MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401385117 · doi:10.1007/s13555-024-01242-9

More Time Spent with Clear Skin and No Itch with Upadacitinib versus Dupilumab for Atopic Dermatitis

2024· article· en· W4401385117 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Blauvelt, Kilian Eyerich, Alan D. Irvine, Marjolein de Bruin‐Weller, Shawn G. Kwatra, Melinda Gooderham, Brian Kim, Brian Calimlim, Wan-Ju Lee, Eliza M. Raymundo, Yingyi Liu, Sarah Ofori, Andrew M. Platt, Jonathan I. Silverberg

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatology and Therapy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsProbity Medical ResearchSKiN HealthQueen's University
FundersJanssen PharmaceuticalsLEO PharmaCoherus BiosciencesArgenxDaewoong Pharmaceutical CompanySanofi GenzymePfizerIncyteNational Eczema AssociationCelldex TherapeuticsDermiraSun PharmaRegeneron PharmaceuticalsKiniksa PharmaceuticalsAbbVieSanofiGlaxoSmithKlineCelgeneGaldermaBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyAstraZenecaAmgenCastle Biosciences
KeywordsDupilumabAtopic dermatitisMedicineDermatologyPlaceboPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD), with its hallmark symptoms of pruritus and skin lesions, often impairs patients' quality of life. We assessed time spent with clear/almost clear skin and no/minimal itch during upadacitinib treatment versus placebo or dupilumab among patients with moderate-to-severe AD. METHODS: This analysis consisted of a post hoc analysis of Measure Up 1 (NCT03569293), Measure Up 2 (NCT03607422), and Heads Up (NCT03738397). Measure Up 1 and 2 were replicate, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 studies with patients randomized (1:1:1) to once-daily oral upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo for 16 weeks. Heads Up was a head-to-head, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3b study with patients randomized (1:1) to upadacitinib 30 mg or subcutaneous dupilumab 300 mg for 24 weeks. Skin clearance was assessed with the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) at baseline, weeks 1, 2, and 4, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Itch was assessed using the Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (WP-NRS) daily over 16 weeks and every 2 weeks thereafter to week 24 in Heads Up. RESULTS: This analysis included 1683 patients in Measure Up 1 and 2 and 673 patients in Heads Up. Through 16 weeks in Measure Up 1 and 2, patients receiving upadacitinib spent 9.8-13.4 times as many days with an EASI 90 response and 7.0-10.3 times as many days with a WP-NRS 0/1 response versus placebo. In Heads Up, patients receiving upadacitinib spent 2.0 and 1.7 times as many days through 16 and 24 weeks, respectively, with an EASI 90 response versus dupilumab. Through 16 and 24 weeks, patients receiving upadacitinib spent 3.0 and 2.6 times as many days, respectively, with a WP-NRS 0/1 response versus dupilumab. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with moderate-to-severe AD spent more time with clear/almost clear skin and no/minimal itch with upadacitinib versus placebo or dupilumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, Measure Up 1 (NCT03569293), Measure Up 2 (NCT03607422), Heads Up (NCT03738397).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatology and Therapy→Same topicDermatology and Skin Diseases→French-language works237,207→