SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2023
Efficacy of N-acetylcysteine plus pirfenidone in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research of N-acetyl-L-cysteine on CD40-CD40L pathway in pulmonary fibrosis induced by silicon dioxide.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Emerging pharmacological options in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).Expert review of clinical pharmacology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous studies have demonstrated the potential of pirfenidone to enhance the prognosis of patients afflicted with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Although N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is utilized as an antioxidant in IPF treatment, the combination of NAC and pirfenidone has produced inconsistent outcomes in certain studies. To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of NAC plus pirfenidone (designated as the treatment group) versus pirfenidone monotherapy (designated as the control group), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsRCTs of NAC plus pirfenidone were reviewed searching from databases and networks of unpublished and published studies in any language. Using pair-wise meta-analysis, changes in pulmonary function test (PFT) parameters and safety were evaluated.
resultsTwo independent reviewers selected and obtained data from 5 RCTs (n = 398), comprising 1 study from Japan, 1 from Europe, and 3 from China. NAS plus pirfenidone as compared to pirfenidone monotherapy for IPF may not reduce the incidence of skin effects(RR 1.26 [95%CI 0.64 to 2.45]) and mortality(RR 0.35 [95%CI 0.07 to 1.68])(both moderate certainty). NAS plus pirfenidone as compared to pirfenidone monotherapy for IPF may not reduce the incidence of at least one side effects(RR 1.00 [95%CI 0.84 to 1.19]; low certainty),severe side effects(RR 0.67 [95%CI 0.30 to 1.47]; low certainty) and gastrointestinal effects(RR 0.67 [95%CI 0.41 to 1.09]; low certainty) with possibly no effect in Δ%DLco(SMD -0.17 [95%CI -0.15 to 0.48]; low certainty). Meanwhile, the effect of NAS plus pirfenidone as compared to pirfenidone monotherapy on ΔFVC(SMD 0.18 [95%CI -0.68 to 1.05]), Δ%FVC(SMD -2.62 [95%CI -5.82 to 0.59]) and Δ6MWT(SMD -0.35 [95%CI -0.98 to 0.28]) is uncertain(extremely low certainty).
conclusionModerate certainty evidence suggests that NAS plus pirfenidone, compared to pirfenidone monotherapy for IPF, does not reduce the incidence of skin effects and mortality.
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.