MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405998503 · doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(24)00411-9

Vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor versus elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor in individuals with cystic fibrosis aged 12 years and older (SKYLINE Trials VX20-121-102 and VX20-121-103): results from two randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trials

2025· article· en· W4405998503 sur OpenAlexaff
Claire Keating, Lael M. Yonker, F. Vermeulen, Dario Prais, Rachel W. Linnemann, Aaron Trimble, Tom Kotsimbos, Joel Mermis, Andrew T. Braun, Mark O’Carroll, Sivagurunathan Sutharsan, Bonnie W. Ramsey, Marcus Mall, Jennifer L. Taylor‐Cousar, Edward F. McKone, Elizabeth Tullis, Tim Floreth, Peter H. Michelson, Patrick R. Sosnay, Nitin Nair, Rachel Zahigian, H Martin, Neil Ahluwalia, Anna P. Lam, Alex Horsley

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Lancet Respiratory Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesManchester Clinical Research FacilityNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthKU LeuvenFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchInsmedManchester Biomedical Research CentreVlaamse regeringVertex PharmaceuticalsCystic Fibrosis TrustMylanDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftArrowhead PharmaceuticalsKoning BoudewijnstichtingCystic Fibrosis Foundation TherapeuticsAstraZenecaEuropean Respiratory SocietyAmerican Thoracic Society
Mots-clésIvacaftorMedicineCystic fibrosisEveningSpirometryCystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulatorInternal medicinePhysical therapyAsthma

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background The goal of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators is to reach normal CFTR function in people with cystic fibrosis. Vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor restored CFTR function in vitro and in phase 2 trials in participants aged 18 years and older resulting in improvements in CFTR function, as measured by sweat chloride concentrations and lung function as measured by spirometry. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor compared with standard of care elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor in individuals with cystic fibrosis aged 12 years and older. Methods In two randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trials, individuals aged 12 years and older with stable cystic fibrosis with F508del -minimal function (SKYLINE Trial VX20-121-102) or with F508del-F508del, F508del -residual function, F508del -gating, or elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor-responsive-non- F508del genotypes (SKYLINE Trial VX20-121-103) were enrolled at 126 and 159 international sites, respectively. Eligible individuals were entered into a 4-week run-in period, during which they received elexacaftor (200 mg once daily), tezacaftor (100 mg once daily), and ivacaftor (150 mg once every 12 h) as two fixed-dose combination tablets in the morning and one ivacaftor tablet in the evening. They were then randomly assigned (1:1) to either elexacaftor (200 mg once daily), tezacaftor (100 mg once daily), and ivacaftor (150 mg once every 12 h) as two fixed-dose combination tablets in the morning and one ivacaftor tablet in the evening, or vanzacaftor (20 mg once daily), tezacaftor (100 mg once daily), and deutivacaftor (250 mg once daily) as two fixed-dose combination tablets in the morning, for the 52-week treatment period. All participants received matching placebo tablets to maintain the treatment blinding. Randomisation was done using an interactive web-response system and stratified by age, FEV 1 % predicted, sweat chloride concentration, and previous CFTR modulator use, and also by genotype for Trial VX20-121-103. The primary endpoint for both trials was absolute change in FEV 1 % predicted from baseline (most recent value before treatment on day 1) through week 24 (with non-inferiority of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor shown if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the primary endpoint was –3·0 or higher). Efficacy was assessed in all participants with the intended CFTR genotype who were randomly assigned to treatment and received at least one dose of study treatment during the treatment period. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug during the treatment period. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05033080 (Trial VX20-121-102) and NCT05076149 (Trial VX20-121-103), and are now complete. Findings In Trial VX20-121-102 between Sept 14, 2021, and Oct 18, 2022, 488 individuals were screened, of whom 435 entered the 4-week run-in period, and subsequently 398 were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor (n=202) or vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=196). Median age was 31·0 years (IQR 22·6–38·5), 163 (41%) of 398 participants were female, 235 (59%) were male, and 388 (97%) were White. In Trial VX20-121-103, between Oct 27, 2021, and Oct 26, 2022, 699 individuals were screened, of whom 597 entered the 4-week run-in period, and subsequently 573 participants were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor (n=289) or vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=284). Median age was 33·1 years (IQR 24·5–42·2), 280 (49%) of 573 participants were female, 293 (51%) were male, and 532 (93%) were White. The absolute change in least squares mean FEV 1 % predicted from baseline through week 24 for Trial VX20-121-102 was 0·5 (SE 0·3) percentage points in the vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor group versus 0·3 (0·3) percentage points in the elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor group (least squares mean treatment difference of 0·2 percentage points [95% CI –0·7 to 1·1]; p<0·0001), and for Trial VX20-121-103, was 0·2 (SE 0·3) percentage points in the vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor group versus 0·0 (0·2) percentage points in the elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor group (least squares mean treatment difference 0·2 percentage points [95% CI –0·5 to 0·9]; p<0·0001). Most adverse events were mild or moderate, with the most common being infective pulmonary exacerbation (133 [28%] of 480 participants in the pooled vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor group vs 158 [32%] of 491 in the pooled elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor group), cough (108 [23%] vs 101 [21%]), COVID-19 (107 [22%] vs 127 [26%]), and nasopharyngitis (102 [21%] vs 95 [19%]). Interpretation Vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor is non-inferior to elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor in terms of FEV 1 % predicted, and is safe and well tolerated. Once daily dosing with vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor reduces treatment burden, potentially improving adherence, compared with the twice daily regimen of the current standard of care. The restoration of CFTR function and the potential variants treated are also considerations that should be compared with currently available CFTR modulators. Funding Vertex Pharmaceuticals.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,025
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,057
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,123
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0250,057
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0100,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,083
Tête enseignante GPT0,407
Écart entre enseignants0,324 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations89
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Lancet Respiratory MedicineMême sujetCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesTravaux en français237 207