SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2015
Comparing new treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis--a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Model-based Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy of Pharmacological Treatments for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2017Pooled it
- Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Treatments.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2017Pooled it
- Histologic factors associated with nintedanib efficacy in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Breaking barriers in pulmonary health of patients with metabolic diseases: senolytics and beyond.Frontiers in aging · 2026Review
- Cost-effectiveness of novel diagnostic tools for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the United States.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Radiomics for the Prediction of Response to Antifibrotic Treatment in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness of the anti-fibrotics for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the United States.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2022Article
- Antifibrotic drugs for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: What we should know?The Indian journal of medical research · 2020Article
- A scoping review of network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions.Systematic reviews · 2020Article
- Inhibitors of the Autotaxin-Lysophosphatidic Acid Axis and Their Potential in the Treatment of Interstitial Lung Disease: Current Perspectives.Clinical pharmacology : advances and applications · 2020Review
- Formulation Composition and Process Affect Counterion for CSP7 Peptide.Pharmaceutics · 2019Article
- Choice of Methodology Impacts Outcome in Indirect Comparisons of Drugs for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Article
- Systematic review and network meta-analysis of approved medicines for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.Journal of drug assessment · 2019Article
- Rationale, design and objectives of two phase III, randomised, placebo-controlled studies of GLPG1690, a novel autotaxin inhibitor, in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (ISABELA 1 and 2).BMJ open respiratory research · 2019Article
- Cost-effectiveness of pirfenidone compared to all available strategies for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in France.Journal of market access & health policy · 2019Article
- Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF): An Overview.Journal of clinical medicine · 2018Review
- Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in East Asian.Intractable & rare diseases research · 2017Review
- Review
- Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: Treatment and Prognosis.Clinical medicine insights. Circulatory, respiratory and pulmonary medicine · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment landscape for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a devastating lung disease, is changing. To investigate the effectiveness of treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis we undertook a systematic review, network meta-analysis and indirect comparison.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane library for relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials of pirfenidone, nintedanib or N-acetylcysteine were eligible. Predefined processes for selecting references, extracting data and assessing study quality were applied. Our network meta-analysis of published data used a fixed effect model. For forced vital capacity measures a standardised mean difference approach was used and converted to odds ratios for interpretation.
resultsOf 1076 references, 67 were retrieved and 11 studies included. Studies were of reasonable size, populations were similar, and the overall quality was good. Only two treatments, pirfenidone (odds ratio 0.62, 95% credible interval 0.52, 0.74) and nintedanib (0.41, 95% credible interval 0.34, 0.51) produced a statistically significant slowing in the rate of forced vital capacity decline compared with placebo. In an indirect comparison, results indicate that nintedanib is statistically significantly better than pirfenidone in slowing forced vital capacity decline (odds ratio 0.67, 95% credible interval 0.51, 0.88). Results were stable in scenario analysis and random effects models. Indirect comparisons of mortality were not statistically significant between nintedanib and pirfenidone.
conclusionsTwo treatments show beneficial effects and when compared indirectly nintedanib appears to have superior benefit on forced vital capacity. Limitations to indirect comparisons should be considered when interpreting these results, however, our findings can be useful to inform treatment decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.