Differential effects of ELX/TEZ/IVA on organ-specific CFTR function in two patients with the rare CFTR splice mutations c.273+1G>A and c.165-2A>G

Introduction: Evidence for the efficiency of highly-effective triple-CFTR-modulatory therapy with elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (ETI), either demonstrated in clinical trials or by in vitro testing, is lacking for about 10% of people with cystic fibrosis (pwCF) with rare mutations. Comprehensive assessment of CFTR function can provide critical information on the impact of ETI on CFTR function gains for such rare mutations, lending argument of the prescription of ETI. The mutation c.165-2A>G is a rare acceptor splice mutation that has not yet been functionally characterized. We here describe the functional changes induced by ETI in two brothers who are compound heterozygous for the splice mutations c.273+1G>C and c.165-2A>G.Methods: We assessed the effects of ETI on CFTR function by quantitative pilocarpine iontophoresis (QPIT), nasal potential difference measurements (nPD), intestinal current measurements (ICM), β-adrenergic sweat secretion tests (SST) and multiple breath washout (MBW) prior to and 4 months after the initiation of ETI.Results: Functional CFTR analysis prior to ETI showed no CFTR function in the respiratory and intestinal epithelia and in the sweat gland reabsorptive duct in either brother. In contrast, β-adrenergic stimulated, CFTR-mediated sweat secretion was detectable in the CF range. Under ETI, both brothers continued to exhibit high sweat chloride concentration in QPIT, evidence of low residual CFTR function in the respiratory epithelia, but normalized β-adrenergically stimulated production of primary sweat.Discussion: Our results are the first to demonstrate that the c.165-2A>G/c.273+1G>C mutation genotype permits mutant CFTR protein expression. We showed organ-specific differences in the expression of CFTR and consecutive responses to ETI of the c.165-2A>G/c.273+1G>C CFTR mutants that are probably accomplished by non-canonical CFTR mRNA isoforms. This showcase tells us that the individual response of rare CFTR mutations to highly-effective CFTR modulation cannot be predicted from assays in standard cell cultures, but requires the personalized multi-organ assessment by CFTR biomarkers

BETTER HEALTH: Durham -- protocol for a cluster randomized trial of BETTER in community and public health settings

Abstract Background The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (BETTER) cluster randomized trial in primary care settings demonstrated a 30% improvement in adherence to evidence-based Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (CDPS) activities. CDPS activities included healthy activities, lifestyle modifications, and screening tests. We present a protocol for the adaptation of BETTER to a public health setting, and testing the adaptation in a cluster randomized trial (BETTER HEALTH: Durham) among low income neighbourhoods in Durham Region, Ontario (Canada). Methods The BETTER intervention consists of a personalized prevention visit between a participant and a prevention practitioner, which is focused on the participant’s eligible CDPS activities, and uses Brief Action Planning, to empower the participant to set achievable short-term goals. BETTER HEALTH: Durham aims to establish that the BETTER intervention can be adapted and proven effective among 40–64 year old residents of low income areas when provided in the community by public health nurses trained as prevention practitioners. Focus groups and key informant interviews among stakeholders and eligible residents of low income areas will inform the adaptation, along with feedback from the trial’s Community Advisory Committee. We have created a sampling frame of 16 clusters composed of census dissemination areas in the lowest urban quintile of median household income, and will sample 10 clusters to be randomly allocated to immediate intervention or six month wait list control. Accounting for the clustered design effect, the trial will have 80% power to detect an absolute 30% difference in the primary outcome, a composite score of completed eligible CDPS actions six months after enrollment. The prevention practitioner will attempt to link participants without a primary care provider (PCP) to a local PCP. The implementation of BETTER HEALTH: Durham will be evaluated by focus groups and key informant interviews. Discussion The effectiveness of BETTER HEALTH: Durham will be tested for delivery in low income neighbourhoods by a public health department. Trial Registration: NCT03052959, registered February 10, 2017