Efficacy and safety of switching from dupilumab to upadacitinib versus continuous upadacitinib in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Results from an open-label extension of the phase 3, randomized, controlled trial (Heads Up)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Characterization of upadacitinib use and switching from dupilumab to upadacitinib among patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) is needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of continuous upadacitinib 30 mg and switching to upadacitinib after 24 weeks of dupilumab. METHODS: Adults who completed the phase 3b clinical trial of oral upadacitinib 30 mg vs injectable dupilumab 300 mg (Heads Up) and entered a 52-week open-label extension (OLE) (NCT04195698) were included. All patients received 30-mg upadacitinib during the open-label period. We report results of a prespecified interim OLE 16-week analysis. RESULTS: Patients (n = 239) continuing upadacitinib maintained high levels of skin and itch response. Patients (n = 245) switching from dupilumab experienced additional incremental improvements in clinical responses within 4 weeks of starting upadacitinib. Most patients who did not achieve adequate clinical responses with dupilumab did so with upadacitinib. The safety profile of upadacitinib up to 40 weeks (week 16 of OLE) was consistent with previous phase 3 AD studies, with no new safety risks observed. LIMITATIONS: Open-label study design. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical responses are maintained with continuous upadacitinib through 40 weeks and patients regardless of prior dupilumab response experienced improved outcomes when switched to upadacitinib. No new safety risks were observed.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".