ReviewPostepy dermatologii i alergologii2023
Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Review in Postepy dermatologii i alergologii, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biologics Versus JAK Inhibitors. Part II: Risk of Infections. A Narrative Review.Dermatology and therapy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Recent studies have confirmed the possibility of using upadacitinib for treating atopic dermatitis (AD). However, there is no meta-analysis to summarize and quantify the efficacy and safety of the drug, especially for adolescents with AD. Aim: To evaluate the overall efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in adults and adolescents with AD. Material and methods: We developed this systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. Risk-of-bias assessment tool, RoB2 (revised version 2019) was used for quality assessment. Results: Four RCTs were enrolled in the analysis, 3 of which on both adults and adolescents, while the other on adults only. For either adults or adolescents, the group treated with upadacitinib all had better performance than controls: EASI-75 (adults): RR = 4.68, 95% CI: 4.09, 5.35; NRS4 (adults): RR = 4.07, 95% CI: 3.15, 5.25; EASI-75 (adolescents): RR = 4.16, 95% CI: 2.70, 6.42; NRS4 (adolescents): RR = 4.52, 95% CI: 2.49, 8.21. Furthermore, upadacitinib 30 mg was more effective than 15 mg. For serious AEs, upper respiratory tract infection and headache, there was no significant difference between the upadacitinib group and controls. However, the treatment of upadacitinib may increase the risk of nasopharyngitis, increase blood creatine phosphokinase and cause acne. Conclusions: Upadacitinib seems to be a promising drug for AD. More long-term and larger-sized randomized clinical trials are required to further assess the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib for AD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.