SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Efficacy and safety of treatments for atopic dermatitis: a model based meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to quantitatively compare the efficacy and safety of currently marketed Atopic Dermatitis (AD) therapies and placebo in AD patients, providing evidence-based guidance for clinical treatment selection.
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs), drug labels, and regulatory review documents related to AD treatments and placebo were retrieved from PubMed, FDA, EMA, NMPA, and PMDA databases from inception to July 11, 2023. The response rates of Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75, clear (0) or almost clear (1) with a ≥ 2-point improvement in Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) including validated IGA (vIGA) (hereinafter referred to as IGA), EASI 90 and ≥ 4-point improvement in Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS4) were used as the efficacy index. Time-effect models were subsequently established using a model-based meta-analysis (MBMA). For treatments not suitable for MBMA or subgroup analyses stratified by disease severity and age groups, meta-analyses were conducted. Safety outcomes were compared via pooled analysis.
resultsA total of 274 articles and 4 FDA review documents were identified, with 77 studies and 2 FDA reviews ultimately included (total sample size: 20,262). Results showed that all topical and systemic medications demonstrated superior efficacy (EASI 75 response rate) to placebo. Among topical treatments, methylprednisolone showed the highest efficacy. For non-steroidal topicals, ruxolitinib cream exhibited the best efficacy, followed by tacrolimus ointment and difamilast ointment. Among systemic treatments, upadacitinib demonstrated the highest efficacy, followed by abrocitinib, with dupilumab ranking third as the most effective biologic. Baricitinib showed relatively lower efficacy. Biologics exhibited slower onset compared to other treatments. Safety analysis revealed higher overall adverse event incidence with systemic treatments versus topical treatments.
conclusionMBMA was conducted for the time courses of several efficacy index. In conclusion, results showed that there is still a lack of treatment methods that balance efficacy, safety and speed of onset. The results of this MBMA can be used as a reference for optimizing clinical medication and provide a basis for decision-making in the future development of new AD drugs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41618061What 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.