3.9 Review

New targets in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: from inflammation and immunity to remodeling and repair

Journal

EXPERT OPINION ON ORPHAN DRUGS
Volume 4, Issue 5, Pages 511-520

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1517/21678707.2016.1171140

Keywords

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; fibrogenesis; lung remodeling; antifibrotic drugs

Funding

  1. joint European Respiratory Society-European Molecular Biology Organization Long-term fellowship [ERS-EMBO LTFR 2015 - 4476]
  2. Societe belge de pneumologie-Belgische vereniging voor pneumologie (SBP-BVP)
  3. Agence Nationale pour la Recherche [ANR-11-BSV1-0011]
  4. LABEX 'Inflamex'
  5. European COST Action [BM1201]
  6. Association pour la fibrose pulmonaire idiopathique Pierre ENJALRAN
  7. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-11-BSV1-0011] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic respiratory disease whose incidence and prevalence are increasing. Recent evidence has led to a change of paradigm regarding understanding of the underlying pathophysiology. In parallel, we have witnessed the development and rise of the first anti-fibrotic drugs, namely pirfenidone and nintedanib. However, with clinical results being below expectations there is a clear need for new medications in this field. Areas covered: After covering new mechanisms involved in IPF pathogenesis, the present review discusses current clinical trials and deciphers potential new targets in light of in vitro and in vivo experimental studies. Expert Opinion: All in all, we believe that future development will require (1) a significant improvement in experimental models, (2) a proper selection and characterization of patients, allowing us to foresee which will respond to a given treatment and (3) an evaluation of combined therapies, targeting different pathways.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available