Search

RNA abundance quantification has become routine and affordable thanks to high-throughput "short-read" technologies that provide accurate molecule counts at the gene level. Similarly accurate and affordable quantification of definitive full-length, transcript isoforms has remained a stubborn challenge, despite its obvious biological significance across a wide range of problems. "Long-read" sequencing platforms now produce data-types that can, in principle, drive routine definitive isoform quantification. However some particulars of contemporary long-read datatypes, together with isoform complexity and genetic variation, present bioinformatic challenges. We show here, using ONT data, that fast and accurate quantification of long-read data is possible and that it is improved by exome capture. To perform quantifications we developed lr-kallisto, which adapts the kallisto bulk and single-cell RNA-seq quantification methods for long-read technologies.

Background: Bacteriophage (phage) therapy is a promising alternative antimicrobial approach that has the potential to transform the way we treat bacterial infections. The antibiotic resistance crisis is driving renewed interest in phage therapy. There are currently no licensed phage therapy medicinal products and phage therapy is used in small but growing patient numbers on an unlicensed basis., Objectives: This article provides guidelines on the assessment of patient suitability for unlicensed phage therapy for clinicians in the United Kingdom., Sources: This article builds on Health Improvement Scotland's recommendation for the consideration of phage therapy in difficult-to-treat infections and the experience of the author group, who have collectively assessed the suitability of 30 patients for phage therapy., Content: In the United Kingdom, unlicenced medicines, including phages, may be considered to meet special clinical needs. The use of unlicenced medicines is governed by national legislation and local National Health Service trust policies. Phages can be used in any National Health Service trust and decisions about suitability should be made through existing local clinical management pathways. This article sets out guidelines to support local clinical teams in the assessment of patient suitability for phage therapy. Clinical and microbiological considerations are presented, including allergy and pregnancy., Implications: The assessment of patient suitability for phage therapy is within the scope of local clinical teams. Local assessment through existing clinical management pathways will develop confidence and competence in phage therapy among clinical teams nationally and ensure timely patient care., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

As the number of surgical procedures performed the world over continues to increase, so does the number of anesthetic procedures needed for those surgeries to occur. While much thought and research has been focused on the perspective of the anesthesiologist, little has been explored from the perspective of the patient receiving anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to explore the general public's opinions and experiences of general anesthesia, as well as any change in their perception after having undergone a procedure requiring it. We decided that further inquiry into the subject was warranted, and we decided to run an online Qualtrics survey in order to make that inquiry. The key takeaway from our online anonymous survey shows that there is a significant amount of anxiety related to anesthesia, but that most people specify a large decrease in said anxiety after having undergone the procedure. Noticeably, people were made more comfortable by discussing anesthesia with people who had lived through the experience, and people believed they would be significantly comforted by the presence of therapy animals prior to beginning their procedures. We hope that our exploratory research will promote future research into this topic in order to improve the healthcare outcomes of a significant number of patients. We believe that this data has opened up many potential avenues for further exploration and research, as well as potentially being able to guide surgical practice., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Usman et al.)

The COVID-19 pandemic brought immense attention to the healthcare system and its workers. While much research has been completed about the effects of COVID-19 on the healthcare system, little exists about how the opinions of patients have been altered by this pandemic. We decided to further investigate how the public opinion of healthcare workers (HCWs) has changed to better understand how best we can serve society. The key takeaway from the data was that both the levels of perceived trustworthiness and respectability of healthcare workers decreased following the pandemic. Data showed that the level of perceived respectability decreased from an average of 7.84 to 7.30 and the level of perceived trustworthiness from 7.38 to 6.54, all of these values out of 10. While these changes were not enormous, they demonstrate a striking trend and were found to be significant through a paired t-test. Finally, respondents were also queried about their level of desire in pursuing healthcare as a career field and overwhelmingly there was little interest, with an average level of 1.24 out of 10. We believe our data and results show important trends that all HCWs should be aware of; notably decreasing interest in the field, reduced trust, and decrease in respect, all of which will require further study and analysis. We must consider the current environment in which small mistakes or mistrust can have grave consequences on public health and patient compliance. In addition, the lack of interest in joining the medical community is concerning considering the large efflux of workers leaving the profession. Future studies could focus on how to increase trust in HCWs or attract more people to the healthcare field., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2023, Stolzenberg et al.)

Background: A series of phase 3 clinical trials have demonstrated that elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor (ELX/TEZ/IVA) is safe and efficacious in people with cystic fibrosis (pwCF) aged ≥12 years with ≥1 F508del mutation in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene. The impact of this treatment on lifetime clinical outcomes and survival, however, has yet to be assessed., Methods: We used a person-level microsimulation model to estimate the survival and lifetime clinical benefits of ELX/TEZ/IVA treatment versus other CFTR modulator combinations (tezacaftor plus ivacaftor [TEZ/IVA] or lumacaftor plus ivacaftor [LUM/IVA]) or best supportive care (BSC) alone in pwCF aged ≥12 years who are homozygous for F508del-CFTR. Disease progression inputs were derived from published literature; clinical efficacy inputs were derived from an indirect treatment comparison conducted using relevant phase 3 clinical trial data and extrapolations of clinical data., Results: The median projected survival for pwCF homozygous for F508del-CFTR treated with ELX/TEZ/IVA was 71.6 years. This was an increase of 23.2 years versus TEZ/IVA, 26.2 years versus LUM/IVA, and 33.5 years versus BSC alone. Treatment with ELX/TEZ/IVA also reduced disease severity as well as the number of pulmonary exacerbations and lung transplants. In a scenario analysis, the median projected survival for pwCF initiating ELX/TEZ/IVA between the ages of 12 and 17 years was 82.5 years, an increase of 45.4 years compared with BSC alone., Conclusions: The results from our model suggest ELX/TEZ/IVA treatment may substantially increase survival for pwCF, with early initiation potentially allowing pwCF to achieve near-normal life expectancy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Andrea Lopez, Conor Daly, Gabriela Vega-Hernandez, and Jaime L. Ru- bin are employees of Vertex Pharmaceuticals and might own stock or stock options in the company. Gordon MacGre- gor has no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: NRCC reports personal fees from Resolve to Save Lives (RTSL), the Pan American Health Organization, and the World Bank, outside the submitted work; and is an unpaid member of World Action on Salt, Sugar and Health and an unpaid consultant on dietary sodium and hypertension control to numerous governmental and non-governmental organizations. Dr Campbell chaired the International Consortium for Quality Research on Dietary Sodium/Salt (TRUE) which is an unpaid voluntary position. Dr Campbell was on the Medical Advisory Board of Switch Health (2022–2023) and was a one-time reviewer of a joint Novartis Canada Alberta Health Services collaborative project to treat dyslipidemia. All the honoraria from Switch Health and Novartis Canada have been donated to the University of Calgary to support a community cardiovascular disease prevention recognition award. FJH is an unpaid member of Action on Salt, and World Action on Salt, Sugar and Health (WASSH). GAM is the unpaid Chair of Action on Salt, Action on Sugar, WASSH, and Blood Pressure UK.

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 ppFEV 1 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 ppFEV 1 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 ppFEV 1 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 ppFEV 1 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 ppFEV 1 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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AZU received grants from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the CFF-Therapeutic Development Network for the present work; received payment or honoraria from Vertex Pharmaceuticals for presentations at CF Centers in UK; and participated in advisory boards for Vertex and Eloxx. VI received grant support from CF TDN for the present work; consulting fees from Mylan for CF—TOBI podhaler advisory board; and grant support from CFF for meeting attendance. PA received support from Vertex Pharmaceuticals for lectures, presentations, and materials; meeting attendance; and participation on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards. MAM received payment from Vertex for the current work and personal fees for serving on an advisory board; grants from Vertex and from the German Ministry for Education and Research; consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Santhera, Sterna Biologicals, Enterprise Therapeutics, Antabio, and Abbvie; lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals; travel reimbursement from Boehringer Ingelheim and Vertex Pharmaceuticals; personal fees for participation in an advisory board from Boehringer Ingelheim, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Santhera, Enterprise Therapeutics, Antabio, Kither Biotech, Abbvie, and Pari; and serves as an ECFS Board member. EFM received grants and other payments or honoraria from Vertex; and support for meetings or travel from Menarini. BWR received payments from Vertex for the present work, and payments for a presentation in Vancouver, BC, Canada in 2019; and participated on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for CF Storm Clinical Trial, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Abbvie, and Insmed. SMR received support for a clinical trial; consulting fees on the design and conduct of clinical trials; support for meeting attendance and for his role as Co-Chair of the Next Generation Steering Committee; received grants or contracts from Novartis, TranslateBio, Galapagos–Abbvie, Synedgen–Synspira, Eloxx, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Ionis Astra Zenica; consulting fees from Novartis, Galapagos–Abbvie, Synedgen–Synspira, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Renovion, Ionis, Cystetic Medicines, and Arcturus; support for meeting attendance from Vertex; has patents planned, issued or pending; serves as a Co-Chair of the Next Generation Steering Committee; and owns stock or stock options with Synedgen–Synspira and Renovion. RCR received clinical trial support and consulting fees from Vertex for the present work; grants from CFF, NIDDK, NHLBI, NICHD, and NIDCD; received consulting fees from Guidepoint Global, Gerson Lehrman Group, and Cystic Fibrosis Foundation; participated on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for NHLBI DSMB. JLT-C received personal consulting fees from Vertex for the present work; received grants from Vertex, Eloxx, and 4DMT for the conduct of a research trial; personal fees from Vertex, Insmed, and 4DMT for trial design consulting; personal fees from Vertex for non-branded speaking; and personal fees from AbbVie for her role as DMC Chair; served as the adult patient care representative to the CFF Board of Trustees, on the CF Foundation's Clinical Research Executive Committee, Clinical Research Advisory Board, and Racial Justice Working Group; as immediate past chair of the CF TDN's Sexual Health, Reproduction and Gender Research Working Group; on the scientific advisory board for Emily's Entourage; on the ATS Respiratory Health Awards Working Group; on the ATS Scientific Grant Review and Clinical Problems Assembly Programming Committees; and served as an associate editor for the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis. ET received payment for the present work and grants for doing clinical trials from Vertex Pharmaceuticals; received payment and reimbursement from Vertex for her role on a steering committee and for presentations at educational events. JB received funding from Vertex Pharmaceuticals for the present work. AH received funding from Vertex Pharmaceuticals for the present work; grant support from NIHR, CF Trust, CF Foundation, and Medical Research Council; payments for educational lectures from Vertex Pharmaceuticals and for an advisory board from Mylan; medical writing support from Vertex; served as Chair of the UK CF Clinical Trials Accelerator Platform and as a board member of the UK CF Medical Association. LMY received salary support from mgH TDN for clinical research activity for the present work. DW has patents planned, issued or pending. DW, LTW, CC, APM, NN, PRS, ST, FVG, and YX are Vertex employees and might own stocks or stock options. GM and CK have nothing to disclose. LV was a clinical pharmacology lead at Vertex during the conduct of this study and conducted PK data analysis for the present study., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Cystic fibrosis is a devastating life-limiting genetic condition characterised by a progressive decline in lung function, respiratory infections and premature death. Tezacaftor-ivacaftor is a combined cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator that targets the underlying cause of the disease. This study aimed to assess the impact of tezacaftor-ivacaftor use in routine clinical practice for adults with cystic fibrosis., Methods: A retrospective observational longitudinal cohort study design was applied to examine the clinical effect of tezacaftor-ivacaftor in routine practice in the West of Scotland Adult Cystic Fibrosis Unit. Adults receiving tezacaftor-ivacaftor for at least 4 weeks were included in this medicine use evaluation.A standardised data form was used to collect patient-level data: demographics, genotype, complications of cystic fibrosis, medicine access process. Fifty-two weeks pre and post tezacaftor-ivacaftor initiation data: lung function, body mass index (BMI), days spent in hospital, days receiving antibiotic treatment for respiratory exacerbations. Anonymised data were collated and analysed using SPSS V.26., Results: Of 121 potential patients, 45 received treatment with tezacaftor-ivacaftor; median age 30 years (range 17-64) at initiation, 56% were male, 76% were deemed to be homozygote and 41 patients continued treatment for at least 52 weeks. There was no significant change in % predicted FEV 1 ; median difference 0 (IQR -3 to 6). There was a significant improvement in BMI, mean 0.6 kg/m 2 (95% CI 0.2 to 1.0), as well as a median 4 (IQR -17 to 0) day reduction in days in hospital and 21 (IQR -42 to 0) day reduction in days receiving antibiotics., Conclusions: The use of tezacaftor-ivacaftor in routine practice for people with cystic fibrosis was associated with improvements in weight, as well as reducing the number of days people needed to spend in hospital and receive antibiotics., Competing Interests: Competing interests: IP has received payment as an external speaker at a Vertex sponsored scientific event. CJ has no competing interests. GM has been the principal and chief investigator on a variety of Vertex studies, and has received funding from Vertex for investigator-led trials, attended advisory boards and received unrestricted educational grants on behalf of the Scottish Cystic Fibrosis Group., (© European Association of Hospital Pharmacists 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Ivacaftor has shown to be effective in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) with a G551D mutation., Objectives: This work aims to evaluate ivacaftor's effectiveness and safety in the real world, over 5 years, in the West of Scotland CF population., Methods: We evaluated ivacaftor's effect on pulmonary function, body mass index (BMI), hospital bed occupancy, and adverse effects in patients ≥6 years with at least one G551D mutation., Results: Statistically significant increases from baseline were observed in mean per cent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) at year 1 (which was maintained at years 2 and 5) and BMI over 5 years in our adolescent/adult cohort. Improvements were observed in per cent predicted FEV 1 within the paediatric cohort with a suggestion of a plateau effect. The increase in paediatric BMI z-score was nonstatistically significant. There was a reduction in the number of pulmonary exacerbations requiring intravenous antibiotics and hospital bed occupancy. Ivacaftor was well tolerated., Conclusion: Ivacaftor was effective in our population., (© 2023 The Authors. The Clinical Respiratory Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In the Republic of Ireland (ROI), BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic testing has been traditionally undertaken in eligible individuals, after pre-test counselling by a Clinical Geneticist/Genetic Counsellor. Clinical Genetics services in ROI are poorly resourced, with routine waiting times for appointments at the time of this pilot often extending beyond a year. The consequent prolonged waiting times are unacceptable where therapeutic decision-making depends on the patient's BRCA status. "Mainstreaming" BRCA1/BRCA2 testing through routine oncology/surgical clinics has been implemented successfully in other centres in the UK and internationally. We aimed to pilot this pathway in three Irish tertiary centres. A service evaluation project was undertaken over a 6-month period between January and July 2017. Eligible patients, fulfilling pathology and age-based inclusion criteria defined by TGL clinical, were identified, and offered constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 testing after pre-test counselling by treating clinicians. Tests were undertaken by TGL Clinical. Results were returned to clinicians by secure email. Onward referrals of patients with uncertain/pathogenic results, or suspicious family histories, to Clinical Genetics were made by the treating team. Surveys assessing patient and clinician satisfaction were sent to participating clinicians and a sample of participating patients. Data was collected with respect to diagnostic yield, turnaround time, onward referral rates, and patient and clinician feedback. A total of 101  patients underwent diagnostic germline BRCA1/BRCA2 tests through this pathway. Pathogenic variants were identified in 12 patients (12%). All patients in whom variants were identified were appropriately referred to Clinical Genetics. At least 12 additional patients with uninformative BRCA1/BRCA2 tests were also referred for formal assessment by Clinical Geneticist or Genetic Counsellor. Issues were noted in terms of time pressures and communication of results to patients. Results from a representative sample of participants completing the satisfaction survey indicated that the pathway was acceptable to patients and clinicians. Mainstreaming of constitutional BRCA1/BRCA2 testing guided by age- and pathology-based criteria is potentially feasible for patients with breast cancer as well as patients with ovarian cancer in Ireland., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist medications have become the mainstay of acute and chronic migraine management in the outpatient setting and look to become more widely utilized by clinicians once the medications become available in generic form. However, their role in practice has remained limited to the treatment of migraines despite the ubiquitous presence of the molecule throughout the body. The literature surrounding expansion of the utility of these medications is limited; however, there have been several promising publications, and further studies are in the process to quantify their utility in the treatment of other pain-related disorders. This is a qualitative review of the current literature surrounding CGRP, particularly in relation to the treatment of non-migraine pain conditions, and looks to suggest potential utility in the field of chronic pain., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2023, Cooper et al.)

Introduction: In China, salt intake is among the highest in the world (~11 g/day) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) accounts for 40% of deaths. We estimated the potential impact of reducing salt intake on CVD events in China, via systolic blood pressure (SBP)., Methods: To develop our model, we extracted the effect of salt reduction on SBP from a meta-regression of randomised trials and a population study, and that of SBP on CVD risk from pooled cohort studies., Results: Reducing population salt intake in China by 1 g/day could lower the risk for ischaemic heart disease by about 4% (95% uncertainty interval 1.8%-7.7%) and the risk for stroke by about 6% (2.4%-9.3%). Should this reduced salt level be sustained until 2030,~9 million (M) (7M-10.8M) CVD events could be prevented, of which ~4M (3.1M-4.9M) would have been fatal. Greater and gradual salt intake reductions, to achieve WHO's target of 30% reduction by 2025 or the Chinese government's target of ≤5 g/day by 2030, could prevent ~1.5 or 2 times more CVD events and deaths, respectively. Should the prolonged effect of salt reduction over several years be accounted for, all estimates of CVD events and deaths prevented would be 25% greater on average., Conclusion: Bringing down the high salt intake levels in China could result in large reductions in CVD. An easily achievable reduction of 1 g/day could prevent ~9M CVD events by 2030. Urgent action must be taken to reduce salt intake in China., Competing Interests: Competing interests: FH is a member of the Consensus Action on Salt & Health group, a non-profit charitable organisation, and its international branch, World Action on Salt & Health, and does not receive any financial support from the Consensus Action on Salt & Health or World Action on Salt & Health. GM is the Chairman of Blood Pressure UK, Chairman of the Consensus Action on Salt & Health, and Chairman of World Action on Salt & Health and does not receive any financial support from any of these organisations. Blood Pressure UK, the Consensus Action on Salt & Health, and World Action on Salt & Health are non-profit charitable organisations. MT and JKM declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor is a triple-combination cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator regimen shown to be generally safe and efficacious in people with cystic fibrosis aged 12 years or older with at least one F508del-CFTR allele. We aimed to assess the magnitude and durability of the clinical effects of this triple combination regimen in people with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation., Methods: We conducted a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3b trial of elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor at 35 medical centres in Australia, Belgium, Germany, and the UK. Eligible participants were those with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation, aged 12 years or older with stable disease, and with a percent predicted FEV 1 of 40-90% inclusive. After a 4-week run-in period, in which participants received tezacaftor 100 mg orally once daily and ivacaftor 150 mg orally every 12 h, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 24 weeks of either elexacaftor 200 mg orally once daily plus tezacaftor 100 mg orally once daily plus ivacaftor 150 mg orally every 12 h (elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group) or tezacaftor 100 mg orally once daily plus ivacaftor 150 mg orally every 12 h (tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group). Randomisation was stratified by percent predicted FEV 1 , age at screening visit, and whether the participant was receiving CFTR modulators at the time of the screening visit. Patients, investigators, and sponsor's study execution team were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the absolute change in Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) respiratory domain score from baseline (ie, at the end of the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor run-in period) up to and including week 24. The key secondary endpoint was the absolute change from baseline in percent predicted FEV 1 up to and including week 24; other secondary endpoints were the absolute change from baseline in sweat chloride concentrations up to and including week 24, and safety and tolerability. All endpoints were assessed in all randomised patients who had received at least one dose of their assigned regimen. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04105972., Findings: Between Oct 3, 2019, and July 24, 2020, 176 participants were enrolled. Following the 4-week tezacaftor plus ivacaftor run-in period, 175 participants were randomly assigned (87 to the elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group and 88 to the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group) and dosed in the treatment period. From baseline up to and including week 24, the mean CFQ-R respiratory domain score increased by 17·1 points (95% CI 14·1 to 20·1) in the elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group and by 1·2 points (-1·7 to 4·2) in the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group (least squares mean treatment difference 15·9 points [95% CI 11·7 to 20·1], p<0·0001), the mean percent predicted FEV 1 increased by 11·2 percentage points (95% CI 9·8 to 12·6) in the elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group and by 1·0 percentage points (-0·4 to 2·4) in the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group (least squares mean treatment difference 10·2 percentage points [8·2 to 12·1], p<0·0001), and the mean sweat chloride concentration decreased by 46·2 mmol/L (95% CI 43·7 to 48·7) in the elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group and by 3·4 mmol/L (1·0 to 5·8) in the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group (least squares mean treatment difference -42·8 mmol/L [-46·2 to -39·3], nominal p<0·0001). Most participants (70 [80%] in the elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group and 74 [84%] in the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group) had adverse events that were mild or moderate in severity; serious adverse events occurred in five (6%) of 87 participants in the elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group and 14 (16%) of 88 participants in the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group. One (1%) participant in the elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group discontinued treatment due to an adverse event of anxiety and depression. Two (2%) participants in the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group discontinued treatment due to adverse events of psychotic disorder (n=1) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (n=1)., Interpretation: The elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor regimen was safe and well tolerated, and led to significant and clinically meaningful improvements in respiratory-related quality of life and lung function, as well as improved CFTR function, changes that were durable over 24 weeks and superior to those seen with tezacaftor plus ivacaftor in this patient population., Funding: Vertex Pharmaceuticals., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SS received personal fees from Proteostasis Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Chiesi, and Teva outside of the submitted work; and grants from Galapagos, Proteostasis Therapeutics, Celtaxsys, Flatley, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Teva, Chiesi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, and Ionis Pharmaceuticals outside of the submitted work. EFM received personal fees and grants from Vertex Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Roche Pharmaceuticals, Insmed, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and other financial support from A Menarini outside of the submitted work. DGD received non-financial support from Vertex Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Proteostasis, and Chiesi; and grants from Chiesi outside of the submitted work. JD received advisory board and speaker fees from Vertex Pharmaceuticals outside of the submitted work. EVB received institutional grants from Vertex Pharmaceuticals for the submitted work; and institutional grants from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Galapagos, and Abbvie for other cystic fibrosis-related trials. MAM received personal fees from Vertex Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study; grants from Vertex Pharmaceuticals; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Santhera, Galapagos, Sterna Biologicals, Enterprise Therapeutics, Kither Biotech, and Antabio outside of the submitted work. ET received grants and non-financial support from Vertex Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study; grants from Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Spyryx, Horizon, Corbus, and Celtaxis; personal fees from Proteostasis and Horizon; and non-financial support from Proteostasis and Spyryx outside of the submitted work. CEW received institutional grants from Vertex Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study; grants from Novo Nordisk outside of the submitted work; and personal fees from Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, DKBmed, Gilead, and In Vivo Academy outside of the submitted work. DWal and SMM have pending patents for methods of treatment for cystic fibrosis, pharmaceutical compositions for treatment of cystic fibrosis, compositions and methods for treatment of cystic fibrosis, and crystalline forms and compositions of CFTR modulators. DWal and SMM have issued patents for crystalline forms and compositions of CFTR modulators. NA, BGB, CH, APL, YL, SMM, ST, JY, and DWal are employees of Vertex Pharmaceuticals and might own stock or stock options in the company. GM and DWat declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)