Efficacy of Roflumilast Foam, 0.3%, in Patients With Seborrheic Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Current topical treatment options for seborrheic dermatitis are limited by efficacy and/or safety. Objective: To assess safety and efficacy of roflumilast foam, 0.3%, in adult patients with seborrheic dermatitis affecting the scalp, face, and/or trunk. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter (24 sites in the US and Canada) phase 2a, parallel group, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical trial was conducted between November 12, 2019, and August 21, 2020. Participants were adult (aged ≥18 years) patients with a clinical diagnosis of seborrheic dermatitis for a 3-month or longer duration and Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3 or greater (at least moderate), affecting 20% or less body surface area, including scalp, face, trunk, and/or intertriginous areas. Data analysis was performed from September to October 2020. Interventions: Once-daily roflumilast foam, 0.3% (n = 154), or vehicle foam (n = 72) for 8 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was IGA success, defined as achievement of IGA score of clear or almost clear plus 2-grade improvement from baseline, at week 8. Secondary outcomes included IGA success at weeks 2 and 4; achievement of erythema score of 0 or 1 plus 2-grade improvement from baseline at weeks 2, 4, and 8; achievement of scaling score of 0 or 1 plus 2-grade improvement from baseline at weeks 2, 4, and 8; change in Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) score from baseline; and WI-NRS success, defined as achievement of 4-point or greater WI-NRS score improvement in patients with baseline WI-NRS score of 4 or greater. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. Results: A total of 226 patients (mean [SD] age, 44.9 [16.8] years; 116 men, 110 women) were randomized to roflumilast foam (n = 154) or vehicle foam (n = 72). At week 8, 104 (73.8%) roflumilast-treated patients achieved IGA success compared with 27 (40.9%) in the vehicle group (P < .001). Roflumilast-treated patients had statistically significantly higher rates of IGA success vs vehicle at week 2, the first time point assessed. Mean (SD) reductions (improvements) on the WI-NRS at week 8 were 59.3% (52.5%) vs 36.6% (42.2%) in the roflumilast and vehicle groups, respectively (P < .001). Roflumilast was well tolerated, with the rate of adverse events similar to that of the vehicle foam. Conclusions and Relevance: The results from this phase 2a randomized clinical trial of once-daily roflumilast foam, 0.3%, demonstrated favorable efficacy, safety, and local tolerability in the treatment of erythema, scaling, and itch caused by seborrheic dermatitis, supporting further investigation as a nonsteroidal topical treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04091646.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".