Functional and radiological sinonasal outcomes of CFTR modulators for sinus disease in cystic fibrosis: A meta‐analysis

Background Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators improve pulmonary outcomes in cystic fibrosis (CF) by stabilizing the CFTR protein on respiratory epithelial surfaces. To determine the efficacy of CFTR modulators on sinonasal outcomes in patients with CF, we performed...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International forum of allergy & rhinology 2024-10, Vol.14 (10), p.1607-1617
Hauptverfasser: Tham, Tristan, Li, Felisha A., Schneider, Jacob R., Saleem, Matthew I., Werner, Michael T., Chaskes, Mark B., Tong, Charles C. L., Fastenberg, Judd H.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators improve pulmonary outcomes in cystic fibrosis (CF) by stabilizing the CFTR protein on respiratory epithelial surfaces. To determine the efficacy of CFTR modulators on sinonasal outcomes in patients with CF, we performed a meta‐analysis of clinical trials to date that include functional and radiographic evidence of sinus disease. Methods English full‐text articles were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. Two reviewers screened articles and a third reviewer resolved disagreements. Articles were included if they reported functional or radiological sinonasal outcomes in patients with CF before and after CFTR modulator therapies. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines were followed, and the risk of bias in non‐randomized studies of interventions tool was used for quality assessment. The generic inverse variance method with random effects model was used for meta‐analysis. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and mean difference (MD) were used as effect measurements. Results Seven prospective and two retrospective studies representing 248 patients were included in this analysis. There was a significant improvement in sinonasal outcome test‐22 scores on elexacaftor‒tezacaftor‒ivacaftor (MD = 12.80, [95% confidence interval, CI: 10.46‒15.13], p 
ISSN:2042-6976
2042-6984
2042-6984
DOI:10.1002/alr.23439