MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033232785 · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.05.135

Efficacy and patient-reported outcomes from a phase 2b, randomized clinical trial of tapinarof cream for the treatment of adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis

2020· article· en· W3033232785 on OpenAlexaff
Amy S. Paller, Linda Stein Gold, Jennifer Soung, Anna M. Tallman, David S. Rubenstein, Melinda Gooderham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsProbity Medical ResearchQueen's University
FundersJanssen BiotechImcloneAllerganKyowa Hakko KirinGaldermaOrtho DermatologicsActavisLEO PharmaDermiraUCBAbbViePfizer
KeywordsMedicineAtopic dermatitisRandomized controlled trialDermatologyClinical trialSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundTapinarof is a topical therapeutic aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulating agent under investigation for atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis treatment.MethodsA phase 2b, double-blind, vehicle-controlled study randomly assigned adolescents and adults with AD to receive tapinarof cream 0.5%, 1%, or vehicle, once or twice daily, for 12 weeks with a 4-week follow-up. Outcomes included Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), body surface area affected, pruritus numeric rating scale scores, patients' impressions of AD and pruritus symptom severity, and Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores.ResultsOverall, 191 of 247 randomized patients completed the study. Week 12 IGA responses were higher in the tapinarof groups versus the vehicle group, reaching statistical significance with tapinarof 1% twice daily, ≥75%/90% improvement in EASI from baseline were significantly higher in the tapinarof groups (except 0.5% once daily and 0.5% twice daily), EASI scores were significantly improved in all tapinarof groups, and body surface area affected was significantly reduced in the tapinarof groups (except 0.5% twice daily). More patients reported AD and pruritus symptom severity as very/moderately improved in tapinarof groups, and POEM improvements were observed in all groups. Most adverse events were mild or moderate.LimitationsLarger prospective studies are required to confirm the reported analyses.ConclusionsTapinarof is a potential important advance in topical medicine development for AD. Tapinarof is a topical therapeutic aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulating agent under investigation for atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis treatment. A phase 2b, double-blind, vehicle-controlled study randomly assigned adolescents and adults with AD to receive tapinarof cream 0.5%, 1%, or vehicle, once or twice daily, for 12 weeks with a 4-week follow-up. Outcomes included Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), body surface area affected, pruritus numeric rating scale scores, patients' impressions of AD and pruritus symptom severity, and Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores. Overall, 191 of 247 randomized patients completed the study. Week 12 IGA responses were higher in the tapinarof groups versus the vehicle group, reaching statistical significance with tapinarof 1% twice daily, ≥75%/90% improvement in EASI from baseline were significantly higher in the tapinarof groups (except 0.5% once daily and 0.5% twice daily), EASI scores were significantly improved in all tapinarof groups, and body surface area affected was significantly reduced in the tapinarof groups (except 0.5% twice daily). More patients reported AD and pruritus symptom severity as very/moderately improved in tapinarof groups, and POEM improvements were observed in all groups. Most adverse events were mild or moderate. Larger prospective studies are required to confirm the reported analyses. Tapinarof is a potential important advance in topical medicine development for AD.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations137
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of DermatologySame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207