Safety and efficacy of vanzacaftor–tezacaftor–deutivacaftor in adults with cystic fibrosis: randomised, double-blind, controlled, phase 2 trials

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

The California Psychological Inventory and Symptomatic Behaviors

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the California Psychological Inventory in placing a psychiatric patient sample along the symptomatic behavior continuum proposed by Phillips and Rabinovitch (1958). Three hypotheses were examined: 1) members of the psychiatric sample would generally score lower than the normal population on which the CPI was standardized; 2) that measures from the Class II scales of the CPI would differentiate groups of symptom patterns in such a manner that individuals exhibiting higher level symptoms of Turning Against the Self would score higher than those persons in the lower level symptom categories of Avoidance of Others and Turning Against Others ; 3) that the Class II CPI scales would differentiate between persons falling into the last two categories, with persons exhibiting Avoidance symptoms scoring at a higher level than those who exhibit Turning Against Others symptoms . Twenty-four first admission, non-organic male patients who had not been hospitalized more than six months at Larned State Hospital were subjects in this study. Each subject was administered the CPI and was categorized into one of the three symptom groups. The significance of difference between group scores was computed by the Analysis of Variance and ’t’ test (P. \u3c .05). The first hypothesis was supported and was interpreted in terms indicating that the psychiatric sample is one which experiences significant difficulties in interpersonal behavior. The second and third hypotheses were not supported. An additional analysis of remaining CPI scales revealed that the \u27Capacity for Status\u27 scale did significantly differentiate between the “Avoidance of Others group and the Self Deprivation and Self Indulgence group

COMPLICATIONS AND PRACTICE VARIATION IN THE USE OF PERIPHERALLY INSERTED CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERS IN PEOPLE WITH CYSTIC FIBROSIS

BACKGROUND: Peripherally inserted central catheter(s), PICC(s), are commonly used to administer antibiotics to people with cystic fibrosis (pwCF), but their use can be complicated by venous thrombosis and catheter occlusion. RESEARCH QUESTION: Which participant-, catheter-, and catheter management-level attributes are associated with increased risk of complications of PICCs among pwCF? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of adults and children with cystic fibrosis (CF) who received PICCs at ten CF care centers in the US. The primary endpoint was defined as occlusion of the catheter resulting in unplanned removal and/or symptomatic venous thrombosis in the extremity containing the catheter. There were three categories of composite secondary outcomes: difficult line placement, local soft tissue or skin reactions, and catheter malfunction. Data specific to the participant, catheter placement, and catheter management were collected in a centralized database. Risk factors for primary and secondary outcomes were analyzed by multivariate logistical regression. RESULTS: Between June 2018 and July 2021, 157 adults and 103 children over six years of age with CF had 375 PICCs placed. There were 4,828 catheter-days of observation. Of the 375 PICCs, 334 (89%) were ≤4.5 Fr, 342 (91%) were single-lumen, and 366 (98%) were placed using ultrasound guidance. The primary outcome occurred in 15 PICCs for an event rate of 3.11 per 1,000 catheter-days. There were no cases of catheter related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). Other secondary outcomes developed in 147 of 375 (39%) catheters. Despite evidence of practice variation, no risk factors for the primary outcome and few risk factors for secondary outcomes were identified. INTERPRETATION: This study affirms the safety of contemporary approaches to inserting and utilizing PICCs in pwCF. Given the low rate of complications in this study, observations may reflect a widespread shift to selecting smaller-diameter PICC and using ultrasound to guide placement