ArticleCureus2025
Clinical Assessment of Abrocitinib, Tofacitinib, and Cyclosporine in Adult Patients With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Retrospective Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Stem Cell Secretome-Derived Exosomes for Neuropathic Pain: Therapeutic Mechanisms and Translational Potential.Molecular neurobiology · 2026Pooled it
- 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundModerate to severe atopic dermatitis (M2S AD) is a chronic, relapsing inflammatory skin disease characterized by intense pruritus and eczematous lesions with significant impact on quality of life. Conventional therapies like cyclosporine are commonly prescribed drugs, along with tofacitinib as an off-label use. Recently, abrocitinib received approval for the management of M2S AD, a selective JAK1 inhibitor that has been well studied in the Western population. However, real-world comparative data among cyclosporine, tofacitinib, and abrocitinib remain limited. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective single-center study to assess the effectiveness and safety of cyclosporine, tofacitinib, and abrocitinib in adult patients with M2S AD over a 16-week treatment period. MATERIALS AND
methodsA single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted using electronic medical records of adult M2S AD patients treated with abrocitinib 100 mg once a day, tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day, or cyclosporine 100 mg once a day from April 2024 to March 2025. Clinical assessments were analyzed at baseline and weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16 using Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Serum IgE levels and adverse events (AEs) were also analyzed.
resultsFifteen patients (five per group) were included as per the inclusion and exclusion criteria. At week 16, all three groups showed significant within-group improvements in EASI, SCORAD, DLQI, and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores (p<0.001). However, compared with tofacitinib and cyclosporine, abrocitinib showed greater reduction in mean scores (EASI: 87% vs. 64% and 51%; SCORAD: 93% vs. 55% and 40%; NRS: 85% vs. 62% and 51%; all p<0.01), respectively. DLQI also demonstrated a similar trend in abrocitinib (80%) against tofacitinib (59%) and cyclosporine (47%) (p<0.01). A significant decrease was also observed for serum IgE level in the abrocitinib group. In the abrocitinib group, two patients had headaches and nausea each, whereas two patients reported infection in the tofacitinib group. In the cyclosporine group, two patients had hypertension. All AEs were mild and resolved over the study period, with no treatment discontinuations. There was no statistical difference between any of the groups.
conclusionsIn our small sample-sized analysis, all treatment groups were found to be efficacious and safe. However, abrocitinib showed a better clinical response than the other two groups in achieving symptom control. However, due to the small sample size, these claims can't be generalized, and further large-scale studies are needed to validate these findings and assess long-term outcomes.
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.