Abrocitinib efficacy and safety in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis by race, ethnicity, and Fitzpatrick skin type.

BACKGROUND: Response to abrocitinib treatment for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) has not been evaluated across racial and ethnic subpopulations. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of abrocitinib on the basis of patient race, ethnicity, and Fitzpatrick skin type (FST). METHODS: Data were pooled post hoc from patients treated with abrocitinib 200 mg, 100 mg, or placebo in 3 monotherapy trials (NCT02780167, NCT03349060, and NCT03575871). Race and ethnicity were self-reported; FST was determined by study investigators. Evaluations through Week 12 include the following: (1) Investigator's Global Assessment of clear or almost-clear skin; (2) greater than or equal to 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index or SCORing AD; (3) a greater-than-or-equal-to 4-point improvement in Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score; (4) least squares mean changes in Dermatology Life Quality Index and Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores; and (5) treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: The sample comprised 628 White, 204 Asian, and 83 Black patients; 37 were Hispanic or Latino; 624 had FST I to III and 320 had FST IV to VI. Treatment with either abrocitinib dose was associated with greater proportions of patients achieving Investigator's Global Assessment of clear or almost-clear skin, ≥ 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index, ≥ 75% improvement in SCORing AD, and a ≥ 4-point improvement in Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale, or greater score changes from baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index and Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure vs placebo regardless of race, ethnicity, or FST. Dose-response was most prominent in White patients. In Black patients, the effects of the 2 doses were similar. Treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in White and Black than in Asian patients. CONCLUSION: Abrocitinib was more efficacious than placebo across the racial and ethnic groups and ranges of phototypes analyzed. Studies with increased representation of populations of color are warranted to elucidate potential variations in response across diverse populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02780167 (phase 2b), NCT03349060 (phase 3 MONO-1), and NCT03575871 (phase 3 MONO-2).

Predicting Abrocitinib Efficacy at Week 12 Based on Clinical Response at Week 4: A Post Hoc Analysis of Four Randomized Studies in Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis.

INTRODUCTION: Early prediction of abrocitinib efficacy in atopic dermatitis (AD) could help identify candidates for an early dose increase. A predictive model determined week 12 efficacy based on week 4 responses in patients receiving abrocitinib 100 mg/day and assessed the effect of an abrocitinib dose increase on platelet counts. METHODS: Analysis included the phase 3 trials JADE MONO-1 (NCT03349060), MONO-2 (NCT03575871), COMPARE (NCT03720470), and TEEN (NCT03796676). For platelet counts and simulations, a phase 2 psoriasis trial (NCT02201524) and phase 2b (NCT02780167) and phase 3 (MONO-1, MONO-2, and REGIMEN (NCT03627767)) abrocitinib trials were pooled. A training-and-validation framework assessed potential predictors of response at week 4: score and score change from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), and Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS), and percentage change from baseline in EASI. The dependent variables at week 12 were ≥ 75% improvement in EASI (EASI-75) and IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) and ≥ 2-point improvement from baseline. The probability of each variable to predict week 12 EASI-75 and IGA responses was calculated. RESULTS: In the training cohort (n = 453), 72% of the ≥ 50% improvement in EASI (EASI-50) at week 4 responders and 16% of the nonresponders with abrocitinib 100 mg achieved EASI-75 at week 12; 48% and 6% of the week 4 EASI-50 responders and nonresponders, respectively, achieved week 12 IGA response. Similar results occurred with week 4 IGA = 2, ≥ 4-point improvement from baseline in PP-NRS, or EASI = 8 responders/nonresponders. Platelet counts after an abrocitinib dose increase from 100 to 200 mg were similar to those seen with continuous dosing with abrocitinib 100 mg or 200 mg. CONCLUSION: Achieving week 4 clinical responses with abrocitinib 100 mg may be useful in predicting week 12 responses. Week 4 nonresponders may benefit from a dose increase to abrocitinib 200 mg, and those that receive this dose increase are likely to achieve treatment success at week 12, with no significant impact on platelet count recovery. Video abstract available for this article. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03349060, NCT03575871, NCT03720470, NCT03796676, NCT02201524, NCT02780167 and NCT03627767.

Abrocitinib is an approved treatment for people with moderate or severe atopic dermatitis. Abrocitinib tablets are available in two doses (100 and 200 mg) and are taken by mouth once daily. Some people with atopic dermatitis who are taking abrocitinib 100 mg may need to increase the dose to 200 mg to get adequate symptom relief. We studied whether people with atopic dermatitis who did or did not experience clear skin or itch relief after taking abrocitinib 100 mg for 4 weeks are likely or not likely to experience relief after 12 weeks of treatment. We also defined the level of response after 4 weeks of treatment that best differentiates people who did or did not experience symptom relief, and we identified who might benefit from increasing the abrocitinib dose from 100 to 200 mg. We found that people with atopic dermatitis who had symptom relief after 4 weeks of abrocitinib 100 mg treatment were much more likely to have greater relief after 12 weeks, and people who did not achieve symptom relief after 4 weeks may benefit from a dose increase at week 4. Some people who receive abrocitinib 200 mg may have a temporary decrease in the number of certain blood cells called platelets at week 4, but platelets return to near-normal levels by week 12. This analysis showed that increasing the abrocitinib dose from 100 to 200 mg at week 4 did not seem to affect the platelet numbers after week 4. Video abstract (MP4 174529 KB).

Costs and Treatment Patterns Among Patients with Atopic Dermatitis Using Advanced Therapies in the United States: Analysis of a Retrospective Claims Database.

INTRODUCTION: For many, atopic dermatitis (AD) is not adequately controlled with topical regimens. This analysis examined treatment using advanced therapies and associated costs. METHODS: The IQVIA Health Plan Claims data set was analyzed. Patients aged ≥ 12 years with AD who newly initiated advanced therapy after the availability of dupilumab (March 28, 2017) and had ≥ 6 months continuous enrollment before and after their first advanced therapy claim (index date) were included. Advanced therapies included dupilumab, systemic corticosteroids (SCSs), systemic immunosuppressants (SISs), and phototherapy. A multivariate regression model was used to predict annualized follow-up healthcare costs. RESULTS: In total, 1980 patients were included (61.1% female; mean age, 41.2 years [SD, 17.4]; 11.3% < 18 years). Pre-index date, 65.2% of patients used topical corticosteroids (TCSs; 40.7% and 32.1% used medium and high potency, respectively). The most common advanced therapy was SCSs (N = 1453 [73.4%]; 69.2% prednisone) followed by dupilumab (N = 265 [13.4%]), SISs (N = 99 [5.0%]; 47.5% methotrexate), and phototherapy (N = 163 [8.2%]). Of patients treated with dupilumab, SISs, and phototherapy, 17.4%, 26.3%, and 14.1%, respectively, were prescribed SCSs post-index date. Overall, 62.6% of patients initiating SCSs, 49.1% initiating dupilumab, 64.6% initiating SISs, and 36.2% initiating phototherapy were prescribed TCSs post-index date. Mean annualized total costs (SD) post-index date were $20,722 ($47,014): $11,196 ($41,549) in medical costs ($7973 [$35,133] in outpatient visit costs) and $9526 ($21,612) in pharmacy costs. Mean annualized total cost (SD) varied significantly (P < 0.05) by index treatment: dupilumab, $36,505 ($14,028); SCSs, $17,924 ($49,019); SISs, $24,762 ($47,583); phototherapy, and $17,549 ($57,238). CONCLUSIONS: Switching to combination therapy with SCSs and TCSs was common within 6 months of initiating advanced therapy in patients with AD. Patients also incurred significant pharmacy and outpatient costs. These results highlight the difficulty of managing AD with these existing treatment options.

The Challenge of Managing Atopic Dermatitis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that affects up to 13% of children and 10% of adults in the United States. Among patients and their families, atopic dermatitis has a considerable effect on quality of life and represents a substantial economic burden. OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact and challenges of atopic dermatitis and to provide nondermatologists in the healthcare community an enhanced understanding of atopic dermatitis to facilitate treatment and pharmacy benefit discussions. DISCUSSION: Atopic dermatitis is a heterogeneous disease, and its diagnosis is hampered by a lack of objective diagnostic criteria. The current management guidelines address the distinct clinical phenotypes as a single disease and do not incorporate recent clinical advances, such as the targeting of specific inflammatory processes. The treatment guidelines for atopic dermatitis are complex and challenge healthcare providers, patients, and caregivers. Novel treatments can provide additional therapeutic options for patients with atopic dermatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment options for atopic dermatitis are expanding with the development of novel anti-inflammatory therapies. An increased understanding of these advancements is necessary to optimize care for patients with atopic dermatitis.

Topical treatment utilization for patients with atopic dermatitis in the United States, and budget impact analysis of crisaborole ointment, 2.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD), a chronic inflammatory skin disease, is often treated with topical corticosteroids (TCS) and topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI). Crisaborole ointment is a non-steroidal, phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor for the treatment of mild-to-moderate AD. In December 2016, crisaborole was approved in the US for mild-to-moderate AD in patients ≥2 years of age. AIMS: To evaluate real-world utilization and cost of TCS and TCI in the US and estimate the budget impact of crisaborole over 2 years from a third-party payer perspective. METHODS: TCS and TCI prescriptions in 2015 for patients ≥2 years of age with ≥1 AD diagnosis in the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Research Databases were analyzed for patients receiving TCI or TCS alone or in combination (TCS/TCI population) and patients receiving TCI alone or in combination with TCS (TCI population). A budget impact model used TCS and TCI market shares, annual use, and cost per prescription. Crisaborole uptake rates of 4.7% (TCS) and 20.2% (TCI), with an annual increase of 1% in year 2, were assumed. Budget impact was calculated as total and per-member-per-month (PMPM) cost over 2 years for a health plan of 1 million members. RESULTS: Annual prescriptions/patient ranged from 1.36-6.41; annual cost/patient was $53-$1,465. The budget impact of crisaborole over 2 years in the TCS/TCI population was $350,946 (PMPM, $0.015), with increases of $162,106 in year 1 (PMPM, $0.014) and $188,841 in year 2 (PMPM, $0.016). The budget impact in the TCI population was -$22,871, with decreases of $11,160 in year 1 and $11,712 in year 2 (each PMPM, -$0.001). For both populations, one-way sensitivity analyses showed that budget impact was most sensitive to changes in crisaborole cost and annual use. CONCLUSIONS: From US payer perspectives, adoption of crisaborole results in modest pharmacy budget impact/savings.