Abrocitinib efficacy and safety in patients with moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis: Results from phase 3 studies, including the long‐term extension JADE EXTEND study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abrocitinib improved signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) at 12 or 16 weeks in phase 3 studies with a manageable safety profile. Further understanding of the abrocitinib long-term efficacy and safety profile is important for its appropriate use in treating chronic AD. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the abrocitinib efficacy up to 48 weeks and long-term safety 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 focusses on patients from the phase 3 JADE MONO-1 (NCT03349060), JADE MONO-2 (NCT03575871) and JADE COMPARE (NCT03720470) studies who completed the full treatment period of placebo or abrocitinib (200 mg or 100 mg once daily) and subsequently entered JADE EXTEND. Efficacy endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving skin clearance (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] 0/1 [clear/almost clear]; ≥75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI-75]) and itch response (Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale [PP-NRS] severity ≥4-point improvement). Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious TEAEs and TEAEs leading to discontinuation. Data cut-off: April 22, 2020. RESULTS: As of the data cut-off, ~70% and ~45% of patients received abrocitinib for ≥36 and ≥48 weeks, respectively. Nasopharyngitis, atopic dermatitis, nausea and upper respiratory tract infections were the most frequent TEAEs. Serious TEAEs occurred in 7% and 5% and TEAEs leading to study discontinuation occurred in 9% and 7% of patients receiving abrocitinib 200 mg and 100 mg, respectively. Week 48 efficacy responses with abrocitinib 200 mg and 100 mg were as follows: IGA 0/1 52% and 39%; EASI-75 82% and 67%, and PP-NRS severity ≥4-point improvement 68% and 51%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate-to-severe AD, long-term abrocitinib treatment resulted in clinically meaningful skin and pruritus improvement. The long-term safety profile was manageable and consistent with previous reports.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".