ArticleLung2025
Comparative Efficacy of CFTR Modulators: A Network Meta-analysis.
Article in Lung, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the effect of CFTR modulator therapy on lipid profiles in children.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Modulator therapy: rates and stages of respiratory bacteriome restoration in cystic fibrosis patients chronically infected with Pseudomonadota.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
- Patient-Derived Intestinal Organoids in the Global Cystic Fibrosis Landscape.Pediatric pulmonology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective was to study comparative efficacies of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators, vanzacaftor-tezacaftor-deutivacaftor (VTD), elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor (ETI), tezacaftor-ivacaftor (Tez-Iva), and lumacaftor-ivacaftor (Lum-Iva) in people with cystic fibrosis (pwCF), aged ≥ 12 years, carrying at least one F508del-CFTR-allele.
methodsData from randomized controlled or randomized active comparator trials were included in this network meta-analysis which used frequentist approach for comparing the efficacy of drugs and ranking based on P-scores. Outcomes of interest were mean differences in percentage-predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (ppFEV
resultsData from 13 studies were analyzed. Compared to placebo, the effects of VTD and ETI on ppFEV1 were almost quadruple of Tez-Iva and Lum-Iva (VTD: 12.78 [95% confidence intervals: 6.41; 19.15] and ETI: 11.95 [7.40; 16.50]) and almost seven times of Tez-Iva and Lum-Iva for CFQ-R (VTD: 21.23 [- 28.72; 71.18] and ETI: 19.27 [10.56; 27.98]). A statistically significant difference was noted between VTD and ETI in SwCl reduction (mean difference: - 8.59 [- 15.53; - 1.65]). There were no statistically significant ORs for SAEs for any CFTR modulators but VTD, ETI, and Tez-Iva were least associated with SAEs (ORs were 0.15 [0.01; 1.79], 0.49 [0.31; 0.78], and 0.74 [0.50; 1.09], respectively, as compared to placebo). Overall, P-score ranking ranked VTD as first and ETI as second, followed by others.
conclusionVTD and ETI were more efficacious than Tez-Iva and Lum-Iva in pwCF with at least one F508del-CFTR-allele.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40102290What 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.