SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of monotherapy and combination pharmacotherapies for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a fatal, progressive fibrosing lung disease. While novel agents and combinations are emerging, head-to-head trials are scarce, underscoring the need for robust comparative evidence to guide treatment prioritization.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of IPF RCTs in adults, searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science through 1 December 2025. Eligible studies compared pharmacotherapies (mono/combination) with placebo or active comparators and reported prespecified outcomes. Primary outcomes were forced vital capacity (FVC) change and disease progression; secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and DLCO change. Risk of bias was assessed via RoB 2, with frequentist random-effects NMA for continuous/binary outcomes and a random-effects model for disease progression. Treatment rankings used SUCRA, and evidence certainty was evaluated via GRADE with CINeMA.
resultsThirty-five reports (8,983 participants, 21 strategies) were included. RoB 2 ratings were low (19 studies) or raised some concerns (16). For FVC preservation, recombinant human pentraxin-2 (RHP) (SMD = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.23-1.20), rentosertib (SMD = 0.63, 95% CI:0.04-1.22), and nintedanib (SMD = 0.50, 95% CI:0.27-0.73) showed the highest statistical probability of benefit versus placebo, though these rankings are based primarily on low-certainty indirect comparisons. For disease progression, pirfenidone, pamrevlumab, and nerandomilast showed favorable but imprecise effects. No regimen significantly reduced all-cause mortality or showed clear AE/SAE differences versus placebo, with wide uncertainty in comparisons. Evidence certainty was mostly low to very low, driven by imprecision and indirect comparisons in star-shaped networks.
conclusionsRHP, rentosertib, and nintedanib showed consistent signals for preserving FVC versus placebo. However, comparative effects on progression, mortality, and safety remain uncertain due to sparse data and limited head-to-head evidence. Large, well-designed trials with harmonized endpoints and longer follow-up are needed to validate these exploratory rankings and define optimal treatment sequencing and combinations. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420261289653.
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.