ReviewClinical therapeutics2026
Study Design Considerations for the Evaluation of Pancreatic Enzyme Replacement Therapy (PERT) Products in People with Cystic Fibrosis: An Update.
Review in Clinical therapeutics, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn 2013, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF) published recommendations regarding study design considerations for the evaluation of porcine derived pancreatic exocrine replacement therapy (PERT) products in people with CF and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI). The purpose of this report is to provide an updated guidance with an emphasis on the design and conduct of non-inferiority (NI) trials of non-porcine derived PERT products.
methodsA CFF PERT Working Group comprised of gastroenterologists, statisticians, and authors of the 2013 publication was established to produce an updated guidance document based on their expertise in clinical trial design and outcome measures in people with CF and EPI.
findingsFor the evaluation of non-porcine PERT products, we recommend a parallel withdrawal design to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the investigational product to an active comparator (an approved porcine PERT product). Sample size calculations and other statistical considerations for NI studies are provided. To determine EPI eligibility, we recommend fecal elastase-1 (FE-1) testing rather than an off-PERT period. For assessing efficacy, we recommend including a substrate absorption challenge test (SACT) for comparison to the currently accepted coefficient of fat absorption (CFA) to further advance an alternative, more feasible primary outcome measure. A patient reported outcome measure (PROM) specific to CF-EPI and acceptable to regulatory agencies needs to be defined, several are under investigation. IMPLICATIONS: Observations and recommendations provided in this updated report should benefit clinical investigators, drug developers, and regulatory agencies as they consider the issues and nuances of evaluating PERT products for cystic fibrosis.
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.