Impact of chronic medication de-escalation in patients with cystic fibrosis taking elexacaftor, tezacaftor, ivacaftor: A retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: This single-center, retrospective study evaluated the effects of de-escalating cystic fibrosis (CF) supportive therapies in patients on elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (ETI). For many with CF, the clinical benefit of ETI exceeds that of supportive therapies. Therefore, we anticipated patients would desire to discontinue many of their supportive therapies, leading to the creation of a de-escalation algorithm. If patients were clinically improved and stable on ETI, CF supportive therapies could be de-escalated quarterly in accordance with the algorithm. METHODS: The primary objective was to assess non-inferiority of supportive therapies de-escalation by comparing the absolute change in percent predicted (ppFEV1) from baseline to month 1 versus the absolute change from baseline to month 12 after initiating ETI with patients serving as their own control. A chart review of patients initiated on ETI from September 2019 through December 2020 was conducted. Inclusion criteria included those six years and older with at least one copy of F508del. RESULTS: The study included 174 patients. The mean ppFEV1 at baseline, month 1, and month 12 was 67%, 78%, and 87% respectively. The mean difference in absolute change in ppFEV1 from baseline to month 1 compared to baseline to month 12 after the initiation of ETI was 1.53% (95% CI: -0.49 to 3.55) CONCLUSION: De-escalating supportive therapies for those on ETI was non-inferior to remaining on all supportive therapies. This suggests that medications may be able to be discontinued under the context of a de-escalation algorithm, which may decrease medication burden and cost and increase quality of life.

Practitioner Due Diligence: Real-World Lumacaftor/Ivacaftor Use.

OBJECTIVE: Previous trials evaluated the efficacy of lumacaftor/ivacaftor in Phe508del homozygotes. These trials are limited by manufacturer sponsorship and were conducted under strict protocol. Additionally, this therapy is costly and does not allow for reduction in daily cystic fibrosis therapies. This study assessed the efficacy of lumacaftor/ivacaftor therapy and its effect on health care utilization in a real-world setting. METHODS: Retrospective chart review comparing the first 12 months of therapy to the 24 months prior was conducted to evaluate the impact of lumacaftor/ivacaftor on pulmonary function following a streamlined process for therapy introduction. The impact on body mass index and healthcare utilization were also evaluated. The following measurements were assessed: percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second, body mass index and z-scores, number of admissions, length of stay, number of emergency department visits. RESULTS: Mean ppFEV1 was improved for the first 12 months on lumacaftor/ivacaftor treatment when compared with the 24 months prior: 78.8 (95% CI: 72.6, 84.9) vs 76.2 (95% CI: 70.1, 82.3) (p = 0.03). Body mass index significantly improved (patients ≥20 years), but improvement in BMI z-score (patients <20 years) was not significant. Number of admissions and LOS were significantly decreased, but ED visits were not. CONCLUSIONS: Lumacaftor/ivacaftor is effective for improving ppFEV1 and BMI and for reducing health care utilization. However, this small reduction does not overcome the financial cost of treatment. Long-term outcomes and use must be studied to determine the overall effect of this therapy on cystic fibrosis interventions and their costs.