Clinical Tailoring of Baricitinib 2 mg in Atopic Dermatitis: Baseline Body Surface Area and Rapid Onset of Action Identifies Response at Week 16

Jonathan I Silverberg, Mark Boguniewicz, Jill Waibel, Jamie Weisman, Lindsay Strowd, Luna Sun, Yuxin Ding, Meghan Feely, Fabio P Nunes, Eric L Simpson, Jonathan I Silverberg, Mark Boguniewicz, Jill Waibel, Jamie Weisman, Lindsay Strowd, Luna Sun, Yuxin Ding, Meghan Feely, Fabio P Nunes, Eric L Simpson

Abstract

Introduction: Baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, is indicated in the European Union and Japan for treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy. In the ongoing, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial BREEZE-AD5, once-daily oral baricitinib 2-mg monotherapy improved disease in moderate-to-severe AD patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to topical corticosteroids. This post-hoc analysis aimed to identify responders to baricitinib 2 mg, using a proposed clinical tailoring approach based on baseline body surface area (BSA) affected and early clinical improvement, in BREEZE-AD5.

Methods: Classification and regression tree method was used to evaluate baseline predictors for the proportion of patients achieving ≥ 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) at week 16 among baricitinib 2-mg-treated patients. Two-by-two contingency tables evaluated the association between early response, defined as ≥ 50% improvement in BSA or ≥ 3-point improvement in Itch Numeric Rating Scale from baseline at weeks 4 or 8, and response at week 16 for the proportion of patients achieving EASI75, validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD (vIGA-AD) score of 0 or 1, or ≥ 4-point improvement in Itch (Itch ≥ 4), respectively. Missing data were imputed as non-responder.

Results: At week 16, EASI75 and vIGA-AD (0,1) were achieved by 37.5% and 31.7% of baricitinib 2-mg-treated patients with baseline BSA 10-50% compared with 9.5% and 4.8% with BSA > 50%. Early response in skin inflammation or itch at week 4 was associated with corresponding EASI75, vIGA-AD (0,1), and Itch ≥ 4 of 55.4%, 48.2%, and 39.3% at week 16, while early response at week 8 was associated with 66.7%, 56.1%, and 42.1% of patients achieving these endpoints.

Conclusion: Baseline BSA of 10-50% and early clinical improvement after 4 or 8 weeks of baricitinib 2-mg treatment may identify patients most likely to benefit from long-term baricitinib 2-mg therapy.

Clinical trial registration: NCT03435081.

Keywords: Atopic dermatitis; Baricitinib; Body surface area; Clinical tailoring; Clinical trial; Janus kinase inhibitor.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Clinical response by baseline BSA category. Proportion of patients achieving A a 75% improvement in total EASI score, B a vIGA-AD score of 0 or 1, or C a ≥ 4-point improvement in the Itch NRS response over time, among patients who had a baseline BSA of 10–50% or > 50%. aAssessed for patients with a baseline Itch NRS score ≥ 4. *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001 for baricitinib 2 mg compared with placebo. BSA body surface area, EASI75 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index score, NRS Numeric Rating Scale, vIGA-AD (0,1) validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of 0 or 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Clinical response over time by early response in skin inflammation or itch at week 4 or week 8 among patients with baseline BSA 10–50%. Proportion of patients achieving (A, B) a 75% improvement in total EASI score, (C, D) a vIGA-AD score of 0 or 1, or (E, F) a ≥ 4-point improvement in the Itch NRS response over time, among patients with a baseline BSA of 10–50% by early response at week 8 (A, C, E) or week 4 (B, D, F). Early response in skin inflammation or itch was defined as ≥ 50% improvement in BSA or ≥ 3-point improvement in Itch NRS, respectively. aAssessed for patients with a baseline Itch NRS score ≥ 4. BSA body surface area, EASI75 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index score, NRS Numeric Rating Scale, vIGA-AD (0,1) validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of 0 or 1

References

    1. Brunner PM, Guttman-Yassky E, Leung DY. The immunology of atopic dermatitis and its reversibility with broad-spectrum and targeted therapies. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139(4s):S65–s76. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2017.01.011.
    1. Boguniewicz M, Fonacier L, Guttman-Yassky E, Ong PY, Silverberg J, Farrar JR. Atopic dermatitis yardstick: practical recommendations for an evolving therapeutic landscape. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018;120(1):10–22.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2017.10.039.
    1. Czarnowicki T, He H, Krueger JG, Guttman-Yassky E. Atopic dermatitis endotypes and implications for targeted therapeutics. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;143(1):1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2018.10.032.
    1. Silverberg JI, Gelfand JM, Margolis DJ, Boguniewicz M, Fonacier L, Grayson MH, et al. Patient burden and quality of life in atopic dermatitis in US adults: a population-based cross-sectional study. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018;121(3):340–347. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2018.07.006.
    1. Vakharia PP, Chopra R, Sacotte R, Patel KR, Singam V, Patel N, et al. Burden of skin pain in atopic dermatitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2017;119(6):548–52.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2017.09.076.
    1. Andersen L, Nyeland ME, Nyberg F. Increasing severity of atopic dermatitis is associated with a negative impact on work productivity among adults with atopic dermatitis in France, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S.A. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182(4):1007–1016. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18296.
    1. Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Berger TG, Krol A, Paller AS, Schwarzenberger K, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 2. Management and treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71(1):116–132. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.03.023.
    1. Ring J, Alomar A, Bieber T, Deleuran M, Fink-Wagner A, Gelmetti C, et al. Guidelines for treatment of atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis) part I. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012;26(8):1045–1060. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2012.04635.x.
    1. Katayama I, Aihara M, Ohya Y, Saeki H, Shimojo N, Shoji S, et al. Japanese guidelines for atopic dermatitis 2017. Allergol Int. 2017;66(2):230–247. doi: 10.1016/j.alit.2016.12.003.
    1. Sidbury R, Davis DM, Cohen DE, Cordoro KM, Berger TG, Bergman JN, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 3. Management and treatment with phototherapy and systemic agents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71(2):327–349. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.03.030.
    1. Ring J, Alomar A, Bieber T, Deleuran M, Fink-Wagner A, Gelmetti C, et al. Guidelines for treatment of atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis) Part II. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2012;26(9):1176–1193. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2012.04636.x.
    1. Renert-Yuval Y, Guttman-Yassky E. New treatments for atopic dermatitis targeting beyond IL-4/IL-13 cytokines. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2020;124(1):28–35. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2019.10.005.
    1. Fridman JS, Scherle PA, Collins R, Burn TC, Li Y, Li J, et al. Selective inhibition of JAK1 and JAK2 is efficacious in rodent models of arthritis: preclinical characterization of INCB028050. J Immunol. 2010;184(9):5298–5307. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0902819.
    1. Olumiant. Australian Product Information. Eli Lilly Australia Pty Ltd. OLUMIANT vA6 Feb_2021. ARTG ID 277905. 2021. . Accessed 25 Mar 2021.
    1. Olumiant. European Union Summary of Product Characteristics. Eli Lilly and Company. 2021. . Accessed 23 Mar 2021.
    1. Olumiant. Japan Product Information. Eli Lilly and Company. 2021. 8. Accessed 21 Sept 2021.
    1. Simpson EL, Forman S, Silverberg JI, Zirwas M, Maverakis E, Han G, et al. Baricitinib in patients with moderate-to-severe atopicdermatitis: results from a randomized monotherapy phase 3 trial in the United States and Canada (BREEZE-AD5) J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85(1):62–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.02.028.
    1. King B, Maari C, Lain E, Silverberg JI, Issa M, Holzwarth K, et al. Extended safety analysis of baricitinib 2 mg in adult patients with atopic dermatitis: an integrated analysis from eight randomized clinical trials. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2021;22(3):395–405. doi: 10.1007/s40257-021-00602-x.
    1. Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Chamlin SL, Feldman SR, Hanifin JM, Simpson EL, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 1. Diagnosis and assessment of atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70(2):338–351. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.10.010.
    1. Yosipovitch G, Reaney M, Mastey V, Eckert L, Abbé A, Nelson L, et al. Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale: psychometric validation and responder definition for assessing itch in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2019;181(4):761–769. doi: 10.1111/bjd.17744.
    1. Bieber T, D'Erme AM, Akdis CA, Traidl-Hoffmann C, Lauener R, Schappi G, et al. Clinical phenotypes and endophenotypes of atopic dermatitis: where are we, and where should we go? J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139(4s):S58–s64. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2017.01.008.
    1. Renert-Yuval Y, Thyssen JP, Bissonnette R, Bieber T, Kabashima K, Hijnen D, et al. Biomarkers in atopic dermatitis-a review on behalf of the International Eczema Council. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021;147(4):1174–90.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2021.01.013.
    1. Curran-Everett D, Milgrom H. Post-hoc data analysis: benefits and limitations. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;13(3):223–224. doi: 10.1097/ACI.0b013e3283609831.
    1. Chopra R, Silverberg JI. Assessing the severity of atopic dermatitis in clinical trials and practice. Clin Dermatol. 2018;36(5):606–615. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2018.05.012.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren