Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Tezacaftor/ivacaftor is a CFTR modulator approved to treat people with cystic fibrosis (pwCF) who are homozygous ( F / F ) or heterozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation and a residual function mutation ( F /RF). This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of tezacaftor/ivacaftor in participants ≥12 years of age heterozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation and a minimal function mutation ( F /MF), which produces no CFTR protein or a protein unresponsive to tezacaftor/ivacaftor in vitro. Methods Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive tezacaftor/ivacaftor or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the absolute change from baseline in percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (ppFEV 1 ) between the tezacaftor/ivacaftor and placebo groups through week 12. Key secondary endpoints included absolute change from baseline in CF Questionnaire-Revised respiratory domain scores and the number of pulmonary exacerbations through week 12 and the absolute change from baseline in body mass index at week 12. A prespecified interim analysis (IA) for futility was conducted when approximately 50% of a planned enrollment of 300 participants reached week 12 of the study. Results At the time of the IA, 83 participants were randomized to tezacaftor/ivacaftor and 85 to placebo; 165 participants completed treatment. The study failed to demonstrate that tezacaftor/ivacaftor significantly improved ppFEV 1 or any of the key secondary endpoints and was terminated for futility. The safety profile and PK parameters of tezacaftor/ivacaftor were similar to those reported in prior studies in participants ≥12 years of age with CF. Conclusions Tezacaftor/ivacaftor did not show a clinically meaningful benefit in participants with F /MF genotypes but was generally safe and well tolerated, consistent with the safety profile reported in other Phase 3 studies (NCT02516410).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Munck et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: