Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.
AbbVie Inc, North Chicago, Illinois.
JAMA Dermatol. 2021 Sep 1;157(9):1047-1055. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.3023.
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, recurrent, inflammatory skin disease with an unmet need for treatments that provide rapid and high levels of skin clearance and itch improvement.
To assess the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib vs dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe AD.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Heads Up was a 24-week, head-to-head, phase 3b, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, double-dummy, active-controlled clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib with dupilumab among 692 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were candidates for systemic therapy. The study was conducted from February 21, 2019, to December 9, 2020, at 129 centers located in 22 countries across Europe, North and South America, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region. Efficacy analyses were conducted in the intent-to-treat population.
Patients were randomized 1:1 and treated with oral upadacitinib, 30 mg once daily, or subcutaneous dupilumab, 300 mg every other week.
The primary end point was achievement of 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) at week 16. Secondary end points were percentage change from baseline in the Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (weekly average), proportion of patients achieving EASI100 and EASI90 at week 16, percentage change from baseline in Worst Pruritus NRS at week 4, proportion of patients achieving EASI75 at week 2, percentage change from baseline in Worst Pruritus NRS (weekly average) at week 1, and Worst Pruritus NRS (weekly average) improvement of 4 points or more at week 16. End points at week 24 included EASI75, EASI90, EASI100, and improvement of 4 points or more in Worst Pruritus NRS from baseline (weekly average). Safety was assessed as treatment-emergent adverse events in all patients receiving 1 or more dose of either drug.
Of 924 patients screened, 348 (183 men [52.6%]; mean [SD] age, 36.6 [14.6] years) were randomized to receive upadacitinib and 344 were randomized to receive dupilumab (194 men [56.4%]; mean [SD] age, 36.9 [14.1] years); demographic and disease characteristics were balanced among treatment groups. At week 16, 247 patients receiving upadacitinib (71.0%) and 210 patients receiving dupilumab (61.1%) achieved EASI75 (P = .006). All ranked secondary end points also demonstrated the superiority of upadacitinib vs dupilumab, including improvement in Worst Pruritus NRS as early as week 1 (mean [SE], 31.4% [1.7%] vs 8.8% [1.8%]; P < .001), achievement of EASI75 as early as week 2 (152 [43.7%] vs 60 [17.4%]; P < .001), and achievement of EASI100 at week 16 (97 [27.9%] vs 26 [7.6%]; P < .001). Rates of serious infection, eczema herpeticum, herpes zoster, and laboratory-related adverse events were higher for patients who received upadacitinib, whereas rates of conjunctivitis and injection-site reactions were higher for patients who received dupilumab.
During 16 weeks of treatment, upadacitinib demonstrated superior efficacy vs dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe AD, with no new safety signals.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03738397.
特应性皮炎(AD)是一种慢性、复发性、炎症性皮肤病,需要治疗以快速、高水平地清除皮肤并改善瘙痒。
评估乌帕替尼与度普利尤单抗在中重度 AD 成人患者中的安全性和疗效。
设计、地点和参与者:“昂首挺胸”是一项为期 24 周的头对头、3b 期、多中心、随机、双盲、双模拟、阳性对照临床试验,比较了乌帕替尼与度普利尤单抗在 692 名中重度 AD 成人患者中的安全性和疗效,这些患者适合全身治疗。研究于 2019 年 2 月 21 日至 2020 年 12 月 9 日在欧洲、北美和南美、大洋洲和亚太地区的 129 个中心进行。疗效分析在意向治疗人群中进行。
患者随机 1:1 接受口服乌帕替尼,每日 30mg,或皮下注射度普利尤单抗,每两周 300mg。
在第 16 周时,Eczema Area and Severity Index(EASI75)改善达到 75%。次要终点为基线时最严重瘙痒数字评定量表(Worst Pruritus NRS)(每周平均)的变化百分比,第 16 周时达到 EASI100 和 EASI90的患者比例,第 4 周时基线时最严重瘙痒 NRS 的变化百分比,第 2 周时达到 EASI75的患者比例,第 1 周时基线时最严重瘙痒 NRS(每周平均)的变化百分比,以及第 16 周时最严重瘙痒 NRS(每周平均)改善 4 分或以上的患者比例。第 24 周的终点包括 EASI75、EASI90、EASI100,以及从基线时最严重瘙痒 NRS(每周平均)改善 4 分或以上。所有接受至少一剂药物治疗的患者都评估了治疗中出现的不良事件。
在 924 名筛查患者中,348 名(183 名男性[52.6%];平均[标准差]年龄 36.6[14.6]岁)被随机分配接受乌帕替尼,344 名被随机分配接受度普利尤单抗(194 名男性[56.4%];平均[标准差]年龄 36.9[14.1]岁);治疗组之间的人口统计学和疾病特征平衡。在第 16 周,247 名接受乌帕替尼(71.0%)和 210 名接受度普利尤单抗(61.1%)的患者达到了 EASI75(P=0.006)。所有排名较高的次要终点也显示了乌帕替尼与度普利尤单抗的优越性,包括最早在第 1 周(平均[标准误],31.4%[1.7%] vs 8.8%[1.8%];P<0.001)的最严重瘙痒 NRS 改善,最早在第 2 周(152[43.7%] vs 60[17.4%];P<0.001)的 EASI75 达标,以及第 16 周的 EASI100 达标(97[27.9%] vs 26[7.6%];P<0.001)。接受乌帕替尼的患者严重感染、疱疹性湿疹、带状疱疹和实验室相关不良事件的发生率较高,而接受度普利尤单抗的患者结膜炎和注射部位反应的发生率较高。
在 16 周的治疗期间,乌帕替尼在中重度 AD 患者中的疗效优于度普利尤单抗,没有新的安全性信号。
ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT03738397。