4.7 Article

CORK Study in Cystic Fibrosis Sustained Improvements in Ultra-Low-Dose Chest CT Scores After CFTR Modulation With Ivacaftor

Journal

CHEST
Volume 153, Issue 2, Pages 395-403

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.10.005

Keywords

cystic fibrosis; ivacaftor; G551D; low-dose chest CT imaging

Funding

  1. European Commission [603038]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Ivacaftor produces significant clinical benefit in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) with the G551D mutation. Prevalence of this mutation at the Cork CF Centre is 23%. This study assessed the impact of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator modulation on multiple modalities of patient assessment. METHODS: Thirty-three patients with the G551D mutation were assessed at baseline and prospectively every 3 months for 1 year after initiation of ivacaftor. Change in ultra-low-dose chest CT scans, blood inflammatory mediators, and the sputum microbiome were assessed. RESULTS: Significant improvements in FEV1, BMI, and sweat chloride levels were observed post-ivacaftor treatment. Improvement in ultra-low-dose CT imaging scores were observed after treatment, with significant mean reductions in total Bhalla score (P < .01), peribronchial thickening (P = .035), and extent of mucous plugging (P < .001). Reductions in circulating inflammatory markers, including interleukin (IL)-I beta, IL-6, and IL-8 were demonstrated. There was a 30% reduction in the relative abundance of Pseudomonas species and an increase in the relative abundance of bacteria associated with more stable community structures. Post-treatment community richness increased significantly (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Early and sustained improvements on ultra-low-dose CT scores suggest it may be a useful method of evaluating treatment response. It paralleled improvement in symptoms, circulating inflammatory markers, and changes in the lung microbiota.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available