Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Combined Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis and Emphysema in the IPF-PRO Registry.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of concomitant emphysema on outcomes in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). METHODS: The IPF-PRO Registry is a US registry of patients with IPF. The presence of combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema (CPFE) at enrollment was determined by investigators' review of an HRCT scan. Associations between emphysema and clinical outcomes were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 934 patients, 119 (12.7%) had CPFE. Compared with patients with IPF alone, patients with CPFE were older (median 72 vs 70 years); higher proportions were current/former smokers (88.2% vs 63.7%), used oxygen with activity (49.6% vs 31.9%) or at rest (30.8% vs 18.4%), had congestive heart failure (13.6% vs 4.8%) and had prior respiratory hospitalization (25.0% vs 16.7%); they had higher FVC (median 71.8 vs 69.4% predicted) and lower DLco (median 35.3 vs 43.6% predicted). In patients with CPFE and IPF alone, respectively, at 1 year, rates of death or lung transplant were 17.5% (95% CI: 11.7, 25.8) and 11.2% (9.2, 13.6) and rates of hospitalization were 21.6% (14.6, 29.6) and 20.6% (17.9, 23.5). There were no significant associations between emphysema and any outcome after adjustment for baseline variables. No baseline variable predicted outcomes better in IPF alone than in CPFE. CONCLUSION: Approximately 13% of patients in the IPF-PRO Registry had CPFE. Physiologic characteristics and comorbidities of patients with CPFE differed from those of patients with IPF alone, but the presence of emphysema did not drive outcomes after adjustment for baseline covariates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01915511; registered August 5, 2013.

Recombinant human pentraxin-2 therapy in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: safety, pharmacokinetics and exploratory efficacy.

Abnormal fibrogenic repair response upon alveolar injury is believed to play an important role in the pathogenesis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). PRM-151 (recombinant human pentraxin-2, also known as serum amyloid P), has been shown to reduce fibrosis in preclinical lung fibrosis models, and was well tolerated with a favourable pharmacokinetic profile in an earlier single-dose phase I study.A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple ascending dose trial was performed to assess the tolerability and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of multiple doses of PRM-151 in IPF patients. Subjects in three successive cohorts (1, 5, or 10 mg·kg(-1) versus placebo) received intravenous study drug on days 1, 3, 5, 8 and 15, and were followed-up to day 57.PRM-151 was well tolerated at all dose levels, with no serious adverse reactions. Administration of PRM-151 resulted in two- to eight-fold dose-dependent increases in circulating pentraxin-2 levels. Forced vital capacity and 6-min walk test showed trends towards improvement in the combined PRM-151 dose groups. On high-resolution computed tomography scans, stable or improved lung volume unoccupied by interstitial lung abnormality was noted in some PRM-151 subjects compared to placebo subjects on day 57.The efficacy of PRM-151 in IPF remains to be investigated in dedicated future trials.

Quantitative proteomics of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

The proteomic analysis of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) can give insight into pulmonary disease pathology and response to therapy. Here, we describe the first gel-free quantitative analysis of BALF in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), a chronic and fatal scarring lung disease. We utilized two-dimensional reversed-phase liquid chromatography and ion-mobility-assisted data-independent acquisition (HDMSE) for quantitation of >1000 proteins in immunodepleted BALF from the right middle and lower lobes of normal controls and patients with IPF. Among the analytes that were increased in IPF were well-described mediators of pulmonary fibrosis (osteopontin, MMP7, CXCL7, CCL18), eosinophil- and neutrophil-derived proteins, and proteins associated with fibroblast foci. For additional discovery and targeted validation, BALF was also screened by multiple reaction monitoring (MRM), using the JPT Cytokine SpikeMix library of >400 stable isotope-labeled peptides. A refined MRM assay confirmed the robust expression of osteopontin, and demonstrated, for the first time, upregulation of the pro-fibrotic cytokine, CCL24, in BALF in IPF. These results show the utility of BALF proteomics for the molecular profiling of fibrotic lung diseases and the targeted quantitation of soluble markers of IPF. More generally, this study addresses critical quality control measures that should be widely applicable to BALF profiling in pulmonary disease.

Treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with ambrisentan: a parallel, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is characterized by formation and proliferation of fibroblast foci. Endothelin-1 induces lung fibroblast proliferation and contractile activity via the endothelin A (ETA) receptor. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ambrisentan, an ETA receptor-selective antagonist, reduces the rate of IPF progression. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00768300). SETTING: Academic and private hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with IPF aged 40 to 80 years with minimal or no honeycombing on high-resolution computed tomography scans. INTERVENTION: Ambrisentan, 10 mg/d, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Time to disease progression, defined as death, respiratory hospitalization, or a categorical decrease in lung function. RESULTS: The study was terminated after enrollment of 492 patients (75% of intended enrollment; mean duration of exposure to study medication, 34.7 weeks) because an interim analysis indicated a low likelihood of showing efficacy for the end point by the scheduled end of the study. Ambrisentan-treated patients were more likely to meet the prespecified criteria for disease progression (90 [27.4%] vs. 28 [17.2%] patients; P = 0.010; hazard ratio, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.14 to 2.66]). Lung function decline was seen in 55 (16.7%) ambrisentan-treated patients and 19 (11.7%) placebo-treated patients (P = 0.109). Respiratory hospitalizations were seen in 44 (13.4%) and 9 (5.5%) patients in the ambrisentan and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.007). Twenty-six (7.9%) patients who received ambrisentan and 6 (3.7%) who received placebo died (P = 0.100). Thirty-two (10%) ambrisentan-treated patients and 16 (10%) placebo-treated patients had pulmonary hypertension at baseline, and analysis stratified by the presence of pulmonary hypertension revealed similar results for the primary end point. LIMITATION: The study was terminated early. CONCLUSION: Ambrisentan was not effective in treating IPF and may be associated with an increased risk for disease progression and respiratory hospitalizations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Gilead Sciences.

Bayesian probit regression model for the diagnosis of pulmonary fibrosis: proof-of-principle.

BACKGROUND: The accurate diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a major clinical challenge. We developed a model to diagnose IPF by applying Bayesian probit regression (BPR) modelling to gene expression profiles of whole lung tissue. METHODS: Whole lung tissue was obtained from patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) undergoing surgical lung biopsy or lung transplantation. Controls were obtained from normal organ donors. We performed cluster analyses to explore differences in our dataset. No significant difference was found between samples obtained from different lobes of the same patient. A significant difference was found between samples obtained at biopsy versus explant. Following preliminary analysis of the complete dataset, we selected three subsets for the development of diagnostic gene signatures: the first signature was developed from all IPF samples (as compared to controls); the second signature was developed from the subset of IPF samples obtained at biopsy; the third signature was developed from IPF explants. To assess the validity of each signature, we used an independent cohort of IPF and normal samples. Each signature was used to predict phenotype (IPF versus normal) in samples from the validation cohort. We compared the models' predictions to the true phenotype of each validation sample, and then calculated sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. RESULTS: Surprisingly, we found that all three signatures were reasonably valid predictors of diagnosis, with small differences in test sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first use of BPR on whole lung tissue; previously, BPR was primarily used to develop predictive models for cancer. This also represents the first report of an independently validated IPF gene expression signature. In summary, BPR is a promising tool for the development of gene expression signatures from non-neoplastic lung tissue. In the future, BPR might be used to develop definitive diagnostic gene signatures for IPF, prognostic gene signatures for IPF or gene signatures for other non-neoplastic lung disorders such as bronchiolitis obliterans.