643 - Effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib in adolescent and adult patients with atopic dermatitis: an analysis of short-term (week 8-20) data from a real-world multicenter retrospective review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral, selective Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi), is approved for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). While its efficacy and safety are supported by clinical trial data1-3, real-world evidence is limited. Objectives Our study evaluated the real-world effectiveness and safety of UPA for AD between weeks 8-20. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective review at three practices in Canada. Effectiveness endpoints measured between weeks 8-20 included: Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of clear or almost clear (IGA 0/1) and improvements in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), body surface area (BSA), IGAxBSA, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI)/Children’s DLQI (CDLQI) improvements. Safety was assessed via treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Results A total of 179 patients were included in the analysis. . The mean age was 44.6 ± 17.5 (range: 12-79) years; 53.6% (96/179) were female. Previous treatments included: topicals (100%, 179/179), light (29.1%, 52/179), systemic non-biologics (74.9%, 134/179), and systemic biologics/JAKi (37.4%, 67/179). Initial UPA doses were 15 mg (44.7%, 80/179) or 30 mg (55.3%, 99/179) once daily. At weeks 8-20: 87.2% (156/179) of patients achieved IGA 0/1; 83.3% (85/102), 74.5% (76/102), and 57.8% (59/102) of patients achieved EASI improvements from baseline of 75% (EASI75), 90% (EASI90), and 100% (EASI100), respectively; mean EASI was reduced from 13.4 to 1.0 (p=0.0001; mean EASI improvement = 88.5%); 98% (100/102), 96.1% (98/102), 88.2% (90/102), and 70.6% (72/102) of patients achieved absolute EASI scores <7, <5, <3, and <1, respectively; mean BSA was reduced from 18.2% to 1.1% (p=0.0001; mean BSA improvement=92.2%); mean IGAxBSA was reduced from 60.9 to 2.1 (p=0.0001; mean IGAxBSA improvement=94.7%); and mean DLQI/CDLQI was reduced from 13.6 to 1.4 (p=0.0001; mean DLQI/CDLQI improvement=87.1%), with 75.9% (63/83) of patients achieving DLQI/CDLQI 0/1. UPA monotherapy was utilized in 39.7% (71/179) of cases. Common concomitant therapies included topical corticosteroids (55.3%, 99/179), topical calcineurin inhibitors (6.7%, 12/179), and intramuscular triamcinolone acetonide (2.2%, 4/179). Statistically significantly higher achievement of endpoints was noted for patients using concomitant therapies (EASI75; EASI90; EASI<1) and systemic biologic/JAKi-naïve patients (EASI75; EASI<5; IGA 0/1; DLQI/CDLQI >4-point improvement). Outcomes were not significantly different between dosing regimens. Frequent AEs included: acne (16.2%, 29/179), hypertriglyceridemia (14%, 25/179), elevated creatinine phosphokinase (10.1%, 18/179), herpes simplex virus (6.7%, 12/179), and transaminitis (4.5%, 8/179). Three patients (1.7%) discontinued treatment (myalgia/arthralgia [n=2]; gastrointestinal discomfort [n=1]). No serious infections, tuberculosis, venous thromboembolism, major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforation, or malignancy were observed in 44.7 patient-years of safety follow-up for the treatment period being analyzed. Conclusions Our study included 75.4% (135/179) of patients with follow-up at weeks ≥12 to ≤16. Interestingly, we found more favourable results than Measure Up 1/2 and AD Up clinical trials at week 16 for IGA 0/1, EASI75, EASI90, EASI100, and DLQI 0/1, likely owing to a patient population with less extensive baseline disease severity, while the safety profile was commensurate. Additionally, we noted higher achievement of IGA 0/1, EASI75, and EASI90 endpoints versus similar real-world studies. Study limitations include its retrospective nature and short follow-up duration. Nonetheless, our results support clinical trial findings suggesting UPA is effective and safe for AD.
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 | 0,009 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».