Effect of upadacitinib on atopic hand eczema in patients with moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis: Results from two randomized phase 3 trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately 60% of patients with atopic dermatitis have involvement of the hands adding to the burden of disease. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aims to evaluate the effect of upadacitinib monotherapy on atopic hand eczema in patients with moderate-to-severe AD over 16 weeks in the Measure Up 1 and 2 studies. METHODS: Data from patients (ages 12-75) randomized 1:1:1 to receive upadacitinib 15 mg, 30 mg, or placebo once daily in the Measure Up 1 and 2 studies were analysed for impact on atopic hand eczema assessed using the Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI). The percent change from baseline in HECSI score was a prespecified additional endpoint at all visits. The proportion of patients with at least a 75% improvement in HECSI score (HECSI 75) was evaluated post hoc. RESULTS: Patients treated with upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg experienced greater improvement in HECSI score compared with placebo as early as Week 1, which was maintained through Week 16. At Week 16, the mean change from baseline in HECSI score for patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg, 30 mg, and placebo was -68%, -74%, and -15% in Measure Up 1 and -68%, -74% and +21% (positive change indicates worsening for placebo) in Measure Up 2, respectively. A greater proportion of upadacitinib-treated patients achieved HECSI 75 compared with placebo at all timepoints beginning at Week 1 through Week 16. CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg monotherapy provided rapid and sustained improvement in atopic hand eczema compared with placebo through Week 16 in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. At Week 16, the observed mean improvements in HECSI score in upadacitinib-treated patients were clinically meaningful based on previous interpretability studies. These results suggest that upadacitinib may be an effective treatment option for atopic hand eczema in patients with moderate-to-severe 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".