A Systematic Review of the Clinical Efficacy and Safety of CFTR Modulators in Cystic Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several placebo-controlled trials have been recently published evaluating novel therapies targeting the defective CFTR protein. This systematic review examines the clinical efficacy and safety of CFTR modulators in individuals with cystic fibrosis (CF) with specific genetic mutations. Online sources were searched for placebo-controlled, parallel-design clinical trials investigating CFTR modulators from January 1, 2005 to March 31, 2018. The primary outcome of interest was FEV 1 % predicted (ppFEV 1 ). Fourteen RCTs met our eligibility criteria. The largest improvement in ppFEV 1 favouring treatment was observed for ivacaftor (IVA) in G551D individuals (≥6 years old). Both tezacaftor-ivacaftor (TEZ-IVA) and lumacaftor-ivacaftor (LUM-IVA) also improved ppFEV 1 in F508del homozygous individuals but there was increased reporting of respiratory adverse events with LUM-IVA compared to placebo. IVA also significantly improved ppFEV 1 in a sub-group of individuals ≥18 years old with an R117H mutation. No significant improvements in ppFEV 1 were observed for IVA, LUM, or TEZ in F508del homozygous individuals, LUM or LUM-IVA in F508del heterozygous individuals, or ataluren in individuals with a nonsense mutation. Significant improvements in ppFEV 1 and other clinical outcomes were observed for IVA in G551D individuals, TEV-IVA and LUM-IVA in F508del homozygous individuals, and IVA in adults with a R117H mutation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".