Scholarlink

Purpose <p>The 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&#xa0;years, carrying at least one F508del-CFTR-allele.</p> Methods <p>Data 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<sub>1</sub>), CF questionnaire-revised respiratory domain (CFQ-R) scores, sweat chloride (SwCl) levels, and odds ratios (OR) for serious adverse events (SAE).</p> Results <p>Data 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 [−&#xa0;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: −&#xa0;8.59 [−&#xa0;15.53; −&#xa0;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.</p> Conclusion <p>VTD and ETI were more efficacious than Tez-Iva and Lum-Iva in pwCF with at least one F508del-CFTR-allele.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative Efficacy of CFTR Modulators: A Network Meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月18日

查看全文
  • Imran Hasan Iftikhar,
  • Saad T. Rao,
  • Rufai Nadama,
  • Ibrahim Janahi,
  • Ahmed S. BaHammam

摘要

Purpose

The 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.

Methods

Data 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 (ppFEV1), CF questionnaire-revised respiratory domain (CFQ-R) scores, sweat chloride (SwCl) levels, and odds ratios (OR) for serious adverse events (SAE).

Results

Data 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.

Conclusion

VTD and ETI were more efficacious than Tez-Iva and Lum-Iva in pwCF with at least one F508del-CFTR-allele.