Assessment of Lentiviral Vector Mediated CFTR Correction in Mice Using an Improved Rapid in vivo Nasal Potential Difference Measurement Protocol

Lentiviral vector gene therapy and CFTR modulators show comparable effectiveness in cystic fibrosis rat airway models

Mutation-agnostic treatments such as airway gene therapy have the potential to treat any individual with cystic fibrosis (CF), irrespective of their CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene variants. The aim of this study was to employ two CF rat models, Phe508del and CFTR knockout (KO), to assess the comparative effectiveness of CFTR modulators and lentiviral (LV) vector-mediated gene therapy. Cells were isolated from the tracheas of rats and used to establish air-liquid interface (ALI) cultures. Phe508del rat ALIs were treated with the modulator combination, elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor (ETI), and separate groups of Phe508del and KO tracheal epithelial cells were treated with LV-CFTR followed by differentiation at ALI. Ussing chamber measurements were performed to assess CFTR function. ETI-treated Phe508del ALI cultures demonstrated CFTR function that was 59% of wild-type level, while gene-addition therapy restored Phe508del to 68% and KO to 47% of wild-type level, respectively. Our findings show that rat Phe508del-CFTR protein can be successfully rescued with ETI treatment, and that CFTR gene-addition therapy provides significant CFTR correction in Phe508del and KO ALI cultures to levels that were comparable to ETI. These findings highlight the potential of an LV vector-based gene therapy for the treatment of CF lung disease.

A systematic review of animal and human data comparing the nasal potential difference test between cystic fibrosis and control

The nasal potential difference test (nPD) is an electrophysiological measurement which is altered in patients and animal models with cystic fibrosis (CF). Because protocols and outcomes vary substantially between laboratories, there are concerns over its validity and precision. We performed a systematic literature review (SR) of the nPD to answer the following review questions: A. Is the nasal potential difference similarly affected in CF patients and animal models?", and B. "Is the nPD in human patients and animal models of CF similarly affected by various changes in the experimental set-up?". The review protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42021236047). We searched PubMed and Embase with comprehensive search strings. Two independent reviewers screened all references for inclusion and extracted all data. Included were studies about CF which described in vivo nPD measurements in separate CF and control groups. Risk of bias was assessed, and three meta-analyses were performed. We included 130 references describing nPD values for CF and control subjects, which confirmed substantial variation in the experimental design and nPD outcome between groups. The meta-analyses showed a clear difference in baseline nPD values between CF and control subjects, both in animals and in humans. However, baseline nPD values were, on average, lower in animal than in human studies. Reporting of experimental details was poor for both animal and human studies, and urgently needs to improve to ensure reproducibility of experiments within and between species.

A Systematic Review of the Effect of Cystic Fibrosis Treatments on the Nasal Potential Difference Test in Animals and Humans

To address unmet treatment needs in cystic fibrosis (CF), preclinical and clinical studies are warranted. Because it directly reflects the function of the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane conductance Regulator (CFTR), the nasal potential difference test (nPD) can not only be used as a reliable diagnostic test for CF but also to assess efficacy of experimental treatments. We performed a full comprehensive systematic review of the effect of CF treatments on the nPD compared to control conditions tested in separate groups of animal and human subjects. Our review followed a preregistered protocol. We included 34 references: 20 describing mouse studies, 12 describing human studies, and 2 describing both. We provide a comprehensive list of these studies, which assessed the effects of antibiotics, bone marrow transplant, CFTR protein, CFTR RNA, directly and indirectly CFTR-targeting drugs, non-viral and viral gene transfer, and other treatments. Our results support the nPD representing a reliable method for testing treatment effects in both animal models and human patients, as well as for diagnosing CF. However, we also observed the need for improved reporting to ensure reproducibility of the experiments and quantitative comparability of the results within and between species (e.g., with meta-analyses). Currently, data gaps warrant further primary studies.

Effective viral-mediated lung gene therapy: is airway surface preparation necessary?

Gene-based therapeutics are actively being pursued for the treatment of lung diseases. While promising advances have been made over the last decades, the absence of clinically available lung-directed genetic therapies highlights the difficulties associated with this effort. Largely, progress has been hindered by the presence of inherent physical and physiological airway barriers that significantly reduce the efficacy of gene transfer. These barriers include surface mucus, mucociliary action, cell-to-cell tight junctions, and the basolateral cell membrane location of viral receptors for many commonly used gene vectors. Accordingly, airway surface preparation methods have been developed to disrupt these barriers, creating a more conducive environment for gene uptake into the target airway cells. The two major approaches have been chemical and physical methods. Both have proven effective for increasing viral-mediated gene transfer pre-clinically, although with variable effect depending on the specific strategy employed. While such methods have been explored extensively in experimental settings, they have not been used clinically. This review covers the airway surface preparation strategies reported in the literature, the advantages and disadvantages of each method, as well as a discussion about applying this concept in the clinic.