Macrolide antibiotics (including azithromycin) for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting genetic condition, affecting over 90,000 people worldwide. CF affects several organs in the body, but airway damage has the most profound impact on quality of life (QoL) and survival. Causes of lower airway infection in people with CF are, most notably, Staphylococcus aureus in the early course of the disease and Pseudomonas aeruginosa at a later stage. Macrolide antibiotics, e.g. azithromycin and clarithromycin, are usually taken orally, have a broad spectrum of action against gram-positive (e.g. S aureus) and some gram-negative bacteria (e.g. Haemophilus influenzae), and may have a modifying role in diseases involving airway infection and inflammation such as CF. They are well-tolerated and relatively inexpensive, but widespread use has resulted in the emergence of resistant bacteria. This is an updated review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the potential effects of macrolide antibiotics on clinical status in terms of benefit and harm in people with CF. If benefit was demonstrated, we aimed to assess the optimal type, dose and duration of macrolide therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals, and abstract books of conference proceedings. We last searched the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register on 2 November 2022. We last searched the trial registries WHO ICTRP and clinicaltrials.gov on 9 November 2022. We contacted investigators known to work in the field, previous authors and pharmaceutical companies manufacturing macrolide antibiotics for unpublished or follow-up data, where possible. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of macrolide antibiotics in adults and children with CF. We compared them to: placebo; another class of antibiotic; another macrolide antibiotic; or the same macrolide antibiotic at a different dose or type of administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies (1467 participants) lasting 28 days to 36 months. All the studies assessed azithromycin: 11 compared oral azithromycin to placebo (1167 participants); one compared a high dose to a low dose (47 participants); one compared nebulised to oral azithromycin (45 participants); and one looked at weekly versus daily dose (208 participants). Oral azithromycin versus placebo There is a slight improvement in forced expiratory volume (FEV1 % predicted) in one second in the azithromycin group at up to six months compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) 3.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74 to 6.19; high-certainty evidence), although there is probably no difference at three months, (MD 2.70%, 95% CI -0.12 to 5.52), or 12 months (MD -0.13, 95% CI -4.96 to 4.70). Participants in the azithromycin group are probably at a decreased risk of pulmonary exacerbation with a longer time to exacerbation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.75; moderate-certainty evidence). Mild side effects were common, but there was no difference between groups (moderate-certainty evidence). There is no difference in hospital admissions at six months (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.04; high-certainty evidence), or in new acquisition of P aeruginosa at 12 months (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.55; moderate-certainty evidence). High-dose versus low-dose azithromycin We are uncertain whether there is any difference in FEV1 % predicted at six months between the two groups (no data available) or in the rate of exacerbations per child per month (MD -0.05 (95% CI -0.20 to 0.10)); very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes. Only children were included in the study and the study did not report on any of our other clinically important outcomes. Nebulised azithromycin versus oral azithromycin We were unable to include any of the data into our analyses and have reported findings directly from the paper; we graded all evidence as being of very low certainty. The authors reported that there was a greater mean change in FEV1 % predicted at one month in the nebulised azithromycin group (P < 0.001). We are uncertain whether there was a change in P aeruginosa count. Weekly azithromycin versus daily azithromycin There is probably a lower mean change in FEV1 % predicted at six months in the weekly group compared to the daily group (MD -0.70, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.45) and probably also a longer period of time until first exacerbation in the weekly group (MD 17.30 days, 95% CI 4.32 days to 30.28 days). Gastrointestinal side effects are probably more common in the weekly group and there is likely no difference in admissions to hospital or QoL. We graded all evidence as moderate certainty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Azithromycin therapy is associated with a small but consistent improvement in respiratory function, a decreased risk of exacerbation and longer time to exacerbation at six months; but evidence for treatment efficacy beyond six months remains limited. Azithromycin appears to have a good safety profile (although a weekly dose was associated with more gastrointestinal side effects, which makes it less acceptable for long-term therapy), with a relatively minimal treatment burden for people with CF, and it is inexpensive. A wider concern may be the emergence of macrolide resistance reported in the most recent study which, combined with the lack of long-term data, means we do not feel that the current evidence is strong enough to support azithromycin therapy for all people with CF. Future research should report over longer time frames using validated tools and consistent reporting, to allow for easier synthesis of data. In particular, future trials should report important adverse events such as hearing impairment or liver disease. More data on the effects of azithromycin given in different ways and reporting on our primary outcomes would benefit decision-making on whether and how to give macrolide antibiotics. Finally, it is important to assess azithromycin therapy for people with CF who are established on the relatively new cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapies which correct the underlying molecular defect associated with CF (none of the trials included in the review are relevant to this population).

Ataluren and similar compounds (specific therapies for premature termination codon class I mutations) for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a common, life-shortening, genetic disorder in populations of Northern European descent caused by the mutation of a single gene that codes for the production of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein. This protein coordinates the transport of salt (and bicarbonate) across cell surfaces, and the mutation most notably affects the airways. In the lungs of people with CF, the defective protein compromises mucociliary clearance and makes the airway prone to chronic infection and inflammation, damaging the structure of the airways and eventually leading to respiratory failure. In addition, abnormalities in the truncated CFTR protein lead to other systemic complications, including malnutrition, diabetes and subfertility. Five classes of mutation have been described, depending on the impact of the mutation on the processing of the CFTR protein in the cell. In class I mutations, premature termination codons prevent the production of any functional protein, resulting in severe CF. Therapies targeting class I mutations aim to enable the normal cellular mechanism to read through the mutation, potentially restoring the production of the CFTR protein. This could, in turn, normalise salt transport in the cells and decrease the chronic infection and inflammation that characterises lung disease in people with CF. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of ataluren and similar compounds on clinically important outcomes in people with CF with class I mutations (premature termination codons). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, which is compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. The last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register was conducted on 7 March 2022. We searched clinical trial registries maintained by the European Medicines Agency, the US National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization. The last search of the clinical trials registries was conducted on 4 October 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel design comparing ataluren and similar compounds (specific therapies for class I mutations) with placebo in people with CF who have at least one class I mutation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For the included trials, the review authors independently extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE; trial authors were contacted for additional data. MAIN RESULTS: Our searches identified 56 references to 20 trials; of these, 18 trials were excluded. Both the included parallel RCTs compared ataluren to placebo for 48 weeks in 517 participants (males and females; age range six to 53 years) with CF who had at least one nonsense mutation (a type of class I mutation). The certainty of evidence and risk of bias assessments for the trials were moderate overall. Random sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of trial personnel were well documented; participant blinding was less clear. Some participant data were excluded from the analysis in one trial that also had a high risk of bias for selective outcome reporting. PTC Therapeutics Incorporated sponsored both trials with grant support from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the US Food and Drug Administration's Office of Orphan Products Development and the National Institutes of Health. The trials reported no difference between treatment groups in terms of quality of life, and no improvement in respiratory function measures. Ataluren was associated with a higher rate of episodes of renal impairment (risk ratio 12.81, 95% confidence interval 2.46 to 66.65; P = 0.002; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 517 participants). The trials reported no treatment effect for ataluren for the review's secondary outcomes of pulmonary exacerbation, computed tomography score, weight, body mass index and sweat chloride. No deaths were reported in the trials. The earlier trial performed a post hoc subgroup analysis of participants not receiving concomitant chronic inhaled tobramycin (n = 146). This analysis demonstrated favourable results for ataluren (n = 72) for the relative change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) per cent (%) predicted and pulmonary exacerbation rate. The later trial aimed to prospectively assess the efficacy of ataluren in participants not concomitantly receiving inhaled aminoglycosides, and found no difference between ataluren and placebo in FEV1 % predicted and pulmonary exacerbation rate.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effect of ataluren as a therapy for people with CF with class I mutations. One trial reported favourable results for ataluren in a post hoc subgroup analysis of participants not receiving chronic inhaled aminoglycosides, but these were not reproduced in the later trial, suggesting that the earlier results may have occurred by chance. Future trials should carefully assess for adverse events, notably renal impairment, and consider the possibility of drug interactions. Cross-over trials should be avoided, given the potential for the treatment to change the natural history of CF.

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.

Antifungal therapies for allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis in people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) is an allergic reaction to colonisation of the lungs with the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus, and affects around 10% of people with cystic fibrosis. ABPA is associated with an accelerated decline in lung function. High doses of corticosteroids are the main treatment for ABPA; although the long-term benefits are not clear, and their many side effects are well-documented. A group of compounds, the azoles, have activity against A fumigatus, and have been proposed as an alternative treatment for ABPA. Of this group, itraconazole is the most active. A separate antifungal compound, amphotericin B, has been used in aerosolised form to treat invasive infection with A fumigatus, and may have potential for the treatment of ABPA. Antifungal therapy for ABPA in cystic fibrosis needs to be evaluated. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: The review aimed to test the hypotheses that antifungal interventions for the treatment of ABPA in cystic fibrosis: 1. improve clinical status compared to placebo or standard therapy (no placebo); and 2. do not have unacceptable adverse effects. If benefit was demonstrated, we planned to assess the optimal type, duration, and dose of antifungal therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals, and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of the most recent search of the Group's Trials Register was 28 September 2021. We searched ongoing trials registries, most recently on 11 March 2022. Earlier, we also approached pharmaceutical companies regarding possible unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials, in which antifungal treatments were compared to either placebo or no treatment, or where different doses of the same treatment were used in the treatment of ABPA in people with cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The searches identified six trials; none of which met the inclusion criteria for the review. MAIN RESULTS: We included no completed randomised controlled trials. There is currently one ongoing trial, which we may find eligible for a future update. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there are no randomised controlled trials that evaluate the use of antifungal therapies for the treatment of ABPA in people with cystic fibrosis, although one trial is currently ongoing. Trials with clear outcome measures are needed to properly evaluate the use of corticosteroids in people with ABPA and cystic fibrosis.

Exercise versus airway clearance techniques for people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: There are many accepted airway clearance techniques (ACTs) for managing the respiratory health of people with cystic fibrosis (CF); none of which demonstrate superiority. Other Cochrane Reviews have reported short-term effects related to mucus transport, but no evidence supporting long-term benefits. Exercise is an alternative ACT thought to produce shearing forces within the lung parenchyma, which enhances mucociliary clearance and the removal of viscous secretions. Recent evidence suggests that some people with CF are using exercise as a substitute for traditional ACTs, yet there is no agreed recommendation for this. Additionally, one of the top 10 research questions identified by people with CF is whether exercise can replace other ACTs. Systematically reviewing the evidence for exercise as a safe and effective ACT will help people with CF decide whether to incorporate this strategy into their treatment plans and potentially reduce their treatment burden. The timing of this review is especially pertinent given the shifting landscape of CF management with the advent of highly-effective small molecule therapies, which are changing the way people with CF are cared for. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of exercise to other ACTs for improving respiratory function and other clinical outcomes in people with CF and to assess the potential adverse effects associated with this ACT. SEARCH METHODS: On 28 February 2022, 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. We searched online clinical trial registries on 15 February 2022. We emailed authors of studies awaiting classification or potentially eligible abstracts for additional information on 1 February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled studies (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing exercise to another ACT in people with CF for at least two treatment sessions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for the included studies. They assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Review authors contacted investigators for further relevant information regarding their publications. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs. The 86 participants had a wide range of disease severity (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ranged from 54% to 95%) and were 7 to 41 years old. Two RCTs were cross-over and two were parallel in design. Participants in one RCT were hospitalised with an acute respiratory exacerbation, whilst the participants in three RCTs were clinically stable. All four RCTs compared exercise either alone or in combination with another ACT, but these were too diverse to allow us to combine results. The certainty of the evidence was very low; we downgraded it due to low participant numbers and high or unclear risks of bias across all domains. Exercise versus active cycle of breathing technique (ACBT) One cross-over trial (18 participants) compared exercise alone to ACBT. There was no change from baseline in our primary outcome FEV1, although it increased in the exercise group before returning to baseline after 30 minutes; we are unsure if exercise affected FEV1 as the evidence is very low-certainty. Similar results were seen for other measures of lung function. No adverse events occurred during the exercise sessions (very low-certainty evidence). We are unsure if ACBT was perceived to be more effective or was the preferred ACT (very low-certainty evidence). 24-hour sputum volume was less in the exercise group than with ACBT (secondary outcome). Exercise capacity, quality of life, adherence, hospitalisations and need for additional antibiotics were not reported. Exercise plus postural drainage and percussion (PD&P) versus PD&P only Two trials (55 participants) compared exercise and PD&P to PD&P alone. At two weeks, one trial narratively reported a greater increase in FEV1 % predicted with PD&P alone. At six months, the other trial reported a greater increase with exercise combined with PD&P, but did not provide data for the PD&P group. We are uncertain whether exercise with PD&P improves FEV1 as the certainty of evidence is very low. Other measures of lung function did not show clear evidence of effect. One trial reported no difference in exercise capacity (maximal work rate) after two weeks. No adverse events were reported (1 trial, 17 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adherence was high, with all PD&P sessions and 96% of exercise sessions completed (1 trial, 17 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference between groups in 24-hour sputum volume or in the mean duration of hospitalisation, although the six-month trial reported fewer hospitalisations due to exacerbations in the exercise and PD&P group. Quality of life, ACT preference and need for antibiotics were not reported. Exercise versus underwater positive expiratory pressure (uPEP) One trial (13 participants) compared exercise to uPEP (also known as bubble PEP). No adverse events were recorded in either group (very low-certainty evidence). Trial investigators reported that participants perceived exercise as more fatiguing but also more enjoyable than bubble PEP (very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences found in the total weight of sputum collected during treatment sessions. The trial did not report the primary outcomes (FEV1, quality of life, exercise capacity) or the secondary outcomes (other measures of lung function, adherence, need for antibiotics or hospitalisations). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As one of the top 10 research questions identified by clinicians and people with CF, it is important to systematically review the literature regarding whether or not exercise is an acceptable and effective ACT, and whether it can replace traditional methods. We identified an insufficient number of trials to conclude whether or not exercise is a suitable alternative ACT, and the diverse design of included trials did not allow for meta-analysis of results. The evidence is very low-certainty, so we are uncertain about the effectiveness of exercise as an ACT. Longer studies examining outcomes that are important to people with CF are required to answer this question.

Impact of newborn screening on outcomes and social inequalities in cystic fibrosis: a UK CF registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF) was introduced across the UK in 2007 but the impact on clinical outcomes and health inequalities for children with CF is unclear. METHODS: We undertook longitudinal analyses of UK CF registry data on over 3000 children with CF born between 2000 and 2015. Clinical outcomes were the trajectories of percent predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (%FEV1) from age 5, weight for age and body mass index (BMI) SD-scores from age one, and time to chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa (cPA) infection. Using mixed effects and time-to-event models we assessed the association of NBS with outcomes and potential interactions with childhood socioeconomic conditions, while adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: NBS was associated with higher average lung function trajectory (+1.56 FEV1 percentage points 95% CI 0.1 to 3.02, n=2216), delayed onset of cPA, and higher average weight trajectory intercept at age one (+0.16 SD; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.26, n=3267) but negative rate of weight change thereafter (-0.02 SD per year; 95% CI -0.03 to -0.00). We found no significant association of NBS with BMI or rate of change of lung function. There was no clear evidence of an impact of NBS on health inequalities early in life. CONCLUSIONS: Children diagnosed with CF by NBS in the UK have better lung function and increased early weight but NBS does not appear to have narrowed early health inequalities.

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.

Adherence to Aerosol Therapy in Young People With Cystic Fibrosis: Patient and Parent Perspectives Following Electronic Data Capture.

The benefits of improved treatments for cystic fibrosis (CF) depend on optimal adherence, which remains problematic, particularly to aerosol therapy. In this study, we explored the process of adhering to aerosol therapy from the perspective of both adolescents with CF and their parents. Interviews were conducted individually with six adolescents and six parents, informed by accurate adherence data from an electronically chipped, aerosol device. Interview transcripts from audio-recordings were analyzed using grounded theory method (GTM). Major themes revealed differences in perspective between parent and adolescent, with this relationship mediating the cognitive and emotional processes that play a significant role in adherence behavior. These processes are further influenced by interactions with the aerosol therapy treatment regimen, device characteristics, and the context in which adherence is taking place. Parents and adolescents have different views of treatment and how to manage it. Both need to be addressed if optimal adherence is to be achieved.

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.

A formative study exploring perceptions of physical activity and physical activity monitoring among children and young people with cystic fibrosis and health care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) is associated with reduced hospitalisations and maintenance of lung function in patients with Cystic Fibrosis (CF). PA is therefore recommended as part of standard care. Despite this, there is no consensus for monitoring of PA and little is known about perceptions of PA monitoring among children and young people with CF. Therefore, the research aimed to explore patients' perceptions of PA and the acceptability of using PA monitoring devices with children and young people with CF. METHODS: An action research approach was utilised, whereby findings from earlier research phases informed subsequent phases. Four phases were utilised, including patient interviews, PA monitoring, follow-up patient interviews and health care professional (HCP) interviews. Subsequently, an expert panel discussed the study to develop recommendations for practice and future research. RESULTS: Findings suggest that experiences of PA in children and young people with CF are largely comparable to their non-CF peers, with individuals engaging in a variety of activities. CF was not perceived as a barrier per se, although participants acknowledged that they could be limited by their symptoms. Maintenance of health emerged as a key facilitator, in some cases PA offered patients the opportunity to 'normalise' their condition. Participants reported enjoying wearing the monitoring devices and had good compliance. Wrist-worn devices and devices providing feedback were preferred. HCPs recognised the potential benefits of the devices in clinical practice. Recommendations based on these findings are that interventions to promote PA in children and young people with CF should be individualised and involve families to promote PA as part of an active lifestyle. Patients should receive support alongside the PA data obtained from monitoring devices. CONCLUSIONS: PA monitoring devices appear to be an acceptable method for objective assessment of PA among children and young people with CF and their clinicians. Wrist-worn devices, which are unobtrusive and can display feedback, were perceived as most acceptable. By understanding the factors impacting PA, CF health professionals will be better placed to support patients and improve health outcomes.

Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator-Related Metabolic Syndrome and Cystic Fibrosis Screen Positive, Inconclusive Diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: An unintended consequence of cystic fibrosis (CF) newborn screening (NBS) is the identification of infants with a positive NBS test but inconclusive diagnostic testing. These infants are classified as CF transmembrane conductance regulator-related metabolic syndrome (CRMS) in the US and CF screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis (CFSPID) in other countries. Diagnostic and management decisions of these infants are challenges for CF healthcare professionals and stressful situations for families. As CF NBS has become more widespread across the world, increased information about the epidemiology and outcomes of these infants is becoming available. These data were reviewed at the 2015 CF Foundation Diagnosis Consensus Conference, and a harmonized definition of CRMS and CFSPID was developed. STUDY DESIGN: At the consensus conference, participants reviewed published and unpublished studies of CRMS/CFSPID and used a modified Delphi methodology to develop a harmonized approach to the definition of CRMS/CFSPID. RESULTS: Several studies of CRMS/CFSPID from populations around the world have been published in the past year. Although the studies vary in the number of infants studied, study design, and outcome measures, there have been some consistent findings. CRMS/CFSPID occurs relatively frequently, with CF:CRMS that ranges from 3 to 5 cases of CF for every 1 case of CRMS/CFSPID in regions where gene sequencing is not used. The incidence varies by NBS protocol used, and in some regions more cases of CRMS/CFSPID are detected than cases of CF. The majority of individuals with CRMS/CFSPID do not develop CF disease or progress to a diagnosis of CF. However, between 10% and 20% of asymptomatic infants can develop clinical features concerning for CF, such as a respiratory culture positive for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Most studies have only reported short-term outcomes in the first 1-3 years of life; the long-term outcomes of CRMS/CFSPID remain unknown. The European CF Society definition of CFSPID and the CF Foundation definition of CRMS differ only slightly, and the consensus conference was able to create a unified definition of CRMS/CFSPID. CONCLUSIONS: CRMS/CFSPID is a relatively common outcome of CF NBS, and clinicians need to be prepared to counsel families whose NBS test falls into this classification. The vast majority of infants with CRMS/CFSPID will remain free from disease manifestations early in life. However, a small proportion may develop clinical features concerning for CF or demonstrate progression to a clinical phenotype compatible with a CF diagnosis, and their long-term outcomes are not known. A consistent international definition of CRMS/CFSPID will allow for better data collection for study of outcomes and result in improved patient care.

Diagnosis of Cystic Fibrosis: Consensus Guidelines from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

OBJECTIVE: Cystic fibrosis (CF), caused by mutations in the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene, continues to present diagnostic challenges. Newborn screening and an evolving understanding of CF genetics have prompted a reconsideration of the diagnosis criteria. STUDY DESIGN: To improve diagnosis and achieve standardized definitions worldwide, the CF Foundation convened a committee of 32 experts in CF diagnosis from 9 countries to develop clear and actionable consensus guidelines on the diagnosis of CF and to clarify diagnostic criteria and terminology for other disorders associated with CFTR mutations. An a priori threshold of ≥80% affirmative votes was required for acceptance of each recommendation statement. RESULTS: After reviewing relevant literature, the committee convened to review evidence and cases. Following the conference, consensus statements were developed by an executive subcommittee. The entire consensus committee voted and approved 27 of 28 statements, 7 of which needed revisions and a second round of voting. CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended that diagnoses associated with CFTR mutations in all individuals, from newborn to adult, be established by evaluation of CFTR function with a sweat chloride test. The latest mutation classifications annotated in the Clinical and Functional Translation of CFTR project (http://www.cftr2.org/index.php) should be used to aid in diagnosis. Newborns with a high immunoreactive trypsinogen level and inconclusive CFTR functional and genetic testing may be designated CFTR-related metabolic syndrome or CF screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis; these terms are now merged and equivalent, and CFTR-related metabolic syndrome/CF screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis may be used. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision codes for use in diagnoses associated with CFTR mutations are included.

Autogenic drainage for airway clearance in cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Autogenic drainage is an airway clearance technique that was developed by Jean Chevaillier in 1967. The technique is characterised by breathing control using expiratory airflow to mobilise secretions from smaller to larger airways. Secretions are cleared independently by adjusting the depth and speed of respiration in a sequence of controlled breathing techniques during exhalation. The technique requires training, concentration and effort from the individual. It is important to systematically review the evidence demonstrating that autogenic drainage is an effective intervention for people with cystic fibrosis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness of autogenic drainage in people with cystic fibrosis with other physiotherapy airway clearance techniques. 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, as well as two trials registers (31 August 2017).Dtae of most recent search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 25 September 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We identified randomised and quasi-randomised controlled studies comparing autogenic drainage to another airway clearance technique or no therapy in people with cystic fibrosis for at least two treatment sessions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessments of risk of bias were independently performed by two authors. The authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system. The authors contacted two investigators for further information pertinent to their published studies. MAIN RESULTS: Searches retrieved 35 references to 21 individual studies, of which seven (n = 208) were eligible for inclusion. One study was of parallel design with the remaining six being cross-over in design; participant numbers ranged from 17 to 75. The total study duration varied between four days and two years. The age of participants ranged between seven and 63 years with a wide range of disease severity reported. Six studies enrolled participants who were clinically stable, whilst participants in one study had been hospitalised with an infective exacerbation. All studies compared autogenic drainage to one (or more) other recognised airway clearance technique. Exercise is commonly used as an alternative therapy by people with cystic fibrosis; however, there were no studies identified comparing exercise with autogenic drainage.The quality of the evidence was generally low or very low. The main reasons for downgrading the level of evidence were the frequent use of a cross-over design, outcome reporting bias and the inability to blind participants.The review's primary outcome, forced expiratory volume in one second, was the most common outcome measured and was reported by all seven studies; only three studies reported on quality of life (also a primary outcome of the review). One study reported on adverse events and described a decrease in oxygen saturation levels whilst performing active cycle of breathing techniques, but not with autogenic drainage. Six of the seven included studies measured forced vital capacity and three of the studies used mid peak expiratory flow (per cent predicted) as an outcome. Six studies reported sputum weight. Less commonly used outcomes included oxygen saturation levels, personal preference, hospital admissions or intravenous antibiotics. There were no statistically significant differences found between any of the techniques used with respect to the outcomes measured except when autogenic drainage was described as being the preferred technique of the participants in one study over postural drainage and percussion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Autogenic drainage is a challenging technique that requires commitment from the individual. As such, this intervention merits systematic review to ensure its effectiveness for people with cystic fibrosis. From the studies assessed, autogenic drainage was not found to be superior to any other form of airway clearance technique. Larger studies are required to better evaluate autogenic drainage in comparison to other airway clearance techniques in view of the relatively small number of participants in this review and the complex study designs. The studies recruited a range of participants and were not powered to assess non-inferiority. The varied length and design of the studies made the analysis of pooled data challenging.

Ataluren and similar compounds (specific therapies for premature termination codon class I mutations) for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis is a common life-shortening genetic disorder in the Caucasian population (less common in other ethnic groups) caused by the mutation of a single gene that codes for the production of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator protein. This protein coordinates the transport of salt (and bicarbonate) across cell surfaces and the mutation most notably affects the airways. In the lungs of people with cystic fibrosis, defective protein results in a dehydrated surface liquid and compromised mucociliary clearance. The resulting thick mucus makes the airway prone to chronic infection and inflammation, which consequently damages the structure of the airways, eventually leading to respiratory failure. Additionally, abnormalities in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator protein lead to other systemic complications including malnutrition, diabetes and subfertility.Five classes of mutation have been described, depending on the impact of the mutation on the processing of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator protein in the cell. In class I mutations, the presence of premature termination codons prevents the production of any functional protein resulting in a severe cystic fibrosis phenotype. Advances in the understanding of the molecular genetics of cystic fibrosis has led to the development of novel mutation-specific therapies. Therapies targeting class I mutations (premature termination codons) aim to mask the abnormal gene sequence and enable the normal cellular mechanism to read through the mutation, potentially restoring the production of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator protein. This could in turn make salt transport in the cells function more normally and may decrease the chronic infection and inflammation that characterises lung disease in people with cystic fibrosis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of ataluren and similar compounds on clinically important outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis with class I mutations (premature termination codons). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register which is compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. Last search of Group's register: 24 October 2016.We searched clinical trial registries maintained by the European Medicines Agency, the US National Institutes of Health and the WHO. Last search of clinical trials registries: 28 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of parallel design comparing ataluren and similar compounds (specific therapies for class I mutations) with placebo in people with cystic fibrosis who have at least one class I mutation. Cross-over trials were reviewed individually to evaluate whether data from the first treatment arm could be included. We excluded trials that combined therapies for premature termination codon class I mutations with other mutation-specific therapies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the included trial; they contacted trial authors for additional data. MAIN RESULTS: Our searches identified 28 references to eight trials; five trials were excluded (three were cross-over and one was not randomised and one did not have relevant outcomes), one cross-over trial is awaiting classification pending provision of data and one trial is ongoing. The included parallel randomised controlled trial compared ataluren to placebo for a duration of 48 weeks in 238 participants (age range 6 to 53 years) with cystic fibrosis who had at least one nonsense mutation (a type of class I mutation).The quality of evidence and risk of bias assessments for the trial were moderate overall. Random sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of trial personnel were well-documented; participant blinding was less clear. Some participant data were excluded from the analysis. The trial was assessed as high risk of bias for selective outcome reporting, especially when reporting on the trial's post hoc subgroup of participants by chronic inhaled antibiotic use.The trial was sponsored by PTC Therapeutics Incorporated with grant support by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Orphan Products Development and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).The trial reported no significant difference between treatment groups in quality of life, assessed by the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised respiratory domain score and no improvement in respiratory function measures (mean difference of relative change in forced expiratory volume at one second 2.97% (95% confidence interval -0.58 to 6.52)). Ataluren was associated with a significantly higher rate of episodes of renal impairment, risk ratio 17.70 (99% confidence interval 1.28 to 244.40). The trial reported no significant treatment effect for ataluren for the review's secondary outcomes: pulmonary exacerbation; computerised tomography score; weight; body mass index; and sweat chloride. No deaths were reported in the trial.A post hoc subgroup analysis of participants not receiving chronic inhaled tobramycin (n = 146) demonstrated favourable results for ataluren (n = 72) for relative change in % predicted forced expiratory volume at one second and pulmonary exacerbation rate. Participants receiving chronic inhaled tobramycin appeared to have a reduced rate of pulmonary exacerbation compared to those not receiving chronic inhaled tobramycin. This drug interaction was not anticipated and may affect the interpretation of the trial results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effect of ataluren as a therapy for people with cystic fibrosis with class I mutations. Future trials should carefully assess for adverse events, notably renal impairment and consider the possibility of drug interactions. Cross-over trials should be avoided given the potential for the treatment to change the natural history of cystic fibrosis.

Cystic fibrosis screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A challenging sequelae of newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF) has been the identification of infants with an unclear diagnosis after a positive NBS result, which leads to uncertainty for healthcare professionals and families. This review describes the classification, frequency, clinical outcome and early management of these infants. RECENT FINDINGS: In the US, infants with an inconclusive diagnosis after NBS are labelled 'CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR)-related metabolic syndrome' (CRMS), and in Europe 'CF screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis' (CFSPID). According to recent studies, the majority of CRMS/CFSPID infants will remain well and have no long-term health implications. CRMS/CFSPID infants are at risk of developing CFTR-related disorder or atypical CF, with clinical features of CF but normal or intermediate sweat chloride values. SUMMARY: The frequency of CRMS/CFSPID is more than anticipated, relating to the increased use of screening algorithms that employ extended gene sequencing. The terms CRMS and CFSPID are interchangeable and there has been an international effort to harmonise the designation to CRMS/CFSPID. With clearer designation criteria, long-term data will be collected on outcomes that will guide management strategies.

Pneumococcal vaccines for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Invasive pneumococcal disease is associated with significant mortality and many countries have introduced routine pneumococcal vaccination into their childhood immunisation programmes. Whilst pneumococcal disease in cystic fibrosis is uncommon, pneumococcal immunisation may offer some protection against pulmonary exacerbations caused by this pathogen. In the USA and UK pneumococcal vaccination is currently recommended for all children and adults with cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of pneumococcal vaccines in reducing morbidity in people with cystic fibrosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. In addition, the pharmaceutical manufacturers of the polysaccharide and conjugate pneumococcal vaccines were approached.Date of the most recent search: 27 June 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing pneumococcal vaccination (with either a polysaccharide or conjugate pneumococcal vaccine) with non-vaccination or placebo in children or adults with cystic fibrosis were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No relevant trials were identified. MAIN RESULTS: There are no trials included in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As no trials were identified we cannot draw conclusions on the efficacy of routine pneumococcal immunisation in people with cystic fibrosis in reducing their morbidity or mortality. As many countries now include pneumococcal immunisation in their routine childhood vaccination schedule it is unlikely that future randomised controlled trials will be initiated. Rigorously conducted epidemiological studies may offer the opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in reducing morbidity and mortality in people with cystic fibrosis.

Antifungal therapies for allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis in people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) is an allergic reaction to colonisation of the lungs with the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus and affects around 10% of people with cystic fibrosis. ABPA is associated with an accelerated decline in lung function. High doses of corticosteroids are the main treatment for ABPA; although the long-term benefits are not clear, their many side effects are well-documented. A group of compounds, the azoles, have activity against Aspergillus fumigatus and have been proposed as an alternative treatment for ABPA. Of this group, itraconazole is the most active. A separate antifungal compound, amphotericin B, has been employed in aerosolised form to treat invasive infection with Aspergillus fumigatus, and may have potential for the treatment of ABPA. Antifungal therapy for ABPA in cystic fibrosis needs to be evaluated. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: The review aimed to test the hypotheses that antifungal interventions for the treatment of ABPA in cystic fibrosis:1. improve clinical status compared to placebo or standard therapy (no placebo);2. do not have unacceptable adverse effects.If benefit was demonstrated, we aimed to assess the optimal type, duration and dose of antifungal therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.In addition, pharmaceutical companies were approached.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Trials Register: 29 September 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials, where antifungal treatments have been compared to either placebo or no treatment, or where different doses of the same treatment have been used in the treatment of ABPA in people with cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four trials were identified by the searches; none of which was judged eligible for inclusion in the review. MAIN RESULTS: No completed randomised controlled trials were included. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there are no randomised controlled trials to evaluate the use of antifungal therapies for the treatment of ABPA in people with cystic fibrosis, although trials in people who do not have cystic fibrosis have shown clinical and serological evidence of improvement and a reduction in the use of corticosteroids with no increase in adverse effects. Trials with clear outcome measures are needed to properly evaluate this potentially useful treatment for cystic fibrosis.

Topical cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene replacement for cystic fibrosis-related lung disease.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis is caused by a defective gene encoding a protein called the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR), and is characterised by chronic lung infection resulting in inflammation and progressive lung damage that results in a reduced life expectancy. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether topical CFTR gene replacement therapy to the lungs in people with cystic fibrosis is associated with improvements in clinical outcomes, and to assess any adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of most recent search: 05 May 2016.An additional search of the National Institutes for Health (NIH) Genetic Modification Clinical Research Information System (GeMCRIS) was also performed for the years 1992 to 2015.Date of most recent search: 20 April 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled studies comparing topical CFTR gene delivery to the lung, using either viral or non-viral delivery systems, with placebo or an alternative delivery system in people with confirmed cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Authors of included studies were contacted and asked for any available additional data. Meta-analysis was limited due to differing study designs. MAIN RESULTS: Four randomised controlled studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, involving a total of 302 participants lasting from 29 days to 13 months; 14 studies were excluded. The included studies differed in terms of CFTR gene replacement agent and study design, which limited the meta-analysis. One study only enrolled adult males, the remaining studies included both males and females aged 12 years and over.Risk of bias in the studies was moderate. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment was only described in the more recent study; the remaining three studies were judged to have an unclear risk of bias. All four studies documented double-blinding to the intervention, but there is some uncertainty with regards to participant blinding in one study. Some outcome data were missing from all four studies.There were no differences in either the number of respiratory exacerbations or the number of participants with an exacerbation between replacement therapy or placebo groups at any time point. Meta-analysis of most respiratory function tests showed no difference between treatment and placebo groups, but the smallest study (n = 16) reported forced vital capacity (litres) increased more in the placebo group at up to 24 hours. A further study reported a significant improvement in forced expiratory volume at one second (litres) at 30 days after participants had received their first dose of favouring the gene therapy agent, but this finding was not confirmed when combined with at second study in the meta-analysis. The more recent study (n = 140) demonstrated a small improvement in forced vital capacity (per cent predicted) at two and three months and again at 11 and 12 months for participants receiving CFTR gene replacement therapy compared to those receiving placebo. The same study reported a significant difference in the relative change in forced expiratory volume at one second (per cent predicted) at two months, three months and 12 months.One small study reported significant concerns with "influenza-like" symptoms in participants treated with CFTR gene replacement therapy; this was not reported on repeated use of the same agent in a larger recent study.There was no other evidence of positive impact on outcomes, in particular improved quality of life or reduced treatment burden.Two studies measured ion transport in the lower airways; one (n = 16) demonstrated significant changes toward normal values in the participants who received gene transfer agents (P < 0.0001), mean difference 6.86 (95% confidence interval 3.77 to 9.95). The second study (n = 140) also reported significant changes toward normal values (P = 0.032); however, aggregate data were not available for analysis. In the most recent study, there was also evidence of increased salt transport in cells obtained by brushing the lower airway. These outcomes, whilst important, are not of direct clinical relevance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: One study of liposome-based CFTR gene transfer therapy demonstrated some improvements in respiratory function in people with CF, but this limited evidence of efficacy does not support this treatment as a routine therapy at present. There was no evidence of efficacy for viral-mediated gene delivery.Future studies need to investigate clinically important outcome measures.