ArticleDermatology and therapy2024
Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Difamilast 1% and Delgocitinib 0.5% in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Calcineurin Inhibitors in Atopic Dermatitis: Balancing Tradition with Emerging Therapeutics.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cost-Effectiveness Study of Difamilast 1% for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis in Adult Japanese Patients.Dermatology and therapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic condition with an increasing incidence in Japan. Difamilast and delgocitinib are both new topical drugs for AD proven to be efficacious and safe in phases 2 and 3 clinical trials in Japan. However, there are no head-to-head trials comparing their efficacy and safety. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients by severity and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of difamilast with delgocitinib among patients with moderate-to-severe AD using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).
methodsPhase 3 clinical trials of difamilast and delgocitinib for treating AD were included. The trials had similar designs but differed in baseline population characteristics. Anchored MAIC was used to align the baseline characteristics and calculate clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was to determine severity stages of the proportion of patients with AD through Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), while the secondary outcome included comparing other clinical efficacy and safety of difamilast with delgocitinib.
resultsA total of 340 patients were selected (170 each received difamilast and placebo) from the difamilast trial, with 158 (106 received delgocitinib; 52 received placebo) from the delgocitinib trial for the analysis. After matching patients from the difamilast trial with those from the delgocitinib trial, the effective sample sizes (ESS) reduced to 32.7-43.3% of the original difamilast (treatment/placebo) patients. At week 4, the ESS in the difamilast group demonstrated no statistically significant differences in the distribution of AD severity stages, as per EASI scores, compared with the delgocitinib group. In addition, no significant differences were found in modified EASI (mEASI) scores, mEASI 50 and 75 scores, and safety outcomes between the two treatments.
conclusionsThe anchored MAIC analysis indicates that difamilast treatment, like delgocitinib, is a useful option for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe AD in Japan.
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.