ArticlePLoS medicine2026
Cost-effectiveness of pirfenidone for patients with cancer and grade 2 or grade 3 radiation-induced lung injury: A modeling study.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03902509 (A Randomized, Controlled, Multi-site Study About Safety and Efficacy of Pirfenidone to Treat Grade 2 or Grade3 Radiation-induced Lung Injury.), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Randomized, Controlled, Multi-site Study About Safety and Efficacy of Pirfenidone to Treat Grade 2 or Grade3 Radiation-induced Lung Injury.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe cost-effective treatment strategy for radiation-induced lung injury (RILI) remains unclear. Our recent phase II randomized clinical trial has proved pirfenidone to be safe and effective for grade 2 or 3 RILI. Here, we aim to assess the cost-effectiveness of pirfenidone plus glucocorticoids versus glucocorticoids alone for the treatment of grade 2 or 3 RILI. METHODS AND
findingsWe constructed a Markov model based on the individual-level data from our trial (NCT03902509) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pirfenidone plus glucocorticoids. Outcomes were simulated in a 4-week cycle over a 24-week time horizon to model patients who had acute pulmonary exacerbation or RILI progression. Costs and utilities were discounted at 3% annually. Health outcomes were measured using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), representing incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained between the two treatment groups. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the model uncertainties. The simulated RILI pattern in the Markov model closely matched the pattern in the trial cohort, indicating that the model accurately described the disease process of RILI. Compared with glucocorticoids alone, pirfenidone plus glucocorticoids yielded an additional 0.028 QALYs at an incremental cost of $590, with an ICER of $20,956 per QALY gained. The ICER was considerably below the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the variables with the greatest influence on the ICER included the acute pulmonary exacerbation-free survival and the probability of non-response among patients with grade 2 or 3 RILI in glucocorticoid group. Moreover, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that pirfenidone plus glucocorticoids had a 99.98% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY. Limitations include the phase II trial data with limited sample size and follow-up. An ongoing phase III trial will provide further evidence.
conclusionsFor grade 2 or 3 RILI, pirfenidone plus glucocorticoids is cost-effective compared with glucocorticoids alone. This strategy offers a practical and evidence-based option for RILI clinical management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.