ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2024
A comprehensive comparison of the safety and efficacy of drugs in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of monotherapy and combination pharmacotherapies for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Pooled it
- The impact of macrophage metabolism on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis development and treatment prospectives.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Structure-based design of orthosteric and allosteric CCR2 inhibitors for potential IPF therapy.RSC advances · 2025Article
- Computational Insights into the Polypharmacological Landscape of BCR-ABL Inhibitors: Emphasis on Imatinib and Nilotinib.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRandomized controlled trials(RCTs) of multiple drugs for Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis(IPF) have been reported and achieved a certain degree of efficacy, however, the difference in safety and efficacy of them for IPF is not yet well understood. The aim of this network meta-analysis is to assess their safety and efficacy in the treatment of IPF and differences in this safety and efficacy comprehensively.
methodsThe PubMed, EMbase, CENTRAL and MEDLINE were retrieved to find out the RCTs of drugs in the treatment of IPF. The retrieval date is from construction to November 10, 2022. Stata 14.0 and RevMan 5.3 was used for statistical analysis. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023385689.
resultsTwenty-four studies with a total of 6208 patients were finally included, including RCTs of 13 drugs. The results of safety showed that there' s no difference in the incidence of SAEs of 13 drugs treated with IPF compared to placebo (P>0.05), and it's also found that Warfarin had a higher all-cause mortality for IPF than placebo (OR = 5.63, 95% CI [1.54 to 20.55]). SUCRA' s scatterplot showed that Pirfenidone, Nintedanib, Sildenafil and Imatinib were lower than placebo, and Warfarin, Ambrisentan and N-acetylcysteine were higher than placebo. The results of effectiveness showed that Nintedanib (MD = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.12 to -0.04]) improved FVC (L)absolute change from baseline in patients better than placebo, and Nintedanib (OR=1.81, 95% CI [1.23 to 2.66]), Pirfenidone (OR=1.85, 95%CI [1.26 to 2.71]) and Pamrevlumab (OR=4.11, 95% CI [1.25 to 13.58]) improved the proportion of patients with a decline in FVC ≥10% predicted better than placebo. SUCRA' s scatterplot showed that Pamrevlumab, Pirfenidone and Nintedanib were lower than placebo, and Warfarin and Ambrisentan were higher than placebo.
conclusionCompared with other drugs, Nintedanib and Pirfenidone can significantly slow the decline of lung function in patients with IPF, and the safety is higher. Therefore, they can be further promoted in clinical practice. Warfarin and Ambrisentan shouldn't be used clinically for IPF as the safety and efficacy of them are poor compared to other drugs and placebo. Pamrevlumab may become important drugs for the treatment of IPF in the future.
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.