MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

RCT Abstract - ENV-101 for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial

2025· article· W4416637157 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Toby M. Maher, Jonathan Goldin, John Hood, Jim Pitman, M. de los Rios, Brian P. Hobbs, Anuj Ban, Ivette Buendía-Roldán, Francis Thien, Jin Woo Song, C. Herráiz Perea, Alicia Ramírez‐Rivera, A. DiFrancesco

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysgeusiaIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosisPlaceboAdverse effectVital capacityDiscontinuationPulmonary function testingPopulationClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway promotes fibrosis in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), an interstitial lung disease with a high mortality rate. Currently, there is no cure for IPF, and available antifibrotics only slow the rate of decline in lung function in IPF. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ENV-101 (taladegib) in IPF, an Hh pathway inhibitor, in a phase 2a, proof-of-concept clinical trial. Methods: ENV-IPF-101 ( NCT04968574 ) was a phase 2a, randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted at 16 clinical sites in Australia, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, and South Korea for patients with IPF older than 40 years of age who were not treated with concurrent IPF therapy. Patients were randomised to ENV-101 200 mg or placebo equivalent once daily orally for 12 weeks with a 6-week follow-up. The main outcomes were safety in the intention-to-treat population and change from baseline in forced vital capacity (FVC) in the efficacy-evaluable population. Exploratory outcomes were measures of fibrosis on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) in the efficacy-evaluable population. Findings: Between August 12, 2021, and July 28, 2023, 41 patients were randomised. Twenty-one patients were randomly allocated to the ENV-101 treatment arm (3 [14%], female; 18 [86%], male) and 20 to the placebo arm (4 [20%], female; 16 [80%], male). All treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) possibly or probably related to the study drug were grade 1 or 2, all except one were mild or moderate in severity, and none were serious AEs. The most common TEAEs in the ENV-101 arms were dysgeusia (12/21 [57%]), muscle spasms (12/21 [57%), and alopecia (11/21 [52%]). No deaths occurred during this study. Patients treated with ENV-101 experienced an improvement from baseline in FVC and across multiple HRCT-based measures of disease. Between-arm differences in change from baseline to week 12 favored ENV-101 for the efficacy measures % predicted FVC (3·95%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0·31% to 7·60%; p=0·035), total lung capacity by HRCT (257·0 mL; 95% CI, 86·8 to 427·2 mL; p=0·004), and % quantitative interstitial lung disease (–7·5%; p=0·047; 95% CI, –18·3 to –0·56). Interpretation: The acceptable safety profile and efficacy analyses of ENV-101 support further investigation in a phase 2b trial in patients with IPF (WHISTLE-PF).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis→French-language works237,207→