Search

Background: Elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor has been shown to be safe and efficacious in people with cystic fibrosis and at least one F508del allele. Our aim was to identify a novel cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator combination capable of further increasing CFTR-mediated chloride transport, with the potential for once-daily dosing. Methods: We conducted two phase 2 clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy of a once-daily combination of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor in participants with cystic fibrosis who were aged 18 years or older. A phase 2 randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study (VX18-561-101; April 17, 2019, to Aug 20, 2020) was carried out to compare deutivacaftor monotherapy with ivacaftor monotherapy in participants with CFTR gating mutations, following a 4-week ivacaftor monotherapy run-in period. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either ivacaftor 150 mg every 12 h, deutivacaftor 25 mg once daily, deutivacaftor 50 mg once daily, deutivacaftor 150 mg once daily, or deutivacaftor 250 mg once daily in a 1:1:2:2:2 ratio. The primary endpoint was absolute change in ppFEV1 from baseline at week 12. A phase 2 randomised, double-blind, controlled, proof-of-concept study of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (VX18-121-101; April 30, 2019, to Dec 10, 2019) was conducted in participants with cystic fibrosis and heterozygous for F508del and a minimal function mutation (F/MF genotypes) or homozygous for F508del (F/F genotype). Participants with F/MF genotypes were randomly assigned 1:2:2:1 to receive either 5 mg, 10 mg, or 20 mg of vanzacaftor in combination with tezacaftor–deutivacaftor or a triple placebo for 4 weeks, and participants with the F/F genotype were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either vanzacaftor (20 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor or tezacaftor–ivacaftor active control for 4 weeks, following a 4-week tezacaftor–ivacaftor run-in period. Primary endpoints for part 1 and part 2 were safety and tolerability and absolute change in ppFEV1 from baseline to day 29. Secondary efficacy endpoints were absolute change from baseline at day 29 in sweat chloride concentrations and Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) respiratory domain score. These clinical trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03911713 and NCT03912233, and are complete. Findings: In study VX18-561-101, participants treated with deutivacaftor 150 mg once daily (n=23) or deutivacaftor 250 mg once daily (n=24) had mean absolute changes in ppFEV1 of 3·1 percentage points (95% CI –0·8 to 7·0) and 2·7 percentage points (–1·0 to 6·5) from baseline at week 12, respectively, versus –0·8 percentage points (–6·2 to 4·7) with ivacaftor 150 mg every 12 h (n=11); the deutivacaftor safety profile was consistent with the established safety profile of ivacaftor 150 mg every 12 h. In study VX18-121-101, participants with F/MF genotypes treated with vanzacaftor (5 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=9), vanzacaftor (10 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=19), vanzacaftor (20 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=20), and placebo (n=10) had mean changes relative to baseline at day 29 in ppFEV1 of 4·6 percentage points (−1·3 to 10·6), 14·2 percentage points (10·0 to 18·4), 9·8 percentage points (5·7 to 13·8), and 1·9 percentage points (−4·1 to 8·0), respectively, in sweat chloride concentration of −42·8 mmol/L (–51·7 to –34·0), −45·8 mmol/L (95% CI –51·9 to –39·7), −49·5 mmol/L (–55·9 to –43·1), and 2·3 mmol/L (−7·0 to 11·6), respectively, and in CFQ-R respiratory domain score of 17·6 points (3·5 to 31·6), 21·2 points (11·9 to 30·6), 29·8 points (21·0 to 38·7), and 3·3 points (−10·1 to 16·6), respectively. Participants with the F/F genotype treated with vanzacaftor (20 mg)–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor (n=18) and tezacaftor–ivacaftor (n=10) had mean changes relative to baseline (taking tezacaftor–ivacaftor) at day 29 in ppFEV1 of 15·9 percentage points (11·3 to 20·6) and −0·1 percentage points (−6·4 to 6·1), respectively, in sweat chloride concentration of −45·5 mmol/L (−49·7 to −41·3) and −2·6 mmol/L (−8·2 to 3·1), respectively, and in CFQ-R respiratory domain score of 19·4 points (95% CI 10·5 to 28·3) and −5·0 points (−16·9 to 7·0), respectively. The most common adverse events overall were cough, increased sputum, and headache. One participant in the vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor group had a serious adverse event of infective pulmonary exacerbation and another participant had a serious rash event that led to treatment discontinuation. For most participants, adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Interpretation: Once-daily dosing with vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor was safe and well tolerated and improved lung function, respiratory symptoms, and CFTR function. These results support the continued investigation of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor in phase 3 clinical trials compared with elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor. Funding: Vertex Pharmaceuticals.

There is no consensus on the best model of care for individuals with CF to manage the non-pulmonary complications that persist after lung transplant. The CF Foundation virtually convened a group of international experts in CF and lung-transplant care. The committee reviewed literature and shared the post-lung transplant model of care practiced by their programs. The committee then developed a survey that was distributed internationally to both the clinical and individual with CF/family audiences to determine the strengths, weaknesses, and preferences for various models of transplant care. Discussion generated two models to accomplish optimal CF care after transplant. The first model incorporates the CF team into care and proposes delineation of responsibilities for the CF and transplant teams. This model is reliant on outstanding communication between the teams, while leveraging the expertise of the CF team for management of the non-pulmonary manifestations of CF. The transplant team manages all aspects of the transplant, including pulmonary concerns and management of immunosuppression. The second model consolidates care in one center and may be more practical for transplant programs that have expertise managing CF and have access to CF multidisciplinary care team members (e.g., located in the same institution). The best model for each program is influenced by several factors and model selection needs to be decided between the transplant and the CF center and may vary from center to center. In either model, CF lung transplant recipients require a clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of their providers and mechanisms for effective communication. ispartof: J Cyst Fibros vol:22 issue:3 pages:374-380 ispartof: location:Netherlands status: published

Background Shortcomings of inhaled antibiotic treatments for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) include poor drug penetration, inactivation by sputum, poor efficiency due to protective biofilm, and short residence in the lung. Methods Eligible patients with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ≥25% of predicted value at screening and CF with chronic P. aeruginosa infection were randomly assigned to receive 3 treatment cycles (28 days on, 28 days off) of amikacin liposome inhalation suspension (ALIS, 590 mg QD) or tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS, 300 mg BID). The primary endpoint was noninferiority of ALIS vs TIS in change from baseline to day 168 in FEV1 (per-protocol population). Secondary endpoints included change in respiratory symptoms by Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R). Results The study was conducted February 2012 to September 2013. ALIS was noninferior to TIS (95% CI, −4.95 to 2.34) for relative change in FEV1 (L) from baseline. The mean increases in CFQ-R score from baseline on the Respiratory Symptoms scale suggested clinically meaningful improvement in both arms at the end of treatment in cycle 1 and in the ALIS arm at the end of treatment in cycles 2 and 3; however, the changes were not statistically significant between the 2 treatment arms. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in most patients (ALIS, 84.5%; TIS, 78.8%). Serious TEAEs occurred in 17.6% and 19.9% of patients, respectively; most were hospitalisations for infective pulmonary exacerbation of CF. Conclusions Cyclical dosing of once-daily ALIS was noninferior to cyclical twice-daily TIS in improving lung function. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01315678