643 - Effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib in adolescent and adult patients with atopic dermatitis: an analysis of short-term (week 8-20) data from a real-world multicenter retrospective review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral, selective Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi), is approved for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). While its efficacy and safety are supported by clinical trial data1-3, real-world evidence is limited. Objectives Our study evaluated the real-world effectiveness and safety of UPA for AD between weeks 8-20. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective review at three practices in Canada. Effectiveness endpoints measured between weeks 8-20 included: Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of clear or almost clear (IGA 0/1) and improvements in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), body surface area (BSA), IGAxBSA, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI)/Children’s DLQI (CDLQI) improvements. Safety was assessed via treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Results A total of 179 patients were included in the analysis. . The mean age was 44.6 ± 17.5 (range: 12-79) years; 53.6% (96/179) were female. Previous treatments included: topicals (100%, 179/179), light (29.1%, 52/179), systemic non-biologics (74.9%, 134/179), and systemic biologics/JAKi (37.4%, 67/179). Initial UPA doses were 15 mg (44.7%, 80/179) or 30 mg (55.3%, 99/179) once daily. At weeks 8-20: 87.2% (156/179) of patients achieved IGA 0/1; 83.3% (85/102), 74.5% (76/102), and 57.8% (59/102) of patients achieved EASI improvements from baseline of 75% (EASI75), 90% (EASI90), and 100% (EASI100), respectively; mean EASI was reduced from 13.4 to 1.0 (p=0.0001; mean EASI improvement = 88.5%); 98% (100/102), 96.1% (98/102), 88.2% (90/102), and 70.6% (72/102) of patients achieved absolute EASI scores <7, <5, <3, and <1, respectively; mean BSA was reduced from 18.2% to 1.1% (p=0.0001; mean BSA improvement=92.2%); mean IGAxBSA was reduced from 60.9 to 2.1 (p=0.0001; mean IGAxBSA improvement=94.7%); and mean DLQI/CDLQI was reduced from 13.6 to 1.4 (p=0.0001; mean DLQI/CDLQI improvement=87.1%), with 75.9% (63/83) of patients achieving DLQI/CDLQI 0/1. UPA monotherapy was utilized in 39.7% (71/179) of cases. Common concomitant therapies included topical corticosteroids (55.3%, 99/179), topical calcineurin inhibitors (6.7%, 12/179), and intramuscular triamcinolone acetonide (2.2%, 4/179). Statistically significantly higher achievement of endpoints was noted for patients using concomitant therapies (EASI75; EASI90; EASI<1) and systemic biologic/JAKi-naïve patients (EASI75; EASI<5; IGA 0/1; DLQI/CDLQI >4-point improvement). Outcomes were not significantly different between dosing regimens. Frequent AEs included: acne (16.2%, 29/179), hypertriglyceridemia (14%, 25/179), elevated creatinine phosphokinase (10.1%, 18/179), herpes simplex virus (6.7%, 12/179), and transaminitis (4.5%, 8/179). Three patients (1.7%) discontinued treatment (myalgia/arthralgia [n=2]; gastrointestinal discomfort [n=1]). No serious infections, tuberculosis, venous thromboembolism, major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforation, or malignancy were observed in 44.7 patient-years of safety follow-up for the treatment period being analyzed. Conclusions Our study included 75.4% (135/179) of patients with follow-up at weeks ≥12 to ≤16. Interestingly, we found more favourable results than Measure Up 1/2 and AD Up clinical trials at week 16 for IGA 0/1, EASI75, EASI90, EASI100, and DLQI 0/1, likely owing to a patient population with less extensive baseline disease severity, while the safety profile was commensurate. Additionally, we noted higher achievement of IGA 0/1, EASI75, and EASI90 endpoints versus similar real-world studies. Study limitations include its retrospective nature and short follow-up duration. Nonetheless, our results support clinical trial findings suggesting UPA is effective and safe for AD.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".