Better to Be an Agnostic than a Believer (at Least in Pulmonary Fibrosis)

Giacomo Sgalla,Luca Richeldi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202207-1437ED
IF: 24.7
2022-12-16
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Abstract:Time flies: almost a decade ago the results of the INPULSIS (Safety and Efficacy of BIBF 1120 at High Dose in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Patients) and ASCEND (Efficacy and Safety of Pirfenidone in Patients With Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis) trials revolutionized the world of pulmonary fibrosis, leading to the worldwide approval of the first two antifibrotic drugs for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) (1, 2). However, the gold rush of the scientific community to discover new, safe, and effective therapies for IPF has continued ever since. A next generation of molecules have been (or are currently being) tested in phase 2 randomized controlled trials in patients with IPF. Although some of these trials were either prematurely discontinued or produced negative results, recent years witnessed the completion (even in the context of the coronavirus disease [COVID-19] pandemic) of positive studies: the candidate antifibrotic drugs pamrevlumab, zinpentraxin alfa, BI 1015550, and PLN-74809 (3–6) provided encouraging results, leading to ongoing (or soon to start) large phase 3, confirmatory studies.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?