A refresh of the top 10 research priorities in cystic fibrosis.

In 2018 we published the James Lind Alliance (JLA) top 10 priorities for clinical research in cystic fibrosis (CF), chosen jointly by the patient and clinical communities. These priorities have led to new research funding. To establish whether priorities have changed with novel modulator therapies, we undertook an online international update through a series of surveys and a workshop. Patients and clinicians (n=1417) chose the refreshed top 10 from 971 new research questions (suggested by patients and clinicians) and 15 questions from 2018. We are working with the international community to promote research based on these refreshed top 10 priorities.

Exploring the challenges of accessing medication for patients with cystic fibrosis.

Reducing treatment burden in cystic fibrosis (CF) is the top research priority for patients and clinicians. Difficulty accessing medication is one aspect of treatment burden. We investigated this with an online survey available globally for patients with CF and healthcare professionals. Almost three quarters of patients with CF in our survey report difficulty getting repeat prescriptions on time, and most community pharmacists experience interrupted supplies of CF-specific medications. These barriers affect emotional and physical health of people with CF. Two-thirds of people with CF would like to get all their CF medication from one place, their CF centre.

Gaps in the evidence for treatment decisions in cystic fibrosis: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a multisystem disorder. Treatment is complex and evidence for treatment decisions may be absent. Characterising gaps in the research evidence will highlight treatment uncertainties and help prioritise research questions. We systematically identified the evidence gaps for treatment decisions in CF. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews and guidelines on treatment interventions in CF. Two researchers identified eligible reviews with arbitration from a third. Using a structured framework, we extracted and characterised evidence gaps. RESULTS: There were 73 reviews and 21 guidelines that met our inclusion criteria. From these, we identified 148 evidence gaps across a range of treatment areas. We found 111 evidence gaps through systematic reviews and a further 37 from guidelines. The reason for an evidence gap could only be reliably characterised for systematic reviews. In most cases, there was more than one explanation-most commonly few or no trials (97/111 evidence gaps). Other important factors leading to evidence gaps were small sample size (49/111), inadequate duration of follow-up (38/111) or intervention (37/111) and factors relating to outcomes (35/111). Evidence gaps from both systematic reviews and guidelines fell into the following categories: Respiratory (91); Gastrointestinal (20); PhysiotherapyandExercise (16); Musculoskeletal (6); Endocrine (4); Basic defect of CF (8); Psychosocial (2); Ears, Nose and Throat (1). CONCLUSIONS: We have compiled an up-to-date list of treatment uncertainties in CF and the reasons for these uncertainties. These can be used as a resource to aid researchers and funders when planning future trials. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: Pre-results; CRD42015030111.