CFTR-function and ventilation inhomogeneity in individuals with cystic fibrosis

Lung clearance index in children with cystic fibrosis previously diagnosed with CRMS/CFSPID: A monocentric prospective experience

INTRODUCTION

No data are available on the values and role of lung clearance index (LCI) in cystic fibrosis (CF) Screen Positive Inconclusive Diagnosis (CFSPID) progressed to CF diagnosis (CFSPID > CF). This study aimed to assess the value of the LCI in correctly predicting the progression of CFSPID to CF.

METHODS

This is a prospective study carried out at the CF Regional Center of Florence, Italy from September 1, 2019. We compared LCI values in children with CF diagnosed for positive newborn screening (NBS), CFSPID or CFSPID > CF for pathological sweat chloride (SC). The Exhalyzer-D (EcoMedics AG, Duernten, Switzerland, software version 3.3.1) was used to conduct the LCI tests, every 6 months on stable children.

RESULTS

Forty-two cooperating children were enrolled (mean age at LCI tests: 5.4 years, range: 2.7-8.7): 26 (62%) had CF, 8 (19%) were CFSPID > CF for positive SC, while 8 (19%) kept the CFSPID label at last LCI test. The mean LCI value for patients with CF (7.39; 5.98-10.24) was statistically higher compared to both the mean LCI in the CFSPID > CF (6.62; 5.69-7.58) and in CFSPID (6.56; 5.64-7.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Most of asymptomatic CFSPID or progressed to CF have normal LCI. Further data on the longitudinal course of LCI during follow up of CFSPID and on larger cohorts is needed.

Association of lung clearance index with survival in individuals with cystic fibrosis

BACKGROUND

The lung clearance index (LCI) assesses global ventilation inhomogeneity and is a sensitive biomarker of airway function in cystic fibrosis (CF) lung disease.

OBJECTIVES

We examined the association of LCI with the risk of death or lung transplantation (LTX) in individuals with CF.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis in a cohort of individuals with CF aged≥5 years with LCI and FEV₁ measurements performed between 1980 and 2006. The outcome was time until death or LTX. We used the earliest available LCI and FEV₁ values in a Cox proportional hazard regression adjusted for demographic and clinical variables. For sensitivity analyses, we used the mean of the first three LCI and FEV₁ measurements, stratified the cohort based on age, and investigated individuals with normal FEV₁.

RESULTS

In total, 237 individuals with CF with a mean (range) age of 13.9 (5.6-41.0) years were included. The time-to-event analysis accrued 3813 person-years and 94 (40%) individuals died or received LTX. Crude hazard ratios [95% CI] were 1.04 [1.01-1.06] per one z-score increase in LCI and 1.25 [1.11-1.41] per one z-score decrease in FEV₁. After adjusting LCI and FEV₁ mutually in addition to sex, age, BMI and the number of hospitalisations, hazard ratios were 1.04 [1.01-1.07] for LCI, and 1.12 [0.95-1.33] for FEV₁. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results and using the mean LCI strengthened the associations.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased ventilation inhomogeneity is associated with greater risk of death or LTX. Our data support LCI as novel surrogate of survival in individuals with CF.

Addressing the dark matter of gene therapy: technical and ethical barriers to clinical application

Gene therapies for genetic diseases have been sought for decades, and the relatively recent development of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing system has encouraged a new wave of interest in the field. There have nonetheless been significant setbacks to gene therapy, including unintended biological consequences, ethical scandals, and death. The major focus of research has been on technological problems such as delivery, potential immune responses, and both on and off-target effects in an effort to avoid negative clinical outcomes. While the field has concentrated on how we can better achieve gene therapies and gene editing techniques, there has been less focus on when and why we should use such technology. Here we combine discussion of both the technical and ethical barriers to the widespread clinical application of gene therapy and gene editing, providing a resource for gene therapy experts and novices alike. We discuss ethical problems and solutions, using cystic fibrosis and beta-thalassemia as case studies where gene therapy might be suitable, and provide examples of situations where human germline gene editing may be ethically permissible. Using such examples, we propose criteria to guide researchers and clinicians in deciding whether or not to pursue gene therapy as a treatment. Finally, we summarize how current progress in the field adheres to principles of biomedical ethics and highlight how this approach might fall short of ethical rigour using examples in the bioethics literature. Ultimately by addressing both the technical and ethical aspects of gene therapy and editing, new frameworks can be developed for the fair application of these potentially life-saving treatments.