Update on Therapies for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Paul Wolters - - PDF document

▶
update on therapies for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Update on Therapies for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Paul Wolters - - PDF document

Aug 20, 2022 347 likes •655 views

6/2/2015 Update on Therapies for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Paul Wolters Associate Professor University of California, San Francisco Outline Classification of Interstitial lung disease Clinical classification Importance of

slide-1
SLIDE 1

6/2/2015 1

Update on Therapies for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

Paul Wolters Associate Professor University of California, San Francisco

Outline

  • Classification of Interstitial lung disease

– Clinical classification – Importance of establishing diagnosis of a specific ILD

  • Review of 3 randomized trials for IPF

– PANTHER (prednisone, azathioprine, NAC) – ASCEND (Pirfenidone) – IMPULSIS (Nintedinib)

slide-2
SLIDE 2

6/2/2015 2

Clinical Classification

Exposure-related:

  • Occupational
  • Environmental
  • Avocational
  • Medication
  • Desquamative

interstitial pneumonia (DIP)

  • RBILD

Idiopathic interstitial pneumonia (IIP) Connective tissue disease:

  • Scleroderma
  • Rheum. arthritis
  • Sjogrens
  • UCTD

Other:

  • Sarcoidosis
  • Vasculitis/Diffuse alveolar

hemorrhage (DAH)

  • Langherhans cell histiocytosis

(LCH)

  • Lymphagioleiomyomatosis

(LAM)

  • Pulmonary alveolar

proteinosis (PAP)

  • Eosinophilic pneumonias
  • Neurofibromatosis
  • Inherited disorders
  • Chronic aspiration
  • Inflammatory bowel disease

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) Acute interstitial pneumonia (AIP) Nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) Cryptogenic organizing pneumonia (COP) Lymphocytic interstitial pneumonia (LIP)

Why it is Important to be Aware of IPF

slide-3
SLIDE 3

6/2/2015 3

And, the rate of death from pulmonary fibrosis is increasing

Olson et al, AJRCCM, 2007

Why This Matters

Bjoraker et al, Am J Resp Crit Care Med ‘98 DIP

/IPF

slide-4
SLIDE 4

6/2/2015 4

IPF Treatment: 2010

  • “Triple therapy”

– Variant of historical approach of combined prednisone and immunomodulator (azathioprine or cyclophosphamide) RX

  • Prednisone,

azathioprine and acetylcysteine

Paul Wolters, MD

IPF Treatment: 2010

Acetylcysteine with prednisone and azathioprine

Demedts NEJM 2005;353:2229

Rx placebo

slide-5
SLIDE 5

6/2/2015 5

IPF Clinical Trials PANTHER

  • Prednisone, Azathioprine and N‐acetylcysteine:

A Study That Evaluates Response in IPF

  • Designed and funded by the NIH IPFnet

– Rationale: Test whether the “standard of care” IPF therapy is effective – Address the use of NAC alone and in combination with prednisone/azathioprine against placebo

IPFnet NEJM 2012;366:1968 and IPFnet NEJM 2014;370:2093

PANTHER

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6/2/2015 6

PANTHER

  • Enrolled 341 patients with FVC ≥ 50%, DLCO ≥ 30%
  • Randomized to NAC, NAC plus

prednisone/azathioprine, or placebo for 60 weeks

  • Primary endpoint: Change in FVC

IPF

n = 341

NAC alone

n =133

Placebo

n = 131

60 wks

1°: FVC 2°: death, acute exacerbation, disease progression

NAC pus P/A

n =77*

IPFnet NEJM 2012;366:1968 and IPFnet NEJM 2014;370:2093

* Stopped early

PANTHER

Baseline NAC alone (n=133) NAC + P/A (n=77) Placebo (n=131) Age, years 68 69 67 Male sex 74% 77% 67% FVC 72% 69% 73% DLCO 45% 42% 46% 6MWT distance 371 362 375 Dyspnea (UCSD) 26 30 27 QOL (SGRQ) 40 39 38

IPFnet NEJM 2012;366:1968 and IPFnet NEJM 2014;370:2093

slide-7
SLIDE 7

6/2/2015 7

PANTHER Part A

  • NAC plus prednisone/azathioprine stopped early

for evidence of harm

IPFnet NEJM 2012;366:1968

Death or hospitalization

PANTHER Part B

  • No difference in rate of

FVC decline with NAC monotherapy

  • Also no difference in:

– Death – Acute exacerbation – Disease progression – Hospitalization – Dyspnea – 6MWT distance – Overall QOL IPFnet NEJM 2014;370:2093

slide-8
SLIDE 8

6/2/2015 8

PANTHER: Conclusions

  • Prednisone/azathioprine/N‐acetyl therapy

does not slow progression of IPF.

– If anything, it may be harmful to patients.

  • N‐acetyl therapy alone does not slow

progression of IPF.

May 2014

slide-9
SLIDE 9

6/2/2015 9

Pirfenidone: Rationale

  • Pirfenidone limited development of lung

fibrosis in animal models.

  • Reduces production of TGF‐
  • Attenuates the activation of MAP

kinases

  • 2 phase 3 studies in IPF patients had

mixed results

  • One slowed progression of IPF, one did

not

  • Approved in Japan, Canada, Europe
  • Assessment of Pirfenidone to Confirm Efficacy

and Safety in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

– Two previous phase 3 trials had mixed results – Performed in response to an FDA request for an additional trial to support approval – Designed to enrich subjects for disease progression (as measured by change in FVC)

  • King. NEJM 2014;370:2083

ASCEND

slide-10
SLIDE 10

6/2/2015 10

ASCEND: Study design

  • Enrolled 555 highly‐selected (1562 screened)

patients with IPF

  • Randomized to pirfenidone or placebo for 52 weeks

– Primary endpoint: Change in FVC – Secondary endpoints: 50 meter decline in 6MWT; 20 point increase in UCSD dyspnea score; PFS (10% FVC decline, 50 meter 6MWT decline, or death); death (any cause and related to IPF)

IPF

n = 555

Pirfenidone

n = 278

Placebo

n = 277

52 wks 1°: FVC 2°: 6MWT distance; PFS; dyspnea; death

  • King. NEJM 2014;370:2083

ASCEND: Subjects

Baseline Pirfenidone (n=278) Placebo (n=277) Age, years 68 68 Male sex 80% 77% FVC 68% 69% DLCO 44% 44% 6MWT distance 415 421 Dyspnea (UCSD) 34 37 Definite UIP HRCT 96% 95%

  • King. NEJM 2014;370:2083
slide-11
SLIDE 11

6/2/2015 11

ASCEND: 1° Endpoint

  • King. NEJM 2014;370:2083

Relative difference = 45% P value < 0.001

ASCEND: 1° Endpoint

  • King. NEJM 2014;370:2083

10% or greater absolute decline

slide-12
SLIDE 12

6/2/2015 12

ASCEND: Safety and tolerability

  • King. NEJM 2014;370:2083
  • No difference in SAEs (3x LFT increase 2.9% vs 0.7%)
  • Treatment discontinuation in 14.4% vs 10.8%

Adverse event Pirfenidone Placebo Nausea 36.0% 13.4% Rash 28.1% 8.7% Dizziness 17.6% 13.0% Dyspepsia 17.6% 6.1% Anorexia 15.8% 6.5% Vomiting 12.9% 8.7% Decrease in weight 12.6% 7.9% Gastroesophageal reflux 11.9% 6.5% Insomnia 11.2% 6.5%

Nintedanib

  • Intracellular tyrosine kinase

inhibitor with multiple targets

  • Lck
  • VEGF
  • PDGF
  • FGF
  • Src
  • Phase 2 study suggested it slowed

progression (loss of FVC) of IPF

  • Richeldi. NEJM 2011; 365: 1079
slide-13
SLIDE 13

6/2/2015 13

  • Rationale: Test whether nintedanib slows

progression of IPF.

  • INPULSIS I and II

– Two identical RCTs designed to further develop nintedanib after promising phase II results. – 2 trials are required for approval by FDA.

Richeldi NEJM 2014;370:2071

INPULSIS

INPULSIS: Study design

  • Enrolled 1066 patients with IPF/likely IPF
  • Randomized (3:2) to nintedanib/placebo for 52 wks

– Primary endpoint: Change in FVC – Secondary endpoints: time to acute exacerbation; quality

  • f life (SGRQ); categorical change in FVC; death (any cause,

respiratory)

IPF

n = 1066

nintedanib

n = 638

Placebo

n = 423

52 wks 1°: FVC 2°: acute exacerbation; QOL; death Richeldi NEJM 2014;370:2071

slide-14
SLIDE 14

6/2/2015 14

INPULSIS: Study design

  • Enrolled 1066 patients with IPF/likely IPF

HRCT required A/B/C, A/C, or B/C for enrollment: – A. Definite honeycombing, basal/peripheral predominance – B. Reticulation and traction bronchiectasis – C. Atypical features are absent

Richeldi Resp Med 2014;108:1023

  • Raghu. AJRCCM 2011;183:788

INPULSIS: Subjects

Baseline INPULSIS 1 INPULSIS II

Nintedanib Placebo Nintedanib placebo

N= 309 204 329 214 Age, years 67 67 66 67 Male sex 81% 80% 78% 78% FVC 80% 81% 80% 82% DLCO 48% 48% 47% 46% Oxygen saturation 96% 96% 96% 96% SGRQ score 40 40 40 39

Richeldi NEJM 2014;370:2071

slide-15
SLIDE 15

6/2/2015 15

INPULSIS: 1° Endpoint

Richeldi NEJM 2014;370:2071

Relative difference = 45% P value < 0.001 Relative difference = 52% P value < 0.001

INPULSIS: 1° Endpoint

Richeldi NEJM 2014;370:2071

Mean difference 109.9 (71.3, 148.6) P value < 0.001

slide-16
SLIDE 16

6/2/2015 16

INPULSIS: 2° Endpoints

INPULSIS I INPULSIS II Nintedanib Placebo Nintedanib Placebo Change in SGRQ 4.34 4.39 2.80 * 5.48 Any death POOLED 5.5% 7.8% Respiratory death POOLED 3.8% 5.0% Richeldi NEJM 2014;370:2071

Hazard ratio 1.15 (0.54, 2.42) P value = 0.67

* Statistically significant difference

Acute exacerbation

INPULSIS: 2° Endpoints

Richeldi NEJM 2014;370:2071

Hazard ratio 0.38 (0.19, 0.77) P value = 0.005

INPULSIS I INPULSIS II Nintedanib Placebo Nintedanib Placebo Change in SGRQ 4.34 4.39 2.80 * 5.48 Any death POOLED 5.5% 7.8% Respiratory death POOLED 3.8% 5.0%

Acute exacerbation

slide-17
SLIDE 17

6/2/2015 17

INPULSIS: Safety and tolerability

  • No difference in SAEs (3x LFT increase 5.1% vs 0.7%)
  • Treatment discontinuation 23.7‐25.2% vs 17.6‐20.1%

Adverse event Nintedanib Placebo Diarrhea 62%, 63% 19%, 18% Nausea 23%, 26% 6%, 7% Decreased appetite 8%, 13% 7%, 5% Vomiting 13%, 10% 2%, 3% Weight loss 8%, 11% 6%, 1%

Richeldi NEJM 2014;370:2071

October 15, 2014

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/default.htm

Pirfenidone = Esbriet Nintedanib = Ofev

slide-18
SLIDE 18

6/2/2015 18

Conclusions

  • 2 medications are now approved that slow

progression of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

– Pirfenidone: Markets as Esbriet – Nintedinib: Marketed as OFEV

  • Therapies appear equally efficacious
  • Select a therapy based on perceived impact of side

effect profile for a patient

– Pirfenidone: Rash, dyspepsia, fatigue – Nintedinib: Loose stool, rash

  • Great advance, but improvements are needed….

Meds only slow progression, they do not stop progression or improve lung function.

Case

  • 65 y/o man presents with a 5‐6 month history
  • f progressive dyspnea on exertion, dry cough
  • He uses a treadmill regularly

– Cut down from 40 to 30 minutes – Decreased speed from 3.6 mph to 2.8 mph

  • ROS: Right knee pain for many years, otherwise

negative

slide-19
SLIDE 19

6/2/2015 19

PMH / Meds

  • PMH

– HTN – Seizure disorder – Hyperlipidemia

  • Allergies

– Sulfa

  • Medications

– Fenofibrate – Lamictal – Amlodipine – Ibuprofen prn

Social & Family History

  • Social history

– ½ ppd x 20 years, quit 15 years ago – Denies EtOH, drug use

  • Family history

– No lung or autoimmune disease

slide-20
SLIDE 20

6/2/2015 20

Exposure History

  • Occupational exposures

– Works as carpenter

  • Environmental exposures

– No mold in the home, pets, birds, humidifier or hot tub use, swamp coolers, down – Golfs 3x/week

Physical Examination

  • Saturation 97% on room air
  • Crackles at bilateral bases
  • R knee is slightly swollen,not warm or tender
  • Otherwise normal exam
slide-21
SLIDE 21

6/2/2015 21

Data

  • CBC, chem 7, LFTs within normal

limits

  • FVC 70% predicted
  • DLCO 40% predicted
  • Walk test in clinic

– 97% on RA at rest – 92% on RA at 3 min

  • PFTs

– FEV1 2.56 (81%) – FVC 2.83 (67%) – FEV1/FVC 0.90 – TLC 5.13 (76%) – DLco 12.37 (65%)

slide-22
SLIDE 22

6/2/2015 22

What additional testing would you perform next in this patient?

  • 1. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)
  • 2. BAL and transbronchial biopsy
  • 3. High resolution CT of the chest
  • 4. Surgical lung biopsy
  • 5. No additional testing; diagnosis is clear
slide-23
SLIDE 23

6/2/2015 23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

6/2/2015 24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

6/2/2015 25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

6/2/2015 26

Serological evaluation

  • ANA negative
  • RF = 4
slide-27
SLIDE 27

6/2/2015 27

What is the next step for this patient?

  • 1. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)
  • 2. BAL and transbronchial biopsy
  • 3. Surgical lung biopsy
  • 4. No additional testing; diagnosis is clear

VATS

slide-28
SLIDE 28

6/2/2015 28

slide-29
SLIDE 29

6/2/2015 29

What is the next step for this patient?

  • 1. No therapy
  • 2. Treat with Prednisone, azathioprine, N‐acetyl

cysteine

  • 3. Treat with pirfenidone
  • 4. Treat with Nintedanib