523 - Efficacy and safety of amlitelimab (an anti-OX40 ligand antibody) in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: 24-week results from a phase 2b trial (STREAM-AD)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction/Background Targeting and binding OX40 ligand (OX40L) expressed on antigen-presenting cells may inhibit the persistent immune response that drives atopic dermatitis (AD) pathophysiology. Amlitelimab (SAR445229; KY1005) is a potential first-in-class, fully human, non-depleting anti-OX40L monoclonal antibody that blocks OX40L-OX40 interactions and has shown efficacy and an acceptable safety profile in a Phase 2a trial in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Here, we present 24-week efficacy and safety results (Part 1) from an ongoing dose-ranging Phase 2b trial. The study remains blinded to individual patient data (Part 2 ongoing). Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of amlitelimab in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Methods STREAM-AD (NCT05131477) is a 52-week, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled Phase 2b monotherapy trial. This study is designed with 2 parts (double-blind throughout): a 24-week treatment period (Part 1, completed and presented here) and a 36-week maintenance/withdrawal period (Part 2, ongoing). Adults (18 to <75 years; n=390) with moderate-to-severe AD were randomised 1:1:1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous amlitelimab Q4W (250 mg with 500 mg loading dose [LD], n=77; 250 mg without LD, n=78; 125 mg without LD, n=77; or 62.5 mg without LD, n=79) or placebo Q4W (n=79). The primary endpoint was percentage change in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) from baseline at Week 16. Key secondary endpoints included percentage change in EASI at Week 24 and percentage of patients with at least 75% reduction from baseline in EASI (EASI-75), percentage of patients with Investigator Global Assessment response of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) and a reduction from baseline of ≥2 points (IGA 0/1), and proportion of patients with a weekly average reduction of Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) ≥4 points from baseline. The primary efficacy analysis included all randomised patients who completed Week 24 or discontinued treatment or study prior to Week 24 visit (n=390), whereas the safety analysis included all treated patients (n=388). Results Treatment with amlitelimab resulted in statistically significant improvements in percentage change in EASI from baseline to Week 16 compared to placebo for all four doses studied. The 250 mg with LD group had the numerically highest response versus placebo at Week 16, with a least-squares mean change from baseline of –32.1% (95% CI: –43.9, –20.3; P<0.0001); the remaining groups without LD had the following responses versus placebo: 250 mg, –27.3 (95% CI: –39.1, –15.6; P<0.0001); 125 mg, –22.2 (95% CI: –34.0, –10.4; P=0.0002); and 62.5 mg, –30.2 (95% CI: –41.9, –18.5; P<0.0001). There were also clinically meaningful improvements in all key secondary efficacy outcome measures, with all amlitelimab dose groups demonstrating nominally significant (P<0.05) efficacy versus placebo for EASI-75, IGA 0/1, and PP-NRS ≥4, except 250 mg (no LD) in IGA 0/1 at Week 16 (P=0.0562). Continued improvements were generally observed through Week 24 in primary and key secondary efficacy outcomes. Amlitelimab was well tolerated across all dose groups, with no safety concerns identified. Conclusions In this dose-ranging Phase 2b trial of amlitelimab in adults with moderate-to-severe AD, amlitelimab demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy over 24 weeks with an acceptable safety profile across all four dose groups.
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 | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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 ».