↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Correctors (specific therapies for class II CFTR mutations) for cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

17 tweeters
1 Facebook page


41 Dimensions

Readers on

212 Mendeley
Correctors (specific therapies for class II CFTR mutations) for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010966.pub2
Pubmed ID

Kevin W Southern, Sanjay Patel, Ian P Sinha, Sarah J Nevitt


Cystic fibrosis (CF) is the commonest inherited life-shortening illness in people of Northern European descent and caused by a mutation in the gene that codes for the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein, which functions as a salt transporter. F508del, the most common CFTR mutation that causes CF, is found in up to 80% to 90% of people with CF. In people with this mutation, a full length of protein is transcribed, but recognised as misfolded by the cell and degraded before reaching the cell membrane, where it needs to be positioned to effect transepithelial salt transport. This severe mutation is associated with no meaningful CFTR function. A corrective therapy for this mutation could positively impact on an important proportion of the CF population. To evaluate the effects of CFTR correctors on clinically important outcomes, both benefits and harms, in children and adults with CF and class II CFTR mutations (most commonly F508del). We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and online trials registries. Most recent search: 24 February 2018. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (parallel design) comparing CFTR correctors to placebo in people with CF with class II mutations. We also included RCTs comparing CFTR correctors combined with CFTR potentiators to placebo. Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence using the GRADE criteria. Study authors were contacted for additional data. We included 13 RCTs (2215 participants), lasting between 1 day and 24 weeks. Additional safety data from an extension study of two lumacaftor-ivacaftor studies were available at 96 weeks (1029 participants). We assessed monotherapy in seven RCTs (317 participants) (4PBA (also known as Buphenyl), CPX, lumacaftor or cavosonstat) and combination therapy in six RCTs (1898 participants) (lumacaftor-ivacaftor or tezacaftor-ivacaftor) compared to placebo. Twelve RCTs recruited individuals homozygous for F508del, one RCT recruited participants with one F508del mutation and a second mutation with residual function.Risk of bias varied in its impact on the confidence we have in our results across different comparisons. Some findings were based on single RCTs that were too small to show important effects. For five RCTs, results may not be applicable to all individuals with CF due to age limits of recruited populations (i.e. adults only, children only) or non-standard design of converting from monotherapy to combination therapy.Monotherapy versus placeboNo deaths were reported and there were no clinically relevant improvements in quality of life in any RCT. There was insufficient evidence available from individual studies to determine the effect of any of the correctors examined on lung function outcomes.No placebo-controlled study of monotherapy demonstrated a difference in mild, moderate or severe adverse effects; however, it is difficult to assess the clinical relevance of these events with the variety of events and the small number of participants.Combination therapy versus placeboNo deaths were reported during any RCT (moderate- to high-quality evidence). The quality of life scores (respiratory domain) favoured combination therapy (both lumacaftor-ivacaftor and tezacaftor-ivacaftor) compared to placebo at all time points. At six months lumacaftor (600 mg once daily or 400 mg once daily) plus ivacaftor improved Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire (CFQ) scores by a small amount compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 2.62 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 4.59); 1061 participants; high-quality evidence). A similar effect size was observed for twice-daily lumacaftor (200 mg) plus ivacaftor (250 mg) although the quality of evidence was low (MD 2.50 points (95% CI 0.10 to 5.10)). The mean increase in CFQ scores with twice-daily tezacaftor (100 mg) and ivacaftor (150 mg) was approximately five points (95% CI 3.20 to 7.00; 504 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Lung function measured by relative change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted improved with both combination therapies compared to placebo at six months, by 5.21% with once daily lumacaftor-ivacaftor (95% CI 3.61% to 6.80%; 504 participants; high-quality evidence) and by 2.40% with twice-daily lumacaftor-ivacaftor (95% CI 0.40% to 4.40%; 204 participants; low-quality evidence). One study reported an increase in FEV1 with tezacaftor-ivacaftor of 6.80% (95% CI 5.30 to 8.30%; 520 participants; moderate-quality evidence).More participants receiving the lumacaftor-ivacaftor combination reported early transient breathlessness, odds ratio 2.05 (99% CI 1.10 to 3.83; 739 participants; high-quality evidence). In addition, participants allocated to the 400 mg twice-daily dose of lumacaftor-ivacaftor experienced a rise in blood pressure over the 120-week period of the initial studies and the follow-up study of 5.1 mmHg (systolic blood pressure) and 4.1 mmHg (diastolic blood pressure) (80 participants; high-quality evidence). These adverse effects were not reported in the tezacaftor-ivacaftor studies.The rate of pulmonary exacerbations decreased for participants receiving and additional therapies to ivacaftor compared to placebo: lumacaftor 600 mg hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.87; 739 participants); lumacaftor 400 mg, HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.76; 740 participants); and tezacaftor, HR 0.64 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; 506 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence that monotherapy with correctors has clinically important effects in people with CF who have two copies of the F508del mutation.Combination therapies (lumacaftor-ivacaftor and tezacaftor-ivacaftor) each result in similarly small improvements in clinical outcomes in people with CF; specifically improvements quality of life (moderate-quality evidence), in respiratory function (high-quality evidence) and lower pulmonary exacerbation rates (moderate-quality evidence). Lumacaftor-ivacaftor is associated with an increase in early transient shortness of breath and longer-term increases in blood pressure (high-quality evidence). These adverse effects were not observed for tezacaftor-ivacaftor. Tezacaftor-ivacaftor has a better safety profile, although data are not available for children younger than 12 years. In this age group, lumacaftor-ivacaftor had an important impact on respiratory function with no apparent immediate safety concerns, but this should be balanced against the increase in blood pressure and shortness of breath seen in longer-term data in adults when considering this combination for use in young people with CF.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 212 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 17%
Student > Bachelor 35 17%
Other 15 7%
Researcher 15 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 6%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 73 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 6%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Other 21 10%
Unknown 85 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2019.
All research outputs
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 331,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.