Short-Term Efficacy of Lebrikizumab Versus Dupilumab in Combination with Topical Corticosteroids in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison evaluated the short-term efficacy of lebrikizumab plus topical corticosteroids (TCS) versus dupilumab plus TCS in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). METHODS: Individual patient data from the ADhere trial (lebrikizumab 250 mg every 2 weeks [Q2W] plus TCS) and aggregate data from the CHRONOS trial (dupilumab 300 mg Q2W plus TCS) were matched using the method of moments approach to adjust baseline differences. Matching was done at the study level (primary analysis) and at the study arm level (sensitivity analysis). Efficacy endpoints up to week 16 included the proportion of patients achieving an Investigator's Global Assessment of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1); a ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and ≥ 90% improvement from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 50/75/90); a ≥ 4-point improvement from baseline in the Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score (PNRS ≥ 4); and a ≥ 4-point improvement from baseline in the Dermatology Life Quality Index score (DLQI ≥ 4). Placebo-adjusted efficacy outcomes were compared using odds ratios (ORs), risk ratios (RRs), and risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: At week 16, lebrikizumab plus TCS had comparable odds to dupilumab plus TCS of achieving EASI 75 (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.42-3.09), IGA 0/1 (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.42-4.59), PNRS ≥ 4 (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.17-1.37), and DLQI ≥ 4 (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.29-2.69). At earlier timepoints, lebrikizumab plus TCS had comparable odds to dupilumab plus TCS of achieving PNRS ≥ 4 at week 2 (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.24-17.05) and week 4 (OR 3.59, 95% CI 0.90-14.36). RR and RD estimates were consistent with OR estimates of efficacy. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the findings of the primary analysis. CONCLUSION: Lebrikizumab plus TCS was comparable to dupilumab plus TCS across all efficacy endpoints at week 16.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".