To Örebro University

Skin pain is a common and bothersome symptom of atopic dermatitis (AD) that is associated with a substantial burden. To assess the efficacy of abrocitinib vs. dupilumab on skin pain in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. Data from patients aged ≥18 years who received oral abrocitinib 200 mg once daily (QD) or subcutaneous dupilumab 300 mg once every 2 weeks in combination with topical therapy in the phase 3 trials JADE COMPARE (NCT03720470) and JADE DARE (NCT04345367) were analysed. Data from patients who received abrocitinib 100 mg QD or placebo in the JADE COMPARE trial were also included in this analysis. Patients rated their skin pain using the Skin Pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) item of the Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) instrument [‘How painful was your skin over the past 24 h?’ on a scale from 0 (not painful) to 10 (extremely painful) ] in JADE COMPARE or the Skin Pain Numerical Rating Scale [SP-NRS, which queried patients for the severity of their ‘worst skin pain’ in the past 24 h on a scale from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (worst skin pain imaginable)] in JADE DARE. Least squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline and proportions of patients who achieved a ≥4-point improvement from baseline in PSAAD skin pain score or SP-NRS were assessed through Week 16 (JADE COMPARE) or Week 26 (JADE DARE). The JADE COMPARE analysis (Skin Pain NRS item of the PSAAD) was performed post hoc, whereas the JADE DARE analysis (SP-NRS) was prespecified. At Week 2 of JADE COMPARE, LSM change from baseline in PSAAD skin pain score was greater with abrocitinib 200 mg [−2.8 (95% CI, −3.1, −2.5)] than with abrocitinib 100 mg [−2.1 (−2.3, −1.8)], dupilumab [−2.0 (−2.3, −1.8)], or placebo [−1.3 (−1.6, −0,9)]; improvements were sustained through Week 16 of treatment with abrocitinib 200 mg [−4.1 (−4.4, −3.8)], abrocitinib 100 mg [−3.3 (−3.6, −3.0)] and dupilumab [−4.0 (−4.2, −3.7)] compared with placebo [−1.8 (−2.2, −1.4)]. In JADE DARE, LSM change from baseline in SP-NRS was significantly greater with abrocitinib 200 mg vs. dupilumab at Week 2 [−3.7 (−3.9, −3.4) vs. −2.6 (−2.8, −2.3); P < 0.0001] and week 12 [−4.5 (−4.7, −4.2) vs. −4.0 (−4.3, −3.8); P = 0.0116]; no significant differences were observed between the treatment arms at Week 16 [−4.4 (−4.7, −4.2) vs. −4.2 (−4.4, −4.0); P = 0.16], Week 20 [−4.8 (−5.0, −4.5) vs. −4.5 (−4.7 vs. −4.2); P = 0.06] or Week 26 [−4.5 (−4.8, −4.3)] vs. −4.3 (−4.6, −4.1); P = 0.27]. The proportions of patients who achieved a ≥4-point improvement in PSAAD skin pain score at week 2 of JADE COMPARE were greater with abrocitinib 200 mg (43%) than with abrocitinib 100 mg (23%), dupilumab (24%) or placebo (14%). At Week 16, these proportions increased to 76% (abrocitinib 200 mg), 57% (abrocitinib 100 mg) and 70% (dupilumab) compared with placebo (29%). In JADE DARE, the proportions of patients who achieved a ≥4-point improvement in SP-NRS were significantly greater with abrocitinib 200 mg vs. dupilumab at Week 2 (58% vs. 36%; P < 0.0001) and Week 12 (71% vs. 61%; P = 0.0098) but not at subsequent timepoints. Similar to previous findings on the effect of abrocitinib on itch, these results suggest that abrocitinib 200 mg provides greater early skin pain relief in patients with moderate-to-severe AD compared with dupilumab, but the difference between the treatments diminishes with time. At earlier time points, skin pain improvement with abrocitinib 100 mg was similar to that with dupilumab.