Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42776548›Full record

ArticleJAMA dermatology2026

Efficacy and Safety of Ruxolitinib Cream in Patients With Cutaneous Lichen Planus: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Aaron R Mangold, Benjamin Lockshin, Zhihong Lai, Rong Rong, Haq Nawaz, Benjamin D Ehst

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05593432 (A Randomized, Double-Blind, Vehicle-Controlled Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Ruxolitinib Cream in Participants With Cutaneous Lichen Planus), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05593432 phase2completednot on this map

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Vehicle-Controlled Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Ruxolitinib Cream in Participants With Cutaneous Lichen Planus

TypeinterventionalSponsorIncyte CorporationRan2022 to 2024Enrolled64ConditionsCutaneous Lichen PlanusArmsRuxolitinib cream, Vehicle cream
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Aaron R MangoldMayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Benjamin LockshinUS Dermatology Partners, Rockville, Maryland.
Zhihong LaiIncyte Corporation, Wilmington, Delaware.
Rong RongIncyte Corporation, Wilmington, Delaware.
Haq NawazIncyte Corporation, Wilmington, Delaware.
Benjamin D EhstOregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Lichen planus is a chronic, highly pruritic, inflammatory disease that affects the skin and other tissues. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib, 1.5%, cream in patients with cutaneous lichen planus. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2, 16-week, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial with a 16-week open-label extension was conducted from November 2022 to February 2024. Patients were enrolled from 19 sites in the US and Canada. The trial included adults with predominantly cutaneous lichen planus, an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score of 3 or 4, an Itch Numerical Rating Scale score of 4 or greater, and an affected body surface area of 20% or less were enrolled. Data were analyzed from February to August 2024. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to ruxolitinib, 1.5%, twice daily cream or vehicle cream for 16 weeks, after which eligible patients applied ruxolitinib cream twice daily as needed in a 16-week, open-label extension. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was IGA treatment success (IGA score of 0 or 1 [clear/almost clear skin] with a ≥2-grade improvement from baseline) at week 16. Results: Among 64 randomized patients, 46 (72%) were female, 18 (28%) were male, 18 (28%) were African American/Black, 4 (6%) were Asian, 40 (63%) were White, and the median (range) age was 57.0 (18-78) years. Significantly more patients who applied ruxolitinib, 1.5%, cream vs vehicle achieved IGA treatment success (50.0% [95% CI, 31.9%-68.1%] vs 21.9% [95% CI, 9.3%-40.0%], respectively; response rate difference, 29.4% [95% CI, 7.6%-51.3%]; P = .01; primary end point) at week 16, with further improvement to week 32. Similar results were observed in the proportion of patients who achieved a 4 or greater-point improvement from baseline in Itch Numerical Rating Scale score (week 16, 48.4% [95% CI, 30.2%-66.9%] vs 16.1% [95% CI, 5.5%-33.7%]; response rate difference, 33.5%; 95% CI, 12.2%-54.9%; P = .004; secondary end point). No serious treatment-emergent adverse events or discontinuations due to an adverse event were observed with ruxolitinib cream. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that ruxolitinib cream significantly reduced lesions and itch in patients with lichen planus. Therefore, ruxolitinib cream represents a potential treatment option for patients with cutaneous lichen planus. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05593432.

Identifiers

PMID42776548
PMCPMC13602069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.