Dupilumab Significantly Modulates Pain and Discomfort in Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Post Hoc Analysis of 5 Randomized Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain is a frequent symptom of atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study were to evaluate the effects of dupilumab on pain/discomfort in AD and to determine whether pain correlates with other outcomes. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of 5 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials in which adults with chronic AD received placebo or dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks or once weekly with and without topical corticosteroids. Proportions of patients with no pain/discomfort on this dimension of the 5-dimension EuroQoL (EQ-5D) at week 16 (all trials) and week 52 (CHRONOS) were compared between placebo and dupilumab. Correlations were evaluated between pain/discomfort and signs and symptoms of AD. RESULTS: Among 2632 evaluated patients, 72.9% to 83.1% reported at least moderate pain/discomfort at baseline. Higher proportions treated with dupilumab reported no pain/discomfort at week 16 relative to placebo; risk differences ranged from 22.3% (95% confidence interval = 11.5%-33.1%) to 42.2% (95% confidence interval = 26.6%-57.8%, all P ≤ 0.0001), with similar effects observed at week 52. Correlations at baseline of pain/discomfort with signs and symptoms of AD were low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Pain/discomfort, present in a substantial proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe AD, was significantly reduced by dupilumab treatment. Given the low-to-moderate correlations with other AD symptoms at baseline, pain likely represents a distinct AD symptom.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT01859988, NCT02277743, NCT02277769, NCT02260986, and NCT02755649.
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 | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".