BACKGROUND: The transepithelial nasal potential difference (NPD) is used to assess cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) activity. Unreliability, excessive artifacts, and lack of standardization of current testing systems can compromise its use as a diagnostic test and outcome measure for clinical trials. METHODS: To determine whether a nonperfusing (agar gel) nasal catheter for NPD measurement is more reliable and less susceptible to artifacts than a continuously perfusing nasal catheter, we performed a multicenter, randomized, crossover trial comparing a standardized NPD protocol using an agar nasal catheter with the same protocol using a continuously perfusing catheter. The data capture technique was identical in both protocols. A total of 26 normal adult subjects underwent NPD testing at six different centers. RESULTS:Artifact frequency was reduced by 75% (P < .001), and duration was less pronounced using the agar catheter. The measurement of sodium conductance was similar between the two catheter methods, but the agar catheter demonstrated significantly greater CFTR-dependent hyperpolarization, because Δ zero Cl- + isoproterenol measurements were significantly more hyperpolarized with the agar catheter (224.2 ± 12.9 mV with agar vs 18.2 ± 9.1 mV with perfusion, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The agar nasal catheter approach demonstrates superior reliability compared with the perfusion nasal catheter method for measurement of NPD. This nonperfusion catheter method should be considered for adoption as a standardized protocol to monitor CFTR activity in clinical trials.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The transepithelial nasal potential difference (NPD) is used to assess cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) activity. Unreliability, excessive artifacts, and lack of standardization of current testing systems can compromise its use as a diagnostic test and outcome measure for clinical trials. METHODS: To determine whether a nonperfusing (agar gel) nasal catheter for NPD measurement is more reliable and less susceptible to artifacts than a continuously perfusing nasal catheter, we performed a multicenter, randomized, crossover trial comparing a standardized NPD protocol using an agar nasal catheter with the same protocol using a continuously perfusing catheter. The data capture technique was identical in both protocols. A total of 26 normal adult subjects underwent NPD testing at six different centers. RESULTS: Artifact frequency was reduced by 75% (P < .001), and duration was less pronounced using the agar catheter. The measurement of sodium conductance was similar between the two catheter methods, but the agar catheter demonstrated significantly greater CFTR-dependent hyperpolarization, because Δ zero Cl- + isoproterenol measurements were significantly more hyperpolarized with the agar catheter (224.2 ± 12.9 mV with agar vs 18.2 ± 9.1 mV with perfusion, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The agar nasal catheter approach demonstrates superior reliability compared with the perfusion nasal catheter method for measurement of NPD. This nonperfusion catheter method should be considered for adoption as a standardized protocol to monitor CFTR activity in clinical trials.
Authors: P G Noone; K W Hohneker; Z Zhou; L G Johnson; C Foy; C Gipson; K Jones; T L Noah; M W Leigh; C Schwartzbach; J Efthimiou; R Pearlman; R C Boucher; M R Knowles Journal: Mol Ther Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 11.454
Authors: E W Alton; P G Middleton; N J Caplen; S N Smith; D M Steel; F M Munkonge; P K Jeffery; D M Geddes; S L Hart; R Williamson Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1993-10 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Thomas A Standaert; Louis Boitano; Julia Emerson; Laura J H Milgram; Michael W Konstan; Janice Hunter; Pierre-Yves Berclaz; Lois Brass; Pamela L Zeitlin; Keith Hammond; Zoe Davies; Carla Foy; Peadar G Noone; Michael R Knowles Journal: Pediatr Pulmonol Date: 2004-05
Authors: C Goubau; M Wilschanski; V Skalická; P Lebecque; K W Southern; I Sermet; A Munck; N Derichs; P G Middleton; L Hjelte; R Padoan; M Vasar; K De Boeck Journal: Thorax Date: 2009-03-23 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Mahmoud H Abou Alaiwa; Janice L Launspach; Kelsey A Sheets; Jade A Rivera; Nicholas D Gansemer; Peter J Taft; Peter S Thorne; Michael J Welsh; David A Stoltz; Joseph Zabner Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2016-06-02
Authors: Marianne S Muhlebach; J P Clancy; Sonya L Heltshe; Assem Ziady; Tom Kelley; Frank Accurso; Joseph Pilewski; Nicole Mayer-Hamblett; Elizabeth Joseloff; Scott D Sagel Journal: J Cyst Fibros Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Courtney M Wheatley; Sarah E Baker; Mary A Morgan; Marina G Martinez; Bo Liu; Steven M Rowe; Wayne J Morgan; Eric C Wong; Stephen R Karpen; Eric M Snyder Journal: Respir Med Date: 2015-05-23 Impact factor: 3.415
Authors: Elenara da Fonseca Andrade Procianoy; Fernando Antônio de Abreu E Silva; Paulo José Cauduro Maróstica; Paul M Quinton Journal: Lung Date: 2019-11-16 Impact factor: 2.584
Authors: George M Solomon; Bo Liu; Isabelle Sermet-Gaudelus; Isabelle Fajac; Michael Wilschanski; Francois Vermeulen; Steven M Rowe Journal: J Cyst Fibros Date: 2017-04-29 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: George M Solomon; Inez Bronsveld; Kathryn Hayes; Michael Wilschanski; Paola Melotti; Steven M Rowe; Isabelle Sermet-Gaudelus Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Mark T Dransfield; Andrew M Wilhelm; Brian Flanagan; Clifford Courville; Sherry L Tidwell; S Vamsee Raju; Amit Gaggar; Chad Steele; Li Ping Tang; Bo Liu; Steven M Rowe Journal: Chest Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Steven M Rowe; Drucy S Borowitz; Jane L Burns; John P Clancy; Scott H Donaldson; George Retsch-Bogart; Scott D Sagel; Bonnie W Ramsey Journal: Thorax Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 9.139