Real-world treatment outcomes of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in children aged less than 12 years: 2-year results from PEDIatric STudy in Atopic Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The arrival of biologics and small-molecule therapies (eg Janus kinase inhibitors) changed atopic dermatitis treatment, but older systemic treatments continue to be prescribed. OBJECTIVE: To provide real-world effectiveness, safety, and adherence data for dupilumab, cyclosporine, and methotrexate. METHODS: PEDIatric STudy in Atopic Dermatitis (NCT03687359) is a real-world, prospective, observational, 10-year study of children (<12 years) with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. We report 2-year interim results. RESULTS: Median treatment durations were 8.1, 13.0, and 10.7 months for dupilumab (n = 144), methotrexate (n = 114), and cyclosporine (n = 121), respectively. Dupilumab had numerically greater within-group improvements than methotrexate and cyclosporine in Eczema Area and Severity Index (-12.4∗ vs -5.7∗ and -3.3); body surface area affected (-19.9%∗ vs -11.8%∗ and -8.8%∗); itching (night-time: -2.1∗ vs -0.4 and + 0.1; daytime: -1.5∗ vs +0.1 and + 0.2; ≥6 years); itching/scratching (-3.6∗ vs -1.4∗ and -0.2; <6 years); and Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (-7.0∗ vs -4.7∗ and -1.5) (∗P < .05 within-group improvements from baseline). Dupilumab had less discontinuations (8.3% vs 28.9% and 43.0%) and adverse event(s) (18.1% vs 29.8% and 31.4%). LIMITATIONS: No randomization, placebo, or specified dosages. CONCLUSION: Dupilumab was associated with numerically greater outcomes and higher adherence than cyclosporine or methotrexate.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".