Tamera J Corte, Juergen Behr, Vincent Cottin, Marilyn K Glassberg, Michael Kreuter, Fernando J Martinez, Takashi Ogura, Takafumi Suda, Marlies Wijsenbeek, Elchonon Berkowitz, Brandon Elpers, Sinae Kim, Hideaki Watanabe, Aryeh Fischer, Toby M Maher
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Admilparant, an LPA<sub>1</sub> Antagonist in Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Tamera J Corte, Juergen Behr, Vincent Cottin, Marilyn K Glassberg, Michael Kreuter, Fernando J Martinez, Takashi Ogura, Takafumi Suda, Marlies Wijsenbeek, Elchonon Berkowitz, Brandon Elpers, Sinae Kim, Hideaki Watanabe, Aryeh Fischer, Toby M Maher","doi":"10.1164/rccm.202405-0977OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) have high morbidity and mortality; thus, novel treatments are needed.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Assess efficacy and safety of admilparant (BMS-986278), an oral lysophosphatidic acid receptor 1 antagonist, in patients with IPF and PPF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included parallel cohorts of patients with IPF (<i>n</i> = 278 randomized, <i>n</i> = 276 treated) or PPF (<i>n</i> = 125 randomized, <i>n</i> = 123 treated) who received 30-mg admilparant, 60-mg admilparant, or placebo (1:1:1) twice daily for 26 weeks. Background antifibrotics (both cohorts) and immunosuppressants (PPF only) were permitted.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>Rates of change in percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (ppFVC) over 26 weeks for IPF were -2.7% (placebo), -2.8% (30-mg), and -1.2% (60-mg) and for PPF were -4.3% (placebo), -2.9% (30-mg), and -1.1% (60-mg). Treatment differences between 60-mg admilparant and placebo were 1.4% (95% CI, -0.1 to 3.0) for IPF and 3.2% (95% CI, 0.7 to 5.7) for PPF. Treatment effect was observed with or without background antifibrotics in both cohorts. Diarrhea occurred at similar frequencies in admilparant arms versus placebo. Transient day 1 post-dose blood pressure reductions were observed in all arms in both cohorts but greater with admilparant. Treatment discontinuations due to adverse events were similar across IPF arms and lower with admilparant (2.5% [30-mg]; 0% [60-mg]) versus placebo (17.1%) for PPF.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this first phase 2 study to evaluate antifibrotic treatment in parallel IPF and PPF cohorts, 60-mg admilparant slowed lung function decline and was safe and well tolerated, supporting further evaluation in phase 3 trials. Clinical trial registration available at www.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong>gov, ID: NCT04308681.</p>","PeriodicalId":7664,"journal":{"name":"American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":19.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202405-0977OC","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Rationale: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) have high morbidity and mortality; thus, novel treatments are needed.
Objectives: Assess efficacy and safety of admilparant (BMS-986278), an oral lysophosphatidic acid receptor 1 antagonist, in patients with IPF and PPF.
Methods: This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included parallel cohorts of patients with IPF (n = 278 randomized, n = 276 treated) or PPF (n = 125 randomized, n = 123 treated) who received 30-mg admilparant, 60-mg admilparant, or placebo (1:1:1) twice daily for 26 weeks. Background antifibrotics (both cohorts) and immunosuppressants (PPF only) were permitted.
Measurements and main results: Rates of change in percentage of predicted forced vital capacity (ppFVC) over 26 weeks for IPF were -2.7% (placebo), -2.8% (30-mg), and -1.2% (60-mg) and for PPF were -4.3% (placebo), -2.9% (30-mg), and -1.1% (60-mg). Treatment differences between 60-mg admilparant and placebo were 1.4% (95% CI, -0.1 to 3.0) for IPF and 3.2% (95% CI, 0.7 to 5.7) for PPF. Treatment effect was observed with or without background antifibrotics in both cohorts. Diarrhea occurred at similar frequencies in admilparant arms versus placebo. Transient day 1 post-dose blood pressure reductions were observed in all arms in both cohorts but greater with admilparant. Treatment discontinuations due to adverse events were similar across IPF arms and lower with admilparant (2.5% [30-mg]; 0% [60-mg]) versus placebo (17.1%) for PPF.
Conclusions: In this first phase 2 study to evaluate antifibrotic treatment in parallel IPF and PPF cohorts, 60-mg admilparant slowed lung function decline and was safe and well tolerated, supporting further evaluation in phase 3 trials. Clinical trial registration available at www.
期刊介绍：
The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine focuses on human biology and disease, as well as animal studies that contribute to the understanding of pathophysiology and treatment of diseases that affect the respiratory system and critically ill patients. Papers that are solely or predominantly based in cell and molecular biology are published in the companion journal, the American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology. The Journal also seeks to publish clinical trials and outstanding review articles on areas of interest in several forms. The State-of-the-Art review is a treatise usually covering a broad field that brings bench research to the bedside. Shorter reviews are published as Critical Care Perspectives or Pulmonary Perspectives. These are generally focused on a more limited area and advance a concerted opinion about care for a specific process. Concise Clinical Reviews provide an evidence-based synthesis of the literature pertaining to topics of fundamental importance to the practice of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Images providing advances or unusual contributions to the field are published as Images in Pulmonary, Critical Care, Sleep Medicine and the Sciences.
A recent trend and future direction of the Journal has been to include debates of a topical nature on issues of importance in pulmonary and critical care medicine and to the membership of the American Thoracic Society. Other recent changes have included encompassing works from the field of critical care medicine and the extension of the editorial governing of journal policy to colleagues outside of the United States of America. The focus and direction of the Journal is to establish an international forum for state-of-the-art respiratory and critical care medicine.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
