delta F508 in cystic fibrosis: willing but not able

Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants (most commonly F508del)

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a common life-shortening genetic condition caused by a variant in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein. A class II CFTR variant F508del is the commonest CF-causing variant (found in up to 90% of people with CF (pwCF)). The F508del variant lacks meaningful CFTR function - faulty protein is degraded before reaching the cell membrane, where it needs to be to effect transepithelial salt transport. Corrective therapy could benefit many pwCF. This review evaluates single correctors (monotherapy) and any combination of correctors (most commonly lumacaftor, tezacaftor, elexacaftor, VX-659, VX-440 or VX-152) and a potentiator (e.g. ivacaftor) (dual and triple therapies).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of CFTR correctors (with or without potentiators) on clinically important benefits and harms in pwCF of any age with class II CFTR mutations (most commonly F508del).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane CF Trials Register (28 November 2022), reference lists of relevant articles and online trials registries (3 December 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (parallel design) comparing CFTR correctors to control in pwCF with class II mutations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and judged evidence certainty (GRADE); we contacted investigators for additional data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 RCTs (4781 participants), lasting between 1 day and 48 weeks; an extension of two lumacaftor-ivacaftor studies provided additional 96-week safety data (1029 participants). We assessed eight monotherapy RCTs (344 participants) (4PBA, CPX, lumacaftor, cavosonstat and FDL169), 16 dual-therapy RCTs (2627 participants) (lumacaftor-ivacaftor or tezacaftor-ivacaftor) and 11 triple-therapy RCTs (1804 participants) (elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor/deutivacaftor; VX-659-tezacaftor-ivacaftor/deutivacaftor; VX-440-tezacaftor-ivacaftor; VX-152-tezacaftor-ivacaftor). Participants in 21 RCTs had the genotype F508del/F508del, in seven RCTs they had F508del/minimal function (MF), in one RCT F508del/gating genotypes, in one RCT either F508del/F508del genotypes or F508del/residual function genotypes, in one RCT either F508del/gating or F508del/residual function genotypes, and in three RCTs either F508del/F508del genotypes or F508del/MF genotypes. Risk of bias judgements varied across different comparisons. Results from 16 RCTs may not be applicable to all pwCF due to age limits (e.g. adults only) or non-standard designs (converting from monotherapy to combination therapy). Monotherapy Investigators reported no deaths or clinically relevant improvements in quality of life (QoL). There was insufficient evidence to determine effects on lung function. No placebo-controlled monotherapy RCT demonstrated differences in mild, moderate or severe adverse effects (AEs); the clinical relevance of these events is difficult to assess due to their variety and few participants (all F508del/F508del). Dual therapy In a tezacaftor-ivacaftor group there was one death (deemed unrelated to the study drug). QoL scores (respiratory domain) favoured both lumacaftor-ivacaftor and tezacaftor-ivacaftor therapy compared to placebo at all time points (moderate-certainty evidence). At six months, relative change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted improved with all dual combination therapies compared to placebo (high- to moderate-certainty evidence). More pwCF reported early transient breathlessness with lumacaftor-ivacaftor (odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 99% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 3.83; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 739 participants; high-certainty evidence). Over 120 weeks (initial study period and follow-up), systolic blood pressure rose by 5.1 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure by 4.1 mmHg with twice-daily 400 mg lumacaftor-ivacaftor (80 participants). The tezacaftor-ivacaftor RCTs did not report these adverse effects. Pulmonary exacerbation rates decreased in pwCF receiving additional therapies to ivacaftor compared to placebo (all moderate-certainty evidence): lumacaftor 600 mg (hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 739 participants); lumacaftor 400 mg (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.76; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 740 participants); and tezacaftor (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.89; 1 study, 506 participants). Triple therapy No study reported any deaths (high-certainty evidence). All other evidence was low- to moderate-certainty. QoL respiratory domain scores probably improved with triple therapy compared to control at six months (six studies). There was probably a greater relative and absolute change in FEV1 % predicted with triple therapy (four studies each across all combinations). The absolute change in FEV1 % predicted was probably greater for F508del/MF participants taking elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor compared to placebo (mean difference 14.30, 95% CI 12.76 to 15.84; 1 study, 403 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with similar results for other drug combinations and genotypes. There was little or no difference in adverse events between triple therapy and control (10 studies). No study reported time to next pulmonary exacerbation, but fewer F508del/F508del participants experienced a pulmonary exacerbation with elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor at four weeks (OR 0.17, 99% CI 0.06 to 0.45; 1 study, 175 participants) and 24 weeks (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.60; 1 study, 405 participants); similar results were seen across other triple therapy and genotype combinations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence of clinically important effects from corrector monotherapy in pwCF with F508del/F508del. Additional data in this review reduced the evidence for efficacy of dual therapy; these agents can no longer be considered as standard therapy. Their use may be appropriate in exceptional circumstances (e.g. if triple therapy is not tolerated or due to age). Both dual therapies (lumacaftor-ivacaftor, tezacaftor-ivacaftor) result in similar small improvements in QoL and respiratory function with lower pulmonary exacerbation rates. While the effect sizes for QoL and FEV1 still favour treatment, they have reduced compared to our previous findings. Lumacaftor-ivacaftor was associated with an increase in early transient shortness of breath and longer-term increases in blood pressure (not observed for tezacaftor-ivacaftor). Tezacaftor-ivacaftor has a better safety profile, although data are lacking in children under 12 years. In this population, lumacaftor-ivacaftor had an important impact on respiratory function with no apparent immediate safety concerns, but this should be balanced against the blood pressure increase and shortness of breath seen in longer-term adult data when considering lumacaftor-ivacaftor. Data from triple therapy trials demonstrate improvements in several key outcomes, including FEV1 and QoL. There is probably little or no difference in adverse events for triple therapy (elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor/deutivacaftor; VX-659-tezacaftor-ivacaftor/deutivacaftor; VX-440-tezacaftor-ivacaftor; VX-152-tezacaftor-ivacaftor) in pwCF with one or two F508del variants aged 12 years or older (moderate-certainty evidence). Further RCTs are required in children under 12 years and those with more severe lung disease.

Corrector therapies (with or without potentiators) for people with cystic fibrosis with class II CFTR gene variants (most commonly F508del)

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a common life-shortening genetic condition caused by a variant in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein. A class II CFTR variant F508del (found in up to 90% of people with CF (pwCF)) is the commonest CF-causing variant. The faulty protein is degraded before reaching the cell membrane, where it needs to be to effect transepithelial salt transport. The F508del variant lacks meaningful CFTR function and corrective therapy could benefit many pwCF. Therapies in this review include single correctors and any combination of correctors and potentiators.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of CFTR correctors (with or without potentiators) on clinically important benefits and harms in pwCF of any age with class II CFTR mutations (most commonly F508del).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, reference lists of relevant articles and online trials registries. Most recent search: 14 October 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (parallel design) comparing CFTR correctors to control in pwCF with class II mutations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and evidence quality (GRADE); we contacted investigators for additional data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 RCTs (2959 participants), lasting between 1 day and 24 weeks; an extension of two lumacaftor-ivacaftor studies provided additional 96-week safety data (1029 participants). We assessed eight monotherapy RCTs (344 participants) (4PBA, CPX, lumacaftor, cavosonstat and FDL169), six dual-therapy RCTs (1840 participants) (lumacaftor-ivacaftor or tezacaftor-ivacaftor) and five triple-therapy RCTs (775 participants) (elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor or VX-659-tezacaftor-ivacaftor); below we report only the data from elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor combination which proceeded to Phase 3 trials. In 14 RCTs participants had F508del/F508del genotypes, in three RCTs F508del/minimal function (MF) genotypes and in two RCTs both genotypes. Risk of bias judgements varied across different comparisons. Results from 11 RCTs may not be applicable to all pwCF due to age limits (e.g. adults only) or non-standard design (converting from monotherapy to combination therapy). Monotherapy Investigators reported no deaths or clinically-relevant improvements in quality of life (QoL). There was insufficient evidence to determine any important effects on lung function. No placebo-controlled monotherapy RCT demonstrated differences in mild, moderate or severe adverse effects (AEs); the clinical relevance of these events is difficult to assess with their variety and small number of participants (all F508del/F508del). Dual therapy Investigators reported no deaths (moderate- to high-quality evidence). QoL scores (respiratory domain) favoured both lumacaftor-ivacaftor and tezacaftor-ivacaftor therapy compared to placebo at all time points. At six months lumacaftor 600 mg or 400 mg (both once daily) plus ivacaftor improved Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire (CFQ) scores slightly 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 was observed for twice-daily lumacaftor (200 mg) plus ivacaftor (250 mg), but with low-quality evidence (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). At six months, the relative change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted improved with combination therapies compared to placebo by: 5.21% with once-daily lumacaftor-ivacaftor (95% CI 3.61% to 6.80%; 504 participants; high-quality evidence); 2.40% with twice-daily lumacaftor-ivacaftor (95% CI 0.40% to 4.40%; 204 participants; low-quality evidence); and 6.80% with tezacaftor-ivacaftor (95% CI 5.30 to 8.30%; 520 participants; moderate-quality evidence). More pwCF reported early transient breathlessness with lumacaftor-ivacaftor, odds ratio 2.05 (99% CI 1.10 to 3.83; 739 participants; high-quality evidence). Over 120 weeks (initial study period and follow-up) systolic blood pressure rose by 5.1 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure by 4.1 mmHg with twice-daily 400 mg lumacaftor-ivacaftor (80 participants; high-quality evidence). The tezacaftor-ivacaftor RCTs did not report these adverse effects. Pulmonary exacerbation rates decreased in pwCF receiving 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). Triple therapy Three RCTs of elexacaftor to tezacaftor-ivacaftor in pwCF (aged 12 years and older with either one or two F508del variants) reported no deaths (high-quality evidence). All other evidence was graded as moderate quality. In 403 participants with F508del/minimal function (MF) elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor improved QoL respiratory scores (MD 20.2 points (95% CI 16.2 to 24.2)) and absolute change in FEV1 (MD 14.3% predicted (95% CI 12.7 to 15.8)) compared to placebo at 24 weeks. At four weeks in 107 F508del/F508del participants, elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor improved QoL respiratory scores (17.4 points (95% CI 11.9 to 22.9)) and absolute change in FEV1 (MD 10.0% predicted (95% CI 7.5 to 12.5)) compared to tezacaftor-ivacaftor. There was probably little or no difference in the number or severity of AEs between elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor and placebo or control (moderate-quality evidence). In 403 F508del/F508del participants, there was a longer time to protocol-defined pulmonary exacerbation with elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor over 24 weeks (moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence that corrector monotherapy has clinically important effects in pwCF with F508del/F508del. Both dual therapies (lumacaftor-ivacaftor, tezacaftor-ivacaftor) result in similar improvements in QoL and respiratory function with lower pulmonary exacerbation rates. Lumacaftor-ivacaftor was associated with an increase in early transient shortness of breath and longer-term increases in blood pressure (not observed for tezacaftor-ivacaftor). Tezacaftor-ivacaftor has a better safety profile, although data are lacking in children under 12 years. In this population, lumacaftor-ivacaftor had an important impact on respiratory function with no apparent immediate safety concerns; but this should be balanced against the blood pressure increase and shortness of breath seen in longer-term adult data when considering lumacaftor-ivacaftor. There is high-quality evidence of clinical efficacy with probably little or no difference in AEs for triple (elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor) therapy in pwCF with one or two F508del variants aged 12 years or older. Further RCTs are required in children (under 12 years) and those with more severe respiratory function.

Potentiators (specific therapies for class III and IV mutations) for cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is the commonest inherited life-shortening illness in white populations, caused by a mutation in the gene that codes for the cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator protein (CFTR), which functions as a salt transporter. This mutation mainly affects the airways where excess salt absorption dehydrates the airway lining leading to impaired mucociliary clearance. Consequently, thick, sticky mucus accumulates making the airway prone to chronic infection and progressive inflammation; respiratory failure often ensues. Other complications include malnutrition, diabetes and subfertility.Increased understanding of the condition has allowed pharmaceutical companies to design mutation-specific therapies targeting the underlying molecular defect. CFTR potentiators target mutation classes III and IV and aim to normalise airway surface liquid and mucociliary clearance, which in turn impacts on the chronic infection and inflammation. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of CFTR potentiators on clinically important outcomes in children and adults with CF.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and online clinical trial registries. Last search: 21 November 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel design comparing CFTR potentiators to placebo in people with CF. A separate review examines trials combining CFTR potentiators with other mutation-specific therapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The authors independently extracted data, assessed the risk of bias in included trials and used GRADE to assess evidence quality. Trial authors were contacted for additional data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs (447 participants with different mutations) lasting from 28 days to 48 weeks, all assessing the CFTR potentiator ivacaftor. The quality of the evidence was moderate to low, mainly due to risk of bias (incomplete outcome data and selective reporting) and imprecision of results, particularly where few individuals experienced adverse events. Trial design was generally well-documented. All trials were industry-sponsored and supported by other non-pharmaceutical funding bodies.F508del (class II) (140 participants)One 16-week trial reported no deaths, or changes in quality of life (QoL) or lung function (either relative or absolute change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (moderate-quality evidence). Pulmonary exacerbations and cough were the most reported adverse events in ivacaftor and placebo groups, but there was no difference between groups (low-quality evidence); there was also no difference between groups in participants interrupting or discontinuing treatment (low-quality evidence). Number of days until the first exacerbation was not reported, but there was no difference between groups in how many participants developed pulmonary exacerbations. There was also no difference in weight. Sweat chloride concentration decreased, mean difference (MD) -2.90 mmol/L (95% confidence interval (CI) -5.60 to -0.20).G551D (class III) (238 participants)The 28-day phase 2 trial (19 participants) and two 48-week phase 3 trials (adult trial (167 adults), paediatric trial (52 children)) reported no deaths. QoL scores (respiratory domain) were higher with ivacaftor in the adult trial at 24 weeks, MD 8.10 (95% CI 4.77 to 11.43) and 48 weeks, MD 8.60 (95% CI 5.27 to 11.93 (moderate-quality evidence). The adult trial reported a higher relative change in FEV1 with ivacaftor at 24 weeks, MD 16.90% (95% CI 13.60 to 20.20) and 48 weeks, MD 16.80% (95% CI 13.50 to 20.10); the paediatric trial reported this at 24 weeks, MD 17.4% (P < 0.0001)) (moderate-quality evidence). These trials demonstrated absolute improvements in FEV1 (% predicted) at 24 weeks, MD 10.80% (95% CI 8.91 to 12.69) and 48 weeks, MD 10.44% (95% CI 8.56 to 12.32). The phase 3 trials reported increased cough, odds ratio (OR) 0.57 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.00) and episodes of decreased pulmonary function, OR 0.29 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.82) in the placebo group; ivacaftor led to increased dizziness in adults, OR 10.55 (95% CI 1.32 to 84.47). There was no difference between groups in participants interrupting or discontinuing treatment (low-quality evidence). Fewer participants taking ivacaftor developed serious pulmonary exacerbations; adults taking ivacaftor developed fewer exacerbations (serious or not), OR 0.54 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.01). A higher proportion of participants were exacerbation-free at 24 weeks with ivacaftor (moderate-quality evidence). Ivacaftor led to a greater absolute change from baseline in FEV1 (% predicted) at 24 weeks, MD 10.80% (95% CI 8.91 to 12.69) and 48 weeks, MD 10.44% (95% CI 8.56 to 12.32); weight also increased at 24 weeks, MD 2.37 kg (95% CI 1.68 to 3.06) and 48 weeks, MD 2.75 kg (95% CI 1.74 to 3.75). Sweat chloride concentration decreased at 24 weeks, MD -48.98 mmol/L (95% CI -52.07 to -45.89) and 48 weeks, MD -49.03 mmol/L (95% CI -52.11 to -45.94).R117H (class IV) (69 participants)One 24-week trial reported no deaths. QoL scores (respiratory domain) were higher with ivacaftor at 24 weeks, MD 8.40 (95% CI 2.17 to 14.63), but no relative changes in lung function were reported (moderate-quality evidence). Pulmonary exacerbations and cough were the most reported adverse events in both groups, but there was no difference between groups; there was no difference between groups in participants interrupting or discontinuing treatment (low-quality evidence). Number of days until the first exacerbation was not reported, but there was no difference between groups in how many participants developed pulmonary exacerbations. No changes in absolute change in FEV1 or weight were reported. Sweat chloride concentration decreased, MD -24.00 mmol/L (CI 95% -24.69 to -23.31).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence supporting the use of ivacaftor in people with the F508del mutation. Both G551D phase 3 trials demonstrated a clinically relevant impact of ivacaftor on outcomes at 24 and 48 weeks in adults and children (over six years of age) with CF. The R117H trial demonstrated an improvement in the respiratory QoL score, but no improvement in respiratory function.As new mutation-specific therapies emerge, it is important that trials examine outcomes relevant to people with CF and their families and that adverse events are reported robustly and consistently. Post-market surveillance is essential and ongoing health economic evaluations are required.

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

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a common life-shortening condition caused by mutation in the gene that codes for 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.

OBJECTIVES

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).

SEARCH METHODS

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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

Establishing a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a recessively inherited condition caused by mutation of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene. Characterization of the genetic defect has improved understanding of the condition and, in the majority of cases, diagnosis is straightforward. However, in a significant number, diagnosis remains a challenge. This paper will discuss the management of these issues and reflect on atypical presentations. In addition we will discuss situations in which genetic variations of the CFTR gene are not associated with a classical CF phenotype and the implications for practice in both paediatric and adult clinics.

Potentiators (specific therapies for class III and IV mutations) for cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Cystic fibrosis is the most common inherited life-shortening illness in Caucasians and caused by a mutation in the gene that codes for the cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator protein (CFTR), which functions as a salt transporter. This mutation most notably affects the airways of people with cystic fibrosis. Excess salt absorption by defective CFTR dehydrates the airway lining and leads to defective mucociliary clearance. Consequent accumulation of thick, sticky mucus makes the airway prone to chronic infection and progressive inflammation; respiratory failure often ensues. Additionally, abnormalities with CFTR lead to systemic complications like malnutrition, diabetes and subfertility.Since the discovery of the causative gene, our understanding of the structure and function of CFTR and the impact of different mutations has increased and allowed pharmaceutical companies to design new mutation-specific therapies targeting the underlying molecular defect. Therapies targeting mutation classes III and IV (CFTR potentiators) aim to normalise airway surface liquid and help re-establish mucociliary clearance, which then has a beneficial impact on the chronic infection and inflammation that characterizes lung disease in people with cystic fibrosis. These therapies may also affect other mutations.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of CFTR potentiators on clinically important outcomes in children and adults with cystic fibrosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Last search: 05 March 2015.We searched the EU Clinical Trials Register, clinicaltrials.gov (US Clinical Trials Register) and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Last search of clinical trial registries: 06 February 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of parallel design comparing CFTR potentiators to placebo in people with cystic fibrosis. In a post hoc change we excluded trials combining CFTR potentiators with other mutation-specific therapies. These will be considered in a separate review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials; they contacted trial authors for additional data. Meta-analyses were undertaken on outcomes at a number of time points.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomised controlled trials (n = 378), lasting from 28 days to 48 weeks, comparing the potentiator ivacaftor to placebo. Trials differed in terms of design and participant eligibility criteria, which limited the meta-analyses. The phase 2 trial (n = 19) and two phase 3 trials (adult trial (n = 167), paediatric trial (n = 52)), recruited participants with the G551D mutation (class III). The fourth trial (n = 140) enrolled participants homozygous for the ΔF508 mutation (class II).Risks of bias in the trials were moderate. Random sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of trial personnel were well-documented. Participant blinding was less clear throughout all trials; in three trials, some participant data were excluded from the analysis. Selective outcome reporting was apparent in three trials. All trials were sponsored by industry and supported by other non-pharmaceutical funding bodies.No trial reported any deaths. Significantly higher quality of life scores in the respiratory domain were reported by the adult phase 3 G551D trial at 24 weeks, mean difference 8.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.77 to 11.43) and 48 weeks, mean difference 8.60 (95% CI 5.27 to 11.93); but not by the paediatric phase 3 G551D trial. The adult phase 3 G551D trial reported improvements in relative change from baseline in forced expiratory volume at one second at 24 weeks, mean difference 16.90% (95% CI 13.60 to 20.20) and 48 weeks, mean difference 16.80% (95% CI 13.50 to 20.10); as did the paediatric G551D trial at 24 weeks, mean difference 17.4% (P < 0.0001)). No improvements in quality of life or lung function were reported in the ΔF508 participants.Combined data from both phase 3 G551D trials demonstrated increased reporting of cough, odds ratio 0.57 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.00) and increased episodes of decreased pulmonary function, odds ratio 0.29 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.82) in the placebo group. The adult phase 3 G551D trial demonstrated increased reporting of dizziness amongst the ivacaftor group, OR 10.55 (95% CI 1.32 to 84.47). No trial showed a difference between treatment arms in the number of participants interrupting or discontinuing the trial drug.In the phase 3 G551D trials, fewer participants assigned to ivacaftor developed serious pulmonary exacerbations. When considering all data for exacerbations, participants taking ivacaftor in the adult phase 3 G551D study developed fewer exacerbations, odds ratio 0.54 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.01). In the other G551D studies and in the ΔF508 study, there was no difference between groups in the number of participants who developed pulmonary exacerbations.Combined data from both phase 3 G551D trials demonstrated significant improvements in absolute change from baseline in forced expiratory volume at one second (% predicted) at 24 weeks, mean difference 10.80% (95% CI 8.91 to 12.69) and 48 weeks, mean difference 10.44% (95% CI 8.56 to 12.32); also in weight at 24 weeks, mean difference 2.37 kg (95% CI 1.68 to 3.06) and 48 weeks, mean difference 2.75 kg (95% CI 1.74 to 3.75). No improvements in these outcomes were reported in the ΔF508 participants.Significant reductions in sweat chloride concentration were reported in both G551D and ΔF508 participants: in combined data from both phase 3 G551D trials at 24 weeks, mean difference -48.98 mmol/L (95% CI -52.07 to -45.89) and 48 weeks, mean difference -49.03 mmol/L (95% CI -52.11 to -45.94); and from the ΔF508 trial at 16 weeks, mean difference -2.90 mmol/L (95% CI -5.60 to -0.20).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both G551D phase 3 trials (n = 219) demonstrated a clinically relevant impact of the potentiator ivacaftor on outcomes at 24 and 48 weeks, providing evidence for the use of this treatment in adults and children (over six years of age) with cystic fibrosis and the G551D mutation (class III). There is no evidence to support the use of ivacaftor in people with the ΔF508 mutation (class II) (n = 140). Trials on ivacaftor in people with different mutations are ongoing.

In vitro and in vivo functional characterization of gutless recombinant SV40-derived CFTR vectors

In cystic fibrosis (CF) respiratory failure caused by progressive airway obstruction and tissue damage is primarily a result of the aberrant inflammatory responses to lung infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Despite considerable improvement in patient survival, conventional therapies are mainly supportive. Recent progress towards gene therapy for CF has been encouraging; however, several factors such as immune response and transduced cell turnover remain as potential limitations to CF gene therapy. As alternative gene therapy vectors for CF we examined the feasibility of using SV40-derived vectors (rSV40s) which may circumvent some of these obstacles. To accommodate the large CFTR cDNA, we removed not only SV40 Tag genes, but also all capsid genes. We therefore tested whether “gutless” rSV40s could be packaged and were able to express a functional human CFTR cDNA. Results from our in vitro analysis determined that rSV40-CFTR was able to successfully result in the expression of CFTR protein which localized to the plasma membrane and restored channel function to CFTR deficient cells. Similarly in vivo experiments delivering rSV40-CFTR to the lungs of Cftr−/− mice resulted in a reduction of the pathology associated with intra-tracheal pseudomona aeruginosa challenge. rSV40-CFTR treated mice had had less weight loss when compared to control treated mice as well as demonstrably reduced lung inflammation as evidence by histology and reduced inflammatory cytokines in the BAL. The reduction in inflammatory cytokine levels led to an evident decrease in neutrophil influx to the airways. These results indicate that further study of the application of rSV40-CFTR to CF gene therapy is warranted.

Cystic Fibrosis and Formes Frustes of CFTR-Related Disease

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is the commonest genetic cause of bronchiectasis in the Caucasian population. Since identification of the putative gene in 1989, the molecular basis of the condition has become clearer with characterisation of the unique pathophysiology. The small airways are the primary site of lung disease, with an intense but localised inflammatory picture, dominated by neutrophils. The clinical heterogeneity is explained to some degree by the distinct molecular consequences of the many mutations that have been recognised to affect the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene; however other genes appear to modify the phenotype as well as environmental exposure. It has become increasingly apparent that certain conditions may result from CFTR dysfunction without fulfilling diagnostic criteria for CF. In some cases this may result in single organ disease for which the term CF (or CFTR)-related disease has been advocated. Congenital bilateral absence of the vas deferens is the most clearly characterised of these. In other cases where a mild CF phenotype is apparent, atypical CF is probably a better term. It remains unclear whether carrier status predisposes to certain conditions such as chronic rhinosinusitis or pancreatitis.

Menin missense mutants associated with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 are rapidly degraded via the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway

MEN1 is a tumor suppressor gene that is responsible for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) and that encodes a 610-amino-acid protein, called menin. While the majority of germ line mutations identified in MEN1 patients are frameshift and nonsense mutations resulting in truncation of the menin protein, various missense mutations have been identified whose effects on menin activity are unclear. For this study, we analyzed a series of menin proteins with single amino acid alterations and found that all of the MEN1-causing missense mutations tested led to greatly diminished levels of the affected proteins in comparison with wild-type and benign polymorphic menin protein levels. We demonstrate here that the reduced levels of the mutant proteins are due to rapid degradation via the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway. Furthermore, the mutants, but not wild-type menin, interact both with the molecular chaperone Hsp70 and with the Hsp70-associated ubiquitin ligase CHIP, and the overexpression of CHIP promotes the ubiquitination of the menin mutants in vivo. These findings reveal that MEN1-causing missense mutations lead to a loss of function of menin due to enhanced proteolytic degradation, which may be a common mechanism for inactivating tumor suppressor gene products in familial cancer.

Protein misfolding and degradation in genetic diseases

Investigations of genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, phenylketonuria, mitochondrial acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiencies, and many others have shown that enhanced proteolytic degradation of mutant proteins is a common molecular pathological mechanism. Detailed studies of the fate of mutant proteins in some of these diseases have revealed that impaired or aberrant folding of mutant polypeptides typically results in prolonged interaction with molecular chaperones and degradation by intracellular proteases before the functional conformation is acquired. This appears to be the case for many missense mutations and short in-frame deletions or insertions that represent a major fraction of the mutations detected in genetic diseases. In some diseases, or under some circumstances, the degradation system is not efficient. Instead, aberrant folding leads to accumulation of protein aggregates that damage the cell. Mechanisms by which misfolded proteins are selected for degradation have first been delineated for the endoplasmatic reticulum; this process has been termed "protein quality control." Similar mechanisms appear to be operative in all cellular compartments in which proteins fold. Within the context of genetic diseases, we review knowledge on the molecular processes underlying protein quality control in the various subcellular compartments. The important impact of such systems for variability of the expression of genetic deficiencies is emphasised.