IntroductionPirfenidone, an antifibrotic drug, slows-down the disease progression in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) over 12 months, however limited data on the decline of lung function and overall survival (OS) in real-world cohorts on longer follow-up exists.Patients/methodsOf the enrolled Czech IPF patients (n = 841) from an EMPIRE registry, 383 (45.5%) received pirfenidone, 218 (25.9%) no-antifibrotic treatment and 240 (28.5%) were excluded (missing data, nintedanib treatment). The 2- and 5-yrs OS and forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusing lung capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) were investigated at treatment initiation and 6, 12, 18 and 24 months’ follow-up.ResultsDuring a 2-yr follow-up, less than a quarter of the patients progressed on pirfenidone as assessed by the decline of ≥10% FVC (17.0%) and ≥ 15% DLCO (14.3%). On pirfenidone, the DLCO (≥10%) declines at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months’ and DLCO (≥15%) declines at 6, 18 and 24 months’ follow-up were associated with increased mortality. The DLCO decline showed higher predictive value for mortality than FVC decline. In patients with no-antifibrotics, FVC and DLCO declines were not predictive for mortality. Pirfenidone increased 5-yrs OS over no-antifibrotic treatment (55.9% vs 31.5% alive, P = 0.002).ConclusionOur study observed the 2-yrs sustained effect of pirfenidone on the decline of lung function and survival in the real-world patient’s IPF cohort. DLCO decline of ≥10% shows a potential as a mortality predictor in IPF patients on pirfenidone, and should be routinely evaluated during follow-up examinations.

DL changes over time were shown as a better predictor of mortality compared with FVC changes in our study. In our opinion it is necessary to implement the DL analysis into clinical trials and routine practice.

Background: Several registries of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) have been established to better understand its natural history, though their size and duration of follow-up are limited. Here, we describe the large European MultiPartner IPF Registry (EMPIRE) and validate predictors of long-term survival in IPF. Methods: The multinational prospective EMPIRE registry enrolled IPF patients from 48 sites in 10 Central and Eastern European countries since 2014. Survival from IPF diagnosis until death was estimated, accounting for lefttruncation. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of death for prognostic factors, using restricted cubic splines to fit continuous factors. Results: The cohort included 1620 patients (mean age at diagnosis 67.6 years, 71% male, 63% smoking history), including 75% enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis. Median survival was 4.5 years, with 45% surviving 5 years post-diagnosis. Compared with GAP stage I, mortality was higher with GAP stages II (HR 2.9; 95% CI: 2.3-3.7) and III (HR 4.0; 95% CI: 2.8-5.7) while, with redefined cutoffs , the corresponding HRs were 2.7 (95% CI: 1.8-4.0) and 5.8 (95% CI: 4.0-8.3) respectively. Mortality was higher with concurrent pulmonary hypertension (HR 2.0; 95% CI: 1.5-2.9) and lung cancer (HR 2.6; 95% CI: 1.3-4.9). Conclusions: EMPIRE, one of the largest long-term registries of patients with IPF, provides a more accurate confirmation of prognostic factors and co-morbidities on longer term five-year mortality. It also suggests that some fine-tuning of the indices for mortality may provide a more accurate long-term prognostic profile for these patients.

ImportanceThere is a major need for effective, well-tolerated treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of the autotaxin inhibitor ziritaxestat in patients with IPF.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThe 2 identically designed, phase 3, randomized clinical trials, ISABELA 1 and ISABELA 2, were conducted in Africa, Asia-Pacific region, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and North America (26 countries). A total of 1306 patients with IPF were randomized (525 patients at 106 sites in ISABELA 1 and 781 patients at 121 sites in ISABELA 2). Enrollment began in November 2018 in both trials and follow-up was completed early due to study termination on April 12, 2021, for ISABELA 1 and on March 30, 2021, for ISABELA 2.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 600 mg of oral ziritaxestat, 200 mg of ziritaxestat, or placebo once daily in addition to local standard of care (pirfenidone, nintedanib, or neither) for at least 52 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the annual rate of decline for forced vital capacity (FVC) at week 52. The key secondary outcomes were disease progression, time to first respiratory-related hospitalization, and change from baseline in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score (range, 0 to 100; higher scores indicate poorer health-related quality of life).ResultsAt the time of study termination, 525 patients were randomized in ISABELA 1 and 781 patients in ISABELA 2 (mean age: 70.0 [SD, 7.2] years in ISABELA 1 and 69.8 [SD, 7.1] years in ISABELA 2; male: 82.4% and 81.2%, respectively). The trials were terminated early after an independent data and safety monitoring committee concluded that the benefit to risk profile of ziritaxestat no longer supported their continuation. Ziritaxestat did not improve the annual rate of FVC decline vs placebo in either study. In ISABELA 1, the least-squares mean annual rate of FVC decline was –124.6 mL (95% CI, −178.0 to −71.2 mL) with 600 mg of ziritaxestat vs –147.3 mL (95% CI, −199.8 to −94.7 mL) with placebo (between-group difference, 22.7 mL [95% CI, −52.3 to 97.6 mL]), and –173.9 mL (95% CI, −225.7 to −122.2 mL) with 200 mg of ziritaxestat (between-group difference vs placebo, −26.7 mL [95% CI, −100.5 to 47.1 mL]). In ISABELA 2, the least-squares mean annual rate of FVC decline was –173.8 mL (95% CI, −209.2 to −138.4 mL) with 600 mg of ziritaxestat vs –176.6 mL (95% CI, −211.4 to −141.8 mL) with placebo (between-group difference, 2.8 mL [95% CI, −46.9 to 52.4 mL]) and –174.9 mL (95% CI, −209.5 to −140.2 mL) with 200 mg of ziritaxestat (between-group difference vs placebo, 1.7 mL [95% CI, −47.4 to 50.8 mL]). There was no benefit with ziritaxestat vs placebo for the key secondary outcomes. In ISABELA 1, all-cause mortality was 8.0% with 600 mg of ziritaxestat, 4.6% with 200 mg of ziritaxestat, and 6.3% with placebo; in ISABELA 2, it was 9.3% with 600 mg of ziritaxestat, 8.5% with 200 mg of ziritaxestat, and 4.7% with placebo.Conclusions and RelevanceZiritaxestat did not improve clinical outcomes compared with placebo in patients with IPF receiving standard of care treatment with pirfenidone or nintedanib or in those not receiving standard of care treatment.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03711162 and NCT03733444