Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: elexacaftor‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor vs control (ivacaftor alone or tezacaftor plus ivacaftor): Adverse events ‐ treatment emergent
Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: elexacaftor‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor showed no clear difference in adverse events: number of participants with treatment‐emergent… compared with control (ivacaftor alone or tezacaftor plus ivacaftor) (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: elexacaftor‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor vs control (ivacaftor alone or tezacaftor plus ivacaftor) Adverse events: number of participants with treatment‐emergent adverse events · adults and children aged 12 years and over with cystic fibrosis and either F508del/gating variant or F508del/residual… Summary of findings ‐ triple therapy: elexacaftor‐tezacaftor‐ivacaftor showed no clear difference in adverse events: number of participants with treatment‐emergent… compared with control (ivacaftor alone or tezacaftor plus ivacaftor) (moderate certainty). Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene… (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 1.04 [0.53, 2.04] | 1 study · 258 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants (most commonly F508del) 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.