Tezacaftor 50mg / Ivacaftor 75mg tablets
Requires a prescription from a doctor or prescriber
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Official medicine documents
Yellow Card
Report side effects (MHRA)
Drug safety updates
MHRA alerts for Tezacaftor + Ivacaftor
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
1 branded products available
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for Tezacaftor + Ivacaftor on the MHRA register
Symkevi 50mg/75mg tablets
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
NICE clinical guidance(3)
Vanzacaftor-tezacaftor-deutivacaftor for treating cystic fibrosis with 1 or more F508del mutations in the CFTR gene in people 6 years and over (TA1085)
Ivacaftor–tezacaftor–elexacaftor, tezacaftor–ivacaftor and lumacaftor–ivacaftor for treating cystic fibrosis (TA988)
Cystic fibrosis: diagnosis and management (NG78)
Source: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
Browse tools
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. ATC codes from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (whocc.no).
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 19 · Randomised trials: 3 · 2017–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Steven J Edwards, Benjamin G Farrar, Kate Ennis, et al.
Health Technology Assessment, 2025
Background Cystic fibrosis is a life-limiting genetic condition that affects over 9000 people in England. Cystic fibrosis is usually diagnosed through newborn screening and causes symptoms throughout the body, including the lungs and digestive system. Around 90% of individuals with cystic fibrosis have at least one copy of the F508del mutation on the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene. Objectives To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of elexacaftor–tezacaftor–ivacaftor, tezacaftor–ivacaftor and lumacaftor–ivacaftor within their expected marketing authorisations for treating people with cystic fibrosis and at least one F508del mutation, compared with each other and with established clinical management before these treatments. Methods A de novo systematic literature review (search date February 2023) was conducted searching electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), bibliographies of relevant systematic literature reviews, clinical trial registers, recent conferences and evidence provided by Vertex Pharmaceuticals (Boston, MA, USA). Data on the following outcomes were summarised: acute change in per cent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (change in weight-for-age z-score; and change in pulmonary exacerbation frequency requiring intravenous antibiotics. Network meta-analyses were conducted where head-to-head data were not available. Data from clinical trials and real-world evidence were examined to assess long-term effectiveness. A patient-level simulation model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the three modulator treatments. The model employed a lifetime horizon and was developed from the perspective of the National Health Service. Results Data from 19 primary studies and 7 open-label extension studies were prioritised in the systematic literature review. Elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor was associated with a statistically significant increase in predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second and weight-for-age z-score and a reduction in pulmonary exacerbations compared with established clinical management, lumacaftor/ivacaftor and tezacaftor/ivacaftor, and also led to a reduction in the rate of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second decline relative to established clinical management, although the magnitude of this decrease was uncertain. Lumacaftor/ivacaftor and tezacaftor/ivacaftor were also associated with a statistically significant increase in predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second and reduction in pulmonary exacerbations relative to established clinical management, but with a smaller effect size than elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor. There was some evidence that tezacaftor/ivacaftor reduced the rate of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second decline relative to established clinical management, but little evidence that lumacaftor/ivacaftor reduced the rate of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second decline relative to established clinical management. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from the economic analysis were confidential. However, for all genotypes studied the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were above what would be considered cost-effective based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Conclusions Despite the improved clinical benefits observed, none of the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene modulators assessed would be considered cost-effective based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. This is largely driven by the high acquisition costs of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene modulator treatments. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42023399583. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135829) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 29, No. 19. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0
Katz T, van Dorst J, Prentice B, et al.
2026
AlMunefi F, Dyce JP, Zhao JY, et al.
2026
BackgroundElexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (ETI) has transformed clinical outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis (PwCF), but its impact on airway and systemic inflammation is less well defined.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL (January 1, 2019-September 30, 2025) for full-text human studies of pwCF treated with ETI that reported at least one inflammatory biomarker before and after ETI initiation. Because of heterogeneity in study design, sample type, biomarker panels and assays, we did not perform a meta-analysis but instead conducted a structured narrative synthesis, grouping biomarkers by compartment (systemic vs airway); when reported, we also recorded associations between biomarker changes and clinical outcomes.ResultsThirty-two observational studies (8-272 participants) met inclusion criteria; 25 evaluated systemic and 10 airway biomarkers, with follow-up up to 30 months. ETI was associated with substantial reductions in sputum neutrophil elastase, IL-1β and IL-8, and in systemic C-reactive protein, other acute-phase reactants, circulating neutrophils and selected Th17-related cytokines, indicating an overall reduction in inflammatory burden, although residual inflammation relative to healthy controls was common. Th1-associated markers and immune-cell activation phenotypes showed heterogeneous changes, while Th2/eosinophilic markers showed less consistent modulation with ETI. Just over half of studies examined biomarker-outcome relationships; in these, reductions in neutrophil-associated markers, CRP, fibrinogen and selected cytokines were often associated with improvements in ppFEV1 or other clinical measures.ConclusionETI is associated with substantial but incomplete reductions in airway and systemic inflammation in pwCF, with the most consistent effects in neutrophil and acute-phase pathways and more variable changes across other immune markers. Persistent low-grade inflammation in many cohorts suggests that adjunctive anti-inflammatory strategies may still be relevant and that further longitudinal studies are needed to link residual biomarker abnormalities with long-term clinical and structural outcomes.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Girouard H, Jaber F, Gharib J, et al.
2026
Venditto L, Neece A, Forgione F, et al.
2026
D O, C D, DW C
2025
S. Sutharsan, Stefanie Dillenhöfer, M. Welsner, et al.
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe, 2023
P. Middleton, M. Mall, P. Dřevínek, et al.
The New England journal of medicine, 2019
D. Keating, G. Marigowda, L. Burr, et al.
The New England journal of medicine, 2018
D. Nichols, A. Paynter, S. Heltshe, et al.
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2021
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.