Cited by 516Dermatology and Skin DiseasesAsthma and respiratory diseasesPsoriasis: Treatment and Pathogenesis

Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib vs Dupilumab in Adults With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Blauvelt, Andrew, Teixeira, Henrique D., Simpson, Eric L., Costanzo, Antonio, De Bruin-Weller, Marjolein, Barbarot, Sebastien, Prajapati, Vimal H., Lio, Peter +6 more·2021·JAMA Dermatology

Abstract

Importance: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, recurrent, inflammatory skin disease with an unmet need for treatments that provide rapid and high levels of skin clearance and itch improvement. Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib vs dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Design, Setting, and Participants: Heads Up was a 24-week, head-to-head, phase 3b, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, double-dummy, active-controlled clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib with dupilumab among 673 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were candidates for systemic therapy. The study was conducted from February 21, 2019, to December 9, 2020, at 129 centers located in 22 countries across Europe, North and South America, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region. Efficacy analyses were conducted in the intent-to-treat population. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 and treated with oral upadacitinib, 30 mg once daily, or subcutaneous dupilumab, 300 mg every other week. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was achievement of 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) at week 16. Secondary end points were percentage change from baseline in the Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (weekly average), proportion of patients achieving EASI100 and EASI90 at week 16, percentage change from baseline in Worst Pruritus NRS at week 4, proportion of patients achieving EASI75 at week 2, percentage change from baseline in Worst Pruritus NRS (weekly average) at week 1, and Worst Pruritus NRS (weekly average) improvement of 4 points or more at week 16. End points at week 24 included EASI75, EASI90, EASI100, and improvement of 4 points or more in Worst Pruritus NRS from baseline (weekly average). Safety was assessed as treatment-emergent adverse events in all patients receiving 1 or more dose of either drug. Results: Of 924 patients screened, 342 (183 men [53.5%]; mean [SD] age, 36.2 [14.4] years) were randomized to receive upadacitinib and 331 were randomized to receive dupilumab (192 men [58.0%]; mean [SD] age, 36.3 [13.8] years); demographic and disease characteristics were balanced among treatment groups. At week 16, 248 patients receiving upadacitinib (72.4%) and 207 patients receiving dupilumab (62.6%) achieved EASI75 ( P = .007). All ranked secondary end points also demonstrated the superiority of upadacitinib vs dupilumab, including improvement in Worst Pruritus NRS as early as week 1 (mean [SE], 32.0% [1.8%] vs 8.9% [1.8%]; P < .001), achievement of EASI75 as early as week 2 (152 [44.3%] vs 60 [18.2%]; P < .001), and achievement of EASI100 at week 16 (97 [28.4%] vs 26 [7.9%]; P < .001). Rates of serious infection, eczema herpeticum, herpes zoster, and laboratory-related adverse events were higher for patients who received upadacitinib, whereas rates of conjunctivitis and injection-site reactions were higher for patients who received dupilumab. Conclusions and Relevance: During 16 weeks of treatment, upadacitinib demonstrated superior efficacy vs dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe AD, with no new safety signals. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03738397

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.3023

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The current model does not yet capture inter-patient variability in pharmacological responses or the full chronicity of clinical AD.

    “These pharmacological responses are mechanistically consistent with the known mechanisms of these therapeutics, whereas the current model does not yet capture inter-patient variability in pharmacological responses or the full chronicity of clinical AD [46][47][48] .”

    From Vascularized human skin assembloids model compartmental skin organization and immune responsiveness in vitro (2026) · cites this paper as [48]

    The Discussion > Limitations section says the trial reports outcomes through 24 weeks and that longer-term data are being collected. It does not discuss the citing authors’ model or whether that model captures inter-patient variability or the chronicity of clinical AD. Searches for those model limitations found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. [2]Langan SM, Irvine AD, Weidinger S. Atopic dermatitis. Lancet. 2020; 396(10247): 345- 360. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31286-1 32738956 · DOI
  2. [3]Howell MD, Kuo FI, Smith PA. Targeting the Janus kinase family in autoimmune skin diseases. Front Immunol. 2019; 10: 2342. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02342 31649667 PMC6794457 · DOI
  3. [4]He H, Guttman-Yassky E. JAK inhibitors for atopic dermatitis: an update. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2019; 20(2): 181- 192. doi: 10.1007/s40257-018-0413-2 30536048 · DOI
  4. [6]Parmentier JM, Voss J, Graff C,. In vitro and in vivo characterization of the JAK1 selectivity of upadacitinib (ABT-494). BMC Rheumatol. 2018; 2: 23. doi: 10.1186/s41927-018-0031-x 30886973 PMC6390583 · DOI
  5. [7]Guttman-Yassky E, Thaçi D, Pangan AL,. Upadacitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: 16-week results from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020; 145(3): 877- 884. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2019.11.025 31786154 · DOI
  6. [8]Guttman-Yassky E, Teixeira HD, Simpson EL,. Once-daily upadacitinib versus placebo in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2): results from two replicate double-blind, randomised controlled phase 3 trials. Lancet. 2021; 397(10290): 2151- 2168. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00588-2 34023008 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [9]Reich K, Teixeira HD, de Bruin-Weller M,. Safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in combination with topical corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD Up): results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021; 397(10290): 2169- 2181. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00589-4 34023009 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [11]Hanifin JM, Rajka G. Diagnostic features of atopic dermatitis. Acta Dermatovener (Stockholm). 1980; 60(92): 44- 47.
  9. [12]Silverberg JI, Lei D, Yousaf M,. What are the best endpoints for Eczema Area and Severity Index and Scoring Atopic Dermatitis in clinical practice? a prospective observational study. Br J Dermatol. 2021;184(5):888-895. doi: 10.1111/bjd.19457 32959390 PMC7862410 · DOI
  10. [13]Schmitt J, Csötönyi F, Bauer A, Meurer M. Determinants of treatment goals and satisfaction of patients with atopic eczema. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2008; 6(6): 458- 465. doi: 10.1111/j.1610-0387.2007.06609.x 18190558 · DOI
  11. [14]Silverberg JI, Kantor RW, Dalal P,. A comprehensive conceptual model of the experience of chronic itch in adults. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2018; 19(5): 759- 769. doi: 10.1007/s40257-018-0381-6 30155595 PMC6161822 · DOI
  12. [15]Augustin M, Langenbruch A, Blome C,. Characterizing treatment-related patient needs in atopic eczema: insights for personalized goal orientation. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020; 34(1): 142- 152. doi: 10.1111/jdv.15919 31465587 · DOI
  13. [16]Leung DY, Guttman-Yassky E. Deciphering the complexities of atopic dermatitis: shifting paradigms in treatment approaches. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014; 134(4): 769- 779. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.08.008 25282559 PMC4186710 · DOI
  14. [17]Silverberg JI, Simpson EL, Thyssen JP,. Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2020; 156(8): 863- 873. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1406 32492087 PMC7271424 · DOI
  15. [19]Simpson EL, Lacour JP, Spelman L,. Baricitinib in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis and inadequate response to topical corticosteroids: results from two randomized monotherapy phase III trials. Br J Dermatol. 2020; 183(2): 242- 255. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18898 31995838 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [20]Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Berger TG,. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis, section 2: management and treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014; 71(1): 116- 132. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.03.023 24813302 PMC4326095 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blauvelt, A., Teixeira, H. D., Simpson, E. L., Costanzo, A., De Bruin-Weller, M., Barbarot, S., Prajapati, V. H., Lio, P., Hu, X., Wu, T., Liu, J., Ladizinski, B., Chu, A. D., & Eyerich, K.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Medical Research Center (US)
  • AbbVie (United States) (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Humanitas University (IT)
  • Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes (FR)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
Corresponding author
Blauvelt, Andrew
Venue
JAMA Dermatology
Published
2021-09-01
Volume
157
Issue
9
Pages
1047
ISSN
2168-6068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3189956257
Cited by
516
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 79 · 2025: 109 · 2024: 107 · 2023: 112 · 2022: 94 · 2021: 15
FWCI
72.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • JAMA Dermatology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatology and Skin Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Psoriasis: Treatment and Pathogenesis
Keywords
atopic dermatitis, upadacitinib, dupilumab, JAK inhibitors, IL-4 receptor antagonist, Eczema Area and Severity Index, pruritus, skin clearance, treatment safety, adverse events, adults, systemic therapy, IL-4/IL-13 pathway
MeSH terms
Adult, Dermatitis, Atopic, Double-Blind Method, Eczema, Female, Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring, Humans, Male, Severity of Illness Index, Treatment Outcome, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review