Efficacy and Safety of Multiple Dupilumab Dose Regimens After Initial Successful Treatment in Patients With Atopic Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: The dupilumab regimen of 300 mg every 2 weeks is approved for uncontrolled, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of different dupilumab regimens in maintaining response after 16 weeks of initial treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Study to Confirm the Efficacy and Safety of Different Dupilumab Dose Regimens in Adults With Atopic Dermatitis (LIBERTY AD SOLO-CONTINUE) was a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial conducted from March 25, 2015, to October 18, 2016, at 185 sites in North America, Europe, Asia, and Japan. Patients with moderate to severe AD who received dupilumab treatment and achieved an Investigator's Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 or 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index scores (EASI-75) at week 16 in 2 previous dupilumab monotherapy trials (LIBERTY AD SOLO 1 and 2) were rerandomized in SOLO-CONTINUE. After completing SOLO-CONTINUE, patients were followed up for up to 12 weeks or enrolled in an open-label extension. Data were analyzed from December 5 to 12, 2016. Interventions: High-responding patients treated with dupilumab in SOLO were rerandomized 2:1:1:1 to continue their original regimen of dupilumab, 300 mg, weekly or every 2 weeks or to receive dupilumab, 300 mg, every 4 or 8 weeks or placebo for 36 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage change in EASI score from baseline during the SOLO-CONTINUE trial, percentage of patients with EASI-75 at week 36, and safety. Results: Among the 422 patients (mean [SD] age, 38.2 [14.5] years; 227 [53.8%] male), continuing dupilumab treatment once weekly or every 2 weeks maintained optimal efficacy, with negligible change in percent EASI improvement from SOLO 1 and 2 baseline during the SOLO-CONTINUE trial (-0.06%; P < .001 vs placebo); percent change with the other regimens dose-dependently worsened (dupilumab every 4 weeks, -3.84%; dupilumab every 8 weeks, -6.84%; placebo, -21.67%). More patients taking dupilumab weekly or every 2 weeks (116 of 162 [71.6%]; P < .001 vs placebo) maintained EASI-75 response than those taking dupilumab every 4 weeks (49 of 84 [58.3%]) or every 8 weeks (45 of 82 [54.9%]) or those taking placebo (24 of 79 [30.4%]). Overall adverse event incidences were 70.7% in the weekly or every 2 weeks group, 73.6% in the every 4 weeks group, 75.0% in the every 8 weeks group, and 81.7% in the placebo group. Treatment groups had similar conjunctivitis rates. Treatment-emergent antidrug antibody incidence was lower with more frequent dupilumab dose regimens (11.3% in the placebo group and 11.7%, 6.0%, 4.3%, and 1.2% in the dupilumab every 8 weeks, every 4 weeks, every 2 weeks, and weekly groups, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, continued response over time was most consistently maintained with dupilumab administered weekly or every 2 weeks. Longer dosage intervals and placebo resulted in a diminution of response for both continuous and categorical end points. No new safety signals were observed. The approved regimen of 300 mg of dupilumab every 2 weeks is recommended for long-term treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02395133.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".