528 - Rapid skin clearance and itch improvement with upadacitinib versus dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: results from a phase 3b head-to-head clinical trial (Heads Up)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction/Background Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, recurrent, inflammatory disease characterized by multiple skin manifestations and intense itching that can impact patient quality of life. The effect of upadacitinib (UPA) and dupilumab (DUP) was evaluated in a double-blind, double-dummy, head-to-head phase 3b clinical trial (Heads Up; NCT03738397) of adult patients (age: 18-75 years) with moderate-to-severe AD (Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI] ≥16; body surface area ≥10%; validated Investigator Global Assessment of Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) ≥3 at screening and baseline; Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale [WP-NRS] ≥4 at baseline) randomized 1:1 to UPA 30 mg orally once-daily (N=348) or DUP 300 mg subcutaneous injection every two weeks after a 600 mg loading dose (N=344). Objective The effects of UPA and DUP on skin clearance and itch improvement are reported here. Methods Skin clearance was assessed by EASI, with response defined as an improvement ≥75% (EASI75), ≥90% (EASI90), and 100% (EASI100) from baseline. Itch intensity was assessed daily by WP-NRS up to week 16, then at study visits up to week 24. Weekly WP-NRS scores were analyzed as a 7-day rolling average up to week 16, then at study visits through week 24. Daily WP-NRS scores were analyzed day-to-day through day 28. Mean percent improvement and the proportion of patients achieving clinically meaningful improvement (≥4-point improvement from baseline) were evaluated. The proportion of patients achieving a state of no/minimal itch (defined as WP-NRS score of 0/1) was evaluated as a post-hoc analysis. Results EASI75/90/100 response rates were significantly greater with UPA versus DUP at week 16 (UPA = 72.4%/61.6%/28.4%, DUP = 62.6%/40.3%/7.9%; P<0.01 for all comparisons), with greater EASI75 and EASI90 rates observed with UPA as early as week 1 (nominal P<0.05). Mean percent improvement in weekly WP-NRS was significantly greater with UPA versus DUP at week 16 (UPA = 67.8%, DUP= 49.6%; P<0.001), with greater improvement observed as early as week 1 (nominal P<0.001). Daily WP-NRS data showed a greater mean percent improvement with UPA versus DUP as early as day 2, the day after the first dose (UPA = 22.0%, DUP = 4.2%; nominal P<0.001). The proportion of patients that achieved clinically meaningful improvement in weekly WP-NRS was significantly greater with UPA versus DUP at week 16 (UPA = 56.1%, DUP = 36.4%; P<0.001), with greater proportions observed as early as week 1 (nominal P<0.001). Daily WP-NRS data showed a greater proportion of patients achieved clinically meaningful improvement with UPA versus DUP as early as day 2 (UPA = 15.3%, DUP = 3.4%; nominal P<0.001). The proportion of patients that achieved a state of no/minimal itch based on weekly WP-NRS was greater with UPA versus DUP at week 16 (UPA = 35.5%, DUP = 16.2%; nominal P<0.001) and at week 1 (nominal P<0.001). Conclusions Skin clearance and itch improvement were consistently better with UPA compared with DUP in adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD, with greater improvements observed as early as week 1 for skin clearance and the day following treatment for itch improvement.
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 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 ».