Abrocitinib induction, randomized withdrawal, and retreatment in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Results from the JAK1 Atopic Dermatitis Efficacy and Safety (JADE) REGIMEN phase 3 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundThe heterogeneous course of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis necessitates treatment flexibility.ObjectiveWe evaluated the maintenance of abrocitinib-induced response with continuous abrocitinib treatment, dose reduction or withdrawal, and response to treatment reintroduction following flare (JAK1 Atopic Dermatitis Efficacy and Safety [JADE] REGIMEN: National Clinical Trial 03627767).MethodsPatients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis responding to open-label abrocitinib 200 mg monotherapy for 12 weeks were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to blinded abrocitinib (200 or 100 mg) or placebo for 40 weeks. Patients experiencing flare received rescue treatment (abrocitinib 200 mg plus topical therapy).ResultsOf 1233 patients, 798 responders to induction (64.7%) were randomly assigned. The flare probability during maintenance was 18.9%, 42.6%, and 80.9% with abrocitinib 200 mg, abrocitinib 100 mg, and placebo, respectively. Among patients with flare in the abrocitinib 200 mg, abrocitinib 100 mg, and placebo groups, 36.6%, 58.8%, and 81.6% regained investigator global assessment 0/1 response, respectively, and 55.0%, 74.5%, and 91.8% regained eczema area and severity index response, respectively, with rescue treatment. During maintenance, 63.2% and 54.0% of patients receiving abrocitinib 200 and 100 mg, respectively, experienced adverse events.LimitationsThe definition of protocol-defined flare was not established, limiting the generalizability of findings.ConclusionInduction treatment with abrocitinib was effective; most responders continuing abrocitinib did not flare. Rescue treatment with abrocitinib plus topical therapy effectively recaptured response. The heterogeneous course of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis necessitates treatment flexibility. We evaluated the maintenance of abrocitinib-induced response with continuous abrocitinib treatment, dose reduction or withdrawal, and response to treatment reintroduction following flare (JAK1 Atopic Dermatitis Efficacy and Safety [JADE] REGIMEN: National Clinical Trial 03627767). Patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis responding to open-label abrocitinib 200 mg monotherapy for 12 weeks were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to blinded abrocitinib (200 or 100 mg) or placebo for 40 weeks. Patients experiencing flare received rescue treatment (abrocitinib 200 mg plus topical therapy). Of 1233 patients, 798 responders to induction (64.7%) were randomly assigned. The flare probability during maintenance was 18.9%, 42.6%, and 80.9% with abrocitinib 200 mg, abrocitinib 100 mg, and placebo, respectively. Among patients with flare in the abrocitinib 200 mg, abrocitinib 100 mg, and placebo groups, 36.6%, 58.8%, and 81.6% regained investigator global assessment 0/1 response, respectively, and 55.0%, 74.5%, and 91.8% regained eczema area and severity index response, respectively, with rescue treatment. During maintenance, 63.2% and 54.0% of patients receiving abrocitinib 200 and 100 mg, respectively, experienced adverse events. The definition of protocol-defined flare was not established, limiting the generalizability of findings. Induction treatment with abrocitinib was effective; most responders continuing abrocitinib did not flare. Rescue treatment with abrocitinib plus topical therapy effectively recaptured response.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".