ArticleClinical drug investigation2024
Comparison of Long-Term Effectiveness and Safety of Upadacitinib for Atopic Dermatitis Between Dupilumab-Exposed and Dupilumab-Naïve Patients.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-World Evidence of Effectiveness and Safety of Abrocitinib, Baricitinib and Upadacitinib in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2026Pooled it
- Switching from Dupilumab to Upadacitinib in Adults and Adolescents with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis After Inadequate Response to Dupilumab: Efficacy and Safety Results from Period 2 of Phase 3b/4 Study (LEVEL UP).American journal of clinical dermatology · 2026Trial
- Anti-Inflammatory Therapies for Atopic Dermatitis: A New Era in Targeted Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Effectiveness and Safety of Upadacitinib for Adolescents with Atopic Dermatitis in a Real-World Setting.Clinical drug investigation · 2024Article
- Effects of abrocitinib on pruritus and eczema symptoms and tolerance in patients with moderate‑to‑severe atopic dermatitis in randomized, double‑blind and placebo‑controlled trials: A systematic review and a meta‑analysis.Biomedical reports · 2024Article
- Management of Patients Affected by Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis with JAK Inhibitors in Real-World Clinical Practice: An Italian Delphi Consensus.Dermatology and therapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesUpadacitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase-1 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in patients [Formula: see text] 12 years of age. In real life, upadacitinib currently represents a valid therapeutic option for patients failing available systemic therapies, in particular patients who discontinued dupilumab because of lack of efficacy or occurrence of adverse events. The objectives of the present study were to compare the effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib in patients affected by AD who had previously failed dupilumab therapy versus biologic naïve patients.
methodsA retrospective, multi-centre, observational, real-life study was conducted in four Italian dermatological referral centres (Milan, Perugia, Naples and Vicenza). Baseline characteristics included age, sex, AD history and severity, prior treatments, comorbidities and concomitant therapies. AD severity was assessed at baseline and at week 4 (W4), W16, W24 and W52, using Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (P-NRS) scores. Full blood count, hepatic and renal function, lipid panel, and muscle enzymes [lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and creatine phosphokinase (CPK)] were assessed at baseline and at each follow-up visit.
resultsA total of 113 patients (72 males, 63.7%; mean age: 37.22 ± 16.8 years) were included in the analysis, all patients were in treatment and underwent follow-up period until W16, whilst 91 (80.5%) and 75 (66.4%) patients were in treatment and in follow-up period until W24 and W52, respectively. Mean EASI score significantly changed from 24.30 ± 10.27 to 1.28 ± 4.34, 0.74 ± 2.31 and 0.25 ± 1.34 at W16, W24 and W52, respectively (p < 0.0001). Specifically, at W16 the percentage of patients achieving EASI-75, EASI-90 and EASI-100 was 85.21, 76.35 and 66.11%, respectively. At W24, EASI-75, EASI-90 and EASI-100 were reached by 88.54, 85.42, and 78.37% of patients, respectively. Finally, 90.1% of patients achieved EASI-75, 88.3% achieved EASI-90 and 83.0% achieved EASI-100 at W52.
conclusionsThis study confirmed the clinical effectiveness of upadacitinib treatment in adult patients in a real-world setting with moderate-to-severe AD who had discontinued dupilumab due to poor effectiveness or adverse events and who were biologic naïve; therefore, previous treatments do not seem to affect the response to upadacitinib treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.