CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 305

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Phase 3 Open-Label Study of Elexacaftor/Tezacaftor/Ivacaftor in Children 6 through 11 Years of Age with Cystic Fibrosis and at Least One F508del Allele

Zemanick, Edith T., Taylor-Cousar, Jennifer L., Davies, Jane, Gibson, Ronald L., Mall, Marcus A., McKone, Edward F., McNally, Paul, Ramsey, Bonnie W., Rayment, Jonathan H., Rowe, Steven M., Tullis, Elizabeth, Ahluwalia, Neil, Chu, Chenghao, Ho, Thang, Moskowitz, Samuel M., Noel, Sabrina, Tian, Simon, Waltz, David, Weinstock, Tanya G., Xuan, Fengjuan, Wainwright, Claire E., McColley, Susanna A.·2021·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
DOI 10.1164/rccm.202102-0509ocPMC PMC8483230
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Rationale: Elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (ELX/TEZ/IVA) was shown to be efficacious and safe in patients ≥12 years of age with cystic fibrosis and at least one F508del-CFTR (cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator) allele, but it has not been evaluated in children <12 years of age. Objectives: To assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of ELX/TEZ/IVA in children 6 through 11 years of age with F508del–minimal function or F508del-F508del genotypes. Methods: In this 24-week open-label phase 3 study, children (N = 66) weighing <30 kg received 50% of the ELX/TEZ/IVA adult daily dose (ELX 100 mg once daily, TEZ 50 mg once daily, and IVA 75 mg every 12 h) whereas children weighing ⩾30 kg received the full adult daily dose (ELX 200 mg once daily, TEZ 100 mg once daily, and IVA 150 mg every 12 h). Measurements and Main Results: The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. The safety and pharmacokinetic profiles of ELX/TEZ/IVA were generally consistent with those observed in older patients. The most commonly reported adverse events included cough, headache, and pyrexia; in most of the children who had adverse events, these were mild or moderate in severity. Through Week 24, ELX/TEZ/IVA treatment improved the percentage of predicted FEV1 (10.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9 to 12.6), Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire–Revised respiratory domain score (7.0 points; 95% CI, 4.7 to 9.2), lung clearance index2.5 (−1.71 units; 95% CI, −2.11 to −1.30), and sweat chloride (−60.9 mmol/L; 95% CI, −63.7 to −58.2); body mass index-for-age z-score increased over the 24-week treatment period when compared with the pretreatment baseline. Conclusions: Our results show ELX/TEZ/IVA is safe and efficacious in children 6 through 11 years of age with at least one F508del-CFTR allele, supporting its use in this patient population. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03691779).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1164/rccm.202102-0509oc

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Patient disposition diagram for part B. *Patient discontinued treatment because of erythematous rash.
Figure 1. Patient disposition diagram for part B. *Patient discontinued treatment because of erythematous rash.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Pharmacokinetic exposure simulation. For each boxplot, the median is represented by a horizontal line, and the interquartile range is represented by the box. The whiskers mark the largest and smallest values within 1.5 × interquartile range. Dots represent individual empirical Bayes AUC estimate (EBE) values. In each panel, the dashed horizontal line represents the median of the ⩾18 years AUC values, and the gray shaded area indicates the 5th and 95th percentiles of the ⩾18 years AUC values. The EBE values for 6–11 years are from part B of this study. The EBE values for ⩾12 years are from studies 445-102 and 445-103 (12, 13). AUC = area under the concentration-versus-time curve; AUC0–12 = area under the concentration-versus-time curve (0–12 h after dose); AUC0–24 = area under the concentration-versus-time curve (0–24 h after dose); ELX = elexacaftor; IVA = ivacaftor; TEZ = tezacaftor.
Figure 2. Pharmacokinetic exposure simulation. For each boxplot, the median is represented by a horizontal line, and the interquartile range is represented by the box. The whiskers mark the largest and smallest values within 1.5 × interquartile range. Dots represent individual empirical Bayes AUC estimate (EBE) values. In each panel, the dashed horizontal line represents the median of the ⩾18 years AUC values, and the gray shaded area indicates the 5th and 95th percentiles of the ⩾18 years AUC values. The EBE values for 6–11 years are from part B of this study. The EBE values for ⩾12 years are from studies 445-102 and 445-103 (12, 13). AUC = area under the concentration-versus-time curve; AUC0–12 = area under the concentration-versus-time curve (0–12 h after dose); AUC0–24 = area under the concentration-versus-time curve (0–24 h after dose); ELX = elexacaftor; IVA = ivacaftor; TEZ = tezacaftor.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Efficacy results, by visit, in part B. (A) Absolute change from baseline at each visit in ppFEV1. (B) Absolute change from baseline at each visit in the respiratory domain score on the CFQ-R, child’s version; scores are normalized to a 100-point range, with higher scores indicating a higher patient-reported quality of life with regard to respiratory symptoms. (C) Absolute change from baseline at each visit in LCI2.5. (D) Absolute change from baseline at each visit in sweat chloride concentration; a reduction indicates improvement in CFTR (cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator) function. Data are least squares means based on a mixed-effects model for repeated measures, and error bars indicate SEMs; the dashed line indicates no change from baseline. Sample size shown under each x-axis is the number of patients at the time point with evaluable in-clinic data. CFQ-R = Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire–Revised; LCI2.5 = lung clearance index2.5; ppFEV1 = percentage of predicted FEV1.
Figure 3. Efficacy results, by visit, in part B. (A) Absolute change from baseline at each visit in ppFEV1. (B) Absolute change from baseline at each visit in the respiratory domain score on the CFQ-R, child’s version; scores are normalized to a 100-point range, with higher scores indicating a higher patient-reported quality of life with regard to respiratory symptoms. (C) Absolute change from baseline at each visit in LCI2.5. (D) Absolute change from baseline at each visit in sweat chloride concentration; a reduction indicates improvement in CFTR (cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator) function. Data are least squares means based on a mixed-effects model for repeated measures, and error bars indicate SEMs; the dashed line indicates no change from baseline. Sample size shown under each x-axis is the number of patients at the time point with evaluable in-clinic data. CFQ-R = Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire–Revised; LCI2.5 = lung clearance index2.5; ppFEV1 = percentage of predicted FEV1.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 4. Absolute change from baseline at each visit in (A) BMI, (B) BMI-for-age z-score, (C) weight, (D) weight-for-age z-score, (E) height, and (F) height-for-age z-score in part B. Data are least squares means based on a mixed-effects model for repeated measures, and error bars indicate SEMs; the dashed line indicates no change from baseline. Sample size shown under each x-axis is the number of patients at the time point with evaluable in-clinic data. BMI = body mass index.
Figure 4. Absolute change from baseline at each visit in (A) BMI, (B) BMI-for-age z-score, (C) weight, (D) weight-for-age z-score, (E) height, and (F) height-for-age z-score in part B. Data are least squares means based on a mixed-effects model for repeated measures, and error bars indicate SEMs; the dashed line indicates no change from baseline. Sample size shown under each x-axis is the number of patients at the time point with evaluable in-clinic data. BMI = body mass index.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Figure 5. Responder analysis for sweat chloride concentration by genotype group in part B. The percentage of children in each genotype group with sweat chloride concentrations <60 mmol/L or <30 mmol/L through Week 24 is shown. No children had sweat chloride concentrations <60 mmol/L at baseline. Percentages were calculated by dividing n (the number of patients with sweat chloride concentration below the indicated threshold) by N1, where N1 is the number of patients with evaluable data. Patients with missing data were considered missing at random and were not counted in the denominator. F/F = homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation; F/MF = heterozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation and a minimal function CFTR mutation.
Figure 5. Responder analysis for sweat chloride concentration by genotype group in part B. The percentage of children in each genotype group with sweat chloride concentrations <60 mmol/L or <30 mmol/L through Week 24 is shown. No children had sweat chloride concentrations <60 mmol/L at baseline. Percentages were calculated by dividing n (the number of patients with sweat chloride concentration below the indicated threshold) by N1, where N1 is the number of patients with evaluable data. Patients with missing data were considered missing at random and were not counted in the denominator. F/F = homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation; F/MF = heterozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation and a minimal function CFTR mutation.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Riordan, 1989, Identification of the cystic fibrosis gene: cloning and characterization of complementary DNA, Science, 245, 1066, 10.1126/science.2475911 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Elborn, 2016, Cystic fibrosis, Lancet, 388, 2519, 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00576-6 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bell, 2020, The future of cystic fibrosis care: a global perspective, Lancet Respir Med, 8, 65, 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30337-6 · DOI
  4. Ratjen, 2015, Cystic fibrosis, Nat Rev Dis Primers, 1, 15010, 10.1038/nrdp.2015.10 · DOI
  5. Schlüter, 2019, Impact of cystic fibrosis on birthweight: a population based study of children in Denmark and Wales, Thorax, 74, 447, 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-211706 · DOI
  6. VanDevanter, 2016, Cystic fibrosis in young children: a review of disease manifestation, progression, and response to early treatment, J Cyst Fibros, 15, 147, 10.1016/j.jcf.2015.09.008 · DOI
  7. Farrell, 2001, Early diagnosis of cystic fibrosis through neonatal screening prevents severe malnutrition and improves long-term growth, Pediatrics, 107, 1, 10.1542/peds.107.1.1 · DOI
  8. Lopes-Pacheco, 2020, CFTR modulators: the changing face of cystic fibrosis in the era of precision medicine, Front Pharmacol, 10, 1662, 10.3389/fphar.2019.01662 · DOI
  9. Boyle, 2013, A new era in the treatment of cystic fibrosis: correction of the underlying CFTR defect, Lancet Respir Med, 1, 158, 10.1016/S2213-2600(12)70057-7 · DOI
  10. Mall, 2020, Cystic fibrosis: emergence of highly effective targeted therapeutics and potential clinical implications, Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 201, 1193, 10.1164/rccm.201910-1943SO · DOI
  11. Davies, 2013, Efficacy and safety of ivacaftor in patients aged 6 to 11 years with cystic fibrosis with a G551D mutation, Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 187, 1219, 10.1164/rccm.201301-0153OC · DOI
  12. Walker, 2019, A phase 3 study of tezacaftor in combination with ivacaftor in children aged 6 through 11 years with cystic fibrosis, J Cyst Fibros, 18, 708, 10.1016/j.jcf.2019.06.009 · DOI
  13. Milla, 2017, Lumacaftor/ivacaftor in patients aged 6–11 years with cystic fibrosis and homozygous for F508del-CFTR, Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 195, 912, 10.1164/rccm.201608-1754OC · DOI
  14. Taylor-Cousar, 2017, Tezacaftor-ivacaftor in patients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for Phe508del, N Engl J Med, 377, 2013, 10.1056/NEJMoa1709846 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Wainwright, 2015, Lumacaftor-ivacaftor in patients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for Phe508del CFTR, N Engl J Med, 373, 220, 10.1056/NEJMoa1409547 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Ratjen, 2017, Efficacy and safety of lumacaftor and ivacaftor in patients aged 6-11 years with cystic fibrosis homozygous for F508del-CFTR: a randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, Lancet Respir Med, 5, 557, 10.1016/S2213-2600(17)30215-1 · DOI
  17. Frauchiger, Longitudinal course of clinical lung clearance index in children with cystic fibrosis, Eur Respir J
  18. Bessonova, 2018, Data from the US and UK cystic fibrosis registries support disease modification by CFTR modulation with ivacaftor, Thorax, 73, 731, 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-210394 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Sawicki, 2015, Sustained Benefit from ivacaftor demonstrated by combining clinical trial and cystic fibrosis patient registry data, Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 192, 836, 10.1164/rccm.201503-0578OC · DOI · Paper page
  20. Stallings, 2008, Evidence-based practice recommendations for nutrition-related management of children and adults with cystic fibrosis and pancreatic insufficiency: results of a systematic review, J Am Diet Assoc, 108, 832, 10.1016/j.jada.2008.02.020 · DOI
  21. Wilschanski, 2006, Mutations in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator gene and in vivo transepithelial potentials, Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 174, 787, 10.1164/rccm.200509-1377OC · DOI
  22. Farrell, 2017, Diagnosis of cystic fibrosis: consensus guidelines from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, S4
  23. McKone, 2015, Association of sweat chloride concentration at time of diagnosis and CFTR genotype with mortality and cystic fibrosis phenotype, J Cyst Fibros, 14, 580, 10.1016/j.jcf.2015.01.005 · DOI
  24. Davies, 2021, A phase 3, double-blind, parallel-group study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tezacaftor in combination with ivacaftor in participants 6 through 11 years of age with cystic fibrosis homozygous for F508del or heterozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation and a residual function mutation, J Cyst Fibros, 20, 68, 10.1016/j.jcf.2020.07.023 · DOI
  25. McGarry, 2021, Cystic fibrosis patients of minority race and ethnicity less likely eligible for CFTR modulators based on CFTR genotype, Pediatr Pulmonol, 56, 1496, 10.1002/ppul.25285 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 305

Metadata

Authors
Zemanick, E. T., Taylor-Cousar, J. L., Davies, J., Gibson, R. L., Mall, M. A., McKone, E. F., McNally, P., Ramsey, B. W., Rayment, J. H., Rowe, S. M., Tullis, E., Ahluwalia, N., Chu, C., Ho, T., Moskowitz, S. M., Noel, S., Tian, S., Waltz, D., Weinstock, T. G., Xuan, F., Wainwright, C. E., & McColley, S. A.
Affiliations
  • Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado
  • Department of Medicine and
  • National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and Royal Brompton and Harefield National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
  • University of Washington/Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington
  • Department of Pediatric Pulmonology, Immunology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • St. Vincent’s University Hospital and University College, Dublin, Ireland
  • Children’s Health Ireland and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, Ireland
  • British Columbia Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
  • St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Boston, Massachusetts
  • University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  • Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; and
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2021-06
Volume
203
Issue
12
Pages
1522-1532
ISSN
  • 1073-449X
  • 1535-4970
DOI
10.1164/rccm.202102-0509oc
PMC
PMC8483230
Cited by
305
References
4
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (vor, 1737 d)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review