Crisaborole and atopic dermatitis skin biomarkers: An intrapatient randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Crisaborole ointment 2% is a nonsteroidal phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor for the treatment of mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD). The mechanism of action of crisaborole and its effects on lesional measures of disease severity are not yet well defined. OBJECTIVE: This phase 2a, single-center, vehicle-controlled, intrapatient study was designed to further characterize the mechanism of action of crisaborole through evaluation of clinical efficacy and changes in skin biomarkers in adults (n = 40) with mild-to-moderate AD. METHODS: Two target lesions were randomized in an intrapatient (1:1) manner to double-blind crisaborole/vehicle applied twice daily for 14 days. Patients then applied crisaborole (open-label) to all affected areas for 28 days. Punch biopsy specimens were collected for biomarker analysis at baseline, day 8 (optional), and day 15. RESULTS: Crisaborole treatment resulted in early improvement in lesional signs/symptoms versus vehicle, with improvement in pruritus (pruritus numeric rating scale) observed as early as 24 hours after the first application. Crisaborole-treated lesions showed significant percentage improvement from baseline in lesional transcriptomic profile compared with vehicle at day 8 (91.15% vs 36.02%, P < 10-15) that was sustained until day 15 (92.90% vs 49.59%, P < 10-15). Crisaborole significantly modulated key AD biomarkers versus vehicle, including TH2 and TH17/TH22 pathways and epidermal hyperplasia/proliferation. Molecular profiles and epidermal pathology normalized toward nonlesional skin and correlated with clinical changes in lesion severity and barrier function. CONCLUSION: Crisaborole reversed biomarker profiles of skin inflammation and barrier function, with associated improvements in clinical efficacy measures, highlighting the therapeutic utility of targeting phosphodiesterase 4 in patients with AD.

Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale.

Pain intensity is frequently measured on an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS), where 0=no pain and 10=worst possible pain. However, it is difficult to interpret the clinical importance of changes from baseline on this scale (such as a 1- or 2-point change). To date, there are no data driven estimates for clinically important differences in pain intensity scales used for chronic pain studies. We have estimated a clinically important difference on this scale by relating it to global assessments of change in multiple studies of chronic pain. Data on 2724 subjects from 10 recently completed placebo-controlled clinical trials of pregabalin in diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, fibromyalgia, and osteoarthritis were used. The studies had similar designs and measurement instruments, including the PI-NRS, collected in a daily diary, and the standard seven-point patient global impression of change (PGIC), collected at the endpoint. The changes in the PI-NRS from baseline to the endpoint were compared to the PGIC for each subject. Categories of "much improved" and "very much improved" were used as determinants of a clinically important difference and the relationship to the PI-NRS was explored using graphs, box plots, and sensitivity/specificity analyses. A consistent relationship between the change in PI-NRS and the PGIC was demonstrated regardless of study, disease type, age, sex, study result, or treatment group. On average, a reduction of approximately two points or a reduction of approximately 30% in the PI-NRS represented a clinically important difference. The relationship between percent change and the PGIC was also consistent regardless of baseline pain, while higher baseline scores required larger raw changes to represent a clinically important difference. The application of these results to future studies may provide a standard definition of clinically important improvement in clinical trials of chronic pain therapies. Use of a standard outcome across chronic pain studies would greatly enhance the comparability, validity, and clinical applicability of these studies.