NAVIGATING the NEW ERA in IPF:
Pathophysiology and Recent Clinical Trials
FACULTY
Title
Affiliation
PILOT Learning Objectives
• Summarize the current understanding of the IPF
•
•
disease process and strategies that can help
measure disease progression and treatment
response
Identify approaches to IPF management that are
covered in current guidelines, taking into account
the strength of relevant recommendations
Evaluate clinical trial data on available and
emerging treatments for IPF
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pathogenic model
Biomarkers
Review of clinical trials in IPF
2011 ATS/ERS treatment guidelines
Clinical trial update
Recent drug approvals!
Clinical trial issues
Conclusions
ILD Disease Progression
Exogenous and
Endogenous stimuli
Dust
Fumes
Cigarette smoke
Autoimmune conditions
Drugs
Infections-viruses
Radiation
Other diseases
Microscopic lung injury:
Separated spatially and temporally
Intact
Wound healing
Aberrant
Genetic
predisposition
Lung homeostasis
Steele MP, Schwartz DA. Annu Rev Med. 2013;64:265-276.
Interstitial lung disease
Linking IPF Pathogenesis to Potential
Therapies
Ahluwalia N, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014 Aug 4. [Epub ahead of print].
Biomarkers for IPF
• Candidates
– Serum CCL18
– LOXL2
– Telomerase
– Surfactant proteins A & D
– KL-6
– Matrix Metallo-Proteases (MMP1/MMP7)
– Circulating fibrocytes
– Clinical parameters
• Pending validation
• Not widely available
Prasse A, et al. Respirology. 2009;14:788-795.
Rosas IO, et al. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e93.
Elevated Baseline CCL18 Predicts Mortality
Cumulative Survival
CCL18 < 150 ng/ml
P < 0.001
CCL18 > 150 ng/ml
Time to Death (months)
• Serum CC-Chemokine Ligand 18
• Cut off of 150 ng/ml  HR = 7.63 (P < 0.0001)
Prasse A, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009;179:717-723.
LOXL2 Biomarker: Target for Therapy?
cross-linking of collagen in pathological
stroma
• Association between sLOXL2 levels and
IPF disease progression in 2 cohorts
• Baseline sLOXL2 levels were not
significantly correlated with FVC or DLCO
• Simtuzumab (humanized monoclonal,
LOXL2 inhibitor) is in a phase 2 clinical
trial
Cumulative Incidence Probability
• Lysyl oxidase-like 2 (LOXL2) promotes
Composite Disease
Progression Endpoint
(ARTEMIS Cohort)*
Time Months
*Composite End-Point (time to first event)
Chien JW, et al. Eur Respir J. 2014;43(5):1430-1438.
• Any cause mortality or
• Respiratory hospitalization or
• Decrease in lung function (FVC and DLCO criteria)
Predictors of Disease Severity and
Progression in IPF
TESTS/ CLINICAL
FACTORS
FVC
DLCO
6MWT
PREDICTIVE VALUE
•
•
•
•
•
Initial value and change over time correlate with mortality
< 35% predicted  lower survival
O2 sat  88%  increased mortality risk for IPF & NSIP
Walk distance correlates with mortality
Heart rate recovery correlates with mortality
Pulmonary
hypertension
• Associated with higher mortality
Dyspnea score
• Correlates with survival
• Predicts worse survival
Hospitalization
Ley B, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(4):431-440.
Predictors of Disease Severity and
Progression in IPF
TESTS/ CLINICAL
FACTORS
Study Inclusion Criteria
Study Endpoint
DLCO




6MWT


Pulmonary hypertension

FVC
Dyspnea score
Hospitalization
Nathan SD, Meyer KC. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2014;20(5):463-471.


Diffusing Capacity Predicts Survival in IPF
D Lco
c o≥= 50%
>50%
DL
D Lco=>50%
D Lco
c o35-49%
3 5 -4 9 %
DL
D L c o 3 5 -4 9 %
Dl
<<35%
D Lcoc o
35%
80
u r v iv a l
e r c e n t s Survival
P Percent
P e r c e n t s u r v iv a l
100
100
80
D Lco<35%
60
60
40
40
P=0.0001
20
20
0
0 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120
0
1 2 2 4 3 6 M 4o8n t h6 s0 7 2 8 4 9 6 1 0 8 1 2 0
M o n th s
Months
Nathan SD, et al. Chest. 2011;140:221-229.
FVC Predicts Survival in IPF
FVC
≥> Co70%
FVF
CV
r>=o7r0=%
70%
FVC
55-69%
FVF
CV
5C5 -5659-%
69%
FVC
<< C555%
FVF
CV
5<%
55%
80 80
Percent
s u r v iv a l
P e r c e n t Survival
P e r c e n t s u r v iv a l
1 0 01 0 0
60 60
40 40
P=0.0053
20 20
0
0
0
01 2 1 22 4 2 43 6 3 64 8 4 86 0 6 07 2 7 28 4 8 49 6 9160 81 01 82 01 2 0
M oM
n tohnst h s
Months
Nathan SD, et al. Chest. 2011;140:221-229.
Which 6MWT parameter
best predicts survival in IPF?
Survival Probability
6MWT Parameters Predict Survival in IPF
P = 0.0007
 > 13bpm
 HR 1 minute
after 6MWT
 ≤ 13bpm
Survival Probability
Days of Follow-Up
Baseline 6MWT
distance
P = 0.01
Time Weeks
du Bois RM, et al. Eur Respir J. 2014;43(5):1421-1429.
Swigris JJ, et al. Chest. 2009;136:841-848
 6MWT distance
at 24 weeks
Time Weeks
P < 0.001
Pharmacologic Agents for IPF
Pre-ATS
Statement 2011
ATS Statement
2011
2011-2013
2014
Pre-2011
ATS
2011
Completed Trials for IPF:
Prior to 2011 Consensus Statement
2011-2013
Trial
N
Primary Endpoint
Result
Interferon-beta (1999)
167
Progression-free survival time
Negative
Interferon-gamma (GIPF-001)
330
Progression-free survival
Negative
Interferon-gamma (Inspire)
826
Survival time
Negative
Pirfenidone (CAPACITY 1)
344
Change in FVC
Negative
Pirfenidone (CAPACITY 2)
435
Change in FVC
Positive
Pirfenidone (Ogura)
275
Change in FVC
Positive
Etanercept
100
Change in DLco, FVC
Negative
Imatinib Mesylate
120
Progression-free survival
Negative
Bosentan (BUILD 1 and 2)
132
Change in 6MW
Negative
Bosentan (BUILD 3)
390
Anticoagulation
56
N-acetylcysteine (NAC) (IFIGENIA)
184
Sildenafil (STEP)
29
Progression-free
time that warfarin
Negative
Subsequent
trialssurvival
showed
and NAC/azathioprine/prednisone
Survival
Positive
should
not
beDLused for IPF
Change in
FVC,
Positive
co
Change in 6MWD, Borg dyspnea index
Noth I, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;186(1):88-95.
Negative
2014
2011 Guidelines on
Management of IPF
Treatment
Pre-2011
Strong
For
Weak
For
ATS
2011
Weak
Against
2014
2011-2013
Strong
Against
Corticosteroid
X
Colchicine
X
Cyclosporine A
X
Interferon γ 1b
X
Bosentan
X
Etanercept
X
NAC/Azathioprine/Prednisone
X
NAC
X
Anticoagulation
X
Pirfenidone
X
Mechanical ventilation
X
Pulmonary rehab
X
Long-term oxygen
X
Lung transplantation
X
Pre-2011
Trials for IPF Stopped Early
Trial
ATS
2011
2011-2013
2014
N
Primary Endpoint
Result
Pirfenidone (Azuma)
107
Exercise gas exchange
Stopped +
Ambrisentan (Artemis-IPF)
478
Progression-free survival
Stopped -
Ambrisentan (Artemis-PH)
50
6MWD
Stopped -
145/256
Death/hospitalization/∆10%FVC
Stopped -
155*
∆FVC
One arm stopped -
Warfarin (ACE study)
Prednisone, Azathioprine, NAC
(PANTHER)
*number in placebo and triple therapy arms when latter arm halted
Other Completed Trials
for IPF (2011-2013)
Trial
N
Macitentan
Pre-2011
ATS
2011
Primary Endpoint
Result
FVC
Negative
2011-2013
2014
BIBF 1120
(nintedanib)
432
FVC
Trend (P = 0.06)
Everolimus
89
Progression
Negative
Co-trimoxazole
181
FVC
Negative, but QOL↑
Mortality 3/53 vs 14/65 (P = 0.02)
3 Clinical Trials Presented
at ATS 2014
• PANTHER
• ASCEND
• INPULSIS
Pre-2011
ATS
2011
N-acetylcysteine (NAC)
pirfenidone
nintedanib (BIBF1120)
2011-2013
2014
PANTHER
N-acetylcysteine (NAC)
Possible NAC Mechanisms of Action
• Increase glutathione antioxidation
• Downregulate lysyl oxidase (LOX) activity,
(essential for collagen deposition)
Li S, et al. Respiration. 2012;84(6):509-517.
Rushworth GF, et al. Pharmacol Ther. 2014;141(2):150-159.
Pre-2011
ATS
2011
2011-2013
2014
Early Evidence for a NAC Cocktail
+ azathioprine
+ steroids
Acetylcysteine + azathioprine
+ steroids
Placebo ++azathioprine
azathioprine++steroids
steroids
Demedts M, et al. New Engl J Med. 2005;353:2229-2242.
Pre-2011
PANTHER 2012
Raghu G, et al. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1968-1977.
ATS
2011
2011-2013
2014
Pre-2011
ATS
2011
2011-2013
2014
PANTHER 2012 Interim Results
Primary
Triple Therapy
Placebo
P-value
FVC (liters)
-0.24
-0.23
0.85
Time to Death
Kaplan–Meier Analysis
no benefit for FVC
• Increased risk of
death
Probability
• Triple therapy has
HR 9.26
(95% CI 1.16-74.1)
P = 0.01
Weeks Since Randomization
Raghu G, et al. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1968-1977.
Pre-2011
ATS
2011
2011-2013
2014
• Triple therapy has
higher incidence of
adverse events than
placebo
Percentage
PANTHER 2012 Adverse Events
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
P-values < 0.05
Placebo
Pred/Aza/NAC
P-value for each comparison < 0.05
Raghu G, et al. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1968-1977.
IPFNet writing committee. N Engl J Med 2012;366;1968-77.
PANTHER 2012 Conclusions
• “Increased risks of death and hospitalization were
observed in patients with IPF who were treated
with a combination of prednisone, azathioprine,
and NAC, as compared with placebo.”
– Compelling evidence against the use of the triple
combination for patients with mild-to-moderate IPF
• Next steps
– Combination arm terminated
– Two arms of study continued (NAC vs placebo)
Raghu G, et al. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1968-1977.
Pre-2011
PANTHER 2014
Martinez FJ, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2093-2101.
ATS
2011
2011-2013
2014
PANTHER Study Design
• Subjects: 264 patients with IPF (2 arm
•
•
•
•
continuation of PANTHER-IPF)
Treatment: acetylcysteine (600 mg) or placebo 3
times daily
Duration: 60 weeks
Primary end point: change in FVC
Secondary end points
– Time to the first acute exacerbation
– Change from baseline in the total score on the
St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire
Martinez FJ, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2093-2101.
NAC Does Not Reduce FVC Decline
Martinez FJ, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2093-2101.
PANTHER Summary
Endpoint
NAC
Placebo
P-value
ΔFVC (liters)
−0.18
−0.19
0.77
Rate of Death
4.9%
2.5%
0.30
Acute
Exacerbation
2.3%
2.3%
>0.99
Conclusion: NAC offered no significant benefit with
respect to the preservation of FVC in patients with IPF
with mild-to-moderate impairment in lung function
Martinez FJ, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2093-2101.
ASCEND
Pirfenidone
Possible Mechanisms of Pirfenidone Action
• Antifibrotic
• Molecular target
•
unclear
Active in several
animal models of
fibrosis (lung,
liver, kidney)
Hilberg O, et al. Clin Respir J. 2012;6:131-143.
Pirfenidone
TNF-α
IL-6
TGF-β
IL-6
MMPs
Collagenases
Collagen
ROIs
ATS
2011
Pre-2011
2011-2013
2014
Progression-Free Survival
Early Pirfenidone Results
Pirfenidone
(2 Doses)
Placebo
Time Days
 FVC at 52 weeks
1800 mg
-0.09
1200 mg
-0.08
placebo
-0.16
Taniguchi H, et al. Eur Respir J. 2010;35:821-829.
P = 0.04 vs placebo
Pre-2011
ATS
2011
2011-2013
CAPACITY 2011
CAPACITY-2
CAPACITY-1
• One pirfenidone trial was positive, one was negative
• CAPACITY-1 placebo group FVC declined more slowly than expected
Noble P, et al. Lancet. 2011;377:1760-1769.
2014
CAPACITY Endpoints
Endpoint
CAPACITY-2
CAPACITY-1
FVC

X
Overall survival
X
X
Progression-free survival

X
Six-minute walk distance
X

DLCO
X
X
Dyspnea
X
X
Exertional desaturation
X
X
Noble P, et al. Lancet. 2011;377:1760-1769.
Pre-2011
ASCEND 2014
ATS
2011
2011-2013
2014
ASCEND Study Design
52 Weeks
Inclusion Criteria
•
•
•
•
•
•
Age 40-80
Confirmed IPF
50 - 90% FVC pred
30 - 90% DLCO pred
FEV1/FVC ≥ 0.80
6-MWD ≥ 150 m
555 Patients
PFS - Progression-free survival
King TE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2083-2092.
Endpoints
Oral Pirfenidone
2403 mg Daily
Placebo
10: Δ FVC or death
20: 6-MWD
PFS
Dyspnea
Death
Primary ASCEND Endpoint Achieved
Patients with ≥ 10% FVC
Decline or Death (%)
Primary
Endpoint
48% Relative
Reduction
Week
King TE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2083-2092.
Pirfenidone Increased
Progression-Free Survival*
*Progression is first occurrence of death,
10% ↓ FVC, or 50 m ↓ 6MWD
King TE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2083-2092.
Mean Change (ml)
Pirfenidone Reduces Loss of FVC
235 ml
Rank ANCOVA P-value < 0.00001
at each indicated time point
428 ml
Week
King TE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2083-2092.
<0.000001
Proportion of Patients with
≥50 m Decline or Death (%)
More Pirfenidone Patients Maintain Walk
Distance or Survive
King TE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2083-2092.
Week
ASCEND Adverse Events
Adverse Event
Nausea
Rash
Dyspepsia
Anorexia
GERD
Weight Loss
Insomnia
Dizziness
Vomiting
Pirfenidone (%) Placebo (%)
(N = 278)
(N = 277)
36
13.4
28.1
8.7
17.6
6.1
15.8
6.5
11.9
6.5
12.6
7.9
11.2
6.5
17.6
13
12.9
8.7
…
Dyspnea
Cough
IPF
King TE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2083-2092.
Δ (%)
22.6
19.4
11.5
9.3
5.4
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.2
…
…
…
14.7
25.2
9.4
17.7
29.6
18.1
-3
-4.4
-8.7
Pirfenidone Associated with Less Mortality
ASCEND and CAPACITY data
From randomization to 28 days after last dose
Cox proportional hazard model
Log-rank test
King TE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2083-2092.
ASCEND Summary
• Treatment with pirfenidone for 52 weeks significantly
reduced disease progression, as measured by
– Changes in % predicted FVC (P < 0.001)
– Changes in 6-minute walk distance (P = 0.04)
– Progression-free survival (P < 0.001)
• Treatment with pirfenidone reduced all-cause
mortality and treatment emergent IPF-related
mortality in pooled analyses at week 52
• Pirfenidone was generally safe and well tolerated
King TE, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2083-2092.
ASCEND Conclusions
• Pirfenidone, as compared with placebo, reduced
•
disease progression in patients with IPF
Treatment was generally safe, had an acceptable side
effect profile, and was associated with fewer deaths
45
FDA Approval of Pirfenidone (Esbriet)
• Approved October 15, 2014
• Indicated for the treatment of IPF
• Dosage and administration
– 801 mg (three 267 mg capsules) three times daily with food
– Doses should be taken at the same time each day
– Initiate with titration
• Days 1 through 7: 1 capsule 3x per day
• Days 8 through 14: 2 capsules 3x per day
• Days 15 onward: 3 capsules 3x per day
– Consider temporary dosage reduction, treatment
•
interruption, or discontinuation for management of
adverse reactions.
Prior to treatment, conduct liver function tests.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm?fuseaction=Search.
DrugDetails/. Accessed October 2014.
46
Pirfenidone Warnings and Precautions
Temporary dosage reductions or discontinuations may be required
• Elevated liver enzymes: ALT, AST, and bilirubin
elevations have occurred with pirfenidone. Monitor
ALT, AST, and bilirubin before and during treatment.
• Photosensitivity and rash: Photosensitivity and rash
have been noted with pirfenidone. Avoid exposure to
sunlight and sunlamps. Wear sunscreen and protective
clothing daily.
• Gastrointestinal disorders: Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea,
dyspepsia, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, and
abdominal pain have occurred with pirfenidone.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm?fuseaction=Search.
DrugDetails/. Accessed October 2014.
Pirfenidone: Other Considerations
• Post-marketing experience (reactions of unknown frequency)
– Agranulocytosis
– Angioedema
– Bilirubin increased in combination with increases of ALT and AST
• Drug interactions
– Metabolized primarily via CYP1A2
– Activators and inhibitors of CYP1A2 should be used with caution with
pirfenidone
• Use with caution with mild/moderate hepatic impairment, not
•
•
recommended for patients with severe impairment
Use with caution with mild/moderate/severe renal impairment, not
recommended for patients with ESRD requiring dialysis
Smoking causes decreased exposure to pirfenidone. Instruct patients to
stop smoking prior to treatment with pirfenidone and to avoid smoking
when using pirfenidone.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm?fuseaction=Search.
DrugDetails/. Accessed October 2014.
INPULSIS
Nintedanib
Possible Mechanisms of Nintedanib Action
• Triple kinase inhibitor
• Phosphatase activator
• Antiangiogenic,
antitumor activity
Nintedanib
VEGF
PDGF
FGF
Pleiotropic Effects
Hilberg F, et al. Cancer Res. 2008;68(12):4774-4782.
Tai WT, et al. J Hepatol. 2014;61(1):89-97.
SHP-1
Nintedanib Showed Promise
for FVC Endpoint
Richeldi L, et al. N Engl J Med.2011:365;1079-1089.
Pre-2011
ATS
2011
2011-2013
2014
Pre-2011
INPULSIS 2014
ATS
2011
2011-2013
2014
INPULSIS-1 and INPULSIS-2 Study Design
52 Weeks
Inclusion Criteria
•
•
•
•
•
Age > 40
IPF ≤ 5y
≥ 50% FVC pred
30 - 79% DLCO pred
HRCT within 1y
3
Nintedanib
300 mg Daily
2
1066 Patients
AE – Acute Exacerbation
SGRQ – St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire
Richeldi L, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2071-2082.
Placebo
Endpoints
10: ΔFVC
20: Time to first AE
Δ SGRQ
Primary INPULSIS Endpoint Achieved
Annual Rate of Change of FVC
INPULSIS-1
INPULSIS-2
45% Relative
Reduction
52% Relative
Reduction
Richeldi L, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2071-2082.
Nintedanib
Placebo
Mean Observed Change from Baseline in FVC (mL)
Nintedanib Reduces Loss of FVC
Richeldi L, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2071-2082.
INPULSIS-1
INPULSIS-2
Week
Cumulative Incidence of First Acute Exacerbation (%)
Mixed Findings for Time to First Acute Exacerbation
Richeldi L, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2071-2082.
INPULSIS-1
INPULSIS-2
Days
Common Nintedanib Adverse Events
INPULSIS-1
Event
INPULSIS-2
Nintedanib
(n = 309)
Placebo
(n = 204)
Nintedanib
(n = 329)
Placebo
(n = 219)
Any (%)
96
89
94
90
Diarrhea (%)
62
19
63
18
Nausea(%)
23
6
26
7
Richeldi L, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2071-2082.
INPULSIS Mortality Rates
Nintedanib
150 mg bid
(n = 638)
Placebo
(n = 423)
HR
P-value
All-cause (%)
5.5
7.8
0.70
0.14
Respiratory (%)
3.8
5.0
0.74
0.34
On-treatment (%)*
3.8
6.1
0.68
0.16
Deaths
* Deaths between randomization and 28 days after last dose
Richeldi L, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2071-2082.
INPULSIS Summary
• Nintedanib had significant benefit in adjusted annual rate of
•
•
change in FVC
• INPULSIS-1
Δ = 125.3 ml
P < 0.001
• INPULSIS-2
Δ = 93.7 ml
P < 0.001
Nintedanib had significant benefit in time to the first acute
exacerbation in INPULSIS-2
• INPULSIS-1
HR = 1.15
P = 0.67
• INPULSIS-2
HR = 0.38
P = 0.005
Significant difference in favor of nintedanib for the change
from baseline in the total SGRQ score in INPULSIS-2 but not
INPULSIS-1
Richeldi L, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2071-2082.
INPULSIS Conclusions
• Nintedanib reduced the decline in FVC, which is
consistent with a slowing of disease progression
• Nintedanib was frequently associated with
diarrhea, which led to discontinuation of the
study medication in less than 5% of patients
Richeldi L, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(22):2071-2082.
FDA Approval of Nintedanib (Ofev)
• Approved October 15, 2014
• Indicated for the treatment of IPF
• Dosage and administration
– 150 mg twice daily approximately 12 hours apart
taken with food
– Consider temporary dose reduction to 100 mg,
temporary interruption, or discontinuation for
management of adverse reactions.
– Prior to treatment, conduct liver function tests.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm?fuseaction=Search.
DrugDetails/. Accessed October 2014.
61
Nintedanib Warnings and Precautions
• Elevated liver enzymes: ALT, AST, and bilirubin elevations have occurred with
•
•
•
•
•
nintedanib. Monitor ALT, AST, and bilirubin before and during treatment. Temporary
dosage reductions or discontinuations may be required.
GI disorders: Diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting have occurred with nintedanib. Treat
patients at first signs with adequate hydration and antidiarrheal medicine (e.g.,
loperamide) or anti-emetics. Discontinue nintedanib if severe diarrhea, nausea, or
vomiting persists despite symptomatic treatment.
Embryofetal toxicity: Women of childbearing potential should be advised of the
potential hazard to the fetus and to avoid becoming pregnant.
Arterial thromboembolic events have been reported. Use caution when treating
patients at higher cardiovascular risk including known CAD.
Bleeding events have been reported. Use nintedanib in patients with known bleeding
risk only if anticipated benefit outweighs the potential risk.
GI perforation has been reported. Use nintedanib with caution when treating patients
with recent abdominal surgery. Discontinue nintedanib in patients who develop GI
perforation. Only use nintedanib in patients with known risk of GI perforation if the
anticipated benefit outweighs the potential risk.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm?fuseaction=Search.DrugDetails/.
Accessed October 2014.
62
Nintedanib: Other Considerations
• Drug interactions
– Nintedanib is a substrate of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and CYP3A4
– Concomitant use of P-gp and CYP3A4 inducers with nintedanib should
–
be avoided
Patients treated with P-gp and CYP3A4 inhibitors and nintedanib
should be monitored closely for adverse reactions
• Nintedanib is a VEGFR inhibitor, and may increase the risk of
•
•
bleeding. Monitor patients on full anticoagulation therapy
closely for bleeding and adjust anticoagulation treatment as
necessary.
Nintedanib not recommended for patients with moderate or
severe hepatic impairment
< 1% excreted via the kidney; no data on patients with severe
renal impairment and ESRD
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm?fuseaction=Search.DrugDetails/.
Accessed October 2014.
63
Current Phase 2 Trials for IPF
Next Generation Therapy?
Trial
Target
N
Primary Endpoint
Co-trimoxazole (Ph 3)
Pneumocystis
jiroveci
56
Change in FVC or respir. Hospital’n
FG-3019
Anti-CTGF
90
Change in FVC from baseline
Rituximab
CD-20
58
Titers of anti-HEp-2 autoantibodies
Simtuzumab
Anti-LOXL2
500
PFS
GC-1008
TGF-
25
Safety, tolerability, PK
QAX576
Anti-IL-13
40
Safety, tolerability, FVC
Tralokinumab
Anti-IL-13
302
Change in FVC from baseline
STX-100
αvβ6
32
Adverse events
BMS-986020
LPA Receptor
300
Rate of change in FVC
Clinical Trial Conclusions
• 2014 is a watershed year in IPF
– NAC did not show efficacy (PANTHER)
– Pirfenidone (ASCEND) and nintedanib (INPULSIS) showed
efficacy in mild/moderate IPF
– Pirfenidone and nintedanib approved 10/15/14 for the
treatment of IPF
– Still need data on advanced disease, combination
therapy, long-term safety, adherence
• Implications of having approved drug(s)
– Need early and accurate diagnosis
– Role of IPF and ILD Centers of Excellence is evolving
IPF: Role of Clinical Trials
• Prior to 2000, only 1 multicenter RCT in IPF
• 2000–2013: ~ > 25 multicenter RCTs in IPF
• Trials in IPF are difficult to recruit and populate
– Need effort, collaboration, and partnership of multiple
health care providers
– ILD centers are important for patients, providers, and
clinical studies
• IPF patients of tomorrow need our help today!
Issues in Clinical Trials of IPF
• Which patients should be studied?
Clinical Phenotypes
IPF rapid
accelerators
IPF slow
progressors
IPF
IPF/COPD
IPF acute
exacerbators
IPF/PH
Is There a Role for Genomics in Defining
the Patient Cohort(s) to Study?
• Will characterization of the patients genomic
profile define responders versus nonresponders?
• Examples:
– Familial (autosomal dominant, up to 20%-25% of
cases)
– Telomerase mutations in ~10%
– Surfactant C mutations
– Muc 5B variants
CTHRC
1
MMP7
Genomics Applied to IPF
FHL2
PCSK1
• Gene Expression Profiling
GAL
CTSE
C6
• Genome-Wide Association
GREM
1
LCN2
IPF Susceptibility
TOLLIP
SPPL2C
Mortality
TOLLIP
rs5743890
Bauer Y, et al. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol. 2014 Jul 16. [Epub ahead of print].
Noth I, et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2013;1:309-317.
NELL1
PLA2G
2A
SLC2A5
Issues in Clinical Trials of IPF
• Fixed duration or event-driven?
• How will drug approvals affect trial design?
• What is the best endpoint?
– Lung function
– FVC, DLco
– Functional status (6MWT)
– QOL measures
– Hospitalization
– Mortality
– Composite endpoint
– Increasingly used in clinical trials
Composite Endpoints:
Potential Advantages
• Increases statistical power & improved trial
efficiency
• Estimates net clinical benefit by capturing
different disease domains
– Accounts for several equally important endpoints
• Improves understanding of effect of
intervention
Adapted from Ferreira-González I et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:651-657.
Composite Endpoints:
Potential Advantages
• Interpretation problematic when
– Components are dissimilar in clinical importance
– Event rates vary appreciably across components
– Components vary in sensitivity to treatment
• May be influenced by clinician subjectivity
– Some components can be difficult to adjudicate
• Potential masking of a harmful effect
Ferreira-González I et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:651-657.
Nathan SD, du Bois RM. Eur Respir J. 2011;38:1002-1004.
Candidate Components of Composite Endpoints
ΔFVC
Δ6MWT
Mean change or categorical?
Slope of change?
Frequency of measurement
Mean change or categorical?
Δ Distance or desaturation?
Δ Pulse rate recovery?
Δ Borg?
ΔNYHA FC
“Blunt” instrument
Subjective
Assessor dependent
Remote monitoring?
Hospitalization
Respiratory or all-cause?
Different thresholds
Remote hospitalizations?
Patient compliance
Need vs. actual?
ΔPRO
Which instrument?
Patient-centered
Requires further validation
Death
Respiratory or all-cause?
Exploratory
ΔBiomarker
Which?
Require validation
Role in patient selection?
ΔHRCT Score
Refinement needed
Requires validation
Monitoring intervals
Acute Exacerbations
Rare?
Difficult to differentiate
Colinear with hospitalization?
Conclusions I
• Many candidates have failed in clinical trials
– Pathogenesis models have had limited use
– Endpoints
– Inclusion criteria/disease stage
• 2014 is a pivotal year in IPF
– NAC did not show efficacy (PANTHER)
– Pirfenidone and nintedanib are FDA approved for
treatment of IPF
– Still need data on advanced disease, combination
therapy, long-term safety, adherence
Conclusions II
• Implications of having an approved drug
– Therapeutic option for patients
– Need to make an accurate diagnosis
• Treat appropriately
• Avoid treating inappropriately
– Earlier diagnosis becomes essential
– Increased awareness
• The role of Pulmonary Fibrosis Centers of
Excellence is developing