MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416939994 · doi:10.1007/s12325-025-03440-z

Efficacy of Lebrikizumab on Pruritus: A Narrative Review

2025· review· en· W4416939994 on OpenAlexaff
Gil Yosipovitch, Brian Kim, Sonja Ständer, Sarina B. Elmariah, Vimal H. Prajapati, Kenji Kabashima, Gaia Gallo, María José Rueda, Evangeline Pierce, Yuxin Ding, Shawn G. Kwatra

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Therapy · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsProbity Medical Research
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsNarrative reviewQuality of life (healthcare)Atopic dermatitisDiseaseClinical trialRheumatologyAlternative medicineClinical efficacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, relapsing, and heterogeneous skin disease characterized by eczematous morphology and intense pruritus, significantly impacting the quality of life of affected individuals. A primary cytokine implicated in AD is interleukin-13 (IL-13), which directly drives pruritus skin sensitization, contributing to pruritus. Lebrikizumab, a high-affinity IgG4 monoclonal antibody, targets IL-13 to block inflammatory and neuronal sensitization processes. This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of lebrikizumab's efficacy in managing pruritus in patients with AD, focusing on data from the ADvocate 1&2, ADjoin, ADmirable, and ADhere studies. Clinical trials have demonstrated rapid and sustained improvements in pruritus outcomes, with significant relief observed within days of treatment initiation and maintained over long periods. Lebrikizumab has shown efficacy across diverse populations, including adolescents, the elderly, and skin of color. By effectively targeting IL-13, lebrikizumab offers a valuable treatment option for moderate-to-severe AD, providing significant and sustained pruritus relief, skin clearance, and quality of life improvements.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.397 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in TherapySame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207