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known to work in the field, previous authors and pharmaceutical companies manufacturing macrolide antibiotics for unpublished or follow-up data, where possible.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).

Standards for the care of people with cystic fibrosis (CF); recognising and addressing CF health issues.

This is the third in a series of four papers updating the European Cystic Fibrosis Society (ECFS) standards for the care of people with CF. This paper focuses on recognising and addressing CF health issues. The guidance was produced with wide stakeholder engagement, including people from the CF community, using an evidence-based framework. Authors contributed sections, and summary statements which were reviewed by a Delphi consultation. Monitoring and treating airway infection, inflammation and pulmonary exacerbations remains important, despite the widespread availability of CFTR modulators and their accompanying health improvements. Extrapulmonary CF-specific health issues persist, such as diabetes, liver disease, bone disease, stones and other renal issues, and intestinal obstruction. These health issues require multidisciplinary care with input from the relevant specialists. Cancer is more common in people with CF compared to the general population, and requires regular screening. The CF life journey requires mental and emotional adaptation to psychosocial and physical challenges, with support from the CF team and the CF psychologist. This is particularly important when life gets challenging, with disease progression requiring increased treatments, breathing support and potentially transplantation. Planning for end of life remains a necessary aspect of care and should be discussed openly, honestly, with sensitivity and compassion for the person with CF and their family. CF teams should proactively recognise and address CF-specific health issues, and support mental and emotional wellbeing while accompanying people with CF and their families on their life journey.

Standards for the care of people with cystic fibrosis; establishing and maintaining health.

This is the second in a series of four papers updating the European Cystic Fibrosis Society (ECFS) standards for the care of people with CF. This paper focuses on establishing and maintaining health. The guidance is produced using an evidence-based framework and with wide stakeholder engagement, including people from the CF community. Authors provided a narrative description of their topic and statements, which were more directive. These statements were reviewed by a Delphi exercise, achieving good levels of agreement from a wide group for all statements. This guidance reinforces the importance of a multi-disciplinary CF team, but also describes developing models of care including virtual consultations. The framework for health is reinforced, including the need for a physically active lifestyle and the strict avoidance of all recreational inhalations, including e-cigarettes. Progress with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapy is reviewed, including emerging adverse events and advice for dose reduction and interruption. This paper contains guidance that is pertinent to all people with CF regardless of age and eligibility for and access to modulator therapy.

Cystic Fibrosis Cases Missed by Newborn Bloodspot Screening-Towards a Consistent Definition and Data Acquisition.

Repeated European surveys of newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) have shown varied strategies for collecting missed cases, and information on data collection differs among countries/regions, hampering data comparison. The ECFS Neonatal Screening Working Group defined missed cases by NBS as either false negatives, protocol-related, concerning analytical issues, or non-protocol-related, concerning pre- and post-analytical issues. A questionnaire has been designed and sent to all key workers identified in each NBS programme to assess the feasibility of collecting data on missed cases, the stage of the NBS programme when the system failed, and individual patient data on each missed case.

Monitoring of ECFS quality standards for the clinical management of adults with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Although cystic fibrosis (CF) standards of care have been produced and regularly updated, they are not specifically targeting at the adult population. The ECFS Standards of Care Project established an international task force of experts to identify quality standards for adults with CF and assess their adherence. METHODS: This study was composed of two phases. In the first one, a task force of international experts derived from published guidelines and graded ten quality standards for adult CF care using a modified Delphi methodology. In the second phase, an international audit was conducted among adult CF centers to retrospectively validate the quality statements and monitor adherence. RESULTS: The task force identified 10 quality standards specific to the care of adults with CF, mainly based on the 2018 ECFS standards of care. 14 adult CF centers participated in the audit, which showed that most quality standards for the management of CF in adults are met across Europe. Heterogeneity in adherence to standards was found across centers according to geographical setting and centers' characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The identification of quality standards is a valuable resource for the standardization and monitoring of care delivery across centers taking care of adults with 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.

Standards for the care of people with cystic fibrosis (CF): A timely and accurate diagnosis.

There is considerable activity with respect to diagnosis in the field of cystic fibrosis (CF). This relates primarily to developments in newborn bloodspot screening (NBS), more extensive gene analysis and improved characterisation of CFTR-related disorder (CFTR-RD). This is particularly pertinent with respect to accessibility to variant-specific therapy (VST), a transformational intervention for people with CF with eligible CFTR gene variants. This advance reinforces the need for a timely and accurate diagnosis. In the future, there is potential for trials to assess effectiveness of variant-specific therapy for CFTR-RD. The guidance in this paper reaffirms previous standards, clarifies a number of issues, and integrates emerging evidence. Timely and accurate diagnosis has never been more important for people with CF.

Development and validation of a short form psychometric tool assessing the caregiving Challenge of Living with Cystic Fibrosis (CLCF-SF) in a child.

OBJECTIVE: Caring for a child with cystic fibrosis (CF) is a rigorous daily commitment for caregivers and treatment burden is a major concern. We aimed to develop and validate a short form version of a 46-item tool assessing the Challenge of Living with Cystic Fibrosis (CLCF) for clinical or research use. DESIGN: A novel genetic algorithm based on 'evolving' a subset of items from a pre-specified set of criteria, was applied to optimise the tool, using data from 135 families. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Internal reliability and validity were assessed; the latter compared scores to validated tests of parental well-being, markers of treatment burden, and disease severity. RESULTS: The 15-item CLCF-SF demonstrated very good internal consistency [Cronbach's alpha 0.82 (95%CI 0.78-0.87)]. Scores for convergent validity correlated with the Beck Depression Inventory (Rho = 0.48), State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-State, Rho = 0.41; STAI-Trait, Rho = 0.43), Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised, lung function (Rho = -0.37), caregiver treatment management (r = 0.48) and child treatment management (r = 0.45), and discriminated between unwell and well children with CF (Mean Difference 5.5, 95%CI 2.5-8.5, p < 0.001), and recent or no hospital admission (MD 3.6, 95%CI 0.25-6.95, p = 0.039). CONCLUSION: The CLCF-SF provides a robust 15-item tool for assessing the challenge of living with a child with CF.

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.

Standards of care for CFTR variant-specific therapy (including modulators) for people with cystic fibrosis.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) has entered the era of variant-specific therapy, tailored to the genetic variants in the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator (CFTR) gene. CFTR modulators, the first variant-specific therapy available, have transformed the management of CF. The latest standards of care from the European CF Society (2018) did not include guidance on variant-specific therapy, as CFTR modulators were becoming established as a novel therapy. We have produced interim standards to guide healthcare professionals in the provision of variant-specific therapy for people with CF. Here we provide evidence-based guidance covering the spectrum of care, established using evidence from systematic reviews and expert opinion. Statements were reviewed by key stakeholders using Delphi methodology, with agreement (≥80%) achieved for all statements after one round of consultation. Issues around accessibility are discussed and there is clear consensus that all eligible people with CF should have access to variant-specific therapy.

Future therapies for cystic fibrosis.

We are currently witnessing transformative change for people with cystic fibrosis with the introduction of small molecule, mutation-specific drugs capable of restoring function of the defective protein, cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR). However, despite being a single gene disorder, there are multiple cystic fibrosis-causing genetic variants; mutation-specific drugs are not suitable for all genetic variants and also do not correct all the multisystem clinical manifestations of the disease. For many, there will remain a need for improved treatments. Those patients with gene variants responsive to CFTR modulators may have found these therapies to be transformational; research is now focusing on safely reducing the burden of symptom-directed treatment. However, modulators are not available in all parts of the globe, an issue which is further widening existing health inequalities. For patients who are not suitable for- or do not have access to- modulator drugs, alternative approaches are progressing through the trials pipeline. There will be challenges encountered in design and implementation of these trials, for which the established global CF infrastructure is a major advantage. Here, the Cystic Fibrosis National Research Strategy Group of the UK NIHR Respiratory Translational Research Collaboration looks to the future of cystic fibrosis therapies and consider priorities for future research and development.

European survey of newborn bloodspot screening for CF: opportunity to address challenges and improve performance.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to record the current status of newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) for CF across Europe and assess performance. METHODS: Survey of representatives of NBS for CF programmes across Europe. Performance was assessed through a framework developed in a previous exercise. RESULTS: In 2022, we identified 22 national and 34 regional programmes in Europe. Barriers to establishing NBS included cost and political inertia. Performance was assessed from 2019 data reported by 21 national and 21 regional programmes. All programmes employed different protocols, with IRT-DNA the most common strategy. Six national and 11 regional programmes did not use DNA analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating DNA analysis into the NBS protocol improves PPV, but at the expense of increased carrier and CFSPID recognition. Some programmes employ strategies to mitigate these outcomes. Programmes should constantly strive to improve performance but large datasets are needed to assess outcomes reliably.

Development and preliminary validation of the challenges of living with cystic fibrosis (CLCF) questionnaire: a 46-item measure of treatment burden for parent/carers of children with CF.

OBJECTIVE: Treatments for cystic fibrosis (CF) are complex, labour-intensive, and perceived as highly burdensome by caregivers of children with CF. An instrument assessing burden of care is needed. DESIGN: A stepwise, qualitative design was used to create the CLCF with caregiver focus groups, participant researchers, a multidisciplinary professional panel, and cognitive interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preliminary psychometric analyses evaluated the reliability and convergent validity of the CLCF scores. Cronbach's alpha assessed internal consistency and t-tests examined test-retest reliability. Correlations measured convergence between the Treatment Burden scale of the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) and the CLCF. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing CLCF scores in one vs two-parent families, across ages, and in children with vs without Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA). RESULTS: Six Challenge subscales emerged from the qualitative data and the professional panel constructed a scoresheet estimating the Time and Effort required for treatments. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were adequate. Good convergence was found between the Total Challenge score and Treatment Burden on the CFQ-R (r=-0.49, p = 0.02, n = 31). A recent PA infection signalled higher Total Challenge for caregivers (F(23)11.72, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The CLCF, developed in partnership with parents/caregivers and CF professionals, is a timely, disease-specific burden measure for clinical research.

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.

Co-designing Improved Communication of Newborn Bloodspot Screening Results to Parents: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Each year in England, almost 10,000 parents are informed of their child's positive newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) results. This occurs approximately 2 to 8 weeks after birth depending on the condition. Communication of positive NBS results is a subtle and skillful task, demanding thought, preparation, and evidence to minimize potentially harmful negative sequelae. Evidence of variability in the content and the way the result is currently communicated has the potential to lead to increased parental anxiety and distress. OBJECTIVE: This study focused on the development of co-designed interventions to improve the experiences of parents receiving positive NBS results for their children and enhance communication between health care professionals and parents. METHODS: An experience-based co-design approach was used to explore experiences and co-design solutions with 17 health professionals employed in 3 National Health Service Trusts in England and 21 parents (13/21, 62% mothers and 8/21, 38% fathers) of 14 children recruited from the same 3 National Health Service Trusts. Experiences with existing services were gathered via semistructured interviews with health professionals. Filmed narrative interviews with parents were developed into a composite film. The co-design process identified priorities for improving communication of positive NBS results through separate parent and health professional feedback events followed by joint feedback events. In total, 4 interventions were then co-designed between the participants through a web-based platform. RESULTS: Parents and health professionals provided positive feedback regarding the process of gathering experiences and identifying priorities. Themes identified from the parent interviews included impact of initial communication, parental reactions, attending the first clinic appointment, impact of health professionals' communication strategies and skills, impact of diagnosis on family and friends, improvements to the communication of positive NBS results, and parents' views on NBS. Themes identified from the health professional interviews included communication between health professionals, process of communicating with the family, parent- and family-centered care, and availability of resources and challenges to effective communication. In response to these themes, 4 interventions were co-designed: changes to the NBS card; standardized laboratory proformas; standardized communication checklists; and an email or letter for providing reliable, up-to-date, condition-specific information for parents following the communication of positive NBS results. CONCLUSIONS: Parents and health professionals were able to successfully work together to identify priorities and develop co-designed interventions to improve communication of positive NBS results to parents. The resulting co-designed interventions address communication at different stages of the communication pathway to improve the experiences of parents receiving positive NBS results for their children. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s40814-019-0487-5.

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.

Delivering Positive Newborn Screening Results: Cost Analysis of Existing Practice versus Innovative, Co-Designed Strategies from the ReSPoND Study.

Although the communication pathways of Newborn Bloodspot Screening (NBS) are a delicate task, these pathways vary across different conditions and are often not evidence-based. The ReSPoND interventions were co-designed by healthcare professionals alongside parents who had received a positive NBS result for their child. To calculate the cost of these co-designed strategies and the existing communication pathways, we interviewed 71 members of the clinical and laboratory staff of the 13 English NBS laboratories in the English National Health Service. Therefore, a scenario analysis was used to compare the cost of the existing communication pathways to the co-designed strategies delivered by (i) home-visits and (ii) telecommunications. On average, the existing communication pathway cost £447.08 per infant (range: £237.12 to £628.51) or £234,872.75 (£3635.99 to £1,932,986.23) nationally. Implementing the new interventions relying on home-visits exclusively would cost on average £521.62 (£312.84 to £646.39) per infant and £297,816.03 (£4506.37 to £2,550,284.64) nationally, or £447.19 (£235.79 to £552.03) and £231,342.40 (£3923.7 to £1,922,192.22) if implemented via teleconsultations, respectively. The new strategies delivered are not likely to require additional resources compared with current practice. Further research is needed to investigate whether this investment represents good value for money for the NHS budget.

Receiving results of uncertain clinical relevance from population genetic screening: systematic review & meta-synthesis of qualitative research.

Genetic screening can be hugely beneficial, yet its expansion poses clinical and ethical challenges due to results of uncertain clinical relevance (such as 'cystic fibrosis screen positive, inconclusive diagnosis'/CFSPID). This review systematically identifies, appraises, and synthesises the qualitative research on experiences of receiving results of uncertain clinical relevance from population genetic screening. Eight databases were systematically searched for original qualitative research using the SPIDER framework, and checked against inclusion criteria by the research team and an independent researcher. Nine papers were included (from USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand). PRISMA, ENTREQ, and EMERGE guidance were used to report. Quality was appraised using criteria for qualitative research. All papers focused on parental responses to uncertain results from newborn screening. Data were synthesised using meta-ethnography and first- and second-order constructs. Findings suggest that results of uncertain clinical relevance are often experienced in the same way as a 'full-blown' diagnosis. This has significant emotional and behavioural impact, for example adoption of lifestyle-altering disease-focused behaviours. Analysis suggests this may be due to the results not fitting a common medical model, leading recipients to interpret the significance of the result maladaptively. Findings suggest scope for professionals to negotiate and reframe uncertain screening results. Clearer initial communication is needed to reassure recipients there is no immediate severe health risk from these types of results. Public understanding of an appropriate medical model, that accounts for uncertain genetic screening results in a non-threatening way, may be key to maximising the benefits of genomic medicine and minimising potential psychological harm.