4.3 Article

Maintained improvement in physician- and patient-reported outcomes with baricitinib in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis who were treated for up to 104 weeks in a randomized trial

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2023.2190430

关键词

Atopic dermatitis; baricitinib; long-term extension

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the BREEZE-AD3 study, patients who received baricitinib 4 mg were observed for up to 104 weeks, showing sustained efficacy. Patients who down-titrated to 2 mg maintained improvements in skin conditions, itch, sleep, and quality of life.
Background Patients who completed the originating studies, BREEZE-AD1 (NCT03334396), BREEZE-AD2(NCT03334422), and BREEZE-AD7 (NCT03733301), were eligible for enrollment in the multicenter,phase-3, long-term extension study BREEZE-AD3 (NCT03334435). Methods At week 52, responders and partial responders to baricitinib 4 mg were re-randomized (1:1) into the sub-study to dose continuation (4 mg, N = 84), or dose down-titration (2 mg, N = 84). Maintenance of response was assessed from week 52 to 104 of BREEZE-AD3. Physician-rated outcomes included vIGA-AD (0,1), EASI75, and mean change from baseline in EASI. Patient-reported outcomes included DLQI, P OEM total score, HADS, and from baseline: WPAI (presenteeism, absenteeism, overall work impairment, daily activity impairment) and change from baseline in SCORAD itch and sleep loss. Results With continuous treatment with baricitinib 4 mg, efficacy was maintained up to week 104 in vIGA-AD (0,1), EASI75, EASI mean change from baseline, SCORAD itch, SCORAD sleep loss, DLQI, P OEM, HADS, and WPAI (all scores). Patients down-titrated to 2 mg maintained most of their improvements in each of these measures. Conclusion The sub-study of BREEZE AD3 supports flexibility in baricitinib dosing regimens. Patients who continued treatment with baricitinib 4 mg and down-titrated to 2 mg maintained improvements in skin, itch, sleep, and quality of life for up to 104 weeks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据