Search

Background Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic skin disease characterized by intense itch and eczematous skin lesions. Some patients with AD continue to experience flares and substantial clinical burden, despite ongoing systemic treatment. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of once-daily upadacitinib (UPA), initiated at 15 mg and dose-escalated to 30 mg based on clinical response, compared with dupilumab (DUPI) as per its label, and present the week 16 primary analysis results. Methods Level Up is a phase IIIb/IV global randomized open-label efficacy assessor-blinded study evaluating UPA vs. DUPI in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe AD who had an inadequate response to systemic therapy or when use was inadvisable. Patients were randomized to UPA or DUPI for 16 weeks of treatment (period 1). Patients on UPA were started on 15 mg and dose-escalated to 30 mg if they did not achieve an Eczema Area and Severity Index reduction of at least 50% (EASI 50) or a ≥ 4-point Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (WP-NRS) improvement on or after week 4, or an EASI reduction of at least 75% (EASI 75) on or after week 8. The primary endpoint was simultaneous achievement of an EASI reduction of at least 90% (EASI 90) and WP-NRS 0/1 at week 16. Ranked secondary endpoints included skin and itch responses at varying response levels and timepoints. Safety measures were assessed throughout the study. Results Superior efficacy in achieving simultaneous EASI 90 and WP-NRS 0/1 response at week 16 was demonstrated with UPA vs. DUPI (19.9% vs 8.9%, respectively; P < 0.001). UPA showed superiority over DUPI for all ranked secondary endpoints, with post hoc analyses exhibiting higher itch response rates as early as day 2. No new safety signals were identified in this period. Conclusions Treatment of moderate-to-severe AD with UPA, initiated at 15 mg and dose-escalated based on clinical response, demonstrated superiority over DUPI per its label for the primary endpoint of simultaneous achievement of near-complete skin clearance (EASI 90) and little-to-no itch (WP-NRS 0/1) at week 16, with all ranked secondary endpoints demonstrating superiority at varying skin and itch response levels and timepoints. No new safety signals were identified vs. the previously reported safety profiles of UPA and DUPI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD), a relapsing, inflammatory skin disease, is associated with pruritus that can negatively affect patients' quality of life. Understanding the burden of AD is critical for informing and tailoring treatment and disease management to improve patient outcomes. This study characterized global treatment patterns and the clinical, psychosocial and economic burden of moderate‐to‐severe AD. Methods: MEASURE‐AD was a cross‐sectional 28‐country study in patients with physician‐confirmed moderate‐to‐severe AD who were either receiving or eligible for systemic therapy for AD. Patients ≥12 years were enrolled between December 2019 and December 2020 while attending routine office or clinic visit. Primary outcomes included Worst Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (WP‐NRS; range: 0–10) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI; range: 0–30) and Children's DLQI (CDLQI; range: 0–30). Secondary outcomes included physician‐ and patient‐reported clinical, psychosocial and economic burden. Results: Of the 1591 patients enrolled, 1558 (1434 adults and 124 adolescents) fulfilled all patient selection criteria and were included in this analysis. Almost all patients (98.4%) in the total population were using AD medications and more than half (56%) were receiving systemic medication (15% systemic monotherapy). The most used systemic therapies were dupilumab (56.3%), systemic glucocorticoids (18.1%) and methotrexate (16.2%). Mean WP‐NRS was 5.3 in the total population, and most patients (≥55%) reported moderate‐to‐severe pruritus (WP‐NRS ≥4). Mean DLQI was 10.8 and mean CDLQI was 9.6. Secondary endpoints demonstrated substantial clinical, psychosocial, and economic burden of disease. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients receiving systemic therapy had lower disease burden than those not taking systemic medications. Conclusions: While systemic therapy lowers overall disease burden, patients with moderate‐to‐severe AD continue to have substantial multidimensional disease burden and uncontrolled disease. Overall, there is a need for effective disease management, including effective treatments that improve patients' psychosocial outcomes and reduce the economic burden of AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Patients with prurigo nodularis (PN) often report high disease burden with substantial impact on quality of life. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and Severity (PGIS) are patient self-assessment measures that quantify their experience of disease during treatment. Dupilumab has recently been approved as the first systemic treatment for PN in the US and Europe. Objectives: To evaluate patient-reported global impression of disease severity improvement in dupilumab-treated patients with PN during the LIBERTY-PN PRIME and PRIME 2 trials. Materials & Methods: PRIME and PRIME2 were randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group, 24-week, phase 3 trials in adults with PN with ≥20 nodules and severe itch, inadequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or for whom these are inadvisable. Patients received 300 mg dupilumab subcutaneously (600 mg loading dose; n = 153) or matched placebo (n = 158) every 2 weeks. In this analysis, data from the two studies were pooled. Patient satisfaction was assessed in the overall placebo group, overall dupilumab-treated group, and those treated with dupilumab who did not achieve the stringent multicomponent endpoint (n = 99) of ≥4-point improvement from baseline in Worst Itch Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS, range: 0-10) and an Investigator's Global Assessment PN Stage (IGA PN-S, score range: 0-4) score 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear; ≤5 nodules) at Week (W) 24. Endpoints include proportion of patients achieving: PGIC (range: 0-6) scores of 0 or 1 (very much better or moderately better) at W12, and W24; and PGIS (range: 1-4) score of 1 or 2 (none or mild) at baseline, W12, and W24. Safety was also assessed. Results: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were generally similar between groups. In the overall dupilumab and placebo groups, baseline mean (SD) WI-NRS scores were 8.6 (0.9) and 8.4 (1.1), respectively; 32.7% and 34.2% had an IGA PN-S score of 4 (remaining patients had IGA PN-S 3); and mean (SD) PGIS scores were 3.7 (0.5) and 3.7 (0.5) respectively. In dupilumab multicomponent endpoint non-responders, mean (SD) WI-NRS score was 8.6 (0.9). 35.4% and 64.6% had an IGA PN-S score of 4 and 3 respectively; and mean (SD) PGIS score was 3.7 (0.5). At W12, 68.0% vs 38.0% (P < 0.0001 vs placebo) of dupilumab-treated vs placebo-receiving patients achieved PGIC 0 or 1, while 55.6% of dupilumab multicomponent non-responders achieved this endpoint (P = 0.0099 vs placebo). At W24, this increased to 74.5% vs 32.9% (P < 0.0001 vs placebo) of dupilumab-treated vs placebo-receiving patients achieving PGIC 0 or 1, and 61.6% of multicomponent non-achievers (P < 0.0001 vs placebo). At W12, 51.6% vs 22.2% (P < 0.0001 vs placebo) of dupilumab-treated vs placebo-receiving patients achieved PGIS 1 or 2, while 40.4% of multicomponent non-responders achieved the endpoint (P = 0.0027 vs placebo). At W24, 61.4% vs 24.1% (P < 0.0001 vs placebo) of dupilumab-treated vs placebo-receiving patients achieved PGIS 1 or 2, while 44.4% of multicomponent non-responders achieved the endpoint (P = 0.0025 vs placebo). Safety findings were consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile. Conclusions: While not all patients achieved the stringent multicomponent endpoint within the 24-week treatment period during PRIME and PRIME 2 trials, around half of the dupilumab-treated patients still reported significantly more improvement in disease severity and satisfaction with therapy. Overall safety was consistent with the known dupilumab safety profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction/Background Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by intense itch and eczematous skin lesions. Some patients with AD continue to experience flares and substantial clinical burden despite the use of systemic therapy. Upadacitinib is a selective oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with greater inhibitory potency for JAK1 versus JAK2, JAK3, and tyrosine kinase 2. Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody inhibiting interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 signaling. Both upadacitinib and dupilumab are approved in multiple countries for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in adolescents and adults. Objectives This monotherapy study assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, initiated at 15 mg once daily (QD) and dose-escalated to 30 mg QD based on clinical response, compared with dupilumab per its label. Results presented here are based on the Week 16 primary analysis. Methods Level Up is a phase 3b/4 global, randomized, open-label, efficacy assessor blinded, head-to-head, multi-center study evaluating upadacitinib vs dupilumab in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe AD who had inadequate response to systemic therapy or when use of those therapies was inadvisable. Patients were randomized to upadacitinib 15 mg or dupilumab per its label for 16 weeks of treatment (Period 1), with an extension period to 32 weeks (Period 2) for patients not achieving at least 75% reduction in Eczema Area and Severity Index from baseline (EASI 75) at Week 16. Patients on upadacitinib 15 mg were dose-escalated to 30 mg starting from Week 4 if they had a