ArticleAnnals of the American Thoracic Society2026
Evaluating Long-Term Effectiveness of Cystic Fibrosis Modulator Therapies after Rapid Adoption: A Dual-Approach Study.
Article in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleModulator therapies like ivacaftor have revolutionized clinical management of cystic fibrosis, showing marked short-term benefits in trials but heterogeneous findings in long-term observational studies. Since newer modulators have become the standard of care for the majority living with cystic fibrosis in the United States, characterizing long-term effectiveness with real-world data is increasingly difficult because of the lack of contemporary comparator groups for performing between-subjects analyses.
objectivesTo determine the extent to which ivacaftor preserves long-term lung function and compare the results of within- and between-subjects analyses for evaluating its real-world effectiveness.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study used data from the U.S. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry (2003-2016). We used two approaches to evaluate ivacaftor effectiveness on percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (ppFEV1): 1) within-subject comparisons of ppFEV1 before and after ivacaftor initiation; and 2) comparisons between ivacaftor-treated and untreated individuals with similar disease pathology. We modeled data from 560 ivacaftor-treated individuals with the G551D variant. For between-subjects comparisons, we used propensity scores to match the treated group with 2,800 untreated F508del homozygous individuals. Modulator initiation bias was assessed and accounted for in each model.
resultsOur results showed an initial average improvement in ppFEV1 in ivacaftor-treated children and adults (ranging from 4.54% to 6.53% predicted based on within-subject comparison of before vs. after ivacaftor initiation). There was a slower decline in adults, compared with children. These ivacaftor-treated cohorts experienced less decline relative to their F508del homozygous counterparts (between-group differences in treated vs. control ranged from 0.36% to 0.64% predicted). Both the within- and between-subjects comparisons demonstrated similar degrees of ivacaftor effectiveness. However, small differences between the two approaches were observed in younger individuals.
conclusionsIvacaftor was associated with improved ppFEV1 across all age groups, with the magnitude of improvement roughly 50% of that observed in clinical trials. The results support the need to account for modulator initiation bias and the use of within-subject analysis in future CFTR (cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator) modulator effectiveness studies, but caution is advised in younger individuals because of developmental changes that may affect pre- and post-treatment comparability.
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.