ArticleDermatology and therapy2025
Network Meta-analysis of 1.5% Ruxolitinib Cream Versus Systemic Agents in the Treatment of Moderate Atopic Dermatitis.
Article 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 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.
- Pushing the Boundaries of Topical Therapy in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis: A Review of Baseline Disease Severity and Burden in Clinical Trials.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Review
- Use of Ruxolitinib Cream Results in Economic Benefits Compared with Dupilumab in Treatment of Patients with Atopic Dermatitis Meeting Severity Thresholds for Systemic Therapy.Dermatology and therapy · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAtopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, highly pruritic, relapsing inflammatory disease associated with high quality-of-life burden. Topical 1.5% ruxolitinib cream is a selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor that is well tolerated and effective in improving itch and lesion clearance in patients ≥ 12 years old. This analysis estimates comparative efficacy for 1.5% ruxolitinib cream relative to systemic therapies for treatment of patients ≥ 12 years with AD.
methodsA systematic literature review (SLR) identified randomized controlled trials evaluating 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, oral JAK inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors, and systemic immunosuppressants. A feasibility assessment evaluated whether indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was appropriate and determined appropriate ITC methods. This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the comparative efficacy of 1.5% ruxolitinib cream against systemic therapies in a "systemic-eligible moderate AD" subgroup defined as ≥ 12 years old and eligible for topical and systemic therapies (Investigator's Global Assessment [IGA] = 3, Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI] ≥ 16, and body surface area ≥ 10%); an ITC with the full study populations was not feasible. A frequentist framework using a penalized likelihood NMA included outcomes of IGA 0/1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline, EASI-75, and Itch Numerical Rating Scale 4 (NRS4).
resultsThe SLR identified 25 studies, of which 12 reported outcomes for the relevant subgroup for four interventions: 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, dupilumab 300 mg, upadacitinib (15 mg, 30 mg), and abrocitinib (100 mg, 200 mg), which were compared against placebo or placebo + topical corticosteroids. There were no statistically significant differences between active comparators for IGA 0/1, EASI-75, and Itch NRS4, although point estimates numerically favored 1.5% ruxolitinib cream for IGA 0/1 and EASI‑75.
conclusionFor patients with moderate AD who are eligible for systemic therapies, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream might provide disease control comparable to systemic treatments, such as dupilumab, regarding IGA 0/1, EASI-75, and Itch NRS4.
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.