Protease-anti-protease compartmentalization in SARS-CoV-2 ARDS: Therapeutic implications

Background Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is elevated in SARS-CoV-2 infection. IL-6 regulates acute-phase proteins, such as alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT), a key lung anti-protease. We investigated the protease-anti-protease balance in the circulation and pulmonary compartments in SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) compared to non-SARS-CoV-2 ARDS (nsARDS) and the effects of tocilizumab (IL-6 receptor antagonist) on anti-protease defence in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods Levels and activity of AAT and neutrophil elastase (NE) were measured in plasma, airway tissue and tracheal secretions (TA) of people with SARS-CoV-2 ARDS or nsARDS. AAT and IL-6 levels were evaluated in people with moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection who received standard of care +/- tocilizumab. Findings AAT plasma levels doubled in SARS-CoV-2 ARDS. In lung parenchyma AAT levels were increased, as was the percentage of neutrophils involved in NET formation. A protease-anti-protease imbalance was detected in TA with active NE and no active AAT. The airway anti-protease, secretory leukoprotease inhibitor was decreased in SARS-CoV-2-infected lungs and cleaved in TA. In nsARDS, plasma AAT levels were elevated but TA samples had less AAT cleavage, with no detectable active NE in most samples. Induction of AAT in ARDS occurred mainly through IL-6. Tocilizumab down-regulated AAT during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Interpretation There is a protease-anti-protease imbalance in the airways of SARS-CoV-2-ARDS patients. This imbalance is a target for anti-protease therapy. Funding NIH Serological Sciences Network, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

Assessment of stability and fluctuations of cultured lower airway bacterial communities in people with cystic fibrosis

Background: Routine clinical culture detects a subset of the cystic fibrosis (CF) airways microbiota based on culture-independent (molecular) methods. This study aimed to determine how extended sputum culture of viable bacteria changes over time in relation to clinical status and predicts exacerbations. Methods: Sputa from patients at a baseline stable and up to three subsequent time-points were analysed by extended-quantitative culture; aerobe/anaerobe densities, ecological indexes and community structure were assessed together with clinical outcomes. Results: Eighty patients were prospectively recruited. Sputa were successfully collected and cultured at 199/267 (74.5%) study visits. Eighty-two sputa from 25 patients comprised a complete sample-set for longitudinal analyses. Bacterial density, ecological indexes and clinical outcomes were unchanged in 18 patients with three sequential stable visits. Conversely, in 7 patients who had an exacerbation, total bacterial and aerobe densities differed over four study visits (P < .001) with this difference particularly apparent between the baseline visit and completion of acute antibiotic treatment where a decrease in density was observed. Bacterial communities were more similar within than between patients but stable patients had the least variation in community structure over time. Using logistic regression in a further analysis, baseline features in 37 patients without compared to 15 patients with a subsequent exacerbation showed that clinical measures rather than bacterial density or ecological indexes were independent predictors of an exacerbation. Conclusions: Greater fluctuation in the viable bacterial community during treatment of an exacerbation than between stable visits was observed. Extended-quantitative culture did not provide prognostic information of a future exacerbation

Anaerobic bacteria cultured from cystic fibrosis airways correlate to milder disease: A multisite study

Anaerobic and aerobic bacteria were quantitated in respiratory samples across three cystic fibrosis (CF) centres using extended culture methods. Subjects aged 1–69 years who were clinically stable provided sputum (n=200) or bronchoalveolar lavage (n=55). 18 anaerobic and 39 aerobic genera were cultured from 59% and 95% of samples, respectively; 16 out of 57 genera had a 5% prevalence across centres. Analyses of microbial communities using co-occurrence networks in sputum samples showed groupings of oral, including anaerobic, bacteria, whereas typical CF pathogens formed distinct entities. Pseudomonas was associated with worse nutrition and F508del genotype, whereas anaerobe prevalence was positively associated with pancreatic sufficiency, better nutrition and better lung function. A higher total anaerobe/ total aerobe CFU ratio was associated with pancreatic sufficiency and better nutrition. Subjects grouped by factor analysis who had relative dominance of anaerobes over aerobes had milder disease compared with a Pseudomonas-dominated group with similar proportions of subjects that were homozygous for F508del. In summary, anaerobic bacteria occurred at an early age. In sputum-producing subjects anaerobic bacteria were associated with milder disease, suggesting that targeted eradication of anaerobes may not be warranted in sputum-producing CF subjects

Safety and efficacy of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor in adults with cystic fibrosis: randomised, double-blind, controlled, phase 2 trials

Background Elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor has been shown to be safe and efficacious in people with cystic fibrosis and at least one F508del allele. Our aim was to identify a novel cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator combination capable of further increasing CFTR-mediated chloride transport, with the potential for once-daily dosing. Methods We conducted two phase 2 clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy of a once-daily combination of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor in participants with cystic fibrosis who were aged 18 years or older. A phase 2 randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study (VX18-561-101; April 17, 2019, to Aug 20, 2020) was carried out to compare deutivacaftor monotherapy with ivacaftor monotherapy in participants with CFTR gating mutations, following a 4-week ivacaftor monotherapy run-in period. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either ivacaftor 150 mg every 12 h, deutivacaftor 25 mg once daily, deutivacaftor 50 mg once daily, deutivacaftor 150 mg once daily, or deutivacaftor 250 mg once daily in a 1:1:2:2:2 ratio. The primary endpoint was absolute change in ppFEV1 from baseline at week 12. A phase 2 randomised, double-blind, controlled, proof-of-concept study of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (VX18-121-101; April 30, 2019, to Dec 10, 2019) was conducted in participants with cystic fibrosis and heterozygous for F508del and a minimal function mutation (F/MF genotypes) or homozygous for F508del (F/F genotype). Participants with F/MF genotypes were randomly assigned 1:2:2:1 to receive either 5 mg, 10 mg, or 20 mg of vanzacaftor in combination with tezacaftor–deutivacaftor or a triple placebo for 4 weeks, and participants with the F/F genotype were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either vanzacaftor (20 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor or tezacaftor–ivacaftor active control for 4 weeks, following a 4-week tezacaftor–ivacaftor run-in period. Primary endpoints for part 1 and part 2 were safety and tolerability and absolute change in ppFEV1 from baseline to day 29. Secondary efficacy endpoints were absolute change from baseline at day 29 in sweat chloride concentrations and Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) respiratory domain score. These clinical trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03911713 and NCT03912233, and are complete. Findings In study VX18-561-101, participants treated with deutivacaftor 150 mg once daily (n=23) or deutivacaftor 250 mg once daily (n=24) had mean absolute changes in ppFEV1 of 3·1 percentage points (95% CI –0·8 to 7·0) and 2·7 percentage points (–1·0 to 6·5) from baseline at week 12, respectively, versus –0·8 percentage points (–6·2 to 4·7) with ivacaftor 150 mg every 12 h (n=11); the deutivacaftor safety profile was consistent with the established safety profile of ivacaftor 150 mg every 12 h. In study VX18-121-101, participants with F/MF genotypes treated with vanzacaftor (5 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=9), vanzacaftor (10 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=19), vanzacaftor (20 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=20), and placebo (n=10) had mean changes relative to baseline at day 29 in ppFEV1 of 4·6 percentage points (−1·3 to 10·6), 14·2 percentage points (10·0 to 18·4), 9·8 percentage points (5·7 to 13·8), and 1·9 percentage points (−4·1 to 8·0), respectively, in sweat chloride concentration of −42·8 mmol/L (–51·7 to –34·0), −45·8 mmol/L (95% CI –51·9 to –39·7), −49·5 mmol/L (–55·9 to –43·1), and 2·3 mmol/L (−7·0 to 11·6), respectively, and in CFQ-R respiratory domain score of 17·6 points (3·5 to 31·6), 21·2 points (11·9 to 30·6), 29·8 points (21·0 to 38·7), and 3·3 points (−10·1 to 16·6), respectively. Participants with the F/F genotype treated with vanzacaftor (20 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=18) and tezacaftor–ivacaftor (n=10) had mean changes relative to baseline (taking tezacaftor–ivacaftor) at day 29 in ppFEV1 of 15·9 percentage points (11·3 to 20·6) and −0·1 percentage points (−6·4 to 6·1), respectively, in sweat chloride concentration of −45·5 mmol/L (−49·7 to −41·3) and −2·6 mmol/L (−8·2 to 3·1), respectively, and in CFQ-R respiratory domain score of 19·4 points (95% CI 10·5 to 28·3) and −5·0 points (−16·9 to 7·0), respectively. The most common adverse events overall were cough, increased sputum, and headache. One participant in the vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor group had a serious adverse event of infective pulmonary exacerbation and another participant had a serious rash event that led to treatment discontinuation. For most participants, adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Interpretation Once-daily dosing with vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor was safe and well tolerated and improved lung function, respiratory symptoms, and CFTR function. These results support the continued investigation of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor in phase 3 clinical trials compared with elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor. Funding Vertex Pharmaceuticals