Evidence Hub

Network meta-analysis of pharmacological treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: evaluating effects on lung function

Yin Y, Wu X, Liu Z, Luo Y, Jing M, Jing K, Li Q, Wang F et al.

Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026

16,525 participants

Abstract

Background: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic, progressive fibrotic interstitial lung disease of unknown cause. Its main feature is a steady decline in lung function, which is also the primary target for treatment. Existing research has investigated various drugs to slow IPF progression, but their effectiveness and how they affect key pulmonary function indicators need to be systematically evaluated and analysed.

Methods: This systematic review and network meta-analysis searched eight databases to identify randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of various pharmacological treatments on lung function in patients with IPF. The risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated using tools from the Cochrane Handbook. Network meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 19.0 and R 4.5.1 software. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251148658).

Results: This study included 121 publications comprising 162 studies, covering 16,525 IPF patients across nine countries. The overall risk of bias assessment showed that while most studies had a low risk of bias in random sequence generation, concerns regarding allocation concealment and blinding were identified in a substantial proportion of the included studies. Network meta-analysis revealed that Nerandomilast was the most effective intervention for improving Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) (SUCRA: 98.85%). N-acetylcysteine (NAC) combined with Roxithromycin (RXM) was the most effective intervention for…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 16,525 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free