MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381383531 · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljad162.004

373 Safety of lebrikizumab in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: data from eight trials

2023· article· en· W4381383531 on OpenAlexaff
Linda Stein Gold, Diamant Thaçi, Jacob P. Thyssen, Melinda Gooderham, Vivian Laquer, Chitra R Natalie, Fangyi Zhao, Eric Meskimen, Hany Elmaraghy, Sonia Montmayeur, Gemma Jimenez, Marjolein de Bruin‐Weller

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsSKiN Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboAtopic dermatitisMedDRAAdverse effectClinical trialIncidence (geometry)DermatologyInternal medicinePharmacovigilance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lebrikizumab (LEB) is a monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity to interleukin (IL)-13, thereby blocking the downstream effects of IL-13 with high potency. To report integrated safety information in adult and adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis treated with LEB, from an integrated safety analysis of eight clinical Phase 2 and 3 trials. These data include adult and adolescent patients who received at least one dose of study drug from a total of eight atopic dermatitis clinical trials: ADvocate1, ADvocate2, ADhere, ADore, ADjoin (ongoing), ARBAN, TREBLE and a Phase 2b study. Treatment duration ranged from a single dose to 100 weeks. This analysis includes all placebo-controlled Week 0- to 16-safety data in patients treated with LEB 250 mg every 2 weeks (LEBQ2W, n = 783) compared with placebo (n = 404) known as ALL PC Weeks 0–16, and all patients who received at least one dose of LEB (n = 1720) known as ALL LEB. Conjunctivitis cluster is defined by MedDRA-preferred terms of conjunctivitis, allergic conjunctivitis, bacterial conjunctivitis, viral conjunctivitis and giant papillary conjunctivitis. Exposure adjusted incidence rates (IR) are provided as per 100 patient-years. In ALL PC Weeks 0–16 analysis, the frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) was 49.2% in LEBQ2W (n = 384) compared with 53.1% in placebo (n = 215). The majority of TEAEs reported were mild or moderate in severity with 2.3% (n = 18) reported as severe in LEBQ2W and 4.4% (n = 18) in placebo. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported by 1.3% (n = 10) in LEBQ2W and 1.9% (n = 8) in placebo. No deaths reported in LEBQ2W and one death in placebo. The most frequently reported TEAE in LEBQ2W was conjunctivitis and in placebo was atopic dermatitis. Conjunctivitis cluster was reported by 8.5% (n = 67) in LEBQ2W and 2.5% (n = 10) in placebo. All conjunctivitis cluster events were mild or moderate. Injection site reactions (ISRs) were reported by 2.6% (n = 20) in LEBQ2W and 1.5% (n = 6) in placebo. Adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported by 2.3% (n = 18) in LEBQ2W and 1.4% (n = 6) in placebo. In ALL LEB, the frequency of TEAEs was 64.3% (n = 1106, IR: 137.9), with the majority being mild or moderate in severity. Severe TEAEs were reported by 5.3% (n = 91). The incidence rates of TEAE did not increase with duration of treatment exposure. The SAEs were reported by 3.3% (n = 56, IR: 3.5). Three (0.2%) deaths occurred in ALL LEB. Conjunctivitis cluster was reported by 10.6% (n = 183, IR:12.2) with the majority being mild or moderate in severity and 0.3% (n = 6) being reported as severe. The ISRs were reported by 3.1% (n = 53, IR: 3.3). Adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported by 4.2% (n = 73, IR: 4.5). The overall safety profile for lebrikizumab consisted of AEs that were mostly nonserious, mild or moderate in severity, and did not lead to treatment discontinuation. Safety profile was similar in both adults and adolescents.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designObservational
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 topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207