MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391609906 · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljad498.033

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)

2024· article· en· W4391609906 on OpenAlexaff
Eric L. Simpson, Antonio Costanzo, Vimal H. Prajapati, Brian Calimlim, Alvina D. Chu, Tianshuang Wu, Kilian Eyerich

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsProbity Medical ResearchSKiN HealthUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDupilumabMedicineAtopic dermatitisDermatologyClinical trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207