SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2025
Ivacaftor-tezacaftor-elexacaftor, tezacaftor-ivacaftor and lumacaftor-ivacaftor for treating cystic fibrosis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2025. 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.
- Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator modulator therapy and lived experiences in South Africa: A mixed-methods study.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2026Article
- Societal Economic Burden of Cystic Fibrosis in Iran: A Cost-of-Illness Study.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cystic fibrosis is a life-limiting genetic condition that affects over 9000 people in England. Cystic fibrosis is usually diagnosed through newborn screening and causes symptoms throughout the body, including the lungs and digestive system. Around 90% of individuals with cystic fibrosis have at least one copy of the Objectives: To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor, tezacaftor-ivacaftor and lumacaftor-ivacaftor within their expected marketing authorisations for treating people with cystic fibrosis and at least one Methods: A de novo systematic literature review (search date February 2023) was conducted searching electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), bibliographies of relevant systematic literature reviews, clinical trial registers, recent conferences and evidence provided by Vertex Pharmaceuticals (Boston, MA, USA). Data on the following outcomes were summarised: acute change in per cent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (change in weight-for-age Results: Data from 19 primary studies and 7 open-label extension studies were prioritised in the systematic literature review. Elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor was associated with a statistically significant increase in predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second and weight-for-age Conclusions: Despite the improved clinical benefits observed, none of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene modulators assessed would be considered cost-effective based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. This is largely driven by the high acquisition costs of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene modulator treatments. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42023399583. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135829) and is published in full in
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.