Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33991374›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV2021

Comparative efficacy and safety of systemic therapies used in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

J I Silverberg, J P Thyssen, K Fahrbach, K Mickle, J C Cappelleri, W Romero, M C Cameron, D E Myers, C Clibborn, M DiBonaventura

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
18.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 127 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Atopic dermatitis.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. From Pathways to Patients in Atopic Dermatitis: Advanced Systemic Therapies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  20. Observational

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

J I SilverbergThe George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3686-7805
J P ThyssenBispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3770-1743
K FahrbachEvidera Inc, Waltham, MA, USA.
K MickleEvidera Inc, Waltham, MA, USA.
J C CappelleriPfizer Inc, Groton, CT, USA.
W RomeroPfizer Ltd, Surrey, UK.
M C CameronPfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA.
D E MyersPfizer Inc, Collegeville, PA, USA.
C ClibbornPfizer Ltd, Surrey, UK.
M DiBonaventuraPfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8333-4676
Pfizer (United States) · USIthaka Harbors · USPfizer (United Kingdom) · GBGeorge Washington University · USUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

Pfizer Inc.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Given the lack of head-to-head studies of systemic therapies in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD), network meta-analyses (NMAs) can provide comparative efficacy and safety data to inform clinical decision-making. In this NMA, eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before 24 October 2019 were identified by a systematic literature review. Short-term (12-16 weeks) efficacy (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] and Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI] responses), patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and safety data from each trial were abstracted and analysed separately for monotherapy and combination therapy (systemic plus topical anti-inflammatory therapy). RCTs were analysed in fixed-effects and random-effects Bayesian NMA models. Overall, 19 phase 2 and phase 3 RCTs of abrocitinib, baricitinib, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, nemolizumab, tralokinumab and upadacitinib were included. In monotherapy RCTs, upadacitinib 30 mg once daily (QD) had the numerically highest efficacy (83.6% achieved ≥50% improvement in EASI [EASI-50 response]), followed by abrocitinib 200 mg QD (74.6%), upadacitinib 15 mg QD (70.5%), dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) (63.4%) and abrocitinib 100 mg QD (56.7%). Similar trends in EASI-75 and EASI-90 response were observed. In combination therapy RCTs, abrocitinib 200 mg QD had the highest EASI-50 (86.6%), followed by dupilumab 300 mg Q2W (82.4%) and abrocitinib 100 mg QD (79.7%). Similar findings were observed for IGA response and PROs. In monotherapy and combination therapy RCTs, the probability of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was higher among all active treatments than with placebo (except for dupilumab 300 mg Q2W [odds ratio (OR), 0.96; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.45-2.18] and abrocitinib 100 mg QD [OR, 0.95; 95% CrI, 0.35-2.66] in combination therapy RCTs), although active treatments did not significantly differ from one another. Abrocitinib, dupilumab and upadacitinib were consistently the most effective systemic therapies in adult and adolescent patients with AD, with no significant TEAE differences in short-term RCTs.

Indexed as

Dermatitis, AtopicEczemaAdolescentAdultDouble-Blind MethodHumansSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID33991374
PMCPMC8453983
OpenAlexW3163293937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.