Upadacitinib treatment withdrawal and retreatment in patients with moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis: Results from a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by pruritic eczematous lesions. The effect of treatment withdrawal after response to upadacitinib oral treatment is not fully characterized. OBJECTIVES: Assess the effect of upadacitinib withdrawal on skin clearance and itch improvement in adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD and evaluate the kinetics of recovery on rescue treatment. METHODS: Data from a phase 2b randomized, placebo-controlled trial (NCT02925117) of upadacitinib in patients with moderate-to-severe AD were analysed. Patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive upadacitinib 7.5 mg, 15 mg, 30 mg or placebo, and then at Week 16, patients were re-randomized 1:1 to receive the same dose of upadacitinib (upadacitinib 30 mg for patients initialized to placebo) or placebo. From Week 20, those who experienced loss of response defined as Eczema Area and Severity Index <50% improvement from baseline (EASI 50) received rescue treatment with upadacitinib 30 mg. RESULTS: Patients who withdrew from upadacitinib experienced a rapid loss of skin clearance response, while those who switched from placebo to upadacitinib gained response. Loss of skin clearance response occurred within 4 weeks and worsening of itch occurred within 5 days. In patients who originally received placebo or a lower dose of upadacitinib leading to a loss of EASI response, rescue treatment with upadacitinib 30 mg resulted in rapid recovery or improvement of both skin and itch responses; most patients who were re-randomized to placebo achieved EASI 75 and IGA 0/1 by 8 weeks of rescue treatment. No new safety risks were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous treatment with upadacitinib is suggested to maintain skin clearance and antipruritic effects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".