Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25496303›Full record

Trial reportVeterinary dermatology2015

A blinded, randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of oclacitinib and ciclosporin for the control of atopic dermatitis in client-owned dogs.

Peter R Little, Vickie L King, Kylie R Davis, Sallie B Cosgrove, Michael R Stegemann

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Veterinary dermatology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Anti-Cytokine Drugs in the Treatment of Canine Atopic Dermatitis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Safety of the Selective JAK1 Inhibitor Oclacitinib in Dogs.Journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Peter R LittleVeterinary Medicine Research and Development, Zoetis, 45 Poplar Road, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Vickie L King
Kylie R Davis
Sallie B Cosgrove
Michael R Stegemann

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCiclosporin is approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in dogs and has been shown to be safe and effective. Placebo-controlled studies suggest that oclacitinib is a safe and effective alternative therapy. HYPOTHESIS/

objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of oclacitinib, in comparison to ciclosporin, for the control of AD in a blinded, randomized clinical trial, incorporating a noninferiority test at day 28. ANIMALS: A total of 226 client-owned dogs with a history of AD from eight sites were enrolled.

methodsEnrolled animals were randomized to receive oral oclacitinib (0.4-0.6 mg/kg twice daily for 14 days, then once daily) or oral ciclosporin (3.2-6.6 mg/kg once daily) for 12 weeks. Owners assessed pruritus using an enhanced visual analog scale (VAS), and veterinarians assessed dermatitis using the Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI)-02.

resultsOn days 1, 2, 7, 14, 28, 56 and 84, the percentage reduction from baseline for owner-assessed pruritus changed from 25.6 to 61.0% in the oclacitinib group compared with 6.5 to 61.5% in the ciclosporin group; differences were significant at all time points up to day 28. On day 56, ciclosporin-treated dogs showed a similar decrease in pruritus to oclacitinib-treated dogs. On day 14, the percentage reduction from baseline CADESI-02 was significantly greater in the oclacitinib group (58.7%) than in the ciclosporin group (43.0%). Three times as many adverse events attributed to gastrointestinal signs were reported in the ciclosporin group compared with the oclacitinib group. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: In this study of treatment for canine AD, oclacitinib had a faster onset of action and a lower frequency of gastrointestinal side effects compared with ciclosporin.

Indexed as

AnimalsCyclosporineDermatitis, AtopicDermatologic AgentsDog DiseasesDogsFemaleMalePruritusPyrimidinesSingle-Blind MethodSulfonamidesTreatment OutcomeCyclosporineDermatologic AgentsoclacitinibPyrimidinesSulfonamides

Identifiers

PMID25496303
PMCPMC4365754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.