在临床实践中采用一种可扩展的方法来评估最近上市的特应性皮炎系统治疗方法的安全性。

Maria C Schneeweiss, Robert J Glynn, Richard Wyss, Priyanka Anand, Yinzhu Jin, Joan Landon, Arash Mostaghimi, Joseph F Merola, Jonathan I Silverberg, David M Rosmarin, Robert Sidbury, Sebastian Schneeweiss
{"title":"在临床实践中采用一种可扩展的方法来评估最近上市的特应性皮炎系统治疗方法的安全性。","authors":"Maria C Schneeweiss, Robert J Glynn, Richard Wyss, Priyanka Anand, Yinzhu Jin, Joan Landon, Arash Mostaghimi, Joseph F Merola, Jonathan I Silverberg, David M Rosmarin, Robert Sidbury, Sebastian Schneeweiss","doi":"10.1016/j.jid.2024.08.034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Targeted systemic immune-modulating drugs (IMDs) to treat atopic dermatitis (AD) were highly efficacious in randomized trials. Trials with limited number of subjects leave questions about their safety. We describe a data and analytics structure for the production of timely, high-quality evidence on the comparative safety of recently approved IMDs in patients with AD in clinical practice. We established a series of sequential propensity score (PS)-balanced cohorts that grow in size with each annual data refresh. Nine health outcomes of interest plus conjunctivitis as a positive tracer outcome were identified. The initial treatment comparison was dupilumab, an interleukin-4/13 inhibitor, or tralokinumab, an interleukin-13 inhibitor, versus abrocitinib/upadacitinib, both JAK inhibitors. The first analysis cycle (December 2021-February 2023) compared 269 patients initiating JAK inhibitors and 2,650 initiating IL-4/IL-13 inhibitors. Patient characteristics were well balanced after PS-matching. Outpatient infections within 180 days occurred in 18% of JAK-1 inhibitor initiators versus 12% of dupilumab/ tralokinumab initiators (RR=1.50; 0.96 to 2.33) whereas acne risks were 7% vs. 3%, respectively (RR=2.29, 0.96 to 5.46). This sequential monitoring system will produce essential knowledge on the safety of IMDs to treat AD based on its growing study size of patients observed in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":94239,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of investigative dermatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scalable approach to assess the safety of recently marketed systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis in clinical practice.\",\"authors\":\"Maria C Schneeweiss, Robert J Glynn, Richard Wyss, Priyanka Anand, Yinzhu Jin, Joan Landon, Arash Mostaghimi, Joseph F Merola, Jonathan I Silverberg, David M Rosmarin, Robert Sidbury, Sebastian Schneeweiss\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jid.2024.08.034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Targeted systemic immune-modulating drugs (IMDs) to treat atopic dermatitis (AD) were highly efficacious in randomized trials. Trials with limited number of subjects leave questions about their safety. We describe a data and analytics structure for the production of timely, high-quality evidence on the comparative safety of recently approved IMDs in patients with AD in clinical practice. We established a series of sequential propensity score (PS)-balanced cohorts that grow in size with each annual data refresh. Nine health outcomes of interest plus conjunctivitis as a positive tracer outcome were identified. The initial treatment comparison was dupilumab, an interleukin-4/13 inhibitor, or tralokinumab, an interleukin-13 inhibitor, versus abrocitinib/upadacitinib, both JAK inhibitors. The first analysis cycle (December 2021-February 2023) compared 269 patients initiating JAK inhibitors and 2,650 initiating IL-4/IL-13 inhibitors. Patient characteristics were well balanced after PS-matching. Outpatient infections within 180 days occurred in 18% of JAK-1 inhibitor initiators versus 12% of dupilumab/ tralokinumab initiators (RR=1.50; 0.96 to 2.33) whereas acne risks were 7% vs. 3%, respectively (RR=2.29, 0.96 to 5.46). This sequential monitoring system will produce essential knowledge on the safety of IMDs to treat AD based on its growing study size of patients observed in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94239,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of investigative dermatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of investigative dermatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2024.08.034\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of investigative dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2024.08.034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

治疗特应性皮炎(AD)的靶向性全身免疫调节药物(IMDs)在随机试验中疗效显著。但受试者人数有限的试验对其安全性提出了质疑。我们介绍了一种数据和分析结构,用于及时提供高质量的证据,说明最近批准的 IMDs 在临床实践中对 AD 患者的安全性比较。我们建立了一系列连续的倾向得分(PS)平衡队列,其规模随着每年数据的更新而扩大。我们确定了九种相关的健康结果以及作为阳性示踪结果的结膜炎。最初的治疗比较是白细胞介素-4/13抑制剂杜必鲁单抗或白细胞介素-13抑制剂曲妥珠单抗与阿罗西替尼/乌帕他替尼(均为JAK抑制剂)。第一个分析周期(2021年12月至2023年2月)比较了269名开始使用JAK抑制剂的患者和2650名开始使用IL-4/IL-13抑制剂的患者。经过 PS 匹配后,患者特征非常均衡。JAK-1抑制剂启动者在180天内发生门诊感染的比例为18%,而杜比鲁单抗/曲妥珠单抗启动者为12%(RR=1.50;0.96-2.33),而痤疮风险分别为7%和3%(RR=2.29,0.96-5.46)。基于对临床实践中观察到的患者进行的研究规模不断扩大,这一连续监测系统将为IMDs治疗AD的安全性提供重要知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A scalable approach to assess the safety of recently marketed systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis in clinical practice.

Targeted systemic immune-modulating drugs (IMDs) to treat atopic dermatitis (AD) were highly efficacious in randomized trials. Trials with limited number of subjects leave questions about their safety. We describe a data and analytics structure for the production of timely, high-quality evidence on the comparative safety of recently approved IMDs in patients with AD in clinical practice. We established a series of sequential propensity score (PS)-balanced cohorts that grow in size with each annual data refresh. Nine health outcomes of interest plus conjunctivitis as a positive tracer outcome were identified. The initial treatment comparison was dupilumab, an interleukin-4/13 inhibitor, or tralokinumab, an interleukin-13 inhibitor, versus abrocitinib/upadacitinib, both JAK inhibitors. The first analysis cycle (December 2021-February 2023) compared 269 patients initiating JAK inhibitors and 2,650 initiating IL-4/IL-13 inhibitors. Patient characteristics were well balanced after PS-matching. Outpatient infections within 180 days occurred in 18% of JAK-1 inhibitor initiators versus 12% of dupilumab/ tralokinumab initiators (RR=1.50; 0.96 to 2.33) whereas acne risks were 7% vs. 3%, respectively (RR=2.29, 0.96 to 5.46). This sequential monitoring system will produce essential knowledge on the safety of IMDs to treat AD based on its growing study size of patients observed in clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Abrogation of USP9X Is a Potential Strategy to Decrease PEG10 Levels and Impede Tumor Progression in Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma. Intravenous Ig Ameliorates Disease in a Murine Model of Anti-Laminin 332 Mucous Membrane Pemphigoid. Desmosomal Hyper-Adhesion Affects Direct Inhibition of Desmoglein Interactions in Pemphigus. SERPINB3/B4 Is Increased in Psoriasis and Rosacea Lesions and Has Proinflammatory Effects in Mouse Models of these Diseases. Keratinocytes Present Staphylococcus aureus Enterotoxins and Promote Malignant and Nonmalignant T Cell Proliferation in Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma.
×
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