Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jul 28;20(7):e0328015. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0328015

Effect of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator modulators and dedicated cystic fibrosis gastrointestinal clinic visits on the incidence of distal intestinal obstructive syndrome in persons with cystic fibrosis

Nicha Wongjarupong 1,2,*,, Malique F Delbrune 3,, Jameel Alp 4,, Daphne M Moutsoglou 4,5, Talia Wiggen 6, Ashley Benner 6, Joanne L Billings 7, Jordan M Dunitz 7, Sarah J Schwarzenberg 8, Baharak Moshiree 9, Shahnaz Sultan 1
Editor: Alyssa Kriegermeier10
PMCID: PMC12303333  PMID: 40720490

Abstract

Background

Gastrointestinal (GI) complications are the second most common disorders in persons with cystic fibrosis (PwCF). There is limited data on how having a dedicated CF-GI clinic and cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators may affect rates of GI complications. Our aim was to assess the effect of the CF-GI clinic and CFTR modulators on GI complications with incidence of distal intestinal obstructive syndrome (DIOS).

Methods

This was a retrospective study of adult PwCF who were seen in a CF-GI clinic from 2000–2023. Comparisons were made between the numbers of admissions and emergency department (ED) visits for DIOS at three years before and after CFTR modulator use and the first CF-GI clinic visit.

Results

Of the 1,076 PwCF identified, 242 were seen in CF-GI clinic. Of this, 126 (52.1%) were female, with a median age of 40 (IQR: 30–47) years. There were 146 (60.3%) with regular use of laxatives. Of the 59 PwCF with CF-GI clinic visits for constipation, hospital admissions decreased in 16, were unchanged in 32, and increased in 11 (p = 0.402) while ED visits decreased in 9, remained the same in 40, and increased in 10 (p = 0.862). Of the 125 PwCF with CFTR modulator use, DIOS-related hospital admissions decreased in 15 patients, remained unchanged in 89, and increased in 21 (p = 0.021) while ED visits were fewer in 8, unchanged in 97, and increased in 20 (p = 0.587).

Conclusion

PwCF had high burden of constipation with a majority of patients regularly using laxatives, and almost half had a history of DIOS. CFTR modulator use and CF-GI clinic were not associated with a decrease of DIOS incidence.

Introduction

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a multisystem, autosomal recessive genetic disorder caused by mutations or variants in the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene that encodes an anion channel that controls the movement of chloride, bicarbonate, and water across the epithelium. With the advent of CFTR modulators life expectancy has been increasing, and thus, so have gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations, including gastroesophageal reflux disease, chronic abdominal pain, liver disease, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, distal intestinal obstruction syndrome (DIOS), and chronic constipation, increasingly being recognized as important complications of CF. Moreover, persons with CF (PwCF) who experience recurrent problems with constipation and DIOS report having a lower quality of life [1].

It is estimated that 10–57% of PwCF report constipation symptoms, and this number may be even as high as 73% [2,3]. The prevalence of DIOS is estimated to be 10–16%, in which most of them had multiple episodes of DIOS in a lifetime [4,5]. However, because of the overlap in clinical presentation of DIOS and constipation this may represent an over- or underestimate of the true prevalence of these conditions. Recent efforts have been made to develop definitive criteria for the diagnosis of these two entities [6]. While DIOS and chronic constipation may present with abdominal pain and bloating, mechanistically, DIOS refers incomplete or complete obstruction within the distal small intestine due to mucus and fecal matter, whereas constipation results from accumulation of stool within the colon [6].

While CFTR modulators are associated with significant improvement in lung function, their effect on GI outcomes is still being studied (NCT04038047). A finding from a prospective observational study, the PROMISE-GI study, suggested that treatment with the CFTR modulator (elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor) led to trivial improvements in GI symptoms (at six months) [7]. However, longer-term follow-up has not been assessed.

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of CFTR modulator therapy and CF-GI clinic referral on the burden of GI complications, specifically DIOS, by analyzing associated health care utilization, including hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits.

Materials and methods

Study population and data abstraction

We conducted a retrospective review of the medical records of adult PwCF cared for at the University of Minnesota Medical Center in their multidisciplinary CF-GI Clinic. Data were collected for PwCF age 18 or more from January 1 2000 to November 1 2023 who were identified (1) through the ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes for the diagnosis of CF and (2) through the University of Minnesota CF database. The diagnosis of CF was then confirmed by chart review based on the Consensus Guideline from the CF Foundation [8]. Participants were included for analysis if they had been seen or referred to the CF-GI clinic for evaluation of any GI-related symptoms.

Data collected included age, sex, race/ethnicity, CFTR gene mutation, and a history of one of the following: lung transplant, pancreatic insufficiency, and cirrhosis. Information on the history of meconium ileus, DIOS, chronic constipation, gastroparesis, and other gastrointestinal comorbidities were recorded. DIOS was defined based on the ESPGHAN CF Working Group with (1) a short history (days) of abdominal pain or distension or both and; (2) a fecal mass in ileocecum, with or without sign of complete obstruction [9]. For the purpose of our study, we defined constipation as the use of daily laxatives for more than three months, based on prescription data and chart review as using the exact Rome IV criteria was not feasible due to retrospective nature of the study, the long time span of the cohort, and the lack of consistent symptom-based documentation over the years. The use of medications such as CFTR modulators, laxatives, and pharmacologic medications for constipation were also abstracted. A text search for each of the following medications was performed: polyethylene glycol, sennosides, bisacodyl, linaclotide, lubiprostone, plecanatide, and prucalopride. Tenapanor was not included as it was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration at the same time of the date of last data collection (October 17, 2024). Medication use was confirmed based on clinic notes documenting active use and recorded as prior use or current use. This study was approved by the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board (STUDY00017426). The Institutional Review Board waived the requirement for informed consent due to minimal risk to the participants. The data was accessed for research propose on November 3 2023. The authors had access to information that could identify individual participants during data collection.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive data on baseline characteristics of our study cohort were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were reported as mean and standard deviation (SD) or median and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous variables, and percentage for categorical variables. Comparisons were made between numbers of admissions and ED visits during the three years before and after both CFTR modulator initiation and the first CF-GI clinic visit. The number of admissions and ED visits for DIOS were compared between the three years before and after the first CF-GI clinic visit using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant, and all reported p-values reflect two-tailed tests. In addition, the utilization of laxatives, secretagogues, and 5-HT4 agonists use were also compared between the two groups. The t-tests were used to compare continuous data, and a Pearson’s chi-square or Fischer’s exact tests were used to compare the categorical data. All analyses were performed using JMP Pro version 16 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

Results

Patient characteristics

Of a total of 1,076 PwCF who were identified as receiving care at our center there were 242 individuals referred to the CF-GI clinic for evaluation of GI symptoms and included in our analysis. Of these, 126/242 (52.1%) PwCF were female, 237/242 (97.9%) were White, the median (IQR) age was 40 (30–47) years, 114/242 (47.1%) PwCF had homozygous delta F508 mutation, 99 (40.9%) PwCF had heterozygous delta F508 mutation, 23/242 (9.5%) PwCF with other varying mutations, and 6/242 (2.5%) had missing information (Table 1). Of the 242 PwCF, 159 (65.7%) had or were currently prescribed CFTR modulators. And 43/242 (18.2%) PwCF had undergone lung transplant.

Table 1. Patient characteristics of individuals referred to or evaluated by a cystic fibrosis-gastrointestinal clinic.

Characteristics N = 242 (%)
Sex, female % 126 (52.1%)
Age, year (median (interquartile range)) 40 (30-47)
Race
 White 237 (97.9%)
 Black 2 (0.8%)
 Asian/Pacific Islander 2 (0.8%)
 Missing 1 (0.4%)
Ethnicity
 Non-Hispanic, % 150 (62.0%)
 Hispanic 1 (0.4%)
 Missing, % 91 (37.6%)
CFTR gene mutation
 F508 deletion homozygous 114 (47.1%)
 F508 deletion heterozygous 99 (40.9%)
 Other 23 (9.5%)
 No information 6 (2.5%)
CFTR modulator use 159 (65.7%)
Lung transplant 43 (18.2%)
Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency 216 (89.3%)
Cystic fibrosis-related diabetes 129 (53.3%)
Gastroparesis 34 (14.1%)
Cirrhosis, seen by liver clinic 16 (6.6%)
History of meconium ileus 49 (20.2%)
Surgery for meconium ileus 31 (12.8%)
DIOS history 116 (47.9%)
Treatment for first DIOS presentation
 Medication/polyethylene glycol or N-acethylcysteine 62 (53.4%)
 Gastrografin enema 35 (30.2%)
 Surgery 8 (6.9%)
 Others 7 (6.0%)
 Missing 4 (3.4%)
Any history of surgery for DIOS 1 (4.1%)
Any history of surgery for small bowel obstruction 8 (3.3%)
History of bowel resection, not for DIOS/constipation/ meconium ileus 28 (11.6%)

Abbreviation: CFTR cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator; DIOS distal intestinal obstruction syndrome

Regarding CF-related comorbidities and complications, 216/242 (89.3%) PwCF had pancreatic insufficiency requiring pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), 129/242 (53.3%) PwCF had CF-related diabetes, 34/242 (14.1%) PwCF had been diagnosed with gastroparesis by a four-hour standardized gastric emptying scintigraphy, and 16/242 (6.6%) PwCF had been diagnosed with cirrhosis by a hepatologist. Prior history of meconium ileus and DIOS were also analyzed. Fourty-nine of 242 (20.2%) PwCF had a history of meconium ileus as a newborn, of which 31 (63.3%) were treated with surgery. One hundred and sixteen of 242 (47.9%) PwCF had experienced at least one episode of DIOS. The treatment for the first episode of DIOS included medication with polyethylene glycol or N-acetylcysteine (n = 62, 53.4%), gastrografin enema (n = 35, 30.2%), surgery (n = 8, 6.9%), and others (n = 7, 6.0%). The other treatments included self-resolution with hydration (n = 2), nasogastric tube with suction (n = 1), increased PERT (n = 1), and methylnaltrexone (n = 1). One patient developed colon perforation that was treated conservatively (n = 1), and one patient underwent colonoscopy with fecalith removal (n = 1).

Laxative and prescription medication for constipation in PwCF

Among the 242 PwCF referred to CF-GI clinic, 107 (44.2%) were seen for constipation or recurrent DIOS. With respect to medication use, 146 (60.3%) had documented regularly scheduled laxatives for more than three months. The majority of individuals, 190 (78.5%) used polyethylene glycol as their primary treatment. PwCF who were seen in the CF-GI clinic for constipation were more likely to be prescribed secretagogues or 5-HT4 agonists for management of constipation: 43/107 (40.2%) as compared with 24/135 (17.8%) PwCF not seen in the CF-GI clinic for constipation, p < 0.001 (Table 2). Among PwCF seen in CF-GI clinic for constipation, linaclotide was the most prescribed medication (n = 27/107, 25.2%). Lubiprostone was the most commonly prescribed medication among the PwCF not seen in CF-GI clinic for constipation (n = 23/135, 17.0%).

Table 2. Comparison of medication utilization in persons with cystic fibrosis seen and not seen by a cystic fibrosis-gastrointestinal clinic for constipation.

Total cohort
n = 242
Seen in CF-GI clinic for constipation
n = 107
Seen in CF-GI for symptoms other than constipation
n = 135
Regular laxative use > 3 months 146 (60.3%) 86 (80.4%) 60 (44.4%)
Prescription medications, any 67 (27.7%) 43 (40.2%) 24 (17.8%)
 One medication 49 (20.2%) 27 (25.2%) 22 (16.3%)
 Two medications 16 (6.6%) 14 (13.1%) 2 (1.5%)
 Three medications 2 (0.8%) 2 (1.9%) 0
Secretagogues
 Linaclotide 29 (12.0%) 27 (25.2%) 2 (1.5%)
 Lubiprostone 47 (19.4%) 24 (22.4%) 23 (17.0%)
 Plecanatide 4 (1.7%) 3 (2.8%) 1 (0.7%)
5 HT4 agonist
 Prucalopride 7 (2.9%) 7 (6.5%) 0 (0%)
O ver the counter laxatives
 Lactulose 32 (29.3%) 20 (18.7%) 12 (8.9%)
 Polyethylene glycol 190 (78.5%) 95 (88.8%) 95 (70.4%)
 Sennosides 103 (42.6%) 53 (49.5%) 50 (37.0%)
 Bisacodyl 39 (16.1%) 23 (21.4%) 16 (11.8%)

Abbreviation: CF-GI cystic fibrosis-gastrointestinal

Comparison of numbers of admission and emergency department visits for DIOS before and after CF-GI clinic visit

Of the 242 PwCF seen in the CF-GI clinic, there were 59 PwCF who had adequate data available for the three years prior to and after being seen by a CF-GI in clinic. Thirty-one (53%) were females. There were 36 (61.0%) PwCF with a history of documented DIOS (S1 Data).

To determine if consultation and management by a CF-GI specialist impacted hospital utilization for DIOS, we compared the number of hospital admissions and ED visits for DIOS three years before and after being seen in CF-GI clinic for our cohort of 59 PwCF. We identified 16 PwCF with a decreased number of hospital admissions, 32 PwCF with an unchanged number of admissions, and 11 PwCF with an increased number of admissions (Fig 1). With respect to the number of ED visits, we identified nine PwCF with a decreased number of ED visits, 40 with an unchanged number, and 10 patients with an increased number of ED visits (Fig 2). The change in the number of DIOS admissions in the hospital versus the ED were not statistically different between the three years before and three years after a CF-GI clinic visit (p = 0.402, and 0.862, respectively).

Fig 1. Dot plot of number of admissions for distal intestinal obstruction syndrome (DIOS) three years before and three years after being seen in cystic fibrosis-gastrointestinal (CF-GI) clinic (n = 59).

Fig 1

Fig 2. Dot plot of number of emergency department (ED) visits for distal intestinal obstruction syndrome three years before and three years after being seen by cystic fibrosis-gastrointestinal clinic (n = 59).

Fig 2

Of the 59 PwCF in the CF-GI clinic cohort, there were 29 PwCF who started CFTR modulator during the six-year period of study; of which 10 were prior to the CF-GI clinic first visit, and 19 were after the CF-GI clinic first visit. There were five PwCF who underwent lung transplant, of which four underwent lung transplant prior to the CF-GI clinic first visit, and one underwent lung transplant after the CF-GI clinic first visit.

Comparison of numbers of admission and ED visits for DIOS before and after CFTR modulator initiation

Of the 242 PwCF in our cohort, there were 159 (65.7%) PwCF who used CFTR modulators. The CFTR modulators included elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (n = 71), lumacaftor/ivacaftor (n = 60), tezacaftor/ivacaftor (n = 19), and ivacaftor (n = 9). Of these, 125 (51.7%) PwCF who had adequate follow-up of three years before and after CFTR modulator initiation with the baseline characteristics was provided in S2 Data. Sixty-four (51.2%) were female. There were 61 (48.8%) PwCF with any history of documented DIOS in their lifetime.

Among individuals taking CFTR modulators, the number of hospital admissions for DIOS three years before and after were collected, and 15 PwCF had decreased number of admissions; in 89 PwCF, the number of admissions was unchanged, and 21 PwCF had increased number of admissions (Fig 3). For the number of ED visits for DIOS three years before and after the CFTR modulator initiation, there were eight PwCF with decreased number of ED visits, 97 with unchanged; and 20 patients with increased number of ED visits, respectively (Fig 4). There was an increased number of admissions for DIOS after CFTR modulator initiation (p = 0.021), but no statistical difference in the number of ED visits (p = 0.587). The changes in number of admissions and ED visits by types of CFTR modulators was provided in S3 Data.

Fig 3. Dot plot of number of admissions for distal intestinal obstruction syndrome (DIOS) three years before and three years after cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator initiation (n = 125).

Fig 3

Fig 4. Dot plot of number of emergency department (ED) visits for distal intestinal obstruction syndrome (DIOS) three years before and three years after cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator initiation (n = 125).

Fig 4

Of the 125 PwCF in the CFTR modulator cohort, there were 38 PwCF who had the first CF-GI clinic during the six-year period of study of which 19 were before the CFTR modulator initiation, and 19 were after CFRT modulator initiation. There were three PwCF who underwent lung transplant during the six-year period of study of which all underwent transplant after CFTR modulator initiation.

Discussion

GI manifestations of CF, including constipation and DIOS, represent a significant source of morbidity and negatively impact quality of life among PwCF. The results of our study help characterize the prevalence, treatment patterns in multidisciplinary CF clinics, and hospital utilization associated with these two common GI complications associated with CF.

Our results show that the most common agent used to treat constipation in PwCF is polyethylene glycol, likely due to its safety profile, ease of dosing, long-term data especially in children, where until recently many of the prescription medications were not FDA-approved. Additionally, polyethylene glycol can be titrated, or adjusted by the patient depending on their symptoms. In the GALAXY study, a recent large multi-center prospective study based on a validated questionnaire, polyethylene glycol was also the most prescribed medication in adults and pediatric patients [1]. In our study, lubiprostone was the most common pharmacologic medication used to treat constipation, primarily prescribed by the patient’s CF pulmonologist. However, linaclotide was the prescribed medication of choice for constipation when PwCF were referred to specialized CF-GI clinic.

The primary mechanism of action of linaclotide and part of the mechanism of action of lubiprostone are through activation of the CFTR. A prior in-vitro study of the intestinal epithelium of PwCF with homozygous F508 deletion suggested that the effect of lubiprostone was compromised in PwCF given the decreased to non-function of CFTR chloride channel [10]. However, a study of F508del mutant mice showed that both linaclotide and lubiprostone increased intestinal transit time and intestinal fluid through inhibiting sodium/hydrogen 3 exchanger [11,12]. This sodium/hydrogen 3 exchanger is the main target for tenapanor, which is potentially an alternative mechanism of action for both lubiprostone and linaclotide in PwCF [11,12]. Our study did not have any patients on tenapanor as it was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration at the same time of the date of last data collection. In the setting of concomitant use with CFTR modulator, lubiprostone was shown to have synergistic effect with CFTR modulators to increase chloride secretion in the nasal epithelium, but data in GI tract remain limited [13]. Studies evaluating the clinical effectiveness of intestinal secretagogues in PwCF (especially in individuals using CFTR modulators) are desperately needed. There was only one pilot clinical study of lubiprostone in PwCF that showed improved overall symptoms of constipation based on Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms score, but not in the number of spontaneous bowel movements or with the Bristol Stool Score [14]. Based on a Cochrane review, the only available randomized cross-over study on DIOS prevention is with using cisapride in only 17 participants, and this study did not show any benefit from the medication [15,16].

Despite collaboration with a specialized CF-GI clinic, outcomes of PwCF three years before and after seeing a CF gastroenterologist, there was no decrease in the number of hospital admissions for DIOS or the number of ED admissions. One possibility for this finding is that a three year follow up period is too short to demonstrate improvement as it could take time to find a stable medication regimen to treat patients who have constipation or DIOS. It is also possible that other factors, such as lung transplant affected the GI complications. In a prior study of PwCF who underwent transplant, 20% developed DIOS that occurred immediately during post-operative period [17]. Also, the subset of individuals referred to the CF-GI clinic represent a difficult-to-treat population with more severe disease. Although we observed no significant change in health care utilization after CF-GI referral, we acknowledge the possibility that referral may have slowed progression or mitigated further worsening of symptoms. In the absence of a comparable non-referred control group, we were unable to assess this counterfactual. Our findings also align with prior systematic reviews suggesting that currently available therapies for DIOS and constipation offer limited benefit, and our data may reflect the lack of highly effective treatment options for these complications despite specialized care [15].

In a subset of PwCF in this study, there was an increase in DIOS-related admissions and ED visits after the initiation of CFTR modulator (over three years). This is consistent with prior studies that show that the use of CFTR modulator did not impact patient-reported GI symptom scores [1,7]. The median time from the CFTR modulator to the best pulmonary function test takes up to 100 days [18]. Currently, there are no data on how long it would take for the CFTR modulator to take effect on the GI tract, and it could take a longer duration than the three-year follow-up time in our study. There is also a plausible mechanism that the initiation of CFTR modulator could cause hydration of the viscous mucous and subsequently detach the fecal matter from the luminal wall and cause DIOS [19].

In our study, DIOS contributed to admissions and ED visits for more than a quarter of the PwCF in the cohort. Only one prior study had quantified health care utilization among PwCF. In this prior study of 345 PwCF, the primary factors associated with health care utilization were pancreatic insufficiency, being positive for Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and CF-related diabetes [20]. DIOS was not identified as a factor to be significantly related to high cost of health care utilization, but only 8.7% of individuals had a history of DIOS [20]. Furthermore, this prior study predated the use of CFTR modulators (conducted from 2009 to 2017), and the majority of health care costs were related to pulmonary complications. Of note, the prevalence of DIOS in our study is much higher at 47.9% suggesting a more significant burden of GI-related diseases.

There were several limitations to our study. First, this was a retrospective cohort study with limited information on patient reported outcomes. The outcomes used in this study were the number of admissions and ED visits that might not have accounted for PwCF with milder symptoms of DIOS and constipation. Secondly, detailed information on access to pharmacological therapies, adherence, and use of prescribed therapies was not available. Additionally, our analysis lacked a comparison group of PwCF not referred to a CF-GI clinic, which limits our ability to determine whether outcomes would have been worse without specialist intervention. Lastly, the findings pre and post CFTR use with respect to DIOS and constipation risk may solely be due to lack of longer-term follow-up.

Conclusion

Constipation and DIOS were prevalent in PwCF. The most commonly used laxative was polyethylene glycol. The most commonly prescribed medication for constipation was lubiprostone, and when PwCF were referred to CF-GI clinic, the most prescribed medication was linaclotide. Referral to a CF-GI specialist was not associated with a decrease in DIOS-associated hospital admissions and ED visits as would be expected but this may be due to insurance restrictions and prior authorization requirements limiting prescription medication coverage. Additionally, perhaps a longitudinal study for a longer duration of observation is necessary to find decreased hospitalization rates and ED visits in these patients. Additionally, CFTR modulator use over 3 years was also not associated with decrease in DIOS-related hospital admissions and ED visits. GI complications in PwCF require longer term studies so we can further characterize and reduce health care utilization and costs and improve outcomes and quality of life in PwCF.

Supporting information

S1 Data. Characteristics of patients seen in cystic fibrosis-gastrointestinal clinic for comparison of three years before and after cystic fibrosis-gastrointestinal clinic.

(DOCX)

pone.0328015.s001.docx (13.4KB, docx)
S2 Data. Characteristics of patients seen in cystic fibrosis-gastrointestinal clinic for comparison of pre- and post-cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator initiation.

(DOCX)

pone.0328015.s002.docx (13.3KB, docx)
S3 Data. Changes in number of admissions and ED visits before and after CFTR modulator initiation by types of CFTR modulators.

(DOCX)

pone.0328015.s003.docx (13.4KB, docx)
S4 Data. Study data set.

(XLSX)

pone.0328015.s004.xlsx (37.7KB, xlsx)

Abbreviation

CF

cystic fibrosis

CFTR

cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator

DIOS

distal intestinal obstruction syndrome

ED

emergency department

GI

gastrointestinal

PwCF

persons with cystic fibrosis

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was financially supported by the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences in the form of a grant (UM1TR004405) received by TW and AB. This study was financially supported by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation in the form of a grant (00451A121) received by BM. This study was also financially supported by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation in the form of a grant (NICE-CF, PROMISE-OB-18, DIGEST 4, and STRONG-CF) received by SS.

References

  • 1.Moshiree B, Freeman AJ, Vu PT, Khan U, Ufret-Vincenty C, Heltshe SL, et al. Multicenter prospective study showing a high gastrointestinal symptom burden in cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros. 2023;22(2):266–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2022.10.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rubinstein S, Moss R, Lewiston N. Constipation and meconium ileus equivalent in patients with cystic fibrosis. Pediatrics. 1986;78(3):473–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Stefano MA, Poderoso RE, Mainz JG, Ribeiro JD, Ribeiro AF, Lomazi EA. Prevalence of constipation in cystic fibrosis patients: a systematic review of observational studies. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2020;96(6):686–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jped.2020.03.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Dray X, Bienvenu T, Desmazes-Dufeu N, Dusser D, Marteau P, Hubert D. Distal intestinal obstruction syndrome in adults with cystic fibrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2(6):498–503. doi: 10.1016/s1542-3565(04)00169-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Abraham JM, Taylor CJ. Cystic Fibrosis & disorders of the large intestine: DIOS, constipation, and colorectal cancer. J Cyst Fibros. 2017;16:S40–S9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2017.06.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Houwen RH, van der Doef HP, Sermet I, Munck A, Hauser B, Walkowiak J, et al. Defining DIOS and constipation in cystic fibrosis with a multicentre study on the incidence, characteristics, and treatment of DIOS. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2010;50(1):38–42. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e3181a6e01d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Schwarzenberg SJ, Vu PT, Skalland M, Hoffman LR, Pope C, Gelfond D, et al. Elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor and gastrointestinal outcomes in cystic fibrosis: Report of promise-GI. J Cyst Fibros. 2023;22(2):282–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2022.10.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Farrell PM, White TB, Ren CL, Hempstead SE, Accurso F, Derichs N, et al. Diagnosis of cystic fibrosis: consensus guidelines from the cystic fibrosis foundation. J Pediatrics. 2017;181S:S4–S15.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.09.064 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.van der Doef HPJ, Kokke FTM, Beek FJA, Woestenenk JW, Froeling SP, Houwen RHJ. Constipation in pediatric cystic fibrosis patients: an underestimated medical condition. J Cyst Fibros. 2010;9(1):59–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2009.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bijvelds MJC, Bot AGM, Escher JC, de Jonge HR. Activation of Intestinal Cl- Secretion by lubiprostone requires the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(3):976–85. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.05.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.McHugh DR, Cotton CU, Moss FJ, Vitko M, Valerio DM, Kelley TJ, et al. Linaclotide improves gastrointestinal transit in cystic fibrosis mice by inhibiting sodium/hydrogen exchanger 3. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2018;315(5):G868–G78. doi: 10.1152/ajpgi.00261.2017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tan Q, di Stefano G, Tan X, Renjie X, Römermann D, Talbot SR, et al. Inhibition of Na(+)/H(+) exchanger isoform 3 improves gut fluidity and alkalinity in cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator-deficient and F508del mutant mice. Br J Pharmacol. 2021;178(5):1018–36. doi: 10.1111/bph.15323 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Shaughnessy CA, Yadav S, Bratcher PE, Zeitlin PL. Receptor-mediated activation of CFTR via prostaglandin signaling pathways in the airway. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2022;322(3):L305–l14. doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00388.2021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.O’Brien CE, Anderson PJ, Stowe CD. Lubiprostone for constipation in adults with cystic fibrosis: a pilot study. Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45(9):1061–6. doi: 10.1345/aph.1Q219 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Carroll W, Green J, Gilchrist FJ. Interventions for preventing distal intestinal obstruction syndrome (DIOS) in cystic fibrosis. Cochrane Datab Syst Rev. 2021;12(6):CD012619. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012619.pub3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Koletzko S, Corey M, Ellis L, Spino M, Stringer DA, Durie PR. Effects of cisapride in patients with cystic fibrosis and distal intestinal obstruction syndrome. J Pediatrics. 1990;117(5):815–22. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(05)83350-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gilljam M, Chaparro C, Tullis E, Chan C, Keshavjee S, Hutcheon M. GI complications after lung transplantation in patients with cystic fibrosis. Chest. 2003;123(1):37–41. doi: 10.1378/chest.123.1.37 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shteinberg M, Taylor-Cousar JL. Impact of CFTR modulator use on outcomes in people with severe cystic fibrosis lung disease. Eur Respir Rev. 2020;29(155):190112. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0112-2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dagenais RVE, Su VCH, Quon BS. Real-world safety of CFTR modulators in the treatment of cystic fibrosis: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2020;10(1):23. doi: 10.3390/jcm10010023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Desai S, Zhang W, Sutherland JM, Singer J, Quon BS. Factors associated with frequent high-cost individuals with cystic fibrosis and their healthcare utilization and cost patterns. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):8910. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-35942-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alyssa Kriegermeier

Dear Dr. Wongjarupong,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR comments:

  • In addition to the 2 reviewer comments below, please address these 2 minor issues:

  • in the results section page 8, it is written: "PwCF who were seen in the CF-GI clinic for constipation were more likely to be prescribed secretagogues or 5-HT4 agonists for management of constipation: 43/107 (40.2%) as compared with 24/135 (17.8%) PwCF not seen in the CF-GI clinic, p <0.001 [Table 2]" - i think this should be 'not seen in the CF-GI clinic FOR CONSTIPATION"

  • in results, page 10, it's written: " Of these, t1`25 (51.7%) PwCF who had adequate follow-up of three years before and after CFTR modulator initiation with the baseline characteristics provided in Supplementary data 2." - I believe this should be "125 (51.7%).

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 14 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alyssa Kriegermeier

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

Sarah Schwarzenberg is a consultant for Uptodate.

Baharak Moshiree received Cystic Fibrosis Foundation grant support; Bausch Pharma grant support; and Salix grant support.

Other authors declared no conflict of interest.

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

4. Your abstract cannot contain citations. Please only include citations in the body text of the manuscript, and ensure that they remain in ascending numerical order on first mention.

5. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set.

Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Well prepared manuscript

This is an understudied topic area and the reviewers provide helpful, relevant and new data which somewhat surprised this reviewer who had assumed that the use of CFTR modulator therapy would have some impact upon DIOS and perhaps constipation

The topic area is difficult to study as DIOS increases with age, and therefore there is a possibility that some modest benefit is being derived but the findings are, in my view, an important addition to the literature and will be helpful in discussions with patients

The authors acknowledge the most important limitation of the study; namely that ‘the subset of individuals referred to the CF-GI clinic represent a difficult-to-treat population with more severe disease’

In the abstract the provision of nonsignificant p values greater than 0.05 is not required or, in the opinion of this reviewer helpful: they are simply nonsignificant. It would be more helpful to see the number of episodes reported (median).

Whilst they conclude that referral to a CF-GI clinic does not result in better outcomes for patients there are two important considerations:

1. Would the natural history be worse for those never referred? i.e. is there an inexorable increase in gut symptoms that is slowed or halted with optimal treatment.

2. Does this simply confirm the results of the systematic reviews showing that no treatments that are currently available for use are effective.

My biggest grumble about the proposed paper is that I find the presentation of the results very difficult to follow. Surely the number of ED visits for DIOS over 3 years before and 3 years after initiation of CFTR modulator therapy is a number, which could be summarized as a median and IQR.

There are other concerns about the figures. For instance: what does ‘similar number’ mean. Does it mean ‘same number’?

They are of low quality

They have grammatical errors i.e. Number of admission for DIOS rather than Number of admissions for DIOS

Some revision of these and careful thought about how to present the data is required.

Minor typographical error on line 183 with no space between the words identified and 16

Minor typo line 203, of these t1`25 should be 125 (51.7%)

Minor typo line 280: ‘aeruginosa’ needs to be in italics

Minor typo line 282: no space between DIOS and (20)

Reviewer #2: This retrospective study by Wongjarupong N, et al. looking at the impact of CF-GI clinics and HEMT on the incidence of DIOS and constipation in PwCF adds significant insight to our current understanding of this issue. This study raises further questions regarding proper identification of DIOS and constipation patients, long-term effects of HEMT on GI symptoms, proper treatment of constipation, and utility of specialized CF-GI clinics. These questions build a framework for future studies on the subject.

Comments:

1. The aim stated in the introduction (characterizing DIOS/constipation burden, healthcare utilization) seems to vary from that which is described in the title and conclusion (impact of CF-GI clinics and HEMT on DIOS/constipation).

2. I think the 3-year timepoint before and after intervention is very reasonable, and should give enough time to see differences in the stated outcomes.

3. While prior lung transplant may be important for DIOS, particularly immediately post-transplant, there are no data in this study regarding timing of the prior transplant. It might be better to note how many of those patients had lung transplant within the 6-year timeframe of the study.

4. It sounds as if only patients who were referred to or seen by CF-GI were included in the study. Do you have data regarding incidence of DIOS before and after HEMT in patients who may not have been referred to GI?

5. Timing of initiation of HEMT and first visit to CF-GI could have confounded the results. It may be worth including data regarding initiation of HEMT in relation to CF-GI visit. With the current data, it is difficult to tease out the impact of HEMT vs. CF-GI on your reported outcomes.

6. Your study defined constipation based only on daily laxative use for > 3 years. The standard definition of constipation is typically symptom-based. Your stringent definition may not be the best to look at differences in constipation outcomes with your interventions. While constipation symptoms may have been significantly better with CF-GI intervention (i.e. being started on effective medications), the patient would be defined as still having constipation if they continued their constipation meds even though their symptoms could have resolved.

7. Do you have enough numbers of patients to break improvement with intervention down by type of HEMT? The more effective modulators may be more of less beneficial for GI symptoms.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Professor Will Carroll

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Jul 28;20(7):e0328015. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0328015.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


31 May 2025

We would like to thank the reviewers and the editorial team for their thoughtful, constructive, and insightful feedback on our manuscript. Below, we have provided detailed responses to each point raised and indicated the changes made in the revised version.

Academic editor

1. In the results section page 8, it is written: ‘PwCF who were seen in the CF-GI clinic for constipation were more likely to be prescribed secretagogues or 5-HT4 agonists for management of constipation: 43/107 (40.2%) as compared with 24/135 (17.8%) PwCF not seen in the CF-GI clinic, p <0.001 [Table 2]’ - i think this should be 'not seen in the CF-GI clinic FOR CONSTIPATION’. In results, page 10, it's written: ‘Of these, t1`25 (51.7%) PwCF who had adequate follow-up of three years before and after CFTR modulator initiation with the baseline characteristics provided in Supplementary data 2.’ - I believe this should be ‘125 (51.7%).

Response: Thank you for pointing out these issues, and we apologize for the oversight. We have made the corrections in the manuscript: The phrase "not seen in the CF-GI clinic" has been updated to "not seen in the CF-GI clinic for constipation" on page 8 as suggested. The typo on page 10 has been corrected to read "125 (51.7%)" instead of "t1`25."

Reviewer 1

1. “In the abstract the provision of nonsignificant p values greater than 0.05 is not required or, in the opinion of this reviewer helpful: they are simply nonsignificant. It would be more helpful to see the number of episodes reported (median).”

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment regarding the reporting of nonsignificant p-values in the abstract. We have revised the Results section to emphasize directional changes in hospital admissions and ED visits by providing categorical summaries (i.e., decreased/unchanged/ increased), rather than highlighting nonsignificant p-values. We hope this approach more effectively conveys the clinical patterns observed in our cohort, in line with your suggestion. We also considered the inclusion of median values; however, as the number of DIOS-related episodes was zero for many patients, we thought median values may offer limited interpretability, and therefore, we opted for categorical reporting to better reflect variability across the cohort. We appreciate your insightful feedback and hope these revisions enhance the clarity and impact of the abstract.

2. Whilst they conclude that referral to a CF-GI clinic does not result in better outcomes for patients there are two important considerations:

1. Would the natural history be worse for those never referred? i.e. is there an inexorable increase in gut symptoms that is slowed or halted with optimal treatment.

2. Does this simply confirm the results of the systematic reviews showing that no treatments that are currently available for use are effective.

Response: We appreciate this insightful comment.

1. As the reviewer notes, it is possible that referral to a CF-GI clinic may have slowed progression or mitigated worsening of gastrointestinal symptoms, but we were unfortunately unable to capture due to the retrospective nature of our study and lack of a comparable non-referred control group. We now acknowledge this in the Discussion section as a limitation and include the possibility that outcomes may have been worse without referral.

2. We also appreciate the reviewer’s second point regarding the broader treatment landscape. Our findings may indeed reflect the limited efficacy of currently available therapies for DIOS and constipation in cystic fibrosis, as suggested in systematic reviews. We have added language in the Discussion to place our findings within this context.

3. My biggest grumble about the proposed paper is that I find the presentation of the results very difficult to follow. Surely the number of ED visits for DIOS over 3 years before and 3 years after initiation of CFTR modulator therapy is a number, which could be summarized as a median and IQR. There are other concerns about the figures. For instance: what does ‘similar number’ mean. Does it mean ‘same number’? They have grammatical errors i.e. Number of admission for DIOS rather than Number of admissions for DIOS. Some revision of these and careful thought about how to present the data is required.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback regarding the presentation of our results. We appreciate your concern about the clarity and readability of the data, and we have carefully revised the figures in response.

To improve clarity, we have replaced ambiguous terms such as “similar number” with more precise language (e.g., “unchanged”) and corrected grammatical errors, including “number of admission” to “number of admissions.” Regarding your suggestion to report the number of DIOS-related ED visits using medians and interquartile ranges, we gave this careful consideration. However, due to the high proportion of patients with zero events both before and after CFTR modulator initiation, the median value was often zero, which we felt limited its ability to meaningfully capture variability in the data. To better reflect clinically relevant patterns, we chose to present categorical summaries (i.e., decreased/unchanged/increased), which we believe more effectively communicate the observed trends across the cohort. We are grateful for your insights, which helped strengthen the clarity and rigor of the manuscript, and we hope the revised version better reflects these improvements.

4. Minor typographical error on line 183 with no space between the words identified and 16.

Minor typo line 203, of these t1`25 should be 125 (51.7%)

Minor typo line 280: ‘aeruginosa’ needs to be in italics

Minor typo line 282: no space between DIOS and (20)”

Response: Thank you for noting these errors, and we apologize for the oversight. We have corrected all identified issues as follows: added a space between “identified” and the citation, corrected “t1`25” to “125 (51.7%)”, italicized aeruginosa, and inserted a space between “DIOS” and the citation.

Reviewer 2

1. This retrospective study by Wongjarupong N, et al. looking at the impact of CF-GI clinics and HEMT on the incidence of DIOS and constipation in PwCF adds significant insight to our current understanding of this issue. This study raises further questions regarding proper identification of DIOS and constipation patients, long-term effects of HEMT on GI symptoms, proper treatment of constipation, and utility of specialized CF-GI clinics. These questions build a framework for future studies on the subject.

Response: Thank you very much for your thoughtful and encouraging feedback! We greatly appreciate your recognition of the significance of our study in contributing to the care of individuals with cystic fibrosis. We also appreciate the valuable ideas you raised, and we hope to build on these ideas in future work and continue exploring these important questions.

2. The aim stated in the introduction (characterizing DIOS/constipation burden, healthcare utilization) seems to vary from that which is described in the title and conclusion (impact of CF-GI clinics and HEMT on DIOS/constipation).

Response: Thank you for this helpful observation. We agree that consistency in framing the study’s aim is important. To address this, we revised the Introduction to better reflect the primary objectives of the study as stated in the title and conclusion. Namely, “In this study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of CFTR modulator therapy and CF-GI clinic referral on the burden of GI complications, specifically DIOS and constipation, by analyzing associated health care utilization, including hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits, as well as reviewing medical charts in PwCF.”

3. I think the 3-year timepoint before and after intervention is very reasonable, and should give enough time to see differences in the stated outcomes.

Response: Thank you for your supportive comment regarding the 3-year time frame, and we appreciate your validation of this approach.

4. While prior lung transplant may be important for DIOS, particularly immediately post-transplant, there are no data in this study regarding timing of the prior transplant. It might be better to note how many of those patients had lung transplant within the 6-year timeframe of the study.

Response: Thank you for the insightful comment. We have looked into our data and added the information on the number of patients who had lung transplant within the 6-year period of study for both CFTR modulator and CF-GI clinic analyses. Of the 59 PwCF in the CF-GI clinic cohort, there were 5 PwCF who underwent lung transplant of which 4 underwent lung transplant prior to the CF-GI clinic first visit and 1 underwent lung transplant after the CF-GI clinic first visit. Of the 125 PwCF in the CFTR modulator cohort, there were 3 PwCF who underwent lung transplant during the 6-year period of study of which all underwent transplant after CFTR modulator initiation. This information was added to the Result section.

5. It sounds as if only patients who were referred to or seen by CF-GI were included in the study. Do you have data regarding incidence of DIOS before and after HEMT in patients who may not have been referred to GI?

Response: Thank you for this important question. While our study focused on the cohort of 242 PwCF referred to the CF-GI clinic, we do have a larger group of 834 PwCF who were not seen in the CF-GI clinic during the study period. However, detailed chart review for DIOS episodes in that broader population was beyond the scope of this project, which required several years of manual data collection even within the referred cohort. We agree that examining DIOS incidence in the non-referred population would be a valuable direction for future research and could provide complementary insights into broader trends following HEMT initiation.

6. Timing of initiation of HEMT and first visit to CF-GI could have confounded the results. It may be worth including data regarding initiation of HEMT in relation to CF-GI visit. With the current data, it is difficult to tease out the impact of HEMT vs. CF-GI on your reported outcomes.

Response: Thank you for reviewer’s thoughtful comment. We have explored our data for this specific question. Of the 59 PwCF in the CF-GI clinic cohort, there were 29 PwCF who started CFTR modulator during the 6-year period of study; of which 10 were prior to the CF-GI clinic first visit and 19 were after the CF-GI clinic first visit. Of the 125 PwCF in the CFTR modulator cohort, there were 38 PwCF who had the first CF-GI clinic during the 6-year period of study of which 19 were before the CFTR modulator initiation, and 19 were after CFRT modulator initiation. This information was added to the Result section.

7. Your study defined constipation based only on daily laxative use for > 3 years. The standard definition of constipation is typically symptom-based. Your stringent definition may not be the best to look at differences in constipation outcomes with your interventions. While constipation symptoms may have been significantly better with CF-GI intervention (i.e. being started on effective medications), the patient would be defined as still having constipation if they continued their constipation meds even though their symptoms could have resolved.

Response: Thank you very much for this insightful comment. We recognize that this may have been unclear in the original text, and we have revised the wording to clarify in the Methods section. We agree that a symptom-based definition of constipation, such as the Rome IV criteria, is the standard. However, due to the retrospective nature of our study, the long span of the cohort, and limited symptom documentation, applying the exact Rome IV criteria was not feasible. As such, we selected a threshold of daily laxative use for more than three months, guided by the chronicity criteria in Rome IV (which require symptoms to be present for at least 3–6 months). We felt this approach would allow for the most consistent identification of individuals with clinically significant constipation while acknowledging its limitations. We have clarified this definition.

8. Do you have enough numbers of patients to break improvement with intervention down by type of HEMT? The more effective modulators may be more of less beneficial for GI symptoms.

Response: Of the 125 patients in the CFTR modulator cohort, there were 49 lumacaftor/ivacaftor, 47 elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor, 18 tezacaftor/ivacaftor, 8civacaftor, and 3 with missing information. The table was added as Supplementary data 3.

We look forward to an expeditious and hopefully positive review of the manuscript. We thank the editors and reviewers in advance for their time and effort in procession and reviewing our work.

Sincerely,

Nicha Wongjarupong, MD

Decision Letter 1

Alyssa Kriegermeier

Effect of Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator Modulator and Dedicated Cystic Fibrosis Gastrointestinal Clinic Visits on the Incidence of Distal Intestinal Obstructive Syndrome in Persons with Cystic Fibrosis

PONE-D-25-14674R1

Dear Dr. Wongjarupong,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alyssa Kriegermeier

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for carefully addressing the comments. The paper addresses an important clinical issue and the results are somewhat surprising. They should act as a stimulus for other centres to carefully address whether CFTR modulators have an impact upon GI symptoms. And if so, to what extent.

Reviewer #2: From my standpoint, all reviewer critiques have been adequately addressed. I am comfortable with this manuscript being accepted for publication.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  W D CARROLL

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Alyssa Kriegermeier

PONE-D-25-14674R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wongjarupong,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alyssa Kriegermeier

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. Characteristics of patients seen in cystic fibrosis-gastrointestinal clinic for comparison of three years before and after cystic fibrosis-gastrointestinal clinic.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0328015.s001.docx (13.4KB, docx)
    S2 Data. Characteristics of patients seen in cystic fibrosis-gastrointestinal clinic for comparison of pre- and post-cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator initiation.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0328015.s002.docx (13.3KB, docx)
    S3 Data. Changes in number of admissions and ED visits before and after CFTR modulator initiation by types of CFTR modulators.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0328015.s003.docx (13.4KB, docx)
    S4 Data. Study data set.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0328015.s004.xlsx (37.7KB, xlsx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES