A Phase 3, open-label, 96-week trial to study the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of tezacaftor/ivacaftor in children ≥ 6 years of age homozygous for F508del or heterozygous for F508del and a residual function CFTR variant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Two previous Phase 3 studies ("parent studies") showed that tezacaftor/ivacaftor was generally safe and efficacious for up to 24 weeks in children 6 through 11 years of age with cystic fibrosis (CF) and F508del/F508del ( F/F ) or F508del /residual function ( F /RF) genotypes. We assessed the safety and efficacy of tezacaftor/ivacaftor in an open-label, 96-week extension study. Methods This was a Phase 3, 2-part, multicenter, open-label, extension study in children 6 through 11 years of age at treatment initiation (Study VX17–661–116; NCT03537651). The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints were absolute change from baseline in lung clearance index 2.5 (LCI 2.5 ), sweat chloride (SwCl) concentration, Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) respiratory domain score, and body mass index (BMI). Results One-hundred thirty children enrolled and received ≥ 1 dose of tezacaftor/ivacaftor; 109 completed treatment. Most ( n = 129) had ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), the majority of which were mild or moderate in severity and generally consistent with common manifestations of CF. Exposure-adjusted TEAE rates were similar to or lower than those in the parent studies. Five (3.8%) had TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation. Efficacy results from the parent studies were maintained, with improvements in lung function, SwCl concentration, CFQ‑R respiratory domain score, and BMI observed from parent study baseline to Week 96. Conclusions Tezacaftor/ivacaftor is generally safe and well tolerated, and treatment effects are maintained for up to 120 weeks. These results support long-term use of tezacaftor/ivacaftor in children ≥ 6 years of age with CF and F/F or F /RF genotypes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".