they consider the recent approval of a second IPF therapy in Europe to be in advancing the standard of care for this condition (i.e. in terms of clinical profile for Ofev versus Esbriet)?
What the likelihood is that a label update for Esbriet to include polled mortality benefit will have a significantly positive impact on their usage of the drug?
Based on clinical profile, which product – Esbriet or Ofev – they think is superior and to what extent?
To what extent would you expect Esbriet's existing position in the market to act as a barrier to uptake for nintedanib?
How satisfied they are with patient access to IPF therapy in their domestic market?
Last month, Boehringer Ingelheim's Ofev was approved as the second treatment for IPF in the region, while towards the end of last year, the label for Esbriet – a competing therapy already available in the region – was updated to include a mortality benefit.
Furthermore, Esbriet was integrated into the portfolio of Swiss Big Pharma player Roche last year following its acquisition of InterMune, a move that should hopefully improve patient access.
Much focus on the IPF market has been in the US where both Ofev and Esbriet were approved in the fourth quarter of 2014 (Esbriet was approved in Europe during 2011, but InterMune was required to carry out additional Phase III studies to secure US clearance).
See Physician Views Poll Results: The idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) market – let battle commence.
However, approval of Boehringer Ingelheim's drug will now intensify competition in the EU market where between 80,000 and 100,000 patients are believed to suffer from IPF.
To better ascertain how this competitive dynamic may play out, FirstWord is this week polling pulmonologists based in the EU5 markets (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK) to ascertain their views towards both products. Specifically we are asking them...
How important they consider the recent approval of a second IPF therapy in Europe to be in advancing the standard of care for this condition (i.e. in terms of clinical profile for Ofev versus Esbriet)?
What the likelihood is that a label update for Esbriet to include polled mortality benefit will have a significantly positive impact on their usage of the drug?
Based on clinical profile, which product – Esbriet or Ofev – they think is superior and to what extent?
To what extent would you expect Esbriet's existing position in the market to act as a barrier to uptake for nintedanib?
How satisfied they are with patient access to IPF therapy in their domestic market?
