Search

Background: Sleep loss is a key factor contributing to disease burden in people with atopic dermatitis (AD). Mitigating itch to improve sleep is an important outcome of AD treatment. This study explored the content validity and measurement properties of the Sleep-Loss Scale, a single-item rating scale for assessing itch interference with sleep in clinical trials of AD treatments., Methods: Concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with 21 adults and adolescents (12-17 years of age) with moderate-to-severe AD to develop a conceptual model of patient experience in AD and explore the content validity of the scale. Data collected from adults with moderate-to-severe AD enrolled in a phase 2b study (NCT03443024) were used to assess Sleep-Loss Scale's psychometric performance, including reliability, construct validity, and ability to detect change. Meaningful within-patient change (MWPC) thresholds were also determined using anchor-based methods., Results: Qualitative findings from concept elicitation highlighted the importance of sleep-loss related to itch in AD. Debriefing analysis of the Sleep-Loss Scale indicated that the scale was relevant, appropriate, and interpreted as intended. Trial data supported good reliability, construct validity and ability to detect improvement. MWPC was defined as a 1-point improvement using trial data, a finding supported by qualitative data., Conclusions: The Sleep-Loss Scale provides a valid and reliable patient-reported measure of the impact of itch on sleep in patients with AD, and can detect change, indicating it is fit-for-purpose to evaluate the efficacy of AD treatments in moderate-to-severe patients., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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 <18 years weighing ≥40kg) were randomized 2:1 to subcutaneous lebrikizumab (500 mg loading doses at baseline and Week 2 followed by 250 mg every 2 weeks) 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.

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 16 weeks 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 (>16 years 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).

Background: Pruritus, or itch, is a key symptom of atopic dermatitis (AD); as such, mitigating itch is an important outcome of AD treatment. This study explored the content validity and measurement properties of the Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (Pruritus NRS), a novel single-item scale for assessing itch severity in clinical trials of AD treatments., Methods: In this mixed-methods study, qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 people with moderate-to-severe AD (n = 15 adult, n = 6 adolescent) to develop a conceptual model of the patient experience in AD and explore the content validity of the Pruritus NRS. Data collected daily from adults with moderate-to-severe AD enrolled in a phase 2b study (NCT03443024) were used to assess the Pruritus NRS' psychometric performance, including reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness. Meaningful within-patient change (MWPC) thresholds were also determined using anchor-based methods., Results: Qualitative findings highlighted the importance of itch in AD, including severity, persistence, frequency, and daily life interference. Patient debriefing of the Pruritus NRS indicated that the scale was relevant, appropriate, and interpreted as intended. Trial data supported overall good psychometric properties. MWPC was defined as a 3-point improvement in Pruritus NRS score, a finding supported by qualitative data., Conclusions: The Pruritus NRS provides a valid and reliable patient-reported measure of itching severity in patients with moderate-to-severe AD, and can detect change, indicating it is fit-for-purpose to evaluate the efficacy of AD treatments in this population., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03443024., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest see Appendix S1 for the full Conflicts of Interest statement.

Objective: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: Individuals with AD, especially severe disease, face a considerable humanistic burden even while using treatment.

Background: 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)., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusion: 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.

Background: Real-world data on the effectiveness of systemic therapy in atopic dermatitis (AD) are limited., Methods: 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., Results: 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)., Conclusions: 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.

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., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest A.B. has served as a speaker (received honoraria) for AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi and UCB; served as a scientific adviser (received honoraria) for AbbVie, Abcentra, Affibody, Aligos, Almirall, Alumis, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Arcutis, Arena, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, Athenex, Bluefin Biomedicine, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Dermavant, EcoR1, Eli Lilly and Company, Escient, Evelo, Evommune, Forte, Galderma, HighlightII Pharma, Incyte, InnoventBio, Janssen, Landos, LEO Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Rapt, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Spherix Global Insights, Sun Pharma, TLL Pharmaceutical, TrialSpark, UCB Pharma, Vibliome and Xencor; and has acted as a clinical study investigator (institution has received clinical study funds) for AbbVie, ACELYRIN, Almirall, Amgen, Arcutis, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Concert, Dermavant, Eli Lilly and Company, Evelo, Evommune, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma. J.P.T. is an advisor for AbbVie, Almirall, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Coloplast, OM Pharma, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, Union Therapeutics, Eli Lilly and Company, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron and Sanofi Genzyme; a speaker for AbbVie, Almirall, Eli Lilly and Company, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron and Sanofi Genzyme; and has received research grants from Pfizer, Regeneron and Sanofi Genzyme. E.G.-Y. is a consultant for AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Asana Biosciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cara Therapeutics, Celgene, Concert, DBV, Dermira, DS Biopharma, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Serono, Escalier, Galderma, Glenmark, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sienna Biopharma and Union Therapeutics; and reports institute grants for research from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Asana Biosciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Dermavant, DS Biopharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Glenmark, Galderma, Innovaderm, Janssen, Kiniska, Kyowa Kirin, Leo Pharma, Novan, Pfizer, Ralexar, Regeneron, Sienna Biopharma, UCB and Union Therapeutics. T.B. has been a speaker and/or consultant and/or investigator for AbbVie, Affibody, Almirall, AnaptysBio, Arena, Asana Biosciences, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Health, BioVerSys, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Connect Pharma, Dermavant, Domain Therapeutics, EQRx, Galderma, Glenmark, GSK, Incyte, Innovaderm, IQVIA, Janssen, Kirin, Kymab, LEO Pharma, LG Chem, Lilly, L’Oréal, MSD, Novartis, Numab, OM Pharma, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Q32bio, RAPT, Sanofi/Regeneron and UCB; he is the founder and chairman of the board of the nonprofit biotechnology company Davos Biosciences. E.S.-B. has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from AbbVie, Novartis, Almirall, LEO Pharma, Sanofi, Pfizer and Eli Lilly and Company. E.S. reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, Boston Consulting Group, Collective Acumen (CA, USA), Dermira, Eli Lilly and Company, Evidera, Excerpta Medica, Forte Bio RX, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Development, LEO Pharma, Medscape, Merck, Pfizer, Physicians World, Regeneron, Roivant, Sanofi Genzyme, Trevi Therapeutics, Valeant and WebMD. These potential conflicts of interest have been reviewed and managed by Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU). E.S. reports grants from (or served as principal investigator for) AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, ASLAN Pharmaceuticals, CorEvitas, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Kymab, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi and TARGET-DERM. These potential conflicts of interest have been reviewed and managed by OHSU. D.R. has received honoraria as a consultant for AbbVie, Abcuro, AltruBio, Arena, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, CSL Behring, Dermavant, Dermira, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB and VielaBio; has received research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and has served as a paid speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi. H.E., E.M., C.R.N., Z.L., C.X., E.P. and M.M.-C. are employees of Eli Lilly and Company. E.G.G. is an employee of Almirall S.A. J.I.S. has received grants and/or personal fees from AbbVie, AFYX Therapeutics, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Asana BioSciences, Bluefin, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly and Company, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Kiniksa, LEO Pharma, Luna Pharma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron and Sanofi., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

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., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Importance: Lebrikizumab (LEB), a high-affinity monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL)-13, demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) during 16 weeks of monotherapy in a phase 2b trial, and two 52-week phase 3 trials., Objective: To evaluate efficacy and safety of LEB combined with low- to mid-potency topical corticosteroids (TCS) in patients with moderate-to-severe AD., Design, Setting, and Participants: The ADhere trial was a 16-week randomized, double-blinded, placebo (PBO)-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial conducted from February 3, 2020, to September 16, 2021. The study was conducted at 54 outpatient sites across Germany, Poland, Canada, and the US and included adolescent (aged ≥12 to <18 years weighing ≥40 kg) and adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD. The treatment allocation ratio was 2:1 (LEB:PBO)., Interventions: Overall, 211 patients were randomized to subcutaneous LEB (loading dose of 500 mg at baseline and week 2, followed by 250 mg every 2 weeks [Q2W] thereafter) or PBO Q2W in combination with TCS for 16 weeks., Main Outcomes and Measures: Efficacy analyses at week 16 included proportions of patients achieving Investigator's Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (IGA [0,1]) with 2 or more points improvement from baseline, and 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75). Key secondary end points included evaluation of itch, itch interference on sleep, and quality of life. Safety assessments included monitoring adverse events (AEs)., Results: The mean (SD) age of patients was 37.2 (19.3) years, 103 (48.8%) patients were women, 31 (14.7%) patients were Asian, and 28 (13.3%) patients were Black/African American. At week 16, IGA (0,1) was achieved by 145 (41.2%) patients in the LEB+TCS group vs 66 (22.1%) receiving PBO+TCS (P = .01); corresponding proportions of patients achieving EASI-75 were 69.5% vs 42.2% (P < .001). The LEB+TCS group showed statistically significant improvements in all key secondary end points. Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were nonserious, mild or moderate in severity, and did not lead to study discontinuation. The TEAEs frequently reported in the LEB+TCS group included conjunctivitis (7 [4.8%]), headache (7 [4.8%]), hypertension (4 [2.8%]), injection site reactions (4 [2.8%]), and herpes infection (5 [3.4%]) vs 1.5% or less patient-reported frequencies in the PBO+TCS group. Similar frequencies of patient-reported serious AEs following LEB+TCS (n = 2, 1.4%) and PBO+TCS (n = 1, 1.5%)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized phase 3 clinical trial, LEB+TCS was associated with improved outcomes in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe AD compared with TCS alone, and safety was consistent with previously reported AD trials., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04250337.

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., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Itch and sleep disturbance due to itch are burdensome symptoms associated with atopic dermatitis (AD). Rapid onset of action is important for AD treatments to improve quality of life and relieve suffering., Objectives: This subanalysis evaluated how quickly baricitinib 1-mg and 2-mg reduced itch and associated sleep disturbance during the first 7 days after treatment initiation in a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial., Methods: Adult patients with AD were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo ( N = 147), baricitinib 1 mg ( N = 147) or baricitinib 2 mg ( N = 146). Patients kept daily diaries, completing the Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) (itch severity from 0 = no itch to 10 = worst itch imaginable) and the Atopic Dermatitis Sleep Scale (ADSS) to measure sleep disturbance (number of nighttime awakenings because of itch). Mixed model repeated measures analysis was used to analyze change from day 1 to day 7 values., Results: Patients receiving either dose of baricitinib had a 9.9% decrease in itch NRS scores from baseline to Day 2 vs 1.5% decrease for placebo (significant between-group least squares mean [LSM] difference: 8.3; 95% CI -12.66 to -3.89; P = .0002). Baricitinib 2 mg reduced nighttime awakenings due to itch (ADSS item 2) at day 2 by 25.2% vs 3.9% in the placebo group (between-group LSM difference: -21.4, P = .0025). Baricitinib 2 mg continued to demonstrate a statistically significant difference from placebo in sleep symptoms at day 7 (LSM difference -23.9; P = .001)., Conclusions: Baricitinib 2-mg provided relief from itching and sleep disturbance in patients with AD, beginning the day after taking first dose.Clinical trials at www.clinicaltrials.gov: BREEZE-AD5 (NCT03435081).

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common, chronic, relapsing, inflammatory skin disease causing a variety of dermatologic signs and symptoms, affecting patient&rsquo;s quality of life. While treatment options are available, they are of variable effectiveness. This study sought to characterize patient-reported AD signs and symptoms, flare, and associated bother, by disease severity and control., Methods: Adults diagnosed with AD were recruited through the National Eczema Association (NEA) and clinical sites and completed a web-based survey including the Patient-Oriented SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (PO-SCORAD), Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP), and Skin Pain numeric rating scale (NRS), as well as questions on previous/current clinical presentation, flare frequency and severity, past/ present AD treatment, and sociodemographic characteristics., Results: A total of 186 participants completed the survey (mean age 39.7 years, 80% female). The most frequently reported current AD signs and symptoms included dryness, itch, redness, roughness, and flaking skin, and the most bothersome were itch, dryness, and redness (63%). The majority of participants (84%) were either currently experiencing a flare or had experienced one within the past month. The most common signs and symptoms that grew worse during the most recent flare were itch and redness across all disease severity groups. Participants most often experienced one to three flares in the last three months. Flare frequency, duration, and average severity increased with greater disease severity and lack of disease control., Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrate the diverse and considerable symptomatic burden experienced by people with AD, even while being treated for AD. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(11):1222-1230. doi:10.36849/JDD.6329.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis is considered a childhood illness, and the direct and indirect health care burden of atopic dermatitis in adults is not fully understood. OBJECTIVE: To measure the direct and indirect costs of atopic dermatitis among adults in 2018. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared commercial and Medicare-insured adults with atopic dermatitis in 2018 with directly matched (1:3) adults without atopic dermatitis. Atopic dermatitis prevalence was reported. Health care utilization, direct health care costs, and work loss data were compared between cohorts. This analysis was repeated for adults with atopic dermatitis in 2016 and 2017. RESULTS: 31,164 adults with atopic dermatitis in 2018 were identified and directly matched (1:3) to controls. Adults with atopic dermatitis had greater utilization of outpatient services, outpatient pharmacy services, and short-term disability benefits than controls. Unadjusted annual health care costs in 2018 were $4,979 higher for adults with atopic dermatitis ($14,603) than for the matched controls ($9,624), driven by outpatient services and pharmacy. Findings were supported by analyses of adults from 2016 and 2017 and multivariable analyses. One limitation of this study was that patients with mild cases of atopic dermatitis may not seek medical treatment and may be underrepresented in the study cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The direct health care and indirect (short-term disability) health care costs of atopic dermatitis present a significant health care burden among the adult population. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Employees of Eli Lilly were involved in the planning, execution, and interpretation of the study. Pierce is employed by Eli Lilly and Company. Boytsov and Goldblum were employed by Eli Lilly and Company Health at the time this research was conducted. Manjelievskaia and Brouillette are employed by IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Eli Lilly and Company to conduct this study. Bonafede and Onyekwere were employed at IBM Watson Health at the time this research was conducted.

Little is currently known about possible associations between disease specific characteristics of atopic dermatitis (AD) and use of medical treatments. We explored the use of AD treatments within the past 12 months in Danish adults according to distinct patient characteristics. Patients who had received a diagnosis of AD in a hospital in- or outpatient setting as adults were surveyed and data cross-linked to a national prescription registry. AD severity was measured by the Patient-Oriented SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (PO-SCORAD). A total of 3834 patients participated. Use of topical medication in the past 12 months increased with increasing AD severity, whereas no difference was observed for systemic medication use. Positive associations between AD in the face and neck, and use of mild and moderately potent topical corticosteroids were observed, while involvement of palms and chest was associated with use of more potent topical corticosteroids. The mean DLQI, skin pain, and itch severity scores were lower in patients managed only with topical corticosteroids (5.5, 3.2, and 4.3, respectively) compared to patients treated with both oral and topical medication (7.1, 3.8, and 5.0, respectively). Patients with frequent topical corticosteroid use tended to be older (50.7 vs 48.6 years), males (50.0% vs 33.6%), current daily smokers (17.3% vs 13.7%), and having asthma (59.1% vs 43.8%) compared with infrequent users of topical corticosteroids. We found a disconnect between the severity of AD signs and symptoms, and use of AD therapies. In particular, a very modest use of systemic immunosuppressants was seen even among patients with severe AD symptoms. However, the underlying clinical decisions and reasons behind this disconnect is not clear based on the current data., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) has a negative impact on patients&rsquo; quality of life (QoL)., Objective: To report the impact of specific AD lesion locations on QoL in adult patients with AD using real-world data., Methods: The Adelphi US Disease Specific Programme was conducted between January&ndash;April 2018. Physicians documented patient demographics/characteristics, AD lesion locations, and body surface area; patients completed questionnaires reporting the impact of lesion locations on QoL., Results: AD severity was moderate in 51.6% of patients and severe in 6.0%. Lesions were commonly identified in more than one location. All AD lesion locations impacted QoL. Visible areas were most bothersome, including head/neck (68%), hands/fingers (58%), front (30%), upper extremities (22%), and lower extremities (16%), with statistically significant associations for a number of Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) items. Itch, soreness, pain, and stinging are also associated with a number of body areas but in particular with those that are most visible/accessible. Lesions on the head/neck and hands/fingers (58%) demonstrated an increased impact on the anxiety and depression dimension of the EuroQol 5-Dimension tool., Conclusions: In patients with AD, quality of life was most affected in patients with lesions in visible areas, including head/neck, hands/fingers, and upper extremities, with statistically significant associations for a number of DLQI domains. Physicians should be aware of the burden of AD lesions on QoL and consider having conversations with patients to better understand the impact of these lesions. Prior presentation: 28th Annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress; 9&ndash;13 October 2019, Madrid, Spain. Poster number P0233.J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(10): 943-948. doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.5422.