Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42213297›Full record

ArticleDermatology and therapy2026

Longitudinal Response Trajectories with Dupilumab or Upadacitinib in Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Multicentre Real-World Study: IL-AD (Italian Landscape Atopic Dermatitis).

Luca Potestio, Cataldo Patruno, Silvia Mariel Ferrucci, Alessandra Narcisi, Michela Ortoncelli, Elena Pezzolo, Piergiorgio Malagoli, Giampiero Girolomoni, Mario Bruno Guanti, Mariateresa Rossi and 29 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

39 authors.

Luca Potestio *Section of Dermatology, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131, Napoli, Italy. potestioluca@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5940-0592
Cataldo Patruno *Department of Medicine and Health Sciences Vincenzo Tiberio, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy.
Silvia Mariel FerrucciDermatology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Alessandra NarcisiDermatology Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
Michela OrtoncelliDermatologic Clinic, Department of Medical Science, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Elena PezzoloDepartment of Dermatology, San Bortolo Hospital, Vicenza, Italy.
Piergiorgio MalagoliDepartment of Dermatology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Milan, Italy.
Giampiero GirolomoniSection of Dermatology and Venereology, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Mario Bruno GuantiDepartment of Dermatology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Mariateresa RossiDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Andrea CarugnoDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Massimo GolaSection of Dermatology, Department of Health Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Francesca SatolliDermatology Unit, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Francesco LoconsoleDepartment of Dermatology, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Flavia Manzo MargiottaDepartment of Dermatology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Anna BalatoDermatology Unit, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy.
Eustachio NettisDepartment of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area, University of Bari Aldo Moro - Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Consorziale Policlinico di Bari, Bari, Italy.
Anna Graziella BurroniSection of Dermatology, Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genoa, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.
Franco RongiolettiDepartment of Clinical Dermatology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Paola SavoiaDermatology Clinic, Department of Health Science, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy.
Federica VeroneseDermatology Unit, AOU Maggiore della Carità, Novara, Italy.
Giacomo Dal BelloSection of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, ASST di Mantova, Mantova, Italy.
Giovanni PaolinoDermatology and Cosmetology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Maria EspositoDepartment of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Agostina LegoriDepartment of Dermatology, IRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi-Sant'Ambrogio, Milan, Italy.
Anna CampanatiDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Sciences-Dermatological Clinic, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Francesca BareiDermatology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Martina ZussinoDermatology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Luigi GargiuloDermatology Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
Matteo BiancoDermatology Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
Ruggero Cascio IngurgioDermatology Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
Francesca GaianiDepartment of Dermatology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Milan, Italy.
Martina MaurelliSection of Dermatology and Venereology, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Nicola ZerbinatiDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Santo Raffaele MercuriDermatology and Cosmetology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Italian AD-Landscape Group
Simone RiberoDermatologic Clinic, Department of Medical Science, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Francesca di VicoSection of Dermatology, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131, Napoli, Italy.
Maddalena NapolitanoSection of Dermatology, Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131, Napoli, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUnderstanding how treatment responses evolve over time is essential for optimising therapeutic strategies in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). While clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of targeted therapies, real-world evidence describing longitudinal response trajectories remains limited. This study aimed to characterise temporal patterns of clinical response in patients with AD treated with dupilumab or upadacitinib in routine clinical practice.

methodsA multicentre real-world observational study was conducted using data from the Italian AD-Landscape platform, a structured clinical database collecting longitudinal information on patients receiving advanced systemic therapies for AD. Adult patients initiating dupilumab or upadacitinib between July 2019 and January 2026 were included if baseline and at least week-4 assessments were available. Disease severity and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (P-NRS) and Sleep Numerical Rating Scale (S-NRS) at baseline and at weeks 4, 16, 36 and 52. Categorical response thresholds (EASI75, EASI90 and EASI100) and safety outcomes were analysed descriptively.

resultsA total of 2625 patients were included (dupilumab n=2085; upadacitinib n=540). Both treatments produced rapid and sustained improvements in clinician-reported and patient-reported outcomes throughout the 52-week follow-up. Mean EASI scores decreased from 25.6 ± 6.5 to 2.2 ± 2.9 in the dupilumab group and from 19.1 ± 9.2 to 2.9 ± 5.7 in the upadacitinib group at week 52, respectively. Upadacitinib demonstrated faster early response kinetics, whereas dupilumab showed a progressive accumulation of clinical benefit over time, resulting in convergence of response rates during long-term follow-up. Safety findings were consistent with known mechanism-specific profiles.

conclusionsIn this large real-world cohort, both dupilumab and upadacitinib provided substantial and sustained clinical improvements in moderate-to-severe AD. Distinct response kinetics were observed, with faster early responses with upadacitinib and progressively increasing responses with dupilumab, supporting a personalised approach to treatment selection in routine clinical practice.

Indexed as

Atopic dermatitisClinical response trajectoriesDupilumabTreatmentUpadacitinib

Identifiers

PMID42213297
PMCPMC13280324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.