The study designs of the two approved therapies, pirfenidone and nintedanib, were similar and both met their primary end points, slowing the overall rate of decline in FVC, and did so with an acceptable safety profile. Although neither study was powered to show a mortality benefit, positive survival trends were noted in both trials. Pirfenidone also suggested a benefit in slowing the yearly loss of submaximal exercise capacity as measured by 6-min walk distance, whereas nintedanib suggested the possibility of a quality-of-life benefit and a lower risk of a common complication of IPF, that is, acute exacerbation. Many will note that the primary end point in these studies, the decline in FVC, is not a clinical end point (how a patient feels, how they function, or how long they live) but a surrogate end point. This distinction has been the focus of reasoned debate in the IPF community, and may be important for individual patients, as it probably should have an influence on what they and their physicians expect in response to therapy.