Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • 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

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
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Disease stratification in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: the dawn of a new era?

Toby M. Maher
European Respiratory Journal 2014 43: 1233-1236; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00228513
Toby M. Maher
1NIHR Biological Research Unit, Royal Brompton Hospital, London
2Faculty of Medicine, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London
3Centre for Inflammation and Tissue Repair, University College London, Rayne Institute, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: t.maher@rbht.nhs.uk
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Research into idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) has been rapidly gathering pace over the past few years. This has been driven by a number of important factors, including the establishment of both clinical and basic science research networks, growing involvement of the pharmaceutical industry, and an exponential rise in the recruitment of patients into clinical trials [1, 2]. These changes have resulted in an improved understanding of disease pathogenesis and have culminated in the licensing, in Europe, of the first IPF-specific therapy, pirfenidone. However, the dismal prognosis for sufferers of the disease remains, as yet, unchanged. Why is this? And, more importantly, what can be done to improve survival for individuals with IPF?

IPF is a challenging disease. At diagnosis the condition is typically characterised by established fibrosis with architectural destruction of the lung and loss of gas exchange surface area. A growing body of evidence points to IPF arising as the consequence of an aberrant wound healing response occurring after repetitive alveolar injury in genetically susceptible individuals. As such, multiple cascades, all of which play a role in normal wound healing, are involved in the progressive fibro-proliferation that characterises IPF [3, 4]. These abnormalities in wound healing-related mechanisms result in a myriad of growth factors, cytokines, chemokines and lipid mediators being differentially regulated in the lungs of patients with IPF [4]. This abnormal interplay of cell–cell interactions and signalling cascades is redolent of the abnormalities observed in cancer [5]. Therefore, it is perhaps no coincidence that diagnostic and therapeutic developments in the field of oncology provide a potential road map for improving outcomes in IPF.

Until relatively recently, drug discovery across all branches of medicine, but particularly oncology, was driven by the search for golden bullets; medications which, at a single stroke, would cure all sufferers with a given disease. As understanding of the pathobiology of disease has improved it has become increasingly clear that such a simplistic, one size fits all approach is destined to failure. Even in single gene disorders such as cystic fibrosis, it is now evident that treatment responses vary between individuals. Ivacafcor, a novel peptide capable of restoring cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator function, results in striking improvements in lung function and symptom scores, but only in the 2–5% of cystic fibrosis patients carrying the G551D mutation [6]. Given that such complexity exists in a well-understood monogenetic disease, what can we hope to learn when it comes to diseases characterised by multiple pathway abnormalities such as cancer and IPF?

The recognition that diseases with a single distinct clinical phenotype can arise through multiple mechanisms has given rise to the development of stratified medicine [7]. At its core stratified medicine relies on the use of modern molecular tools, such as genomics, transcriptomics and proteomics (to name but a few of the ‘omics), to identify clusters of patients with a given disease who share a specific molecular phenotype. In oncology, the advent of molecular phenotyping has, for many cancers, enabled better prognostication, which in turn has enable oncologists to utilise existing treatments according to likelihood of disease progression [8]. Perhaps more importantly, however, molecular phenotyping has enabled the novel therapies to be targeted at individuals most likely to respond. A prime example of this is gleevec, a Bcr-Abl tyrosine kinase inhibitor, which has transformed outcomes in individuals with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukaemia [9]. Such an approach has the benefit of limiting exposure to costly and potentially toxic treatments to only those individuals likely to derive a benefit. Stratified treatment, whilst most advanced in oncology, has begun to emerge in other disease areas. In asthma, the novel anti-interleukin-13 monoclonal antibody, lebrikizumab, has been shown to improve airflow obstruction in individuals with elevated levels of the serum protein periostin, but not those with normal levels [10]. Whilst requiring further validation, this observation suggests that biomarker-driven therapy may become a reality in respiratory medicine in the near future [11]. For a disease as complex as IPF, stratification intuitively makes sense but what should come first, the treatment or the biomarker?

At the heart of stratified medicine sit biomarkers. These are characteristics that are objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biological processes, pathogenic processes or pharmacological responses to therapeutic interventions [12]. Biomarkers, whilst most commonly thought of as serum proteins, can be based on modalities as diverse as imaging or measurements of pulmonary physiology [13, 14]. Biomarkers can be developed for a range of purposes, including diagnosis, predicting future disease progression, determining response to therapy, or detecting the development of disease specific complications, e.g. pulmonary hypertension. In the context of stratified medicine a biomarker would be expected to define a group of patients likely to respond to a given therapy [7]. A number of putative serum biomarkers have been identified in IPF. The best described of these are matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-7, chemokine (C-C motif) ligand (CCL)-18 and KL-6 [15–17]. However, in each case these markers have typically been identified in pre-existing sample collections from single centres and with blood drawn at a single time point. Furthermore, whilst these markers may yet prove to be effective for identifying individuals with progressive disease, they do not map biological pathways for which potential IPF therapies exist [18]. For this reason the manuscript by Chien et al. [19] in the current issue of the European Respiratory Journal represents an exciting development for IPF.

The lysyl oxidase-like (LOXL) proteins are a group of five enzymes that facilitate the cross-linking of type 1 collagen molecules and which, therefore, are important in extracellular matrix deposition [20]. One of these proteins, LOXL2, which is synthesised and secreted by fibroblasts, has been shown to be particularly important in driving collagen accumulation, deposition and stiffening whilst also promoting cell proliferation [21]. In the murine bleomycin-induced lung fibrosis model, the anti-LOXL2 monoclonal antibody, simtuzumab (GS-6624 and AB0024; Gilead Science Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), blocks fibrosis and appears to do so by reducing production of fibrillar collagen, preventing fibroblast activation and inhibiting the release of inflammatory cytokines including transforming growth factor-β1 [21]. Simtuzumab is currently being studied in a phase 2b trial as a potential treatment for IPF (www.ClinicalTrials.com, identifier NCT01769196).

LOXL2 has previously been shown to be detectable in serum [22]. Chien et al. [19] have utilised two existing IPF cohorts (drawn from the ARTEMIS-IPF study [23] and the GAP (Genomic and Proteomic Analysis of Disease Progression in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis) study) to explore the relationship between serum (s)LOXL2 levels and subsequent disease progression and mortality. Their data demonstrate that sLOXL2 is elevated in IPF patients compared to healthy controls and that levels weakly correlate with baseline disease severity (as measured by forced vital capacity and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide) [19]. However, more importantly, in both cohorts elevated sLOXL2 correlated with an increased risk of disease progression (defined as a composite of mortality, respiratory hospitalisation or a categorical decline in lung function). In the GAP cohort, elevated sLOXL2 levels were also associated with increased mortality.

Taken at face value these results appear impressive. However, there are a number of key weaknesses with the study that need to be considered when interpreting the data. Only 14% (n=69) of the ARTEMIS-IPF participants had baseline serum samples available for inclusion in this study. Of these, two-thirds of subjects were in the active treatment arm and so received ambrisentan; something that may have had a negative effect on disease outcomes. Follow-up of the ARTEMIS-IPF cohort was, on average, limited to only 245 days and so there were relatively few disease progression events and only nine deaths. The GAP cohort was recruited from a large transplant centre in the USA and, as such, had relatively severe disease at enrolment. Approximately one-third of patients in the GAP study were missing baseline lung function data and so could not be included in the disease progression analysis. Furthermore, information on hospitalisation was not collected in the GAP study meaning that this was not included in the disease progression composite end-point, even for the two-thirds of subjects with baseline lung function data. Whilst the available follow-up was longer in the GAP cohort, 16% of subjects underwent transplant. For the purposes of the statistical analyses transplants were counted as death. This introduces a potential bias as transplant will inevitably bring forward an individual’s “date of death”. In part, because of these differences sensitivity analysis identified different thresholds for sLOXL2 levels as a predictor of disease progression in the two cohorts.

Whilst these major methodological weaknesses need to be borne in mind, the fact that serum LOXL2 predicted disease progression in two very different cohorts of IPF patients is reassuring. Taken together, the data presented by Chien et al. [19] suggest that sLOXL2, like MMP7, CCL-18 and KL-6, has potential as a biomarker to identify individuals with IPF at increased risk of disease progression. However, what makes these results altogether more exciting is the fact that LOXL2 is a potential therapeutic target in IPF. The finding that sLOXL2 is elevated in individuals with IPF when compared to controls reinforces the biological plausibility of this target. More importantly, sLOXL2 measurements may enable disease stratification and, thus, better targeting of anti-LOXL2 therapy.

As has been argued elsewhere, biomarker discovery and disease stratification in IPF requires well-designed, prospective, multicentre studies of appropriately phenotyped patients with collection of longitudinal outcome data [1]. Furthermore, to better understand the value of measuring serum proteins, the collection of biological samples should not just occur at baseline but needs to be repeated at multiple time points. It is only through such studies being conducted that it will be truly possible to validate the role of potential biomarkers. Despite its major limitations, the study by Chein et al. [19] should provide the necessary impetus for further research into sLOXL2 as a disease progression biomarker and stratification tool in IPF. If it succeeds in doing so, the study will represent the dawning of an exciting new era in clinical IPF research.

Footnotes

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

  • Received December 31, 2013.
  • Accepted January 4, 2014.
  • ©ERS 2014

References

  1. ↵
    1. Maher TM
    . PROFILEing idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: rethinking biomarker discovery. Eur Respir Rev 2013; 22: 148–152.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Richeldi L,
    2. Collard HR,
    3. du Bois RM,
    4. et al
    . Mapping the future for pulmonary fibrosis: report from the 17th International Colloquium on Lung and Airway Fibrosis. Eur Respir J 2013; 42: 230–238.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Maher TM,
    2. Wells AU,
    3. Laurent GJ
    . Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: multiple causes and multiple mechanisms? Eur Respir J 2007; 30: 835–839.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Wuyts WA,
    2. Agostini C,
    3. Antoniou KM,
    4. et al
    . The pathogenesis of pulmonary fibrosis: a moving target. Eur Respir J 2013; 41: 1207–1218.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Vancheri C,
    2. du Bois RM
    . A progression-free end-point for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis trials: lessons from cancer. Eur Respir J 2013; 41: 262–269.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Ramsey BW,
    2. Davies J,
    3. McElvaney NG,
    4. et al
    . A CFTR potentiator in patients with cystic fibrosis and the G551D mutation. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 1663–1672.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Maher TM
    . Beyond the diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; the growing role of systems biology and stratified medicine. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2013; 19: 460–465.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Gonzalez de Castro D,
    2. Clarke PA,
    3. Al-Lazikani B,
    4. et al
    . Personalized cancer medicine: molecular diagnostics, predictive biomarkers, and drug resistance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2013; 93: 252–259.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Druker BJ,
    2. Talpaz M,
    3. Resta DJ,
    4. et al
    . Efficacy and safety of a specific inhibitor of the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase in chronic myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1031–1037.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Corren J,
    2. Lemanske RF,
    3. Hanania NA,
    4. et al
    . Lebrikizumab treatment in adults with asthma. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 1088–1098.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Wheelock CE,
    2. Goss VM,
    3. Balgoma D,
    4. et al
    . Application of 'omics technologies to biomarker discovery in inflammatory lung diseases. Eur Respir J 2013; 42: 802–825.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Jones PW,
    2. Agusti AG
    . Outcomes and markers in the assessment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J 2006; 27: 822–832.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Mura M,
    2. Porretta MA,
    3. Bargagli E,
    4. et al
    . Predicting survival in newly diagnosed idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a 3-year prospective study. Eur Respir J 2012; 40: 101–109.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. du Bois RM,
    2. Albera C,
    3. Bradford WZ,
    4. et al
    . 6-minute walk distance is an independent predictor of mortality in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Eur Respir J 2014; 43: 1421–1429.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Rosas IO,
    2. Richards TJ,
    3. Konishi K,
    4. et al
    . MMP1 and MMP7 as potential peripheral blood biomarkers in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. PLoS Med 2008; 5: e93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Prasse A,
    2. Probst C,
    3. Bargagli E,
    4. et al
    . Serum CC-chemokine ligand 18 concentration predicts outcome in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009; 179: 717–723.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    1. Yokoyama A,
    2. Kondo K,
    3. Nakajima M,
    4. et al
    . Prognostic value of circulating KL-6 in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Respirology 2006; 11: 164–168.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    1. Maher TM
    . Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: pathobiology of novel approaches to treatment. Clin Chest Med 2012; 33: 69–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. Chien JW,
    2. Richards TJ,
    3. Gibson KF,
    4. et al
    . Serum lysyl oxidase-like 2 levels and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis disease progression. Eur Respir J 2014; 43: 1430–1438.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Yamauchi M,
    2. Shiiba M
    . Lysine hydroxylation and cross-linking of collagen. Methods Mol Biol 2008; 446: 95–108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    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. Nature Med 2010; 16: 1009–1017.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Makawita S,
    2. Dimitromanolakis A,
    3. Soosaipillai A,
    4. et al
    . Validation of four candidate pancreatic cancer serological biomarkers that improve the performance of CA19.9. BMC Cancer 2013; 13: 404.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    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
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 43 Issue 5 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 43 (5)
  • 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.
Disease stratification in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: the dawn of a new era?
(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
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Disease stratification in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: the dawn of a new era?
Toby M. Maher
European Respiratory Journal May 2014, 43 (5) 1233-1236; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00228513

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Disease stratification in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: the dawn of a new era?
Toby M. Maher
European Respiratory Journal May 2014, 43 (5) 1233-1236; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00228513
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
    • 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

  • Epigenetic association studies at birth and lung function development
  • Are tertiary lymphoid structures necessary for lung defence?
  • Unconventional role for mitochondrial antiviral signalling protein in pulmonary fibrosis
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • CME
  • 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
  • Submit a manuscript
  • ERS author centre

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 © 2021 by the European Respiratory Society