MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381336753 · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljad162.043

423 Long-term efficacy of abrocitinib up to 96 weeks in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis stratified by age: a post hoc analysis of the JADE EXTEND phase 3 trial

2023· article· en· W4381336753 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Alexis, Mette Deleuran, Jonathan I. Silverberg, Melinda Gooderham, Saleem A. Farooqui, Gary Chan, Herwig Koppensteiner, Pinaki Biswas, Melissa Watkins

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsSKiN HealthQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineJADE (particle detector)Post-hoc analysisAtopic dermatitisPlaceboBlindingClinical trialEczema Area and Severity IndexRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePediatricsDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Oral abrocitinib 200 and 100 mg once daily provided short-term efficacy in a dose-dependent manner over 12 or 16 weeks in various age groups of patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). This study aims to evaluate the long-term efficacy of abrocitinib treatment for up to 96 weeks in adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD who enrolled in JADE EXTEND (NCT03422822). This planned interim analysis included adult patients from the JADE clinical trials MONO-1 (NCT03349060), MONO-2 (NCT03575871), COMPARE (NCT03720470) and DARE (NCT04345367) who subsequently enrolled into the ongoing phase 3 extension trial JADE EXTEND (data cutoff: September 25, 2021). Patients who were randomly assigned to abrocitinib 200 or 100 mg once daily in the qualifying trials continued to receive the same dose in JADE EXTEND with blinding maintained; those who received placebo were randomly assigned to abrocitinib 200 or 100 mg. All patients from JADE DARE received a known dose of abrocitinib 200 mg in JADE EXTEND. Patients previously randomly assigned to dupilumab in JADE DARE or JADE COMPARE were excluded from this analysis. Patients were grouped for analysis by age (18–50 years; >50 years) recorded at the screening visit of the respective qualifying trial. Assessments included the proportion of patients who achieved Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) with a ≥2-grade improvement from baseline, ≥75% and ≥90% improvement from baseline on the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75 and EASI-90), a score of <2 or a ≥4-point improvement from baseline in Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score (PP-NRS 0/1 or PP-NRS4), and a score of <2 on the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI 0/1). Data (as observed values) were evaluated up to 96 weeks of abrocitinib treatment. A total of 1309 patients [18–50 years (n = 1046); >50 years (n = 263)] were analysed. At Week 16 of abrocitinib treatment, patients achieved improvements with abrocitinib 200 or 100 mg in a dose-dependent manner in both age groups for IGA 0/1 [18–50 years, 55% (abrocitinib 200 mg)/34% (abrocitinib 100 mg); >50 years, 56%/38%], EASI-75 (79%/61%; 76%/69%) and PP-NRS4 (70%/51%; 76%/61%). Similar dose-dependent responses in both age groups were observed for the high-threshold clinical, patient-reported and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) endpoints of EASI-90 [18–50 years, 54% (abrocitinib 200 mg)/33% (abrocitinib 100 mg); >50 years, 59%/40%], PP-NRS 0/1 (35%/25%; 54%/30%) and DLQI 0/1 (38%/23%; 47%/24%). Regardless of age and dose, substantial proportions of patients were observed with responses at Weeks 24, 48 and 96 of abrocitinib treatment. At Week 96, dose-dependent responses remained for the younger subgroup of patients (including for high-threshold responses). For the older subgroup, responses were less clearly dose-dependent from Week 48. At Week 96, responder proportions were as follows: for IGA 0/1: 18–50 years, 55% (abrocitinib 200 mg)/44% (abrocitinib 100 mg); >50 years, 58%/51%; for EASI-75: 85%/73%, 89%/86%; for PP-NRS4: 66%/54%; 80%/79%; and for the high-threshold endpoints of EASI-90: 58%/45%; 73%/58%; for PP-NRS 0/1: 38%/26%; 44%/54%; and for DLQI 0/1: 41%/32%; 48%/51%. Regardless of age, substantial proportions of adults achieved clinical and patient-reported endpoints (IGA 0/1, EASI-75 or PP-NRS4) after short-term treatment with either abrocitinib dose. Similar trends were observed for high-threshold clinical, patient-reported and HRQoL endpoints (EASI-90, PP-NRS 0/1 or DLQI 0/1). Dose-dependent efficacy was observed short-term regardless of age, and up to 96 weeks in patients aged 18–50 years. Responder proportions of patients aged >50 years were less clearly dose-dependent from Week 48 of abrocitinib treatment. These findings may be informative for patients and healthcare providers when making treatment decisions. Further data from the ongoing JADE EXTEND trial may provide greater precision for long-term efficacy estimates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207