Abrocitinib effect on patient‐reported outcomes in patients with moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis: Results from phase 3 studies, including the long‐term extension <scp>JADE EXTEND</scp> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abrocitinib improved signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) at Weeks 12 and 16 in phase 3 studies, with a manageable safety profile. Patient-reported outcomes with long-term abrocitinib treatment were not reported. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes with long-term abrocitinib treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. METHODS: JADE EXTEND (NCT03422822) is an ongoing, phase 3, long-term extension study that enrolled patients from previous abrocitinib AD trials. This analysis includes patients from the phase 3 trials JADE MONO-1 (NCT03349060), JADE MONO-2 (NCT03575871) and JADE COMPARE (NCT03720470) who completed the full treatment period of placebo or abrocitinib (200 or 100 mg once daily) and subsequently entered JADE EXTEND and were randomised to receive once-daily abrocitinib 200 or 100 mg. Patient-reported endpoints to Week 48 included the proportion of patients who achieved Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores of 0/1 (no effect of AD on quality of life [QoL]) and a ≥4-point improvement in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) score (clinically meaningful improvement). Data cut-off: April 22, 2020. RESULTS: Baseline DLQI mean scores were 15.4 and 15.3 in the abrocitinib 200- and 100-mg groups, respectively, which corresponded to a 'very large effect' on QoL; at Week 48, mean DLQI scores were lower with abrocitinib 200 mg (4.6; 'small effect' on QoL) and abrocitinib 100 mg (5.9; 'moderate effect' on QoL). Baseline POEM mean scores were 20.4 and 20.5 in the abrocitinib 200- and 100-mg groups, respectively; at Week 48, mean POEM scores were 8.2 and 11.0. Week 48 patient-reported responses with abrocitinib 200 mg and abrocitinib 100 mg were 44% and 34% for DLQI 0/1, and 90% and 77% for a ≥4-point reduction in POEM score. CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate-to-severe AD, long-term abrocitinib treatment resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported symptoms of AD, including QoL.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".