-
JAMA May 2024Interstitial lung disease (ILD) consists of a group of pulmonary disorders characterized by inflammation and/or fibrosis of the lung parenchyma associated with... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) consists of a group of pulmonary disorders characterized by inflammation and/or fibrosis of the lung parenchyma associated with progressive dyspnea that frequently results in end-stage respiratory failure. In the US, ILD affects approximately 650 000 people and causes approximately 25 000 to 30 000 deaths per year.
OBSERVATIONS
The most common forms of ILD are idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), which accounts for approximately one-third of all cases of ILD, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, accounting for 15% of ILD cases, and connective tissue disease (CTD), accounting for 25% of ILD cases. ILD typically presents with dyspnea on exertion. Approximately 30% of patients with ILD report cough. Thoracic computed tomography is approximately 91% sensitive and 71% specific for diagnosing subtypes of ILDs such as IPF. Physiologic assessment provides important prognostic information. A 5% decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) over 12 months is associated with an approximately 2-fold increase in mortality compared with no change in FVC. Antifibrotic therapy with nintedanib or pirfenidone slows annual FVC decline by approximately 44% to 57% in individuals with IPF, scleroderma associated ILD, and in those with progressive pulmonary fibrosis of any cause. For connective tissue disease-associated ILD, immunomodulatory therapy, such as tocilizumab, rituximab, and mycophenolate mofetil, may slow decline or even improve FVC at 12-month follow-up. Structured exercise therapy reduces symptoms and improves 6-minute walk test distance in individuals with dyspnea. Oxygen reduces symptoms and improves quality of life in individuals with ILD who desaturate below 88% on a 6-minute walk test. Lung transplant may improve symptoms and resolve respiratory failure in patients with end-stage ILD. After lung transplant, patients with ILD have a median survival of 5.2 to 6.7 years compared with a median survival of less than 2 years in patients with advanced ILD who do not undergo lung transplant. Up to 85% of individuals with end-stage fibrotic ILD develop pulmonary hypertension. In these patients, treatment with inhaled treprostinil improves walking distance and respiratory symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Interstitial lung disease typically presents with dyspnea on exertion and can progress to respiratory failure. First-line therapy includes nintedanib or pirfenidone for IPF and mycophenolate mofetil for ILD due to connective tissue disease. Lung transplant should be considered for patients with advanced ILD. In patients with ILD, exercise training improves 6-minute walk test distance and quality of life.
Topics: Humans; Antifibrotic Agents; Connective Tissue Diseases; Dyspnea; Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis; Indoles; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Lung Transplantation; Prognosis; Pyridones; Respiratory System Agents; United States; Vital Capacity
PubMed: 38648021
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.3669 -
BMC Pulmonary Medicine Dec 2021Research questions To compare the efficacy of nintedanib and pirfenidone in the treatment of progressive pulmonary fibrosis; and to compare the efficacy of anti-fibrotic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of antifibrotic drugs, nintedanib and pirfenidone, in treatment of progressive pulmonary fibrosis in both idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and non-IPF: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Research questions To compare the efficacy of nintedanib and pirfenidone in the treatment of progressive pulmonary fibrosis; and to compare the efficacy of anti-fibrotic therapy (grouping nintedanib and pirfenidone together) in patients with IPF versus patients with progressive lung fibrosis not classified as IPF.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
A search of databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted. Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials of pirfenidone or nintedanib in adult patients with IPF or non-IPF patients, and with extractable data on mortality or decline in forced vital capacity (FVC). Random effects meta-analyses were performed on changes in FVC and where possible on mortality in the selected studies.
RESULTS
13 trials of antifibrotic therapy were pooled in a meta-analysis (with pirfenidone and nintedanib considered together as anti-fibrotic therapy). The change in FVC was expressed as a standardised difference to allow pooling of percentage and absolute changes. The mean effect size in the IPF studies was - 0.305 (SE 0.043) (p < 0.001) and in the non-IPF studies the figures were - 0.307 (SE 0.063) (p < 0.001). There was no evidence of any difference between the two groups for standardised rate of FVC decline (p = 0.979). Pooling IPF and non-IPF showed a significant reduction in mortality, with mean risk ratio of 07.01 in favour of antifibrotic therapy (p = 0.008). A separate analysis restricted to non-IPF did not show a significant reduction in mortality (risk ratio 0.908 (0.547 to 1.508), p = 0.71.
INTERPRETATION
Anti-fibrotic therapy offers protection against the rate of decline in FVC in progressive lung fibrosis, with similar efficacy shown between the two anti-fibrotic agents currently in clinical use. There was no significant difference in efficacy of antifibrotic therapy whether the underlying condition was IPF or non-IPF with progressive fibrosis, supporting the hypothesis of a common pathogenesis. The data in this analysis was insufficient to be confident about a reduction in mortality in non-IPF with anti-fibrotic therapy. Trial Registration PROSPERO, registration number CRD42021266046.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antifibrotic Agents; Cause of Death; Humans; Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis; Indoles; Pulmonary Fibrosis; Pyridones; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34895203
DOI: 10.1186/s12890-021-01783-1 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Sep 2019Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic, progressive, fibrosing interstitial lung disease, characterised by progressive scarring of the lung and associated with... (Review)
Review
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic, progressive, fibrosing interstitial lung disease, characterised by progressive scarring of the lung and associated with a high burden of disease and early death. The pathophysiological understanding, clinical diagnostics and therapy of IPF have significantly evolved in recent years. While the recent introduction of the two antifibrotic drugs pirfenidone and nintedanib led to a significant reduction in lung function decline, there is still no cure for IPF; thus, new therapeutic approaches are needed. Currently, several clinical phase I-III trials are focusing on novel therapeutic targets. Furthermore, new approaches in nonpharmacological treatments in palliative care, pulmonary rehabilitation, lung transplantation, management of comorbidities and acute exacerbations aim to improve symptom control and quality of life. Here we summarise new therapeutic attempts and potential future approaches to treat this devastating disease.
Topics: Animals; Comorbidity; Disease Progression; Humans; Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis; Indoles; Lung; Lung Transplantation; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Palliative Care; Pyridones; Respiratory System Agents; Respiratory Therapy; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31484664
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0021-2019 -
Journal of Thoracic Disease Sep 2019Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is an advancing and fatal lung disease with increasing incidence and prevalence. Nintedanib and pirfenidone were approved by the FDA... (Review)
Review
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is an advancing and fatal lung disease with increasing incidence and prevalence. Nintedanib and pirfenidone were approved by the FDA for the treatment of IPF in 2014 based on positive phase 3 trials, and both of these antifibrotic drugs are conditionally recommended in the 2015 ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT Clinical Practice Guideline. Although an improvement over previously suggested therapies, their capacity to reduce, but not completely arrest or improve, lung function over time presents an opportunity for novel or add-on pharmacologic agents. The purpose of this review is to deliver a brief overview of the results of phase 3/4 IPF trials with pirfenidone and nintedanib, as well as highlight encouraging results of phase 1/2 trials with novel therapies. Long-term studies indicate that pirfenidone and nintedanib are effective IPF treatments, with acceptable safety and tolerability. The combination of pirfenidone and nintedanib appear safe. Promising results have recently been made public for several phase 2 trials with novel targets, including the autotaxin-lysophosphatidic acid (ATX/LPA) pathway, connective tissue growth factor (CTGF), pentraxin-2, G protein-coupled receptor agonists/antagonists, αvβ6 integrin, and galectin-3. Results of treatments directed at gastro-esophageal reflux in patients with IPF have also been published. Currently, monotherapy with pirfenidone or nintedanib is the mainstay of pharmacological treatment for IPF. Innovative therapies along with combinations of pharmacological agents hold great promise for the future.
PubMed: 31632751
DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2019.04.62 -
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety Oct 2022Macrophages play an important role in causing silicosis eventually becoming an irreversible fibrotic disease, and there are no specific drugs for silicosis in the clinic...
Macrophages play an important role in causing silicosis eventually becoming an irreversible fibrotic disease, and there are no specific drugs for silicosis in the clinic so far. Pirfenidone has consistently been shown to have anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects, but the specific mechanism by which it ameliorates fibrosis in silicosis is unclear. A rat silicosis model was established in this study, and lung tissues and serum were collected by batch execution at 14, 28, and 56 days. Also, the effects of Pirfenidone on macrophage polarization and pulmonary fibrosis were evaluated in silicosis with early intervention and late treatment by histological examination, Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, Hydroxyproline assay, Western blot and Quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. The results showed that Pirfenidone significantly reduced pulmonary fibrosis in rats with silicosis, and both early intervention and late treatment effectively inhibited the expression of α-SMA, Col-I, Vimentin, Hydroxyproline, IL-1β, IL-18, and the M2 macrophage marker CD206 and Arg-1, while only early intervention effectively inhibited E-cad, TGF-β1, TNF-α, and the M1 macrophage marker iNOS, CD86. Furthermore, Pirfenidone dramatically reduced the mRNA expression of the JAK2/STAT3. These findings imply that Pirfenidone may reduce pulmonary fibrosis in silicosis rats by inhibiting macrophage polarization via the JAK2/STAT3 signaling pathway.
Topics: Animals; Fibrosis; Hydroxyproline; Interleukin-18; Janus Kinase 2; Macrophages; Pneumonia; Pulmonary Fibrosis; Pyridones; RNA, Messenger; Rats; Signal Transduction; Silicosis; Transforming Growth Factor beta1; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Vimentin
PubMed: 36108436
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2022.114066 -
Molecular Medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) May 2020Pirfenidone (PFD) is effective for pulmonary fibrosis (PF), but its action mechanism has not been fully explained. This study explored the signaling pathways involved in...
BACKGROUND
Pirfenidone (PFD) is effective for pulmonary fibrosis (PF), but its action mechanism has not been fully explained. This study explored the signaling pathways involved in anti-fibrosis role of PFD, thus laying a foundation for clinical application.
METHODS
Pulmonary fibrosis mice models were constructed by bleomycin (BLM), and TGF-β1 was used to treat human fetal lung fibroblasts (HLFs). Then, PFD was added into treated mice and cells alone or in combination with β-catenin vector. The pathological changes, inflammatory factors levels, and Collagen I levels in mice lung tissues were assessed, as well as the activity of HLFs was measured. Levels of indices related to extracellular matrix, epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), Wnt/GSK-3β/β-catenin and TGF-β1/Smad2/3 signaling pathways were determined in tissues or cells.
RESULTS
After treatment with BLM, the inflammatory reaction and extracellular matrix deposition in mice lung tissues were serious, which were alleviated by PFD and aggravated by the addition of β-catenin. In HLFs, PFD reduced the activity of HLFs induced by TGF-β1, inhibited levels of vimentin and N-cadherin and promoted levels of E-cadherin, whereas β-catenin produced the opposite effects to PFD. In both tissues and cells, Wnt/GSK-3β/β-catenin and TGF-β1/Smad2/3 signaling pathways were activated, which could be suppressed by PFD.
CONCLUSIONS
PFD alleviated pulmonary fibrosis in vitro and in vivo through regulating Wnt/GSK-3β/β-catenin and TGF-β1/Smad2/3 signaling pathways, which might further improve the action mechanism of anti-fibrosis effect of PFD.
Topics: Animals; Cell Survival; Disease Models, Animal; Glycogen Synthase Kinase 3 beta; Humans; Lung; Male; Mice; Pulmonary Fibrosis; Pyridones; Signal Transduction; Smad2 Protein; Smad3 Protein; Transforming Growth Factor beta1; Wnt Signaling Pathway
PubMed: 32448163
DOI: 10.1186/s10020-020-00173-3 -
The Lancet. Respiratory Medicine Jan 2023Interstitial lung disease is a known complication of rheumatoid arthritis, with a lifetime risk of developing the disease in any individual of 7·7%. We aimed to assess... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of pirfenidone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.
BACKGROUND
Interstitial lung disease is a known complication of rheumatoid arthritis, with a lifetime risk of developing the disease in any individual of 7·7%. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of pirfenidone for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD).
METHODS
TRAIL1 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial done in 34 academic centres specialising in interstitial lung disease in four countries (the UK, the USA, Australia, and Canada). Adults aged 18-85 years were eligible for inclusion if they met the 2010 American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology criteria for rheumatoid arthritis and had interstitial lung disease on a high-resolution CT scan imaging and, when available, lung biopsy. Exclusion criteria include smoking, clinical history of other known causes of interstitial lung disease, and coexistant clinically significant COPD or asthma. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 2403 mg oral pirfenidone (pirfenidone group) or placebo (placebo group) daily. The primary endpoint was the incidence of the composite endpoint of a decline from baseline in percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) of 10% or more or death during the 52-week treatment period assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Key secondary endpoints included change in absolute and FVC% over 52 weeks, the proportion of patients with a decline in FVC% of 10% or more, and the frequency of progression as defined by Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT) in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02808871.
FINDINGS
From May 15, 2017, to March 31, 2020, 231 patients were assessed for inclusion, of whom 123 patients were randomly assigned (63 [51%] to the pirfenidone group and 60 [49%] to the placebo group). The trial was stopped early (March 31, 2020) due to slow recruitment and the COVID-19 pandemic. The difference in the proportion of patients who met the composite primary endpoint (decline in FVC% from baseline of 10% or more or death) between the two groups was not significant (seven [11%] of 63 patients in the pirfenidone group vs nine [15%] of 60 patients in the placebo group; OR 0·67 [95% CI 0·22 to 2·03]; p=0·48). Compared with the placebo group, patients in the pirfenidone group had a slower rate of decline in lung function, measured by estimated annual change in absolute FVC (-66 vs -146; p=0·0082) and FVC% (-1·02 vs -3·21; p=0·0028). The groups were similar with regards to the decline in FVC% by 10% or more (five [8%] participants in the pirfenidone group vs seven [12%] in the placebo group; OR 0·52 [95% CI 0·14-1·90]; p=0·32) and the frequency of progression as defined by OMERACT (16 [25%] in the pirfenidone group vs 19 [32%] in the placebo group; OR 0·68 [0·30-1·54]; p=0·35). There was no significant difference in the rate of treatment-emergent serious adverse events between the two groups, and there were no treatment-related deaths.
INTERPRETATION
Due to early termination of the study and underpowering, the results should be interpreted with caution. Despite not meeting the composite primary endpoint, pirfenidone slowed the rate of decline of FVC over time in patients with RA-ILD. Safety in patients with RA-ILD was similar to that seen in other pirfenidone trials.
FUNDING
Genentech.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pandemics; COVID-19; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Double-Blind Method; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36075242
DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00260-0 -
International Journal of Molecular... Apr 2023Pirfenidone and nintedanib are antifibrotic medications approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis treatment by regulatory agencies and available for clinical use... (Review)
Review
Pirfenidone and nintedanib are antifibrotic medications approved for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis treatment by regulatory agencies and available for clinical use worldwide. These drugs have been shown to reduce the rate of decline in forced vital capacity and the risk of acute exacerbation among patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Recent data suggest that different interstitial lung diseases with a progressive pulmonary fibrosis phenotype can share similar pathogenetic and biological pathways and could be amenable to antifibrotic therapies. Indeed, historical management strategies in interstitial lung disease have failed to identify potential treatments once progression has occurred despite available drugs. In this systematic review, we summarized data on the efficacy of pirfenidone and nintedanib in interstitial lung diseases other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis as well as ongoing and upcoming clinical trials. We identify two well-designed trials regarding nintedanib demonstrating the efficacy of this drug in slowing disease progression in patients with interstitial lung diseases other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. On the other hand, results on the use of pirfenidone in interstitial lung diseases other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis should be interpreted with more caution on the basis of trial limitations. Several randomized control trials are underway to improve the quality of evidence in the interstitial lung disease field.
Topics: Humans; Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Indoles; Pyridones; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37175556
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24097849 -
Annals of the American Thoracic Society Jun 2022The American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax convened to update clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax convened to update clinical practice guidelines for interstitial lung disease (ILD). To conduct a systematic review to evaluate existing ILD literature to determine whether patients with progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) should be treated with the antifibrotic pirfenidone. A literature search was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases through December 2020 for studies using pirfenidone to treat patients with PPF. Mortality, disease progression, lung function, and adverse event data were extracted. Meta-analyses were performed when possible. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group approach was used to assess the quality of evidence. Two studies met inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses revealed that changes in forced vital capacity (FVC) percent predicted (mean difference [MD], 2.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-4.1%), the FVC in milliliters (MD, 100.0 ml; 95% CI, 98.1-101.9 ml), and the 6-minute-walk distance in meters (MD, 25.2 m; 95% CI, 8.3-42.1 m) all favored pirfenidone over placebo. The changes in the diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) in millimoles per kilopascal per minute (MD, 0.40 mmol/kPa/min; 95%, CI 0.10-0.70 mmol/kPa/min) and risk of DLCO declining more than 15% (relative risk [RR], 0.27; 95% CI, 0.08-0.95) also favored pirfenidone. The risks of gastrointestinal discomfort (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.29-2.60) and photosensitivity (RR, 4.88; 95% CI, 1.09-21.83) were higher with pirfenidone. The quality of the evidence was low or very low according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria, depending on the outcome. Pirfenidone use in patients with PPF is associated with a statistically significant decrease in disease progression and with protection of lung function. However, there is very low certainty in the estimated effects because of limitations in the available evidence. Funded by the American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax.
Topics: Disease Progression; Humans; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Pulmonary Fibrosis; Pyridones
PubMed: 35499847
DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202103-342OC -
The Lancet. Respiratory Medicine Feb 2020At present, no approved pharmacotherapies are available for unclassifiable interstitial lung disease (ILD), which is characterised by progressive fibrosis of the lung.... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
At present, no approved pharmacotherapies are available for unclassifiable interstitial lung disease (ILD), which is characterised by progressive fibrosis of the lung. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone in patients with progressive fibrosing unclassifiable ILD.
METHODS
We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial at 70 centres in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the UK. Eligible patients (aged ≥18-85 years) had progressive fibrosing unclassifiable ILD, a percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) of 45% or higher and percent predicted carbon monoxide diffusing capacity (DLco) of 30% or higher, more than 10% fibrosis on high-resolution CT, and a high-resolution CT from the previous 12 months. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to 2403 mg oral pirfenidone daily or placebo using a central validated interactive voice or web-based response system, stratified by concomitant mycophenolate mofetil use and presence or absence of interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features. Investigators, site personnel, and patients were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was mean predicted change in FVC from baseline over 24 weeks, measured by daily home spirometry. Secondary endpoints were change in FVC measured by site spirometry, proportion of patients who had a more than 5% or more than 10% absolute or relative decline in percent predicted FVC measured by clinic-based spirometry, change in percent predicted DLco, change in 6-min walk distance (6MWD), change in University of California San Diego-Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (UCSD-SOBQ) score, change in Leicester Cough Questionnaire score, change in cough visual analogue scale, and changes in total and subscores of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), all of which were compared with baseline. Additional secondary endpoints included proportion of patients who had non-elective hospitalisation (respiratory and all-cause) and acute exacerbations, and progression-free survival. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which included all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in the safety analysis set, which included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03099187, and is no longer recruiting.
FINDINGS
Between May 15, 2017, and June 5, 2018, 253 patients were randomly assigned to receive 2403 mg pirfenidone (n=127) or placebo (n=126) and were included in the ITT analysis set. Analysis of the primary endpoint was affected by intraindividual variability in home spirometry values, which prevented application of the prespecified statistical model. Over 24 weeks, predicted median change in FVC measured by home spirometry was -87·7 mL (Q1-Q3 -338·1 to 148·6) in the pirfenidone group versus -157·1 mL (-370·9 to 70·1) in the placebo group. Over 24 weeks, predicted mean change in FVC measured by site spirometry was lower in patients given pirfenidone than placebo (treatment difference 95·3 mL [95% CI 35·9 to 154·6], p=0·002). Compared with the placebo group, patients in the pirfenidone group were less likely to have a decline in FVC of more than 5% (odds ratio [OR] 0·42 [95% CI 0·25 to 0·69], p=0·001) or more than 10% (OR 0·44 [0·23 to 0·84], p=0·011). At week 24, mean change in DLco from baseline was -0·7% (SD 7·1) for the pirfenidone group and -2·5% (8·8) for the placebo group, and mean change in 6MWD from baseline was -2·0 m (68·1) for the pirfenidone group and -26·7 m (79·3) for the placebo group. Changes from baseline in UCSD-SOBQ, Leicester Cough Questionnaire score, cough visual analogue scale, and SGRQ scores were similar between the pirfenidone and placebo groups at week 24. Analysis of acute exacerbations, hospital admissions, and time to death from respiratory causes during the study yielded no meaningful results due to a small number of events. No differences in progression-free survival were identified between the pirfenidone and placebo groups, irrespective of the definition of progression-free survival used. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 120 (94%) of 127 patients in the pirfenidone group and 101 (81%) of 124 patients in the placebo group. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 18 (14%) patients in the pirfenidone group and 20 (16%) patients in the placebo group. The most common treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders (60 [47%] in the pirfenidone group vs 32 [26%] in the placebo group), fatigue (16 [13%] vs 12 [10%]), and rash (13 [10%] vs nine [7%]).
INTERPRETATION
Although the planned statistical model could not be applied to the primary endpoint data, analysis of key secondary endpoints suggests that patients with progressive fibrosing unclassifiable ILD could benefit from pirfenidone treatment, which has an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. These findings support further investigation of pirfenidone as an effective treatment for patients with progressive fibrotic unclassifiable ILD.
FUNDING
F Hoffmann-La Roche.
Topics: Aged; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Europe; Female; Humans; Lung; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Male; Middle Aged; Mycophenolic Acid; Progression-Free Survival; Pulmonary Fibrosis; Pyridones; Respiratory Function Tests; Treatment Outcome; Vital Capacity
PubMed: 31578169
DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30341-8