Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib in patients with moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis with prior exposure to oral systemic immunosuppressants or biologic therapies: A post hoc analysis of the JADE clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Patients with moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis (AD) refractory to topical therapy might require treatment with systemic therapies, including biologics. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of abrocitinib monotherapy in patients who previously received systemic therapies. Methods This post hoc analysis included patients receiving abrocitinib (200 mg/100 mg) or placebo in the phase 2b and phase 3 JADE MONO‐1 and MONO‐2, REGIMEN (abrocitinib 200 mg; open‐label period) and EXTEND (patients enrolled from MONO‐1 and MONO‐2) trials. Patients who were systemic therapy‐naive or had received prior oral systemic or biologic therapies were assessed for Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) response of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) and ≥2‐point improvement from baseline, ≥75% or ≥90% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI‐75 or EASI‐90), ≥4‐point improvement in Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP‐NRS4), PP‐NRS score of 0 or 1 and change from baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) and Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores. Safety was assessed. Results This analysis included 1579 patients (systemic therapy‐naive, n = 997; prior exposure to oral systemic, n = 429; biologic therapies, n = 153). At Week 12, IGA 0/1 response rates (95% confidence intervals) among patients who were systemic therapy‐naive, had received prior oral systemic therapy or had received biologic therapy were 44.4% (37.5–51.4), 34.5% (22.3–46.7) and 43.5% (23.2–63.7) with abrocitinib 200 mg, 30.9% (24.2–37.5), 16.4% (7.1–25.7) and 24.1% (8.6–39.7) with abrocitinib 100 mg and 9.6% (4.2–14.9), 5.9% (0.0–13.8) and 0.0% (0.0–23.2) with placebo in the pooled monotherapy trials; and 67.0% (62.8–71.2), 62.2% (56.4–68.0) and 53.5% (42.9–64.0) in REGIMEN. Across subgroups, abrocitinib showed greater improvement in EASI‐75, PP‐NRS4, EASI‐90, PP‐NRS 0/1, PSAAD and POEM scores versus placebo. Similar results were seen at Week 48. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions Prior use of oral systemic or biologic therapies did not seem to impact the efficacy and safety of abrocitinib in patients with moderate‐to‐severe AD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".