Characterization of acne associated with upadacitinib treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A post hoc integrated analysis of 3 phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acne is the most frequent adverse event associated with upadacitinib treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the adverse event of acne associated with upadacitinib. METHODS: This was a post hoc integrated analysis of 3 phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of upadacitinib, alone (NCT03569293 and NCT03607422) or in combination with topical corticosteroids (NCT03568318). Data included were from the 16-week placebo-controlled period. RESULTS: Over 16 weeks, 84 of 857 (9.8%), 131 of 864 (15.2%), and 19 of 862 (2.2%) patients randomized to receive upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, and placebo, respectively, experienced acne. All cases of acne, except 1, were mild/moderate in severity; 2 patients discontinued treatment due to moderate acne. Acne occurred at higher rates among younger, female, and non-White patients. Acne required no intervention in 40.5% and 46.6% of patients receiving upadacitinib 15 and 30 mg, respectively; most remaining cases were managed with topical antibiotics, benzoyl peroxide, and/or retinoids. Acne also had no impact on patient-reported outcomes. LIMITATIONS: This study was relatively short in duration and had a small patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Acne associated with upadacitinib for atopic dermatitis treatment is usually mild/moderate in severity and managed with topical therapies or no intervention.
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 | 0.027 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".