ReviewCureus2020
How Clinically Efficient Is Lumacaftor/Ivacaftor for Cystic Fibrosis Patients? An Updated Literature Review.
Review in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive illness caused by the defective cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene. These patients suffer from repeated chronic sinuses and lung infections, resulting in frequent hospital admissions and antibiotic (Abx) courses. These are the major contributing factors responsible for a low health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and increasing the disease burden. The introduction and approval of CFTR modulators-lumacaftor (LUM) and ivacaftor (IVA) in 2015 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reduced the mortality and morbidity rates associated with the disease. In 2018, the FDA approved these drugs from age two and five years with two copies of F5806 del. This literature review aims to present the studies centered on the clinical effects of LUM/IVA. We searched for the relevant articles, from 2016 to 2020, in PubMed Central (PMC), Google Scholars, and Journal of Cystic Fibrosis. LUM/IVA has a broader range of effects. They showed marked improvement in the reduction of pulmonary exacerbations (PEx), Hospitalization rates, Abx use, and modification in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) status of pre-existing severe lung disease. Now, there is a need for an initiative to conduct more clinical trials and studies in the future to assess and evaluate the long-term clinical benefits and safety of LUM/IVA therapy in all age groups.
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.