Explore the vast range of titles available.

The prognosis of young patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma at high risk (age-adjusted International Prognostic Index [aa-IPI] score 2 or 3) treated with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and prednisone) is poor. The aim of this study was to investigate the possible benefit of intensification with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation as part of first-line treatment in these patients. We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design to compare, at two different R-CHOP dose levels, a full course of rituximab-dose-dense chemotherapy (no transplantation group) versus an abbreviated course of rituximab-dose-dense chemotherapy followed by consolidation with R-MAD (rituximab plus high-dose cytarabine plus mitoxantrone plus dexamethasone) and high-dose BEAM chemotherapy (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan) plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (transplantation group) in young patients (18–65 years) with untreated high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (aa-IPI score 2–3). At enrolment, patients were stratified according to aa-IPI score and randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive R-CHOP (intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2, and vincristine 1·4 mg/m2 on day 1, plus oral prednisone 100 mg on days 1–5) delivered in a 14-day cycle (R-CHOP-14) for eight cycles; high-dose R-CHOP-14 (R-MegaCHOP-14; R-CHOP-14 except for cyclophosphamide 1200 mg/m2 and doxorubicin 70 mg/m2) for six cycles; R-CHOP-14 for four cycles followed by R-MAD (intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 1 or 4 plus intravenous cytarabine 2000 mg/m2 and dexamethasone 4 mg/m2 every 12 h on days 1–3 plus intravenous mitoxantrone 8 mg/m2 on days 1–3) plus BEAM (intravenous carmustine 300 mg/m2 on day −7, intravenous cytarabine 200 mg/m2 twice a day on days −6 to −3, intravenous etoposide 100 mg/m2 twice a day on days −6 to −3, plus intravenous melphalan 140 mg/m2 on day −2) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (day 0); or R-MegaCHOP-14 for four cycles followed by R-MAD plus BEAM and autologous stem-cell transplantation. The primary endpoint was failure-free survival at 2 years in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with EudraCT (2005-002181-14; 2007-000275-42) and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00499018. Between Jan 10, 2006, and Sept 8, 2010, 399 patients were randomly assigned to receive transplantation (n=199) or no transplantation (n=200); 203 patients were assigned to receive R-CHOP-14 and 196 were assigned to receive R-MegaCHOP-14. With a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 57–88), 2-year failure-free survival was 71% (95% CI 64–77) in the transplantation group versus 62% (95% CI 55–68) in the no transplantation group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·65 [95% CI 0·47–0·91]; stratified log-rank test p=0·012). No difference in 5-year overall survival was observed between these groups (78% [95% CI 71–83] versus 77% [71–83]; HR 0·98 [0·65–1·48]; stratified log-rank test p=0·91). Grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were reported in 183 (92%) of 199 patients in the transplantation group versus 135 (68%) of 200 patients in the no transplantation group. Grade 3 or worse non-haematological adverse events were reported in 90 (45%) versus 31 (16%); the most common grade 3 or worse non-haematological adverse event was gastrointestinal (49 [25%] vs 19 [10%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in 13 (3%) patients; eight in the transplantation group and five in the no transplantation group. Abbreviated rituximab-dose-dense chemotherapy plus R-MAD plus BEAM and autologous stem-cell transplantation reduced the risk of treatment failure compared with full course rituximab-dose-dense chemotherapy in young patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma at high risk. However, these results might not be clinically meaningful, since this improvement did not reflect an improvement in overall survival. These results do not support further consideration of the use of intensification of R-CHOP as an upfront strategy in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with poor prognosis. Fondazione Italiana Linfomi.

Combined-modality treatment consisting of chemotherapy and consolidation radiotherapy is standard of care for patients with early-stage unfavourable Hodgkin lymphoma. However, the use of radiotherapy can have long-term sequelae, which is of particular concern, as Hodgkin lymphoma is frequently diagnosed in young adults with a median age of approximately 30 years. In the German Hodgkin Study Group HD17 trial, we investigated whether radiotherapy can be omitted without loss of efficacy in patients who have a complete metabolic response after receiving two cycles of escalated doses of etoposide, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin, and regular doses of bleomycin, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (eBEACOPP) plus two cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD) chemotherapy (2 + 2). In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, patients (aged 18–60 years) with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavourable Hodgkin lymphoma (all histologies) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less were enrolled at 224 hospitals and private practices in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either standard combined-modality treatment, consisting of the 2 + 2 regimen (eBEACOPP consisted of 1250 mg/m2 intravenous cyclophosphamide on day 1, 35 mg/m2 intravenous doxorubicin on day 1, 200 mg/m2 intravenous etoposide on days 1–3, 100 mg/m2 oral procarbazine on days 1–7, 40 mg/m2 oral prednisone on days 1–14, 1·4 mg/m2 intravenous vincristine on day 8 [maximum dose of 2 mg per cycle], and 10 mg/m2 intravenous bleomycin on day 8; ABVD consisted of 25 mg/m2 intravenous doxorubicin, 10 mg/m2 intravenous bleomycin, 6 mg/m2 intravenous vinblastine, and 375 mg/m2 intravenous dacarbazine, all given on days 1 and 15) followed by 30 Gy involved-field radiotherapy (standard combined-modality treatment group) or PET4-guided treatment, consisting of the 2 + 2 regimen followed by 30 Gy of involved-node radiotherapy only in patients with positive PET at the end of four cycles of chemotherapy (PET4; PET4-guided treatment group). Randomisation was done centrally and used the minimisation method and seven stratification factors (centre, age, sex, clinical symptoms, disease localisation, albumin concentration, and bulky disease), and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation until central review of the PET4 examination had been completed. With the final analysis presented here, the primary objective was to show non-inferiority of the PET4-guided strategy in a per-protocol analysis of the primary endpoint of progression-free survival. We defined non-inferiority as an absolute difference of 8% in the 5-year progression-free survival estimates between the two groups. Safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01356680. Between Jan 13, 2012, and March 21, 2017, we enrolled and randomly assigned 1100 patients to the standard combined-modality treatment group (n=548) or to the PET4-guided treatment group (n=552); two patients in each group were found ineligible after randomisation. At a median follow-up of 46·2 months (IQR 32·7–61·2), 5-year progression-free survival was 97·3% (95% CI 94·5–98·7) in the standard combined-modality treatment group and 95·1% (92·0–97·0) in the PET4-guided treatment group (hazard ratio 0·523 [95% CI 0·226–1·211]). The between-group difference was 2·2% (95% CI −0·9 to 5·3) and excluded the non-inferiority margin of 8%. The most common grade 3 or 4 acute haematological adverse events were leucopenia (436 [83%] of 528 patients in the standard combined-modality treatment group vs 443 [84%] of 529 patients in the PET4-guided treatment group) and thrombocytopenia (139 [26%] vs 176 [33%]), and the most frequent acute non-haematological toxic effects were infection (32 [6%] vs 40 [8%]) and nausea or vomiting (38 [7%] vs 29 [6%]). The most common acute radiotherapy-associated adverse events were dysphagia (26 [6%] in the standard combined-modality treatment group vs three [2%] in the PET4-guided treatment group) and mucositis (nine [2%] vs none). 229 serious adverse events were reported by 161 (29%) of 546 patients in the combined-modality treatment group, and 235 serious adverse events were reported by 164 (30%) of 550 patients in the PET4-guided treatment group. One suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction (infection) leading to death was reported in the PET4-guided treatment group. PET4-negativity after treatment with 2 + 2 chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavourable Hodgkin lymphoma allows omission of consolidation radiotherapy without a clinically relevant loss of efficacy. PET4-guided therapy could thereby reduce the proportion of patients at risk of the late effects of radiotherapy. Deutsche Krebshilfe.

In the primary analysis report of the GAIA/CLL13 trial, we found that venetoclax–obinutuzumab and venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib improved undetectable measurable residual disease (MRD) rates and progression-free survival compared with chemoimmunotherapy in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. However, to our knowledge, no data on direct comparisons of different venetoclax-based combinations are available. GAIA/CLL13 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study conducted at 159 sites in ten countries in Europe and the Middle East. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a life expectancy of at least 6 months, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology group performance status of 0–2, a cumulative illness rating scale score of 6 or lower or a single score of 4 or lower, and no TP53 aberrations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1), with a computer-generated list stratified by age, Binet stage, and regional study group, to either chemoimmunotherapy, venetoclax–rituximab, venetoclax–obinutuzumab, or venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib. All treatments were administered in 28-day cycles. Patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group received six cycles of treatment, with patients older than 65 years receiving intravenous bendamustine (90 mg/m2, days 1–2), whereas patients aged 65 years or younger received intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m2, days 1–3) and intravenous cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2, days 1–3). Intravenous rituximab (375 mg/m2, day 1 of cycle 1; 500 mg/m2, day 1 of cycles 2–6) was added to chemotherapy. In the experimental groups, patients received daily venetoclax (400 mg orally) for ten cycles after a 5-week ramp-up phase starting on day 22 of cycle 1. In the venetoclax–rituximab group, intravenous rituximab (375 mg/m2, day 1 of cycle 1; 500 mg/m2, day 1 of cycles 2–6) was added. In the obinutuzumab-containing groups, obinutuzumab was added (cycle 1: 100 mg on day 1, 900 mg on day 2, and 1000 mg on days 8 and 15; cycles 2–6: 1000 mg on day 1). In the venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib group, daily ibrutinib (420 mg orally, from day 1 of cycle 1) was added until undetectable MRD was reached in two consecutive measurements (3 months apart) or until cycle 36. The planned treatment duration was six cycles in the chemoimmunotherapy group, 12 cycles in the venetoclax–rituximab and the venetoclax–obinutuzumab group and between 12 and 36 cycles in the venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib group. Coprimary endpoints were the undetectable MRD rate in peripheral blood at month 15 for the comparison of venetoclax-obinutuzumab versus standard chemoimmunotherapy and investigator-assessed progression-free survival for the comparison of venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib versus standard chemoimmunotherapy, both analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all patients randomly assigned to treatment) with a split α of 0·025 for each coprimary endpoint. Both coprimary endpoints have been reported elsewhere. Here we report a post-hoc exploratory analysis of updated progression-free survival results after a 4-year follow-up of our study population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02950051, recruitment is complete, and all patients are off study treatment. Between Dec 13, 2016, and Oct 13, 2019, 1080 patients were screened and 926 were randomly assigned to treatment (chemoimmunotherapy group n=229; venetoclax–rituximab group n=237; venetoclax–obinutuzumab group n=229; and venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib group n=231); mean age 60·8 years (SD 10·2), 259 (28%) of 926 patients were female, and 667 (72%) were male (data on race and ethnicity are not reported). At data cutoff for this exploratory follow-up analysis (Jan 31, 2023; median follow-up 50·7 months [IQR 44·6–57·9]), patients in the venetoclax–obinutuzumab group had significantly longer progression-free survival than those in the chemoimmunotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·47 [97·5% CI 0·32–0·69], p<0·0001) and the venetoclax–rituximab group (0·57 [0·38–0·84], p=0·0011). The venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib group also had a significantly longer progression-free survival than the chemoimmunotherapy group (0·30 [0·19–0·47]; p<0·0001) and the venetoclax–rituximab group (0·38 [0·24–0·59]; p<0·0001). There was no difference in progression-free survival between the venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib and venetoclax–obinutuzumab groups (0·63 [0·39–1·02]; p=0·031), and the proportional hazards assumption was not met for the comparison between the venetoclax–rituximab group versus the chemoimmunotherapy group (log-rank p=0·10). The estimated 4-year progression-free survival rate was 85·5% (97·5% CI 79·9–91·1; 37 [16%] events) in the venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib group, 81·8% (75·8–87·8; 55 [24%] events) in the venetoclax–obinutuzumab group, 70·1% (63·0–77·3; 84 [35%] events) in the venetoclax–rituximab group, and 62·0% (54·4–69·7; 90 [39%] events) in the chemoimmunotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was neutropenia (114 [53%] of 216 patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group, 109 [46%] of 237 in the venetoclax–rituximab group, 127 [56%] of 228 in the venetoclax–obinutuzumab group, and 112 [48%] of 231 in the venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib group). Deaths determined to be associated with study treatment by the investigator occurred in three (1%) patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group (n=1 due to each of sepsis, metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, and Richter's syndrome), none in the venetoclax–rituximab and venetoclax–obinutuzumab groups, and four (2%) in the venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib group (n=1 due to each of acute myeloid leukaemia, fungal encephalitis, small-cell lung cancer, and toxic leukoencephalopathy). With more than 4 years of follow-up, venetoclax–obinutuzumab and venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib significantly extended progression-free survival compared with both chemoimmunotherapy and venetoclax–rituximab in previously untreated, fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, thereby supporting their use and further evaluation in this patient group, while still considering the higher toxicities observed with the triple combination. AbbVie, Janssen, and F Hoffmann-La Roche.

The apparent shortfall in prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) noted in early hypertension trials has been attributed to disadvantages of the diuretics and β blockers used. For a given reduction in blood pressure, some suggested that newer agents would confer advantages over diuretics and β blockers. Our aim, therefore, was to compare the effect on non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD of combinations of atenolol with a thiazide versus amlodipine with perindopril. We did a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial in 19 257 patients with hypertension who were aged 40–79 years and had at least three other cardiovascular risk factors. Patients were assigned either amlodipine 5–10 mg adding perindopril 4–8 mg as required (amlodipine-based regimen; n=9639) or atenolol 50–100 mg adding bendroflumethiazide 1·25–2·5 mg and potassium as required (atenolol-based regimen; n=9618). Our primary endpoint was non-fatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infaction) and fatal CHD. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study was stopped prematurely after 5·5 years' median follow-up and accumulated in total 106 153 patient-years of observation. Though not significant, compared with the atenolol-based regimen, fewer individuals on the amlodipine-based regimen had a primary endpoint (429 vs 474; unadjusted HR 0·90, 95% CI 0·79–1·02, p=0·1052), fatal and non-fatal stroke (327 vs 422; 0·77, 0·66–0·89, p=0·0003), total cardiovascular events and procedures (1362 vs 1602; 0·84, 0·78–0·90, p<0·0001), and all-cause mortality (738 vs 820; 0·89, 0·81–0·99, p=0·025). The incidence of developing diabetes was less on the amlodipine-based regimen (567 vs 799; 0·70, 0·63–0·78, p<0·0001). The amlodipine-based regimen prevented more major cardiovascular events and induced less diabetes than the atenolol-based regimen. On the basis of previous trial evidence, these effects might not be entirely explained by better control of blood pressure, and this issue is addressed in the accompanying article. Nevertheless, the results have implications with respect to optimum combinations of antihypertensive agents.

Evidence is scarce on the relative risk-benefit of inhaled triple therapy, consisting of inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting β2-agonist, versus dual bronchodilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to compare a single-inhaler triple combination of beclometasone dipropionate, formoterol fumarate, and glycopyrronium (BDP/FF/G) versus a single-inhaler dual bronchodilator combination of indacaterol plus glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) in terms of the rate of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations over 52 weeks of treatment. This randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy study was done at 187 sites across 17 countries. Eligible patients had symptomatic COPD, severe or very severe airflow limitation, at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous year, and were receiving inhaled maintenance medication. After a 2 week run-in period with one inhalation per day of IND/GLY (85 μg/43 μg), patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive response technology system, to receive 52 weeks of treatment with two inhalations of extrafine BDP/FF/G (87 μg/5 μg/9 μg) twice per day or one inhalation of IND/GLY (85 μg/43 μg) per day. Randomisation was stratified by country and severity of airflow limitation. The primary endpoint was the rate of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations across 52 weeks of treatment in all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02579850. Between May, 29 2015, and July 10, 2017, 1532 patients received BDP/FF/G (n=764) or IND/GLY (n=768). Moderate-to-severe exacerbation rates were 0·50 per patient per year (95% CI 0·45–0·57) for BDP/FF/G and 0·59 per patient per year (0·53–0·67) for IND/GLY, giving a rate ratio of 0·848 (0·723–0·995, p=0·043) in favour of BDP/FF/G. Adverse events were reported by 490 (64%) of 764 patients receiving BDP/FF/G and 516 (67%) of 768 patients receiving IND/GLY. Pneumonia occurred in 28 (4%) patients receiving BDP/FF/G versus 27 (4%) patients receiving IND/GLY. One treatment-related serious adverse event occurred in each group: dysuria in a patient receiving BDP/FF/G and atrial fibrillation in a patient receiving IND/GLY. In patients with symptomatic COPD, severe or very severe airflow limitation, and an exacerbation history despite maintenance therapy, extrafine BDP/FF/G significantly reduced the rate of moderate-to-severe exacerbations compared with IND/GLY, without increasing the risk of pneumonia. Chiesi Farmaceutici.

A fixed-dose combination therapy (polypill strategy) has been proposed as an approach to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). The PolyIran study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of a four-component polypill including aspirin, atorvastatin, hydrochlorothiazide, and either enalapril or valsartan for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. The PolyIran study was a two-group, pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial nested within the Golestan Cohort Study (GCS), a cohort study with 50 045 participants aged 40–75 years from the Golestan province in Iran. Clusters (villages) were randomly allocated (1:1) to either a package of non-pharmacological preventive interventions alone (minimal care group) or together with a once-daily polypill tablet (polypill group). Randomisation was stratified by three districts (Gonbad, Aq-Qala, and Kalaleh), with the village as the unit of randomisation. We used a balanced randomisation algorithm, considering block sizes of 20 and balancing for cluster size or natural log of the cluster size (depending on the skewness within strata). Randomisation was done at a fixed point in time (Jan 18, 2011) by statisticians at the University of Birmingham (Birmingham, UK), independent of the local study team. The non-pharmacological preventive interventions (including educational training about healthy lifestyle—eg, healthy diet with low salt, sugar, and fat content, exercise, weight control, and abstinence from smoking and opium) were delivered by the PolyIran field visit team at months 3 and 6, and then every 6 months thereafter. Two formulations of polypill tablet were used in this study. Participants were first prescribed polypill one (hydrochlorothiazide 12·5 mg, aspirin 81 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, and enalapril 5 mg). Participants who developed cough during follow-up were switched by a trained study physician to polypill two, which included valsartan 40 mg instead of enalapril 5 mg. Participants were followed up for 60 months. The primary outcome—occurrence of major cardiovascular events (including hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome, fatal myocardial infarction, sudden death, heart failure, coronary artery revascularisation procedures, and non-fatal and fatal stroke)—was centrally assessed by the GCS follow-up team, who were masked to allocation status. We did intention-to-treat analyses by including all participants who met eligibility criteria in the two study groups. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01271985. Between Feb 22, 2011, and April 15, 2013, we enrolled 6838 individuals into the study—3417 (in 116 clusters) in the minimal care group and 3421 (in 120 clusters) in the polypill group. 1761 (51·5%) of 3421 participants in the polypill group were women, as were 1679 (49·1%) of 3417 participants in the minimal care group. Median adherence to polypill tablets was 80·5% (IQR 48·5–92·2). During follow-up, 301 (8·8%) of 3417 participants in the minimal care group had major cardiovascular events compared with 202 (5·9%) of 3421 participants in the polypill group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·66, 95% CI 0·55–0·80). We found no statistically significant interaction with the presence (HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·49–0·75) or absence of pre-existing cardiovascular disease (0·80; 0·51–1·12; pinteraction=0·19). When restricted to participants in the polypill group with high adherence, the reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular events was even greater compared with the minimal care group (adjusted HR 0·43, 95% CI 0·33–0·55). The frequency of adverse events was similar between the two study groups. 21 intracranial haemorrhages were reported during the 5 years of follow-up—ten participants in the polypill group and 11 participants in the minimal care group. There were 13 physician-confirmed diagnoses of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the polypill group and nine in the minimal care group. Use of polypill was effective in preventing major cardiovascular events. Medication adherence was high and adverse event numbers were low. The polypill strategy could be considered as an additional effective component in controlling cardiovascular diseases, especially in LMICs. Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Barakat Foundation, and Alborz Darou.

The frequency of COPD exacerbations during treatment with a triple inhaler — delivering a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and an inhaled glucocorticoid — was compared with that with a LABA–LAMA or LABA–inhaled glucocorticoid.

Lenvatinib plus either pembrolizumab or everolimus was compared with sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell cancer. Progression-free survival was significantly longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib. Lenvatinib plus everolimus was also more effective than sunitinib, but the difference was smaller.

Cystic fibrosis is caused by mutations in the gene encoding the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein, and nearly 90% of patients have at least one copy of the Phe508del mutation. In a phase 2 trial involving patients who were heterozygous for the Phe508del mutation and a minimal-function mutation (Phe508del-minimal function genotype), the next-generation CFTR corrector elexacaftor, in combination with tezacaftor and ivacaftor, improved Phe508del CFTR function and clinical outcomes. We conducted a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to confirm the efficacy and safety of elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor in patients 12 years of age or older with cystic fibrosis with Phe508del-minimal function genotypes. Patients were randomly assigned to receive elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary end point was absolute change from baseline in percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV ) at week 4. A total of 403 patients underwent randomization and received at least one dose of active treatment or placebo. Elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor, relative to placebo, resulted in a percentage of predicted FEV that was 13.8 points higher at 4 weeks and 14.3 points higher through 24 weeks, a rate of pulmonary exacerbations that was 63% lower, a respiratory domain score on the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (range, 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a higher patient-reported quality of life with regard to respiratory symptoms; minimum clinically important difference, 4 points) that was 20.2 points higher, and a sweat chloride concentration that was 41.8 mmol per liter lower (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor was generally safe and had an acceptable side-effect profile. Most patients had adverse events that were mild or moderate. Adverse events leading to discontinuation of the trial regimen occurred in 1% of the patients in the elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor group. Elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor was efficacious in patients with cystic fibrosis with Phe508del-minimal function genotypes, in whom previous CFTR modulator regimens were ineffective. (Funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals; VX17-445-102 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03525444.).

Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators correct the basic defect caused by CFTR mutations. Improvements in health outcomes have been achieved with the combination of a CFTR corrector and potentiator in people with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the F508del mutation. The addition of elexacaftor (VX-445), a next-generation CFTR corrector, to tezacaftor plus ivacaftor further improved F508del-CFTR function and clinical outcomes in a phase 2 study in people with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the F508del mutation. This phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled trial of elexacaftor in combination with tezacaftor plus ivacaftor was done at 44 sites in four countries. Eligible participants were those with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the F508del mutation, aged 12 years or older with stable disease, and with a percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ppFEV1) of 40–90%, inclusive. After a 4-week tezacaftor plus ivacaftor run-in period, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to 4 weeks of elexacaftor 200 mg orally once daily plus tezacaftor 100 mg orally once daily plus ivacaftor 150 mg orally every 12 h versus tezacaftor 100 mg orally once daily plus ivacaftor 150 mg orally every 12 h alone. The primary outcome was the absolute change from baseline (measured at the end of the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor run-in) in ppFEV1 at week 4. Key secondary outcomes were absolute change in sweat chloride and Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised respiratory domain (CFQ-R RD) score. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03525548. Between Aug 3 and Dec 28, 2018, 113 participants were enrolled. Following the run-in, 107 participants were randomly assigned (55 in the elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group and 52 in the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group) and completed the 4-week treatment period. The elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group had improvements in the primary outcome of ppFEV1 (least squares mean [LSM] treatment difference of 10·0 percentage points [95% CI 7·4 to 12·6], p<0·0001) and the key secondary outcomes of sweat chloride concentration (LSM treatment difference −45·1 mmol/L [95% CI −50·1 to −40·1], p<0·0001), and CFQ-R RD score (LSM treatment difference 17·4 points [95% CI 11·8 to 23·0], p<0·0001) compared with the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group. The triple combination regimen was well tolerated, with no discontinuations. Most adverse events were mild or moderate; serious adverse events occurred in two (4%) participants receiving elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor and in one (2%) receiving tezacaftor plus ivacaftor. Elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor provided clinically robust benefit compared with tezacaftor plus ivacaftor alone, with a favourable safety profile, and shows the potential to lead to transformative improvements in the lives of people with cystic fibrosis who are homozygous for the F508del mutation. Vertex Pharmaceuticals.