Search

Background: Lebrikizumab improved itch, interference of itch on sleep, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), in two Phase 3 trials at 16weeks compared to placebo. Objectives: We assess improvements in itch and sleep interference due to itch and their impact on QoL measurements after treatment. Methods: Data were analyzed from ADvocate1 (NCT04146363) and ADvocate2 (NCT04178967) in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. QoL was evaluated using Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at Week 16 in patients (>16years of age) who were itch responders/non-responders (defined as ≥4-point improvement in Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale) or Sleep-Loss Scale responders/non-responders (defined as ≥2-point improvement in itch interference on sleep). Results: In ADvocate1 and ADvocate2, significantly greater proportions of itch responders had a clinically meaningful improvement in measures related to QoL (DLQI scores (0/1), ≤5 DLQI total score and ≥4-point DLQI improvement) compared to itch non-responders. In both studies, a significantly greater proportion of Sleep-Loss Scale responders, reported a DLQI score of (0/1), DLQI total score of ≤5 and DLQI improvement of ≥4 points compared to Sleep-Loss Scale non-responders. Conclusions: Improvement in itch and sleep interference due to itch is associated with improvement in the QoL of patients after treatment with lebrikizumab for moderate-to-severe AD. ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04146363 (ADvocate1) and NCT04178967 (ADvocate2). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lebrikizumab, a high-affinity monoclonal antibody targeting IL-13, previously demonstrated clinical efficacy in three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 trials that included adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD): ADvocate1, ADvocate2, and ADhere. Aim: This subset analysis evaluated 16-week physician- and patient-reported outcomes of lebrikizumab in the adolescent patients enrolled in these three trials. Methods: Eligible adolescents (≥12 to <18years weighing ≥40kg) were randomized 2:1 to subcutaneous lebrikizumab (500mg loading doses at baseline and Week 2 followed by 250mg every 2weeks) or placebo as monotherapy in ADvocate1&2, and in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) in the ADhere study. Week 16 analyses included clinical efficacy outcomes (IGA (0,1) with ≥2-point improvement, EASI 75, EASI 90), patient-reported Pruritus NRS ≥4-point improvement and Sleep-Loss Scale ≥2-point improvement. Results: Pooled ADvocate1&2 16-week results in lebrikizumab (N=67) vs placebo (N=35) were: IGA (0,1) 46.6% vs 14.3% (p<0.01), EASI 75 62.0% vs 17.3% (p<0.001), EASI 90 40.7% vs 11.5% (p<0.01), Pruritus NRS 48.9% vs 13.1% (p<0.01), and Sleep-Loss Scale 26.9% vs 6.9% (p=0.137). Corresponding results for ADhere, (lebrikizumab+TCS, N=32; placebo+TCS, N=14), were consistent. Conclusions: Lebrikizumab treatment demonstrated efficacy in improving the signs and symptoms of AD in adolescent patients, consistent with the ADvocate and ADhere overall population results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction/Background Atopic dermatitis (AD) has different clinical presentations, pathophysiology, comorbidity frequencies, and genetic profiles in adult-onset vs childhood-onset disease. Based on these differences, it is plausible that treatment response would also be different between adult- and childhood-onset AD. Lebrikizumab, a novel, high affinity monoclonal antibody, selectively targeting IL-13 with high affinity and slow dissociation rate, has been approved in the EU, UK, and Japan and is under investigation in the US and elsewhere for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. Objectives To evaluate the Week-16 efficacy of lebrikizumab monotherapy by age of AD onset in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe AD from ADvocate1 (NCT04146363) and ADvocate2 (NCT04178967), identically-designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials. Methods In ADvocate1 and ADvocate2, eligible patients were randomly allocated 2:1 to receive lebrikizumab 250 mg or placebo every 2 weeks. The date of AD onset was collected, and age of onset was calculated accordingly. Patients were stratified by age of AD-onset as ≤2, >2-to-<18, and ≥18 years. Efficacy was assessed at Week 16 with the proportion of patients with Investigator's Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 with ≥2-point improvement (IGA 0,1; the trials' primary endpoint); ≥75% (EASI 75) and ≥90% (EASI 90) improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index from baseline; ≥4-point Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) improvement from baseline (with baseline score ≥4), and percentage change in total EASI from baseline. Data from patients who received topical or systemic rescue medication or discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy were imputed as nonresponders or set to baseline values. Data from patients who discontinued treatment for other reasons were set to missing and analyzed by multiple imputation. This was a post-hoc analysis conducted on the modified, pooled intent-to-treat population. Treatment-by-age subgroup interaction was assessed with logistic regression. Binary outcomes were analyzed by the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, and continuous outcomes were analyzed with ANCOVA. Results At baseline, the numbers of patients treated with lebrikizumab and placebo, respectively, were 215 and 117 in the ≤2 years AD-onset subgroup, 178 and 103 in the >2-to-<18 years subgroup, and 171 and 67 in the ≥18 years subgroup. At baseline, the percentages of patients with ≥1 atopic comorbidity were 81% in the ≤2 years subgroup, 74% in the >2-to-<18 years subgroup, and 58% in the ≥18 years subgroup. At Week 16, treatment-by-age subgroup interactions were not significant at the 0.10 level for IGA 0,1; EASI 75; EASI 90; and Pruritus NRS 4-pt improvement. Within each subgroup, a higher proportion of lebrikizumab-treated compared with placebo-treated patients (p<0.001) achieved IGA 0,1 responses (≤2 years: 41% vs. 12%; >2-to-<18 years: 35% vs. 12%; ≥18 years: 38% vs. 12%), EASI 75 responses (≤2 years: 57% vs. 17%; >2-to-<18 years: 51% vs. 16%; ≥18 years: 58% vs. 20%), and EASI 90 responses (≤2 years: 38% vs. 10%; >2-to-<18 years: 32% vs. 9%; ≥18 years: 33% vs. 8%). Additionally, the least-squares mean percentage change from baseline in total EASI score for lebrikizumab and placebo, respectively, was -65% and -26% in the ≤2 years subgroup, -60% and -26% in the >2-to-<18 years subgroup, and -63% and -30% in the ≥18 years subgroup (p<0.001 for lebrikizumab vs. placebo in all subgroups). The proportion of lebrikizumab-treated patients who reported ≥4-point improvement in Pruritus NRS from baseline (baseline ≥4) was greater compared with placebo-treated patients ([N]; ≤2 years: 43% [201] vs. 11% [108]; >2-to-<18 years: 41% [161] vs. 14% [96]; ≥18 years: 45% [154] vs. 12% [60]; p<0.001). Conclusions Regardless of age of AD onset, lebrikizumab was associated with significant improvements in AD signs and symptoms compared with placebo over 16 weeks of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The decision to initiate systemic therapy (ST) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) is complex, with no criteria that are globally agreed upon. To aid dermatology providers in this decision-making, the "When to Start Systemic Therapy Checklist" was developed. The checklist comprises three components: (A) clinical severity, (B) subjective burden, and (C) lack of treatment response, each with several criteria. Systemic therapy is indicated when at least one criterion in each component is fulfilled. Objectives To corroborate the validity of this checklist, we evaluated the agreement between the decision to initiate ST using the checklist, against the reference, CorEvitas AD Registry patients prescribed a ST. Methods Adults with moderate-to-severe AD from the prospective, longitudinal CorEvitas AD registry were included in this descriptive analysis (July 2020 – August 2023). Patients were included if they were initiating ST at enrollment (ST group) or not initiating ST at enrollment (non-ST group) but had vIGA-AD® ≥3 and Eczema Area Severity Index ≥12. The checklist criteria were compared against registry outcome measures; when a criterion did not match a measure, either a proxy measure was selected or that part of the questionnaire was excluded. Overall percentage agreement (accord between checklist criteria and ST initiation status [reference standard]) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated. Results In the ST group (n=1488), 97.0% of patients met at least one criterion from section A, 94.1% from section B, and 92.1% for either section A or B. In the non-ST group (n=208), 100% of patients met at least one criterion from section A, 92.3% from section B, and 92.3% from either section A or B. Among patients in the ST group who met at least one criterion each from section A and B, overall percentage agreement was 81.7% (95% CI: 79.8%, 83.5%). Section C, which addresses "lack of treatment response" could not be evaluated due to the absence of relevant data in the registry. Conclusions Nearly all patients initiating ST met at least one criterion from both section A and B of the "When to Start Systemic Therapy Checklist", demonstrating a strong alignment between the checklist sections A and B and disease burden of AD patients in the registry. Subsequent research is needed to assess section C due to registry limitations. Future analyses should examine why some patients with high disease burden and severity remain untreated with systemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the results of two phase III clinical trials, ADvocate1 and ADvocate2, which examined the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab monotherapy in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). The trials found that lebrikizumab significantly improved patient-reported itch and reduced sleep loss due to itch. The improvements in itch and sleep loss were observed as early as the first few days of treatment and were consistent with previous studies on lebrikizumab. The study was funded by Dermira, a subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company, and medical writing assistance was provided by ProScribe–Envision Pharma Group. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction/Background There is evidence of disparities in healthcare utilization for patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), but research exploring differences in patient treatment satisfaction and patient perception of interactions with their AD healthcare provider (HCP) by race and ethnicity is limited. Objectives The primary study objectives were to understand racial and ethnic differences in adult patients with AD for treatment use, treatment satisfaction, and patient perceptions on HCP interactions. Methods Adult patients living with self-reported AD in the United States (US) were recruited through the National Eczema Association (NEA) and the AmeriSpeak panel, a national sample of US adults. Sampling targets were used to achieve condition-based population proportions across multiple racial and ethnic categories. Patients completed an 80- to 110-item electronic one-time survey including questions on overall AD severity over the last month, current AD treatment, current AD treatment satisfaction, AD provider type, and perceptions of their interactions with HCPs. Data are reported using descriptive statistics. Results Overall, 260 patients (NEA n=18; AmeriSpeak n=242) completed the survey (mean age 40.6 years; 66.2% female; 55.0% White, 23.5% Black/African American, 11.5% Asian, and 10.0% American Indian/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or multiple-races (i.e. other races (OtR)); 13.5% Hispanic/Latino). Nearly half (49.6%) reported severity as mild, 43.1% moderate, and 7.3% severe. Overall, 63.8% of patients were using over-the-counter ointments/creams/lotions/gels for their AD, while 62.6% were using prescription creams/lotions. 28.2% reported being dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with their current treatment regimen, with treatment dissatisfaction was highest among Black/African American patients (36.2%) and lowest among OtR patients (21.7%). Additionally, 22.6% of patients reported that in the past year they or a household member had been unable to get medicine or any healthcare (medical, dental, mental health, vision); this was reported by 32.2% Black/African American, 21.1% White, 19.2% OtR, 13.3% Asian, 20.0% Hispanic/Latino, and 23.0% Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino. 49.2% indicated that a dermatologist was the provider they primarily saw for medications to treat their AD. This was followed by primary care providers (33.1%), those who did not see a provider for their AD (10.4%), and allergists (4.2%). Of those who indicated they saw a provider for their AD, 39.1% of patients report their HCP listened to their AD concerns 'somewhat' or 'a little bit'; Asian (61.6%), White (38.9%), Black/African American (32.7%), and OtR (30.4%). 43.3% of Hispanic/Latino and 38.5% of Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino patients reported their HCP listened 'somewhat' or 'a little bit.' Only 1.3% of all patients reported their HCPs did not listen to their concerns 'at all.' When asked how much they thought their AD HCP understood their perspective on their AD, 42.4% of all patients chose 'somewhat' or 'a little bit.' This was reported by 46.2% Asian patients, 44.4% White patients, 41.7% OtR patients, 36.4% Black/African American patients, 53.1% Hispanic/Latino patients, and 40.7% Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino patients. Additionally, 42.1% of all patients reported they 'somewhat' or 'a little bit' trust that their HCP effectively treats their AD. This was reported by 50.0% Asian patients, 45.3% White patients, 34.6% Black/African American patients, 33.3% OtR patients, 43.8% Hispanic/Latino patients, and 41.8% Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino patients. Overall, 3% of patients reported they did not trust their HCP to effectively treat their AD 'at all' and 1.3% reported their HCPs did not understand their perspective 'at all.' Conclusions Nearly a quarter of patients living with AD reported not being able to access medicine or healthcare in the past year. Although there were differences in the percentages reported by race and ethnicity, some patients indicated there were gaps with regards to the patient-physician relationship around not feeling completely listened to, understood, or trusting HCPs treating AD. These findings may help inform clinical practice considerations in AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction/Background Lebrikizumab is a novel, high-affinity monoclonal antibody, selectively targeting IL-13 with a slow dissociation rate. The efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab to treat moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) have been established in phase 3 studies, including subset analyses by race and ethnicity. ADmirable (NCT05372419) is the first phase 3b, open-label, 24-week study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab in adult and adolescent patients with moderate-to-severe AD and skin of color (SOC). Objectives To present the baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and 16-week efficacy from an interim analysis of ADmirable. Methods Patients who enrolled by June 29, 2023, and completed 16 weeks of lebrikizumab treatment or discontinued treatment on or prior to Week 16 were included in this analysis. At baseline and Week 2, patients received a 500-mg lebrikizumab loading dose followed by 250 mg every 2 weeks through Week 16. Key eligibility criteria included: ≥12 years of age (≥40 kg for adolescents), self-reported race other than White, Fitzpatrick Phototype IV-VI, chronic AD present for ≥1 year, history of inadequate response to topical medications, naïve to biologics indicated for AD treatment, baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) ≥16, Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) ≥3, and ≥10% body surface area (BSA) of AD involvement. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were collected during screening. Efficacy endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving ≥75%/≥90% reduction in EASI (EASI 75/90); IGA of 0,1 with ≥2-point improvement from baseline (IGA 0,1) and ≥3-point and ≥4-point Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) improvement from baseline; mean percentage change in EASI and Pruritus NRS; and changes in post-inflammatory hyperpigmented (PIH) lesions as measured by PDCA-Derm™, a new scale comparing PIH lesions with unaffected, adjacent normal skin. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were also assessed. Additional innovative objective measures of pigment and erythema were utilized in this trial. Discrete variables are described using frequencies and percentages, and continuous variables are described with summary statistics. All data are as observed. Results The analysis included 50 enrolled patients. Forty patients (80%) were Black/African-American, 7 (14%) were Asian, and 3 (6%) were American Indian/Alaska Native; 11 (22%) were Hispanic/Latino and 39 (78%) were not Hispanic/Latino; 8 (16%) patients were adolescents and 23 (46%) patients were female. The proportions of patients with Fitzpatrick Phototype IV, V, and VI were 42%, 22%, and 36%, respectively. At baseline, mean (SD) age was 42.2 (19.7) years; and disease duration was 19.3 (15.8) years. Mean (SD) baseline BMI was 30.2 (7.7) kg/m2. Mean (SD) BSA affected was 41.7% (20.8) and 64% of patients presented with IGA=3. At baseline, mean (SD) EASI and Pruritus NRS were 28.1 (12.4) and 7.2 (2.2), respectively, and 27 patients (54%) had at least one PIH lesion. Clinical characteristics included AD with prurigo nodules (16%), follicular/perifollicular accentuation of AD (14%), allergic shiners (12%), pityriasis alba (10%), and AD with nummular features (10%). 40 patients completed the Week-16 visit. At Week 16, the proportions of patients achieving the following outcomes were: EASI 75: 68%; EASI 90: 46%; IGA 0,1: 39%; ≥3-Point Pruritus NRS improvement: 66%; and ≥4-point Pruritus NRS improvement: 56%. At Week 16, the mean percentage change from baseline (improvement) was -79.1% for EASI and -53.9% for Pruritus NRS. At Week 16, 12 of 21 patients with baseline hyperpigmented lesions had improved PDCA-Derm™ and 6 of the 21 lesions achieved normal skin tone. No SAEs were observed. Conclusions In this interim analysis of the first Phase 3b clinical trial of lebrikizumab for patients with moderate-to-severe AD and SOC, lebrikizumab improved AD signs and symptoms as measured with objective and subjective tools and scales, and no SAEs were observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction/Background Lebrikizumab (LEB) is a novel monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity and slow off-rate to interleukin (IL)-13, thereby blocking the downstream effects of IL-13 with high potency. ADvocate1 (NCT04146363) and ADvocate2 (NCT04178967) are identically designed Phase 3 trials that evaluated LEB as a monotherapy treatment for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Many patients who met the protocol-defined response criteria at Week 16, defined as achieving ≥75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75) or an Investigator's Global Assessment of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) without use of rescue therapy, maintained a deep response up to Week 521. Deep response was defined as maintaining an IGA 0 (clear skin), a 100% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 100), or a Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale score of 0 or 1 (Pruritus NRS 0/1). Patients completing Week 52 were given the option to roll over into a long-term extension (LTE) study, ADjoin (NCT04392154), allowing the opportunity to analyze deep response for a longer period of time. This analysis supports the evolution of AD treatment goals toward maintaining higher efficacy thresholds for a longer duration. Objectives To present the long-term maintenance of LEB's depth of response for up to 104 weeks of treatment (52 weeks in the ADvocate studies and 52 weeks in the ADjoin study). Methods Patients entering ADjoin from ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 continued taking the same LEB dose as the parent study. Patients receiving placebo (LEB withdrawal) during the maintenance period of ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 transitioned to receive LEB every 2 weeks (Q2W) during ADjoin (data not included in this analysis). The proportion of patients achieving IGA and EASI responses were calculated from the LEB-treated patients who were IGA 0/1 or EASI 75 responders, respectively, at Week 16 in ADvocate1 and ADvocate2. The proportion of patients achieving a Pruritus NRS 0/1 response were calculated from the LEB patients who were per protocol responders at Week 16 of ADvocate1 and ADvocate2. Each patient's absolute Pruritus NRS score was calculated by averaging daily scores from the previous seven days with at least one nonmissing value. The weekly score was then rounded to the nearest integer. Consistent with common reporting practices for LTE studies, this post hoc analysis reports observed data which were analyzed regardless of rescue medication use or treatment discontinuation. Results From Week 52 to Week 104, the proportion of IGA 0 responders was maintained and slightly increased in patients treated with LEB Q2W (50.8% [N=59] to 52.3% [N=44]) and LEB every 4 weeks (Q4W; 43.5% [N=69] to 45.5% [N=55]). Greater improvements over the second year of treatment were seen in the proportion of EASI 100 responders treated with LEB Q2W (36.4% [N=88] to 39.7% [N=68]) and LEB Q4W (30.7% [N=101] to 41.3% [N=80]) as well as the proportion of Pruritus NRS 0/1 responders treated with LEB Q2W (46.3% [N=80] to 57.4% [N=61]) and Q4W (47.9% [N=94] to 55.4% [N=65]). Although rescue medication was allowed during ADjoin, a relatively low proportion of patients received ≥1 topical rescue medication in the LEB Q2W (9.8%) and LEB Q4W (15.2%) treatment arms. Conclusions These 2-year results demonstrate an extended maintenance of deep response in patients treated with LEB Q2W and LEB Q4W after responding to 16 weeks of LEB Q2W. Approximately 50% and 40% of LEB-treated patients sustained total skin clearance (IGA 0 and EASI 100, respectively) and more than 55% of LEB-treated patients reported no or minimal itch (Pruritus NRS 0/1). Maintenance treatment with LEB Q2W and LEB Q4W allows patients and providers to elevate their expected treatment goals in AD beyond EASI 75 and IGA 0/1 response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Historically, atopic dermatitis (AD) was believed to affect primarily children. However, a recent meta-analysis of 17 studies reporting age of AD onset as >16 years found that the pooled proportion of adult-onset AD was 26.1%, and that AD onset can occur at all ages. Lebrikizumab (LEB) is a high-affinity monoclonal antibody which targets IL-13, the key cytokine implicated in AD. Objectives This analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab in adults ≥60 years with moderate-to-severe AD. Methods Data for patients aged ≥60 years from two Phase 3 trials, ADvocate1 and ADvocate2, were pooled. A total of 98 patients ≥ 60 years participated in the ADvocate trials (N=28 placebo (PBO), N=70 LEB). Patients were treated with lebrikizumab 250mg every 2 weeks or PBO, for 16 Weeks. Baseline demographics and characteristics were recorded. Efficacy was assessed in the pooled modified intent to treat population at Week 16 with Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) (0,1) with ≥2-point improvement, ≥75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75), EASI percentage change from baseline (CFB), and Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) ≥4-point improvement. Categorical outcomes were evaluated by Cochran Mantel Haenszel tests to compare treatment groups. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using the analysis of covariance model. Data collected after use of rescue medication or discontinuation due to lack of efficacy were imputed with non-responder imputation (NRI) for categorical endpoints, or baseline values for continuous endpoints. Data collected after discontinuation for other reasons were set to missing and missing data were imputed with multiple imputation. Safety was also assessed in the integrated modified safety population. Results The baseline mean age was 67.2 years (standard deviation [SD] 6.7, range 60-93) in LEB- treated patients and 69 years ([6.2], range 60-85) in PBO. The LEB-treated population was 62.9% male (n=44/70) vs PBO 46.4% (n=13/28). Race was comparable between groups. At baseline 67.1% LEB (n=47/70) and 57.1% PBO (n=16/28) patients had IGA 3, while 32.9% LEB (n=23/70) and 42.9% PBO (n=12/28) had IGA 4. Other baseline characteristics were comparable: EASI: LEB 26.1, [10.6] vs PBO 27.1, [8.1]; BSA: LEB 38.3, [19.8] vs. PBO 40.9, [18.1]; and Pruritus NRS: LEB 7.5, [2.0] vs PBO 7.4, [1.7]. At Week 16, IGA (0,1) was achieved by 34.5% LEB-treated patients vs 11% PBO (P=0.022). EASI 75 was achieved by 48.9% and 16.3% of LEB- and PBO-treated patients, respectively (P=0.004). Pruritus NRS with ≥4-point improvement was reported by 45.5% and 12.2% of LEB vs PBO, respectively (P=0.004). The mean percent CFB EASI was LEB -58.5% (SE 8.5) and PBO -29.4% (SE 11.1) (P=0.002). Safety results in the older adult population were consistent with the overall modified safety population. Conclusions At Week 16, efficacy and patient reported outcome endpoints were met in the older adult population. These results indicate that lebrikizumab is an effective treatment for moderate-to-severe AD in the adult population ≥60 years of age and has a consistent safety profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Lebrikizumab is a novel, high-affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to interleukin (IL)-13. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab monotherapy in adolescent and adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) over 52 weeks of treatment in ADvocate1 (NCT04146363) and ADvocate2 (NCT04178967). Methods Patients who responded to lebrikizumab 250 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) at the end of the 16-week induction period were re-randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive lebrikizumab Q2W, lebrikizumab 250 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) or placebo Q2W (lebrikizumab withdrawal) for 36 additional weeks. Response at week 16 was defined as achieving a 75% reduction in Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI 75) or an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) of 0 or 1, with a ≥ 2-point improvement and no rescue medication use. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data. Intermittent use of topical therapy was permitted during the maintenance period. Results After 52 weeks, an IGA of 0 or 1 with a ≥ 2 point improvement was maintained by 71.2% of patients treated with lebrikizumab Q2W, 76.9% of patients treated with lebrikizumab Q4W and 47.9% of patients in the lebrikizumab withdrawal arm. EASI 75 was maintained by 78.4% of patients treated with lebrikizumab Q2W, 81.7% of patients treated with lebrikizumab Q4W and 66.4% of patients in the lebrikizumab withdrawal arm at week 52. Across treatment arms, proportions of patients using any rescue therapy were 14.0% (ADvocate1) and 16.4% (ADvocate2). During the combined induction and maintenance periods of ADvocate1 and ADvocate2, 63.0% of lebrikizumab-treated patients reported any treatment emergent adverse event, with most events (93.1%) being mild or moderate in severity. Conclusions After a 16-week induction period with lebrikizumab Q2W, lebrikizumab Q2W and Q4W maintained similar improvement of the signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe AD, with a safety profile consistent with previously published data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Baricitinib demonstrated efficacy in treating adults with moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in Phase 3 clinical trials. Objective: To examine long‐term efficacy of baricitinib combined with topical corticosteroids (TCS) in adult patients from a Phase 3 study, BREEZE‐AD7 (NCT03733301), enrolled in ongoing extension study, BREEZE‐AD3 (NCT03334435). Methods: Upon BREEZE‐AD7 completion, responders or partial responders (RPR [vIGA‐AD™ ≤2]) receiving baricitinib 2‐mg or 4‐mg + TCS maintained their original treatment doses in BREEZE‐AD3. Nonresponders (NR; vIGA‐AD 3,4) receiving baricitinib 2‐mg were rerandomized 1:1 to baricitinib 2‐mg or 4‐mg; NR receiving baricitinib 4‐mg remained on same dose. Integrated data from all patients (RPR + NR = baricitinib 4‐mg intent‐to‐treat [ITT] cohort) receiving continuous baricitinib 4‐mg in BREEZE‐AD7 through BREEZE‐AD3 were analysed, along with baricitinib 4‐mg or 2‐mg RPR cohorts. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients with vIGA‐AD (0,1) at Weeks 16, 36 and 52 (Weeks 32, 52 and 68 of continuous therapy). Additional outcomes included improvement in EASI75 and Itch NRS (up to Week 32). Missing data were imputed by last observation carried forward. Results: In baricitinib 4‐mg ITT cohort (N = 102), proportions of patients achieving vIGA‐AD (0,1) at Week 32, Week 52, and Week 68 were 21.6%, 26.5% and 23.5%; EASI75 were 46.1%, 40.2% and 43.1%, respectively. Itch NRS ≥4‐point improvement (Itch ≥4) were 47.3% at Week 16 and 40.6% at Week 32. In baricitinib 4‐mg RPR cohort (N = 63), proportions of patients achieving vIGA‐AD (0,1) at Week 32, Week 52 and Week 68 were 31.7%, 33.3% 34.9%, respectively; EASI75 were 57.1%, 49.2% and 49.2%, respectively. Itch ≥4 were 53.6% at Week 16 and 46.4% at Week 32. Corresponding proportions for baricitinib 2‐mg RPR cohort (N = 53) for vIGA‐AD (0,1) were 39.6%, 45.3% and 30.2%; EASI75 were 77.4%, 69.8% and 58.5%, respectively. Itch ≥4 were 56.3% at Week 16 and 47.9% at Week 32. Conclusion: Baricitinib 4‐mg and 2‐mg combined with TCS maintained clinically meaningful sustained efficacy over 68 weeks of continuous treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Real-world data on the effectiveness of systemic therapy in atopic dermatitis (AD) are limited. Adult patients with AD in the CorEvitas AD registry (2020–2021) who received systemic therapies for 4–12 months prior to enrollment were included based on disease severity: body surface area (BSA) 0%–9% and BSA ≥10%. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes were assessed using descriptive statistics. Pairwise effect sizes (ES) were used to compare BSA groups. The study included 308 patients (BSA 0%–9%: 246 [80%]; BSA ≥10%: 62 [20%]). Despite systemic therapy, both BSA groups reported the use of additional topical therapy and the presence of lesions at difficult locations. Moderate-to-severe AD (vIGA-AD®) was reported by 11% (BSA 0%–9%) and 66% (BSA ≥10%; ES = 0.56) of patients. Mean disease severity scores: total BSA (2% and 22%; ES = 3.59), EASI (1.1 and 11.1; ES = 2.60), and SCORAD (12.1 and 38.0; ES = 1.99). Mean scores for PROs: DLQI (3.7 and 7.5; ES = 0.75), and peak pruritus (2.2 and 4.5; ES = 0.81). Inadequate control of AD was seen in 27% and 53% of patients (ES = 0.23). Patients with AD experience a high disease burden despite systemic treatment for 4–12 months. This study provides potential evidence of suboptimal treatment and the need for additional effective treatment options for AD. This real-world study assessed clinical characteristics and overall disease burden in adult patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) who were receiving systemic therapy for 4–12 months. Patients reported greater involvement of back and anterior trunk, and lesions at difficult locations. Irrespective of body surface area involvement, patients continued to experience inadequate control of AD, varied disease severity, and impact on quality of life. The study provides potential evidence of suboptimal treatment and the need for effective treatment options for the management of AD. Besides clinical outcomes, treating dermatologists and dermatology practitioners should include patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical care to determine the best treatment options for their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This post hoc analysis assessed association between scalp hair regrowth and improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and psychological burden in patients with severe alopecia areata (AA). Data were pooled from two phase-3 trials (N = 1200). Patients randomized to once-daily placebo, baricitinib 2-mg, or 4-mg were analyzed independently of treatment allocation, and categorized according to scalp hair regrowth (at Week 36): meaningful regrowth (Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score ≤20); intermediate regrowth (≥30% SALT improvement [SALT30] at any post-baseline visit to Week 36, but SALT score > 20 at Week 36); no/minimal regrowth (never achieved SALT30). Skindex-16 for AA score change-from-baseline and proportion of patients with baseline Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores ≥8 that shifted to <8 (normal) were assessed. Patients with meaningful regrowth achieved greater improvements in all Skindex-16 AA domains versus no/minimal regrowth. More patients with meaningful versus no/minimal regrowth shifted from HADS ≥8 to <8 (anxiety:46.8% versus 26.4%; depression:52.3% versus 24.0%). Improvements occurred with intermediate regrowth but to a lesser extent versus meaningful regrowth. Patients with severe AA and scalp hair regrowth at Week 36 experienced greater improvements in HRQoL and anxiety and depression versus patients with no/minimal regrowth. The highest benefit was observed in patients with meaningful regrowth (SALT score ≤20).ClinicalTrials.gov listing: NCT03570749 and NCT03899259 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) have low treatment satisfaction. In this study, we evaluated the humanistic burden, treatment satisfaction, and treatment expectations in patients with AD in the United States. Adults with AD recruited through the National Eczema Association and clinical sites completed a web-based survey comprising the Patient-Oriented SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (PO-SCORAD), Dermatology Life Quality Index; Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Atopic Dermatitis; Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM); and answered questions on healthcare provider (HCP) visits, treatment history, and treatment goals. Descriptive analyses were performed to compare participants by severity. Among 186 participants (mean [standard deviation] age 39.7 [15.3] years, 79.6% female), 26.9%, 44.6%, and 26.3% of the participants had mild, moderate, or severe AD, respectively, based on PO-SCORAD. Greater disease severity was associated with a greater impact on work and daily life, decreased TSQM scores, and increased HCP visits. Corticosteroid topical cream or ointment (53.8%) and oral antihistamines (31.2%) were most commonly used for the treatment of AD. Participants reported declining/stopping/changing AD treatment due to the potential for side effects or lack of efficacy. 'Leading normal lives' (28.0%) and 'being itch-free' (33.9%) were important treatment goals. Individuals with AD, especially severe disease, face a considerable humanistic burden even while using treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients who completed the originating studies, BREEZE-AD1 (NCT03334396), BREEZE-AD2(NCT03334422), and BREEZE-AD7 (NCT03733301), were eligible for enrollment in the multicenter,phase-3, long-term extension study BREEZE-AD3 (NCT03334435). At week 52, responders and partial responders to baricitinib 4 mg were re-randomized (1:1) into the sub-study to dose continuation (4 mg, N = 84), or dose down-titration (2 mg, N = 84). Maintenance of response was assessed from week 52 to 104 of BREEZE-AD3. Physician-rated outcomes included vIGA-AD (0,1), EASI75, and mean change from baseline in EASI. Patient-reported outcomes included DLQI, P OEM total score, HADS, and from baseline: WPAI (presenteeism, absenteeism, overall work impairment, daily activity impairment) and change from baseline in SCORAD itch and sleep loss. With continuous treatment with baricitinib 4 mg, efficacy was maintained up to week 104 in vIGA-AD (0,1), EASI75, EASI mean change from baseline, SCORAD itch, SCORAD sleep loss, DLQI, P OEM, HADS, and WPAI (all scores). Patients down-titrated to 2 mg maintained most of their improvements in each of these measures. The sub-study of BREEZE AD3 supports flexibility in baricitinib dosing regimens. Patients who continued treatment with baricitinib 4 mg and down-titrated to 2 mg maintained improvements in skin, itch, sleep, and quality of life for up to 104 weeks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To address the need for long‐term efficacy and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) data for patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) treated with baricitinib 2 mg, a study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of baricitinib 2 mg in adult patients with moderate‐to‐severe AD. Data presented here provided efficacy and outcomes data for patients treated for 52 weeks. Patients who participated in the originating study, BREEZE‐AD5 (NCT03435081), and met additional eligibility criteria could enroll in the multicenter, open‐label, Phase 3, long‐term extension study BREEZE‐AD6 (NCT03559270). Patients received baricitinib 2 mg for the duration of BREEZE‐AD6. In BREEZE‐AD6, the proportion of patients who achieved a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD (vIGA‐AD™) of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) were assessed through 52 weeks, in addition to several PROs. At week 52, the proportion of patients treated with baricitinib 2 mg daily achieving EASI75 was 48.6% (70/144), and 31.3% (45/144) of patients achieved a vIGA‐AD score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear). Improvements in PROs such as SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD, itch and sleep) scores, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) total score, and DLQI ≤5 response were observed, and these responses were sustained through 52 weeks. Long‐term efficacy of baricitinib in patients with AD was demonstrated by both clinician and patient‐reported outcome measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Purpose To address issues regarding health disparities and differential access to health care in diverse racial and ethnic populations, many of whom are part of underserved communities, current and robust data on atopic dermatitis (AD) prevalence by race/ethnicity are needed. Whereas data on pediatric prevalence of atopic dermatitis in diverse race/ethnicity populations have been reported, there are limited epidemiologic data on adult populations with AD. Methods Analyses were conducted using cross-sectional data from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey. Weighted overall frequencies of subject reports of diagnosed AD or eczema were estimated by race/ethnicity. Adjusted odds ratios were estimated to compare prevalence rates between subgroups. Corresponding population denominators for use in estimating prevalence rates were obtained from the US Census Bureau (2020 Census Demographic Profile). Prevalence is reported as percentage (standard error). Pediatric data was also analyzed for the presentation. Results Overall US prevalence of AD in adults ages 18-64 was 7.6% (0.2) and age 65+ was 6.1% (0.3), with a weighted US estimate of 15.3 and 3.2 million respectively. Race/ethnicity prevalence rates for all adults were Black/African American 8.5% (0.6), White 7.7% (0.2), Asian 6.5% (0.7), American Indian/Alaskan Native 4.9% (2.1), and Hispanic 4.8% (0.4). The odds ratio for Hispanic vs Non-Hispanic White was 0.6 (95%CI 0.5-0.7; p<0.0001). Conclusions Total US prevalence of AD in all adults is approximately 18 million. Hispanic adults have a lower prevalence AD than all other adult groups. Additional studies are needed to understand sociodemographic variations in AD prevalence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dupilumab is a treatment option for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Not all patients treated with dupilumab achieve and maintain clinically meaningful responses; some experience adverse events and some discontinue dupilumab for other reasons. For these patients, prospective data are needed to better understand the efficacy of systemic medications administered after discontinuation of dupilumab. Lebrikizumab (LEB) is a monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity and slow off-rate to interleukin (IL)-13, thereby blocking the downstream effects of IL-13 with high potency. ADhere (NCT04250337) is a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial evaluating the efficacy of lebrikizumab in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) over 16 weeks in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe AD. The results of this study, previously reported, showed statistically and clinically meaningful improvements in the signs and symptoms of AD in patients treated with LEB plus TCS vs. placebo (PBO) plus TCS. Of the patients randomized to LEB plus TCS, 20 reported prior dupilumab exposure. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of LEB plus low to mid-potency TCS for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in the subpopulation of ADhere patients with prior exposure to dupilumab. At baseline, eligible patients in ADhere were randomized 2 : 1 to LEB 250 mg plus TCS or PBO plus TCS. Patients with prior exposure to dupilumab were permitted, with at least 8 weeks of washout prior to entering the study. Reported medical history was used to identify patients with prior exposure to dupilumab. Efficacy was measured through Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). ADhere analyses were performed on a modified population, excluding 17 patients (from a single study site) whose eligibility could not be confirmed. All analyses are descriptive summaries using post hoc, as-observed analyses. The Pruritus NRS analysis only includes patients with baseline values ≥4. Observed results exclude data collected after use of rescue medication or treatment discontinuation. In ADhere, 211 patients were randomized 2 : 1 to LEB plus TCS (n = 145) or PBO plus TCS (n = 66). Of the patients randomized to LEB plus TCS, 20 reported prior dupilumab exposure. Of these 20 patients, the reason for dupilumab discontinuation was loss of response or inadequate response (10 patients), subject decision (four patients) or intolerance to medication (one patient). The final five patients discontinued due to affordability, treatment availability or unspecified reasons. In patients treated with LEB plus TCS, baseline disease characteristics were comparable between the overall LEB-treated population (n = 145) and the subpopulation with prior dupilumab exposure (n = 20). Of the 20 patients with prior dupilumab exposure, 13 patients presented with an IGA of three and seven patients presented with an IGA of 4. The mean [standard deviation (SD)] body surface area reported at baseline was 37.3 (15.7). The mean (SD) baseline scores for EASI and Pruritus NRS were 25.9 (8.1) and 7.8 (1.9), respectively. The mean (SD) duration since AD onset was longer in patients with prior dupilumab experience vs. the overall LEB-treated population 27.0 (22.5) vs. 21.0 (17.4) years, respectively]. In patients treated with LEB plus TCS, two of the 20 with prior dupilumab exposure were excluded due to use of rescue medication or treatment discontinuation. The IGA 0/1 with 2-point improvement was achieved by 6/18 patients, EASI 75 was achieved by 13/18 patients and Pruritus NRS 4-point improvement was achieved by 8/15 patients at Week 16. One patient reported rescue medication use. The results of this subpopulation analysis suggest that patients with prior dupilumab exposure can benefit from lebrikizumab treatment in combination with TCS. Additional data are needed to confirm this finding due to the small number of patients in the subpopulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]