MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record 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 on 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

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Respiratory Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersManchester 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
KeywordsIvacaftorMedicineCystic fibrosisEveningSpirometryCystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulatorInternal medicinePhysical therapyAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations89
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Respiratory MedicineSame topicCystic Fibrosis Research AdvancesFrench-language works237,207