MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392906163 · doi:10.25251/skin.8.supp.372

Roflumilast Cream 0.15% in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis: Individual Patient Response from the Pooled INTEGUMENT-1 and INTEGUMENT-2 Phase 3 Trials

2024· article· en· W4392906163 on OpenAlexaff
Eric L. Simpson, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, J.Q. Del Rosso, Melinda Gooderham, Hwanhee Hong, Leon Kircik, Kim Papp, Adelaide A. Hebert, David Krupa, David H. Chu, Patrick Burnett, David R. Berk, Robert Higham

Bibliographic record

VenueSKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoProbity Medical ResearchUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntegumentRoflumilastAtopic dermatitisDermatologyMedicineInternal medicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Roflumilast cream 0.15% is a highly selective phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor under investigation as a once-daily, nonsteroidal treatment for atopic dermatitis (AD). Pooled safety and efficacy results of two Phase 3 clinical trials (INTEGUMENT-1 and INTEGUMENT-2) in patients with AD have been presented previously. Here we present individual patient responses on the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), which is used to assess disease severity in clinical trials. Methods: INTEGUMENT-1 and INTEGUMENT-2 were identical, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, 4-week trials of once-daily roflumilast cream 0.15% in patients aged ≥6 with AD (body surface area [BSA] affected: ≥3%). Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to roflumilast cream 0.15% or vehicle cream. The primary efficacy endpoint was Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD (vIGA-AD) Success (score of 0 [Clear] or 1 [Almost Clear] plus ≥2-point improvement from baseline, assessed on a five-point scale ranging from 0 to 4 [Severe]) at Week 4. EASI was assessed as a secondary endpoint. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. Results: In total, 884 patients received roflumilast 0.15% cream and 453 patients received vehicle cream. Baseline characteristics and demographics were similar between treatment groups. Significantly more roflumilast- than vehicle-treated patients achieved vIGA-AD Success (31.3% versus 14.1%; P<0.0001) and vIGA-AD of Clear or Almost Clear (41.1% vs. 21.4%; P<0.0001) at Week 4. Roflumilast treatment significantly improved itch by 24 hours after first application (P<0.0001). At the first post-treatment timepoint evaluated (Week 1), 84.9% of roflumilast-treated patients had a measurable improvement in EASI. By Week 4, 91.5% of patients had a measurable improvement in EASI. Differences favoring roflumilast were also observed at Week 4 for percentages of patients achieving a 50% reduction in EASI (69.2% vs. 44.4%; P<0.0001), 75% reduction (44.5% vs. 21.2%, P<0.0001), 90% reduction (22.4% vs 8.6%; P<0.0001), and 100% reduction (9.8% vs 4.8%; P<0.002). Roflumilast cream had low rates of application-site adverse events (AEs), treatment-related AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs, comparable with vehicle. On local tolerability assessments, >95% of investigators reported no evidence of irritation at any time point and >90% of patients reported no or mild sensation after applying roflumilast cream on patient-rated local tolerability assessments. Conclusions: Roflumilast cream 0.15% provided greater improvement in vIGA-AD Success, vIGA-AD of Clear or Almost Clear, itch, and EASI versus vehicle in patients with AD in two Phase 3 trials. Among patients treated with roflumilast cream 0.15%, 91.5% demonstrated an improvement in EASI score by Week 4. Safety and tolerability were favorable, with >90% of roflumilast- and vehicle-treated patients reporting no or mild sensation at the application site at any timepoint. Sponsored by Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Inc. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: INTEGUMENT-1 [NCT04773587]; INTEGUMENT-2 [NCT04773600]

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSKIN The Journal of Cutaneous MedicineSame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207