Theranostics vs theratyping or theranostics plus theratyping?

Area of Science:

• Biomedical research
• Genetics
• Pharmacology

Background:

• Treating all people with Cystic Fibrosis (pwCF) to the level of benefit achieved by highly efficient CFTR modulator therapies (HEMT) remains a significant challenge.
• Theratyping and theranostics are two distinct approaches to advance CF treatment.
• Both approaches have unique strengths and limitations in studying and treating CF.

Purpose of the Study:

• To discuss the challenges, advantages, and disadvantages of theratyping in cell lines and theranostics using pwCF-derived biomaterials.
• To compare the physiological relevance and patient-specificity of each approach.
• To propose an integrated strategy for advancing CF treatment.

Main Methods:

• Discussion of existing literature and methodologies for theratyping in cell lines.
• Analysis of challenges and benefits of theranostics using patient-derived biomaterials.
• Comparative evaluation of the two approaches for CF research and treatment.

Main Results:

• Theratyping in cell lines offers ease of use, cost-effectiveness, and standardized platforms but lacks physiological relevance and patient-specificity.
• Theranostics provides a human-relevant model for personalized medicine but requires specialized expertise, resources, and patient samples.
• Neither approach alone fully addresses the complexities of CF treatment.

Conclusions:

• Integrating theratyping and theranostics, leveraging their respective strengths, may enhance understanding of CF.
• A parallel approach can facilitate the development of more effective therapies for all pwCF.
• Personalized medicine strategies in CF treatment can be advanced through combined methodologies.