Drug Evaluation

Department of Dermatology, Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto, Porto, 4000-001, Portugal

Search for more papers by this author

Melinda Gooderham

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8926-0113

SkiN Centre for Dermatology, Queen's University and Probity Medical Research, Peterborough, ON, K9J 5K2, Canada

Search for more papers by this author

Tiago Torres

*Author for correspondence: Tel.: +351 9168 1829;

E-mail Address: torres.tiago@outlook.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0404-0870

Department of Dermatology, Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto, Porto, 4000-001, Portugal

Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:5 Sep 2023https://doi.org/10.2217/imt-2023-0057

View article

Abstract

Abrocitinib is an oral small molecule which selectively inhibits JAK1, modulating multiple cytokine pathways involved in atopic dermatitis. Both abrocitinib 200 mg and 100 mg reached efficacy results comparable to dupilumab and superior to placebo. Abrocitinib 200 mg was superior to dupilumab in some trials, consistently providing a faster response and itch relief from week 2 to 26. Continuous abrocitinib 200 mg is the most effective at controlling this disease, but with an induction–maintenance approach with abrocitinib 200 mg followed by 100 mg, over 55% of patients did not flare for 40 weeks. Abrocitinib common adverse effects are nonserious. A self-limited dose-related decrease in platelet counts was consistently observed, without clinical repercussion. Abrocitinib demonstrated high efficacy and a favorable safety profile.

Plain language summary

Atopic dermatitis is the most common form of eczema, a condition that causes the skin to become itchy, dry and cracked. Abrocitinib is a medication taken orally (by mouth) that specifically targets JAK1, a protein involved in inter- (within cells) and intracellular (between cells) pathways that cause atopic dermatitis. Both the 200 mg and 100 mg doses of abrocitinib were effective compared with a placebo, a substance that looks like the treatment drug but doesn't have any of its chemical effects. Abrocitinib 200 mg was even better than dupilumab, another recently available injectable treatment option, especially by reducing itch from week 2. Using continuous abrocitinib 200 mg showed the best results for controlling the disease. However, an approach of starting with abrocitinib 200 mg and then reducing it to 100 mg also worked well, with over 55% of patients not experiencing a worsening of their condition for 40 weeks. The most common side effects of abrocitinib are not serious. There was a temporary decrease in platelet counts, tiny blood cells that help your body form clots to stop bleeding, but this did not cause any clinical issues. It has also proven effectiveness and safety in adolescents from 12 years of age. Overall, abrocitinib was highly effective and had a positive safety profile.

Tweetable abstract

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: •• of considerable interest

References

1. Nogueira M, Torres T. Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of atopic dermatitis: focus on abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib. Dermatol. Pract. Concept. 11(4), 1–9 (2021).
CASGoogle Scholar
2. Ferreira S, Guttman-Yassky E, Torres T. Selective JAK1 inhibitors for the treatment of atopic dermatitis: focus on upadacitinib and abrocitinib. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 21(6), 783–798 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
3. Bylund S, Von Kobyletzki LB, Svalstedt M, Svensson Å. Prevalence and incidence of atopic dermatitis: a systematic review. Acta Derm. Venereol. 100(100-year theme atopic dermatitis), 320–329 (2020).
Google Scholar
4. Rønnstad ATM, Halling-Overgaard AS, Hamann CR, Skov L, Egeberg A, Thyssen JP. Association of atopic dermatitis with depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation in children and adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.03.017 (2018) (Online).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Patruno C, Potestio L, Napolitano M. Clinical phenotypes of adult atopic dermatitis and related therapies. Curr. Opin. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 22(4), 242–249 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Bieber T, D'Erme AM, Akdis CA et al. Clinical phenotypes and endophenotypes of atopic dermatitis: where are we, and where should we go? J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 139(4S), S58–S64 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Wollenberg A, Barbarot S, Bieber T, Deleuran M, Gieler U. Consensus-based European guidelines for treatment of atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis) in adults and children: part I. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 32, 657–682 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8. Graham NM, Bieber T, Rocklin R et al. Dupilumab treatment in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. N. Engl. J. Med. 371(2), 130–139 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Simpson EL, Bieber T, Guttman-Yassky E et al. Two phase 3 trials of dupilumab versus placebo in atopic dermatitis. N. Engl. J. Med. 375(24), 2335–2348 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Qi H, Li L. New biologics for the treatment of atopic dermatitis: analysis of efficacy, safety. Biomed Res. Int. 2021, 5528372 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Newsom M, Bashyam AM, Balogh EA, Feldman SR, Strowd LC. New and emerging systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis. Drugs 80(11), 1041–1052 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
12. Wollenberg A, Blauvelt DA, Guttman-yassky ED, Worm MD, Lynde C, Lacour JD. Tralokinumab for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: results from two 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled phase III trials (ECZTRA 1 and ECZTRA 2). Br. J. Dermatol. 184, 437–449 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13. Napolitano M, Maffei M, Patruno C et al. Dupilumab effectiveness for the treatment of patients with concomitant atopic dermatitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. Dermatol. Ther. 34(6), e15120 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. Puar N, Chovatiya R, Paller AS. New treatments in atopic dermatitis. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 126(1), 21–31 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15. Lé AM, Torres T. OX40-OX40L inhibition for the treatment of atopic dermatitis-focus on rocatinlimab and amlitelimab. Pharmaceutics 14(12), 2753 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
16. Yosipovitch G, Berger T, Fassett MS. Neuroimmune interactions in chronic itch of atopic dermatitis. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 34(2), 239–250 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Grobe W, Bieber T, Novak N. Pathophysiology of atopic dermatitis. J. Dtsch. Dermatol. Ges. 17(4), 433–440 (2019).
Google Scholar
18. Torres T, Ferreira EO, Gonçalo M, Mendes-Bastos P, Selores M, Filipe P. Update on atopic dermatitis. Acta Med. Port. 32(9), 606–613 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19. He H, Guttman-Yassky E. JAK inhibitors for atopic dermatitis: an update. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 20(2), 181–192 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. Czarnowicki T, He H, Krueger JG, Guttman-Yassky E. Atopic dermatitis endotypes and implications for targeted therapeutics. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 143(1), 1–11 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
21. Nakahara T, Kido-Nakahara M, Tsuji G, Furue M. Basics and recent advances in the pathophysiology of atopic dermatitis. J. Dermatol. 48(2), 130–139 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Banerjee S, Biehl A, Gadina M, Hasni S, Schwartz DM. JAK–STAT signaling as a target for inflammatory and autoimmune diseases: current and future prospects. Drugs 77(5), 521–546 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. Ghoreschi K, Laurence A, O'Shea JJ. Janus kinases in immune cell signaling. Immunol. Rev. 228(1), 273–287 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Rodrigues MA, Torres T. JAK/STAT inhibitors for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. J. Dermatolog. Treat. 31(1), 33–40 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25. Furue M, Furue M. Interleukin-31 and pruritic skin. J. Clin. Med. 10(9), 1906 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Ferreira S, Guttman-Yassky E, Torres T. Selective JAK1 inhibitors for the treatment of atopic dermatitis: focus on upadacitinib and abrocitinib. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 21(6), 783–798 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
27. Napolitano M, Fornaro L, Potestio L, Fabbrocini G, Patruno C. Abrocitinib in atopic dermatitis: review of the current literature and clinical trials. Drugs Today (Barc.) 58(8), 373–387 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Gooderham MJ, Forman SB, Bissonnette R et al. Efficacy and safety of oral janus kinase 1 inhibitor abrocitinib for patients with atopic dermatitis: a phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 155(12), 1371–1379 (2020).
Google Scholar
29. Simpson EL, Sinclair R, Forman S et al. Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (JADE MONO-1): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 396(10246), 255–266 (2020). •• First monotherapy phase III trial with good efficacy results (Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 and Investigator's Global Assessment response) for both abrocitinib dose regimens (200 mg and 100 mg), when compared to placebo.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. Silverberg JI, Simpson EL, Thyssen JP et al. Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 156(8), 863–873 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
31. Dibonaventura M, Rojo R, Antinew J et al. Abrocitinib versus placebo or dupilumab for atopic dermatitis. N. Engl. J. Med. 384(12), 1101–1112 (2021). •• Phase III trial with over 800 atopic dermatitis patients assigned to receive 200 mg or 100 mg abrocitinib, dupilumab or placebo. Abrocitinib was comparable to dupilumab regarding efficacy, with faster symptomatic relief.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
32. Alexis A, Stephan MDB, Soong W et al. Rapidity of improvement in signs/symptoms of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis by body region with abrocitinib in the phase 3 JADE COMPARE study. Dermatol. Ther. (Heidelb.) 12(3), 771–785 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Thyssen JP, Yosipovitch G, Paul C et al. Patient-reported outcomes from the JADE COMPARE randomized phase 3 study of abrocitinib in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 36, 434–443 (2022). •• Abrocitinib 200 mg reached numerically greater improvements in patient-reported outcomes compared with dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Reich K, Thyssen JP, Blauvelt A et al. Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib versus dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 3 trial. Lancet 400(10348), 273–282 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Eichenfield LF, Flohr C, Sidbury R et al. Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib in combination with topical therapy in adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: the JADE TEEN randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 157(10), 1165–1173 (2021). •• Efficacy and safety results concerning abrocitinib in adolescents.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Blauvelt A, Silverberg JI, Lynde CW. Abrocitinib induction, randomized withdrawal, and retreatment in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: results from the JAK1 atopic dermatitis efficacy and safety (JADE) REGIMEN phase 3 trial. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 86(1), 104–112 (2021). •• JADE REGIMEN evaluated abrocitinib response maintenance with continuous abrocitinib treatment, dose reduction or withdrawal, and response to treatment reintroduction following flare. Continuous abrocitinib 200 mg monotherapy is the most effective option to control this disease.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
37. Gooderham MJ, Girolomoni G, Moore JO et al. Durability of response to abrocitinib in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis after treatment discontinuation in a phase 2b trial. Dermatol. Ther. (Heidelb.) 12(9), 2077–2085 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
38. Ardern-Jones M, Ameen M, Bruin-Weller M et al. P81: efficacy of abrocitinib vs. dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis who had an inadequate response or intolerance to nonsteroidal immunosuppressants: results from JADE DARE. Br. J. Dermatol. 187(S1), 71–72 (2022).
Google Scholar
39. Deeks ED, Duggan S. Abrocitinib: first approval. Drugs 81, 2149–2157 (2021).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
40. Shi VY, Bhutani T, Fonacier L et al. Phase 3 efficacy and safety of abrocitinib in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis after switching from dupilumab (JADE EXTEND). J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 87(2), 351–358 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
41. Ständer S, Kwatra SG, Silverberg JI et al. Early itch response with abrocitinib is associated with later efficacy outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: subgroup analysis of the randomized phase III JADE COMPARE trial .Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. doi: 10.1007/s40257-022-00738-4 (2022) (Online). •• Abrocitinib was responsible for a quick relief from itch, with significant improvement from day 4 of treatment compared with dupilumab and placebo. Itch relief by week 2 was associated with subsequent clinical efficacy at week 12.
Google Scholar
42. Silverberg JI, Thyssen JP, Simpson EL, Yosipovitch G, Ständer S, Valdez H. Impact of oral abrocitinib monotherapy on patient-reported symptoms and quality of life in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a pooled analysis of patient-reported outcomes. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 22(4), 541–554 (2021).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
43. Napolitano M, Fabbrocini G, Genco L, Martora F, Potestio L, Patruno C. Rapid improvement in pruritus in atopic dermatitis patients treated with upadacitinib: a real-life experience. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 36(9), 1497–1498 (2022).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
44. Silverberg JI, Hong HC-H, Thyssen JP et al. Comparative efficacy of targeted systemic therapies for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis without topical corticosteroids: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Dermatol. Ther. (Heidelb.) 12(5), 1181–1196 (2022).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
45. Noda S, Suárez-Fariñas M, Ungar B et al. The Asian atopic dermatitis phenotype combines features of atopic dermatitis and psoriasis with increased TH17 polarization. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 136(5), 1254–1264 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar

Vol. 15, No. 16

Metrics

Downloaded 278 times

History

Received 8 March 2023

Accepted 11 August 2023

Published online 5 September 2023

Published in print November 2023

Information

Keywords

Author contributions

AM Lé, M Gooderham and T Torres had the idea for the article, performed the literature search and data analysis, and drafted and critically revised the work.

Financial & competing interest disclosure

AM Lé has no conflicts of interest to declare. M Gooderham declares the following conflicts of interest: has been an investigator, speaker and/or advisor for AbbVie, Amgen, Akros, Arcutis, Aristea, AnaptysBio, Bausch Health, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Dermira, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, MedImmune, Meiji, Merck, Moonlake, Nimbus, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, Tarsus, Takeda, UCB and Ventyx. T Torres declares the following conflicts of interest: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Biocad, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung-Bioepis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Sandoz and UCB. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Data sharing statement

The authors certify that this manuscript reports original clinical trial data from published studies.

PDF download

Abrocitinib for the treatment of atopic dermatitis

Abstract

Plain language summary

Tweetable abstract

References