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 692 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 MEASURESThe 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. RESULTSOf 924 patients screened, 348 (183 men [52.6%]; mean [SD] age, 36.6 [14.6] years) were randomized to receive upadacitinib and 344 were randomized to receive dupilumab (194 men [56.4%]; mean [SD] age, 36.9 [14.1] years); demographic and disease characteristics were balanced among treatment groups. At week 16, 247 patients receiving upadacitinib (71.0%) and 210 patients receiving dupilumab (61.1%) achieved EASI75 (P = .006). 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], 31.4% [1.7%] vs 8.8% [1.8%]; P < .001), achievement of EASI75 as early as week 2 (152 [43.7%] vs 60 [17.4%]; P < .001), and achievement of EASI100 at week 16 (97 [27.9%] vs 26 [7.6%]; 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 dup...

IMPORTANCE Risankizumab selectively inhibits interleukin 23, a cytokine that contributes to psoriatic inflammation. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of risankizumab vs placebo and continuous treatment vs withdrawal in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Summary Background Patients with plaque psoriasis treated with biologic therapies need more efficacious, safe and convenient treatments to improve quality of life. Risankizumab and secukinumab inhibit interleukin‐23 and interleukin‐17A, respectively, and are effective in adult patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis but have different dosing regimens. Objectives To compare directly the efficacy and safety of risankizumab vs. secukinumab over 52 weeks. Methods IMMerge was an international, phase III, multicentre, open‐label, efficacy–assessor‐blinded, active‐comparator study, in which adult patients with chronic, moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis were randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio to treatment with risankizumab 150 mg or secukinumab 300 mg. Primary efficacy endpoints were the proportions of patients achieving ≥ 90% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90) at week 16 (noninferiority comparison with margin of 12%) and week 52 (superiority comparison). Results In total 327 patients from nine countries were treated with risankizumab (n = 164) or secukinumab (n = 163). Risankizumab was noninferior to secukinumab in the proportion of patients achieving PASI 90 at week 16 [73·8% vs. 65·6%; difference of 8·2%, 96·25% confidence interval (CI)−2·2 to 18·6; within the 12% noninferiority margin] and superior to secukinumab at week 52 (86·6% vs. 57·1%; difference of 29·8%, 95% CI 20·8–38·8; P < 0·001), thus meeting both primary endpoints. All secondary endpoints (PASI 100, static Physician's Global Assessment 0 or 1, and PASI 75) at week 52 demonstrated superiority for risankizumab vs. secukinumab (P < 0·001). No new safety concerns were identified. Conclusions At week 52, risankizumab demonstrated superior efficacy and similar safety with less frequent dosing compared with secukinumab.

SUMMARYA dynamic treatment regime (DTR) is a treatment design that seeks to accommodate patient heterogeneity in response to treatment. DTRs can be operationalized by a sequence of decision rules that map patient information to treatment options at specific decision points. The sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trial (SMART) is a trial design that was developed specifically for the purpose of obtaining data that informs the construction of good (i.e. efficacious) decision rules. One of the scientific questions motivating a SMART concerns the comparison of multiple DTRs that are embedded in the design. Typical approaches for identifying the best DTRs involve all possible comparisons between DTRs that are embedded in a SMART, at the cost of greatly reduced power to the extent that the number of embedded DTRs (EDTRs) increase. Here, we propose a method that will enable investigators to use SMART study data more efficiently to identify the set that contains the most efficacious EDTRs. Our method ensures that the true best EDTRs are included in this set with at least a given probability. Simulation results are presented to evaluate the proposed method, and the Extending Treatment Effectiveness of Naltrexone SMART study data are analyzed to illustrate its application.

Sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trial (SMART) designs have become increasingly popular in the field of precision medicine by providing a means for comparing sequences of treatments tailored to the individual patient, i.e., dynamic treatment regime (DTR). The construction of evidence-based DTRs promises a replacement to adhoc one-size-fits-all decisions pervasive in patient care. However, there are substantial statistical challenges in sizing SMART designs due to the complex correlation structure between the DTRs embedded in the design. Since the primary goal of SMARTs is the construction of an optimal DTR, investigators are interested in sizing SMARTs based on the ability to screen out DTRs inferior to the optimal DTR by a given amount which cannot be done using existing methods. In this paper, we fill this gap by developing a rigorous power analysis framework that leverages multiple comparisons with the best methodology. Our method employs Monte Carlo simulation in order to compute the minimum number of individuals to enroll in an arbitrary SMART. We will evaluate our method through extensive simulation studies. We will illustrate our method by retrospectively computing the power in the Extending Treatment Effectiveness of Naltrexone SMART study.