Vanzacaftor, tezacaftor, and deutivacaftor

(Alyftrek®)

Alyftrek®

Drug updated on 2/6/2025

Dosage FormTablet (oral; 4 mg vanzacaftor, 20 mg tezacaftor, 50 mg deutivacaftor; 10 mg vanzacaftor, 50 mg tezacaftor, 125 mg deutivacaftor)
Drug ClassCystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) potentiators
Ongoing and
Completed Studies
ClinicalTrials.gov

Indication

  • ALYFTREK is indicated for the treatment of cystic fibrosis (CF) in patients aged 6 years and older who have at least one F508del mutation or another responsive mutation in the CFTR gene

Latest News

loading GIF

Summary
This AI-generated content is provided without warranty, with no liability accepted for reliance on it. Learn more.

  • This summary is based on the review of one randomized controlled trial(s). [1]
  • In Trial VX20-121-102, the absolute change in Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 Second (FEV₁) % predicted from baseline through week 24 was 0.5 percentage points (Standard Error [SE]: 0.3) in the vanzacaftor-tezacaftor-deutivacaftor group and 0.3 percentage points (SE: 0.3) in the elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor group, with a least squares mean (LSM) treatment difference of 0.2 percentage points (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: -0.7 to 1.1; P < 0.0001).
  • In Trial VX20-121-103, the absolute change in FEV₁ % predicted was 0.2 percentage points (SE: 0.3) in the vanzacaftor-tezacaftor-deutivacaftor group and 0.0 percentage points (SE: 0.2) in the elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor group, with an LSM treatment difference of 0.2 percentage points (95% CI: -0.5 to 0.9; P < 0.0001).
  • The effectiveness of vanzacaftor-tezacaftor-deutivacaftor was non-inferior to elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor in both trials based on absolute change in FEV₁ % predicted, with treatment differences within the non-inferiority margin.
  • The incidences of common adverse events (AEs) were similar between vanzacaftor-tezacaftor-deutivacaftor and elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor, including infective pulmonary exacerbation (28% vs. 32%), cough (23% vs. 21%), COVID-19 (22% vs. 26%), and nasopharyngitis (21% vs. 19%).
  • No significant safety concerns or adverse effects unique to specific population types and subgroups were reported in the reviewed studies.