Expert Perspectives on Key Parameters that Impact Interpretation of Randomized Clinical Trials in Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis

Abstract

The recent advent of numerous clinical trials for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis has led to new and emerging therapeutic options for this chronic inflammatory skin disease. With this rapid development has come a lack of consistency in study designs, trial conduct, and statistical analyses. Healthcare providers are challenged to interpret how variations in study parameters may influence clinical trial results. Based on literature review and our experience as clinical trialists, we compiled a list of 22 key study parameters of contemporary clinical trials in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis and ranked the top study parameters that may have a significant effect on efficacy results. The top parameters included study comparators, rules for rescue treatment, washout periods for topical and systemic treatments, inclusion criteria such as disease severity by Eczema Area and Severity Index and/or Investigator Global Assessment scores, and the duration of the screening period. We describe considerations for these key parameters, with a focus on between-parameter interactions and effect on efficacy results. This may serve to inform the interpretation of atopic dermatitis clinical trials and raise the profile of the need to harmonize the clinical trial design. Plain Language SummaryAtopic dermatitis (AD) is a skin disease characterized by red, itchy skin that is highly burdensome for patients. Patients with moderate-to-severe disease have large, inflamed skin areas with frequent itching. Recently, the number of clinical trials for drugs that treat moderate-to-severe AD has rapidly increased, with differences in how these trials are designed. There is a need for healthcare providers examining results from different clinical trials to understand how trial design factors might influence study outcomes. In this article, we identify key trial design factors that impact study outcomes, detail how these factors can impact clinical trial results, and explore how these factors interact with one another to affect study outcomes. The five most important design factors, as determined via author surveys, were study comparators (a placebo and/or another drug to which the drug being studied is compared); the rules for the use of rescue treatment (a form of treatment given if an enrolled participant has uncontrolled AD symptoms); washout periods (the time before the trial when previous treatments are stopped to allow them to be cleared from a patient's system); inclusion criteria (that determine which participants are included); and the length of the screening period (the time when patients are assessed to determine if they qualify for participation). By understanding how these key trial design factors impact on study outcomes, healthcare providers may be equipped to better interpret different AD clinical trials. This work also emphasizes the value of harmonizing the AD clinical trial design.

Abrocitinib efficacy and safety in patients with moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis: Results from phase 3 studies, including the long‐term extension JADE EXTEND study

“…when patients drop out because they ‘feel good’) or underestimate treatment efficacy (e.g. participants could have improved if they had been retained) 17 . In these analyses, high levels of efficacy were consistently observed in patients treated with abrocitinib irrespective of imputation approach.…”

“…A strength of this report is the use of different methodologies for imputing missing data (NRI and LOCF) for a transparent view of these long‐term efficacy data. There is no consensus on which imputation approach is best 16 ; NRI is considered the most conservative, ‘worst‐case’ scenario, potentially underestimating treatment efficacy because missing data are presumed to be nonresponses 16,17 . LOCF may overestimate treatment efficacy by sustaining responses (e.g.…”

Efficacy and Safety of Tralokinumab in Adolescents With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis

“…Other approved treatments in this age group, including dupilumab, have also shown substantial efficacy . Interpretation of comparisons between trial results is challenging due to differences in study design, analysis methods, and populations, and any comparison only on primary end points at week 16 would ignore both the chronic nature of the disease and the changes reported by the patient. It is notable that the safety profile of tralokinumab is favorable; although no statistical comparisons have been made, the frequency of acne is numerically lower than that reported with Janus kinase inhibitors, and the frequency of conjunctivitis in adolescents is numerically lower than that reported with dupilumab .…”

Indirect Treatment Comparison of Baricitinib versus Dupilumab in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis

“…Also, it is possible that differences in trial design, such as TCS use not being standardized across trials and different washout periods, limit cross-trial comparability in the AD research landscape. Heterogeneity across trials designs and statistical analysis that impact study outcomes in AD clinical research has been identified as a challenge for healthcare providers [ 22 ], though in this instance, there is evidence that these may favor dupilumab [ 23 ]. The lack of longer-term follow-up in our analysis also represents a limitation.…”