4.7 Article

Treatment of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis with Etanercept An Exploratory, Placebo-controlled Trial

Journal

Publisher

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200709-1446OC

Keywords

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; etanercept; tumor necrosis factor antagonist; quality of life; placebo-controlled

Funding

  1. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Collegeville, PA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale: An efficacious medical therapy for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) remains elusive. Objectives: To explore the efficacy and safety of etanercept in the treatment of IPF. Methods: This was a randomized, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter exploratory trial in subjects with clinically progressive IPF. Primary endpoints included changes in the percentage of predicted FVC and lung cliff using capacity for carbon monoxide corrected for hemoglobin (D-LCOHB) and change in the alveolar to arterial oxygen pressure difference P(A-a)(O2) at rest from baseline over 48 weeks. Measurements and Main Results: Eighty-eight subjects received subcutaneous etanercept (25 mg) or placebo twice weekly as their sole treatment for IPF. No differences in baseline demographics and disease status were detected between treatment groups; the mean time from first diagnosis was 13.6 months and mean FVC was 63.9% of predicted. At 48 weeks, no significant differences in efficacy end points were observed between the groups. A nonsignificant reduction in disease progression was seen in several physiologic, functional, and quality-of-life endpoints among subjects receiving etanercept. There was no difference in adverse events between treatment groups. Conclusions: In this exploratory study in patients with clinically progressive IPF, etanercept was well tolerated. Although there were no differences in the predefined endpoints, a decreased rate of disease progression was observed on several measures. Further evaluation of TNF antagonists in the treatment of IPF may be warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available