Suppr超能文献

吡非尼酮治疗非特发性肺纤维化的进展性肺纤维化间质性肺疾病患者(RELIEF):一项双盲、随机、安慰剂对照、2b 期试验。

Pirfenidone in patients with progressive fibrotic interstitial lung diseases other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (RELIEF): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial.

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine V, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU) Munich, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Munich, Germany; Asklepios Lung Center Gauting, DZL, Munich, Germany.

Fraunhofer Institute for Toxicology and Experimental Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.

出版信息

Lancet Respir Med. 2021 May;9(5):476-486. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30554-3. Epub 2021 Mar 30.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Pirfenidone has been shown to slow disease progression in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). However, there are few treatment options for progressive fibrotic interstitial lung diseases (ILDs)) other than IPF. In view of the pathomechanistic and clinical similarities between IPF and other progressive fibrotic ILDs, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pirfenidone in patients with four non-IPF progressive fibrotic ILDs.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel phase 2b trial (RELIEF) in 17 centres with expertise in ILD in Germany. Eligible participants were patients aged 18-80 years with progressive fibrotic ILD due to four diagnoses: collagen or vascular diseases (ie, connective tissue disease-associated ILDs), fibrotic non-specific interstitial pneumonia, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or asbestos-induced lung fibrosis. Other eligibility criteria included a forced vital capacity (FVC) of 40-90% predicted, a diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide of 10-90% predicted, and an annual decline of FVC of at least 5% predicted despite conventional therapy, based on at least three measurements within 6-24 months before enrolment. Patients who had received any previous antifibrotic therapy were excluded. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to either oral pirfenidone (267 mg three times per day in week 1, 534 mg three times per day in week 2, and 801 mg three times per day thereafter) or matched placebo, added to their ongoing medication. Randomisation was done centrally using permuted block randomisation with varying block sizes stratified by the four diagnostic groups. Patients, investigators, statisticians, monitors, and the study coordinator were masked to treatment assignment until database closure. The placebo-controlled study period was 48 weeks (including up-titration). The primary endpoint was absolute change in percentage of predicted FVC (FVC % predicted) from baseline to week 48 in the intention-to-treat population, with imputation of missing data by the smallest sum of squared differences and attribution of deceased patients to the lowest rank in a rank ANCOVA model. Additionally, we did linear mixed-model repeated measures slope analyses of FVC % predicted longitudinal data over the course of the study as a prespecified sensitivity analysis and post-hoc sensitivity analyses of the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat population using imputation methods of last observation carried forward [LOCF] and a regression-based multiple imputation procedure. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with EudraCT 2014-000861-32; DRKS00009822 and is no longer recruiting.

FINDINGS

Between April 5, 2016, and Oct 4, 2018, we randomly assigned 127 patients to treatment: 64 to pirfenidone, 63 to placebo. After 127 patients had been randomised, the study was prematurely terminated on the basis of an interim analysis for futility triggered by slow recruitment. After 48 weeks and in the overall population of 127 patients, rank ANCOVA with diagnostic group included as a factor showed a significantly lower decline in FVC % predicted in the pirfenidone group compared with placebo (p=0·043); the result was similar when the model was stratified by diagnostic group (p=0·042). A significant treatment effect was also observed when applying the LOCF and multiple imputation methods to analyses of the primary endpoint. The median difference (Hodges-Lehmann estimate) between pirfenidone and placebo groups for the primary endpoint was 1·69 FVC % predicted (95% CI -0·65 to 4·03). In the linear mixed-model repeated measures slope analysis of FVC % predicted, the estimated difference between treatment and placebo groups from baseline to week 48 was 3·53 FVC % predicted (95% CI 0·21 to 6·86) with imputation of deaths as prespecified, or 2·79 FVC % predicted (95% CI 0·03 to 5·54) without imputation. One death (non-respiratory) occurred in the pirfenidone group (2%) and five deaths (three of which were respiratory) occurred in the placebo group (8%). The most frequent serious adverse events in both groups were infections and infestations (five [8%] in the pirfenidone group, ten [16%] in the placebo group); general disorders including disease worsening (two [3%] in the pirfenidone group, seven [11%] in the placebo group); and cardiac disorders (one ([2%] in the pirfenidone group, 5 [8%] in the placebo group). Adverse events (grade 3-4) of nausea (two patients on pirfenidone, two on placebo), dyspnoea (one patient on pirfenidone, one on placebo), and diarrhoea (one patient on pirfenidone) were also observed.

INTERPRETATION

In view of the premature study termination, results should be interpreted with care. Nevertheless, our data suggest that in patients with fibrotic ILDs other than IPF who deteriorate despite conventional therapy, adding pirfenidone to existing treatment might attenuate disease progression as measured by decline in FVC.

FUNDING

German Center for Lung Research, Roche Pharma.

摘要

背景

吡非尼酮已被证明可减缓特发性肺纤维化(IPF)患者的疾病进展。然而,除了 IPF 之外,其他进展性纤维化间质性肺疾病(ILD)几乎没有治疗选择。鉴于 IPF 和其他进展性纤维化 ILD 在发病机制和临床方面存在相似性,我们旨在评估吡非尼酮在四种非 IPF 进展性纤维化 ILD 患者中的疗效和安全性。

方法

我们在德国 17 家具有 ILD 专业知识的中心进行了一项多中心、双盲、随机、安慰剂对照、平行 2b 期试验(RELIEF)。纳入的患者为年龄在 18-80 岁之间、因四种诊断导致进展性纤维化 ILD 的患者:胶原或血管疾病(即结缔组织病相关 ILD)、非特异性间质性肺炎纤维化、慢性过敏反应性肺炎或石棉引起的肺纤维化。其他入选标准包括用力肺活量(FVC)为预计值的 40-90%、一氧化碳弥散量为预计值的 10-90%,以及尽管接受了常规治疗,但 FVC 仍以每年至少 5%的速度下降,这是基于在入组前 6-24 个月内至少三次测量的结果。先前接受过任何抗纤维化治疗的患者被排除在外。我们将患者(1:1)随机分配至口服吡非尼酮(第 1 周每日 3 次,每次 267mg;第 2 周每日 3 次,每次 534mg;之后每日 3 次,每次 801mg)或匹配的安慰剂,与他们正在接受的治疗一起使用。随机分组采用中央分层区组随机化,区组大小为 4 种诊断组。患者、研究者、统计人员、监查员和研究协调员在数据库关闭前均对治疗分配保持盲态。安慰剂对照研究期为 48 周(包括滴定期)。主要终点是意向治疗人群中从基线到第 48 周时 FVC 预计百分比的绝对变化(FVC % 预计),通过最小二乘法差异平方和的插补和秩协方差分析模型中按秩归因死亡患者的最低秩进行缺失数据的推断。此外,我们还使用最后观察值结转(LOCF)和基于回归的多重插补程序的插补方法,对研究过程中 FVC % 预计的纵向数据进行线性混合模型重复测量斜率分析,作为预设敏感性分析,以及对意向治疗人群中主要终点的事后敏感性分析。在至少接受一剂研究药物的所有患者中评估安全性。该试验在 EudraCT 2014-000861-32、DRKS00009822 上注册,目前不再招募患者。

结果

在 2016 年 4 月 5 日至 2018 年 10 月 4 日期间,我们将 127 名患者随机分配至治疗组:64 名接受吡非尼酮治疗,63 名接受安慰剂治疗。在对 127 名患者进行随机分组后,由于招募速度较慢,中期分析触发了无效性分析,研究提前终止。在 48 周后,在 127 名患者的总体人群中,包含诊断组的秩协方差分析显示,与安慰剂组相比,吡非尼酮组的 FVC % 预计下降幅度明显较低(p=0·043);当模型按诊断组分层时,结果相似(p=0·042)。当应用 LOCF 和多重插补方法分析主要终点时,也观察到了显著的治疗效果。主要终点的中位数差值(Hodges-Lehmann 估计值)在吡非尼酮组和安慰剂组之间为 1·69 FVC % 预计(95%CI -0·65 至 4·03)。在 FVC % 预计的线性混合模型重复测量斜率分析中,从基线到第 48 周,治疗组与安慰剂组之间的估计差异为 3·53 FVC % 预计(95%CI 0·21 至 6·86),死亡按预设插补,或 2·79 FVC % 预计(95%CI 0·03 至 5·54)无插补。吡非尼酮组有 1 例死亡(非呼吸)(2%),安慰剂组有 5 例死亡(其中 3 例为呼吸)(8%)。两组中最常见的严重不良事件为感染和寄生虫感染(吡非尼酮组 5 例[8%],安慰剂组 10 例[16%]);一般疾病包括疾病恶化(吡非尼酮组 2 例[3%],安慰剂组 7 例[11%]);和心脏疾病(吡非尼酮组 1 例[2%],安慰剂组 5 例[8%])。还观察到了不良事件(3-4 级),包括恶心(吡非尼酮组 2 例患者,安慰剂组 2 例患者)、呼吸困难(吡非尼酮组 1 例患者,安慰剂组 1 例患者)和腹泻(吡非尼酮组 1 例患者)。

解释

鉴于研究提前终止,结果应谨慎解读。尽管如此,我们的数据表明,在因其他原因而非 IPF 导致纤维化 ILD 恶化且尽管接受了常规治疗但仍在恶化的患者中,在现有治疗基础上添加吡非尼酮可能会减缓 FVC 的下降,从而减缓疾病的进展。

资助

德国肺脏研究中心,罗氏制药。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验