ArticlePediatric pulmonology2019
Pathogen acquisition in patients with cystic fibrosis receiving ivacaftor or lumacaftor/ivacaftor.
Article in Pediatric pulmonology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Therapeutic Interventions forJournal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Changing profile of bacterial infection and microbiome in cystic fibrosis: when to use antibiotics in the era of CFTR-modulator therapy.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024Review
- Antibiofilm Strategies in Neonatal and Pediatric Infections.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Ethnic differences in staphylococcus aureus acquisition in cystic fibrosis.Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society · 2023Article
- Impact of elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor on bacterial colonization and inflammatory responses in cystic fibrosis.Pediatric pulmonology · 2023Article
- The Impact of Highly Effective Modulator Therapy on Cystic Fibrosis Microbiology and Inflammation.Clinics in chest medicine · 2022Review
- Measuring the impact of an empiric antibiotic algorithm for pulmonary exacerbation in children and young adults with cystic fibrosis.Pediatric pulmonology · 2022Article
- Muc5b Contributes to Mucus Abnormality in Rat Models of Cystic Fibrosis.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- Treatment of Pulmonary Disease of Cystic Fibrosis: A Comprehensive Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Sustained Coinfections withAmerican journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2021Article
- Long-Term Outcomes in Real Life of Lumacaftor-Ivacaftor Treatment in Adolescents With Cystic Fibrosis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Article
- How Clinically Efficient Is Lumacaftor/Ivacaftor for Cystic Fibrosis Patients? An Updated Literature Review.Cureus · 2020Review
- (R)-Roscovitine and CFTR modulators enhance killing of multi-drug resistant Burkholderia cenocepacia by cystic fibrosis macrophages.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- [Evidence-based treatment of cystic fibrosis].Der Internist · 2020Review
- Progress in Model Systems of Cystic Fibrosis Mucosal Inflammation to Understand Aberrant Neutrophil Activity.Frontiers in immunology · 2020Review
- High Prevalence ofGenes · 2019Article
- Prevention of chronic infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in cystic fibrosis.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2019Review
- Impact of lumacaftor/ivacaftor on the bacterial and fungal respiratory pathogens in cystic fibrosis: a prospective multicenter cohort study in Sweden.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators ivacaftor and lumacaftor/ivacaftor improve the status of existing infections in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). It is unknown how well these drugs protect patients against incident infections. We hypothesized that CFTR modulator treatment would decrease new infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Staphylococcus aureus.
methodsWe retrospectively studied a single-center cohort of patients with CF during two time periods (2008-2011, Era 1) and (2012-2015, Era 2) based on the January 2012 approval of ivacaftor. Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, we compared the time to any new infection with P. aeruginosa, methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), or methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) that was absent during a 2-year baseline. We stratified the analysis based on whether patients received ivacaftor or lumacaftor/ivacaftor during Era 2. We used the log-rank test and considered P < 0.05 statistically significant.
resultsFor patients receiving ivacaftor or lumacaftor/ivacaftor in Era 2, there was a statistically significant delay in the time to new bacterial acquisition in Era 2 vs. Era 1 ( P = 0.008). For patients who did not receive CFTR modulators, there was a trend toward slower acquisition of new bacterial infections in Era 2 compared to Era 1, but this was not statistically significant ( P = 0.10).
conclusionsPatients receiving ivacaftor or lumacaftor/ivacaftor for CF had significantly delayed acquisition of P. aeruginosa and S. aureus after these drugs were released. This method for analyzing incident infections may be useful for future studies of CFTR modulators and bacterial acquisition in CF registry cohorts.
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.