7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Biomarkers in atopic dermatitis—a review on behalf of the International Eczema Council

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references170

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

          This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Two Phase 3 Trials of Dupilumab versus Placebo in Atopic Dermatitis.

            Background Dupilumab, a human monoclonal antibody against interleukin-4 receptor alpha, inhibits signaling of interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, type 2 cytokines that may be important drivers of atopic or allergic diseases such as atopic dermatitis. Methods In two randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials of identical design (SOLO 1 and SOLO 2), we enrolled adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis whose disease was inadequately controlled by topical treatment. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive, for 16 weeks, subcutaneous dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo weekly or the same dose of dupilumab every other week alternating with placebo. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had both a score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) on the Investigator's Global Assessment and a reduction of 2 points or more in that score from baseline at week 16. Results We enrolled 671 patients in SOLO 1 and 708 in SOLO 2. In SOLO 1, the primary outcome occurred in 85 patients (38%) who received dupilumab every other week and in 83 (37%) who received dupilumab weekly, as compared with 23 (10%) who received placebo (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). The results were similar in SOLO 2, with the primary outcome occurring in 84 patients (36%) who received dupilumab every other week and in 87 (36%) who received dupilumab weekly, as compared with 20 (8%) who received placebo (P<0.001 for both comparisons). In addition, in the two trials, an improvement from baseline to week 16 of at least 75% on the Eczema Area and Severity Index was reported in significantly more patients who received each regimen of dupilumab than in patients who received placebo (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Dupilumab was also associated with improvement in other clinical end points, including reduction in pruritus and symptoms of anxiety or depression and improvement in quality of life. Injection-site reactions and conjunctivitis were more frequent in the dupilumab groups than in the placebo groups. Conclusions In two phase 3 trials of identical design involving patients with atopic dermatitis, dupilumab improved the signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis, including pruritus, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and quality of life, as compared with placebo. Trials of longer duration are needed to assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of dupilumab. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; SOLO 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02277743 ; SOLO 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02277769 .).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Secukinumab in plaque psoriasis--results of two phase 3 trials.

              Interleukin-17A is considered to be central to the pathogenesis of psoriasis. We evaluated secukinumab, a fully human anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. In two phase 3, double-blind, 52-week trials, ERASURE (Efficacy of Response and Safety of Two Fixed Secukinumab Regimens in Psoriasis) and FIXTURE (Full Year Investigative Examination of Secukinumab vs. Etanercept Using Two Dosing Regimens to Determine Efficacy in Psoriasis), we randomly assigned 738 patients (in the ERASURE study) and 1306 patients (in the FIXTURE study) to subcutaneous secukinumab at a dose of 300 mg or 150 mg (administered once weekly for 5 weeks, then every 4 weeks), placebo, or (in the FIXTURE study only) etanercept at a dose of 50 mg (administered twice weekly for 12 weeks, then once weekly). The objective of each study was to show the superiority of secukinumab over placebo at week 12 with respect to the proportion of patients who had a reduction of 75% or more from baseline in the psoriasis area-and-severity index score (PASI 75) and a score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) on a 5-point modified investigator's global assessment (coprimary end points). The proportion of patients who met the criterion for PASI 75 at week 12 was higher with each secukinumab dose than with placebo or etanercept: in the ERASURE study, the rates were 81.6% with 300 mg of secukinumab, 71.6% with 150 mg of secukinumab, and 4.5% with placebo; in the FIXTURE study, the rates were 77.1% with 300 mg of secukinumab, 67.0% with 150 mg of secukinumab, 44.0% with etanercept, and 4.9% with placebo (P<0.001 for each secukinumab dose vs. comparators). The proportion of patients with a response of 0 or 1 on the modified investigator's global assessment at week 12 was higher with each secukinumab dose than with placebo or etanercept: in the ERASURE study, the rates were 65.3% with 300 mg of secukinumab, 51.2% with 150 mg of secukinumab, and 2.4% with placebo; in the FIXTURE study, the rates were 62.5% with 300 mg of secukinumab, 51.1% with 150 mg of secukinumab, 27.2% with etanercept, and 2.8% with placebo (P<0.001 for each secukinumab dose vs. comparators). The rates of infection were higher with secukinumab than with placebo in both studies and were similar to those with etanercept. Secukinumab was effective for psoriasis in two randomized trials, validating interleukin-17A as a therapeutic target. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; ERASURE and FIXTURE ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01365455 and NCT01358578, respectively.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
                Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
                Elsevier BV
                00916749
                April 2021
                April 2021
                : 147
                : 4
                : 1174-1190.e1
                Article
                10.1016/j.jaci.2021.01.013
                33516871
                5bdd8bf3-57bb-48a1-8b94-e2f20e203f14
                © 2021

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article