TOPLINE

Abrocitinib improved skin clearance and reduced itch compared with placebo at week 16 in patients aged 12 years or older with moderate or severe atopic dermatitis (AD). The responses were maintained through 112 weeks in both severity groups. No unexpected safety signals emerged.

METHODOLOGY

• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of two phase 3 randomised trials in patients with moderate-to-severe AD: JADE COMPARE (837 adults; week 16 data) and the ongoing JADE EXTEND (interim week 112 data).
• JADE COMPARE patients were given abrocitinib at 100 or 200 mg daily, placebo, or dupilumab at 300 mg every other week, alongside topical therapy. JADE EXTEND patients, including 254 adolescents, were given abrocitinib at 100 or 200 mg daily.
• Researchers classified baseline severity using clinician scores or body surface area (BSA); the week 16 analysis also used patients' own global ratings.
• Moderate severity meant an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3 with an Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of 16-25 or a BSA of 10%-30%; severe severity meant an IGA score of 4 with an EASI score > 25 or a BSA > 30%.
• Efficacy outcomes were an IGA score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear skin), with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline; at least 75% improvement in the EASI (EASI-75); an improvement of at least 4 points in itch intensity on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS4); and an improvement of at least 90% in the EASI (EASI-90) with no or mild itch. Quality of life was also tracked.

TAKEAWAY

• IGA 0/1 response rates at week 16 were 50.0% with 200 mg abrocitinib and 40.8% with 100 mg abrocitinib vs 18.0% with placebo in moderate disease, and 43.2% and 19.1% vs 2.8% in severe disease (based on IGA and EASI severity classifications).
• IGA 0/1 response rates at week 112 were 64.3% with 200 mg abrocitinib and 60.2% with 100 mg abrocitinib in moderate disease, and 54.5% and 38.6%, respectively, in severe disease. Similar results were observed for other efficacy outcomes and among the 254 adolescents.
• Itch reduced within 2 weeks with both doses compared with placebo and dupilumab. PP-NRS4 response rates at week 112 were 71.8% with 200 mg abrocitinib and 61.1% with 100 mg abrocitinib in moderate disease, and 73.1% and 54.3%, respectively, in severe disease. Quality-of-life gains were also maintained.
• No unexpected safety signals emerged. Adverse events were numerically more common with 200 mg abrocitinib and, over the long term, in patients with severe disease; however, serious events, severe events, and discontinuations were similar across doses.

IN PRACTICE

"Whether patients present with moderate or severe baseline AD, clinically meaningful responses can be achieved with either abrocitinib dose, although more patients with severe baseline disease may achieve response with 200 mg than 100 mg," the authors wrote.

SOURCE

The study was led by Andrew E. Pink, St John's Institute of Dermatology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, and King's College London, London, England. It was published online on October 8, 2026, in Dermatology and Therapy.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its post hoc design, small subgroups such as adolescents, and the exploratory nature of the analysis, which was not powered to compare dupilumab with abrocitinib within severity subgroups or to test the interaction between severity and treatment response. Week 112 response rates were based on observed data that were not imputed; therefore, attrition or survivor bias may have affected the results over time. Excluding patients with previous biologic exposure may limit the applicability of the findings to the wider AD population.

DISCLOSURES

Pfizer sponsored the study and helped design the trials, analyse the data, and prepare the manuscript. Four coauthors are Pfizer employees and shareholders. The lead author reported receiving research support from and serving in advisory or speaker roles for several pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Full disclosures are reported in the original source article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.