Evidence Hub

Clinical efficacy of elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor in two siblings with homozygous I1234V mutation cystic fibrosis: A prospective case series

Mohammed Alzaid, Turki Alshahrani, Raed Alotaibi, Gawahir Mukhtar, A. Alanazi, Hammad Alsadoon, Safa Eltahir, Ahmed Aldraihem et al.

Respiratory Medicine Case Reports, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

Background The missense CFTR variant I1234V (c.3700A > G) produces class II protein-folding defects and is prevalent in the Middle East, yet clinical evidence for elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (ETI) in homozygous carriers is sparse. We prospectively evaluated ETI efficacy and safety in two paediatric siblings with homozygous I1234V cystic fibrosis (CF). Methods A single-centre, prospective case series was undertaken at King Fahad Medical City. Baseline assessments included spirometry, body-mass index (BMI), sputum microbiology, liver biochemistry and high-resolution chest CT. ETI was initiated according to weight-based dosing and patients were reviewed at 6 and 8 months. Primary outcomes were change in percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (ppFEV1) and BMI; secondary outcomes were Pseudomonas aeruginosa status, radiological changes and adverse events. Results After eight months of ETI, ppFEV1 increased from 36 % to 46 % in the 11-year-old girl and from 57 % to 73 % in the 9-year-old boy. Corresponding BMI rose from 11.71 kg/m2 (z = −4.37) to 15.48 kg/m2 (z = −1.22) and from 12.69 kg/m2 (z = −3.12) to 15.74 kg/m2 (z = −0.55), respectively. Chronic P. aeruginosa was eradicated in both patients. Chest CT demonstrated reduced mucus plugging and peribronchial wall thickening with partial regression of cystic bronchiectasis. Conclusions ETI produced clinically meaningful improvements in lung function, nutritional status, microbiological clearance and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free