ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Cutaneous melanoma and JAK inhibitors: a disproportionality analysis in EudraVigilance.
Article 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePharmacovigilance aims to ensure that the risk-benefit balance remains favourable throughout the entire life-cycle of drugs. Although JAK inhibitors have been associated with the development of skin cancers, melanoma is not mentioned in their data sheets, except in the case of tofacitinib.
methodsA case/non-case study was performed in EudraVigilance to evaluate the association between exposure to JAK inhibitors and the adverse reaction "skin melanomas(excluded ocular)" by calculating the reporting odds ratio. Additionally, univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to assess whether different variables could have an influence on melanoma development.
resultsUntil April 30, 2025, the EudraVigilance database included 158 reports with tofacitinib, 65 with ruxolitinib, 42 with upadacitinib, 21 with baricitinib, 2 with filgotinib, and 1 with abrocitinib. The reporting odds ratio analysis showed a signal between exposure to baricitinib, ruxolitinib, tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and the explored adverse reaction. Besides, when analysing the association of malignant melanoma (the most frequently coded PT in individual case reports) with different variables, a statistically significant association was observed based on the drug(p = 0.0014) and the indication(p = 0.0037).
conclusionIn this EudraVigilance disproportionality analysis, signals of disproportionate reporting for cutaneous melanoma were identified for baricitinib, ruxolitinib, tofacitinib, and upadacitinib. These findings are hypothesis-generating and should not be interpreted as evidence of a causal association. Further evaluation in cohort studies, disease registries, and electronic health-record databases is required to confirm and quantify any potential association between JAK inhibitor exposure and melanoma. Given the seriousness of melanoma and the potential influence of confounding and surveillance bias, these results support maintaining clinical vigilance and appropriate dermatological monitoring in patients receiving JAK inhibitors, particularly those with additional melanoma risk factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42870108What 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.