P40 Dupilumab treatment restores skin barrier function in lesional and nonlesional skin of patients with atopic dermatitis and improves patient-reported outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this analysis is to report the effect of dupilumab treatment on skin barrier function and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). BALISTAD (NCT04447417) was an open-label trial in which transepidermal water loss (TEWL) was assessed repeatedly before and after skin tape stripping (STS) samples were taken from lesional and nonlesional skin of 26 patients with AD treated with dupilumab, and from normal skin of 26 matched healthy volunteers aged 12–65 years over a period of 16 weeks. PROs assessed included Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) and Dermatological Life Quality Index [DLQI; for patients > 17 years old; Children’s DLQI (CDLQI) for patients aged > 12 to < 17 years]. At baseline, the median TEWL after five STS was statistically significantly higher in the lesional and nonlesional skin of patients with AD compared with healthy skin (P < 0.001 and P < 0.01, respectively) and statistically significantly decreased following dupilumab initiation as early as week 2 (P < 0.001 and P < 0.05, respectively). After 16 weeks of dupilumab treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in adjusted mean TEWL in AD lesional and nonlesional skin compared with matched healthy skin (P = 0.225 and P = 0.163, respectively). Significant improvement from baseline [mean (SD) change from baseline] was seen as early as week 2 in mean POEM [−8.4 (5.1)], DLQI [−5.3 (4.7)], CDLQI [−6.2 (4.7)] and PP-NRS [−2.2 (1.8); P < 0.001 and P < 0.05)] for CDLQI. Improvement was sustained through to week 16 [mean (SD) change from baseline; P < 0.001] for POEM [−13.6 (8.5)], DLQI [−8.6 (7.4)] and PP-NRS [−4.2 (2.6)] and with a P-value of < 0.01 for CDLQI [−9.2 (5.0)]. Dupilumab treatment normalizes epidermal barrier function in lesional and nonlesional skin in patients with moderate-to-severe AD, as measured with TEWL, and improves PROs. Funding sources: research sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".