特应性皮炎临床试验的疗效结果:系统性文献综述

Raj Chovatiya, Aseel Bin Sawad, Janine Fournier, Donna Fountain, Caroline Shaw, Jasmine Toomey, Mariola Vazquez, A. Tallman, Doral Fredericks
{"title":"特应性皮炎临床试验的疗效结果:系统性文献综述","authors":"Raj Chovatiya, Aseel Bin Sawad, Janine Fournier, Donna Fountain, Caroline Shaw, Jasmine Toomey, Mariola Vazquez, A. Tallman, Doral Fredericks","doi":"10.25251/skin.8.supp.381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Complete skin clearance is a key atopic dermatitis (AD) treatment goal. Treatment efficacy in AD trials is evaluated using a range of clinical measures with the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) as a key endpoint. Multiple and varied forms of the IGA scale are utilized across trials, including the Investigator’s Static Global Assessment and the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for ADTM. IGA scores usually range from 0 (clear) to 1 (almost clear), 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), and 4 (severe), but contain differences in detail assessed. Efficacy endpoints using IGA scales include achieving IGA=0 or 1 with ≥2-point improvement from baseline, or IGA=0. The Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and achievement of ≥75% or ≥90% improvement from baseline (EASI75 and EASI90) are additional gold-standard measurements. \nObjective: To compare differences in efficacy outcomes in recent clinical trials of FDA-approved AD treatments for adults and children. \nMethods: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and hand search to identify AD trials published in English language between January 1, 2016 and August 16, 2023. Trials could include patients with any severity of AD who were treated with topical therapies (crisaborole, ruxolitinib), injectable systemics (dupilumab, tralokinumab), or oral systemics (upadacitinib, abrocitinib) according to approved indications. Efficacy outcomes of IGA=0 or 1 with ≥2-point improvement, IGA=0, EASI75, and EASI90 were categorized and summarized by AD severity, treatment type, and age groups in the trials. \nResults: Of 50 publications identified, 40 (80%) reported randomized controlled trials, 2 (4%) single-arm trials, and 8 (16%) open-label extension trials. By patient age groups, 11 publications were on children (<12 years), 8 on adolescents (12–17 years),15 on patients ≥12 years, and 17 on adults (≥18 years). Moderate to severe AD was the most frequently studied severity (38/50 publications), of which all trials were either as systemic monotherapy or systemic therapy combined with a topical. Topical monotherapy for mild to moderate AD only was reported in 8/50 publications. For topicals, achievement of IGA=0 (clear) was not reported for any age group, and no trials reported EASI90 for children <12 years. For injectable systemics, no outcome was reported for IGA=0 (clear) in children <12 years. For oral systemics, no outcomes were reported for children <12 years. \nConclusions: This literature search of AD trial publications on FDA-approved treatments from 2016 onwards revealed several gaps in available outcomes data. There were no trials that assessed a topical therapy for moderate to severe AD, and complete disease clearance (IGA=0) was not demonstrated for any topicals. The findings reinforce the unmet need for a topical AD treatment that can provide high efficacy including complete clearance without restriction based on age or disease severity. \nFunding Support: Dermavant Sciences, Inc.","PeriodicalId":22013,"journal":{"name":"SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine","volume":"38 16","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Atopic Dermatitis Treatments: A Systematic Literature Review\",\"authors\":\"Raj Chovatiya, Aseel Bin Sawad, Janine Fournier, Donna Fountain, Caroline Shaw, Jasmine Toomey, Mariola Vazquez, A. Tallman, Doral Fredericks\",\"doi\":\"10.25251/skin.8.supp.381\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Complete skin clearance is a key atopic dermatitis (AD) treatment goal. Treatment efficacy in AD trials is evaluated using a range of clinical measures with the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) as a key endpoint. Multiple and varied forms of the IGA scale are utilized across trials, including the Investigator’s Static Global Assessment and the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for ADTM. IGA scores usually range from 0 (clear) to 1 (almost clear), 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), and 4 (severe), but contain differences in detail assessed. Efficacy endpoints using IGA scales include achieving IGA=0 or 1 with ≥2-point improvement from baseline, or IGA=0. The Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and achievement of ≥75% or ≥90% improvement from baseline (EASI75 and EASI90) are additional gold-standard measurements. \\nObjective: To compare differences in efficacy outcomes in recent clinical trials of FDA-approved AD treatments for adults and children. \\nMethods: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and hand search to identify AD trials published in English language between January 1, 2016 and August 16, 2023. Trials could include patients with any severity of AD who were treated with topical therapies (crisaborole, ruxolitinib), injectable systemics (dupilumab, tralokinumab), or oral systemics (upadacitinib, abrocitinib) according to approved indications. Efficacy outcomes of IGA=0 or 1 with ≥2-point improvement, IGA=0, EASI75, and EASI90 were categorized and summarized by AD severity, treatment type, and age groups in the trials. \\nResults: Of 50 publications identified, 40 (80%) reported randomized controlled trials, 2 (4%) single-arm trials, and 8 (16%) open-label extension trials. By patient age groups, 11 publications were on children (<12 years), 8 on adolescents (12–17 years),15 on patients ≥12 years, and 17 on adults (≥18 years). Moderate to severe AD was the most frequently studied severity (38/50 publications), of which all trials were either as systemic monotherapy or systemic therapy combined with a topical. Topical monotherapy for mild to moderate AD only was reported in 8/50 publications. For topicals, achievement of IGA=0 (clear) was not reported for any age group, and no trials reported EASI90 for children <12 years. For injectable systemics, no outcome was reported for IGA=0 (clear) in children <12 years. For oral systemics, no outcomes were reported for children <12 years. \\nConclusions: This literature search of AD trial publications on FDA-approved treatments from 2016 onwards revealed several gaps in available outcomes data. There were no trials that assessed a topical therapy for moderate to severe AD, and complete disease clearance (IGA=0) was not demonstrated for any topicals. The findings reinforce the unmet need for a topical AD treatment that can provide high efficacy including complete clearance without restriction based on age or disease severity. \\nFunding Support: Dermavant Sciences, Inc.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine\",\"volume\":\"38 16\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25251/skin.8.supp.381\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25251/skin.8.supp.381","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

简介:皮肤完全清除是特应性皮炎(AD)治疗的关键目标。特应性皮炎试验中的疗效评估采用一系列临床测量方法,其中研究者总体评估(IGA)是关键终点。各试验采用了多种不同形式的 IGA 量表,包括研究者静态总体评估和 ADTM 经验证的研究者总体评估。IGA 评分通常从 0 分(明确)到 1 分(基本明确)、2 分(轻度)、3 分(中度)和 4 分(重度)不等,但评估的细节有所不同。湿疹面积和严重程度指数(EASI)以及比基线改善≥75% 或≥90%(EASI75 和 EASI90)是额外的金标准测量指标。目的比较 FDA 批准的成人和儿童注意力缺失症近期临床试验中疗效结果的差异。方法使用 MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane Library 和手工检索进行系统性文献检索,以确定 2016 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 8 月 16 日期间用英语发表的 AD 试验。试验可包括任何严重程度的AD患者,这些患者根据批准的适应症接受局部疗法(crisaborole、ruxolitinib)、注射系统疗法(dupilumab、tralokinumab)或口服系统疗法(upadacitinib、abrocitinib)治疗。按照AD严重程度、治疗类型和试验中的年龄组,对IGA=0或1且改善≥2分、IGA=0、EASI75和EASI90的疗效结果进行了分类和总结。结果:在确定的 50 篇论文中,40 篇(80%)报告了随机对照试验,2 篇(4%)报告了单臂试验,8 篇(16%)报告了开放标签扩展试验。按患者年龄组划分,11篇论文针对儿童(小于12岁),8篇针对青少年(12-17岁),15篇针对≥12岁的患者,17篇针对成人(≥18岁)。中度至重度AD是最常被研究的严重程度(38/50篇文献),其中所有试验均为全身单药治疗或全身治疗联合外用药。仅有8/50的文献报道了针对轻度至中度AD的局部单药治疗。对于外用药,没有报告任何年龄组达到IGA=0(明确),也没有试验报告12岁以下儿童的EASI90。对于注射系统药物,没有报告小于12岁儿童的IGA=0(无)的结果。至于口服系统药物,没有报告小于12岁儿童的治疗结果。结论:通过对2016年以来FDA批准的治疗方法的AD试验出版物进行文献检索,发现了现有结果数据中的一些空白。没有任何试验对中度至重度AD的外用疗法进行评估,也没有任何外用疗法证明疾病完全清除(IGA=0)。这些研究结果进一步表明,目前尚需一种能提供高疗效(包括完全清除而不受年龄或疾病严重程度限制)的AD外用疗法。资助:Dermavant Sciences, Inc.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Atopic Dermatitis Treatments: A Systematic Literature Review
Introduction: Complete skin clearance is a key atopic dermatitis (AD) treatment goal. Treatment efficacy in AD trials is evaluated using a range of clinical measures with the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) as a key endpoint. Multiple and varied forms of the IGA scale are utilized across trials, including the Investigator’s Static Global Assessment and the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for ADTM. IGA scores usually range from 0 (clear) to 1 (almost clear), 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), and 4 (severe), but contain differences in detail assessed. Efficacy endpoints using IGA scales include achieving IGA=0 or 1 with ≥2-point improvement from baseline, or IGA=0. The Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and achievement of ≥75% or ≥90% improvement from baseline (EASI75 and EASI90) are additional gold-standard measurements. Objective: To compare differences in efficacy outcomes in recent clinical trials of FDA-approved AD treatments for adults and children. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and hand search to identify AD trials published in English language between January 1, 2016 and August 16, 2023. Trials could include patients with any severity of AD who were treated with topical therapies (crisaborole, ruxolitinib), injectable systemics (dupilumab, tralokinumab), or oral systemics (upadacitinib, abrocitinib) according to approved indications. Efficacy outcomes of IGA=0 or 1 with ≥2-point improvement, IGA=0, EASI75, and EASI90 were categorized and summarized by AD severity, treatment type, and age groups in the trials. Results: Of 50 publications identified, 40 (80%) reported randomized controlled trials, 2 (4%) single-arm trials, and 8 (16%) open-label extension trials. By patient age groups, 11 publications were on children (<12 years), 8 on adolescents (12–17 years),15 on patients ≥12 years, and 17 on adults (≥18 years). Moderate to severe AD was the most frequently studied severity (38/50 publications), of which all trials were either as systemic monotherapy or systemic therapy combined with a topical. Topical monotherapy for mild to moderate AD only was reported in 8/50 publications. For topicals, achievement of IGA=0 (clear) was not reported for any age group, and no trials reported EASI90 for children <12 years. For injectable systemics, no outcome was reported for IGA=0 (clear) in children <12 years. For oral systemics, no outcomes were reported for children <12 years. Conclusions: This literature search of AD trial publications on FDA-approved treatments from 2016 onwards revealed several gaps in available outcomes data. There were no trials that assessed a topical therapy for moderate to severe AD, and complete disease clearance (IGA=0) was not demonstrated for any topicals. The findings reinforce the unmet need for a topical AD treatment that can provide high efficacy including complete clearance without restriction based on age or disease severity. Funding Support: Dermavant Sciences, Inc.
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信