BACKGROUND Increasing the activity of defective cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein is a potential treatment for cystic fibrosis. METHODS We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate ivacaftor (VX-770), a CFTR potentiator, in subjects 12 years of age or older with cystic fibrosis and at least one G551D-CFTR mutation. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 150 mg of ivacaftor every 12 hours (84 subjects, of whom 83 received at least one dose) or placebo (83, of whom 78 received at least one dose) for 48 weeks. The primary end point was the estimated mean change from baseline through week 24 in the percent of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). RESULTS The change from baseline through week 24 in the percent of predicted FEV1 was greater by 10.6 percentage points in the ivacaftor group than in the placebo group (P<0.001). Effects on pulmonary function were noted by 2 weeks, and a significant treatment effect was maintained through week 48. Subjects receiving ivacaftor were 55% less likely to have a pulmonary exacerbation than were patients receiving placebo, through week 48 (P<0.001). In addition, through week 48, subjects in the ivacaftor group scored 8.6 points higher than did subjects in the placebo group on the respiratory-symptoms domain of the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire–revised instrument (a 100-point scale, with higher numbers indicating a lower effect of symptoms on the patient’s quality of life) (P<0.001). By 48 weeks, patients treated with ivacaftor had gained, on average, 2.7 kg more weight than had patients receiving placebo (P<0.001). The change from baseline through week 48 in the concentration of sweat chloride, a measure of CFTR activity, with ivacaftor as compared with placebo was −48.1 mmol per liter (P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar with ivacaftor and placebo, with a lower proportion of serious adverse events with ivacaftor than with placebo (24% vs. 42%). CONCLUSIONS Ivacaftor was associated with improvements in lung function at 2 weeks that were sustained through 48 weeks. Substantial improvements were also observed in the risk of pulmonary exacerbations, patient-reported respiratory symptoms, weight, and concentration of sweat chloride.

Rationale: Ivacaftor (VX-770), a cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) potentiator, has been shown to improve lung function, pulmonary exacerbation rate, respiratory symptoms, and weight gain compared with placebo in patients with cystic fibrosis aged 12 years or older with a G551D-CFTR mutation. Objectives: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated ivacaftor in patients with cystic fibrosis aged 6-11 years with a G551D-CFTR mutation on at least one allele. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive ivacaftor administered orally at 150 mg (n ¼ 26) or placebo (n ¼ 26) every 12 hours for 48 weeks in addition to existing prescribed cystic fibrosis therapies. Measurements and Main Results: Despite near-normal mean baseline values in FEV 1 , patients receiving ivacaftor had a significant increase in percent predicted FEV 1 from baseline through Week 24 versus placebo group (treatment effect, 12.5 percentage points; P , 0.001). Effects on pulmonary function were evident by 2 weeks, and a significant treatment effect was maintained through Week 48. Patients treated with ivacaftor gained, on average, 2.8 kg more than those receiving placebo at Week 48 (P , 0.001). The change from baseline through Week 48 in the concentration of sweat chloride, a measure of CFTR activity, with ivacaftor was 253.5 mmol/L (P , 0.001) versus placebo. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. Conclusions: In patients who are younger and healthier than those in previously studied populations, ivacaftor demonstrated a significant improvement in pulmonary function, weight, and CFTR activity compared with placebo. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00909727).

BackgroundCurrent professional society guidelines recommend genetic carrier screening be offered on the basis of ethnicity, or when using expanded carrier screening panels, they recommend to compute residual risk based on ethnicity. We investigated the reliability of self-reported ethnicity in 9138 subjects referred to carrier screening. Self-reported ethnicity gathered from test requisition forms and during post-test genetic counseling, and genetic ancestry predicted by a statistical model, were compared for concordance.ResultsWe identified several discrepancies between the two sources of self-reported ethnicity and genetic ancestry. Only 30.3% of individuals who indicated Mediterranean ancestry during consultation self-reported this on requisition forms. Additionally, the proportion of individuals who reported Southeast Asian but were estimated to have a different genetic ancestry was found to depend on the source of self-report. Finally, individuals who reported Latin American demonstrated a high degree of ancestral admixture. As a result, carrier rates and residual risks provided for patient decision-making are impacted if using self-reported ethnicity.ConclusionOur analysis highlights the unreliability of ethnicity classification based on patient self-reports. We recommend the routine use of pan-ethnic carrier screening panels in reproductive medicine. Furthermore, the use of an ancestry model would allow better estimation of carrier rates and residual risks.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12863-017-0570-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The REAL-G-Sp was found to have preliminary concurrent validity with an existing health literacy measure in the Latino population residing in Maryland. Significant proportions of this population are predicted to have limitations in genetic health literacy, even when information is provided in Spanish.

Ivacaftor treatment reduces the frequency of PEx but does not improve on the rate of complete lung function recovery after PEx when compared with placebo.