| Literature DB >> 32637102 |
Lucy A Clunes1, Naia McMillan-Castanares2, Neil Mehta2, Afia Mesadieu2, Jorge Rodriguez2, Mary Maj3, Mark T Clunes4.
Abstract
Cystic fibrosis patients display multi-organ system dysfunction (e.g. pancreas, gastrointestinal tract, and lung) with pathogenesis linked to a failure of Cl- secretion from the epithelial surfaces of these organs. If unmanaged, organ dysfunction starts early and patients experience chronic respiratory infection with reduced lung function and a failure to thrive due to gastrointestinal malabsorption. Early mortality is typically caused by respiratory failure. In the past 40 years of newborn screening and improved disease management have driven the median survival up from the mid-teens to 43-53, with most of that improvement coming from earlier and more aggressive management of the symptoms. In the last decade, promising pharmacotherapies have been developed for the correction of the underlying epithelial dysfunction, namely, Cl- secretion. A new generation of systemic drugs target the mutated Cl- channels in cystic fibrosis patients and allow trafficking of the immature mutated protein to the cell membrane (correctors), restore function to the channel once in situ (potentiators), or increase protein levels in the cells (amplifiers). Restoration of channel function prior to symptom development has the potential to significantly change the trajectory of disease progression and their evidence suggests that a modest restoration of Cl- secretion may delay disease progression by decades. In this article, we review epithelial vectorial ion and fluid transport, its quantification and measurement as a marker for cystic fibrosis ion transport dysfunction, and highlight some of the recent therapies targeted at the dysfunctional ion transport of cystic fibrosis.Entities:
Keywords: Respiratory medicine; ion transport; pharmacoeconomics/health economics
Year: 2020 PMID: 32637102 PMCID: PMC7323271 DOI: 10.1177/2050312120933807
Source DB: PubMed Journal: SAGE Open Med ISSN: 2050-3121
Summary of pulmonary function endpoint changes in FEV1 and ion transport effects (sweat chloride) as well as indexes of patients’ quality of life (BMI and exacerbations) during corrector and potentiator therapy in CF patients.
| Drug | Duration | Δ FEV1 (%) | Δ FEV1 placebo/cont. (%) | Δ sweat Cl− (%) | Δ BMI | Exacerbations | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ΔF508 heterozygous | |||||||
| Elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor | 24 weeks | 13.90 | −0.20 | −42.00 | 1.13 (5.3%) | 0.37 | Middleton et al.[ |
| VX445–tezacaftor–ivacaftor | 29 days | 11.00 | 0.40 | −40.00 | – | – | Keating et al.[ |
| VX-659–tezacaftor–ivacaftor | 4 weeks | 13.30 | 0.40 | −51.00 | – | – | Davies et al.[ |
| Tezacaftor–ivacaftor | 8 weeks | 6.80 | 0 | −14.80 | – | 0.29 | Rowe et al.[ |
| Ivacaftor | 8 weeks | 4.70 | 0 | −6.00 | – | 0.34 | Rowe et al.[ |
| Lumacaftor–ivacaftor | 56 days | −0.60 | −1.20 | – | -0.04 | – | Rowe et al.[ |
| Lumacaftor (monotherapy) to lumacaftor–ivacaftor | 56 days | −1.70 | −2.00 | −5.20 | – | – | Boyle et al.[ |
| ΔF508 homozygous | |||||||
| Elexacaftor added to tezacaftor–ivacaftor | 4 weeks | 10.40 | 0.4% control | −47.50 | – | – | Heijerman et al.[ |
| VX445–tezacaftor–ivacaftor | 29 days | 13.80 | 0 | −40.00 | – | – | Keating et al.[ |
| VX-659–tezacaftor–ivacaftor | 4 weeks | 9.70 | 0 | −42.00 | – | – | Davies et al.[ |
| Tezacaftor–ivacaftor | 24 weeks | 3.40 | −0.60 | −10.00 | 0.18 (0.8%) | 0.64 | Taylor-Cousar et al.[ |
| Tezacaftor | 28 days | 3.49 | −0.14 | −20.40 | – | – | Donaldson et al.[ |
| Tezacaftor–ivacaftor | 28 days | 3.75 | −0.14 | −6.00 | – | – | Donaldson et al.[ |
| Lumacaftor–ivacaftor | 24 weeks | 4.00 | 0 | – | 0.4 (1.9%) | 0.61 | Wainwright et al.[ |
| Lumacaftor–ivacaftor | 24 weeks | 1.10 | −1.30 | −20.00 | 0.4 (2.4%) | – | Ratjen et al.[ |
| Lumacaftor–ivacaftor | 24 weeks | 2.50 | – | −24.80 | 0.64 (3.8%) | – | Milla et al.[ |
| Lumacaftor–ivacaftor | 24 weeks | 2.20 | −0.40 | – | 0.37 | 0.61 | Konstan et al.[ |
| Lumacaftor–ivacaftor maintenance | 96 weeks | 0.80 | – | – | 0.96 | 0.61 | Konstan et al.[ |
| Lumacaftor–ivacaftor | 24 weeks | 3.70 | 0 | – | 0.6 | – | Elborn et al.[ |
| Lumacaftor (monotherapy) to lumacaftor–ivacaftor | 56 days | 3.60 | −2.0 | −8.90 | – | – | Boyle et al.[ |
| Lumacaftor–ivacaftor | 11 months | 0.10 | – | – | – | – | Jennings et al.[ |
| Lumacaftor–ivacaftor | 8–16 weeks | 2.30 | – | −20 | – | – | Graeber et al.[ |
| Ivacaftor | 16 weeks | 1.50 | −0.20 | −75 | – | – | Flume et al.[ |
| ΔF508/G551D | |||||||
| Tezacaftor | 28 days | 1.40 | -0.14 | −10.20 | – | – | Donaldson et al.[ |
| Tezacaftor–ivacaftor | 28 days | 4.60 | −0.14 | −7.00 | – | – | Donaldson et al.[ |
| Ivacaftor | 48 weeks | 10.60 | −0.20 | −50.00 | 1.08 (4.9%) | – | Ramsey et al.[ |
| Ivacaftor | 48 weeks | 12.50 | 0.10 | −48.00 | 2.03 (11%) | – | Davies et al.[ |
| G551D heterozygous | |||||||
| Ivacaftor | 28 days | 7.00 | 0 | −45 | – | – | Davies et al.[ |
| Ivacaftor | 24 weeks | 5.50 | – | – | 5% | – | Taylor-Cousar et al.[ |
| Ivacaftor | 48 weeks | 9.40 | −1.20 | – | 5% | 0.46 | McKone et al.[ |
| Ivacaftor | 96 weeks | 9.50 | – | – |
| – | McKone et al.[ |
| Ivacaftor | 144 weeks | 9.40 | – | – |
| – | McKone et al.[ |
| G551D/R117H | |||||||
| Ivacaftor | 24 weeks | 2.60 | 0.50 | −26.30 | – | – | Moss et al.[ |
| Non-G551D/DF508 | |||||||
| Ivacaftor | 8 weeks | 2.0/19.0[ | −3.20 | −6/−80[ | 0.16/1.62[ | – | De Boeck et al.[ |
BMI: body mass index; CF: cystic fibrosis; FEV1: forced expiratory volume in 1 s.
By genotype.
Figure 1.(a) The majority of secretory epithelia show chloride mediated ion secretion. The Na-K-ATPase generates an inwardly directed Na+ gradient, and along with the negative resting membrane potential augments the driving force for Na+ entry to the cell. The basolateral triple co-transporter uses sodium’s large driving force to co-transport one K+ ion and two Cl− ions. Cl− is accumulated inside the cell above its electrochemical equilibrium and the apical CFTR channel allows the efflux of Cl− ions into the lumen, creating a lumen negative trans-epithelial potential difference. The negative potential in the lumen provides an electrical driving force for Na+ to flow paracellularly, and with the accumulation of NaCl in the lumen, the osmotic gradient for water flux is established. The apical Cl− conductance can be CFTR or other regulated Cl− conductances, for example, calcium-activated chloride conductance. In order for sustained Cl− efflux to the lumen the cell interior must be hyperpolarized beyond the Cl− equilibrium potential; opening K+ channels allows this hyperpolarization and drives Cl− ions into the lumen. In some epithelia, for example, airway, ENaC channels in the apical membrane allow the epithelium to sustain absorption when required. This demands coordination of the two apical conductances; when secretion is taking place (as described above), it is crucial that the apical ENaC channel is quiescent, and the CFTR channel is known to play a role in this regulation through direct protein–protein interaction. When the CFTR channel is quiescent and the ENaC channel is activated, this allows Na+ to flow out of the lumen into the cell, down its electrochemical gradient, establishing a negative potential in the lumen. The intracellular Na+ is pumped to the basolateral space by the Na/K-ATPase. This negative lumen potential drives Cl− ions paracellularly and achieves a bulk transport of salt from the lumen to the basolateral space and an osmotic gradient for water flux. (b) In some specialized epithelia, like the reabsorptive duct of the sweat gland, ENaC and CFTR demonstrate co-transport, see main text for details.
Figure 2.CFTR mutation classes: under normal circumstances, the CFTR gene is transcribed and translated into protein at the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), then processed through the Golgi and moved to the apical membrane; Class I mutants result in no functional CFTR protein generated; Class II mutations allow for the generation of CFTR; however, the protein misfolds which inhibits it from moving to the apical membrane; Class III mutations typically lead to the correct protein structure at the apical membrane; however, the mutations disrupt the channel gate from opening; Class IV mutations allow for the properly folded channel to move to the apical membrane, though show reduced conductance of ions; Class V mutations change the amount of CFTR protein at the apical membrane, due to either partially aberrant splicing or missense mutations that affect trafficking of the protein to the cell surface; Class VI mutations lead to decreased protein stability at the apical membrane and the protein is sent to the lysosome for degradation. For discussion on how the classification system has been developed further by adding functional pharmacological data, see the main text on theratyping.