Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib in patients with moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis and comorbid allergies

Background: Abrocitinib efficacy by comorbidity status in patients with moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis (AD) has not been previously assessed. This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of abrocitinib in patients with AD and allergic comorbidities. Methods: Data were pooled from patients who received abrocitinib 200 mg, 100 mg, or placebo in phase 2b (NCT02780167) and phase 3 (NCT03349060, NCT03575871) monotherapy trials. Patients with and without allergic comorbidities (allergic asthma, rhinitis, conjunctivitis, or food allergy) were evaluated for Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) response (clear [0] or almost clear [1]), ≥75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI‐75), ≥4‐point improvement in Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP‐NRS4), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) response (<2 with baseline score ≥2). Other outcomes were Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD), Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD), and treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: Of 942 patients, 498 (53%) reported at least one allergic comorbidity (asthma only, 33%; conjunctivitis only or rhinitis only or both, 17%; food allergies only, 15%; >1 allergic comorbidity, 34%). Regardless of comorbidity status, from Week 2 to Week 12, higher percentages of patients treated with either abrocitinib dose achieved IGA 0/1, EASI‐75, PP‐NRS4, or DLQI 0/1 versus placebo‐treated patients. Changes from baseline in POEM, SCORAD, and PSAAD were greater with abrocitinib than with placebo in patients with and without allergic comorbidities. Most TEAEs were mild or moderate. Conclusions: Efficacy and safety data support abrocitinib use to manage AD in patients with or without allergic comorbidities

Public health and valorization of genome-based technologies: a new model

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The success rate of timely translation of genome-based technologies to commercially feasible products/services with applicability in health care systems is significantly low. We identified both industry and scientists neglect health policy aspects when commercializing their technology, more specifically, Public Health Assessment Tools (PHAT) and early on involvement of decision makers through which market authorization and reimbursements are dependent. While Technology Transfer (TT) aims to facilitate translation of ideas into products, Health Technology Assessment, one component of PHAT, for example, facilitates translation of products/processes into healthcare services and eventually comes up with recommendations for decision makers. We aim to propose a new model of valorization to optimize integration of genome-based technologies into the healthcare system.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The method used to develop our model is an adapted version of the Fish Trap Model and the Basic Design Cycle.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found although different, similarities exist between TT and PHAT. Realizing the potential of being mutually beneficial justified our proposal of their relative parallel initiation. We observed that the Public Health Genomics Wheel should be included in this relative parallel activity to ensure all societal/policy aspects are dealt with preemptively by both stakeholders. On further analysis, we found out this whole process is dependent on the Value of Information. As a result, we present our LAL (Learning Adapting Leveling) model which proposes, based on market demand; TT and PHAT by consultation/bi-lateral communication should advocate for relevant technologies. This can be achieved by public-private partnerships (PPPs). These widely defined PPPs create the innovation network which is a developing, consultative/collaborative-networking platform between TT and PHAT. This network has iterations and requires learning, assimilating and using knowledge developed and is called absorption capacity. We hypothesize that the higher absorption capacity, higher success possibility. Our model however does not address the phasing out of technology although we believe the same model can be used to simultaneously phase out a technology.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This model proposes to facilitate optimization/decrease the timeframe of integration in healthcare. It also helps industry and researchers to come to a strategic decision at an early stage, about technology being developed thus, saving on resources, hence minimizing failures.</p

Comparative efficacy and safety of systemic therapies used in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

Given the lack of head-to-head studies of systemic therapies in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), network meta-analyses (NMAs) can provide comparative efficacy and safety data to inform clinical decision-making. In this NMA, eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before 24 October 2019 were identified by a systematic literature review. Short-term (12–16 weeks) efficacy (Investigator’s Global Assessment [IGA] and Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI] responses), patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and safety data from each trial were abstracted and analysed separately for monotherapy and combination therapy (systemic plus topical anti-inflammatory therapy). RCTs were analysed in fixed-effects and random-effects Bayesian NMA models. Overall, 19 phase 2 and phase 3 RCTs of abrocitinib, baricitinib, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, nemolizumab, tralokinumab and upadacitinib were included. In monotherapy RCTs, upadacitinib 30 mg once daily (QD) had the numerically highest efficacy (83.6% achieved ≥50% improvement in EASI [EASI-50 response]), followed by abrocitinib 200 mg QD (74.6%), upadacitinib 15 mg QD (70.5%), dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) (63.4%) and abrocitinib 100 mg QD (56.7%). Similar trends in EASI-75 and EASI-90 response were observed. In combination therapy RCTs, abrocitinib 200 mg QD had the highest EASI-50 (86.6%), followed by dupilumab 300 mg Q2W (82.4%) and abrocitinib 100 mg QD (79.7%). Similar findings were observed for IGA response and PROs. In monotherapy and combination therapy RCTs, the probability of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was higher among all active treatments than with placebo (except for dupilumab 300 mg Q2W [odds ratio (OR), 0.96; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.45–2.18] and abrocitinib 100 mg QD [OR, 0.95; 95% CrI, 0.35–2.66] in combination therapy RCTs), although active treatments did not significantly differ from one another. Abrocitinib, dupilumab and upadacitinib were consistently the most effective systemic therapies in adult and adolescent patients with AD, with no significant TEAE differences in short-term RCTs

Abrocitinib effect on patient-reported outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Results from phase 3 studies, including the long-term extension JADE EXTEND study

BACKGROUND: Abrocitinib improved signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) at 12/16 weeks in phase 3 studies, with a manageable safety profile. Patient-reported outcomes with long-term abrocitinib treatment were not reported. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes with long-term abrocitinib treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. METHODS: JADE EXTEND (NCT03422822) is an ongoing phase 3 long-term extension study that enrolled patients from previous abrocitinib AD trials. This analysis includes patients from the phase 3 JADE MONO-1 (NCT03349060), JADE MONO-2 (NCT03575871), and JADE COMPARE (NCT03720470) trials who completed the full treatment period of placebo or abrocitinib (200 mg or 100 mg once-daily) and subsequently entered JADE EXTEND and were randomized to receive once-daily abrocitinib 200 mg or 100 mg. Patient-reported endpoints to week 48 included the proportion of patients who achieved Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores of 0/1 (no effect of AD on quality of life [QoL]) and a ≥4-point improvement in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) score (clinically meaningful improvement). Data cutoff: April 22, 2020. RESULTS: Baseline DLQI mean scores were 15.4 and 15.3 in the abrocitinib 200 mg and 100 mg groups, respectively, which corresponded to a very large effect on QoL; at week 48, mean DLQI scores were lower with abrocitinib 200 mg (4.6; small effect on QoL) and abrocitinib 100 mg (5.9; moderate effect on QoL). Baseline POEM mean scores were 20.4 and 20.5 in the abrocitinib 200 mg and 100 mg groups, respectively; at week 48, mean POEM scores were 8.2 and 11.0. Week 48 patient-reported responses with abrocitinib 200 mg and abrocitinib 100 mg were 44% and 34% for DLQI 0/1, and 90% and 77% for a ≥4-point reduction in POEM score. CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate-to-severe AD, long-term abrocitinib treatment resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported symptoms of AD, including QoL