Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Clinical trials in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a framework for moving forward

David J. Lederer
European Respiratory Journal 2013 42: 1446-1448; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00092713
David J. Lederer
1Dept of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY
2Dept of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: DavidLederer@columbia.edu
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In the current issue of the European Respiratory Journal, Raghu et al. [1] report the results of the Macitentan USe in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Clinical (MUSIC) trial, a randomised placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial of macitentan, an oral endothelin antagonist, for biopsy-proven idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). With its multicentre enrolment, appropriate allocation concealment, low withdrawal rate and intention-to-treat analysis, this clinical trial exemplifies the state-of-the-art in clinical trial design and conduct in the field of IPF. The authors should indeed be congratulated for accomplishing the difficult task of enrolling and successfully completing a clinical trial in IPF.

The MUSIC trial investigators found that macitentan was not effective for the treatment of IPF, with no meaningful differences in forced vital capacity (FVC), the study's primary end-point, or diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide at 1 year between allocation arms. The authors also detected a nonsignificant 56% relative increase in the rate of a combined end-point of lung function decline or acute respiratory decompensation of IPF among those allocated to macitentan compared to placebo, a finding driven by an acute respiratory decompensation in seven out of 119 participants in the macitentan arm compared to one out of 59 participants in the placebo arm.

The negative results of the MUSIC trial come as little surprise in light of previous reports that two other endothelin antagonist, ambrisentan [2] and bosentan [3–5], are similarly ineffective for IPF. A series of negative trials in IPF combined with the observation that the most promising therapies do not appear to improve lung function, reduce dyspnoea or prolong life [6, 7] has led to disappointment and frustration throughout the IPF community. Without a cure on the horizon, we should critically re-examine the assumptions underlying our current approach to the study of IPF so that we can design better trials that test better therapies.

Assumption 1: we should only study IPF patients with mild-to-moderate disease

Most IPF clinical trials have restricted enrolment to patients with mild-to-moderate disease (typically FVC >50% predicted). This practice seems to have arisen for multiple reasons: a (later disproven) subgroup analysis of the GIPF-001 trial suggesting that interferon-γ was effective in those with less severe disease [8]; the perception that marginally effective drugs will not be able to slow progression in advanced disease; and the concern that severely affected individuals may not be alive to have their FVC measured at the end of the trial. While the latter concern is reasonable (vide infra), there are no convincing data to suggest that any therapy will be more effective in those with mild disease. In fact, if our goals are to prevent both clinical events (such as respiratory hospitalisation and death) and the progression of disease, we should avoid enrolling patients with mild lung disease in clinical trials, since these patients are unlikely to die or experience progression during the 12–18-month time-frame of most IPF clinical trials. Instead, we should preferentially enrol those with more advanced disease who are at risk for disease progression or death.

Assumption 2: non-pharmacological management does not matter

The American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society/Japanese Respiratory Society/Latin American Thoracic Association guidelines for the management of IPF are an improvement over previous guidelines [9], but provide little direction about “best practice” approaches to caring for patients with IPF. For example, the guidelines lack detailed and standardised recommendations for supplemental oxygen use (such as oxygen saturation targets during activity and sleep, and minimal definitions of supplemental oxygen compliance), approaches to the management of acute exacerbations (including minimal evaluation and standardised corticosteroid dosing and tapering), and whether patients should be routinely diagnosed and managed at academic interstitial lung disease centres (where diagnosis and management appears to be better than in the community setting) [10, 11]. Variability in practice patterns within a clinical trial can introduce noise into the observed effect of the intervention under study, thereby limiting our ability to identify effective therapies. There has been a stark absence of studies comparing the effectiveness of different management strategies in IPF. Multicentre collaborative efforts are needed to generate new evidence to guide clinical practice and standardise management approaches across centres.

Assumption 3: FVC will capture the clinical efficacy of a novel therapy for IPF

The selection of appropriate end-points for phase 3 clinical trials in IPF is the subject of an ongoing and heated debate focused on whether FVC is a clinically meaningful outcome or an unproven surrogate end-point [12–14]. A key criterion for a surrogate end-point is that treatment-induced changes in the surrogate end-point explain treatment-induced clinically meaningful outcomes [15, 16]. Since no therapy has yet been shown to effect clinically meaningful outcomes in IPF, this criterion remains untested for FVC. This seems to be a high bar for an end-point. For example, in the field of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), a recent elegant study used pooled data from 10 clinical trials and found that the 6-min walk distance (6MWD), a widely accepted end-point in virtually all clinical trials in PAH, failed to meet this criterion [17]. Changes in the 6MWD only explained 22% of the treatment effect on clinical outcomes. It would be prudent to await the results of at least a single IPF clinical trial showing a beneficial effect of a therapy on important clinical outcomes before concluding that FVC would fare better in IPF than the 6MWD has fared in PAH.

Even if FVC were to meet the criteria of a surrogate end-point, it remains a problematic primary end-point. FVC will be missing for those who die, undergo lung transplantation or drop out of a study, requiring imputation of FVC in order to perform intention-to-treat analyses. Spirometry is also difficult to perform for those with advanced disease, and test performance could vary across study sites leading to measurement error. There are even a few reasons to believe that FVC may not be in the causal pathway for all clinical events. For example, a drug that prevents alveolar epithelial cell injury, but permits collagen synthesis and progression of fibrosis could prevent acute exacerbations while FVC continues to decline. Similarly, a drug that slows collagen deposition may not prevent acute exacerbations, leading to attenuation in the rate of FVC decline but failing to prevent death due to acute exacerbations.

Despite some of the problems with FVC as an end-point, we would all respond with great enthusiasm if a drug were found to positively influence FVC in the context of meaningful improvements in dyspnoea and clinical outcomes. That is to say that the fundamental problem is not that FVC fails to reflect disease severity, but rather the inherent difficulty of capturing all of the clinical efficacy of a therapy in one measure of lung compliance prone to informative missingness and error.

A more fundamental problem is that FVC is often the primary end-point for phase 2 trials, which have typically been designed as small phase 3 trials in disguise, enrolling hundreds of participants in order to detect small differences in the rate of decline in FVC between groups. What is lacking is a suitable measure of the activity (rather than severity) of IPF. Reliable measurements of alveolar epithelial cell injury, extracellular matrix remodelling and fibroblast proliferation are actively being investigated and may soon be able to serve as biomarkers of disease activity, permitting the study of the immediate biological (rather than delayed physiological) effects of a novel therapy in only a handful of IPF patients. Such proof-of-principle trials could allow us to quickly discard ineffective therapies, reserving only the most encouraging agents for phase 3 trials.

Assumption 4: the study of human lung diseases does not require humans

While exciting discoveries have improved our understanding of the biology of lung fibrosis [18–20], most studies have relied upon animal models, an approach that has not yet led to a proven therapy for IPF. Indeed, recent work suggests that animal models of lung disease may not be fully translatable to humans [21]. The message is that we should be studying humans if we wish to understand human lung pathobiology. Scientists have long avoided this approach since it is typically not possible to control variability among humans in the usual “laboratory” sense. However, we are now able to control measured variability in humans by marrying the robust sciences of epidemiology and biology. Such studies are difficult to perform, requiring large sample sizes to permit control of confounding and examination of effect modification, appropriate sampling methods, and careful measurement of potential confounders and risk factors. Well-performed translational studies can only enhance our understanding of risk factors and mechanisms in human lung disease development, ultimately leading to not only effective therapies, but also novel approaches to the prevention of IPF [22].

A string of “negative trials” does not mean that we have failed. We simply need a new approach. With a common vision spanning the basic–translational–clinical spectrum, IPF investigators, advocacy groups, and funding and regulatory agencies must work together in order to achieve one singular goal: the elimination of IPF. We should accept no lesser success.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside the online version of this article at www.erj.ersjournals.com

  • Received May 31, 2013.
  • Accepted June 3, 2013.
  • ©ERS 2013

References

  1. ↵
    1. Raghu G,
    2. Million-Rousseau R,
    3. Morganti A,
    4. et al
    . Macitentan for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: the randomised controlled MUSIC trial. Eur Respir J 2013; 42: 1622–1632.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Raghu G,
    2. Behr J,
    3. Brown KK,
    4. et al
    . Treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with ambrisentan: a parallel, randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158: 641–649.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Raghu G,
    2. King TE Jr.,
    3. Behr J,
    4. et al
    . Quality of life and dyspnoea in patients treated with bosentan for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (BUILD-1). Eur Respir J 2010; 35: 118–123.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. King TE Jr.,
    2. Brown KK,
    3. Raghu G,
    4. et al
    . BUILD-3: a randomized, controlled trial of bosentan in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011; 184: 92–99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. King TE Jr.,
    2. Behr J,
    3. Brown KK,
    4. et al
    . BUILD-1: a randomized placebo-controlled trial of bosentan in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008; 177: 75–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. Noble PW,
    2. Albera C,
    3. Bradford WZ,
    4. et al
    . Pirfenidone in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (CAPACITY): two randomised trials. Lancet 2011; 377: 1760–1769.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Richeldi L,
    2. Costabel U,
    3. Selman M,
    4. et al
    . Efficacy of a tyrosine kinase inhibitor in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 1079–1087.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Raghu G,
    2. Brown KK,
    3. Bradford WZ,
    4. et al
    . A placebo-controlled trial of interferon gamma-1b in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 125–133.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Raghu G,
    2. Collard HR,
    3. Egan JJ,
    4. et al
    . An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT statement: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011; 183: 788–824.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Flaherty KR,
    2. Andrei AC,
    3. King TE Jr.,
    4. et al
    . Idiopathic interstitial pneumonia: do community and academic physicians agree on diagnosis? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007; 175: 1054–1060.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Lamas DJ,
    2. Kawut SM,
    3. Bagiella E,
    4. et al
    . Delayed access and survival in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a cohort study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011; 184: 842–847.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. du Bois RM,
    2. Nathan SD,
    3. Richeldi L,
    4. et al
    . Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: lung function is a clinically meaningful endpoint for phase III trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012; 186: 712–715.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    1. Raghu G,
    2. Collard HR,
    3. Anstrom KJ,
    4. et al
    . Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: clinically meaningful primary endpoints in phase 3 clinical trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012; 185: 1044–1048.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    1. Wells AU
    . Forced vital capacity as a primary end point in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis treatment trials: making a silk purse from a sow's ear. Thorax 2013; 68: 309–310.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Fleming TR,
    2. DeMets DL
    . Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996; 125: 605–613.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Prentice RL
    . Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989; 8: 431–440.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. Gabler NB,
    2. French B,
    3. Strom BL,
    4. et al
    . Validation of 6-minute walk distance as a surrogate end point in pulmonary arterial hypertension trials. Circulation 2012; 126: 349–356.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Barry-Hamilton V,
    2. Spangler R,
    3. Marshall D,
    4. et al
    . Allosteric inhibition of lysyl oxidase-like-2 impedes the development of a pathologic microenvironment. Nat Med 2010; 16: 1009–1017.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tager AM,
    2. LaCamera P,
    3. Shea BS,
    4. et al
    . The lysophosphatidic acid receptor LPA1 links pulmonary fibrosis to lung injury by mediating fibroblast recruitment and vascular leak. Nat Med 2008; 14: 45–54.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    1. Zhou Y,
    2. Huang X,
    3. Hecker L,
    4. et al
    . Inhibition of mechanosensitive signaling in myofibroblasts ameliorates experimental pulmonary fibrosis. J Clin Invest 2013; 123: 1096–1108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. Seok J,
    2. Warren HS,
    3. Cuenca AG,
    4. et al
    . Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013; 110: 3507–3512.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Lederer DJ
    . Secondary prevention of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: catching the horse still in the barn. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012; 185: 697–699.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 42 Issue 6 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 42 (6)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Clinical trials in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a framework for moving forward
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Clinical trials in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a framework for moving forward
David J. Lederer
European Respiratory Journal Dec 2013, 42 (6) 1446-1448; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00092713

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Clinical trials in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a framework for moving forward
David J. Lederer
European Respiratory Journal Dec 2013, 42 (6) 1446-1448; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00092713
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Assumption 1: we should only study IPF patients with mild-to-moderate disease
    • Assumption 2: non-pharmacological management does not matter
    • Assumption 3: FVC will capture the clinical efficacy of a novel therapy for IPF
    • Assumption 4: the study of human lung diseases does not require humans
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Interstitial and orphan lung disease
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Commemorating World Tuberculosis Day 2022
  • Is low level of vitamin D a marker of poor health or its cause?
  • Risky political game with climate change
Show more Editorial

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society