Short-Term Effectiveness and Safety of Biologics and Small Molecule Drugs for Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Comparative efficacy and safety of dupilumab versus newly approved biologics and JAKi in pediatric atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The newly approved biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) for pediatric atopic dermatitis (AD) offer additional options for clinical treatment. However, the efficacy and safety differences compared to the first approved biologic, dupilumab, remain unclear. Therefore, a network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate these differences and identify potentially superior agents.

METHODS

This systematic review was PROSPERO-registered (CRD42024583658). Randomized controlled trials involving pediatric patients (<18 years old) published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to October 27, 2024 were searched and screened. RevMan software was utilized for quality assessment, and  meta-analysis was performed using R version 4.4.1. Efficacy measures included the Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), the Numeric Rating Scale for Itch (NRS), and the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI). The results of these measures were expressed as odds ratios (OR), while treatment rankings of different interventions were determined using the P-score.

RESULT

This study included 11 trials involving 7 agents and 2,352 pediatric patients. The results indicated that dupilumab (300 mg) showed better outcomes than placebo in IGA-0/1 (OR =  4.68, 95% CI: 2.53-8.63), NRS-4 (OR =  6.75, 95% CI: 3.85-11.86), and all EASI outcomes. Tralokinumab may be the most effective option for alleviating pruritus (P-score for NRS-4, 0.8447). Upadacitinib (30 mg) performed best in IGA-0/1 (P-score, 0.9414), EASI-90 (P-score, 0.9926), and EASI-75 (P-score, 0.9707). Dupilumab (300 mg) had a higher risk of nasopharyngitis compared to placebo (OR = 2.15, 95%CI: 1.04-4.43). Compared to both placebo and dupilumab (300 mg), adverse event rates were higher with upadacitinib (15 mg and 30 mg), and upper respiratory tract infection risk was elevated with baricitinib (2 mg and 4 mg) and tralokinumab (300 mg).

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of dupilumab for pediatric AD remains substantial, while other agents including upadacitinib, delgocitinib, and tralokinumab also present certain advantages. Future clinical trials may necessitate further evaluation of safety concerns.

Comparative efficacy of biologics and small molecule drugs in treating pediatric atopic dermatitis in patients aged 2-18 years: A 12-16 week network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) predominantly manifests before age five, with significant phenotype variations across age groups. Despite increasing systemic treatments for pediatric AD, head-to-head comparisons in network meta-analyses focused on children are scarce.

METHODS

Through systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to March 2024, we identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe AD in children aged 2-18 years. From 900 screened articles, 8 RCTs (n = 2636) met inclusion criteria, comparing dupilumab, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and abrocitinib versus placebo with standard care. Primary outcome was Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores at 12-16 weeks.

RESULTS

Upadacitinib demonstrated highest efficacy at both 30 mg (risk difference [RD] 0.62 [0.53, 0.71]) and 15 mg (RD 0.52 [0.42, 0.62]). Dupilumab (weight-based dosing with corticosteroids; RD 0.43 [0.29, 0.57]), abrocitinib (200 mg; RD 0.40 [0.29, 0.50]; 100 mg; RD 0.30 [0.20, 0.41]), and baricitinib (4 mg; RD 0.21 [0.06, 0.35]) also showed significant efficacy over placebo.

CONCLUSION

This analysis establishes a hierarchy of effectiveness among systemic therapies for pediatric AD, with upadacitinib showing highest efficacy. However, the predominance of adolescent data emphasizes the need for age-stratified studies in younger children and long-term safety assessments.

Safety of Upadacitinib in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Systematic Literature Review of Indirect and Direct Treatment Comparisons of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), non-radiographic axial spondylarthritis (nr-axSpA), atopic dermatitis (AD), ulcerative colitis (UC), and Crohn's disease (CD) pose a substantial burden on patients and their quality of life. Upadacitinib is an orally administered, selective, and reversible Janus kinase inhibitor indicated for seven conditions, but data on its safety versus other active treatments are limited. A systematic literature review of indirect and direct treatment comparisons of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to assess the safety profile of upadacitinib.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for indirect and direct treatment comparisons of RCTs that (1) included licensed upadacitinib dosages; (2) studied any of the seven conditions; (3) reported any adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), AEs leading to discontinuation, major adverse cardiovascular event, venous thromboembolism, malignancies, infections or serious infections, and death; and (4) were published between January 2018 and August 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies were eligible for inclusion. SAEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, and any AEs were commonly studied. RA was the most studied condition, followed by AD and UC. Most studies (16/25, 64%) reported no statistically significant difference in the studied safety outcomes between upadacitinib and other active treatments (e.g., tumor necrosis factor blockers, interleukin receptor antagonists, integrin receptor antagonists, T cell co-stimulation modulator), or placebo (placebo ± methotrexate or topical corticosteroids). Other studies (9/25, 36%) reported mixed results of no statistically significant difference and either statistically higher (8/25, 32%) or lower rates (1/25, 4%) on upadacitinib.

CONCLUSION

Most studies suggested that upadacitinib has no statistically significant difference in the studied safety outcomes compared to active treatments or placebo in patients with RA, PsA, AS, AD, UC, and CD. A few studies reported higher rates, but findings were inconsistent with limited interpretation.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Long-Term Efficacy Maintenance and Adverse Event Rates of Lebrikizumab versus Dupilumab in Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis

INTRODUCTION

Lebrikizumab and dupilumab are monoclonal antibodies approved for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Both have demonstrated efficacy and safety over the 16-week SOLOs and ADvocate trials. However, AD is a chronic and relapsing inflammatory disease, and the long-term maintenance of efficacy is critical for achieving disease control from the perspective of patients, physicians, and regulatory agencies. This study aims to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) and dupilumab every week or every 2 weeks (QW/Q2W) among adult patients who have achieved treatment efficacy following the induction period of 16 weeks.

METHODS

Lebrikizumab's efficacy was assessed using individual patient data (IPD) from the ADvocate 1 and 2 monotherapy trials. Dupilumab's efficacy was evaluated using aggregate data from the adult-exclusive SOLO-CONTINUE trial. Due to the absence of a common comparator trial arm, we employed an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), a robust methodology widely accepted by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. This re-weights ADvocate IPD to align with SOLO-CONTINUE's prognostic factors and effect modifiers. We compared lebrikizumab's adjusted outcomes with dupilumab outcomes at week 52, focusing on 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index from baseline (EASI-75), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, and overall adverse event (AE) rates. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test various combinations of matching variables.

RESULTS

Adults on lebrikizumab Q4W were more likely to maintain IGA 0/1 through the 36-week maintenance period (weeks 16-52) compared with those on dupilumab QW/Q2W [risk ratio (RR) 1.334; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.74; p = 0.035]. Both treatments demonstrated comparable efficacy in terms of EASI-75 maintenance (RR 0.937; 95% CI 0.78-1.13; p = 0.490) and similar AE rates (RR 1.052; 95% CI 0.90-1.23; p = 0.526). Sensitivity analyses substantiated these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that lebrikizumab Q4W may provide equal or superior long-term maintenance of efficacy measured with EASI-75 and IGA 0/1 compared with dupilumab QW/Q2W, with the advantage of requiring less frequent doses.

Costo per NNT di upadacitinib nel trattamento dei pazienti con dermatite atopica da moderata a severa in Italia

Background:

Targeted systemic therapies, including abrocitinib, baricitinib, dupilumab, tralokinumab and upadacitinib, are new treatments for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). We evaluated the efficacy and the costs of these targeted systemic therapies in the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe AD.

Methods:

The clinical efficacy was assessed considering the results of a previous network meta-analysis (NMA). The analysis involved five therapies approved in Italy for the treatment of moderate to severe AD: abrocitinib (ABR), baricitinib (BAR), dupilumab (DUP), tralokinumab (TRA) and upadacitinib (UPA). According to the NMA, the cost of the treatment was based on the number of administrations dispensed at 16 weeks and the clinical efficacy was measured by the number needed to treat (NNT) compared to placebo using the improvement ≥ 75% (EASI-75) or ≥ 90 (EASI-90) from baseline of the eczema area and severity index (EASI). Only the ex-factory price of the targeted systemic therapies was considered. The cost per NNT was adopted as a cost-effectiveness indicator.

Results:

At 16 weeks, the cost per NNT based on EASI-75 was lower for UPA 15 mg (€ 6,384.00) compared to BAR 4 mg (€ 11,619.73) and 2 mg (€ 14,524.66), ABR 100 mg (€ 16,265.22), DUP 300 mg (€ 16,115.04) and TRA 300 mg (€ 31,710.24). UPA 15 (€ 8,512.00) also showed the lower cost per NNT based on EASI-90 at 16 weeks compared to BAR 4 mg (€ 14,788.75) and 2 mg (€ 20,862.70), ABR 100 mg (€ 25,922.69), DUP 300 mg (€ 25,992.00) and TRA 300 mg (€ 41,067.36).

Conclusions:

The findings show that upadacitinib is the most cost-effective option (cost per NNT) for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

Clinical Approach to Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Spanish Delphi Consensus

Despite emerging evidence and advances in the management of atopic dermatitis there a lack of consensus regarding the diagnostic criteria, therapeutic approach, method to assess severity, and patient follow-up for this condition. An expert consensus study was conducted to provide recommendations on the management of patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. The study used Delphi-like methodology based on a literature review, a summary of the scientific evidence, and a 2-round survey. The agreement of 60 panellists on 21 statements was evaluated. Consensus was pre-defined as ≥ 80% agreement of all respondents. In the first round 6 statements reached consensus. Unanimous consensus was achieved regarding therapeutic goals and patient satisfaction (maintained in the long term and periodic goals reassessment recommended every 3-6 months). In the second round, half of the statements reached consensus, all related to patient follow-up, treatment goals, and atopic comorbidities. The statements that did not reach consensus were related to diagnosis (biomarkers, allergy, and food testing) and starting patients on conventional systemic treatment rather than advanced treatment. The study assessed expert opinion regarding a variety of topics related to the clinical approach to patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, in order to provide guidance on the diagnosis and management of patients with atopic dermatitis.

Assessment of Efficacy and Safety Outcomes Beyond Week 16 in Clinical Trials of Systemic Agents Used for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Combination with Topical Corticosteroids

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory disease requiring efficacious and safe long-term therapy. Several new systemic treatments have recently been approved for use in patients with moderate to severe AD. However, head-to-head comparisons have not been conducted for all the currently available treatments for AD. Multiple network meta-analyses have compared efficacy of these different therapies during the initial 16-week treatment period, but not beyond week 16. Therefore, understanding the differences in key trial design and statistical methods is essential for evaluating long-term efficacy, making cross-trial comparisons, and informing treatment decisions. This focused narrative review provides an overview of data and trial methodology to guide clinicians in evaluating longer-term efficacy and safety of currently approved systemic treatments for patients with AD. We discuss important elements of longer-term trial designs and statistical analysis strategies that should be considered based on our experience as clinical trialists. In addition, a summary of key efficacy results of published, longer-term, phase III clinical trials of US Food and Drug Administration-approved, novel systemic treatments (i.e., dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, and upadacitinib) is provided, including the design and data handling methods used. Long-term safety considerations and differences in the time-effect and safety profiles of various medications are also noted to help inform clinical decisions for individual patients. Overall, the findings of these trials support efficacy in long-term treatment with novel systemic agents for patients with AD.

Optimal Use of Jak Inhibitors and Biologics for Atopic Dermatitis on the Basis of the Current Evidence

Recently, Jak inhibitors such as baricitinib, upadacitinib, and abrocitinib were approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in addition to biologics, including dupilumab, tralokinumab, and nemolizumab. The increase in treatment options can be a benefit to patients with AD. Meanwhile, it could make it difficult for physicians to choose the best treatment among those treatment options. Biologics and Jak inhibitors differ in efficacy, safety, route of administration, and whether or not there is a concern about immunogenicity in addition to the evidence on comorbidities. Among the three Jak inhibitors, the degree of inhibition of signal transducer and activator of transcription differs in each Jak inhibitor. Therefore, the efficacy and safety profiles of the three Jak inhibitors are different. Physicians who treat patients with AD with Jak inhibitors and biologics need to understand the current evidence and choose the best treatment for individual patients. In this review, we discuss how integrating knowledge of the mechanisms of action of Jak inhibitors and biologics, the potential significant adverse events of these drugs, and the age and comorbidities of the patient can help achieve optimal clinical benefit for patients with moderate-to-severe AD refractory to topical agents.

Effectiveness of Upadacitinib in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis including those with Inadequate Response to Dupilumab and/or Baricitinib: Results from the BioDay Registry

Clinical trials showed that upadacitinib, a selective Janus kinase-1 inhibitor, is effective for treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. However, daily practice studies are limited. This multicentre prospective study evaluated the effectiveness of 16 weeks of upadacitinib treatment for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in adult patients, including those with previous inadequate response to dupilumab and/or baricitinib, in daily practice. A total of 47 patients from the Dutch BioDay registry treated with upadacitinib were included. Patients were evaluated at baseline, and after 4, 8 and 16 weeks of treatment. Effectiveness was assessed by clinician- and patient-reported outcome measurements. Safety was assessed by adverse events and laboratory assessments. Overall, the probabilities (95% confidence intervals) of achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index ≤ 7 and Numerical Rating Scale - pruritus ≤ 4 were 73.0% (53.7-86.3) and 69.4% (48.7-84.4), respectively. The effectiveness of upadacitinib was comparable in patients with inadequate response to dupilumab and/or baricitinib and in patients who were naïve for these treatments or who had stopped such treatments due to adverse events. Fourteen (29.8%) patients discontinued upadacitinib due to ineffectiveness, adverse events or both (8.5%, 14.9% and 6.4%, respectively). Most frequently reported adverse events were acneiform eruptions (n = 10, 21.3%), herpes simplex (n = 6, 12.8%), nausea and airway infections (both n = 4, 8.5%). In conclusion, upadacitinib is an effective treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, including those with previous inadequate response to dupilumab and/or baricitinib treatment.

Atopic Dermatitis: Background, Objectives and Future Perspectives (Superresponders)

In this Special Issue entitled Atopic Dermatitis: New Perspectives, we have tried to collect research of special interest related mainly to the incorporation of pathophysiological aspects and therapeutic novelties in this regard [...].

Dupilumab Improves Skin Barrier Function in Adults with Atopic Dermatitis: A Prospective Observational Study

Epidermal barrier dysfunction plays an important role in atopic dermatitis (AD). The difficulty of objectively assessing AD severity and the introduction of new biologicals into clinical practice highlight the need to find parameters to monitor clinical outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of dupilumab on skin barrier function and compare it with other treatments in patients with AD. A prospective observational study was conducted in adults with AD treated with topical corticosteroids (TCS), cyclosporine, or dupilumab. The main outcome measures after 16 weeks of treatment were Eczema Area and Severity (EASI)-50 (50% improvement in EASI), and transepidermal water loss (TEWL)-50 (50% improvement in TEWL). Forty-six patients with AD were included in the study. The proportion of patients who achieved EASI-50 at week 16 was significantly higher in patients receiving dupilumab (81.8% vs. 28.6% vs. 40%, p = 0.004). In eczematous lesions, TEWL decreased in patients receiving dupilumab (31.02 vs. 12.10 g·h−1·m−2, p < 0.001) and TCS (25.30 vs. 14.88 g·h−1·m−2, p = 0.047). The proportion of patients who achieved TEWL-50 at week 16 was higher for dupilumab than for cyclosporine or TCS. Temperature only decreased in the dupilumab group. Stratum corneum hydration increased in eczematous lesions and non-involved skin only in patients with dupilumab. In conclusion, dupilumab improves skin barrier function in patients with AD better than TCS or cyclosporine, both in eczematous lesions and in non-lesioned skin.

Once-Daily Abrocitinib for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Adults and Adolescents Aged 12 Years and Over: A Short Review of Current Clinical Perspectives

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder with high prevalence and a complex pathophysiology. This relapsing and remitting skin disorder has many negative consequences on the patient’s quality of life and that of his family. Until now, moderate-to-severe AD treatment was a symptomatic one, using skin emollients, topical corticosteroids, phototherapy, antihistamines and systemic drugs – immune suppressants and other systemic treatments (dupilumab). Starting from 2021, abrocitinib, a Janus kinase-1 inhibitor, was approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe cases of AD in Europe, in adults. Multiple phase three studies (JADE MONO-1 [NCT03349060]; JADE MONO-2 [NCT03575871]; JADE TEEN [NCT03796676]; JADE COMPARE; GOODERHAM; JADE EXTEND) have yielded positive results in adults and adolescents suffering from this disease, with efficacy, a good tolerance, safe profile, and with generally mild side effects. The positive results were obtained even starting from the first stages of the oral drug administration. The low frequency of side effects and the advantage of having an orally administered medication makes abrocitinib an important additional tool for the treatment of moderate-to-severe forms of AD.