Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Journal club
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Journal club
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

The road to hell is paved with good intentions: a look back at the PANTHER-IPF trial

Michelle Kam, Julien Caliez, Hilario Nunes, Thomas Gille
Breathe 2022 18: 220074; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.0074-2022
Michelle Kam
1Dept of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
6Both authors contributed equally to this manuscript
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Michelle Kam
  • For correspondence: michelle.kam.l.w@singhealth.com.sg
Julien Caliez
2Dept of Pulmonology, Reference Center for Rare Pulmonary Diseases, Avicenne University Hospital, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Paris Seine-Saint-Denis (HUPSSD), Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Bobigny, France
6Both authors contributed equally to this manuscript
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hilario Nunes
2Dept of Pulmonology, Reference Center for Rare Pulmonary Diseases, Avicenne University Hospital, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Paris Seine-Saint-Denis (HUPSSD), Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Bobigny, France
3Inserm UMR 1272 “Hypoxia & the Lung”, UFR Santé, Médecine, Biologie Humaine (SMBH), Université Sorbonne Paris Nord (USPN), Bobigny, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Gille
3Inserm UMR 1272 “Hypoxia & the Lung”, UFR Santé, Médecine, Biologie Humaine (SMBH), Université Sorbonne Paris Nord (USPN), Bobigny, France
4Dept of Physiology and Functional Explorations, Avicenne University Hospital, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Paris Seine-Saint-Denis (HUPSSD), Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Bobigny, France
5Dept of Physiology and Functional Explorations, Jean Verdier University Hospital, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Paris Seine-Saint-Denis (HUPSSD), Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Bondy, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Thomas Gille
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The PANTHER-IPF trial was a turning point in treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (#IPF) highlighting the importance of randomised controlled trials in determining treatment strategies, even for rare diseases and/or potentially fatal acute events https://bit.ly/3Oi0KwD

Introduction

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is the most severe and the most common idiopathic interstitial lung disease (ILD), characterised by irreversible fibrosis with progressive lung function deterioration. IPF is currently hypothesised as a disharmonious alveolar healing process after multiple micro-aggressions in genetically predisposed subjects, with impaired crosstalk between senescent epithelial alveolar cells and activated fibroblasts, leading to the accumulation of extracellular matrix components in the pulmonary interstitium [1]. This current pathophysiological conception is the result of progressive evolution over the past decades.

State of the art in IPF in the 2000s

IPF was formerly called “cryptogenic fibrosing alveolitis”, a term that also comprised nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) before this entity was later individualised [2, 3]. IPF was initially considered to be mainly a chronic inflammatory disorder. Immune effector cells were thought to cause pulmonary damage, which was then followed up by impaired repair processes which led to end-stage, irreversible fibrosis [4]. On this basis, corticosteroids or immunosuppressant drugs (ISDs) were the conventional approach in the treatment of patients with IPF in the 2000s. Despite the absence of a prospective, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial (RCT) evaluating their efficacy in the treatment of IPF, corticosteroids had been the first-line therapy since the 1950s. In case series of IPF patients treated with corticosteroids, objective improvement was uncommon (seen in ∼12% of cases only). However, in trials comparing corticosteroids against no treatment, none of the untreated IPF patients improved [5]. In a RCT published in 1991, the combination of prednisone and azathioprine (AZA) seemed to be associated with modest functional improvement and better survival, when compared with a group receiving prednisone and a placebo [6]. However, data supporting the use of such treatments remained controversial [7, 8]. In 2000, the American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) guidelines stated that “therapy [was] not indicated for all patients with IPF” and “the potential benefits of any treatment protocol for an individual patient with IPF may be outweighed by increased risk for treatment-related complications” [9].

As oxygen radicals were theorised to contribute to epithelial injury in IPF, it was hypothesised that antioxidant strategies might prove beneficial. N-acetylcysteine (NAC), a precursor of the antioxidant glutathione, was suggested as an adjunct to maintenance immunosuppressant therapy in IPF patients. In 2005, the IFIGENIA study focused on high-dose NAC added to “standard” therapy consisting of prednisone plus AZA. Patients in the three-drug regimen arm showed better-preserved pulmonary function at 1 year than the “standard” two-drug regimen plus placebo arm. However, no difference in mortality rate was observed, and since this study included no placebos for AZA and prednisone, the efficacy of this three-drug regimen remained controversial [10].

Concurrently, pathophysiological hypotheses were evolving. Evidence suggested that inflammation might not play a pivotal role, as it was not a prominent histopathological finding. Moreover, even in the absence of ongoing inflammation, epithelial injury was shown to be sufficient to stimulate pulmonary fibrogenesis by itself. In addition, clinical measurements of inflammation failed to correlate with disease stage or outcome [11]. Thus, a trial testing the benefit of an anti-inflammatory and antioxidant strategy versus placebo was deemed necessary.

Design and results of the PANTHER-IPF trial

The PANTHER-IPF trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00650091) was designed by the Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Clinical Research Network (IPFnet) steering committee and conducted in 25 clinical centres in the USA [12, 13]. Recruitment began in December 2009. In the previous year, a practice survey showed that almost 50% of pulmonologists used either a two-drug regimen (prednisone plus AZA) or a three-drug regimen (prednisone, AZA and NAC) [14]. The design of the PANTHER-IPF trial consisted of three treatment arms with double-blinding: 1) prednisone plus AZA plus NAC (“combination-therapy” group); 2) NAC alone plus placebos for prednisone and AZA; and 3) a placebo group. The target sample size was determined as 130 patients per group, with 1:1:1 randomisation. Patients <85 years of age with “definite IPF” and mild-to-moderate lung function impairment, as defined by forced vital capacity (FVC) ≥50% and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) ≥30% of the predicted value, were eligible. The primary outcome was the change in FVC after 60 weeks, because the target recruitment number would have been too high if survival was used as the primary end-point.

A planned mid-point interim analysis took place in October 2011, leading the data and safety monitoring board to recommend discontinuation of the three-drug regimen, owing to an increase in overall serious adverse events, including death. At that time, 77 patients had been enrolled in the combination-therapy group, and 78 in the placebo group. 75% were male, was a mean age of 68 years, mean FVC 71% predicted and mean DLCO 44% predicted. The two groups were similar with respect to demographics, clinical characteristics and coexisting illnesses. Mean follow-up was 32 weeks. Combination therapy seemed to show no benefit for lung function preservation compared with matched placebos. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome for the few patients who completed the 60-week follow-up, in terms of the change in FVC and DLCO at previous time-points, nor in disease progression (composite outcome of death or decrease in FVC of >10%). More importantly, there was a statistically significant increase in the number of deaths in the combination-therapy group which had eight deceased patients (10%) compared to one (1%) in the placebo group. Kaplan–Meier estimates of 60-week mortality for combination-therapy and placebo groups were 19.8% and 2%, respectively (hazard ratio 9.26, 95% CI 1.16–74.1; p=0.01). The combination-therapy group also demonstrated increased hospitalisations (23 versus 7; p<0.001), acute exacerbations (AEs; 6 versus 0; p=0.03), and serious adverse events (24 versus 7; p=0.001) compared with placebo. Although drug discontinuation was higher in the combination-therapy group, having completed the 15-week visit 73% of the patients were still taking all three study drugs, and between 60% and 66% of them were at later time-points. Mortality rates were considered to be consistent with data from previous RCTs, and the increased mortality was attributed to combination therapy, or at least one of its components. The NAC monotherapy and placebo arms were continued as previously planned, but no benefit was observed after 60 weeks for any primary or secondary outcome [15].

A paradigm shift in IPF treatment

The trial had several limitations, one of which was early termination of the combination-therapy group; hence, the effect of treatment on the primary outcome (change in FVC over the 60-week period) could not be assessed in all subjects. Nevertheless, the significance of the results prompted clinicians to stop using corticosteroids and ISDs in IPF treatment [16]. In subsequent years, RCTs assessing pirfenidone (CAPACITY, ASCEND) and nintedanib (INPULSIS) have demonstrated retardation of lung function decline with antifibrotic use [17–19]. However, further trials studying IPF treatment have been negative, and antifibrotic therapy remains the only established guideline therapy for IPF [16], and in some cases of progressive pulmonary fibroses due to other aetiologies [20].

When the PANTHER-IPF results were first published, the reason for the increased death and hospitalisation rates was unknown. One postulation was the initial high dose of corticosteroids used in the PANTHER-IPF trial resulting in significant toxicity in an elderly population [21]. Post hoc analysis of PANTHER-IPF subjects showed that subjects with short leukocyte telomere lengths, that measured below the 10th percentile of normal controls, who received the three-drug regimen had a higher composite end-point (death, lung transplantation, hospitalisation or FVC decline), which remained significant after adjustment for age and baseline percentage predicted FVC [22]. In addition, it was hypothesised that earlier case series which reported therapeutic success with corticosteroids or ISDs may have involved patients who no longer fulfilled the ATS/ERS guideline criteria for the diagnosis of IPF, and rather had progressive pulmonary fibrosis from other causes, including NSIP [23].

As regrettably highlighted by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, observational case series and small-sized controlled trials tend to overestimate the proposed efficacy of a treatment [24, 25]. This emphasises the importance of evaluating (and sometimes re-evaluating) standard clinical practice with well-designed and well-powered RCTs, even for rare diseases and serious events such as IPF AEs. Although they are no longer used to treat IPF, corticosteroids and sometimes ISDs are still used to treat AEs. In current IPF guidelines, there is no recommendation against their administration for the treatment of AEs [26, 27]. However, cohort studies examining AE outcomes suggested that steroid use was associated with poorer outcomes and survival [28, 29]. More recently, the phase 3 EXAFIP trial demonstrated that pulsed intravenous cyclophosphamide, in addition to methylprednisolone, in AEs of IPF increased 3-month mortality [30]. One proposed theory is the effect of immunosuppression on the lung microbiome and pulmonary epithelium, although trials studying the use of doxycycline and cotrimoxazole in IPF have been negative thus far [31, 32].

Following PANTHER-IPF, the PANORAMA trial, which studied the safety and efficacy of oral NAC added to pirfenidone, showed higher rates of photosensitivity and FVC decline over 6 months in the NAC group compared with placebo [33]. More recently, a Japanese study found that inhaled NAC combined with pirfenidone resulted in a faster rate of FVC decline over 48 weeks compared with pirfenidone monotherapy [34]. However, post hoc analysis of PANTHER-IPF suggests that some patients may still benefit from NAC treatment. Subjects with the rs3750920 (TOLLIP) TT genotype had a reduced risk of a composite end-point of death, lung transplantation, hospitalisation or 10% FVC decline, whilst those with a rs3750920 (TOLLIP) CC genotype had a nonsignificant increase in composite end-point risk. These findings were further replicated in an independent IPF cohort [35]. The TT genotype frequency in this study was 25%, while the CC genotype was found in over 80% of IPF subjects in Japanese population, possibly accounting for the differences in the outcomes with NAC between the cohorts.

Summary

The PANTHER-IPF trial was a turning point in IPF treatment and highlighted the importance of RCTs in determining treatment strategies for patients. The post hoc analysis has been significant in paving the way to further study pharmacogenomic interactions in ILD treatment and further research is needed to determine which genotypes are of clinical relevance in drug selection and disease prognostication.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: M. Kam reports grants or contracts from Singapore General Hospital Research Grant (SRG) in 2021, outside the submitted work. J. Caliez reports non-financial support from Oxyvie (oxygen provider), outside the submitted work. H. Nunes reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from Roche/Genentech and personal fees from Galapagos NV, pharmaceutical companies producing drugs for IPF treatment; personal fees from Actelion, outside the submitted work. T. Gille reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and personal fees from Roche/Genentech, pharmaceutical companies producing drugs for IPF treatment; non-financial support from Oyxvie (oxygen provider), non-financial support from LVL Medical (oxygen provider) and non-financial support from Vitalaire (oxygen provider), outside the submitted work.

  • Received May 6, 2022.
  • Accepted July 18, 2022.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2022
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Breathe articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. King TE,
    2. Pardo A,
    3. Selman M
    . Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Lancet 2011; 378: 1949–1961. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60052-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society
    . American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society International Multidisciplinary Consensus Classification of the Idiopathic Interstitial Pneumonias. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 165: 277–304. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.165.2.ats01
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Travis WD,
    2. Costabel U,
    3. Hansell DM, et al.
    An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: update of the international multidisciplinary classification of the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 188: 733–748. doi:10.1164/rccm.201308-1483ST
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Keogh BA,
    2. Crystal RG
    . Alveolitis: the key to the interstitial lung disorders. Thorax 1982; 37: 1–10. doi:10.1136/thx.37.1.1
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Mapel DW,
    2. Samet JM,
    3. Coultas DB
    . Corticosteroids and the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Past, present, and future. Chest 1996; 110: 1058–1067. doi:10.1378/chest.110.4.1058
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Raghu G,
    2. Depaso WJ,
    3. Cain K, et al.
    Azathioprine combined with prednisone in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a prospective double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Am Rev Respir Dis 1991; 144: 291–296. doi:10.1164/ajrccm/144.2.291
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Richeldi L,
    2. Davies HR,
    3. Ferrara G, et al.
    Corticosteroids for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; 3: CD002880. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002880
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Davies HR,
    2. Richeldi L,
    3. Walters EH
    . Immunomodulatory agents for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; 3: CD003134. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003134
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    American Thoracic Society. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: diagnosis and treatment. International consensus statement. American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 161: 646–664. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.161.2.ats3-00
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Demedts M,
    2. Behr J,
    3. Buhl R, et al.
    High-dose acetylcysteine in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 2229–2242. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa042976
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Selman M,
    2. King TE,
    3. Pardo A, et al.
    Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: prevailing and evolving hypotheses about its pathogenesis and implications for therapy. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 136–151. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-2-200101160-00015
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Raghu G,
    2. Anstrom KJ, et al.
    1. Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Clinical Research Network
    , Raghu G, Anstrom KJ, et al. Prednisone, azathioprine, and N-acetylcysteine for pulmonary fibrosis. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 1968–1977. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1113354
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. ClinicalTrials.gov
    . Evaluating the Effectiveness of Prednisone, Azathioprine, and N-acetylcysteine in Patients With IPF (PANTHER-IPF). Date last accessed: 18 April 2022. Date last updated: 2 June 2015. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT00650091
  14. ↵
    1. Peikert T,
    2. Daniels CE,
    3. Beebe TJ, et al.
    Assessment of current practice in the diagnosis and therapy of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Respir Med 2008; 102: 1342–1348. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2008.03.018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Martinez FJ,
    2. de Andrade JA, et al.
    1. Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Clinical Research Network
    , Martinez FJ, de Andrade JA, et al. Randomized trial of acetylcysteine in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 2093–2101. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1401739
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Raghu G,
    2. Rochwerg B,
    3. Zhang Y, et al.
    An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT clinical practice guideline: treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. An update of the 2011 clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 192: e3–e19. doi:10.1164/rccm.201506-1063ST
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Noble PW,
    2. Albera C,
    3. Bradford WZ, et al.
    Pirfenidone in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (CAPACITY): two randomised trials. Lancet 2011; 377: 1760–1769. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60405-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. King TE,
    2. Bradford WZ,
    3. Castro-Bernardini S, et al.
    A phase 3 trial of pirfenidone in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 2083–2092. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1402582
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Richeldi L,
    2. du Bois RM,
    3. Raghu G, et al.
    Efficacy and safety of nintedanib in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 2071–2082. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1402584
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Raghu G,
    2. Remy-Jardin M,
    3. Richeldi L, et al.
    Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (an update) and progressive pulmonary fibrosis in adults: an official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2022; 205: e18–e47. doi:10.1164/rccm.202202-0399ST
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Wells AU,
    2. Kelleher WP
    . Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis pathogenesis and novel approaches to immunomodulation: we must not be tyrannized by the PANTHER data. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 187: 677–679. doi:10.1164/rccm.201302-0336ED
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Newton CA,
    2. Zhang D,
    3. Oldham JM, et al.
    Telomere length and use of immunosuppressive medications in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019; 200: 336–347. doi:10.1164/rccm.201809-1646OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Raghu G,
    2. Remy-Jardin M,
    3. Myers JL, et al.
    Diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018; 198: e44–e68. doi:10.1164/rccm.201807-1255ST
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Ho PM,
    2. Peterson PN,
    3. Masoudi FA
    . Evaluating the evidence: is there a rigid hierarchy? Circulation 2008; 118: 1675–1684. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.721357
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Dechartres A,
    2. Trinquart L,
    3. Boutron I, et al.
    Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2013; 346: f2304. doi:10.1136/bmj.f2304
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Raghu G,
    2. Collard HR,
    3. Egan JJ, et al.
    An official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT statement: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: evidence-based guidelines for diagnosis and management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011; 183: 788–824. doi:10.1164/rccm.2009-040GL
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Collard HR,
    2. Ryerson CJ,
    3. Corte TJ, et al.
    Acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. An international working group report. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 194: 265–275. doi:10.1164/rccm.201604-0801CI
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Song JW,
    2. Hong S-B,
    3. Lim C-M, et al.
    Acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: incidence, risk factors and outcome. Eur Respir J 2011; 37: 356–363. doi:10.1183/09031936.00159709
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Farrand E,
    2. Vittinghoff E,
    3. Ley B, et al.
    Corticosteroid use is not associated with improved outcomes in acute exacerbation of IPF. Respirology 2020; 25: 629–635. doi:10.1111/resp.13753
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Naccache J-M,
    2. Jouneau S,
    3. Didier M, et al.
    Cyclophosphamide added to glucocorticoids in acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (EXAFIP): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Respir Med 2022; 10: 26–34. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00354-4
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Han MK,
    2. Zhou Y,
    3. Murray S, et al.
    Lung microbiome and disease progression in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: an analysis of the COMET study. Lancet Respir Med 2014; 2: 548–556. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70069-4
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Martinez FJ,
    2. Yow E,
    3. Flaherty KR, et al.
    Effect of antimicrobial therapy on respiratory hospitalization or death in adults with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: the CleanUP-IPF randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2021; 325: 1841–1851. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.4956
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Behr J,
    2. Bendstrup E,
    3. Crestani B, et al.
    Safety and tolerability of acetylcysteine and pirfenidone combination therapy in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Respir Med 2016; 4: 445–453. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(16)30044-3
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Sakamoto S,
    2. Kataoka K,
    3. Kondoh Y, et al.
    Pirfenidone plus inhaled N-acetylcysteine for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a randomised trial. Eur Respir J 2021; 57: 2000348. doi:10.1183/13993003.00348-2020
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Oldham JM,
    2. Ma S-F,
    3. Martinez FJ, et al.
    TOLLIP, MUC5B, and the response to N-acetylcysteine among individuals with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 192: 1475–1482. doi:10.1164/rccm.201505-1010OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 18 Issue 3 Table of Contents
Breathe: 18 (3)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions: a look back at the PANTHER-IPF trial
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
The road to hell is paved with good intentions: a look back at the PANTHER-IPF trial
Michelle Kam, Julien Caliez, Hilario Nunes, Thomas Gille
Breathe Sep 2022, 18 (3) 220074; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.0074-2022

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The road to hell is paved with good intentions: a look back at the PANTHER-IPF trial
Michelle Kam, Julien Caliez, Hilario Nunes, Thomas Gille
Breathe Sep 2022, 18 (3) 220074; DOI: 10.1183/20734735.0074-2022
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • State of the art in IPF in the 2000s
    • Design and results of the PANTHER-IPF trial
    • A paradigm shift in IPF treatment
    • Summary
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Interstitial and orphan lung disease
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Balloon pulmonary angioplasty: lessons learned and unanswered questions
  • Impact of the meta-analysis of pulmonary rehabilitation by Lacasse et al.
Show more Landmark papers in respiratory medicine

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About Breathe

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Intructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN: 1810-6838
Online ISSN: 2073-4735

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society