Roflumilast Cream, 0.15%, for Atopic Dermatitis in Adults and Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Safe, effective, and well-tolerated topical treatment options available for long-term use in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) are limited and associated with low adherence rates. Objective: To evaluate efficacy and safety of once-daily roflumilast cream, 0.15%, vs vehicle cream in patients with AD. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trials (Interventional Trial Evaluating Roflumilast Cream for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis 1 and 2 [INTEGUMENT-1 and INTEGUMENT-2]), included patients from sites in the US, Canada, and Poland. Participants were 6 years or older with mild to moderate AD based on Validated Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (assessed on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 [clear] to 4 [severe]). Intervention: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive roflumilast cream, 0.15%, or vehicle cream once daily for 4 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end point was Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis success at week 4, defined as a score of 0 or 1 plus at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline. Secondary end points included Eczema Area and Severity Index and Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale. Safety and local tolerability were also evaluated. Results: Among 1337 patients (654 patients in INTEGUMENT-1 and 683 patients in INTEGUMENT-2), the mean (SD) age was 27.7 (19.2) years, and 761 participants (56.9%) were female. The mean body surface area involved was 13.6% (SD = 11.6%; range, 3.0% to 88.0%). Significantly more patients treated with roflumilast than vehicle achieved the primary end point (INTEGUMENT-1: 32.0% vs 15.2%, respectively; P < .001; INTEGUMENT-2: 28.9% vs 12.0%, respectively; P < .001). At week 4, statistically significant differences favoring roflumilast also occurred for the achievement of at least 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (INTEGUMENT-1: 43.2% vs 22.0%, respectively; P < .001; INTEGUMENT-2: 42.0% vs 19.7%, respectively; P < .001). Roflumilast was well tolerated with low rates of treatment-emergent adverse events. At each time point, investigators noted no signs of irritation at the application site in 885 patients who were treated with roflumilast (≥95%), and 885 patients who were treated with roflumilast (90%) reported no or mild sensation at the application site. Conclusions and Relevance: In 2 phase 3 trials enrolling adults and children, once-daily roflumilast cream, 0.15%, improved AD relative to vehicle cream, based on multiple efficacy end points, with favorable safety and tolerability. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04773587, 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".