528 - Rapid skin clearance and itch improvement with upadacitinib versus dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: results from a phase 3b head-to-head clinical trial (Heads Up)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction/Background Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, recurrent, inflammatory disease characterized by multiple skin manifestations and intense itching that can impact patient quality of life. The effect of upadacitinib (UPA) and dupilumab (DUP) was evaluated in a double-blind, double-dummy, head-to-head phase 3b clinical trial (Heads Up; NCT03738397) of adult patients (age: 18-75 years) with moderate-to-severe AD (Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI] ≥16; body surface area ≥10%; validated Investigator Global Assessment of Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) ≥3 at screening and baseline; Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale [WP-NRS] ≥4 at baseline) randomized 1:1 to UPA 30 mg orally once-daily (N=348) or DUP 300 mg subcutaneous injection every two weeks after a 600 mg loading dose (N=344). Objective The effects of UPA and DUP on skin clearance and itch improvement are reported here. Methods Skin clearance was assessed by EASI, with response defined as an improvement ≥75% (EASI75), ≥90% (EASI90), and 100% (EASI100) from baseline. Itch intensity was assessed daily by WP-NRS up to week 16, then at study visits up to week 24. Weekly WP-NRS scores were analyzed as a 7-day rolling average up to week 16, then at study visits through week 24. Daily WP-NRS scores were analyzed day-to-day through day 28. Mean percent improvement and the proportion of patients achieving clinically meaningful improvement (≥4-point improvement from baseline) were evaluated. The proportion of patients achieving a state of no/minimal itch (defined as WP-NRS score of 0/1) was evaluated as a post-hoc analysis. Results EASI75/90/100 response rates were significantly greater with UPA versus DUP at week 16 (UPA = 72.4%/61.6%/28.4%, DUP = 62.6%/40.3%/7.9%; P<0.01 for all comparisons), with greater EASI75 and EASI90 rates observed with UPA as early as week 1 (nominal P<0.05). Mean percent improvement in weekly WP-NRS was significantly greater with UPA versus DUP at week 16 (UPA = 67.8%, DUP= 49.6%; P<0.001), with greater improvement observed as early as week 1 (nominal P<0.001). Daily WP-NRS data showed a greater mean percent improvement with UPA versus DUP as early as day 2, the day after the first dose (UPA = 22.0%, DUP = 4.2%; nominal P<0.001). The proportion of patients that achieved clinically meaningful improvement in weekly WP-NRS was significantly greater with UPA versus DUP at week 16 (UPA = 56.1%, DUP = 36.4%; P<0.001), with greater proportions observed as early as week 1 (nominal P<0.001). Daily WP-NRS data showed a greater proportion of patients achieved clinically meaningful improvement with UPA versus DUP as early as day 2 (UPA = 15.3%, DUP = 3.4%; nominal P<0.001). The proportion of patients that achieved a state of no/minimal itch based on weekly WP-NRS was greater with UPA versus DUP at week 16 (UPA = 35.5%, DUP = 16.2%; nominal P<0.001) and at week 1 (nominal P<0.001). Conclusions Skin clearance and itch improvement were consistently better with UPA compared with DUP in adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD, with greater improvements observed as early as week 1 for skin clearance and the day following treatment for itch improvement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".