MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392203996 · doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2023-002163

Mycophenolate and azathioprine efficacy in interstitial lung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4392203996 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Lombardi, Iain Stewart, Laura Fabbri, Wendy Adams, Letícia Kawano-Dourado, Christopher J. Ryerson, Gísli Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Respiratory Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersImperial College LondonNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineClinical endpointDLCOPopulationRandomized controlled trialInterstitial lung diseasePlaceboSurgeryDiffusing capacityLungPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and azathioprine (AZA) are immunomodulatory treatments in interstitial lung disease (ILD). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of MMF or AZA on pulmonary function in ILD. Design Population included any ILD diagnosis, intervention included MMF or AZA treatment, outcome was delta change from baseline in per cent predicted forced vital capacity (%FVC) and gas transfer (diffusion lung capacity of carbon monoxide, %DLco). The primary endpoint compared outcomes relative to placebo comparator, the secondary endpoint assessed outcomes in treated groups only. Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies were included. No language restrictions were applied. Retrospective studies and studies with high-dose concomitant steroids were excluded. Data synthesis The systematic search was performed on 9 May. Meta-analyses according to drug and outcome were specified with random effects, I 2 evaluated heterogeneity and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation evaluated certainty of evidence. Primary endpoint analysis was restricted to RCT design, secondary endpoint included subgroup analysis according to prospective observational or RCT design. Results A total of 2831 publications were screened, 12 were suitable for quantitative synthesis. Three MMF RCTs were included with no significant effect on the primary endpoints (%FVC 2.94, 95% CI −4.00 to 9.88, I 2 =79.3%; %DLco −2.03, 95% CI −4.38 to 0.32, I 2 =0.0%). An overall 2.03% change from baseline in %FVC (95% CI 0.65 to 3.42, I 2 =0.0%) was observed in MMF, and RCT subgroup summary estimated a 4.42% change from baseline in %DL CO (95% CI 2.05 to 6.79, I 2 =0.0%). AZA studies were limited. All estimates were considered very low certainty evidence. Conclusions There were limited RCTs of MMF or AZA and their benefit in ILD was of very low certainty. MMF may support preservation of pulmonary function, yet confidence in the effect was weak. To support high certainty evidence, RCTs should be designed to directly assess MMF efficacy in ILD. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023423223.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.358
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open Respiratory ResearchSame topicInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary FibrosisFrench-language works237,207