ReviewDermatology and therapy2025
Risk Assessment in Atopic Dermatitis: Guidance from a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel.
Review in Dermatology and therapy, 2025. 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.
- Optimizing Abrocitinib Use for Atopic Dermatitis in India: Expert Recommendations for Patient Selection, Dosing, and Long‑Term Remission.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Guidelines recommend that patients with severe atopic dematitis (AD) be treated with Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi). Recently, the safety of JAKi as a class was reviewed by the European Medicines Agency, leading to a modification of the Summaries of Product Characteristics. For upadacitinib, changes involve reduced posology and restriction of its use to patients with no other alternative amongst the elderly and those at an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Risk assessment may be daunting and clarity regarding definitions and data is needed. An interdisciplinary workshop, termed the Multiple In-treatment Risk Assessment & Management, was conceived to provide dermatologists with a platform for multidisciplinary exchange on risk assessment in patients with MACE, cancer and VTE to correctly recognise patients with increased risk. In this review, we characterised common and less common patient profiles in order to assess the risk. With the cooperation of a cardiologist, oncologist, respiratory medicine specialist and haematologists, we identified the risk factors for MACE, cancer and VTE. The results show that taking a careful medical history is the basis of risk assessment and that a careful medical history should be performed regardless of the intended therapy in AD. We propose that risk levels be used in the general population as a benchmark to evaluate risk levels in patients with AD, and provide a checklist to support such risk assessments in routine clinical practice. Our work provides a clear framework for risk assessment to the community of dermatologists and, therefore, contributes to improving the standard of care in 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.