Search

Background: Nemolizumab, an interleukin (IL)-31 receptor subunit α antagonist, inhibits the IL-31 pathway of itch and skin inflammation in atopic dermatitis. Two international phase 3 studies were done to assess the efficacy and safety of nemolizumab in atopic dermatitis. In this Article we report results for the 16-week initial treatment period of both trials., Methods: ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 were identical 48-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials in adult and adolescent participants (aged ≥12 years) with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, associated pruritus, and inadequate response to topical steroids. Participants were enrolled from 281 clinics, hospitals, and academic centres in 22 countries across both trials, and were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nemolizumab 30 mg subcutaneously (baseline loading dose 60 mg) or matching placebo once every 4 weeks with background topical corticosteroids (TCS) with or without topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI; ie, TCS-TCI background treatment). Randomisation was done via interactive response technology and stratified by baseline disease and pruritus severity. Study staff and participants were masked throughout the study, with outcome assessors masked until database lock. Coprimary endpoints at week 16 post-baseline were Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) success (score of 0 [clear skin] or 1 [almost clear skin] with a ≥2-point improvement from baseline) and at least 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index score from baseline (EASI-75 response). Outcome rates were compared between groups with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusting for randomisation strata. The key secondary endpoints were the proportion of participants with Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) score improvement of at least 4 points at weeks 1, 2, 4, and 16; PP-NRS score below 2 at weeks 4 and 16; Sleep Disturbance Numerical Rating Scale score improvement of at least 4 points at week 16; EASI-75 response plus PP-NRS score improvement of at least 4 points at week 16; and IGA success plus PP-NRS score improvement of at least 4 points at week 16. Efficacy analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis; safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of nemolizumab or placebo. Both studies are completed (ClinicalTrials.gov: ARCADIA 1, NCT03985943 and ARCADIA 2, NCT03989349)., Findings: Between Aug 9, 2019, and Nov 2, 2022, 1728 participants were enrolled across both trials: 1142 were allocated to nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI (620 in ARCADIA 1 and 522 in ARCADIA 2) and 586 to placebo plus TCS-TCI (321 in ARCADIA 1 and 265 in ARCADIA 2). ARCADIA 1 included 500 (53%) male participants and 441 (47%) female participants, and ARCADIA 2 included 381 (48%) male participants and 406 (52%) female participants. Mean age ranged from 33·3 (SD 15·6) years to 35·2 (17·0) years across the treatment groups. Both trials met the coprimary endpoints; at week 16, a greater proportion of participants receiving nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI versus placebo plus TCS-TCI had IGA success (ARCADIA 1: 221 [36%] of 620 vs 79 [25%] of 321, adjusted percentage difference 11·5% [97·5% CI 4·7-18·3], p=0·0003; ARCADIA 2: 197 [38%] of 522 vs 69 [26%] of 265, adjusted difference 12·2% [4·6-19·8], p=0·0006) and an EASI-75 response (ARCADIA 1: 270 [44%] vs 93 [29%], adjusted difference 14·9% [7·8-22·0], p<0·0001; ARCADIA 2: 220 [42%] vs 80 [30%], adjusted difference 12·5% [4·6-20·3], p=0·0006). Significant benefits were observed with nemolizumab for all key secondary endpoints including improvement in itch, as early as week 1, and sleep improvement by week 16. The safety profile was similar between nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI and placebo plus TCS-TCI. In the safety sets, 306 (50%) of 616 participants (ARCADIA 1) and 215 (41%) of 519 participants (ARCADIA 2) who received nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (serious treatment-emergent adverse events in six [1%] and 13 [3%], respectively); and 146 (45%) of 321 (ARCADIA 1) and 117 (44%) of 263 (ARCADIA 2) who received placebo plus TCS-TCI had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (serious treatment-emergent adverse events in four [1%] and three [1%], respectively). Ten serious treatment-emergent adverse events possibly related to nemolizumab were reported in five (1%) participants in ARCADIA 2. No deaths occurred., Interpretation: Nemolizumab plus TCS-TCI was efficacious and showed statistically and clinically significant improvements in inflammation and itch in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Nemolizumab might offer a valuable extension of current therapies if approved., Funding: Galderma., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JIS has received honoraria as a consultant or advisory board member for AbbVie, Aldena, Amgen, AOBiome, Arcutis, Arena, Asana, Aslan, Attovia, BiomX, Biosion, Bodewell, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cara, Castle Biosciences, Celgene, Connect Biopharma, Corevitas, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK, Incyte, Kiniksa, LEO Pharma, MyOr Diagnostics, Nektar, Novartis, Optum, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Recludix, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, Shaperon, Target RWE, and Union Therapeutics; and his institution has received grants from Galderma, Incyte, and Pfizer. AW has received grants or contracts from AbbVie, Aileens, Almirall, Amgen, Beiersdorf, Bioderma, BioProject, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Galapagos, Galderma, Glenmark, GSK, Hans Karrer, Janssen, Maruho, MedImmune, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB; payment or honoraria from AbbVie, Aileens, Almirall, Amgen, Beiersdorf, Bioderma, Galderma, Glenmark, LEO Pharma, L'Oreal, Maruho, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB; and support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie, LEO Pharma, and Pierre Fabre. He has also participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Alentis Therapeutics and BioProject; served as Secretary and Executive Board member of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis and Vice Chair of the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis; and received medical writing support for clinical trial reports from AbbVie, Almirall, Galderma, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, L'Oreal, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB. AR has served as an investigator or participated in advisory boards for AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Biotherapy, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Celltrion, Dermira, Galderma, Inflarx, Janssen, Kiniksa, Kymab, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Trevi Therapeutics, and UCB; and has received honoraria from Chema Rzeszow, Eli Lilly, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Sandoz, and Takeda. DT is a lecturer or consultant for AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Regeneron, Sandoz, Target RWE, and UCB; and has received grants from AbbVie, LEO Pharma, and Novartis (paid to his institution). FJL has received honoraria as a consultant, advisory board member, or speaker for Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pelpharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Trevi Therapeutics, and Vifor Pharma; has received support for participating in scientific meetings from Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pelpharma, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and has served as the principal investigator in clinical studies for Amgen, Almirall, DS Biopharma, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Incyte, Kiniksa, Menlo Therapeutics, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Trevi Therapeutics. KAP has served as a consultant, scientific advisor, investigator, scientific officer, or speaker for Pfizer, AbbVie, Acelyrin, Akros, Alumis, Amgen, Arcutis, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Can-Fite BioPharma, Celltrion, Concert Pharmaceuticals, CorEvitas, Dermavant, Dermira, Dice Pharmaceuticals, Dice Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Evelo Biosciences, Forbion, Galderma, Horizon Therapeutics, Incyte, Janssen, Kymab, Kyowa Hakka Kirin, LEO Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mitsubishi Pharma, Nimbus Therapeutics, Novartis, Reistone, Sandoz, Genzyme (subsidiary of Sanofi Aventis), Sun Pharma, Takeda, Tarsus Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Zai Lab. LSG has received grants, contracts, consulting fees, payment, or honoraria for scientific or educational work from Galderma, AbbVie, Pfizer, Incyte, Arcutis, LEO Pharma, Dermavan, and Eli Lilly; and is an investigator for Allergan and Galderma. J-DB has received speaker fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi, consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Neovacs, a research grant from Astra Zeneca, Sanofi, and Therakos, and travel grants from AbbVie, Janssen, and Sanofi; and has served on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Galderma, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi. AEP has received grants or contracts from Amgen, Medac Pharma, and Pfizer, acted as an investigator, speaker, and advisor for or received educational support or research funding from Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, Galderma, Novartis, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, UCB, Amgen, Almirall, Artax Biopharma, and Medac Pharma. JMC has received honoraria as a consultant, advisory board member, or speaker, or has served as the principal investigator in clinical studies, for Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Amgen, AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, LEO Pharma, UCB, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sandoz. BR has served as an investigator for Galderma. JCS has received consulting fees or honoraria from Galderma, AbbVie, Almirall, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi-Genzyme, Trevi, and UCB; has served as President of the Polish Dermatological Society; and has served as an investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Galderma, Incyte, InflaRx, Janssen, Kliniksa, Kymab, Menlo Therapeutics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Trevi Therapeutics, and UCB Pharma. DK has served as an investigator for Galderma. BH is an investigator for Galderma. MK has served as an investigator for Galderma. NM is a consultant or speaker for AbbVie, Almirall, Apogee, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr Wolff, Eli Lilly, La Roche-Posay, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB; and has served as an investigator for Galderma. SP has served as an investigator for Galderma. NN has served as an investigator for Galderma. MBS has received honoraria as a consultant, advisory board member, or speaker from Amgen, AbbVie, Arcutis, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galderma, Incyte Pharma, Janssen, L'Oréal Canada, LEO Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB Canada; support for attending meetings or travel from Galderma, Janssen, and Pfizer; has served as the principal investigator in clinical studies for Alumis, Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Evelo, Galderma, Inycte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Meiji Pharma, Moberg Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Reistone Biopharma, Sanofi, and Ventyx Biosciences; and is Treasurer for the Canadian Dermatology Association, Treasurer for the Ontario Medical Association section of Dermatology, and Secretary for the Dermatology Association of Ontario. VJ has consulted or advised for or received research funding for speakers bureaus from Pediapharm, Aralez, Sanofi, Regeneron, Bausch, Novartis, Medexus, ALK-Abelló, Celgene, LEO Pharma, Mylan, Amgen, AbbVie, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GSK, Covis Pharma, and Incyte; and has received research grants from Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Galderma, AstraZeneca, Arcutis, Sanofi, LEO Pharma, Amgen, AbbVie, GSK, Allakos, Novartis, Janssen, and Kymab. KP has served as an investigator for Galderma. SYC, PFM, LU, and CP are employees of Galderma., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by increased itch, skin pain, poor sleep quality, and other symptoms that negatively affect patient quality of life. Upadacitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with greater inhibitory potency for JAK1 than JAK2, JAK3, or tyrosine kinase 2, is approved to treat moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis., Objective: We aimed to evaluate the effect of upadacitinib on patient-reported outcomes over 52 weeks in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis., Methods: Data from two phase III monotherapy trials of upadacitinib (Measure Up 1, NCT03569293; Measure Up 2, NCT03607422) were integrated. Changes in pruritus, pain, other skin symptoms, sleep, quality of life, mental health, and patient impression were evaluated. Patient-reported outcome assessments included the Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure, Dermatology Life Quality Index, Atopic Dermatitis Symptom Scale, Atopic Dermatitis Impact Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, SCORing Atopic Dermatitis index, Patient Global Impression of Severity, Patient Global Impression of Change, and Patient Global Impression of Treatment. Minimal clinically important differences, achievement of scores representing minimal disease burden, and the change from baseline were evaluated in patients who received upadacitinib through week 52 and in patients who received placebo through week 16., Results: This analysis included 1609 patients (upadacitinib 15 mg, N = 557; upadacitinib 30 mg, N = 567; placebo, N = 485). Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally similar across all arms. The proportion of patients treated with upadacitinib reporting improvements in itch increased rapidly by week 1, increased steadily through week 8, and was sustained through week 52. Patients receiving upadacitinib also experienced improvements in pain and other skin symptoms by week 1, which continued through week 16; improvements were maintained through week 52. Patient reports of improved sleep increased rapidly from baseline to week 1, increased steadily through week 32, and were sustained through week 52. Patients experienced quality-of-life improvements through week 8, which were maintained through week 52. By week 1, patients in both upadacitinib groups experienced rapid improvements in emotional state, and by week 12, patients also achieved meaningful improvements in anxiety and depression. Improvements in mental health continued steadily through week 32 and were maintained through week 52. Patients treated with upadacitinib 30 mg generally experienced improvements in patient-reported outcomes earlier than those treated with upadacitinib 15 mg. Through week 16, patients receiving upadacitinib experienced greater improvements versus those receiving placebo in all assessed patient-reported outcomes., Conclusions: Adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis treated with once-daily upadacitinib 15 or 30 mg experienced early improvements in itch, pain, other skin symptoms, sleep, quality of life, and mental health that were sustained through week 52., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT03569293 (13 August 2018) and NCT03607422 (27 July 2018)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Baricitinib, a selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, is approved for treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults., Objectives: We report integrated baricitinib safety data in patients with up to 3.9-years exposure., Methods: Three datasets from the integrated AD clinical trial program were analyzed: placebo-controlled, 2-mg-4-mg extended, and All-bari. Data cutoffs were up to 21-December-2021 for long-term extension studies. Proportions of patients with events and incidence rates (IR)/100 patient years (PY) at risk were calculated., Results: 2636 patients received baricitinib for 4628.4 PY. Discontinuation due to adverse events was low (IR = 3.4). IRs in All-bari were: serious adverse events, 5.2; infection, 67.2 (any infection), 6.7 (herpes simplex), 2.8 (herpes zoster), and 0.3 (opportunistic infections). Adverse events of special interest in All-bari included seven patients with positively adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (IR = 0.15), three pulmonary emboli (PE) (IR = 0.06), 14 malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer (IR = 0.3), one gastrointestinal perforation (IR = 0.02), and four deaths (IR = 0.1). No deep vein thromboses (DVT) or tuberculosis were reported., Conclusion: In this analysis, baricitinib maintained a similar safety profile to earlier analyses with no new safety signals. Rates of MACE, DVT/PE, malignancies, and serious infections were within ranges of background rates in patients with AD., Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02576938 (JAHG), NCT03334396 (JAHL; BREEZE-AD1), NCT03334422 (JAHM; BREEZE-AD2), NCT03334435 (JAHN; BREEZE-AD3), NCT03428100 (JAIN; BREEZE-AD4), NCT03435081 (JAIW; BREEZE-AD5), NCT03559270 (JAIX; BREEZE-AD6), NCT03733301 (JAIY; BREEZE-AD7).

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by pruritic eczematous lesions. The effect of treatment withdrawal after response to upadacitinib oral treatment is not fully characterized., Objectives: Assess the effect of upadacitinib withdrawal on skin clearance and itch improvement in adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD and evaluate the kinetics of recovery on rescue treatment., Methods: Data from a phase 2b randomized, placebo-controlled trial (NCT02925117) of upadacitinib in patients with moderate-to-severe AD were analysed. Patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive upadacitinib 7.5 mg, 15 mg, 30 mg or placebo, and then at Week 16, patients were re-randomized 1:1 to receive the same dose of upadacitinib (upadacitinib 30 mg for patients initialized to placebo) or placebo. From Week 20, those who experienced loss of response defined as Eczema Area and Severity Index <50% improvement from baseline (EASI 50) received rescue treatment with upadacitinib 30 mg., Results: Patients who withdrew from upadacitinib experienced a rapid loss of skin clearance response, while those who switched from placebo to upadacitinib gained response. Loss of skin clearance response occurred within 4 weeks and worsening of itch occurred within 5 days. In patients who originally received placebo or a lower dose of upadacitinib leading to a loss of EASI response, rescue treatment with upadacitinib 30 mg resulted in rapid recovery or improvement of both skin and itch responses; most patients who were re-randomized to placebo achieved EASI 75 and IGA 0/1 by 8 weeks of rescue treatment. No new safety risks were observed., Conclusions: Continuous treatment with upadacitinib is suggested to maintain skin clearance and antipruritic effects., (© 2023 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.)

Background: Traditional systemic immunosuppressants and advanced therapies improve signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). However, data are limited in severe and/or difficult-to-treat AD. In the phase 3 JADE COMPARE trial of patients with moderate-to-severe AD receiving background topical therapy, once-daily abrocitinib 200 mg and 100 mg showed significantly greater reductions in the symptoms of AD than placebo and significantly greater improvement in itch response (with abrocitinib 200 mg) than dupilumab at week 2., Objective: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of abrocitinib and dupilumab in a subset of patients with severe and/or difficult-to-treat AD in a post hoc analysis of the JADE COMPARE trial., Methods: Adults with moderate-to-severe AD received once-daily oral abrocitinib 200 mg or 100 mg, dupilumab 300 mg subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks, or placebo with concomitant medicated topical therapy. Severe and/or difficult-to-treat AD subgroups were classified by baseline characteristics [Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) 4, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) > 21, failure or intolerance to prior systemic agents (excluding patients who took only corticosteroids), percentage of body surface area (%BSA) > 50, upper quartiles of EASI (EASI > 38) and %BSA (%BSA > 65), and combined subgroup of IGA 4, EASI > 21, and %BSA > 50, and failure or intolerance to prior systemic agents (excluding patients who took only corticosteroids)]. Assessments included IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) and a ≥ 2-point improvement from baseline, ≥ 75% and ≥ 90% improvement from baseline in EASI (EASI-75 and EASI-90), ≥ 4-point improvement from baseline in Peak Pruritus-Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS4), time to PP-NRS4, least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in 14-day PP-NRS (days 2-15), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) up to week 16., Results: The proportion of patients achieving IGA 0/1, EASI-75, and EASI-90 responses was significantly greater with abrocitinib 200 mg than placebo (nominal p < 0.05) across all subgroups with severe and/or difficult-to-treat AD. Across most subgroups, PP-NRS4 response was significantly greater with abrocitinib 200 mg than placebo (nominal p < 0.01); the time to achieve this response was shorter with abrocitinib 200 mg (range 4.5-6.0 days) than abrocitinib 100 mg (range 5.0-17.0 days), dupilumab (range 8.0-11.0 days), and placebo (range 3.0-11.5 days). LSM change from baseline in POEM and DLQI was significantly greater with abrocitinib 200 mg than placebo (nominal p < 0.001) across all subgroups. Clinically meaningful differences were observed between abrocitinib and dupilumab for most evaluated endpoints across several subgroups, including in patients who failed or were intolerant to prior systemic therapy., Conclusions: Abrocitinib provided rapid and substantially greater improvements in skin clearance and quality of life compared with placebo and dupilumab in subgroups of patients with severe and/or difficult-to-treat AD. These findings support the use of abrocitinib for severe and/or difficult-to-treat AD., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03720470., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Lebrikizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity to interleukin (IL)-13, thereby blocking the downstream effects of IL-13 with high potency., Objectives: To report integrated safety of lebrikizumab in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis from phase 2 and 3 studies., Methods: Five double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled studies; one randomized open-label study; one adolescent open-label, single-arm study; and one long-term safety study were summarized in two datasets: (1) placebo-controlled week 0-16 (All-PC Week 0-16) in patients who received lebrikizumab 250 mg every 2 weeks (LEBQ2W) versus placebo and (2) patients who received any dose of lebrikizumab at any time during the studies (All-LEB). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (IR)/100 patient-years (PY) are provided., Results: A total of 1720 patients received lebrikizumab (1637.0 PY exposure). In All-PC Week 0-16, the frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was similar between treatment groups; most events were nonserious and mild or moderate in severity. The most frequently reported TEAEs were atopic dermatitis (placebo) and conjunctivitis (LEBQ2W). Frequencies of conjunctivitis cluster were 2.5% (placebo) and 8.5% (LEBQ2W), and all events were mild or moderate (All-LEB 10.6%, IR, 12.2). Frequencies of injection site reactions were 1.5% (placebo) and 2.6% (LEBQ2W; All-LEB 3.1%, IR, 3.3). Frequencies of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation were 1.4% (placebo) and 2.3% (LEBQ2W; All-LEB 4.2%, IR, 4.5)., Conclusion: The safety profile for lebrikizumab consisted of TEAEs that were mostly nonserious, mild or moderate in severity, and did not lead to treatment discontinuation. The safety profile was similar in both adults and adolescents., Clinicaltrials: GOV: NCT02465606, NCT02340234, NCT03443024, NCT04146363, NCT04178967, NCT04250337, NCT04250350, NCT04392154 Safety of lebrikizumab in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: an integrated analysis of eight clinical trials (MP4 34165 KB)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Moderate to severe AD can be successfully managed by systemic treatments. Current guidelines also recommend emollients or emollients 'plus' and eudermic cleansers for all AD patients to improve the skin barrier and provide anti-irritant and anti-pruritic effects., Objectives: To investigate the efficacy of skin care (in addition to systemic treatment) with an Emollient 'plus' balm designed to improve the skin barrier and skin microbiome plus a corresponding syndet compared to usual commercial emollients and cleansers., Methods: In a randomized controlled multicenter study, patients with moderate to severe AD (Severity scoring of atopic dermatitis [SCORAD] score ≥ 40) receiving systemic treatment (cyclosporin A, dupilumab or a Janus kinase inhibitor) were randomized 1:1 to apply twice daily for 10 weeks Emollient 'plus' after pre-cleaning with the syndet (Emollient 'plus' group) or to continue with their usual emollient and cleanser (Control group). Assessments included SCORAD, pruritus on a Visual Analog Scale, Dermatology quality of life questionnaire (DLQI), efficacy and tolerance questionnaires., Results: Included were 57 patients with mean age of 38 years (range 19-70 years). The mean amount of emollient used after 10 weeks was 447.3 g (range 29-1099 g) and 613.2 g (range 97-2565 g) for the Emollient 'plus' versus the Control, respectively (p = 0.0277). After 10 weeks, subjects in the Emollient 'plus' had a significantly greater reduction in current pruritus (p = 0.0277) and a greater reduction in some DLQI items compared to the Control group., Conclusions: In patients with moderate to severe AD receiving systemic treatment, the Emollient 'plus' regimen significantly improved pruritus and quality of life items compared to the control, while using 23% less product over a 10-week period. These results stress the importance of daily use of emollients, especially emollients 'plus' to improve signs, symptoms and quality of life in patients with AD., (© 2023 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.)

Dupilumab was first approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) and blocks the signaling of interleukin (IL)-4 and -13. Several other chronic skin conditions share mechanistic overlaps with AD in their pathophysiology, i.e., are linked to type 2 inflammation. Most recently, dupilumab was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for prurigo nodularis (PN). Given its relatively good safety profile, effective off-label use of dupilumab has been reported for a multitude of dermatologic diseases and several clinical trials for dermatologic skin conditions are currently ongoing. We conducted a systematic review of applications of dupilumab in dermatology other than AD and PN by searching the databases PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library as well as the clinical trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov. We found several reports for effective treatment of bullous autoimmune diseases, eczema, prurigo, alopecia areata, chronic spontaneous urticaria, Netherton syndrome and a variety of other chronic inflammatory skin diseases.

Background: Lebrikizumab, a high-affinity IgG4 monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-13, prevents the formation of the interleukin-4Rα-interleukin-13Rα1 heterodimer receptor signaling complex., Methods: We conducted two identically designed, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials; both trials included a 16-week induction period and a 36-week maintenance period. Eligible patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (adults [≥18 years of age] and adolescents [12 to <18 years of age, weighing ≥40 kg]) were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either lebrikizumab at a dose of 250 mg (loading dose of 500 mg at baseline and week 2) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks. Outcomes for the induction period were assessed up to 16 weeks and are included in this report. The primary outcome was an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (indicating clear or almost clear skin; range, 0 to 4 [severe disease]) with a reduction (indicating improvement) of at least 2 points from baseline at week 16. Secondary outcomes included a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI-75 response) and assessments of itch and of itch interference with sleep. Safety was also assessed., Results: In trial 1, the primary outcome was met in 43.1% of 283 patients in the lebrikizumab group and in 12.7% of 141 patients in the placebo group (P<0.001); an EASI-75 response occurred in 58.8% and 16.2%, respectively (P<0.001). In trial 2, the primary outcome was met in 33.2% of 281 patients in the lebrikizumab group and in 10.8% of 146 patients in the placebo group (P<0.001); an EASI-75 response occurred in 52.1% and 18.1%, respectively (P<0.001). Measures of itch and itch interference with sleep indicated improvement with lebrikizumab therapy. The incidence of conjunctivitis was higher among patients who received lebrikizumab than among those who received placebo. Most adverse events during the induction period were mild or moderate in severity and did not lead to trial discontinuation., Conclusions: In the induction period of two phase 3 trials, 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab was effective in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. (Funded by Dermira; ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04146363 and NCT04178967, respectively.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Most systemic agents used for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) may lead to adverse events requiring routine laboratory monitoring, increasing patient burden and possibly decreasing treatment adherence., Objective: To evaluate clinical laboratory findings in adults with moderate-to-severe AD treated with dupilumab up to 3 years., Methods: LIBERTY AD OLE (NCT01949311) was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label extension study in adults with moderate-to-severe AD receiving dupilumab 300 mg weekly., Results: 2,677 patients were treated up to 3 years. No clinically meaningful changes in mean hematology/serum chemistry parameters from baseline were observed. Few laboratory abnormalities were reported as treatment-emergent adverse events. Serious events included one event each of thrombocytopenia, hematuria, and hemolytic anemia, all unrelated to treatment. Abnormalities leading to treatment withdrawal included thrombocytopenia (one patient), increased hepatic enzymes (two patients), and blood creatine phosphokinase increased (one patient). No patients had Grade 3 anemia or Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia; one patient had Grade 3 neutropenia (Week 100); two patients had Grade 3 eosinophilia (baseline visit); no eosinophil abnormalities were associated with clinically symptomatic events/permanent treatment discontinuation., Conclusion: Dupilumab treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe AD up to 3 years showed no clinically meaningful changes in mean laboratory parameters, supporting continuous long-term use without laboratory monitoring., Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01949311.

Atopic dermatitis (AD, also called atopic eczema) is a long-term skin disease that causes intensely itchy, red skin. Healthcare providers can prescribe medicated creams and ointments to reduce the signs and symptoms of AD. However, these treatments are not always enough to provide relief. A new medicine called abrocitinib, which is taken every day as a tablet, reduces part of the body's immune response that happens in AD. The clinical study described in this plain language summary, called JADE COMPARE, investigated how well and how safely 16 weeks of treatment with abrocitinib worked in adults with AD compared to placebo ('dummy treatment') and a medicine that is already approved for AD, called dupilumab. The study showed that abrocitinib was better than placebo in improving the signs and symptoms of AD after 16 weeks. In addition, patients who were taking abrocitinib 200 mg for 2 weeks experienced greater relief from itch than patients who were taking abrocitinib 100 mg, placebo, or dupilumab. More people who took abrocitinib 200 mg reported side effects than those taking abrocitinib 100 mg, placebo, or dupilumab, but most of these side effects were mild or moderate. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number: NCT03720470.

Background: Previous studies of dupilumab in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) showed no clinically meaningful adverse changes in laboratory parameters., Objective: The aim of this study was to assess laboratory outcomes in children aged 6-11 years with severe AD in a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of dupilumab., Methods: Children aged 6-11 years with severe AD were randomized 1:1:1 to 16 weeks of dupilumab 300 mg every 4 weeks, 100 or 200 mg every 2 weeks, or matching placebo, all with concomitant topical corticosteroids (TCS). Blood samples were collected at baseline and Weeks 4, 8, and 16; urine samples were collected at baseline and Weeks 4 and 16., Results: Of 367 patients enrolled in the study, 362 were included in the safety analysis, 351 completed study treatment, and 4 withdrew due to treatment-emergent adverse events not related to laboratory abnormalities. Both dupilumab + TCS groups showed overall trends toward increases in mean blood levels of eosinophils and alkaline phosphatase, and decreases in mean blood levels of platelets, neutrophils, and lactate dehydrogenase levels, without corresponding mean changes in the placebo + TCS group. None of these changes were associated with symptoms or clinically meaningful adverse outcomes, and none led to treatment modification. No clinically significant changes or trends were observed for other measured laboratory parameters., Conclusion: There were no clinically meaningful adverse changes in routine laboratory parameters attributable to treatment with dupilumab + TCS. Changes in platelet counts and lactate dehydrogenase levels likely reflect reduced inflammation. These results confirm similar findings in adults and adolescents, and suggest that there is no need for routine laboratory monitoring of children aged 6-11 years treated with dupilumab + TCS for severe AD., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03345914. Does treatment with dupilumab require routine laboratory monitoring in 6- to 11-year-old children with severe atopic dermatitis? (MP4 180482 kb)., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Upadacitinib is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with greater inhibitory potency for JAK1 than JAK2, JAK3, and tyrosine kinase 2. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib compared with placebo for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis., Methods: Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2 were replicate multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials; Measure Up 1 was done at 151 clinical centres in 24 countries across Europe, North and South America, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region; and Measure Up 2 was done at 154 clinical centres in 23 countries across Europe, North America, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region. Eligible patients were adolescents (aged 12-17 years) and adults (aged 18-75 years) with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (≥10% of body surface area affected by atopic dermatitis, Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI] score of ≥16, validated Investigator's Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis [vIGA-AD] score of ≥3, and Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score of ≥4). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using an interactive response technology system to receive upadacitinib 15 mg, upadacitinib 30 mg, or placebo once daily for 16 weeks, stratified by baseline disease severity, geographical region, and age. Coprimary endpoints were the proportion of patients who had achieved at least a 75% improvement in EASI score from baseline (EASI-75) and the proportion of patients who had achieved a vIGA-AD response (defined as a vIGA-AD score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear] with ≥2 grades of reduction from baseline) at week 16. Efficacy was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03569293 (Measure Up 1) and NCT03607422 (Measure Up 2), and are both active but not recruiting., Findings: Between Aug 13, 2018, and Dec 23, 2019, 847 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg (n=281), upadacitinib 30 mg (n=285), or placebo (n=281) in the Measure Up 1 study. Between July 27, 2018, and Jan 17, 2020, 836 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg (n=276), upadacitinib 30 mg (n=282), or placebo (n=278) in the Measure Up 2 study. At week 16, the coprimary endpoints were met in both studies (all p<0·0001). The proportion of patients who had achieved EASI-75 at week 16 was significantly higher in the upadacitinib 15 mg (196 [70%] of 281 patients) and upadacitinib 30 mg (227 [80%] of 285 patients) groups than the placebo group (46 [16%] of 281 patients) in Measure Up 1 (adjusted difference in EASI-75 response rate vs placebo, 53·3% [95% CI 46·4-60·2] for the upadacitinib 15 mg group; 63·4% [57·1-69·8] for the upadacitinib 30 mg group) and Measure Up 2 (166 [60%] of 276 patients in the upadacitinib 15 mg group and 206 [73%] of 282 patients in the upadacitinib 30 mg group vs 37 [13%] of 278 patients in the placebo group; adjusted difference in EASI-75 response rate vs placebo, 46·9% [39·9-53·9] for the upadacitinib 15 mg group; 59·6% [53·1-66·2] for the upadacitinib 30 mg group). The proportion of patients who achieved a vIGA-AD response at week 16 was significantly higher in the upadacitinib 15 mg (135 [48%] patients) and upadacitinib 30 mg (177 [62%] patients) groups than the placebo group (24 [8%] patients) in Measure Up 1 (adjusted difference in vIGA-AD response rate vs placebo, 39·8% [33·2-46·4] for the upadacitinib 15 mg group; 53·6% [47·2-60·0] for the upadacitinib 30 mg group) and Measure Up 2 (107 [39%] patients in the upadacitinib 15 mg group and 147 [52%] patients in the upadacitinib 30 mg group vs 13 [5%] patients in the placebo group; adjusted difference in vIGA-AD response rate vs placebo, 34·0% [27·8-40·2] for the upadacitinib 15 mg group; 47·4% [41·0-53·7] for the upadacitinib 30 mg group). Both upadacitinib doses were well tolerated. The incidence of serious adverse events and adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation were similar among groups. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events were acne (19 [7%] of 281 patients in the upadacitinib 15 mg group, 49 [17%] of 285 patients in the upadacitinib 30 mg group, and six [2%] of 281 patients in the placebo group in Measure Up 1; 35 [13%] of 276 patients in the upadacitinib 15 mg group, 41 [15%] of 282 patients in the upadacitinib 30 mg group, and six [2%] of 278 patients in the placebo group in Measure Up 2), upper respiratory tract infection (25 [9%] patients, 38 [13%] patients, and 20 [7%] patients; 19 [7%] patients, 17 [16%] patients, and 12 [4%] patients), nasopharyngitis (22 [8%] patients, 33 [12%] patients, and 16 [6%] patients; 16 [6%] patients, 18 [6%] patients, and 13 [5%] patients), headache (14 [5%] patients, 19 [7%] patients, and 12 [4%] patients; 18 [7%] patients, 20 [7%] patients, and 11 [4%] patients), elevation in creatine phosphokinase levels (16 [6%] patients, 16 [6%] patients, and seven [3%] patients; nine [3%] patients, 12 [4%] patients, and five [2%] patients), and atopic dermatitis (nine [3%] patients, four [1%] patients, and 26 [9%] patients; eight [3%] patients, four [1%] patients, and 26 [9%] patients)., Interpretation: Monotherapy with upadacitinib might be an effective treatment option and had a positive benefit-risk profile in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis., Funding: AbbVie., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests EG-Y is employed by Mount Sinai and is a researcher or consultant for AbbVie, Anacor, AnaptysBio, Asana Biosciences, Botanix, Celgene, DBV, Dermira, Dr Reddy's Laboratory (Promius), DS Biopharma, Escalier Biosciences, Galderma, Glenmark, Innovaderm, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Novan, Novartis, Pfizer, Ralexar, Regeneron, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, UCB, and Vitae Pharmaceuticals. HDT, ALP, BC, YG, XH, ML, YY, JL, ART, and ADC are full-time employees of AbbVie, and might hold AbbVie stock or stock options. ELS reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Lilly; grants and personal fees from Anacor, Bausch Health (Valeant), GlaxoSmithKline, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme; personal fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Dermira, Galderma, Genentech, LEO Pharma, and Menlo Therapeutics; and grants from MedImmune, Novartis, Roivant, Tioga Pharmaceuticals, and Vanda. KAP is an adviser, speaker, consultant, and steering committee member or researcher for AbbVie, Akros, Allergan, Amgen, Anacor, Arcutis, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bausch Health (Valeant), Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Can-Fite, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, Dow, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, InflaRx, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MedImmune, Meiji Seika Pharma, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Moberg Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, and UCB. AB has served as a scientific adviser or clinical study investigator for AbbVie, Almirall, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Forté Pharma, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB; and is a paid speaker for AbbVie. DT is an advisor, speaker, or consultant for AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Asana Biosciences, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, DS Biopharma, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB; and is also involved in research for AbbVie, Celgene, LEO Pharma, and Novartis. C-YC is an investigator for AbbVie, Dermira, Lilly, Novartis, Oneness Biotech, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, and Sanofi; a consultant for AbbVie, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; a speaker for AbbVie, Lilly, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; and an advisory board member for Mylan, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. HCH is a researcher, consultant, or advisor for AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Dermavant, DS Biopharma, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB. NK has received honoraria as a speaker or consultant for AbbVie, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Maruho, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Sanofi, and Taiho Pharmaceutical, and has received grants as an investigator from AbbVie, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Maruho, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, and Sanofi. ASP has served as an investigator for AbbVie, Anaptysbio, Incyte, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Lenus, Novartis, Regeneron, and UCB, and received honorarium for consultancy from AbbVie, Abeona, Almirall, Asana Biosciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bridgebio, Dermavant, Dermira, Exicure, Forte Pharma, Galderma, Incyte, InMed, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, LifeMax, Novartis, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Sol-Gel, and UCB. ADI has received honorarium for consultancy from AbbVie, Arena Pharmaceuticals, BenevolentAI, Chugai, Dermavant, Genentech, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Menlo Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The oral Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor abrocitinib, which reduces interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 signaling, is being investigated for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. Data from trials comparing JAK1 inhibitors with monoclonal antibodies, such as dupilumab, that block interleukin-4 receptors are limited., Methods: In a phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with atopic dermatitis that was unresponsive to topical agents or that warranted systemic therapy (in a 2:2:2:1 ratio) to receive 200 mg or 100 mg of abrocitinib orally once daily, 300 mg of dupilumab subcutaneously every other week (after a loading dose of 600 mg), or placebo; all the patients received topical therapy. The primary end points were an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) response (defined as a score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear] on the IGA [scores range from 0 to 4], with an improvement of ≥2 points from baseline) and an Eczema Area and Severity Index-75 (EASI-75) response (defined as ≥75% improvement from baseline in the score on the EASI [scores range from 0 to 72]) at week 12. The key secondary end points were itch response (defined as an improvement of ≥4 points in the score on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale [scores range from 0 to 10]) at week 2 and IGA and EASI-75 responses at week 16., Results: A total of 838 patients underwent randomization; 226 patients were assigned to the 200-mg abrocitinib group, 238 to the 100-mg abrocitinib group, 243 to the dupilumab group, and 131 to the placebo group. An IGA response at week 12 was observed in 48.4% of patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group, 36.6% in the 100-mg abrocitinib group, 36.5% in the dupilumab group, and 14.0% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both abrocitinib doses vs. placebo); an EASI-75 response at week 12 was observed in 70.3%, 58.7%, 58.1%, and 27.1%, respectively (P<0.001 for both abrocitinib doses vs. placebo). The 200-mg dose, but not the 100-mg dose, of abrocitinib was superior to dupilumab with respect to itch response at week 2. Neither abrocitinib dose differed significantly from dupilumab with respect to most other key secondary end-point comparisons at week 16. Nausea occurred in 11.1% of the patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group and 4.2% of those in the 100-mg abrocitinib group, and acne occurred in 6.6% and 2.9%, respectively., Conclusions: In this trial, abrocitinib at a dose of either 200 mg or 100 mg once daily resulted in significantly greater reductions in signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis than placebo at weeks 12 and 16. The 200-mg dose, but not the 100-mg dose, of abrocitinib was superior to dupilumab with respect to itch response at week 2. Neither abrocitinib dose differed significantly from dupilumab with respect to most other key secondary end-point comparisons at week 16. (Funded by Pfizer; JADE COMPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03720470.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Dupilumab has demonstrated efficacy with acceptable safety in clinical trials in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD)., Objective: To assess dupilumab's impact on asthma and sinonasal conditions in adult patients with moderate to severe AD in four randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials., Methods: In LIBERTY AD SOLO 1 (NCT02277743), SOLO 2 (NCT02755649), CHRONOS (NCT02260986), and CAFÉ (NCT02755649), patients received placebo, dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (q2w), or dupilumab 300 mg weekly (qw). In CHRONOS and CAFÉ, patients received concomitant topical corticosteroids. This post hoc analysis assessed Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5) scores in patients with asthma, Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) scores in patients with sinonasal conditions, and AD signs and symptoms in all patients., Results: Of the 2444 patients, 463 had asthma with baseline ACQ-5 ≥ 0.5 (19%); 1171 had sinonasal conditions (48%); and 311 had both (13%). At week 16, ACQ-5 scores (least squares mean change from baseline [standard error]) improved by 0.27 (0.07), 0.59 (0.08), and 0.56 (0.07) in placebo-, q2w-, and qw-treated patients with asthma, respectively, whereas SNOT-22 scores improved by 5.1 (0.8), 9.9 (0.9), and 10.8 (0.8) in patients with sinonasal conditions (P < .01 for all dupilumab vs placebo). Improvements in ACQ-5 and SNOT-22 were also seen in patients with both conditions. Dupilumab also significantly improved AD signs and symptoms among all subgroups., Conclusions: In this first analysis of patients with comorbid moderate to severe AD, asthma, and/or chronic sinonasal conditions, dupilumab improved all three diseases in a clinically meaningful and statistically significant manner (vs placebo), based on validated outcome measures., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Children with severe atopic dermatitis (AD) have limited treatment options., Objective: We report the efficacy and safety of dupilumab + topical corticosteroids (TCS) in children aged 6-11 years with severe AD inadequately controlled with topical therapies., Methods: In this double-blind, 16-week, phase 3 trial (NCT03345914), 367 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to 300 mg dupilumab every 4 weeks (300 mg q4w), a weight-based regimen of dupilumab every 2 weeks (100 mg q2w, baseline weight <30 kg; 200 mg q2w, baseline weight ≥30 kg), or placebo; with concomitant medium-potency TCS., Results: Both the q4w and q2w dupilumab + TCS regimens resulted in clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in signs, symptoms, and quality of life (QOL) versus placebo + TCS in all prespecified endpoints. For q4w, q2w, and placebo, 32.8%, 29.5%, and 11.4% of patients, respectively, achieved Investigator's Global Assessment scores of 0 or 1; 69.7%, 67.2%, and 26.8% achieved ≥75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index scores; and 50.8%, 58.3%, and 12.3% achieved ≥4-point reduction in worst itch score. Response to therapy was weight-dependent: optimal dupilumab doses for efficacy and safety were 300 mg q4w in children <30 kg and 200 mg q2w in children ≥30 kg. Conjunctivitis and injection-site reactions were more common with dupilumab + TCS than with placebo + TCS., Limitations: Short-term 16-week treatment period; severe AD only., Conclusion: Dupilumab + TCS is efficacious and well tolerated in children with severe AD, significantly improving signs, symptoms, and QOL., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Management of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) commonly requires long-term treatment., Objective: The aim of this study was to report the safety and efficacy of dupilumab treatment for up to 3 years in adults with moderate-to-severe AD., Methods: This ongoing, multicenter, open-label extension study (LIBERTY AD OLE; NCT01949311) assessed dupilumab treatment in adults previously enrolled in dupilumab trials. Patients received dupilumab 300 mg weekly up to 148 weeks. The primary outcome was safety., Results: Of 2677 patients enrolled and treated, 347 reached week 148. Mean self-reported drug compliance was 98.2%. Safety data were consistent with previously reported trials (270.1 adverse events [AEs]/100 patient-years; 6.9 serious AEs/100 patient-years) and the known dupilumab safety profile. Common AEs (≥ 5% of patients) included nasopharyngitis, AD, upper respiratory tract infection, conjunctivitis, headache, oral herpes, and injection-site reactions. AD signs and symptoms showed sustained improvements during treatment with mean (standard deviation, mean percentage change from parent study baseline) Eczema Area and Severity Index 1.4 (3.2, - 95.4%) and weekly Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale 2.2 (1.8, - 65.4%) at week 148., Limitations: No control arm; fewer patients at later time points; regimen different from the approved 300 mg every 2 weeks dose., Conclusion: These safety and efficacy results support dupilumab as a continuous long-term treatment for adults with moderate-to-severe AD., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01949311. Dupilumab provides favorable safety and sustained efficacy for up to 3 years in an open-label study of adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (MP4  139831 kb).

Background: Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by pruritic skin lesions., Objective: We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of multiple doses of the selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor upadacitinib in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis., Methods: In the 16-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging portion of this 88-week trial in 8 countries (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02925117; ongoing, not recruiting), adults with moderate to severe disease and inadequate control by topical treatment were randomized 1:1:1:1, using an interactive response system and stratified geographically, to once-daily upadacitinib oral monotherapy 7.5, 15, or 30 mg or placebo. The primary end point was percentage improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index from baseline at week 16. Efficacy was analyzed by intention-to-treat in all randomized patients. Safety was analyzed in all randomized patients who received study medication, based on actual treatment., Results: Patients (N = 167) enrolled from November 21, 2016, to April 20, 2017. All were randomized and analyzed for efficacy (each upadacitinib group, n = 42; placebo, n = 41); 166 were analyzed for safety (each upadacitinib group, n = 42; placebo, n = 40). The mean (SE) primary efficacy end point was 39% (6.2%), 62% (6.1%), and 74% (6.1%) for the upadacitinib 7.5-, 15-, and 30-mg groups, respectively, versus 23% (6.4%) for placebo (P = .03, <.001, and <.001). Serious adverse events occurred in 4.8% (2 of 42), 2.4% (1 of 42), and 0% (0 of 42) of upadacitinib groups (vs 2.5% [1 of 40] for placebo)., Conclusions: A dose-response relationship was observed for upadacitinib efficacy; the 30-mg once-daily dose showed the greatest clinical benefit. Dose-limiting toxicity was not observed., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Significant unmet need exists for long-term treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD)., Objective: To assess the long-term safety and efficacy of dupilumab in patients with AD., Methods: This ongoing, multicenter, open-label extension study (NCT01949311) evaluated long-term dupilumab treatment in adults who had previously participated in phase 1 through 3 clinical trials of dupilumab for AD. This analysis examined patients given 300 mg dupilumab weekly for up to 76 weeks at data cutoff (April 2016). Safety was the primary outcome; efficacy was also evaluated., Results: Of 1491 enrolled patients (1042.9 patient-years), 92.9% were receiving treatment at cutoff. The safety profile was consistent with previously reported trials (420.4 adverse events/100 patient-years and 8.5 serious adverse events/100 patient-years), with no new safety signals; common adverse events included nasopharyngitis, conjunctivitis, and injection-site reactions. Sustained improvement was seen up to 76 weeks in all efficacy outcomes, including measures of skin inflammation, pruritus, and quality of life., Limitations: Lack of control arm, limited number of patients with 76 weeks or longer of treatment (median follow-up, 24 weeks), and patients not receiving the approved dose regimen of 300 mg every 2 weeks., Conclusion: The safety and efficacy profile from this study supports the role of dupilumab as continuous long-term treatment for patients with moderate to severe AD., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The dupilumab regimen of 300 mg every 2 weeks is approved for uncontrolled, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD)., Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of different dupilumab regimens in maintaining response after 16 weeks of initial treatment., Design, Setting, and Participants: The Study to Confirm the Efficacy and Safety of Different Dupilumab Dose Regimens in Adults With Atopic Dermatitis (LIBERTY AD SOLO-CONTINUE) was a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial conducted from March 25, 2015, to October 18, 2016, at 185 sites in North America, Europe, Asia, and Japan. Patients with moderate to severe AD who received dupilumab treatment and achieved an Investigator's Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 or 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index scores (EASI-75) at week 16 in 2 previous dupilumab monotherapy trials (LIBERTY AD SOLO 1 and 2) were rerandomized in SOLO-CONTINUE. After completing SOLO-CONTINUE, patients were followed up for up to 12 weeks or enrolled in an open-label extension. Data were analyzed from December 5 to 12, 2016., Interventions: High-responding patients treated with dupilumab in SOLO were rerandomized 2:1:1:1 to continue their original regimen of dupilumab, 300 mg, weekly or every 2 weeks or to receive dupilumab, 300 mg, every 4 or 8 weeks or placebo for 36 weeks., Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage change in EASI score from baseline during the SOLO-CONTINUE trial, percentage of patients with EASI-75 at week 36, and safety., Results: Among the 422 patients (mean [SD] age, 38.2 [14.5] years; 227 [53.8%] male), continuing dupilumab treatment once weekly or every 2 weeks maintained optimal efficacy, with negligible change in percent EASI improvement from SOLO 1 and 2 baseline during the SOLO-CONTINUE trial (-0.06%; P < .001 vs placebo); percent change with the other regimens dose-dependently worsened (dupilumab every 4 weeks, -3.84%; dupilumab every 8 weeks, -6.84%; placebo, -21.67%). More patients taking dupilumab weekly or every 2 weeks (116 of 162 [71.6%]; P < .001 vs placebo) maintained EASI-75 response than those taking dupilumab every 4 weeks (49 of 84 [58.3%]) or every 8 weeks (45 of 82 [54.9%]) or those taking placebo (24 of 79 [30.4%]). Overall adverse event incidences were 70.7% in the weekly or every 2 weeks group, 73.6% in the every 4 weeks group, 75.0% in the every 8 weeks group, and 81.7% in the placebo group. Treatment groups had similar conjunctivitis rates. Treatment-emergent antidrug antibody incidence was lower with more frequent dupilumab dose regimens (11.3% in the placebo group and 11.7%, 6.0%, 4.3%, and 1.2% in the dupilumab every 8 weeks, every 4 weeks, every 2 weeks, and weekly groups, respectively)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, continued response over time was most consistently maintained with dupilumab administered weekly or every 2 weeks. Longer dosage intervals and placebo resulted in a diminution of response for both continuous and categorical end points. No new safety signals were observed. The approved regimen of 300 mg of dupilumab every 2 weeks is recommended for long-term treatment., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02395133.

Background: Patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) have increased infection risk, including skin infections and systemic infections. Immunomodulators (e.g., anti-tumor necrosis factors, anti-interleukin [anti-IL]-23, anti-IL-17, Janus kinase inhibitors) increase risk of infections. Dupilumab (a monoclonal antibody blocking the shared receptor component for IL-4 and IL-13) is approved for inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe AD and for moderate-to-severe eosinophilic or oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma., Objective: The aim was to determine the impact of dupilumab on infection rates in patients with moderate-to-severe AD., Methods: This analysis pooled data from seven randomized, placebo-controlled dupilumab trials in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Exposure-adjusted analyses assessed infection rates., Results: Of 2932 patients, 1091 received placebo, 1095 dupilumab 300 mg weekly, and 746 dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks. Treatment groups had similar infection rates overall per 100 patient-years (placebo, 155; dupilumab weekly, 150; dupilumab every 2 weeks, 156; dupilumab combined, 152), and similar non-skin infection rates. Serious/severe infections were reduced with dupilumab (risk ratio 0.43; p < 0.05), as were bacterial and other non-herpetic skin infections (risk ratio 0.44; p < 0.001). Although herpesviral infection rates overall were slightly higher with dupilumab than placebo, clinically important herpesviral infections (eczema herpeticum, herpes zoster) were less common with dupilumab (risk ratio 0.31; p < 0.01). Systemic anti-infective medication use was lower with dupilumab., Conclusions: Dupilumab is associated with reduced risk of serious/severe infections and non-herpetic skin infections and does not increase overall infection rates versus placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifiers: NCT01548404, NCT02210780, NCT01859988, NCT02277743, NCT02277769, NCT02260986, and NCT02755649.

Background: Two phase 3 trials with identical design, LIBERTY AD SOLO 1 (NCT02277743) and LIBERTY AD SOLO 2 (NCT02277769), confirmed dupilumab efficacy and safety versus placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD)., Objectives: To report a pooled analysis of these trials to further explore dupilumab's effects on AD clinical parameters, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), symptoms of anxiety/depression, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and safety., Methods: A pooled analysis of two 16-week phase 3 studies in adults with moderate-to-severe AD (N = 1379) inadequately controlled with/inadvisable for topical medications, randomized to dupilumab 300 mg once weekly (qw), every 2 weeks (q2w), or placebo., Results: Dupilumab significantly improved all pre-specified efficacy endpoints versus placebo (P < 0.0001), including clinical severity outcomes and PROs, symptoms of anxiety/depression, and HRQoL, consistent with previously published results. In post-hoc analyses, among patients reporting at least some baseline pain/discomfort on the EuroQoL-5D, no pain/discomfort at Week 16 was reported by 43%/46%/14% of dupilumab qw/q2w/placebo-treated patients (P < 0.0001). The distribution of dupilumab-treated patients within pre-defined score categories on the Investigator's Global Assessment (0-1/2/3/4) and Eczema Area and Severity Index (≥90%/≥75-<90%/≥50-<75%/<50%) steadily and consistently improved over time versus marginal changes with placebo. Dupilumab significantly improved pruritus within 1-3 days of treatment initiation. No new safety signals were observed. Injection-site reactions and conjunctivitis were more common with dupilumab; AD exacerbation and non-herpetic skin infections more frequent with placebo., Conclusions: Dupilumab versus placebo significantly improved objective AD signs, subjective PROs, symptoms of anxiety/depression, and HRQoL, with a favorable benefit-risk profile in adults with moderate-to-severe AD., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: There is a need for new treatment options for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults. Dupilumab, a fully human anti-interleukin-4 receptor α monoclonal antibody, has recently been approved for this indication., Methods: A pooled analysis of a phase 2a (NCT01548404) and a phase 2b (NCT01859988) study and a subanalysis of the 2b study evaluated the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous dupilumab 300 mg once weekly (qw) and every 2 weeks (q2w) in adults with moderate-to-severe AD., Results: Dupilumab significantly improved clinical outcomes in both analyses at week 12. Itch was significantly improved in the pooled analysis as measured by peak pruritus Numerical Rating Scale, 5-dimension pruritus scale, and SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pruritus scores (all p < .0001 vs. placebo at week 12). Sleep loss was significantly improved (SCORAD VAS sleep loss score; p < .0001 vs. placebo at week 12); similar results were shown for the q2w dose. Dupilumab had an acceptable safety profile., Conclusions: Consistent with previous studies, dupilumab qw and q2w significantly improved signs and symptoms of AD at week 12, including improvements in itch and sleep loss., Implications for Practice: Subcutaneous dupilumab is an effective new treatment option for adults with moderate-to-severe AD.

Background: Data from early-stage studies suggested that interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13 are requisite drivers of atopic dermatitis, evidenced by marked improvement after treatment with dupilumab, a fully-human monoclonal antibody that blocks both pathways. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of several dose regimens of dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical treatments., Methods: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older who had an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of 12 or higher at screening (≥16 at baseline) and inadequate response to topical treatments from 91 study centres, including hospitals, clinics, and academic institutions, in Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Poland, and the USA. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), stratified by severity (moderate or severe, as assessed by Investigator's Global Assessment) and region (Japan vs rest of world) to receive subcutaneous dupilumab: 300 mg once a week, 300 mg every 2 weeks, 200 mg every 2 weeks, 300 mg every 4 weeks, 100 mg every 4 weeks, or placebo once a week for 16 weeks. We used a central randomisation scheme, provided by an interactive voice response system. Drug kits were coded, providing masking to treatment assignment, and allocation was concealed. Patients on treatment every 2 weeks and every 4 weeks received volume-matched placebo every week when dupilumab was not given to ensure double blinding. The primary outcome was efficacy of dupilumab dose regimens based on EASI score least-squares mean percentage change (SE) from baseline to week 16. Analyses included all randomly assigned patients who received one or more doses of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01859988., Findings: Between May 15, 2013, and Jan 27, 2014, 452 patients were assessed for eligibility, and 380 patients were randomly assigned. 379 patients received one or more doses of study drug (300 mg once a week [n=63], 300 mg every 2 weeks [n=64], 200 mg every 2 weeks [n=61], 300 mg every 4 weeks [n=65], 100 mg every 4 weeks [n=65]; placebo [n=61]). EASI score improvements favoured all dupilumab regimens versus placebo (p<0·0001): 300 mg once a week (-74% [SE 5·16]), 300 mg every 2 weeks (-68% [5·12]), 200 mg every 2 weeks (-65% [5·19]), 300 mg every 4 weeks (-64% [4·94]), 100 mg every 4 weeks (-45% [4·99]); placebo (-18% [5·20]). 258 (81%) of 318 patients given dupilumab and 49 (80%) of 61 patients given placebo reported treatment-emergent adverse events; nasopharyngitis was the most frequent (28% and 26%, respectively)., Interpretation: Dupilumab improved clinical responses in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in a dose-dependent manner, without significant safety concerns. Our findings show that IL-4 and IL-13 are key drivers of atopic dermatitis., Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that blocks interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, has shown efficacy in patients with asthma and elevated eosinophil levels. The blockade by dupilumab of these key drivers of type 2 helper T-cell (Th2)-mediated inflammation could help in the treatment of related diseases, including atopic dermatitis., Methods: We performed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials involving adults who had moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis despite treatment with topical glucocorticoids and calcineurin inhibitors. Dupilumab was evaluated as monotherapy in two 4-week trials and in one 12-week trial and in combination with topical glucocorticoids in another 4-week study. End points included the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, the investigator's global assessment score, pruritus, safety assessments, serum biomarker levels, and disease transcriptome., Results: In the 4-week monotherapy studies, dupilumab resulted in rapid and dose-dependent improvements in clinical indexes, biomarker levels, and the transcriptome. The results of the 12-week study of dupilumab monotherapy reproduced and extended the 4-week findings: 85% of patients in the dupilumab group, as compared with 35% of those in the placebo group, had a 50% reduction in the EASI score (EASI-50, with higher scores in the EASI indicating greater severity of eczema) (P<0.001); 40% of patients in the dupilumab group, as compared with 7% in the placebo group, had a score of 0 to 1 (indicating clearing or near-clearing of skin lesions) on the investigator's global assessment (P<0.001); and pruritus scores decreased (indicating a reduction in itch) by 55.7% in the dupilumab group versus 15.1% in the placebo group (P<0.001). In the combination study, 100% of the patients in the dupilumab group, as compared with 50% of those who received topical glucocorticoids with placebo injection, met the criterion for EASI-50 (P=0.002), despite the fact that patients who received dupilumab plus glucocorticoids used less than half the amount of topical glucocorticoids used by those who received placebo plus the topical medication (P=0.16). Adverse events, such as skin infection, occurred more frequently with placebo; nasopharyngitis and headache were the most frequent adverse events with dupilumab., Conclusions: Patients treated with dupilumab had marked and rapid improvement in all the evaluated measures of atopic dermatitis disease activity. Side-effect profiles were not dose-limiting. (Funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01259323, NCT01385657, NCT01639040, and NCT01548404.).

Aim: To evaluate the systemic exposure of pimecrolimus cream 1% applied under occlusion in atopic dermatitis (AD) patients., Methods: A noncomparative, open-label study conducted in 3 groups of moderate to severe AD patients: A (adults, n = 9), B (adolescents, n = 4) and C (children, n = 6). Pimecrolimus cream 1% was applied twice daily for 8.5 days with overnight occlusion in patients with investigator's global assessment scores of ≥3 and AD involving at least 30% of their body surface area. Pimecrolimus blood concentrations were analyzed., Results: The highest pimecrolimus blood concentrations observed in adults, adolescents and children were 1.84, 0.55 and 1.29 ng/ml, respectively. Pimecrolimus blood concentrations and affected body surface area showed no apparent correlation., Conclusion: No measurable differences were found in pimecrolimus blood concentrations, efficacy and safety profile when pimecrolimus cream 1% was applied under occlusion versus application without occlusion. These findings reflect the high lipophilic properties of pimecrolimus., (Copyright © 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Topical calcineurin inhibitors have developed a bad connotation because of a black-box warning that was based on safety concerns of hypothetic systemic absorption and because systemic treatment with calcineurin inhibitors in patients who receive organ transplants is associated with an increased cancer risk. A few case reports of lymphoma and skin cancer in patients treated with topical calcineurin inhibitors initiated the discussion. These drugs were recommended for use as second-line therapy for the short-term and noncontinuous treatment of atopic dermatitis in patients who do not respond adequately to topical corticosteroids or in whom they are contraindicated. According to the latest knowledge, there is no scientific evidence of an increased risk for malignancy due to a topical treatment with calcineurin inhibitors., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Repeated courses of potent topical corticosteroids and maintenance therapy with moderately potent topical corticosteroids are frequently needed to treat various forms of vulvar dermatoses, which are often characterized by an abnormal proliferation or activation of T lymphocytes. Because such therapeutic regimen is associated with an increased risk of potential side effects, particularly skin atrophy, an anti-inflammatory alternative to topical corticosteroids is desirable. The two non-steroid topical calcineurin inhibitors pimecrolimus and tacrolimus are immunomodulators that block the release of inflammatory cytokines from T lymphocytes in the skin while promoting cutaneous innate host defences. They are currently approved in Europe and in the United States of America as second-line anti-inflammatory agents for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. We provide a comprehensive summary of existing case reports, series of cases, and open-label prospective studies concerning the use of topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus for the treatment of anogenital lichen sclerosus, genital lichen planus, vulvar lichen simplex chronicus and related pruritic vulvar dermatoses (chronic vulvar pruritus and allergic contact dermatitis of the vulva). The available data suggest that both topical calcineurin inhibitors may be effective and well tolerated in these vulvar dermatoses, although topical pimecrolimus may exhibit a better long-term tolerability profile. Being devoid of steroid-related side effects, they may represent a useful second-line therapeutic option for patients who are intolerant of, or resistant to topical corticosteroids. Controlled clinical trials and comparative studies are warranted to substantiate the promising findings summarized in this review.

Atopic eczema is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder with a relapsing and remitting course. For many decades,topical corticosteroids have been the mainstay therapy for atopic dermatitis. After the introduction of calcineurin inhibitors as a corticosteroid-free alternative, there were high expectations. After the black box warning from the FDA regarding the potential theoretical risk for developing neoplasia under treatment with calcineurin inhibitors, patients and physicians became uncertain about its safety, regardless of the fact that current scientific data do not support increased concern for risk of malignancy.

Background: Data on the efficacy of pimecrolimus cream 1% within the first days of treatment are scarce, as in previous studies, the first postbaseline assessment was performed only after 1 week., Objective: We sought to investigate the onset of action of pimecrolimus cream 1% in infants with mild to very severe atopic eczema., Methods: We used pimecrolimus cream 1% (n = 129) or vehicle cream (n = 66) administered in a double-blind manner for 4 weeks and then open-label pimecrolimus cream 1% for 12 weeks, with a 4-week follow-up period., Results: Pimecrolimus cream 1% reduced the mean Eczema Area and Severity Index at 4 weeks by 71.5% compared with an increase of 19.4% with vehicle ( P < .001). The reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index with pimecrolimus cream 1% was significant at day 4 (38.5% vs 17.6% increase with vehicle). Significant improvements in caregivers' assessments of pruritus and sleep loss were observed with pimecrolimus cream 1% by day 2 ( P < .03) and day 3 ( P = .002), respectively, compared with vehicle. Responses to pimecrolimus cream 1% were sustained during the open-label phase, and pimecrolimus cream 1% was well tolerated. Symptoms of atopic eczema returned gradually after discontinuation., Conclusion: Pimecrolimus cream 1% was well tolerated and effective in patients with mild to very severe atopic eczema, with rapid onset of action and no disease rebound after discontinuation.

Background: Pimecrolimus cream 1% (Elidel, SDZ ASM 981) is a novel, non-steroid inflammatory cytokine inhibitor, effective in the treatment of atopic dermatitis. Here, we evaluate the treatment of chronic hand dermatitis with pimecrolimus cream 1%., Objectives: To determine pimecrolimus blood concentrations, and evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy following application of pimecrolimus cream 1% to subjects with chronic hand dermatitis., Method: In this open-label, multiple-topical-dose, non-controlled, pharmacokinetic study, pimecrolimus cream 1% was applied twice daily to dorsal and palmar areas (affected and unaffected) of both hands. Evening applications (except day 8) were immediately followed by overnight occlusion (> or =6 h). Full pharmacokinetic profile (days 1, 8 and 22), trough concentrations (days 3 and 15), physical examinations, laboratory measurements and adverse events were recorded. Efficacy was assessed via Investigators' Global Assessment (IGA), total key signs and symptoms and the subject's overall self-assessment., Results: Twelve patients completed the study. The majority of pimecrolimus blood concentrations (73.6%) remained below the limit of quantitation (0.1 ng/ml). The maximum concentration observed was 0.91 ng/ml and the maximum area under the concentration-time curve from 0-12 h post dose was 7.6 ng.h/ml. Treatment was well tolerated locally and systemically. No serious adverse events occurred; 4/13 subjects showed a total of 6 adverse events at the application site: burning (n=4), and pruritus (n=2). No clinically relevant or drug-related changes were observed. Clear efficacy of the treatment was shown by all 3 assessment methods. Disease state at day 22 had improved in 11 (85%) subjects compared with baseline (IGA)., Conclusion: Twice daily topical treatment of moderate to severe chronic hand dermatitis with pimecrolimus cream 1% results in low pimecrolimus blood levels, is well tolerated, safe, and effective., (Copyright 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel)