Efficacy and safety of lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy in patients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for Phe508del CFTR by pulmonary function subgroup

Background Lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy demonstrated clinical benefits inpatients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation.Pretreatment lung function is a confounding factor that potentially impacts the efficacyand safety of lumacaftor/ivacaftor therapy. Methods Two multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallelgroupPhase 3 studies randomised patients to receive placebo or lumacaftor (600 mgonce daily [qd] or 400 mg every 12 hours [q12h]) in combination with ivacaftor (250 mgq12h) for 24 weeks. Prespecified analyses of pooled efficacy and safety data by lungfunction, as measured by percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second(ppFEV1), were performed for patients with baseline ppFEV1 <40 (n=81) and ≥40(n=1016) and screening ppFEV1 <70 (n=730) and ≥70 (n=342). These studies wereregistered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01807923 and NCT01807949). Findings The studies were conducted from April 2013 through April 2014.Improvements in the primary endpoint, absolute change from baseline at week 24 inppFEV1, were observed with both lumacaftor/ivacaftor doses in the subgroup withbaseline ppFEV1 <40 (least-squares mean difference versus placebo was 3∙7 and 3.3percentage points for lumacaftor 600 mg qd/ivacaftor 250 mg q12h and lumacaftor 400mg q12h/ivacaftor 250 mg q12h, respectively [p<0∙05] and in the subgroup with baselineppFEV1 ≥40 (3∙3 and 2∙8 percentage points, respectively [p<0∙001]). Similar absoluteimprovements versus placebo in ppFEV1 were observed in subgroups with screening 4ppFEV1 <70 (3∙3 and 3∙3 percentage points for lumacaftor 600 mg qd/ivacaftor 250 mgq12h and lumacaftor 400 mg q12h/ivacaftor 250 mg q12h, respectively [p<0∙001]) and≥70 (3∙3 and 1∙9 percentage points, respectively [p=0.002] and [p=0∙079]). Increases inBMI and reduction in number of pulmonary exacerbation events were observed in bothLUM/IVA dose groups vs placebo across all lung function subgroups. Treatment wasgenerally well tolerated, although the incidence of some respiratory adverse events washigher with active treatment than with placebo. Interpretation Lumacaftor/ivacaftor combination therapy benefits patients homozygousfor Phe508del CFTR who have varying degrees of lung function impairment. Funding Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated.

Conservative fluid management or deresuscitation for patients with sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome following the resuscitation phase of critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

It is unknown whether a conservative approach to fluid administration or deresuscitation (active removal of fluid using diuretics or renal replacement therapy) is beneficial following haemodynamic stabilisation of critically ill patients.

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategies in adults and children with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in the post-resuscitation phase of critical illness.

Methods

We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from 1980 to June 2016, and manually reviewed relevant conference proceedings from 2009 to the present. Two reviewers independently assessed search results for inclusion and undertook data extraction and quality appraisal. We included randomised trials comparing fluid regimens with differing fluid balances between groups, and observational studies investigating the relationship between fluid balance and clinical outcomes.

Results

Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Marked clinical heterogeneity was evident. In a meta-analysis of 11 randomised trials (2051 patients) using a random-effects model, we found no significant difference in mortality with conservative or deresuscitative strategies compared with a liberal strategy or usual care [pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.82–1.02, I2 = 0 %]. A conservative or deresuscitative strategy resulted in increased ventilator-free days (mean difference 1.82 days, 95 % CI 0.53–3.10, I2 = 9 %) and reduced length of ICU stay (mean difference −1.88 days, 95 % CI −0.12 to −3.64, I2 = 75 %) compared with a liberal strategy or standard care.

Conclusions

In adults and children with ARDS, sepsis or SIRS, a conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategy results in an increased number of ventilator-free days and a decreased length of ICU stay compared with a liberal strategy or standard care. The effect on mortality remains uncertain. Large randomised trials are needed to determine optimal fluid strategies in critical illness.