Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib vs Dupilumab in Adults and Adolescents with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: Week 16 results of an Open-label, Randomized, Efficacy Assessor-Blinded Head-to-Head Phase 3b/4 Study (Level Up).

IF 11 1区 医学 Q1 DERMATOLOGY British Journal of Dermatology Pub Date : 2024-10-23 DOI:10.1093/bjd/ljae404
Jonathan I Silverberg, Christopher G Bunick, H Chih-Ho Hong, Pedro Mendes-Bastos, Linda Stein Gold, Antonio Costanzo, Nadia Ibrahim, Cristina Sancho, Xiaoqiang Wu, Yu Han, Gweneth Levy, Kathy Altman, Brian Calimlim, Kilian Eyerich
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib vs Dupilumab in Adults and Adolescents with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: Week 16 results of an Open-label, Randomized, Efficacy Assessor-Blinded Head-to-Head Phase 3b/4 Study (Level Up).","authors":"Jonathan I Silverberg, Christopher G Bunick, H Chih-Ho Hong, Pedro Mendes-Bastos, Linda Stein Gold, Antonio Costanzo, Nadia Ibrahim, Cristina Sancho, Xiaoqiang Wu, Yu Han, Gweneth Levy, Kathy Altman, Brian Calimlim, Kilian Eyerich","doi":"10.1093/bjd/ljae404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic skin disease characterized by intense itch and eczematous skin lesions. Some patients continue to experience flares and substantial clinical burden despite ongoing systemic treatment.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study assessed 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) per its label. Week 16 primary analysis results are presented.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Level Up is a phase 3b/4 global, randomized, open-label, efficacy assessor blinded study evaluating UPA vs DUPI in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe AD who had 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 started on 15 mg and were 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/after Week 4, or EASI 75 on/after Week 8. The primary endpoint was simultaneous achievement of 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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<0.0001). UPA showed superiority vs 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 during this period.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Treatment of moderate-to-severe AD with UPA, initiated at 15 mg and dose escalated based on clinical response, demonstrated superiority vs 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. There were no new safety signals identified compared to the previously reported safety profiles of UPA and DUPI.</p>","PeriodicalId":9238,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Dermatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":11.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljae404","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic skin disease characterized by intense itch and eczematous skin lesions. Some patients continue to experience flares and substantial clinical burden despite ongoing systemic treatment.

Objectives: This study assessed 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) per its label. Week 16 primary analysis results are presented.

Methods: Level Up is a phase 3b/4 global, randomized, open-label, efficacy assessor blinded study evaluating UPA vs DUPI in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe AD who had 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 started on 15 mg and were 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/after Week 4, or EASI 75 on/after Week 8. The primary endpoint was simultaneous achievement of 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<0.0001). UPA showed superiority vs 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 during this period.

Conclusion: Treatment of moderate-to-severe AD with UPA, initiated at 15 mg and dose escalated based on clinical response, demonstrated superiority vs 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. There were no new safety signals identified compared to the previously reported safety profiles of UPA and DUPI.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中重度特应性皮炎成人和青少年患者服用乌达替尼与杜匹单抗的疗效和安全性:一项开放标签、随机、疗效评估者对照的头对头 3b/4 期研究第 16 周结果(Level Up)。
背景:特应性皮炎(AD)是一种以剧烈瘙痒和湿疹性皮损为特征的慢性皮肤病。尽管正在接受系统治疗,但一些患者仍会复发,造成严重的临床负担:本研究评估了每日一次服用达帕替尼(UPA)的疗效和安全性,达帕替尼(UPA)的初始剂量为15毫克,并根据临床反应将剂量递增至30毫克,与标签上的杜比鲁单抗(DUPI)进行比较。本文介绍了第16周的主要分析结果:Level Up是一项3b/4期全球性、随机、开放标签、疗效评估盲法研究,评估UPA与DUPI在中重度AD青少年和成人患者中的疗效,这些患者对全身治疗反应不足或不宜使用全身治疗。患者随机接受 UPA 或 DUPI 治疗,疗程为 16 周(第一阶段)。接受UPA治疗的患者起始剂量为15毫克,如果在第4周后湿疹面积和严重程度指数(EASI)未至少降低50%(EASI 50),或最严重瘙痒数字评定量表(WP-NRS)改善≥4分,或在第8周后EASI未达到75分,则剂量递增至30毫克。主要终点是在第 16 周同时达到 EASI 90 和 WP-NRS 0/1。排名次要终点包括不同反应水平和时间点的皮肤和瘙痒反应。在整个研究过程中对安全性进行了评估:结果:UPA 与 DUPI 相比,在第 16 周同时获得 EASI 90 和 WP-NRS 0/1 反应的疗效更优(分别为 19.9% 与 8.9%;p 结论:UPA 与 DUPI 相比,疗效更优:使用UPA治疗中度至重度AD,起始剂量为15毫克,并根据临床反应逐渐增加剂量,在第16周同时达到近乎完全皮肤清除(EASI 90)和几乎无痒(WP-NRS 0/1)的主要终点上,UPA与DUPI相比具有标签规定的优越性,在不同的皮肤和瘙痒反应水平和时间点上,所有次要终点均显示出优越性。与之前报告的 UPA 和 DUPI 的安全性相比,没有发现新的安全性信号。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of Dermatology
British Journal of Dermatology 医学-皮肤病学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
3.90%
发文量
1062
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Dermatology (BJD) is committed to publishing the highest quality dermatological research. Through its publications, the journal seeks to advance the understanding, management, and treatment of skin diseases, ultimately aiming to improve patient outcomes.
期刊最新文献
Exploration of the mutational landscape of cutaneous leiomyoma confirms FH as a driver gene and identifies targeting purine metabolism as a potential therapeutic strategy. The perceived quality of life in adult patients with inherited ichthyosis: a qualitative interview study. CCR8/CCL1 and CXCR3/CXCL10 axis mediated memory T cell activations in recalcitrant drug-induced hypersensitivity patients. Ethical implications of artificial intelligence in skin cancer diagnostics: use-case analyses. A Case of Biologic-Resistant Hand Dermatitis Demonstrates Dual T2/T17 Transcriptomic Abnormalities and Responds to JAK Inhibition.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1