425 Effect of upadacitinib on SCORAD intensity items: analysis from the Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 studies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, inflammatory disease characterized by typical clinical signs (erythema, edema/papulation, oozing/crusting, excoriation, lichenification and dryness) and prominent itch that can markedly impact a patient’s sleep and quality of life (QoL). Upadacitinib is a selective oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with greater inhibitory potency for JAK1 vs. JAK2, JAK3 and tyrosine kinase 2. The SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) measure is a validated assessment tool that evaluates the extent of disease based on the area of the body affected, intensity of clinical signs of AD, and itch and sleeplessness due to AD. In this integrated post hoc analysis of the Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 studies, we compared the effects of upadacitinib (15 and 30 mg) vs. placebo on the intensity of the individual signs assessed by the SCORAD at Week 2 and Week 16. Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 are replicate phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies comparing the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib 15 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg to placebo in adolescent and adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD. Patients were randomized to upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg or placebo orally once daily. All patients received additive-free, bland emollient twice daily for at least 7 days before baseline and during the study until week 16. The current study assessed the intensity of the six clinical signs assessed by the SCORAD (erythema, edema/papulation, oozing/crusting, excoriation, lichenification and dryness with a 4-level rating scale of none, mild, moderate and severe). The proportions of patients achieving resolution (i.e. an intensity rating of ‘none’) of each clinical sign at Week 2 and Week 16 were evaluated among patients with mild, moderate or severe intensity at baseline. Resolution rates were compared using the Mantel–Haenszel test. Missing data were handled using nonresponder imputation. A total of 1679 participants (placebo, 558; upadacitinib 15 mg, 557; upadacitinib 30 mg, 564) were included in the analysis of integrated data from the Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 studies. Differences in the proportion of patients achieving resolution for both upadacitinib doses (15 mg/30 mg) vs. placebo were observed at Week 2 (P < 0.0001) for erythema (3.1%/6.0% vs. 0.0%), edema/papulation (13.1%/16.6% vs. 1.3%), oozing/crusting (49.8%/59.1% vs. 15.6%), excoriation (26.9%/34.6% vs. 3.1%), lichenification (9.6%/13.5% vs. 1.4%) and dryness (8.6%/11.9% vs. 1.8%). Resolution rates were also higher with upadacitinib (15 mg/30 mg) vs. placebo at Week 16 (P < 0.0001) for erythema (22.2%/29.7% vs. 2.2%), edema/papulation (33.6%/42.8% vs. 4.9%), oozing/crusting (62.1%/72.0% vs. 20.5%), excoriation (43.3%/54.6% vs. 8.5%), lichenification (30.8%/40.7% vs. 5.2%) and dryness (28.7%/35.9% vs. 4.4%). Greater proportions of patients treated with upadacitinib 15 mg or upadacitinib 30 mg achieved resolution of erythema, edema/papulation, oozing/crusting, excoriation, lichenification or dryness compared with placebo at Week 2 and Week 16. Complete resolution of these clinical signs of AD may correspond to reductions in disease burden that translate to improved QoL. Consideration of the clinical signs of AD as assessed by the SCORAD may help inform physicians as they tailor their treatment choices specifically to the unique skin manifestations of each individual patient.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,012 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».