Trial Outcomes & Findings for A Study to Learn About Abrocitinib in Adult Patients With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis (NCT NCT05250115)

NCT ID: NCT05250115

Last Updated: 2025-09-29

Results Overview

The IGA is a tool used to assess the severity of AD (excluding scalp, palms and soles) on a 5-point scale that ranges from 0 to 4, where 0 indicates clear (no signs of AD), 1 indicates almost clear (minimal signs of AD), 2 indicates mild AD, 3 indicates moderate AD and 4 indicates severe AD, higher scores indicated greater severity of AD. Percentage of participants with score of "Clear" (score 0) or "Almost Clear" (score 1) according to IGA were reported in this outcome measure.

Recruitment status

TERMINATED

Target enrollment

112 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

At Month 3

Results posted on

2025-09-29

Participant Flow

A total of 112 participants who were diagnosed with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) and received abrocitinib treatment were included, of which 2 participants violated the inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a total 110 participants were included in the full analysis set (FAS). Participants were followed up for 12 months.

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure
Abrocitinib
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib in a real-world setting were observed in this prospective study.
Overall Study
STARTED
110
Overall Study
COMPLETED
41
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
69

Reasons for withdrawal

Reasons for withdrawal
Measure
Abrocitinib
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib in a real-world setting were observed in this prospective study.
Overall Study
Premature study end
40
Overall Study
Adverse Event
8
Overall Study
Lost to Follow-up
7
Overall Study
Withdrawal by Subject
6
Overall Study
Withdrawal of informed consent
1
Overall Study
Other
7

Baseline Characteristics

All participants who consented to disclose their ethnicity details.

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=110 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Age, Continuous
39.59 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 15.45 • n=110 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
42 Participants
n=110 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
68 Participants
n=110 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity · Caucasian
86 Participants
n=95 Participants • All participants who consented to disclose their ethnicity details.
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity · Non-Caucasian
2 Participants
n=95 Participants • All participants who consented to disclose their ethnicity details.
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity · Unknown
7 Participants
n=95 Participants • All participants who consented to disclose their ethnicity details.

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: At Month 3

Population: The FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

The IGA is a tool used to assess the severity of AD (excluding scalp, palms and soles) on a 5-point scale that ranges from 0 to 4, where 0 indicates clear (no signs of AD), 1 indicates almost clear (minimal signs of AD), 2 indicates mild AD, 3 indicates moderate AD and 4 indicates severe AD, higher scores indicated greater severity of AD. Percentage of participants with score of "Clear" (score 0) or "Almost Clear" (score 1) according to IGA were reported in this outcome measure.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=84 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Score of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) at Month 3
35.71 Percentage of participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: At Month 3

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

The EASI assessed both clinical signs of AD as well as extent of disease. For body regions such as "head and neck", "trunk", "upper extremities" and "lower extremities" the extent of eczema was assessed by an area score between 0 (0% of body surface area \[BSA\] affected) and 6 (90 to 100% of BSA affected), respectively. For each area the severity of clinical signs of AD such as "erythema", "edema/papulation", "excoriation" and "lichenification" were scored from 0 to 3, respectively where 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. The scores for the signs were added for each area and multiplied by the respective area score. The EASI for an individual was calculated as weighted sum: 0.1\*score for head/neck + 0.3\*score for trunk + 0.2\*score for upper extremities + 0.4\*score for lower extremities. The total score ranged from 0 to 72, higher scores represented greater severity of AD. EASI 75 response was defined as at least a 75% reduction in EASI relative to baseline.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=84 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage of Participants With 75% Reduction From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) at Month 3
47.62 Percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From Baseline (Day 1) up to end of study (Month 12)

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

The IGA is a tool used to assess the severity of AD (excluding scalp, palms and soles) on a 5-point scale that typically ranges from 0 to 4, where 0 indicates clear (no signs of AD), 1 indicates almost clear (minimal signs of AD), 2 indicates mild AD, 3 indicates moderate AD and 4 indicates severe AD, higher scores indicated greater severity of AD. Percentage of participants with score of "Clear" (score 0) or "Almost Clear" (score 1) according to IGA were reported in this outcome measure.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=101 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved IGA Score of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) Until End of Study
51.49 Percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From Baseline (Day 1) up to end of study (Month 12)

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

The EASI assessed both clinical signs of AD as well as extent of disease. For body regions such as "head and neck", "trunk", "upper extremities" and "lower extremities" the extent of eczema was assessed by an area score between 0 (0% of BSA affected) and 6 (90 to 100% of BSA affected), respectively. For each area the severity of clinical signs of AD such as "erythema", "edema/papulation", "excoriation" and "lichenification" were scored from 0 to 3, respectively where 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. The scores for the signs were added for each area and multiplied by the respective area score. The EASI for an individual was calculated as weighted sum: 0.1\*score for head/neck + 0.3\*score for trunk + 0.2\*score for upper extremities + 0.4\*score for lower extremities. The total score ranged from 0 to 72, higher scores represented greater severity of AD. EASI 75 response was defined as at least a 75% reduction in EASI relative to baseline.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=101 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage of Participants With 75% Reduction From Baseline in EASI Score Until End of Study
63.37 Percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From Baseline (Day 1) up to end of study (Month 12)

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

The EASI assessed both clinical signs of AD as well as extent of disease. For body regions such as "head and neck", "trunk", "upper extremities" and "lower extremities" the extent of eczema was assessed by an area score between 0 (0% of BSA affected) and 6 (90 to 100% of BSA affected), respectively. For each area the severity of clinical signs of AD such as "erythema", "edema/papulation", "excoriation" and "lichenification" were scored from 0 to 3, respectively where 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. The scores for the signs were added for each area and multiplied by the respective area score. The EASI for an individual was calculated as weighted sum: 0.1\*score for head/neck + 0.3\*score for trunk + 0.2\*score for upper extremities + 0.4\*score for lower extremities. The total score ranged from 0 to 72, higher scores represented greater severity of AD. EASI 90 response was defined as at least a 90% reduction in EASI relative to baseline.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=101 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage of Participants With 90% Reduction From Baseline in EASI Score Until End of Study
42.57 Percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From Baseline (Day 1) up to end of study (Month 12)

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

The IGA is a tool used to assess the severity of AD (excluding scalp, palms and soles) on a 5-point scale that typically ranges from 0 to 4, where 0 indicates clear (no signs of AD), 1 indicates almost clear (minimal signs of AD), 2 indicates mild AD, 3 indicates moderate AD and 4 indicates severe AD, higher scores indicated greater severity of AD. Percentage of participants with score of "Clear" (score 0) or "Almost Clear" (score 1) and a reduction of \>=2 points from baseline according to IGA were reported in this outcome measure.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=101 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved IGA Score of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and a Reduction of >= 2 Points From Baseline Until End of Study
47.52 Percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1), Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and 'Number Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for the specified rows.

The IGA is a tool used to assess the severity of AD (excluding scalp, palms and soles) on a 5-point scale that typically ranges from 0 to 4, where 0 indicates clear (no signs of AD), 1 indicates almost clear (minimal signs of AD), 2 indicates mild AD, 3 indicates moderate AD and 4 indicates severe AD, higher scores indicated greater severity of AD.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=81 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage Change From Baseline in IGA Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1
-38.79 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 33.55
Percentage Change From Baseline in IGA Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3
-50.37 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 31.06
Percentage Change From Baseline in IGA Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6
-46.05 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 33.15
Percentage Change From Baseline in IGA Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9
-41.86 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 32.07
Percentage Change From Baseline in IGA Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12
-38.97 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 40.45

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1), Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and 'Number Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for the specified rows.

SCORAD total score was a validated scoring index for AD that assessed severity by combining A: extent, B: severity and C: subjective symptoms. A: a rule of 9 was used to calculate BSA affected by AD as a % of whole-BSA for each body region- head and neck 9%; upper limbs 9% each; lower limbs 18% each; anterior trunk 18%; back 18%; 1% for genitals. Score for each body region was added to determine A (0-100). B: severity of each sign (erythema; edema; oozing; excoriation; lichenification; dryness) was assessed as none =0, mild =1, moderate =2, severe =3, severity scores were added to give B (0-18). C: based on itching and sleep deprivation, each scored (0-10) where, 0= no itch/no sleeplessness and 10= worst imaginable itch/sleeplessness, scores for itch and sleeplessness were added to give C (0-20). The total score for an individual was calculated as A/5 + 7B/2 + C and ranged from 0-103; higher SCORAD scores = greater severity of AD.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=71 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3
-50.60 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 27.60
Percentage Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6
-53.41 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 29.64
Percentage Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9
-43.46 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 31.86
Percentage Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1
-48.53 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 28.43
Percentage Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12
-50.08 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 30.81

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and 'Number Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for the specified rows.

The EASI assessed both clinical signs of AD as well as extent of disease. For body regions such as "head and neck", "trunk", "upper extremities" and "lower extremities" the extent of eczema was assessed by an area score between 0 (0% of BSA affected) and 6 (90 to 100% of BSA affected), respectively. For each area the severity of clinical signs of AD such as "erythema", "edema/papulation", "excoriation" and "lichenification" were scored from 0 to 3, respectively where 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. The scores for the signs were added for each area and multiplied by the respective area score. The EASI for an individual was calculated as weighted sum: 0.1\*score for head/neck + 0.3\*score for trunk + 0.2\*score for upper extremities + 0.4\*score for lower extremities. The total score ranged from 0 to 72, higher scores represented greater severity of AD.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=85 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Absolute EASI Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1
5.09 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.57
Absolute EASI Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3
4.37 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.03
Absolute EASI Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6
3.65 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 4.50
Absolute EASI Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9
4.70 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 5.47
Absolute EASI Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12
5.11 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.09

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1), Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and 'Number Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for the specified rows.

The EASI assessed both clinical signs of AD as well as extent of disease. For body regions such as "head and neck", "trunk", "upper extremities" and "lower extremities" the extent of eczema was assessed by an area score between 0 (0% of BSA affected) and 6 (90 to 100% of BSA affected), respectively. For each area the severity of clinical signs of AD such as "erythema", "edema/papulation", "excoriation" and "lichenification" were scored from 0 to 3, respectively where 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. The scores for the signs were added for each area and multiplied by the respective area score. The EASI for an individual was calculated as weighted sum: 0.1\*score for head/neck + 0.3\*score for trunk + 0.2\*score for upper extremities + 0.4\*score for lower extremities. The total score ranged from 0 to 72, higher scores represented greater severity of AD.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=84 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage Change From Baseline in EASI Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3
-70.11 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 31.71
Percentage Change From Baseline in EASI Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6
-67.89 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 47.82
Percentage Change From Baseline in EASI Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9
-69.16 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 32.03
Percentage Change From Baseline in EASI Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1
-57.00 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 64.37
Percentage Change From Baseline in EASI Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12
-71.58 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 35.79

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1), Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and 'Number Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for the specified rows.

The IGA is a tool used to assess the severity of AD (excluding scalp, palms and soles) on a 5-point scale that typically ranges from 0 to 4, where 0 indicates clear (no signs of AD), 1 indicates almost clear (minimal signs of AD), 2 indicates mild AD, 3 indicates moderate AD and 4 indicates severe AD, higher scores indicated greater severity of AD.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=81 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Absolute Change From Baseline in IGA Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1
-1.31 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.16
Absolute Change From Baseline in IGA Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3
-1.66 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.11
Absolute Change From Baseline in IGA Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6
-1.51 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.12
Absolute Change From Baseline in IGA Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9
-1.39 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.06
Absolute Change From Baseline in IGA Total Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12
-1.38 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.30

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From Baseline (Day 1) up to end of study (Month 12)

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

The pruritus-NRS comprised of one item and the score ranged from 0 ("no itch") to 10 ("worst imaginable itch"). Higher scores indicated greater severity. Participants were asked to rate the intensity of their average pruritus using this scale. Percentage of participants who achieved at least 4-point improvement on pruritus NRS are reported in this outcome measure.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=101 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved at Least 4 Point Improvement on Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) From Baseline Until End of Study
42.57 Percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From Baseline (Day 1) up to end of study (Month 12)

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

The pruritus-NRS was comprised of one item and the score ranged from 0 ("no itch") to 10 ("worst imaginable itch"). Higher scores indicated greater severity. Participants were asked to rate the intensity of their average pruritus using this scale. Percentage of participants with pruritus NRS score \<=1 are reported in this outcome measure.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=101 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage of Participants With Pruritus NRS Score Less Than or Equal to (<=1)
29.70 Percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1), Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and 'Number Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for the specified rows.

PP NRS evaluated itching in the last 24 hours on a scale ranging from no itching (0) to worst possible itching (10). Higher scores indicated greater severity.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=59 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage Change From Baseline in Peak-Pruritus (PP) NRS at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1
-53.15 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 36.81
Percentage Change From Baseline in Peak-Pruritus (PP) NRS at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3
-43.17 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 39.01
Percentage Change From Baseline in Peak-Pruritus (PP) NRS at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6
-48.41 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 47.88
Percentage Change From Baseline in Peak-Pruritus (PP) NRS at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9
-39.11 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 74.06
Percentage Change From Baseline in Peak-Pruritus (PP) NRS at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12
-37.41 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 65.89

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1), Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and 'Number Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for the specified rows.

POEM was a participant-reported measure that assessed AD symptoms. The participants self-evaluated the frequency of occurrence and severity of 7 symptoms (such as itching and burning of the skin) within the last week, each according to a 5-point Likert scale from 0 ("at no day") to 4 ("at all days"). The total POEM score was summed over the symptoms and ranged from 0 (clear) to 28 points (very severe), where higher score indicated greater severity.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=58 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage Change From Baseline in Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1
-54.53 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 35.86
Percentage Change From Baseline in Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3
-49.90 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 39.39
Percentage Change From Baseline in Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6
-49.54 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 38.25
Percentage Change From Baseline in Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9
-42.42 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 45.50
Percentage Change From Baseline in Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12
-44.74 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 63.31

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1), Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and 'Number Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for the specified rows.

The MOS-Sleep Scale is a self-administered questionnaire consisting of 12 items that assess key constructs of sleep. Instrument scoring yields 7 subscales (sleep disturbance, snoring, Sleep short of breath and headache, sleep quantity (raw scores), optimal sleep, sleep adequacy, and sleep somnolence) as well as sleep problems index I and II and all have score ranges from 0 (no sleep problems) to 100 (greater sleep problems), where higher scores indicated more sleep problems, with exception of sleep adequacy which was scored as 0 (least sleep adequacy) to 100 (better sleep adequacy) where higher scores indicated higher sleep adequacy, and optimal sleep scored as 0 (less quantity of sleep) to 24 (greater quantity of sleep), where higher scores indicated higher quantity sleep.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=65 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3: Sleep Disturbance
-39.93 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 31.15
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3: Sleep Quantity (raw scores)
23.31 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 48.74
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3: Sleep Problems Index II
-34.49 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 25.42
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6: Sleep Adequacy
59.83 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 81.33
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6: Optimal Sleep Scale
-14.29 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 37.80
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6: Sleep Problems Index I
-29.01 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 37.19
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3: Sleep short of breath and headache
-54.90 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 46.68
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3: Snoring
-13.61 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 52.77
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6: Sleep short of breath and headache
-44.44 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 48.51
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6: Sleep Somnolence
-18.15 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 68.23
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6: Sleep Quantity (raw scores)
30.17 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 52.08
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6: Sleep Problems Index II
-27.61 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 37.60
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9: Sleep Disturbance
4.54 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 179.32
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3: Sleep Adequacy
81.69 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 141.71
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3: Sleep Somnolence
-15.71 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 68.76
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3: Optimal Sleep Scale
-12.50 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 35.36
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3: Sleep Problems Index I
-33.27 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 30.21
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6: Sleep Disturbance
-32.02 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 52.68
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6: Snoring
-8.10 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 63.01
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9: Sleep Adequacy
52.55 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 113.18
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9: Sleep Somnolence
7.55 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 115.13
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9: Sleep Quantity (raw scores)
9.33 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 24.88
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9: Optimal Sleep Scale
-22.22 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 44.10
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9: Sleep Problems Index I
-13.61 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 61.78
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9: Sleep Problems Index II
-16.82 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 49.82
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12: Sleep Disturbance
-16.56 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 87.57
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12: Snoring
-7.97 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 81.28
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12: Sleep short of breath and headache
-58.33 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 42.34
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12: Sleep Adequacy
86.83 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 142.51
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12: Sleep Somnolence
0.59 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 127.53
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12: Sleep Quantity (raw scores)
22.50 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 39.81
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12: Optimal Sleep Scale
-20.00 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 44.72
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12: Sleep Problems Index I
-19.99 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 93.75
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9: Snoring
-18.18 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 52.02
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9: Sleep short of breath and headache
-57.14 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 43.71
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12: Sleep Problems Index II
-21.23 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 66.11
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1: Sleep disturbance
-30.42 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 40.76
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1: Snoring
-15.80 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 52.09
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1: Sleep short of breath and headache
-34.57 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 51.46
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1: Sleep Adequacy
46.52 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 108.77
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1: Sleep Somnolence
-14.23 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 56.05
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1: Sleep Quantity (raw scores)
13.94 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 39.40
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1: Optimal Sleep Scale
-27.78 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 46.09
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1: Sleep Problems Index I
-15.45 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 56.08
Percentage Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study Sleep (MOS) Scale at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1: Sleep Problems Index II
-20.91 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 39.67

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1), Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and 'Number Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for the specified rows.

The DLQI was a 10-item participant-reported measure that rated how much a participant's skin problems had affected their life over the last week assigned to the following 6 dimensions: symptoms, daily life, leisure/sport, work/school, social life/relationship and treatment. Each question was scored from 0 to 3 where, 0=best quality of life and 3=greatest possible impairment of the quality of life (QoL). The total score was calculated as sum of scores and ranged from 0 (best QoL) to 30 (worst QoL), with higher scores indicating greater impairment of quality of life.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=63 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality-Index (DLQI) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1
-58.09 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 33.22
Percentage Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality-Index (DLQI) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3
-55.40 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 54.83
Percentage Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality-Index (DLQI) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6
-49.54 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 73.27
Percentage Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality-Index (DLQI) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9
-40.73 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 85.53
Percentage Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality-Index (DLQI) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12
-55.37 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 70.83

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1), Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and 'Number Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for the specified rows.

HADS was a validated 14-item questionnaire to assess states of anxiety and depression. HADS consisted of 2 subscales: HADS-Anxiety (HADS-A) scale and HADS-Depression (HADS-D) scale, each of which comprised of 7 items among adults who were physically ill. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, with scores ranging from 0 to 3, with 0 denoting lowest and 3 denoting highest anxiety or depression level. For both subscales the total score was derived by summing up the respective 7 items with total score ranging from 0 (no presence of anxiety and depression) to 21 (severe feeling of anxiety and depression); higher score indicated greater severity of anxiety and depression.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=62 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9: HADS anxiety score
-17.88 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 78.76
Percentage Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1: HADS depression score
-26.09 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 55.72
Percentage Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3: HADS anxiety score
-25.67 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 51.18
Percentage Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3: HADS depression score
-31.41 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 78.54
Percentage Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6: HADS anxiety score
-19.24 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 60.19
Percentage Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6: HADS depression score
-21.27 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 75.52
Percentage Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9: HADS depression score
-15.77 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 89.51
Percentage Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12: HADS anxiety score
-32.25 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 54.02
Percentage Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12: HADS depression score
-36.70 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 58.61
Percentage Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1: HADS anxiety score
-18.15 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 43.84

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 1), Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and 'Number Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for the specified rows.

EQ-5D-5L was an instrument for measuring quality of life, including health benefits and health status on a visual analogue scale (VAS). EQ-5D health state profile has 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 levels: 1= no problems, 2= slight problems, 3= moderate problems, 4= severe problems, and 5= extreme problems. Responses to 5 dimensions comprise a health state/a single utility index value. E.g. if a participant responds "no problems" for each 5 dimensions, then health state was coded as "11111" with a predefined index value to it. Every health state (coded as combination of responses on each of 5 dimensions) has a unique predefined utility index value assigned to it, by EuroQol. Higher (positive) scores = better health state. The VAS component rates current health state on scale from 0 (worst imaginable health state) to 100 (best imaginable health state) ; higher scores indicate a better health state.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=57 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Percentage Change From Baseline in EuroQol Five-dimensional-five Level (EQ-5D-5L) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1: Index score
26.76 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 50.90
Percentage Change From Baseline in EuroQol Five-dimensional-five Level (EQ-5D-5L) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1: VAS
36.15 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 51.76
Percentage Change From Baseline in EuroQol Five-dimensional-five Level (EQ-5D-5L) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3: Index score
29.86 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 56.71
Percentage Change From Baseline in EuroQol Five-dimensional-five Level (EQ-5D-5L) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3: VAS
45.73 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 54.75
Percentage Change From Baseline in EuroQol Five-dimensional-five Level (EQ-5D-5L) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6: Index score
30.36 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 51.44
Percentage Change From Baseline in EuroQol Five-dimensional-five Level (EQ-5D-5L) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6: VAS
51.50 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 60.27
Percentage Change From Baseline in EuroQol Five-dimensional-five Level (EQ-5D-5L) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9: Index score
25.37 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 56.25
Percentage Change From Baseline in EuroQol Five-dimensional-five Level (EQ-5D-5L) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9: VAS
36.76 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 43.67
Percentage Change From Baseline in EuroQol Five-dimensional-five Level (EQ-5D-5L) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12: Index score
32.44 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 66.76
Percentage Change From Baseline in EuroQol Five-dimensional-five Level (EQ-5D-5L) Score at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12: VAS
61.61 Percentage change
Standard Deviation 63.38

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and 'Number Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for the specified rows.

PBI consisted of two one-sided questionnaires which were completed by participants before and after receiving a treatment. Total of 23 possible treatment goals were evaluated on importance scale from 0 ("not at all") to 4 ("very"). "Does not apply to me" was coded as "0". PBI was calculated by multiplying achieved benefits (respective PBI after baseline) with importance of the respective needs prior to therapy (PBI at baseline), dividing these products by sum of all importance items (PBI at baseline) and summing them up for all items. Total PBI score ranged from 0 (no benefit) to 4 (maximal benefit), where higher scores indicated more benefits. PBI questionnaire measured satisfaction at all points in time after baseline.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=64 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Treatment Satisfaction Measured by Patient Benefit Index (PBI) at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 1
2.79 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.99
Treatment Satisfaction Measured by Patient Benefit Index (PBI) at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 3
2.92 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.88
Treatment Satisfaction Measured by Patient Benefit Index (PBI) at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 6
3.12 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.66
Treatment Satisfaction Measured by Patient Benefit Index (PBI) at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 9
2.92 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.94
Treatment Satisfaction Measured by Patient Benefit Index (PBI) at Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12
Month 12
3.07 Units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.82

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At Baseline (Day 1)

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

PBI consisted of two one-sided questionnaires which were completed by participants before and after receiving treatment. Total of 25 possible treatment goals were evaluated on importance scale from 0 (" not at all") to 4 ("very"), where higher scores indicated more important goals. The responses to each treatment goal included: somewhat, moderately, quite, very, does not apply to me, not answered and not at all. Treatment expectation was measured at baseline.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=68 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have fewer side effects · Does not apply to me
10 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be free of pain · Somewhat
2 Participants
Interval 0.82 to
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be free of pain · Does not apply to me
5 Participants
Interval 0.82 to
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be free of pain · Not answered
0 Participants
Interval 0.82 to
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be free of itching · Very
60 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be free of itching · Does not apply to me
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be free of itching · Not answered
3 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be free of itching · Not at all
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
No longer have burning sensations on your skin · Somewhat
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
No longer have burning sensations on your skin · Moderately
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
No longer have burning sensations on your skin · Quite
10 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
No longer have burning sensations on your skin · Very
54 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
No longer have burning sensations on your skin · Does not apply to me
2 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
No longer have burning sensations on your skin · Not answered
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
No longer have burning sensations on your skin · Not at all
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be healed of all skin defects · Somewhat
3 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be healed of all skin defects · Moderately
3 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be healed of all skin defects · Quite
12 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be healed of all skin defects · Very
49 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be healed of all skin defects · Does not apply to me
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be healed of all skin defects · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be healed of all skin defects · Not at all
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to sleep better · Somewhat
5 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to sleep better · Moderately
5 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to sleep better · Quite
13 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to sleep better · Very
38 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to sleep better · Does not apply to me
6 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to sleep better · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to sleep better · Not at all
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Feel less depressed · Somewhat
4 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Feel less depressed · Moderately
8 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Feel less depressed · Quite
17 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Feel less depressed · Very
31 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Feel less depressed · Does not apply to me
8 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Feel less depressed · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Feel less depressed · Not at all
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Experience a greater enjoyment of life · Somewhat
2 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Experience a greater enjoyment of life · Moderately
4 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Experience a greater enjoyment of life · Quite
20 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Experience a greater enjoyment of life · Very
37 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Experience a greater enjoyment of life · Does not apply to me
5 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Experience a greater enjoyment of life · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Experience a greater enjoyment of life · Not at all
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have no fear that the disease will become worse · Somewhat
4 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have no fear that the disease will become worse · Moderately
5 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have no fear that the disease will become worse · Quite
19 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have no fear that the disease will become worse · Very
36 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have no fear that the disease will become worse · Does not apply to me
3 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have no fear that the disease will become worse · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have no fear that the disease will become worse · Not at all
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to lead a normal everyday life · Somewhat
2 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to lead a normal everyday life · Moderately
2 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to lead a normal everyday life · Quite
17 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to lead a normal everyday life · Very
44 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to lead a normal everyday life · Does not apply to me
3 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to lead a normal everyday life · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to lead a normal everyday life · Not at all
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be more productive in everyday life · Somewhat
4 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be more productive in everyday life · Moderately
8 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be more productive in everyday life · Quite
11 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be more productive in everyday life · Very
39 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be more productive in everyday life · Does not apply to me
5 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be more productive in everyday life · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be more productive in everyday life · Not at all
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less of a burden to relatives and friends · Moderately
11 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less of a burden to relatives and friends · Quite
19 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to engage in normal leisure activities · Somewhat
5 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to engage in normal leisure activities · Moderately
2 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to engage in normal leisure activities · Quite
14 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to engage in normal leisure activities · Very
41 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to engage in normal leisure activities · Does not apply to me
5 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to engage in normal leisure activities · Not answered
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to engage in normal leisure activities · Not at all
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to lead a normal working life · Somewhat
3 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to lead a normal working life · Moderately
5 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to lead a normal working life · Quite
15 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to lead a normal working life · Very
31 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to lead a normal working life · Does not apply to me
13 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to lead a normal working life · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less burdened in your partnership · Moderately
6 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less burdened in your partnership · Quite
11 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less dependent on doctor and clinic visits · Does not apply to me
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less dependent on doctor and clinic visits · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less dependent on doctor and clinic visits · Not at all
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Need less time for daily treatment · Somewhat
3 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Need less time for daily treatment · Very
33 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have fewer side effects · Somewhat
2 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have fewer side effects · Moderately
7 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have fewer side effects · Quite
17 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have fewer side effects · Very
31 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have fewer side effects · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Find a clear diagnosis and therapy · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Find a clear diagnosis and therapy · Not at all
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have confidence in the therapy · Somewhat
2 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have confidence in the therapy · Moderately
2 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have confidence in the therapy · Very
44 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have confidence in the therapy · Does not apply to me
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have confidence in the therapy · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have confidence in the therapy · Not at all
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Get better skin quickly · Quite
9 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Get better skin quickly · Not at all
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Regain control of the disease · Very
44 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Get better skin quickly · Somewhat
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Get better skin quickly · Moderately
5 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Get better skin quickly · Very
54 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Get better skin quickly · Does not apply to me
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Get better skin quickly · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Regain control of the disease · Somewhat
2 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Regain control of the disease · Moderately
3 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Regain control of the disease · Quite
17 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Regain control of the disease · Does not apply to me
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Regain control of the disease · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Regain control of the disease · Not at all
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be free of pain · Moderately
4 Participants
Interval 0.82 to
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be free of pain · Quite
12 Participants
Interval 0.82 to
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be free of pain · Very
45 Participants
Interval 0.82 to
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be free of pain · Not at all
0 Participants
Interval 0.82 to
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be free of itching · Somewhat
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be free of itching · Moderately
2 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be free of itching · Quite
3 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less of a burden to relatives and friends · Somewhat
5 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less of a burden to relatives and friends · Very
24 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less of a burden to relatives and friends · Does not apply to me
9 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less of a burden to relatives and friends · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less of a burden to relatives and friends · Not at all
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to lead a normal working life · Not at all
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to have more contact with other people · Somewhat
5 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to have more contact with other people · Moderately
9 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to have more contact with other people · Quite
19 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to have more contact with other people · Very
16 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to have more contact with other people · Does not apply to me
15 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to have more contact with other people · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to have more contact with other people · Not at all
4 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be comfortable showing yourself more in public · Somewhat
4 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be comfortable showing yourself more in public · Moderately
9 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be comfortable showing yourself more in public · Quite
21 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be comfortable showing yourself more in public · Very
28 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be comfortable showing yourself more in public · Does not apply to me
5 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be comfortable showing yourself more in public · Not answered
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be comfortable showing yourself more in public · Not at all
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less burdened in your partnership · Somewhat
3 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less burdened in your partnership · Very
30 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less burdened in your partnership · Does not apply to me
17 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less burdened in your partnership · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less burdened in your partnership · Not at all
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to have a normal sex life · Somewhat
3 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to have a normal sex life · Moderately
8 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to have a normal sex life · Quite
12 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to have a normal sex life · Very
27 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to have a normal sex life · Does not apply to me
13 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to have a normal sex life · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be able to have a normal sex life · Not at all
5 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less dependent on doctor and clinic visits · Somewhat
2 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less dependent on doctor and clinic visits · Moderately
9 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less dependent on doctor and clinic visits · Quite
19 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Be less dependent on doctor and clinic visits · Very
37 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Need less time for daily treatment · Moderately
9 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Need less time for daily treatment · Quite
20 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Need less time for daily treatment · Does not apply to me
2 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Need less time for daily treatment · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Need less time for daily treatment · Not at all
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have fewer out-of-pocket treatment expenses · Somewhat
7 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have fewer out-of-pocket treatment expenses · Moderately
10 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have fewer out-of-pocket treatment expenses · Quite
12 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have fewer out-of-pocket treatment expenses · Very
30 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have fewer out-of-pocket treatment expenses · Does not apply to me
6 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have fewer out-of-pocket treatment expenses · Not answered
0 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have fewer out-of-pocket treatment expenses · Not at all
3 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have fewer side effects · Not at all
1 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Find a clear diagnosis and therapy · Somewhat
3 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Find a clear diagnosis and therapy · Moderately
3 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Find a clear diagnosis and therapy · Quite
14 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Find a clear diagnosis and therapy · Very
42 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Find a clear diagnosis and therapy · Does not apply to me
6 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Expectation Measured by PBI at Baseline
Have confidence in the therapy · Quite
19 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and 'Number Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for the specified rows.

Topical treatments included topical corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors. Number of days with topical treatment use was reported in this outcome measure. Number of days was calculated as date of first topical treatment - date of last topical treatment + 1.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=95 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Number of Days With Topical Treatment Use
At Month 9
41.08 Days
Standard Deviation 71.48
Number of Days With Topical Treatment Use
At Month 12
62.71 Days
Standard Deviation 97.25
Number of Days With Topical Treatment Use
At Month 1
6.66 Days
Standard Deviation 10.12
Number of Days With Topical Treatment Use
At Month 3
19.59 Days
Standard Deviation 31.57
Number of Days With Topical Treatment Use
At Month 6
31.52 Days
Standard Deviation 52.98

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Months 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12

Population: FAS included all participants with informed consent who met the eligibility criteria and received at least one dose of abrocitinib. Here, 'Overall Number of Participants Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and 'Number Analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for the specified rows.

Number of days with emollients use was calculated as: date of first emollients use - date of last emollients use + 1. The number of days with emollients use was reported in this outcome measure.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=95 Participants
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Number of Days of Emollients Use
At Month 1
17.22 Days
Standard Deviation 14.41
Number of Days of Emollients Use
At Month 3
52.76 Days
Standard Deviation 43.39
Number of Days of Emollients Use
At Month 6
95.61 Days
Standard Deviation 74.54
Number of Days of Emollients Use
At Month 9
155.35 Days
Standard Deviation 105.94
Number of Days of Emollients Use
At Month 12
219.93 Days
Standard Deviation 135.11

Adverse Events

Abrocitinib

Serious events: 4 serious events
Other events: 33 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Serious adverse events

Serious adverse events
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=112 participants at risk
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Infections and infestations
Eczema herpeticum
0.89%
1/112 • From Baseline (Day 1) up to end of study (up to Month 12)
Same event may appear as both non-SAE and SAE but what is presented are distinct events. Event may be categorized as serious in 1 participant and non-serious in other, or participant may have experienced both serious and non-serious event. The safety analysis set consisted of all participants with informed consent who received at least one dose of abrocitinib.
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma
0.89%
1/112 • From Baseline (Day 1) up to end of study (up to Month 12)
Same event may appear as both non-SAE and SAE but what is presented are distinct events. Event may be categorized as serious in 1 participant and non-serious in other, or participant may have experienced both serious and non-serious event. The safety analysis set consisted of all participants with informed consent who received at least one dose of abrocitinib.
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Asthma
0.89%
1/112 • From Baseline (Day 1) up to end of study (up to Month 12)
Same event may appear as both non-SAE and SAE but what is presented are distinct events. Event may be categorized as serious in 1 participant and non-serious in other, or participant may have experienced both serious and non-serious event. The safety analysis set consisted of all participants with informed consent who received at least one dose of abrocitinib.
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Dermatitis atopic
0.89%
1/112 • From Baseline (Day 1) up to end of study (up to Month 12)
Same event may appear as both non-SAE and SAE but what is presented are distinct events. Event may be categorized as serious in 1 participant and non-serious in other, or participant may have experienced both serious and non-serious event. The safety analysis set consisted of all participants with informed consent who received at least one dose of abrocitinib.

Other adverse events

Other adverse events
Measure
Abrocitinib
n=112 participants at risk
Participants with moderate to severe AD who received treatment with oral abrocitinib were observed in this prospective study.
Gastrointestinal disorders
Nausea
12.5%
14/112 • From Baseline (Day 1) up to end of study (up to Month 12)
Same event may appear as both non-SAE and SAE but what is presented are distinct events. Event may be categorized as serious in 1 participant and non-serious in other, or participant may have experienced both serious and non-serious event. The safety analysis set consisted of all participants with informed consent who received at least one dose of abrocitinib.
Infections and infestations
Nasopharyngitis
9.8%
11/112 • From Baseline (Day 1) up to end of study (up to Month 12)
Same event may appear as both non-SAE and SAE but what is presented are distinct events. Event may be categorized as serious in 1 participant and non-serious in other, or participant may have experienced both serious and non-serious event. The safety analysis set consisted of all participants with informed consent who received at least one dose of abrocitinib.
Metabolism and nutrition disorders
Hyperlipidaemia
8.9%
10/112 • From Baseline (Day 1) up to end of study (up to Month 12)
Same event may appear as both non-SAE and SAE but what is presented are distinct events. Event may be categorized as serious in 1 participant and non-serious in other, or participant may have experienced both serious and non-serious event. The safety analysis set consisted of all participants with informed consent who received at least one dose of abrocitinib.
Nervous system disorders
Headache
5.4%
6/112 • From Baseline (Day 1) up to end of study (up to Month 12)
Same event may appear as both non-SAE and SAE but what is presented are distinct events. Event may be categorized as serious in 1 participant and non-serious in other, or participant may have experienced both serious and non-serious event. The safety analysis set consisted of all participants with informed consent who received at least one dose of abrocitinib.
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Acne
7.1%
8/112 • From Baseline (Day 1) up to end of study (up to Month 12)
Same event may appear as both non-SAE and SAE but what is presented are distinct events. Event may be categorized as serious in 1 participant and non-serious in other, or participant may have experienced both serious and non-serious event. The safety analysis set consisted of all participants with informed consent who received at least one dose of abrocitinib.

Additional Information

Pfizer ClinicalTrials.gov Call Center

Pfizer Inc.

Phone: 1-800-718-1021

Results disclosure agreements

  • Principal investigator is a sponsor employee Pfizer has the right to review disclosures, requesting a delay of less than 60 days. Investigator will postpone single center publications until after disclosure of pooled data (all sites), less than 12 months from study completion/termination at all participating sites. Investigator may not disclose previously undisclosed confidential information other than study results.
  • Publication restrictions are in place

Restriction type: OTHER