MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401435914 · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljae266.039

661 - Efficacy and safety of amlitelimab, an anti-OX40 ligand antibody, in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD): a phase 2b trial (STREAM-AD)

2024· article· en· W4401435914 on OpenAlexaff
Stephan Weidinger, Andrew Blauvelt, Kim Papp, Adam Reich, Chih‐Hung Lee, Margitta Worm, Charles Lynde, Yoko Kataoka, Peter Foley, Christine Weber, Anne-Catherine Solente, Samuel Adelman, Sonya Davey, Natalie Rynkiewicz, Karl Yen, John T. O’Malley, Charlotte Bernigaud

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsProbity Medical ResearchUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboClinical endpointAtopic dermatitisInternal medicineClinical trialRandomized controlled trialEczema Area and Severity IndexDouble blindGastroenterologyImmunologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Amlitelimab is a fully-human, non-depleting, anti-OX40 ligand (OX40L) monoclonal antibody that binds to OX40L on antigen-presenting cells. Amlitelimab blocks the interaction of OX40L with OX40 on activated T-cells, inhibiting T-cell dependent inflammation without depleting T-cells. Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of amlitelimab (Part 1), and explore the maintenance of clinical response over a 28-Week period (Part 2) in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. Methods STREAM-AD (NCT05131477), was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2b trial, that included a 24-Week, double-blind, treatment period (Part 1), a 28-Week maintenance/withdrawal period (Part 2), and a 16-Week safety follow-up. In Part 1, adult participants were randomized 1:1:1:1:1 to subcutaneous amlitelimab Q4W (250mg with 500mg loading dose [+ LD], n=77; 250mg, n=78; 125mg, n=77; 62.5mg, n=79) or placebo Q4W (n=79). In Part 2, Clinical responders (defined as those achieving EASI-75 and/or IGA 0/1 at Week-24) in Part 1, were rerandomized 3:1 to withdraw or continue pre-Week 24 Q4W dose (250mg + LD, n=34 [withdrawal]/n=13 [continuing]; 250mg, n=28/n=12; 125mg, n=33/n=12; 62.5mg, n=35/n=7; placebo responders continuing placebo, n=16), and were followed to Week-52 to evaluate maintenance of clinical response. Primary efficacy endpoint was percent change in EASI from baseline at Week-16. Key secondary endpoints were proportion of patients achieving IGA 0/1, EASI-75, PP-RNS≥4. The statistical analysis was performed using two methods: 1) imputing the endpoint as nonresponder after rescue medication use (NRI); and 2) including all measurements regardless of rescue use (treatment policy). Results Out of 390 participants enrolled in Part 1, 190 entered Part 2. In Part 1, all four doses of amlitelimab demonstrated statistically significant improvements in percent change in EASI from baseline to Week-16 vs placebo; the highest response was seen with 250mg + LD group. Clinically meaningful improvements in key secondary endpoints were observed at Week-16, with continued improvements through Week-24. In Part 2, maintenance of EASI-75 and/or IGA 0/1 response at Week-52 was observed in 59%, 63%, 55%, and 66% of clinical responders withdrawn from 250mg + LD, 250mg, 125mg, and 62.5mg, respectively (NRI). Using treatment policy, 77%, 82%, 67%, and 74% maintained response off-drug, respectively. Those continuing amlitelimab treatment had numerically higher maintenance response rates. AD-related biomarkers were reduced during Part 1 and remained decreased over Part 2. Amlitelimab was well tolerated across all dose groups, with no new safety concerns identified during the 52-Weeks. Conclusion Clinically meaningful efficacy with amlitelimab was demonstrated over 52-Weeks, with an acceptable safety profile. Clinical responses were maintained in most patients 28-Weeks after treatment discontinuation.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Dermatology→Same topicDermatology and Skin Diseases→French-language works237,207→