Keywords
idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis - interstitial lung disease - anti-fibrotic - preclinical
models - pulmonary fibrosis
Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is the most common etiology of fibrotic lung disease
worldwide. Incidence is 1 to 13 cases per 100,000, with prevalence ranging from 3
to 45 cases per 100,000.[1] Risk factors for disease development include age, male sex, inhalational exposures
(including tobacco), comorbidities, and genetic factors.[2] Survival is often quoted as 3 to 5 years; however, this is likely an underestimate
due to earlier identification, effective drug therapies, effective lifestyle modifications,
including pulmonary rehab, and treatment of comorbidities.[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] While there are only two FDA-approved therapies for IPF, comprehensive preclinical
studies have identified exciting and novel therapeutic targets. As a result, several
new promising drugs have advanced to clinical trials, which we will summarize in this
review ([Fig. 1]; [Table 1]).
Fig. 1 Schematic of critical events in IPF pathogenesis and how therapeutic categories target
them. Repetitive epithelial injury leads to maladaptive healing, AEC2 dysfunction,
senescence, and apoptosis. Pro-inflammatory cell types, including macrophages, epithelial
cells, and fibroblasts, produce profibrotic cytokines which promote fibroblast proliferation,
differentiation into myofibroblasts, and activation. Fibroblasts produce excessive
ECM, resulting in an imbalance between production and degradation. AEC2, type 2 alveolar
epithelial cells; AT2, angiotensin 2 receptor; ATX, autotaxin; cAMP, cyclic adenosine
monophosphate; ECM, extracellular matrix; LPAR, lysophosphatidic acid receptor; PDE,
phosphodiesterase. (Created in BioRender by Cooley J. [2025] https://BioRender.com/5me0sry.)
Table 1
Select phases II and III trials evaluating the efficacy of targeted therapies in IPF
Drug
|
Other names
|
Mechanism of action
|
Clinical trial
|
Phase
|
Status[a]
|
Primary endpoint
|
Duration
|
Primary met?
|
Background therapy
|
Notes
|
Pirfenidone[58]
[59]
|
Esbriet, Pirespa, Etuary
|
Prevents TGF-β signaling
|
CAPACITY (1 and 2)
|
III
|
FDA approved
|
Change in predicted FVC
|
72 wk
|
Yes
|
None
|
CAPACITY 1 only showed benefit at earlier timepoints
|
ASCEND
|
Change in FVC or death
|
52 wk
|
Yes
|
None
|
Improved progression-free survival and 6MWT decline with pirfenidone treatment
|
Nintedanib[73]
|
BIBF 1120, Ofev, Vargatef
|
Inhibits PDGF, VEGF, and FGF receptors
|
INPULSIS (1 and 2)
|
III
|
FDA approved
|
Rate of decline in FVC
|
52 wk
|
Yes
|
None
|
|
Saracatinib
|
AZD0530
|
Inhibits the Src family of tyrosine kinases
|
STOP-IPF
|
Ib/IIa
|
Active, not recruiting
|
Change in FVC from baseline
|
24 wk
|
Pending
|
None
|
|
Pamrevlumab[86]
|
FG-3019
|
Monoclonal antibody against CTGF
|
ZEPHYRUS (1 and 2)
|
III
|
Terminated
|
Change in FVC from baseline
|
48 wk
|
No
|
None; allowed after study initiation for worsening respiratory status
|
Only ZEPHYRUS-1 results available
|
Vixarelimab
|
RG6536
|
Monoclonal antibody against OSM receptor
|
NCT05785624
|
II
|
Recruiting
|
Change in FVC from baseline
|
52 wk
|
Pending
|
Stable background therapy allowed
|
|
Treprostinil
|
Tyvaso
|
Prostacyclin analogue
|
TETON (1 and 2)
|
III
|
Active, not recruiting
|
Change in FVC from baseline
|
52 wk
|
Pending
|
Stable background therapy allowed
|
|
Nerandomilast[114]
|
BI1015550
|
PDE4B inhibitor
|
FIBRONEER-IPF
|
III
|
Completed
|
Change in FVC from baseline
|
52 wk
|
Yes
|
Stable background therapy allowed
|
Data yet to be formally published
|
Sildenafil[118]
[119]
|
Revatio, viagra, others
|
PDE5 inhibitor
|
STEP-IPF
|
III
|
Completed
|
Increase in 6MWT by 20% or more
|
12 wk
|
No
|
Stable background therapy allowed
|
Improved arterial oxygen saturation, DLCO, and degree of dyspnea
|
INSTAGE-IPF
|
III
|
Completed
|
Change in SGRQ score from baseline
|
12 wk
|
No
|
Combination therapy with nintedanib
|
DLCO < 35% predicted inclusion criteria
|
Ifetroban
|
|
Thromboxane receptor antagonist
|
NCT05571059
|
II
|
Recruiting
|
Change in FVC from baseline
|
52 wk
|
Pending
|
Stable background therapy allowed
|
Patients on anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy were excluded
|
Bosentan[132]
[133]
|
Tracleer, stayveer, safebo
|
Endothelin receptor antagonist
|
BUILD-1
|
III
|
Completed
|
Change in exercise capacity from baseline
|
12 mo
|
No
|
None
|
Improved time to death or disease progression in those diagnosed by surgical lung
biopsy
|
BUILD-3
|
III
|
Completed
|
Time to IPF worsening
|
Variable
|
No
|
None
|
Patients diagnosed by surgical lung biopsy
|
Ambrisentan[134]
|
Letairis, volibris, pulmonext
|
Endothelin receptor antagonist
|
ARTEMIS-IPF
|
III
|
Terminated
|
Time to disease progression
|
Variable
|
No
|
None
|
Interim analysis with increased risk of disease progression in the ambrisentan group
|
Macitentan[135]
|
Opsumit
|
Endothelin receptor antagonist
|
MUSIC
|
II
|
Completed
|
Change in FVC from baseline
|
12 mo
|
No
|
None
|
Patients diagnosed by surgical lung biopsy
|
Ziritaxestat[153]
|
GLPG1690
|
Autotaxin inhibitor
|
ISABELA (1 and 2)
|
III
|
Terminated
|
Rate of decline in FVC
|
52 wk
|
No
|
Stable therapy allowed
|
Terminated early for lack of efficacy and increased mortality in ziritaxestat groups
|
Fipaxalparant
|
HZN-825
|
LPAR1 antagonist
|
NCT05032066
|
II
|
Terminated
|
Change in predicted FVC
|
52 wk
|
No
|
Stable therapy allowed
|
Terminated early, no results released to date
|
Admilparant[156]
|
BMS986-278
|
LPAR1 antagonist
|
NCT04308681
|
II
|
Completed
|
Change in predicted FVC
|
26 wk
|
Yes
|
Stable therapy allowed
|
30 and 60 mg doses tested
|
BG00011[167]
|
|
Monoclonal antibody against integrin αvβ6
|
NCT03573505
|
IIb
|
Terminated
|
Change in FVC from baseline
|
52 wk
|
No
|
Stable therapy allowed
|
Terminated early; signal for worsening at 26-wk analysis
|
Bexotegrast
|
PLN-74809
|
Inhibitor of integrins αvβ6 and αvβ1
|
BEACON-IPF
|
II
|
Active, not recruiting
|
Change in FVC from baseline
|
52 wk
|
Pending
|
Stable therapy allowed
|
Phase IIa INTEGRIS-IPF demonstrated safety and tolerability
|
DWN12088
|
|
Prolyl-tRNA synthetase inhibitor, disrupting collagen translation
|
NCT05389215
|
II
|
Recruiting
|
Rate of decline in FVC
|
24 wk
|
Pending
|
Stable therapy allowed
|
|
Simtuzumab[174]
|
GS 6624
|
LOXL2 inhibitor, disrupting collagen crosslinking
|
RAINIER
|
II
|
Terminated
|
Progression-free survival
|
Variable
|
No
|
Stable therapy allowed
|
Terminated early for lack of efficacy
|
GSK3915393
|
|
Transglutaminase-2 inhibitor,
|
TRANSFORM
|
II
|
Recruiting
|
Change in FVC from baseline
|
26 wk
|
Pending
|
Stable therapy allowed
|
|
Setanaxib
|
GKT137831
|
Nox1 and Nox4 inhibitor
|
NCT03865927
|
II
|
Completed
|
Change in the concentration of the marker of oxidative stress
|
24 wk
|
Pending
|
Not specified
|
|
Buloxibutid
|
C21
|
Angiotensin type 2 receptor agonist
|
ASPIRE-IPF
|
II
|
Recruiting
|
Change in FVC from baseline
|
52 wk
|
Pending
|
Nintedanib allowed
|
Pirfenidone use is excluded due to drug-drug interactions
|
Zinpentraxin alfa[238]
|
rhPTX-2, PRM-151
|
Recombinant human pentraxin-2
|
STARSCAPE
|
III
|
Terminated
|
Change in FVC from baseline
|
52 wk
|
No
|
Stable therapy allowed
|
Terminated early for lack of efficacy
|
Abbreviations: 6MWT, 6-minute walk test distance; DLCO, diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide; FVC, forced vital capacity;
SGRQ, Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire.
Source: Trial parameters from clinicaltrials.gov.
a At the time of manuscript submission.
Clinically, IPF is defined radiographically and histologically by the presence of
usual interstitial pneumonia without evidence of underlying exposure or rheumatologic
cause.[10] These findings manifest as progressive reticular changes in the lung, traction bronchiectasis
and bronchiolectasis, and ultimately, honeycomb cyst formation.[10]
[11] Symptoms manifest as dry cough, dyspnea, and hypoxia. Physiology most frequently
demonstrates pulmonary restriction and gas exchange abnormalities with reduced total
lung capacity, forced vital capacity (FVC), and low diffusing capacity of the lung
for carbon monoxide (DLCO).[12] Diagnosis is made using careful appraisal of the clinical history, physical exam
findings, pulmonary function tests, imaging, and relevant serologic data. When considering
other etiologies, surgical lung biopsy may be performed for definitive diagnosis.
In a small cohort of patients who received clinical and histopathologic diagnoses
from biopsy, a clinical assessment alone was accurate in 62% of patients diagnosed
with IPF.[13] Critically, the symptoms and physiologic changes associated with IPF frequently
occur prior to formal diagnosis.[14] Clinical progression is tracked by trending patient-reported outcomes, spirometry,
DLCO, 6-minute walk test distance (6MWT), and radiographic evidence of fibrosis, which
form the basis for clinical trial outcomes in IPF research.[15]
The pathogenesis of IPF has not been fully elucidated, but the working hypothesis
is that a genetically susceptible individual undergoes repetitive epithelial injury,
resulting in pro-fibrotic signaling, accumulation of pro-fibrotic fibroblasts, and
an imbalance between collagen synthesis and degradation.[2]
[16]
[17] Preclinical studies utilize in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo approaches to identify
mechanisms driving fibrotic change.[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] In vivo mouse models have been foundational in identifying pathophysiologic mechanisms
of fibrosis. In vivo models of pulmonary fibrosis utilize injurious exposures including
chemical (bleomycin), radiation, inhalation of damaging substances (silica and asbestos),
or genetic modalities to induce fibrosis.[20]
[21] The most well-characterized of these models utilizes a single dose of intratracheal
bleomycin, a chemotherapeutic agent causing double-stranded DNA breaks.[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] Bleomycin-induced lung injury can be broken into four overlapping phases. After
an acute inflammatory phase (days: 0–7), a fibroproliferative phase ensues (days:
3–14), followed by an established fibrotic phase (days: 14–28) which resolves over
time (days: 42–56), leaving mice with near normal lung architecture.[21]
[24]
[26] It shares several phenotypic similarities with IPF during the fibrotic phase, including
epithelial cell damage and remodeling, pro-fibrotic signaling, fibroblast proliferation,
accumulation of extracellular matrix (ECM), and architectural distortion.[23] When interpreting in vivo studies using bleomycin in mice, the timing of intervention
is important. We will use the following nomenclature when describing in vivo mouse
studies with bleomycin, consistent with Kolb et al.[23] Inhibiting development of fibrosis will refer to interventions made prior to bleomycin
and up to 6 days postbleomycin. Therapeutically reducing fibrosis refers to interventions
initiated 7 days or more postbleomycin. However, if an intervention is initiated after
7 days postbleomycin and the analysis occurs at least 6 weeks postbleomycin, we will
refer to this as hastening resolution.
Pirfenidone and nintedanib remain the only two FDA-approved therapies for the treatment
of IPF. They both slow fibrosis progression and likely have a mortality benefit in
IPF, but don't reverse established progressive fibrosis.[8]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31] As of March 2025, review of clinicaltrials.gov demonstrates 9 active and 20 completed
phase III clinical trials. This review will explore promising therapeutic avenues,
summarizing the (1) targeted mechanisms, (2) preclinical data, and (3) clinical trial
results. Exploring the path from bench to bedside will highlight the diverse pathways
driving pulmonary fibrosis in preclinical models and identify promising clinical trials.
Growth Factors and Cytokines
Growth Factors and Cytokines
Several pro-fibrotic signaling pathways that contribute to epithelial injury, fibroblast
recruitment, proliferation, and resilience have been implicated in the pathogenesis
of pulmonary fibrosis. Signaling pathways have formed the backbone of pulmonary fibrosis
research since the identification of TGF-β as a key mediator of fibrosis.[32]
[33] Increased levels of TGF-β have been identified in IPF lungs, and overexpression
of TGF-β in animal models (both genetic and through adenoviral delivery) results in
the development of fibrosis.[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38] TGF-β is produced by several cell types integral to the pathogenesis of IPF, namely
damaged alveolar epithelial cells, pro-fibrotic macrophages, and fibroblasts.[38]
[39] Upon binding to its receptor, TGF-β activates Smad2 and Smad3 via phosphorylation,
allowing for translocation to the nucleus and promoting transcription of several fibrosis-related
genes, including collagen synthesis.[40]
[41]
[42]
[43] Loss of Smad3 is protective against the development of bleomycin fibrosis in mice.[44] TGF-β also drives epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, fibroblast proliferation,
differentiation into myofibroblasts, and fibroblast activation.[45]
[46]
[47]
[48] While TGF-β has long been considered a target for IPF, there have been limited clinical
studies to date directly targeting TGF-β, largely due to concerns about on target
effects outside of lung fibrosis.[49] TRK-250, an inhaled small-interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule blocking TGF-β production,
completed phase I trials but has not advanced further.[50]
While the precise mechanism of action has not been fully elucidated, pirfenidone has
been shown to decrease expression of TGF-β in vitro and in vivo models of fibrosis,
thereby decreasing production of ECM components like collagen, fibronectin, and tenascin-C.[51]
[52]
[53]
[54] Additionally, pirfenidone decreases expression of pro-fibrotic growth factors like
platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) and fibroblast growth factor 2.[53]
[55]
[56] Pirfenidone has also been shown to decrease the expression of some matrix metalloproteinases
(MMP), reduce inflammatory cells and cytokine expression, which have been excellently
reviewed elsewhere.[57] Efficacy of pirfenidone in IPF was evaluated in three phase III randomized controlled
trials (RCTs), ASCEND and two CAPACITY RCTs.[58]
[59] Pooled results demonstrate that at 1 year, placebo-treated patients experienced
an FVC decline of 363 mL, pirfenidone-treated patients experienced a decline of 216 mL,
and no decline was observed in 59.3% more pirfenidone-treated patients.[60] Treatment was well tolerated, and the most common side effects were gastrointestinal-related
and rash.[60] Nebulized pirfenidone is currently being studied as an alternative to the oral agent
to reduce side effects, predominantly upper GI distress.[61] A deuterated formulation, deupirfenidone, is also being studied for improved pharmacokinetic
and safety profiles in the ELEVATE-IPF trial, with promising early results noted in
a press release.[62]
[63]
Nintedanib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets several additional growth factors
implicated in IPF, namely PDGF, FGF, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).
PDGF RNA expression is increased in the lungs of IPF patients and is derived from
alveolar macrophages and epithelial cells.[64] In response to PDGF stimulation, fibroblasts proliferate, produce collagens, and
a-SMA.[64]
[65]
[66] The FGF family of growth factors has multiple effects on fibroblasts, including
fibroblast proliferation and collagen production.[47]
[67] FGF-9 and FGF-18 are also known to promote fibroblast survival.[68] VEGF is produced by type II alveolar epithelial cells and fibroblasts in the lung,
but its effects on fibrosis are unclear, as some investigators report pro-fibrotic
effects and others anti-fibrotic effects.[69]
[70] By antagonizing the receptors of PDGF, FGF, and VEGF, nintedanib exerts anti-fibrotic
effects. After bleomycin administration in mice, nintedanib inhibited the development
of fibrosis and therapeutically reduced fibrosis in a dose-dependent manner.[71]
[72] Nintedanib treatment for IPF was evaluated in two phase III RCTs, INPULSIS-1 and
2, which demonstrated that nintedanib reduced the rate of FVC decline in IPF patients
(−240 mL/year in placebo group vs. −115 mL/year in nintedanib group).[73] Its primary side effect was diarrhea (19% in the placebo group and 62% in the nintedanib
group), which significantly restricts its use clinically.
The Src-family tyrosine kinases modulate several pro-fibrotic signaling pathways,
including PDGF, VEGF, FGF, and epidermal growth factor.[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78] Saracatanib, a c-Src inhibitor, therapeutically reduced fibrosis after both bleomycin
and recombinant-TGF-β adenovirus induced fibrosis in mice.[79] In these animal models, saracatinib demonstrated equal to improved efficacy compared
to nintedanib and pirfenidone in therapeutically reducing fibrosis.[79] A phase Ib/IIa trial is currently enrolling to evaluate the safety and efficacy
of saracatinib for the treatment of IPF (identifier: NCT04598919).
Connective tissue growth factor (CTGF) is a pro-fibrotic matricellular protein that
has been identified as a drug target for IPF. Plasma and lung tissue from patients
with IPF have increased levels of CTGF, which directs fibroblasts, epithelial cells,
and alveolar macrophages to promote fibrogenesis.[80]
[81] CTGF induces fibroblast proliferation and differentiation into myofibroblasts.[82] Both fibroblast-specific CTGF-deletion and inhibition using an anti-CTGF monoclonal
antibody inhibited the development of bleomycin-induced fibrosis in mice.[83]
[84] Targeted CTGF inhibition as a treatment modality for IPF is being approached through
the development of novel monoclonal antibodies. Pamrevlumab exhibited efficacy and
safety in treating IPF in the phase II PRAISE trial.[85] Unfortunately, the phase III ZEPHYRUS-1 trial studying pamrevlumab did not meet
its primary endpoint of change in FVC at 48 weeks (−330 mL in the placebo group and
−260 mL in the pamrevlumab group; p = 0.29).[86] There was no significant difference in adverse events. Another monoclonal antibody
targeting CTGF, SHR-1906, demonstrated safety in a phase I trial demonstrated safety,
and a phase II trial of the agent is currently underway (identifier: NCT05722964).[87]
Interleukin signaling has been another therapeutic target in IPF. IL-1β, IL-2, IL-6,
IL-8, IL-10, IL-11, IL-12, IL17-A, and IL-33 are all increased in the blood or BAL
of IPF patients compared to healthy controls, implicating a role for inflammation
in the fibrotic lung.[88]
[89] These cytokines are largely pro-inflammatory, though some have pro-fibrotic activity
as well, and facilitate immune cell recruitment, ECM production, and fibrosis.[88]
[90] Despite mouse models demonstrating a robust inflammatory response to bleomycin preceding
fibrosis, targeting an inflammatory component of IPF has not proven beneficial, and
may even worsen mortality. The PANTHER-IPF study, while limited by its multi-arm protocol
and early termination, demonstrated that use of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) combined with
the immunomodulatory agents prednisone and azathioprine was associated with an increased
risk of death or hospitalization.[91] Additionally, inhibition of TNF-α with etanercept was shown to be an ineffective
treatment modality for IPF.[92] Therefore, the use of anti-inflammatory maintenance therapy for IPF appears to be
an ineffective strategy. IL-11 and members of the IL-6 family continue to hold promise
as therapeutic targets in part due to their pro-fibrotic actions. IL-11 is increased
in the lungs of IPF patients and positively correlates with disease severity.[89] In response to IL-11 stimulation, fibroblasts differentiate into myofibroblasts
and produce collagen. Exogenous IL-11 administration and fibroblast-specific overexpression
of IL-11 in vivo promoted the accumulation of collagen in the lungs of mice.[89] After bleomycin, deletion of an IL-11 receptor subunit inhibited the development
of fibrosis in mice.[89] A neutralizing antibody to IL-11 receptor, LASN01, has been developed and has completed
a phase I/IIa clinical trial with results pending formal publication (identifier:
NCT05331300). Oncostatin M (OSM), a member of the IL-6 family of cytokines, is elevated
in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid of IPF patients.[93] OSM is not only pro-inflammatory, but also modulates ECM production, drives fibroblast
proliferation, and inhibits fibroblast apoptosis.[93]
[94]
[95] Vixarelimab is a monoclonal antibody against the OSM receptor OSMRß and is being
studied in a phase IIa trial in IPF (identifier: NCT05785624).
Cyclic AMP, Cyclic GMP, Endothelin-1, and Thromboxane
Cyclic AMP, Cyclic GMP, Endothelin-1, and Thromboxane
Preclinical and clinical studies in IPF have also evaluated drugs classically used
for pulmonary hypertension (PH) due to overlapping anti-fibrotic effects. Cyclic adenosine
monophosphate (cAMP) is produced by adenylyl cyclase and activates cAMP-dependent
protein kinase A (PKA) and exchange protein activated by cAMP, leading to downstream
anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects in the lung.[96]
[97]
[98]
[99]
[100] Elevated cAMP levels inhibit TGF-β and Smad signaling, an effect reversed by PKA
inhibition, suggesting cAMP and PKA play a critical role in modulating TGF-β signaling.[101] Prostacyclin and its analogues, including treprostinil, activate adenylyl cyclase
to produce cAMP.[102]
[103]
[104] Treprostinil inhibits TGF-β secretion, fibroblast proliferation, myofibroblast differentiation,
and collagen deposition and has been shown to inhibit the development of bleomycin-induced
fibrosis in mice.[105]
[106] In the INCREASE trial, which evaluated inhaled treprostinil for treatment of ILD-associated
PH, subgroup analyses showed a non-significant trend toward not only stable, but improved
FVC in ILD patients, 28% of whom had IPF.[107] This formed the basis for the TETON trials, two phase III RCTs evaluating the efficacy
of inhaled treprostinil in treating IPF, which are currently underway (identifiers:
NCT04708782 and NCT05255991).[108]
Phosphodiesterases (PDEs) are a family of enzymes that hydrolyze cAMP, cyclic guanosine
monophosphate (cGMP), or both cAMP and cGMP. Given the crucial role of cAMP in pulmonary
fibrosis, attention has turned to PDE4, a cAMP-specific PDE that increases intracellular
cAMP. Nonspecific PDE4 inhibitors have been shown to inhibit development and therapeutically
reduce fibrosis in multiple preclinical models of pulmonary fibrosis, including bleomycin.[109]
[110]
[111] However, the nonspecific PDE4 inhibitors' clinical utility has been hampered by
adverse side effects, namely headaches, gastrointestinal, and psychiatric side effects.[112] Targeted PDE4B inhibition offers potent anti-fibrotic effects with a better side
effect profile. Specifically, PDE4B inhibition with nerandomilast therapeutically
reduced fibrosis in both bleomycin and silica models of pulmonary fibrosis in mice.[98] A phase II RCT of nerandomilast in IPF showed stabilization of FVC at 12 weeks either
alone (−81.7 mL in the placebo group and +5.7 mL in the nerandomilast group) or in
combination therapy with background anti-fibrotics (−59.2 mL in the placebo group
and +2.7 mL in the nerandomilast group).[113] Diarrhea was the most common side effect. Among patients taking background anti-fibrotics,
diarrhea occurred in 32% of placebo patients and 37% of nerandomilast patients, and
in the absence of background therapy, diarrhea occurred in 16% of placebo patients
and 27% of nerandomilast patients. The FIBRONEER trials, two phase III RCTs studying
nerandomilast in IPF, have been completed, and while data has yet to be published,
press releases report similar clinical benefit as its phase II counterpart.[114]
cGMP is produced by guanylyl cyclase in response to nitric oxide and activates cGMP-dependent
protein kinase G to exert anti-fibrotic effects.[115] PDE5 inhibitors like tadalafil and sildenafil are cGMP-specific and are clinically
used to treat PH through their effect on vasodilation. Increased cGMP levels, driven
by guanylyl cyclase stimulation, inhibit TGF-β-dependent production of collagen in
human dermal fibroblasts.[115]
[116] Preclinical studies show that sildenafil inhibits fibrosis development in mice after
bleomycin, with improved nitric oxide synthase coupling and a reduction in reactive
oxidative species (ROS).[117] Clinical trials with sildenafil have proven less promising. STEP-IPF evaluated sildenafil
for the treatment of IPF and found no significant improvement in their primary outcome
of 6MWT improvement. They did identify minor improvements in DLCO and quality of life.[118] INSTAGE sought to re-analyze sildenafil in a sicker patient cohort (DLCO < 35% predicted) and in combination with nintedanib. Using the St. George Respiratory
Questionnaire, no improvement in symptomatology was noted compared to nintedanib alone,
but this may be limited by patients having more advanced disease at the outset of
the study.[119]
Like prostacyclins and PDE5 inhibitors, endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA) are
a class of medications approved for the treatment of PH that have also been repurposed
for study in pulmonary fibrosis. There are two G-protein-coupled receptor endothelin
receptor subtypes found in humans that activate a variety of different downstream
pathways, including PKC, AKT, and β-arrestin, and upon activation, can also stimulate
IL-11 release through a MAPK-dependent pathway.[120]
[121] Endothelin-1 (ET-1) and its precursors are expressed by airway and alveolar epithelial
cells, as well as inflammatory cells and alveolar macrophages.[122]
[123] ET-1 levels are increased in the serum of IPF patients.[124] ET-1 is known to promote fibroblast chemotaxis, proliferation, and protection against
apoptosis while also stimulating ECM deposition.[125]
[126]
[127]
[128] Overexpression of ET-1 drives inflammation and fibrosis in mice, but endothelin
antagonism with ERAs has shown mixed responses to bleomycin injury in rat models.[129]
[130]
[131] Nonetheless, ERAs advanced to clinical trials in IPF. The BUILD-1 trial evaluating
bosentan in IPF patients did not demonstrate improvements in the primary endpoint
of 6MWT distance at 12 months, but did show a non-significant trend to reduced mortality
and disease progression.[132] Subgroup analysis demonstrated a significant mortality benefit in those with surgical
biopsy-diagnosed IPF, leading to the BUILD-3 study. In BUILD-3, patients with biopsy-proven
IPF were randomized to bosentan therapy or placebo, and no significant difference
in the rate of disease progression was identified.[133] ARTEMIS-IPF evaluated ambrisentan therapy but was terminated early due to ambrisentan
treatment being associated with increased risk of meeting the primary endpoint of
progression as defined by time to death, respiratory hospitalization, or decrease
in lung function.[134] Macitentan was studied in the MUSIC trial, where no differences were observed between
the treatment and placebo groups.[135] Combined, these trials ended enthusiasm for ERAs as a therapeutic agent for IPF.
Thromboxanes are bioactive metabolites of arachidonic acid, like prostacyclins, and
similarly have been studied in IPF. Increases in thromboxane relative to prostacyclin
have been documented in IPF-fibroblasts in ex vivo analyses.[136] The thromboxane receptor TBXA2R has increased expression in the lungs of IPF patients,
especially fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and smooth muscle cells.[137] Genetic deletion of TBXA2R in mice inhibited the development of fibrosis after bleomycin,
and inhibition of TBXA2R with the small molecule inhibitor ifetroban improved fibrosis
in multiple mouse models (bleomycin, genetic, and radiation).[137] Ifetroban is now under investigation in a phase II RCT for the treatment of IPF
(identifier: NCT05571059). While trials for sildenafil and ERAs have not demonstrated
significant clinical efficacy, targeting thromboxane and cAMP signaling remains under
investigation and has shown early therapeutic potential in IPF.
Autotaxin, Lysophosphatidic Acid, and Lysophosphatidic Acid Receptor
Autotaxin, Lysophosphatidic Acid, and Lysophosphatidic Acid Receptor
The autotaxin (ATX)-lysophosphatidic acid (LPA)-LPA receptor (LPAR) axis has shown
both promising and dangerous potential for treating IPF. Autotaxin is an excreted
enzyme that converts lysophosphatidylcholine to LPA and serves as an LPA chaperone
to its receptor LPAR.[138]
[139]
[140]
[141] There are many isoforms of LPA with different saturations and lengths of fatty acid
chains, and six isoforms of the G-coupled protein receptors LPAR (LPAR1-6).[139] LPARs have varying affinities for species of LPA, with LPAR1 being the primary binding
partner of LPA.[139] ATX-LPA-LPAR signaling can be both pro-inflammatory and pro-fibrotic. In pulmonary
fibrosis, this axis participates in crucial events including epithelial cell apoptosis,
TGF-b activation, and fibroblast recruitment, activation, and survival through several
signaling pathways including the Ras-Raf-MEK-ERK, PI3K, Rho/ROCK, Rac, and phospholipase
C pathways.[140]
[141]
[142]
[143]
[144]
[145]
[146] Increased staining for ATX has been demonstrated within the hyperplastic bronchiolar
epithelium, alveolar epithelium adjacent to fibroblastic foci, and fibroblasts and
alveolar macrophages within the fibrotic interstitium of IPF lungs.[147] Elevated levels of LPA have been measured in the BAL of patients with IPF, and higher
levels are associated with worse DLCO and radiographic fibrosis.[144]
[148] Development of bleomycin-induced fibrosis was inhibited with genetic deletion of
ATX in macrophages and bronchial epithelial cells, and after therapeutic inhibition
of ATX with ziritaxestat and GWJ-A-23.[147]
[149] Additionally, ziritaxestat decreased established radiation-induced fibrosis in mice.[140] Similarly, genetic knockout of LPAR1 and LPAR1 inhibition with AM966 both inhibited
development of bleomycin-induced fibrosis.[144]
[150] An LPAR 1/3 inhibitor was also shown to reduce the development of radiation fibrosis
in mice.[151] While phase II clinical trials for ATX inhibitors, cudexestat (RESPIRARE trial)
and BBT-877 are yet to be published, ziritaxestat slowed FVC decline at 12 weeks in
a phase II RCT.[152] However, two phase III RCTs of ziritaxestat in IPF (ISABELA 1 and 2) were terminated
early due to a signal for increased mortality and lack of efficacy.[153] Treatment groups included placebo and ziritaxestat at both lower (200 mg daily)
and higher (600 mg daily) doses for at least 52 weeks, and allowed for background
therapy with nintedanib or pirfenidone. No difference was observed in the primary
endpoint of annual rate of FVC decline (−145 mL with placebo, −174 with low dose,
and −125 mL with high dose in ISABELA 1; −177 mL with placebo, −175 mL with low dose,
and −174 mL with high dose in ISABELA 2). Secondary endpoints revealed no benefit,
and time to first respiratory-related hospitalization was worse in the ziritaxestat
group. Importantly, ziritaxestat has a drug-drug interaction with nintedanib, which
may have contributed to adverse events. ATX levels were increased in the plasma of
treated patients in the ISABELA 1 and 2 trials, suggesting a regulatory feedback loop
that could explain the lack of efficacy and adverse effects.[154] Despite the signal for harm with ziritaxestat, LPAR1 inhibition continues to be
studied. LPAR1 antagonists in clinical trials include fipaxalparant and admilparant.
BMS 986020 demonstrated promising efficacy in a phase II RCT; however, it was terminated
early due to inciting hepatobiliary disease.[155] In a phase II RCT of admilparant, patients were randomized to placebo, admilparant
30 mg or 60 mg twice daily, and permitted to continue background nintedanib or pirfenidone.
The mean rate of decline in FVC was −2.7, −2.8, and −1.2% in the placebo, 30 and 60 mg
groups, respectively.[156] Serious adverse events occurred in 17% of the placebo group, and 11% of both 30
and 60 mg groups. There was an increased frequency of transient day 1 postdose blood
pressure reduction with admilparant, but no increased frequency of diarrhea. A more
pronounced benefit was seen in a progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) cohort, with
the decline in FVC of −4.3, −2.7, and −1.1% in the placebo, 30 mg, and 60 mg groups,
respectively. This led to a phase III RCT with admilparant which is underway (identifier:
NCT06003426). Despite the failure of ziritaxestat, targeting the ATX-LPA-LPAR axis
remains a promising therapeutic strategy.
Extracellular Matrix and Integrins
Extracellular Matrix and Integrins
Excessive deposition and accumulation of ECM is a hallmark feature of IPF. A positive
feedback loop exists whereby increased deposition of ECM increases lung stiffness
and promotes pro-fibrotic cellular responses via mechanotransduction.[157] Therefore, targeting critical ECM components to break this positive feedback loop
holds potential as a therapeutic avenue in IPF.
Integrins are heterodimeric, transmembrane glycoprotein receptors that consist of
an α-subunit and a β-subunit.[158] They are cell adhesion signaling proteins, with the unique ability to transduce
signals bidirectionally from the intracellular environment to elicit changes in the
extracellular environment, and vice versa, allowing cells to sense and respond to
ECM mechanical changes.[158] Clinically, integrin inhibitors are commonplace, like abciximab (Reopro), eptifibatide
(Integrilin), or tirofiban (Aggrastat), which inhibit αIIbβ3 on platelets and are
used during percutaneous coronary interventions, or the pan-α4 inhibitor natalizumab
(Tysabri), which is used for multiple sclerosis treatment.[158]
[159]
[160] Integrins play a pivotal function in IPF, in large part due to their role in TGF-β
activation. When inactive, TGF-β is bound to latency-associated peptide and tethered
to the ECM.[158]
[161]
[162]
[163] Multiple integrins, including αvβ6 on epithelial cells and αvβ1 on fibroblasts,
release TGF-β from its inactive state.[158]
[161]
[162] αvβ6 protein expression is increased in IPF tissue compared to healthy controls,
localizes to epithelial cells overlying fibrotic areas and to areas with active inflammation,
and has been associated with increased mortality.[164]
[165] Targeting αvβ6 has been a promising option to treat pulmonary fibrosis. Genetic
knockout of β6 (preventing formation of αvβ6) protected mice from bleomycin-induced
fibrosis, and therapeutic inhibition of αvβ6 after bleomycin inhibits development,
therapeutically reduces, and accelerates resolution of fibrosis in mice.[161]
[164]
[166] Similarly, inhibition of αvβ1 therapeutically reduced fibrosis in mice after bleomycin.[162] A monoclonal antibody against αvβ6 (BG00011) was evaluated in a phase IIb RCT in
IPF, but was terminated early due to lack of benefit and increased adverse events,
including increased progression, exacerbations, and death in the treatment group compared
to placebo.[167] A question remains as to whether monoclonal antibodies can permeate into the dense
fibrotic regions of IPF lungs, and if small-molecule inhibitors will therefore prove
superior. Bexotegrast, a dual αvβ1 and αvβ6 small molecule inhibitor, targets both
epithelial (αvβ6) and fibroblast (αvβ1) integrins mediating TGF-β activation. INTEGRIS-IPF
was a phase IIa RCT of patients with IPF receiving once-daily placebo or bexotegrast
(40, 80, 160, or 320 mg groups) with or without background nintedanib or pirfenidone
over at least 12 weeks.[168] The trial found a similar incidence of adverse events, with the most common side
effect being diarrhea, which was primarily seen in patients co-treated with nintedanib.
Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurred in 6.5% of placebo-treated patients and
6.7% of bexotegrast-treated patients. FVC decline, CT quantification of fibrosis,
and biomarkers all demonstrated a benefit in the bexotegrast groups over the 12-week
trial period. A phase IIb/III trial (BEACON-IPF) of bexotegrast in IPF recently stopped
enrollment and dosing after recommendations from an independent Data Safety Monitoring
Board, but the reasons have yet to be published.[169]
Excessive collagen synthesis, accumulation, maturation, and impaired degradation all
contribute to the progression of fibrosis, making targeting collagen an appealing
therapeutic strategy. Type 1 collagen is made of two α1 chains (encoded by COL1A1) and one α2 chain (encoded by COL1A2). Prepro-polypeptide chains travel to the endoplasmic reticulum
(ER) where they undergo posttranslational modification and assembly of a triple helix,
then are transported to the Golgi apparatus in the form of pro-collagen for further
processing and assembly into secretory vesicles, are secreted, and subsequently undergo
extracellular modifications, including collagen crosslinking.[170] Several steps in the collagen biosynthesis and posttranslational modification are
under investigation as therapeutic targets for IPF.
Prolyl-tRNA synthetase (PRS) conjugates proline to tRNA during collagen translation.[171] DWN12088, a PRS inhibitor, therapeutically reduced bleomycin-induced fibrosis in
mice, which has led to a current phase II RCT to evaluate its safety and efficacy
in IPF (identifier: NCT05389215).[171]
Heat shock protein 47 (HSP47) is a collagen-specific chaperone that is essential for
the correct folding of pro-collagen fibrils in the ER.[172] HSP47 also plays a role in collagen turnover through collagenase, MMPs, and integrin
signaling.[172] A phase II RCT with siRNA targeted HSP47 gene silencing (ND-L02-s0201) did not demonstrate
efficacy in patients with IPF (identifier: NCT03538301).
Lysyl oxidase-like 2 (LOXL2) catalyzes collagen crosslinking and has increased expression
in fibrotic areas of IPF lung tissue.[173] Preclinical studies showed that inhibition of LOXL2 inhibited development and therapeutically
reduced fibrosis after bleomycin treatment in mice.[173] However, a phase II RCT of a LOXL2 inhibiting monoclonal antibody, simtuzumab, in
IPF; however, was terminated early for futility.[174] Transglutaminase-2 (also known as tissue transglutaminase), which crosslinks ECM
components, is currently being investigated in a phase II RCT with the transglutaminase-2
inhibitor, GSK3915393, in IPF (identifier: NCT06317285).[175]
Senescence
In its basic definition, senescence refers to the arrest of cellular growth and is
a key pathologic feature of IPF. In IPF, senescent AEC2s have reduced regenerative
capacity, and senescent fibroblasts develop resistance to apoptosis.[176] Senescent cells also secrete pro-fibrotic and pro-inflammatory cytokines, chemokines,
growth factors, and proteases, referred to as a senescence-associated secretory phenotype.[176] Senescent fibroblast resistance to apoptosis is in part due to increased expression
of anti-apoptotic BCL-2 family members, including BCL-2 and BCL-XL, which have been
shown to increase in response to stiffness of fibrotic lungs.[177] BH3 mimetics are drugs that were initially developed as anti-cancer agents, inhibit
anti-apoptotic BCL-2 family proteins, and include the BCL-2 specific inhibitor venetoclax
and the BCL-2, BCL-XL, and BCL-W inhibitor navitoclax. Navitoclax has been shown to
reduce the presence of senescent cells and decrease fibrosis after radiation-induced
fibrosis in mice.[178] Furthermore, navitoclax and venetoclax have been shown to inhibit development and
therapeutically reduce bleomycin-induced fibrosis in mice.[179]
[180]
[181] We have recently shown that using a repetitive dosing regimen of bleomycin, which
induces PPF, navitoclax stabilized progressive fibrosis by targeting pro-fibrotic
fibroblasts for apoptosis.[182] While navitoclax remains a study drug in cancer clinical trials in large part due
to its side effect of thrombocytopenia, venetoclax is FDA approved for chronic lymphocytic
leukemia and acute myeloid leukemia. A small phase 1 clinical trial evaluating its
safety and efficacy in IPF (identifier: NCT05976217) was recently completed, with
the results pending publication. The senolytic combination of dasatinib and quercitin
has also shown promise as a potential treatment for IPF. Dasatinib is an inhibitor
of multiple tyrosine kinases, and quercitin is a natural flavonoid. Together, they
have been shown to target senescent cells and inhibit the development of bleomycin
fibrosis in mice.[176] A small single-center study evaluated the feasibility of dasatinib plus quercitin
in IPF.[183] It demonstrated drug tolerability, and while it did not find changes in disease
severity after treatment, it was underpowered. Due to the crucial mechanistic role
of senescent cells in IPF, senolytics hold promise as therapeutic agents for IPF.
Reactive Oxygen Species, Unfolded Protein Response, Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress,
and Metabolic Stress
Reactive Oxygen Species, Unfolded Protein Response, Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress,
and Metabolic Stress
Metabolic stress, whether ROS or ER stress, can drive epithelial injury and promote
fibrotic responses. ROS are known to stimulate a pro-fibrotic environment through
increased release of TGF-β, which in turn stimulates further ROS production.[184]
[185]
[186] IPF fibroblasts express NADPH oxidase isoform 4 (Nox4) in response to TGF-β, which
drives the formation of ROS and facilitates a positive feedback loop promoting fibrogenesis.[187]
[188]
[189] siRNA knockdown of Nox4 inhibited the development of bleomycin-induced fibrosis
in mice.[187] Similarly, Nox1 and Nox4 inhibition with setanaxib (GKT137831) hastened the resolution
of bleomycin fibrosis in mice while also decreasing myofibroblast accumulation and
improving mortality.[190] Notably, these studies were performed in aged mice, thus more closely mimicking
the advanced age of IPF patients. A phase IIb trial of setanaxib was recently completed
in IPF patients, and results are pending publication (identifier: NCT03865927).
The ER is a vital cellular organelle involved in protein translation and trafficking.
ER stress occurs when these processes are disrupted, particularly in the setting of
aberrant protein folding, leading to an unfolded protein response (UPR). UPR was first
identified as a pathophysiologic mechanism for fibrosis when mutated surfactant protein
C led to misfolding in the ER of alveolar epithelial cells, eventually leading to
pulmonary fibrosis.[191]
[192]
[193]
[194]
[195] UPR promotes fibrosis by inducing fibroblasts to myofibroblast differentiation and
AEC2 apoptosis.[196]
[197]
[198] IRE1a is an ER sensor that drives UPR. Upon activation, IRE1a auto-phosphorylates,
oligomerizes, and cleaves XBP1 mRNA, allowing for translation of XBP1, which drives
downstream expression of ER stress genes.[199] In response to lung injury and UPR, IRE1a enhances TGF-β signaling. IRE1a deletion
and therapeutic antagonism of IRE1a inhibit the development of bleomycin-induced fibrosis,
and even promote type 2 alveolar epithelial cell growth and tissue repair.[200]
[201] ORIN1001, which inhibits the RNase activity of IRE1a, is under investigation in
a phase Ib clinical trial in IPF patients that is currently suspended (identifier:
NCT04643769).
Stem Cells
While preclinical and clinical studies to date have largely focused on halting or
slowing fibrosis, stem cells offer a novel method to regenerate damaged tissue. Initial
interest in the field focused on mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs). Animal studies
showed that the introduction of MSCs inhibited the development, reduced, and hastened
the resolution of bleomycin-induced fibrosis.[202]
[203] MSCs function by promoting anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic signaling, reducing
metabolic stress, and, to a lesser extent, engrafting into the lung.[204]
[205]
[206]
[207]
[208]
[209]
[210] While the phase I AETHER study of adipose-derived MSCs documented safety, a randomized,
open-label phase Ib/IIa trial showed improvement in 6MWT distance, DLCO, and FVC using placental-derived MSCs.[211]
[212] Additional phase I trials are ongoing with umbilical cord-derived MSCs, including
a phase Ib/IIa trial (identifier: NCT05468502).
Lung-derived spheroid stem cells (LSC) are another option being explored for the treatment
of IPF. LSCs can be obtained autologously from lung tissue, generally obtained through
biopsy.[213] The tissue is applied to an adherent surface, and migrating cells, termed explant-derived
cells, are then collected and cultured in suspension. While in suspension, these cells
form spheroids, which are associated with increased expression of progenitor markers.[214] An allogeneic rat model of LSC injection demonstrated reduced inflammation and inhibition
of fibrosis development after bleomycin compared to controls, without generating a
significant alloimmune response.[214] A phase I RCT is currently recruiting patients to establish the safety of LSCs in
humans (identifier: NCT04262167). Stem cells provide an exciting new prospect for
IPF therapeutics, but given limited phase II trials and no phase III trials, their
therapeutic potential remains in the early stages.
Angiotensin
While the pulmonary renin-angiotensin system (PRAS) has long been an area of study
in lung injury and fibrosis, it was brought to the forefront when the COVID-19 pandemic
highlighted the significance of bronchoalveolar epithelial expression of angiotensin-converting
enzyme 2 (ACE2). ACE2 was implicated in the pathogenesis of disease and in postinfectious
fibrotic sequelae of COVID-19.[215]
[216]
[217] ACE2 is a membrane-bound protein that converts angiotensin I and angiotensin II
to Ang-(1-9) and Ang-(1-7), respectively.[218] ACE2 is necessary to maintain homeostasis of PRAS. Decreasing ACE2 activity can
lead to elevated angiotensin II levels in the lung, which, upon binding to the angiotensin
type 1 receptor (AT1), leads to alveolar epithelial cell apoptosis.[219]
[220] ACE2 has decreased transcript expression and enzymatic activity in biopsy specimens
from IPF patients.[221] Apoptotic alveolar epithelial cells in IPF patients release angiotensinogen, which
will convert to angiotensin II and drive downstream epithelial apoptosis and promote
collagen production by fibroblasts.[222]
[223]
[224] Exogenous ACE2 co-administered with bleomycin protected against epithelial cell
injury, decreased TGF-B expression, decreased a-SMA expression, and inhibited the
development of fibrosis in mice.[225] ACE2 null mice experienced exaggerated fibrosis in response to bleomycin.[226] Notably, the ACE2-Ang-(1-7)-Mas pathway leads to increased expression of angiotensin
type 2 receptor (AT2), which, in opposition to AT1, drives anti-fibrotic responses and is protective against lung injury.[227]
[228]
[229]
[230]
[231] Indeed, buloxibutid, an AT2 agonist, was shown to inhibit bleomycin-induced fibrosis.[232] An open-label phase II trial of buloxibutid for treatment in IPF has been completed
(identifier: NCT04533022), and results have not been formally published. The ASPIRE
trial is a phase II RCT studying Buloxibutid treatment in IPF, is currently recruiting
(identifier: NCT06588686). These studies will provide unique clinical insight into
the supportive role ACE2 and AT2 play in maintaining alveolar integrity to treat IPF.
Pentraxin
Pentraxin-2, also known as serum amyloid P, signals through Fcγ and exerts anti-fibrotic
action through modulating pro-fibrotic monocyte-derived macrophages and fibrocytes.[233]
[234] IPF patients have lower plasma pentraxin-2, and lower levels correlate with disease
severity.[235] Genetic loss of pentraxin-2 in mice results in an exaggerated fibrotic response
after bleomycin, while pentraxin-2 treatment inhibits bleomycin and TGF-b-induced
fibrosis development.[233]
[234]
[235]
[236] A phase II RCT evaluated recombinant human pentraxin-2 in IPF and found that after
28 weeks, the decline in FVC was −4.8 and −2.5% in the placebo and pentraxin-2 groups,
respectively.[237] This led to the phase III RCT STARSCAPE evaluating pentraxin-2 in IPF.[238] However, STARSCAPE was terminated early for futility. At 52 weeks, the decline of
FVC in placebo and pentraxin 2 was −215 and −236 mL, respectively.
Discussion
An abundance of preclinical studies have revealed many promising therapeutic targets
to help people suffering from IPF. Unfortunately, very few drugs make it to phase
II or III clinical trials, and only three drugs have shown efficacy in treating IPF
in phase III trials (nintedanib, pirfenidone, and nerandomilast). A major obstacle
is that many of these drug therapies are “lost in translation,” and successful in
vivo studies are not consistently translating to effective bedside treatments. One
major reason behind this failure may be the systems used to evaluate for preclinical
efficacy. The translational science toolkit includes in vitro cell culture systems,
ex vivo precision-cut lung slices from healthy and diseased animals and humans, in
silico modeling or simulation, and in vivo animal models, most often mice. A critical
component of preclinical projects is often in vivo mouse work, demonstrating efficacy
by improving fibrosis. The most widely used model is single-dose intratracheal bleomycin
in young mice (8–12 weeks), which undergoes spontaneous resolution had has limited
pathologic overlap with IPF. Risk factors for IPF include genetic predisposition,
age, smoking, and other environmental exposures. This starkly contrasts with studies
using genetically identical young mice, living in a pathogen-free environment. Additionally,
mice lack respiratory bronchioles and spend their lives in the prone position. Mice
aged 8 to 12 weeks roughly translate to 20-year-old humans, while mice aged 18 to
24 months roughly translate to 56 to 69-year-old humans, the age at which patients
are typically diagnosed with IPF.[21] Therefore, studying “middle-aged” or older mice may offer a better model of IPF
than young mice, especially when studying treatment options. Additionally, how investigators
utilize this model to test drugs is often inappropriate. Intratracheal bleomycin induces
an early, robust inflammatory phase, followed by a fibroproliferative and established
fibrotic phases, with subsequent spontaneous resolution.[21] Between 2008 and 2019, single-dose bleomycin was used to investigate 726 potential
therapies.[23] The majority (61%) were tested as a preventative of fibrosis, as they were given
prior to the establishment of fibrosis. Twenty-three percent were assessed for “therapeutic”
effect as treatment was given during the fibroproliferative phase, while 14.5% were
tested as both preventative and therapeutic.[23] Prior to 2008, less than 5% of bleomycin drug studies were “therapeutic.”[23] We believe that utilizing more clinically relevant models of progressive fibrosis,
like repetitive bleomycin, aged mice, or mice with relevant genetic mutations like
MUC5B or TERT mutations, represents a significant paradigm shift that preclinical
science must consider adopting, despite the protracted nature of such studies. In
the future, utilizing other animal models, like ferrets, which have respiratory bronchioles
and develop persistent fibrosis after bleomycin, or West Highland White Terriers,
who develop spontaneous PPF, may become more prevalent.[239]
[240] Nonetheless, in vivo mouse studies, in particular single-dose bleomycin, have been
integral to our understanding of the pathobiology of pulmonary fibrosis.
Selection of primary endpoints also bears consideration when interpreting clinical
trials. IPF trials have typically used FVC as the primary endpoint to determine the
efficacy of the intervention, comparing the amount of decline at 6 or 12 months to
determine progression. The long duration of these studies to identify evidence of
progression adds to the high expense of clinical trials in IPF. Recently, it has been
proposed that 3-month changes may be predictive of progression and could be used as
an endpoint, thereby shortening study duration, which could improve cost and potentially
lead to more therapeutic agents being tested.[241] Furthermore, while a relatively easy measure to obtain, the utility of FVC as the
primary endpoint has been called into question. As an effort-dependent measurement,
there can be variability between measurements. Also, it may not account for all important
patient-reported outcomes such as progressive symptoms of dyspnea, cough, or decline
in physical function.[15] Moving forward, composite endpoints including FVC, patient-reported outcomes, and
potentially novel biomarkers could aid in future clinical trial design.
While several promising therapeutic targets offer potential treatments for IPF, there
remain several untapped resources that could prove helpful in improving the lives
of people with IPF. First, utilizing new technologies such as artificial intelligence
(AI) may be one way to expedite the translation of basic science work to clinical
trials. For example, ISM001-005, a first-in-class small molecule inhibitor of TRAF2
and NCK-interacting kinase (TNIK), was designed using generative AI. It has had positive
results from its Phase IIa trial per the company's website, though a formal publication
is still pending.[242] Second, precision medicine offers new opportunities for people living with IPF.
For example, a retrospective analysis of the PANTHER trial, INSPIRE trial, and University
of Chicago IPF cohorts found that NAC treatment was beneficial in IPF patients carrying
the TOLLIP rs3750920 TT genotype and potentially harmful in those with the rs3750920
CC genotype.[243] Third, comorbidities need to be a focus of future research, as there is a clear
interplay between IPF and comorbidities like GERD, PH, and obstructive sleep apnea.
For example, inhaled treprostinil has been shown to improve 6MWT in ILD patients with
PH.[107] Rather than the “one size fits all” approach used in IPF treatment, delineating
effects with certain genotypic or phenotypic variations of IPF could prove exceedingly
helpful. Fourth, early diagnosis of people with interstitial lung abnormalities and
delineation of which patients will progress is critical and has the potential to allow
for early intervention that could halt progressive fibrosis in its tracks. Finally,
combination therapy will likely become the standard of care as more therapies become
available. Combination therapy is a widely used treatment approach for diseases including
COPD, asthma, hypertension, diabetes, HIV, and cancer. Clearly, multiple pathways
are involved in the pathogenesis of IPF, as described above. Targeting multiple pathways
allows for therapeutic synergy, additive effects, and dose reductions to avoid adverse
effects.
The next several years will be an exciting time for IPF drug development. Substantial
preclinical data have provided numerous promising candidate pathways, and several
encouraging clinical trials are underway. The FIBRONEER trial of nerandomilast in
IPF demonstrated efficacy of PDE4B inhibition, becoming the first positive phase III
RCT in IPF in a decade.[114] Currently, two other medications (treprostinil and admilparant) are under investigation
in phase III RCTs. As detailed above, there are several other targets with strong
preclinical rationale and encouraging phase II RCT results. We anticipate several
more options to become available for patients within the next decade to help relieve
the suffering, economic burden, and early mortality associated with IPF.