BACKGROUND Cystic fibrosis is a life-limiting disease that is caused by defective or deficient cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein activity. Phe508del is the most common CFTR mutation. METHODS We conducted two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that were designed to assess the effects of lumacaftor (VX-809), a CFTR corrector, in combination with ivacaftor (VX-770), a CFTR potentiator, in patients 12 years of age or older who had cystic fibrosis and were homozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation. In both studies, patients were randomly assigned to receive either lumacaftor (600 mg once daily or 400 mg every 12 hours) in combination with ivacaftor (250 mg every 12 hours) or matched placebo for 24 weeks. The primary end point was the absolute change from baseline in the percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at week 24. RESULTS A total of 1108 patients underwent randomization and received study drug. The mean baseline FEV1 was 61% of the predicted value. In both studies, there were significant improvements in the primary end point in both lumacaftor–ivacaftor dose groups; the difference between active treatment and placebo with respect to the mean absolute improvement in the percentage of predicted FEV1 ranged from 2.6 to 4.0 percentage points (P<0.001), which corresponded to a mean relative treatment difference of 4.3 to 6.7% (P<0.001). Pooled analyses showed that the rate of pulmonary exacerbations was 30 to 39% lower in the lumacaftor–ivacaftor groups than in the placebo group; the rate of events leading to hospitalization or the use of intravenous antibiotics was lower in the lumacaftor–ivacaftor groups as well. The incidence of adverse events was generally similar in the lumacaftor–ivacaftor and placebo groups. The rate of discontinuation due to an adverse event was 4.2% among patients who received lumacaftor–ivacaftor versus 1.6% among those who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS These data show that lumacaftor in combination with ivacaftor provided a benefit for patients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation. (Funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals and others; TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01807923 and NCT01807949.)

The combination of tezacaftor and ivacaftor was efficacious and safe in patients 12 years of age or older who had cystic fibrosis and were homozygous for the CFTR Phe508del mutation. (Funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals; EVOLVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02347657 .).

Diagnosing asthma in children represents an important clinical challenge. There is no single gold standard test to confirm the diagnosis. Consequently, both over-, and under-diagnosis of asthma are frequent in children.A Task Force (TF) supported by the European Respiratory Society has developed these evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of asthma in children aged 5–16 years using nine PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome) questions. The TF conducted systematic literature searches for all PICO questions and screened the outputs from these, including relevant full text articles. All TF members approved the final decision for inclusion of research papers. The TF assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.The TF then developed a diagnostic algorithm based on the critical appraisal of the PICO questions, preferences expressed by lay members and test availability. Proposed cut-offs were determined based on the best available evidence. The TF formulated recommendations using the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework.Based on the critical appraisal of the evidence and the Evidence to Decision Framework the TF recommends spirometry, bronchodilator reversibility testing and FeNO as first line diagnostic tests in children under investigation for asthma. The TF recommends against diagnosing asthma in children based on clinical history alone or following a single abnormal objective test. Finally, this guideline also proposes a set of research priorities to improve asthma diagnosis in children in the future.

On-line analysis of exhaled breath offers insight into a person's metabolism without the need for sample preparation or sample collection. Due to its non-invasive nature and the possibility to sample continuously, the analysis of breath has great clinical potential. The unique features of this technology make it an attractive candidate for applications in medicine, beyond the task of diagnosis. We review the current methodologies for on-line breath analysis, discuss current and future applications, and critically evaluate challenges and pitfalls such as the need for standardization. Special emphasis is given to use of the technology in diagnosing respiratory diseases, potential niche applications, and the promise of breath analysis for personalized medicine. The analytical methodologies used range from very small and low-cost chemical sensors, which are ideal for continuous monitoring of disease status, to optical spectroscopy and state-of-the-art, high-resolution mass spectrometry. The latter can be utilized for untargeted analysis of exhaled breath, with the capability to identify hitherto unknown molecules. The interpretation of the resulting big data sets is complex and often constrained due to a limited number of participants. Even larger data sets will be needed for assessing reproducibility and for validation of biomarker candidates. In addition, molecular structures and quantification of compounds are generally not easily available from on-line measurements and require complementary measurements, for example, a separation method coupled to mass spectrometry. Furthermore, lack of standardization still hampers using the technique for screening larger cohorts of patients. The present review summarizes the present status and continuous improvements of the main on-line breath analysis methods, and evaluates obstacles for its wider application.