Lebrikizumab vs Other Systemic Monotherapies for Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: Network Meta-analysis of Efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to compare the short-term efficacy of lebrikizumab to other biologic and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor monotherapies approved for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in adults and adolescents. METHODS: The NMA included randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled monotherapy phase 2 and 3 trials of biologics (lebrikizumab 250 mg every 2 weeks [Q2W], dupilumab 300 mg Q2W, and tralokinumab 300 mg Q2W) and JAK inhibitors (abrocitinib 100/200 mg daily, baricitinib 2/4 mg daily, and upadacitinib 15/30 mg daily) at approved doses. Efficacy outcomes included the proportions of patients achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) improvement, an Investigator Global Assessment of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1), and a ≥ 4-point improvement in pruritus/itch numeric rating scale score at 12 weeks (abrocitinib) or 16 weeks (other treatments). Itch was also assessed at week 4. A Bayesian NMA employing baseline risk-adjusted random effects models was used to estimate treatment differences. RESULTS: Twenty-two monotherapy studies involving 8531 patients were included in the NMA. By week 12/16, lebrikizumab had superior odds of achieving IGA 0/1 and itch improvement compared to baricitinib and tralokinumab; similar odds to dupilumab, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib 15 mg; and inferior odds to upadacitinib 30 mg. Additionally, lebrikizumab had a higher probability of improving EASI than baricitinib 2 mg; similar probability to baricitinib 4 mg, tralokinumab, dupilumab, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib 15 mg; and lower probability than upadacitinib 30 mg daily. At week 4, lebrikizumab had superior odds of improving itch compared to tralokinumab; similar odds to baricitinib, dupilumab, and abrocitinib 100 mg; and inferior odds to abrocitinib 200 mg and upadacitinib. CONCLUSION: Among biologics, lebrikizumab was comparable to dupilumab and superior to tralokinumab in improving response rates at week 16. Upadacitinib 30 mg was the only JAK inhibitor with superior response rates compared to lebrikizumab.
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 | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".