User login
The rise and fall of treatment trials in group 3 pulmonary hypertension: Where do we go from here?
Treatment of fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD) is often dissatisfying to clinicians and patients. Despite significant advances in the field, particularly the validation of the efficacy of the antifibrotic drugs nintedanib (Richeldi L, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370[22]:2071) and pirfenidone (King TE Jr, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370[(22]:2083) in slowing the progression of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), we are still left with a paucity of therapeutic options to modulate the course of disease and improve functional outcomes. Given the difficulties in addressing the progression of parenchymal fibrosis, the pulmonary community has looked for alternative ways to approach treatment of ILD. One potential therapeutic inroad that has garnered substantial interest is the treatment of concurrent pulmonary hypertension (PH) or group 3 PH (Seeger W, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62 (25 Suppl):D109).
Group 3 PH – The rationale to treat
Group 3 PH has an indisputable association with adverse outcomes, including decreased functional status, increased need for supplemental oxygen, and decreased survival (King CS, Nathan SD. Pulmonary Hypertension and Interstitial Lung Disease. Ed 2. Ch 4.2017;67-84). In fact, PH is such a powerful predictor of survival in fibrotic ILD, the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplant (ISHLT) guidelines on candidate selection for lung transplantation cite development of PH as an indication for transplant listing (Weill D, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34:1). When one considers the strong association between group 3 PH and adverse outcomes, the numerous pulmonary vasodilator agents available to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), and the success achieved in treating PAH, it is easy to see why group 3 PH is such a tempting therapeutic target.
Previous studies of pulmonary vasodilator therapy for group 3 PH
Over 20 studies assessing the effectiveness of pulmonary vasodilator therapy in ILD have been published (King CS, Nathan SD. Pulmonary Hypertension and Interstitial Lung Disease. Ed 2. Ch 4. 2017;67) The majority was small and unblinded with inherent limitations. To date, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) of therapy for group 3 PH has demonstrated efficacy. Several studies amongst the RCTs deserve highlighting. The most encouraging RCT of therapy for group 3 PH was STEP-IPF. This study compared sildenafil with placebo in 180 patients with advanced IPF. Though the study failed to demonstrate a difference in the primary endpoint of ≥ 20% increase in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance, it did show improvement in several secondary endpoints, including arterial oxygen saturation and quality of life measures (Zisman DA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363[7]:620).
The BUILD-3 study compared bosentan with placebo in 617 patients with IPF. Enrolled patients were not required to have PH. While bosentan was well tolerated, it failed to improve the primary endpoint of time to disease progression or death or secondary endpoints regarding quality of life or dyspnea (King TE Jr, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011; 184[1]:92). A smaller study comparing bosentan with placebo in 60 patients with fibrotic ILD with right-sided heart catheterization (RHC) confirmed PH failed to demonstrate any difference in pulmonary vascular hemodynamics, functional status, or symptoms (Corte TJ, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190[2]:208). Studies of the newer endothelin receptor antagonists, macitentan (Raghu, et al. Eur Respir J. 2013;42[6]:1622) and ambrisentan (Raghu, et al. Ann Int Med. 2013;158[9]:641), were conducted and failed to demonstrate improvements in outcomes, as well. Overall, the results of the available RCTs of pulmonary vasodilator therapy in group 3 PH have been disappointing, failing to conclusively improve the primary outcome in any of the studies performed.
Hot off the presses – RISE-IIP
The latest letdown in group 3 PH is “Riociguat for the Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension in Idiopathic Interstitial Pneumonia (RISE-IIP). The results of the study were recently presented at the European Respiratory Society meeting in Milan, Italy, by my colleague from Inova Fairfax Hospital (Falls Church, VA), Dr. Steven Nathan. Riociguat is a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator approved for use in PAH and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. The rationale for the study was that riociguat would improve pulmonary hemodynamics leading to improved functional status. Additionally, several preclinical models have demonstrated antifibrotic effects of the drug (Geschka S, et al. PLoS One. 2011;6:e21853). Justification for the study was also bolstered by promising results from a pilot study conducted in 22 patients with RHC-confirmed PH with a mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) > 30 and fibrotic lung disease. In this study, patients treated with riociguat had improved pulmonary vascular resistance, cardiac output, and 6MWT distance.
To be included in RISE-IIP, patients were required to have an idiopathic interstitial pneumonia, PH confirmed by RHC with a mPAP ≥ 25 mm Hg, World Health Organization Functional Class 2-4 symptoms, and a forced vital capacity (FVC) ≥ 45% predicted. Pertinent exclusion criteria included significant left-sided heart disease and extent of emphysema greater than fibrosis on HRCT. Patients with connective tissue disease, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, occupational lung disease, and sarcoidosis were ineligible to participate. The placebo-controlled portion of the study lasted 26 weeks then crossed into an open label extension trial.
The study enrolled 147 total patients, with 73 receiving riociguat and 74 in the placebo arm. There was no significant improvement in the primary outcome of change in 6MWT distance or the secondary combined endpoint assessing clinical worsening. The study was terminated early for safety due to an increased number of deaths and adverse events in the treatment group. During the blinded phase of the study, eight deaths (11%) occurred in the riociguat arm as compared with three deaths (4%) in the placebo arm. Seventy patients entered the open label extension phase of the trial, and 9 of these patients died. Eight of these deaths occurred in the patients previously receiving placebo who were switched to riociguat. The authors of the study found no conclusive potential etiology to explain the increased mortality seen.
RISE’ing from the ashes – Where do we go from here?
So, what should we take away from the negative results of the RISE-IIP trial? Some may argue that treatment of group 3 PH is a flawed premise and should be abandoned. Perhaps development of group 3 PH is an adaptive response to worsening fibrotic lung disease, and treatment of the PH is unlikely to alter outcomes and introduces the possibility of harm through worsening hypoxemia due to increased ventilation/perfusion mismatch with nonselective pulmonary vasodilation. I suspect the truth is somewhat more nuanced. I believe there is a select population with severe or “out-of-proportion” PH that may still benefit from vasodilator therapy. Trials targeting patients with a higher mPAP or low cardiac index could test this hypothesis but will be difficult to enroll. Another possibility is that our mechanism of drug delivery in prior trials has been suboptimal. Inhaled pulmonary vasodilator therapy should minimize the risk of worsening ventilation/perfusion mismatch. An RCT assessing the response to inhaled treprostinil in group 3 PH (NCT02630316) is currently enrolling at 96 centers across the United States. Until data supporting positive effects from treating group 3 PH emerge, I would recommend against off-label treatment and encourage referral to clinical trials. Given the potential for harm, riociguat should be avoided in group 3 PH. If off-label therapy is being entertained in a patient with severe PH that is out of proportion to the extent of fibrotic lung disease, it should be initiated cautiously at a center experienced in treating PH. Finally, clinicians should refer appropriate candidates with ILD and group 3 PH for lung transplantation evaluation.
The great inventor Thomas Edison is credited with saying “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” While disappointing, negative studies are to be expected as we search for improved therapies for our patients. It’s essential that we reflect upon these studies, so we can improve future trial design.
Treatment of fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD) is often dissatisfying to clinicians and patients. Despite significant advances in the field, particularly the validation of the efficacy of the antifibrotic drugs nintedanib (Richeldi L, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370[22]:2071) and pirfenidone (King TE Jr, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370[(22]:2083) in slowing the progression of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), we are still left with a paucity of therapeutic options to modulate the course of disease and improve functional outcomes. Given the difficulties in addressing the progression of parenchymal fibrosis, the pulmonary community has looked for alternative ways to approach treatment of ILD. One potential therapeutic inroad that has garnered substantial interest is the treatment of concurrent pulmonary hypertension (PH) or group 3 PH (Seeger W, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62 (25 Suppl):D109).
Group 3 PH – The rationale to treat
Group 3 PH has an indisputable association with adverse outcomes, including decreased functional status, increased need for supplemental oxygen, and decreased survival (King CS, Nathan SD. Pulmonary Hypertension and Interstitial Lung Disease. Ed 2. Ch 4.2017;67-84). In fact, PH is such a powerful predictor of survival in fibrotic ILD, the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplant (ISHLT) guidelines on candidate selection for lung transplantation cite development of PH as an indication for transplant listing (Weill D, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34:1). When one considers the strong association between group 3 PH and adverse outcomes, the numerous pulmonary vasodilator agents available to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), and the success achieved in treating PAH, it is easy to see why group 3 PH is such a tempting therapeutic target.
Previous studies of pulmonary vasodilator therapy for group 3 PH
Over 20 studies assessing the effectiveness of pulmonary vasodilator therapy in ILD have been published (King CS, Nathan SD. Pulmonary Hypertension and Interstitial Lung Disease. Ed 2. Ch 4. 2017;67) The majority was small and unblinded with inherent limitations. To date, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) of therapy for group 3 PH has demonstrated efficacy. Several studies amongst the RCTs deserve highlighting. The most encouraging RCT of therapy for group 3 PH was STEP-IPF. This study compared sildenafil with placebo in 180 patients with advanced IPF. Though the study failed to demonstrate a difference in the primary endpoint of ≥ 20% increase in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance, it did show improvement in several secondary endpoints, including arterial oxygen saturation and quality of life measures (Zisman DA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363[7]:620).
The BUILD-3 study compared bosentan with placebo in 617 patients with IPF. Enrolled patients were not required to have PH. While bosentan was well tolerated, it failed to improve the primary endpoint of time to disease progression or death or secondary endpoints regarding quality of life or dyspnea (King TE Jr, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011; 184[1]:92). A smaller study comparing bosentan with placebo in 60 patients with fibrotic ILD with right-sided heart catheterization (RHC) confirmed PH failed to demonstrate any difference in pulmonary vascular hemodynamics, functional status, or symptoms (Corte TJ, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190[2]:208). Studies of the newer endothelin receptor antagonists, macitentan (Raghu, et al. Eur Respir J. 2013;42[6]:1622) and ambrisentan (Raghu, et al. Ann Int Med. 2013;158[9]:641), were conducted and failed to demonstrate improvements in outcomes, as well. Overall, the results of the available RCTs of pulmonary vasodilator therapy in group 3 PH have been disappointing, failing to conclusively improve the primary outcome in any of the studies performed.
Hot off the presses – RISE-IIP
The latest letdown in group 3 PH is “Riociguat for the Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension in Idiopathic Interstitial Pneumonia (RISE-IIP). The results of the study were recently presented at the European Respiratory Society meeting in Milan, Italy, by my colleague from Inova Fairfax Hospital (Falls Church, VA), Dr. Steven Nathan. Riociguat is a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator approved for use in PAH and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. The rationale for the study was that riociguat would improve pulmonary hemodynamics leading to improved functional status. Additionally, several preclinical models have demonstrated antifibrotic effects of the drug (Geschka S, et al. PLoS One. 2011;6:e21853). Justification for the study was also bolstered by promising results from a pilot study conducted in 22 patients with RHC-confirmed PH with a mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) > 30 and fibrotic lung disease. In this study, patients treated with riociguat had improved pulmonary vascular resistance, cardiac output, and 6MWT distance.
To be included in RISE-IIP, patients were required to have an idiopathic interstitial pneumonia, PH confirmed by RHC with a mPAP ≥ 25 mm Hg, World Health Organization Functional Class 2-4 symptoms, and a forced vital capacity (FVC) ≥ 45% predicted. Pertinent exclusion criteria included significant left-sided heart disease and extent of emphysema greater than fibrosis on HRCT. Patients with connective tissue disease, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, occupational lung disease, and sarcoidosis were ineligible to participate. The placebo-controlled portion of the study lasted 26 weeks then crossed into an open label extension trial.
The study enrolled 147 total patients, with 73 receiving riociguat and 74 in the placebo arm. There was no significant improvement in the primary outcome of change in 6MWT distance or the secondary combined endpoint assessing clinical worsening. The study was terminated early for safety due to an increased number of deaths and adverse events in the treatment group. During the blinded phase of the study, eight deaths (11%) occurred in the riociguat arm as compared with three deaths (4%) in the placebo arm. Seventy patients entered the open label extension phase of the trial, and 9 of these patients died. Eight of these deaths occurred in the patients previously receiving placebo who were switched to riociguat. The authors of the study found no conclusive potential etiology to explain the increased mortality seen.
RISE’ing from the ashes – Where do we go from here?
So, what should we take away from the negative results of the RISE-IIP trial? Some may argue that treatment of group 3 PH is a flawed premise and should be abandoned. Perhaps development of group 3 PH is an adaptive response to worsening fibrotic lung disease, and treatment of the PH is unlikely to alter outcomes and introduces the possibility of harm through worsening hypoxemia due to increased ventilation/perfusion mismatch with nonselective pulmonary vasodilation. I suspect the truth is somewhat more nuanced. I believe there is a select population with severe or “out-of-proportion” PH that may still benefit from vasodilator therapy. Trials targeting patients with a higher mPAP or low cardiac index could test this hypothesis but will be difficult to enroll. Another possibility is that our mechanism of drug delivery in prior trials has been suboptimal. Inhaled pulmonary vasodilator therapy should minimize the risk of worsening ventilation/perfusion mismatch. An RCT assessing the response to inhaled treprostinil in group 3 PH (NCT02630316) is currently enrolling at 96 centers across the United States. Until data supporting positive effects from treating group 3 PH emerge, I would recommend against off-label treatment and encourage referral to clinical trials. Given the potential for harm, riociguat should be avoided in group 3 PH. If off-label therapy is being entertained in a patient with severe PH that is out of proportion to the extent of fibrotic lung disease, it should be initiated cautiously at a center experienced in treating PH. Finally, clinicians should refer appropriate candidates with ILD and group 3 PH for lung transplantation evaluation.
The great inventor Thomas Edison is credited with saying “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” While disappointing, negative studies are to be expected as we search for improved therapies for our patients. It’s essential that we reflect upon these studies, so we can improve future trial design.
Treatment of fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD) is often dissatisfying to clinicians and patients. Despite significant advances in the field, particularly the validation of the efficacy of the antifibrotic drugs nintedanib (Richeldi L, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370[22]:2071) and pirfenidone (King TE Jr, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370[(22]:2083) in slowing the progression of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), we are still left with a paucity of therapeutic options to modulate the course of disease and improve functional outcomes. Given the difficulties in addressing the progression of parenchymal fibrosis, the pulmonary community has looked for alternative ways to approach treatment of ILD. One potential therapeutic inroad that has garnered substantial interest is the treatment of concurrent pulmonary hypertension (PH) or group 3 PH (Seeger W, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62 (25 Suppl):D109).
Group 3 PH – The rationale to treat
Group 3 PH has an indisputable association with adverse outcomes, including decreased functional status, increased need for supplemental oxygen, and decreased survival (King CS, Nathan SD. Pulmonary Hypertension and Interstitial Lung Disease. Ed 2. Ch 4.2017;67-84). In fact, PH is such a powerful predictor of survival in fibrotic ILD, the International Society of Heart and Lung Transplant (ISHLT) guidelines on candidate selection for lung transplantation cite development of PH as an indication for transplant listing (Weill D, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34:1). When one considers the strong association between group 3 PH and adverse outcomes, the numerous pulmonary vasodilator agents available to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), and the success achieved in treating PAH, it is easy to see why group 3 PH is such a tempting therapeutic target.
Previous studies of pulmonary vasodilator therapy for group 3 PH
Over 20 studies assessing the effectiveness of pulmonary vasodilator therapy in ILD have been published (King CS, Nathan SD. Pulmonary Hypertension and Interstitial Lung Disease. Ed 2. Ch 4. 2017;67) The majority was small and unblinded with inherent limitations. To date, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) of therapy for group 3 PH has demonstrated efficacy. Several studies amongst the RCTs deserve highlighting. The most encouraging RCT of therapy for group 3 PH was STEP-IPF. This study compared sildenafil with placebo in 180 patients with advanced IPF. Though the study failed to demonstrate a difference in the primary endpoint of ≥ 20% increase in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance, it did show improvement in several secondary endpoints, including arterial oxygen saturation and quality of life measures (Zisman DA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363[7]:620).
The BUILD-3 study compared bosentan with placebo in 617 patients with IPF. Enrolled patients were not required to have PH. While bosentan was well tolerated, it failed to improve the primary endpoint of time to disease progression or death or secondary endpoints regarding quality of life or dyspnea (King TE Jr, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011; 184[1]:92). A smaller study comparing bosentan with placebo in 60 patients with fibrotic ILD with right-sided heart catheterization (RHC) confirmed PH failed to demonstrate any difference in pulmonary vascular hemodynamics, functional status, or symptoms (Corte TJ, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;190[2]:208). Studies of the newer endothelin receptor antagonists, macitentan (Raghu, et al. Eur Respir J. 2013;42[6]:1622) and ambrisentan (Raghu, et al. Ann Int Med. 2013;158[9]:641), were conducted and failed to demonstrate improvements in outcomes, as well. Overall, the results of the available RCTs of pulmonary vasodilator therapy in group 3 PH have been disappointing, failing to conclusively improve the primary outcome in any of the studies performed.
Hot off the presses – RISE-IIP
The latest letdown in group 3 PH is “Riociguat for the Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension in Idiopathic Interstitial Pneumonia (RISE-IIP). The results of the study were recently presented at the European Respiratory Society meeting in Milan, Italy, by my colleague from Inova Fairfax Hospital (Falls Church, VA), Dr. Steven Nathan. Riociguat is a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator approved for use in PAH and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. The rationale for the study was that riociguat would improve pulmonary hemodynamics leading to improved functional status. Additionally, several preclinical models have demonstrated antifibrotic effects of the drug (Geschka S, et al. PLoS One. 2011;6:e21853). Justification for the study was also bolstered by promising results from a pilot study conducted in 22 patients with RHC-confirmed PH with a mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) > 30 and fibrotic lung disease. In this study, patients treated with riociguat had improved pulmonary vascular resistance, cardiac output, and 6MWT distance.
To be included in RISE-IIP, patients were required to have an idiopathic interstitial pneumonia, PH confirmed by RHC with a mPAP ≥ 25 mm Hg, World Health Organization Functional Class 2-4 symptoms, and a forced vital capacity (FVC) ≥ 45% predicted. Pertinent exclusion criteria included significant left-sided heart disease and extent of emphysema greater than fibrosis on HRCT. Patients with connective tissue disease, chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis, occupational lung disease, and sarcoidosis were ineligible to participate. The placebo-controlled portion of the study lasted 26 weeks then crossed into an open label extension trial.
The study enrolled 147 total patients, with 73 receiving riociguat and 74 in the placebo arm. There was no significant improvement in the primary outcome of change in 6MWT distance or the secondary combined endpoint assessing clinical worsening. The study was terminated early for safety due to an increased number of deaths and adverse events in the treatment group. During the blinded phase of the study, eight deaths (11%) occurred in the riociguat arm as compared with three deaths (4%) in the placebo arm. Seventy patients entered the open label extension phase of the trial, and 9 of these patients died. Eight of these deaths occurred in the patients previously receiving placebo who were switched to riociguat. The authors of the study found no conclusive potential etiology to explain the increased mortality seen.
RISE’ing from the ashes – Where do we go from here?
So, what should we take away from the negative results of the RISE-IIP trial? Some may argue that treatment of group 3 PH is a flawed premise and should be abandoned. Perhaps development of group 3 PH is an adaptive response to worsening fibrotic lung disease, and treatment of the PH is unlikely to alter outcomes and introduces the possibility of harm through worsening hypoxemia due to increased ventilation/perfusion mismatch with nonselective pulmonary vasodilation. I suspect the truth is somewhat more nuanced. I believe there is a select population with severe or “out-of-proportion” PH that may still benefit from vasodilator therapy. Trials targeting patients with a higher mPAP or low cardiac index could test this hypothesis but will be difficult to enroll. Another possibility is that our mechanism of drug delivery in prior trials has been suboptimal. Inhaled pulmonary vasodilator therapy should minimize the risk of worsening ventilation/perfusion mismatch. An RCT assessing the response to inhaled treprostinil in group 3 PH (NCT02630316) is currently enrolling at 96 centers across the United States. Until data supporting positive effects from treating group 3 PH emerge, I would recommend against off-label treatment and encourage referral to clinical trials. Given the potential for harm, riociguat should be avoided in group 3 PH. If off-label therapy is being entertained in a patient with severe PH that is out of proportion to the extent of fibrotic lung disease, it should be initiated cautiously at a center experienced in treating PH. Finally, clinicians should refer appropriate candidates with ILD and group 3 PH for lung transplantation evaluation.
The great inventor Thomas Edison is credited with saying “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” While disappointing, negative studies are to be expected as we search for improved therapies for our patients. It’s essential that we reflect upon these studies, so we can improve future trial design.