A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study to evaluate tezacaftor/ivacaftor in people with cystic fibrosis heterozygous for F508del-CFTR and a gating mutation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Tezacaftor (TEZ)/ivacaftor (IVA) is an approved CFTR modulator shown to be efficacious and generally safe and well tolerated in people ≥12 years of age with cystic fibrosis (CF) homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation or heterozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation and a residual function mutation. Although previous studies with IVA alone showed clinical benefits in people with CFTR gating mutations, TEZ/IVA has not yet been evaluated in a Phase 3 study of participants heterozygous for F508del-CFTR and a gating mutation ( F /gating genotypes). Here, we present results from a randomized, double-blind, IVA-controlled, parallel-group, Phase 3 study assessing the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of TEZ/IVA in participants ≥12 years of age with F /gating genotypes. Methods Enrolled participants entered a 4-week IVA run-in period to create a stable IVA baseline. Participants were then randomized to receive IVA or TEZ/IVA for 8 weeks in an active comparator treatment period (ACTP). The primary endpoint was absolute change in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (ppFEV 1 ). Key secondary endpoints were relative change in ppFEV 1 and absolute change in CF Questionnaire–Revised respiratory domain score. Secondary endpoints included absolute change in sweat chloride (SwCl) concentration, PK parameters, and safety. All endpoints except PK parameters and safety were assessed from baseline through Week 8. Results Sixty-nine participants (92.0%) in the IVA group and 75 participants (98.7%) in the TEZ/IVA group completed treatment. No improvements were seen in efficacy endpoints from baseline at the end of the IVA run-in period through the end of the ACTP in the IVA group. No significant differences in ppFEV 1 or any key secondary endpoint were observed between the IVA and TEZ/IVA groups. SwCl concentrations decreased more in the TEZ/IVA versus IVA group during the ACTP. The safety profile and PK parameters of TEZ/IVA were consistent with those of previous studies in participants ≥12 years of age with CF. Conclusions This Phase 3 study showed that the dual-combination regimen of TEZ/IVA demonstrated clinical efficacy but did not have significantly greater clinical efficacy than IVA alone in participants ≥12 years of age with F /gating genotypes. However, as reported in other studies, TEZ/IVA was generally safe and well tolerated (NCT02412111).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".