Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Biomedical Reports logoLink to Biomedical Reports
. 2024 Mar 29;20(5):84. doi: 10.3892/br.2024.1772

Effects of abrocitinib on pruritus and eczema symptoms and tolerance in patients with moderate‑to‑severe atopic dermatitis in randomized, double‑blind and placebo‑controlled trials: A systematic review and a meta‑analysis

Xingxing Xie 1,✉, Jie Zhang 2, Fujing Huang 1, Ling Fan 3,✉
PMCID: PMC11019643  PMID: 38628626

Abstract

Abrocitinib is a highly selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor that can block a multitude of inflammatory signaling pathways that underlie atopic dermatitis (AD). In addition, abrocitinib inhibits JAK1 signaling in sensory neurons to alleviate acute and chronic pruritus during AD. However, substantial variations in efficacy and safety risks remain due to variations in doses applied in clinical use. Therefore for the present study, differences in the efficacy and tolerability of 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib for treating pruritus and eczema symptoms in patients with moderate-to-severe AD were evaluated compared with placebo. Specifically, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of abrocitinib compared with placebo for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD were searched on Pubmed, E.B. Stephens Company, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Medical network, Web of Science and related Clinical Trials Registry up to November 2023. In total, two researchers evaluated the quality of the included literature according to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews. RevMan 5.3 software was used to conduct a meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety indicators in a cross-comparison of the effects exerted by placebo and 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib. A total of 1,825 patients with moderate-to-severe AD were included across five double-blind, placebo RCTs. Compared with the placebo group, during the double-blind trial period, significant improvements were observed in the investigator's global assessment score, response rate of eczema area and severity index (EASI)-50, EASI-75, EASI-90 and pruritus numerical rating scale (P-NRS) in the 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib groups (P<0.05). However, pairwise control analysis of the 100 and 200 mg group yielded significant differences (P<0.05) in all of the aforementioned therapeutic indicators except for the P-NRS score. In terms of safety, compared with the placebo group, there were significantly higher incidence of nausea, upper respiratory tract viral infection, infections and infestations in the 100 mg abrocitinib group (P<0.05). In addition, there were significantly higher incidence of nausea, gastrointestinal disorder, headache and dizziness in the 200 mg group (P<0.05). There were also significant differences in the incidence of nausea, gastrointestinal disorder and dizziness between the 100 and 200 mg groups (P<0.05). For patients with moderate-to-severe AD, oral administration of 100 or 200 mg abrocitinib once/day was concluded to ameliorate skin pruritus and eczema symptoms to varying degrees, with the efficacy significantly superior at the 200 mg dose. However, the risk of a number of adverse reactions, such as headache, dizziness, nausea and gastrointestinal dysfunction, is also significantly increased. Therefore, patients should be made aware of the risk of adverse drug effects prior to the administration of long-term high abrocitinib doses. Furthermore, large-scale, multi-center, rigorous clinical trials remain necessary to validate the findings from the present study.

Keywords: moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, abrocitinib, administration dose, randomized controlled trial, system review

Introduction

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, recurrent inflammatory skin disease with pruritus and eczema as its primary symptoms, and the etiology is associated with genetic predisposition, environmental factors, immune abnormalities and comorbidities (1). Itching is typically the most serious symptom of AD (2,3) and can worsen skin lesions by disrupting the skin barrier and exacerbating discomfort (4). In developed countries, especially those in Europe, AD affects nearly 20% of the population and is the most common type of inflammatory skin disease. By contrast, this figure is higher in low-income countries, such as those in Africa, Oceania and the Asian Pacific (28-34% (5,6). Due to ineffective local treatment, patients with moderate-to-severe AD frequently interrupt or abandon treatment and develop other systemic diseases, such as immune abnormalities, infection, osteoporosis and cardiovascular dysfunction (7-9). Therefore, the quality of life of patients with moderate-to-severe AD is greatly reduced.

AD management aims to decrease symptoms and severity and improve long-term disease control (10). Classical therapies for AD include emollients, topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors and phototherapy, which have been the primary treatment options for decades (11). Abrocitinib is a once-daily oral Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor for long-term treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe AD (12) that rapidly relieves itching symptoms (13-17) and was first approved by the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in September 2021. Due to good compliance, it was subsequently approved in Japan, South Korea, the European Union and the United States (18-20). On April 11, 2022, the China Food and Drug Administration approved abrocitinib for marketing in China for adult patients with refractory, moderate-to-severe AD who do not respond well to other systemic therapies, such as hormones or biological agents (21,22).

JAK is an intracellular enzyme that mediates signal transduction generated by the interaction of cytokines with growth factor receptors on the cell membrane, thereby regulating cell hematopoietic function and immune cell function (23). Abrocitinib reversibly and selectively inhibits JAK1 by blocking ATP binding sites. This drug therefore provides a novel treatment option for patients with AD (24). However, due to differences between abrocitinib dosage forms and specifications, studies on follow-up, follow-up and post-marketing reevaluation of abrocitinib after long-term use are still preliminary. Information on the safety comes from the randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with no post-marketing pharmacovigilance study data available yet (25). There remains a lack of decision-making modalities for guiding the optimal treatment strategy for patients, resulting in large differences in the benefit:risks ratio and in the evaluation results from drug economics studies (26-28).

Therefore, the present study aimed to establish a stringent literature quality screening and meta-analysis method for systematically evaluating the efficacy and safety of 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD, with placebo groups also being compared. The aim was to provide an evidence-based reference for the formulation of 100 and 200 mg standard abrocitinib clinical application program and pharmacoeconomic decision-making process.

Materials and methods

Inclusion criteria

According to the systematic review plan, inclusion criteria were determined in strict accordance with the patients, interventions, comparisons, outcomes and study design principles (29). Inclusion criteria were as follows: i) Patients with clinical diagnosis of moderate-to-severe AD (30); ii) patients aged ≥18 years; iii) test group received 100 and/or 200 mg abrocitinib (orally, once daily), whilst the control group received placebo; iv) investigator's global assessment (IGA) score was used as the efficacy indicator (31); v) 50, 75 and 90% response rates of eczema area and severity index (EASI) (32,33) and the pruritus numerical rating scale (P-NRS) were used (31); vi) adverse reaction symptoms with an event rate of >2 were used as the evaluation indices for safety; vii) double-blind RCT and viii) written in English or Chinese. Example of adverse events include gastrointestinal dysfunction, nausea, infection and infestation, upper respiratory tract infection, upper respiratory tract viral infection, dizziness, headache, skin and subcutaneous disease, elevated creatine phosphokinase, thrombocytopenia and serious adverse events (such as asthma, exacerbation of dermatitis, malignant melanoma and pulmonary embolism).

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria were as follows: i) unable to provide valid data for analysis; ii) inappropriate statistical methods; iii) cohort study; iv) review and clinical reviews of the literature.

Search strategy

Pubmed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), Ovid Technologies; ovidsp.ovid.com/), E.B.Stephens Company (embase.com), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (cnki.net/), Wanfang Medical network (wanfangdata.com.cn/), Web of Science (webofscience.com) and relevant clinical trial registries, such as China Clinical Trial Registry (chictr.org.cn/), International Clinical Trial Registration Platform (trialsearch.who.int/), Hong Kong Clinical Trials Registry (ccrb.cuhk.edu.hk/web/) and North American Clinical Trial Data Center (clinicaltrials.gov/) were searched for clinical RCTs of abrocitinib compared with placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. The retrieval period set was between the establishment of the database and November 2023 and the meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines (34). Default database expansion retrieval was performed supplemented with manual retrieval. The following terms were searched: ‘atopic dermatitis’ AND ‘moderate to severe AD’ AND ‘abrocitinib’ OR ‘PF-04965842’ OR ‘Cibinqo’ AND ‘placebo’ AND ‘100 mg’ OR (AND) ‘200 mg’ AND ‘parallel control’ OR ‘cross-comparison’ AND ‘randomized clinical trial’ OR‘ RCT’.

Literature screening and data extraction

To minimize selection bias, two researchers (XX and JZ) independently reviewed the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, screened the included literature and extracted the data. If there was any discrepancy, a third researcher (FH) analyzed and resolved it. The quality priority principle was adopted for the inclusion of multiple literature with the same data (35).

Literature quality evaluation

The RCT bias risk assessment tool in Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews 5.1.0 was adopted (36,37). Specifically, a three-level risk assessment (low, unclear and high bias risk) was conducted in the included literature, including randomization, degree of blinded implementation, assignment concealment (unblinded), outcome data integrity (such as exit/loss rate) and selective reporting bias risk. Low bias risk indicates high reliability of the literature data.

Statistical analysis

Meta-analysis of each effect indicator was performed using RevMan 5.3 software recommended by the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews (38,39). Odds ratio (OR), risk ratio (RR) and 95%CI were used as efficacy and safety statistical effect sizes. OR and 95%CI were used as effect values for efficacy indicators and RR and 95%CI for safety indicators. Q-test was used to evaluate the heterogeneity of the literature. Studies with I2≤50% were considered to be homogenous, whereby all studies could be combined for meta-analysis using the fixed-effects model (FEM) with Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) test. Otherwise, the random-effects model (REM) was used for meta-analysis. Sensitivity analysis was used to verify the results of systematic evaluation. Funnel plot was used to evaluate risk of publication bias of associated indicators. P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.

Results

Literature search results

According to the search strategy, 679 publications were obtained during the preliminary search. Of these, 401 were excluded based on duplicate studies, 246 were excluded after reading the title and abstract, 241 were excluded after careful reading of the full text according to the exclusion criteria. In total, five English publications were included for meta-analysis (40-44) (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA flowchart of study selection. OVID, ovid technologies; EBSCO, E.B. stephens company; CNKI, China national knowledge infrastructure; CCTR, China Clinical Trial Registry; ICTRP, International Clinical Trial Registration Platform; CCRB, Hong Kong Clinical Trials Registry; NACTDC, North American Clinical Trial Data Center.

Literature features. Basic information

The basic data of studies were complete, where the baseline levels of age, sex, duration of disease, blinded course of treatment and EASI score were balanced, with no statistical significance, indicating comparability (Table I).

Table I.

Basic information of the enrolled patients.

  Mean IGA  
First author, year Interventions Patients Mean age, years Sex F/M Mean duration of illness, years Trial duration, weeks Mean EASI score Moderate Severe SCORAD Index score NRS (Refs.)
Bieber et al, 2021 Abr 100 mg 238 37.3±14.8 118/120 22.7±16.3 12 30.3±13.5 153.0±64.3 85.0±35.7 66.8±13.8 7.1±1.7 (40)
  Abr 200 mg 226 38.8±14.5 112/114 23.4±15.6   32.1±13.1 138.0±61.1 88.0±38.9 69.3±12.7 7.6±1.5  
  placebo 131 37.4±15.2 54/77 21.4±14.4   31.0±12.6 88.0±67.2 43.0±32.8 67.9±12.0 7.1±1.8  
Eichenfield et al, 2021 Abr 100 mg 95 16.0±7.8 50/45 9.8±5.4 12 31.0±12.8 57.0±60.0 38.0±40.0 67.6±13.5 7.0±1.8 (41)
  Abr 200 mg 94 15.0±6.4 38/56 9.7±5.3   29.5±12.2 61.0±64.9 33.0±35.1 66.2±13.3 6.8±2.0  
  placebo 96 14.0±9.3 52/44 10.5±4.8   29.2±12.7 57.0±59.4 39.0±40.6 68.5±13.4 7.2±1.7  
Gooderham et al, 2019 Abr 100 mg 56 41.1±15.6 31/25 23.8±14.3 12 26.7±11.8 29.0±52.7 26.0±47.3 65.4±13.7 7.4±2.2 (42)
  Abr 200 mg 55 38.7±17.6 28/27 19.6±12.8   24.6±13.5 34.0±63.0 20.0±37.0 62.7±13.7 6.9±2.7  
  placebo 56 42.6±15.1 21/35 25.6±15.2   25.4±12.9 34.0±61.8 21.0±38.2 65.0±12.1 7.6±1.8  
Silverberg et al, 2020 Abr 100 mg 158 37.4±15.8 94/64 21.1±14.8 12 28.4±11.2 107±67.7 51±32.3 63.8±11.4 7.1±1.6 (43)
  Abr 200 mg 155 33.5±14.7 88/67 20.5±14.8   29.0±12.4 106.0±68.4 49.0±31.6 64.1±13.1 7.0±1.6  
  placebo 78 33.4±13.8 47/31 21.7±14.3   28.0±10.2 52.0±66.7 26.0±33.3 64.3±12.4 6.7±1.9  
Simpson et al, 2020 Abr 100 mg 156 32.6±15.4 66/90 24.9±16.1 12 31.3±13.6 92.0±58.7 64.0±41.2 67.1±13.7 6.9±2.0 (44)
  Abr 200 mg 154 33.0±17.4 73/81 22.7±14.5   30.6±14.1 91.0±58.5 63.0±41.3 64.3±13.1 7.1±1.9  
  placebo 77 31.5±14.4 28/49 22.5±14.4   28.7±12.5 46.0±59.6 31.0±40.2 64.5±13.2 7.0±1.8  
Open in a new tab

Abr, abrocitinib; F, female; M, male; EASI, eczema area and severity index; IGA, investigator's global assessment; SCORAD, scoring of atopic dermatitis; P-NRS, pruritus numerical rating scale.

Methodological quality characteristics

In the five RCTs (40-44) evaluated for each item in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews 5.1.0, no item with high bias risk was found (Fig. 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Risk of bias assessment. (A) Is the evaluation of each individual study. (B) Provides a graph for all studies.

Groups compared

Because there were two doses of abrocitinib compared with placebo, 100 and 200 mg, subgroup analysis was used for the analysis of both efficacy and safety indicators.

Evaluation of efficacy. IGA improvements

For the five RCTs (40-44) were included, results from the heterogeneity test (I2<50%) indicated homogeneity. FEM analysis revealed that, compared with placebo, 100 (M-H OR, 4.21; 95% CI, 2.97-5.96) and 200 mg (M-H OR, 5.49; 95% CI, 3.96-7.61) significantly improved the IGA score (Fig. 3). FEM analysis showed that, the difference between 100 and 200 mg was significant, with the 200 mg abrocitinib group yielding superior improvements compared with the 100 mg group (M-H OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.73), This suggests that 200 mg dosage was superior at improving the IGA (Fig. 4).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Subgroup analysis of investigator's global assessment scores of 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib compared with placebo in forest plots. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Forest plot of investigator's global assessment scores comparing 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

EASI-50 response rate

In total, three RCTs (42-44) were included. Heterogeneity was detected (I2>50%), therefore REM analysis was used. Compared with those in the placebo group, 100 (M-H OR, 5.39; 95% CI, 3.26-8.93) and 200 mg (M-H OR, 11.00; 95%CI, 6.89-17.55) abrocitinib significantly improved EASI-50 response rate (Fig. 5). For analysis of 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib, the heterogeneity test (I2=0%) suggested homogeneity. FEM analysis showed the difference between the two groups was statistically significant, where 200 mg abrocitinib delivered greater EASI-50 response rate improvement compared with 100 mg group (M-H OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; Fig. 6).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Sub-group analysis of eczema area and severity index-50 response rate. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Meta-analysis of the eczema area and severity index-50 response rates. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

EASI-75 response rate

In total, five RCTs (40-44) were included, where heterogeneity was detected (I2>50%). Compared with those in the placebo group, 100 (M-H OR, 4.21; 95% CI, 2.89-6.15) and 200 mg (M-H OR, 8.07; 95% CI, 4.59-14.17) abrocitinib significantly improved the EASI-75 response rate (Fig. 7). A total of five RCTs (40-44) were included in comparative analysis of 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib, where the heterogeneity test (I2=0%) suggested homogeneity. FEM analysis showed 200 mg abrocitinib yielded significantly greater improvement compared with 100 mg (M-H OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43-0.66; Fig. 8).

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Open in a new tab

Subgroup analysis of eczema area and severity index-75 response rate. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

Figure 8.

Figure 8

Open in a new tab

Meta-analysis of eczema area and severity index-75 response rates following 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib treatment. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

EASI-90 response rate

In total, three RCTs (42-44) were included, where heterogeneity test (I2<50%) suggested homogeneity. FEM analysis showed that compared with placebo, 100 (M-H OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 2.55-9.29) and 200 mg (M-H OR, 10.61; 95% CI, 5.63-20.01) significantly improved EASI-90 response rate (Fig. 9). In total, three RCTs (42-44) were included in subsequent comparative analysis of 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib, where homogeneity was suggested (I2=0%) FEM analysis revealed that the difference between the two groups was significant, with the 200 mg abrocitinib group yielding superior EASI-90 response rates compared with those in 100 mg group (M-H OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.33-0.63; Fig. 10).

Figure 9.

Figure 9

Open in a new tab

Subgroup analysis of eczema area and severity index-90 response rate. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

Figure 10.

Figure 10

Open in a new tab

Meta-analysis of eczema area and severity index-90 response rates after 100 mg and 200 mg abrocitinib treatment. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

P-NRS improvement rate

In total, five RCTs (40-44) were included, where heterogeneity was suggested (I2>50%). Compared with placebo, 100 (M-H OR, 3.03; 95% CI, 2.11-4.36) and 200 mg (M-H OR, 4.28; 95% CI, 2.46-7.47) significantly improved the P-NRS (Fig. 11). In the pairwise cross-control analysis of 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib, five RCTs (40-44) were included where heterogeneity was found (I2>50%). No significant difference between the two groups were found in terms of P-NRS (Fig. 12).

Figure 11.

Figure 11

Open in a new tab

Subgroup analysis of pruritus numerical rating scale. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

Figure 12.

Figure 12

Open in a new tab

Meta-analysis of pruritus numerical rating scale after treatment with 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib. M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

Safety outcomes

A combined meta-analysis of the incidence of adverse drug reaction (ADR) in 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib and placebo groups was next conducted. A total of 11 symptoms were observed. Nausea (M-H RR, 3.25; 95% CI, 1.55-6.85), infection and infestation (M-H RR, 1.45, 95% CI, 1.06-1.98) and upper respiratory tract viral infection (M-H RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.11-4.60) had significantly higher incidence in the 100 mg abrocitinib compared with the placebo group. However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal disorder, upper respiratory tract infection, dizziness, headache, skin and subcutaneous disorders, blood creatine phosphokinase increased, thrombocytopenia and severe adverse event between the two groups. In the 200 mg abrocitinib compared with the placebo group, there were significantly higher incidences of gastrointestinal dysfunction (RR, 5.35, 95%CI, 2.28-12.57), nausea (M-H RR, 8.03, 95% CI, 3.98-16.20), dizziness (M-H RR, 6.46; 95% CI, 1.17-35.62) and headache (M-H RR, 1.89, 95% CI, 1.11-3.19), but there were no significant differences in the incidence of other ADRs. In the 100 mg abrocitinib compared with the 200 mg abrocitinib, there were significant differences in the incidence of gastrointestinal disorder (M-H RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22-0.69), nausea (M-H RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30-0.58) and dizziness (M-H RR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.01-0.76), but no significant differences in the incidence of other ADRs (Table II).

Table II.

Safety profile in each treatment group.

  100 mg abrocitinib vs. placebo 200 mg abrocitinib vs. placebo 100 vs. 200 mg abrocitinib
Adverse drug reaction Number of trials I2, % RR, 95% CI I2, % RR, 95% CI I2, % RR, 95% CI
Gastrointestinal disorder 3 0 2.16 (0.85-5.46) 0 5.35 (2.28-12.57)a 0 0.39 (0.22-0.69)a
Nausea 5 0 3.25 (1.55-6.85)a 0 8.03 (3.98-16.20)a 0 0.42 (0.30-0.58)a
Infection and infestation 5 0 1.45 (1.06-1.98)a 0 1.20 (0.87-1.65) 0 1.24 (0.96-1.60)
Upper respiratory tract infection 5 0 1.16 (0.75-1.80) 0 0.95 (0.61-1.50) 0 1.26 (0.85-1.87)
Upper respiratory tract viral infection 4 0 2.26 (1.11-4.60)a 21 1.75 (0.82-3.73) 0 1.24 (0.73-2.09)
Dizziness 2 0 0.34 (0.04-3.18) 0 6.46 (1.17-35.62)a 0 0.10 (0.01-0.76)a
Headache 5 0 1.41 (0.81-2.43) 0 1.89 (1.11-3.19)a 0 0.74 (0.50-1.10)
Skin and subcutaneous disorder 5 76 1.11 (0.49-2.49) 68 0.89 (0.42-1.91) 74 1.11 (0.57-2.17)
Increased blood creatine phosphokinase 2 56 2.05 (0.55-7.62) 32 2.50 (0.68-9.21) 0 0.77 (0.29-2.02)
Thrombocytopenia 2 0 1.57 (0.16-15.01) 0 4.27 (0.53-34.20) 0 0.19 (0.03-1.12)
Serious adverse events 5 0 0.88 (0.44-1.77) 0 0.59 (0.27-1.2) 0 1.52 (0.75-3.07)
Open in a new tab

aP<0.05.

Publication offset evaluation

In a pairwise cross-control analysis of 100 and 200 mg of abrocitinib compared with placebo, funnel plots were constructed using IGA, EASI-75 response rate and P-NRS as the efficacy indicators. The results showed that asymmetry of the EASI-75 scattered points along the center line; scattered points of the IGA and P-NRS 2 evaluation indices were symmetrical along the center line, However, all of the aforementioned indices were scattered and stratified unevenly, suggesting that these three evaluation indices may have the risk of publication bias. These findings suggest that results should be judged with caution (Fig. 13).

Figure 13.

Figure 13

Open in a new tab

Offset evaluation funnel plot. IGA, investigator's global assessment; P-NRS, pruritus numerical rating scale; EASI, eczema area and severity index.

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity correction was performed on results of the REM, before analysis was performed again after removing one research item with large differences in the weight ratio of each effect index at a time (45). The results showed that the effect value of P-NRS improvements in the control analysis of 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib showed instability. There were no changes in the statistical values of other effect indicators, suggesting that the results were stable (Table III).

Table III.

Sensitivity analysis of effect indicators with large differences in weight ratio.

A, 100 mg abrocitinib vs. placebo
  Before exclusion After exclusion  
Effect index RR 95%CI P-value RR 95%CI P-value Stability
Skin and subcutaneous disorder 1.11 0.49-2.49 0.81 0.96 0.43-2.16 0.93 Yes
Increased blood creatine phosphokinase 2.05 0.55-7.62 0.28 9.09 0.50-166.61 0.14 Yes
B, 200 mg abrocitinib vs. placebo
  Before exclusion After exclusion  
Effect index RR 95%CI P-value RR 95%CI P-value Stability
EASI-75 8.07 4.59-14.17 <0.01 8.39 5.79-12.17 <0.01 Yes
P-NRS 4.28 2.46-7.47 <0.01 5.29 3.71-7.55 <0.01 Yes
Skin and subcutaneous disorder 0.89 0.42-1.91 0.77 0.73 0.40-1.32 0.30 Yes
C, 100 vs. 200 mg abrocitinib
  Before exclusion After exclusion  
Effect index RR 95%CI P-value RR 95%CI P-value Stability
P-NRS 0.71 0.47-1.07 0.10 0.57 0.44-0.74 <0.01 No
Skin and subcutaneous disorder 1.11 0.57-2.17 0.77 0.99 0.43-2.31 0.98 Yes
Open in a new tab

P-NRS, pruritus numerical rating scale; EASI, eczema area and severity index.

Discussion

Pruritus is the most common clinical symptom in AD. Therefore, alleviating skin eczema symptoms and eliminating pruritus is key to the treatment of AD (46). Systemic treatment options for patients with moderate-to-severe AD are frequently based on those applied for patients with refractory AD who have failed local treatment or those who has not been cured for a long period time. Patients typically have unrealistically high expectations of the effect of these therapies (47). Based on five randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled trials, the present study conducted a pairwise cross-control analysis of 1,825 patients with moderate-to-severe AD who received 200 and/or 100 mg abrocitinib orally or placebo once a day. The results showed that compared the placebo group, 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib significantly improved the therapeutic indices of IGA, EASI-50, -75 and -90 and P-NRS in patients. In particular, IGA score, skin eczema and pruritis symptoms of patients were more significantly improved when the dose of abrocitinib was increased to 200 mg. The results of these trials are consistent with the prominent role of JAK1 signaling in the development of pruritus and skin inflammation in AD, demonstrating the potential therapeutic value of JAK1 inhibitors in patients with AD (48,49). AD has a complex pathophysiological mechanism that remains to be fully elucidated. However, it has been reported that immune disorders lead to the destruction of epidermal barrier function and aggravate symptoms of AD (50). At present, it is hypothesized that JAK inhibition alters the signaling mechanism of several immune and epidermal cell-derived cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of AD, such as thymus stromal lymphopoietin, IL-4, IL-13, IL-22 and IL-31(51).

The reliability of the results of in a systematic review is dependent on quality of the original literature included, whereas the quantity of high-quality literature will determine the stability of the results (52). The five publications included in the present study were randomized and double-blinded studies, with 1,825 patients enrolled. The basic information of the publication was complete; research indicators were homogenous and data were complete. The risk of deviation from the experimental design by the authors of the original publication was low. In addition, high risk of deviation was not found in the evaluation results of the methodology quality in each study and the overall quality of the included literature was high.

In the present study, through the association analysis of the results of the main therapeutic indicators, it was concluded that the symptoms of pruritus and eczema in patients with moderate-to-severe AD could be relieved within 12 weeks after the oral administration of 100 mg abrocitinib. Specifically, the symptoms of pruritus and eczema could be rapidly relieved, which was then effectively consolidated with the extension of the treatment course and increases in dosage. This finding is consistent with the results of a previous retrospective study of the effects of 100 mg abrocitinib once daily for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD by Gooderham et al (53), which found that at week 12 after the commencement of treatment, the IGA score and EASI-75 improved significantly from the baseline. In the present study, significant improvements in IGA and EASI scores were observed compared with those receiving 100 mg when the dose was increased to 200 mg. To some extent, the efficacy of abrocitinib 200 mg appears to be more potent, in terms of both speed and intensity of action, suggesting that this dose may be the preferred dose for the majority of patients, which was consistent with the results of Simpson et al (54). However, for patients with a higher risk of adverse reactions or those who do not tolerated abrocitinib, a dose of 100 mg may be a more appropriate starting dose. In addition, although 200 mg abrocitinib is generally well-tolerated by the majority of patients ≥65 years of age, dose-associated side effects, such as hematological changes and shingles, are particularly common in this age group (55). Therefore, appropriate dose selection in the adapted population before initiation is recommended to minimize the risks associated with abrocitinib. Due to the heterogeneity risk in the P-NRS score after 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib treatment and the high sensitivity of data variation found in the present study, there is likely to be a bias risk in the association analysis of P-NRS results in the 200 mg abrocitinib group, meaning these results should be interpreted with caution. In a pairwise cross-control safety comparison of 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib compared with placebo, both 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib exhibited different incidences of gastrointestinal and central nervous system symptoms, among which nausea, infection and infestation, upper respiratory tract viral infection were the main symptoms in the 100 mg abrocitinib group. By contrast, gastrointestinal dysfunction, nausea, dizziness and headache were the main symptoms in the 200 mg abrocitinib group. Reich et al (18) found that serious adverse reactions, such as inflammatory bowel disease, peritonsillitis, dehydration and asthma occurred after oral treatments with abrocitinib 200 mg, whereas one case of pneumonia was also found during follow-up. Serious adverse reactions, such as retinal detachment, acute pancreatitis, appendicitis, dizziness and epilepsy, were associated with 100 mg abrocitinib oral treatment (18), similar to the results of the present study. Although comparison between 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib found that incidence of gastrointestinal function, nausea and headache was more pronounced in the 200 mg group, incidence of infection and infestation (14.94 vs. 12.13%), upper respiratory tract infection (7.54 vs. 5.99%) and viral upper respiratory tract viral infection (5.32 vs. 4.35%) decreased as abrocitinib dosage increased. The association between the infection risk of patients and the dose of abrocitinib warrants further study.

To ensure the integrity of the included data and avoid missing literature or insufficient literature retrieval, the present study searched the universally used, recognized, authoritative and complete data collection databases. However, due to the limited number of included studies and tested patients, the results of each analysis are not strong and should be interpreted with caution. In terms of literature screening, data extraction, and quality evaluation, subjective selection bias or risk of omitting relevant literature may persist due to different researchers. The included analysis data may be confounded by uncertain factors, such as missing literature, differences in subjective judgments by each author and language restrictions. Furthermore, results of the present meta-analysis may contain volatility, necessitating further validation in future studies. The present systematic review focused on comparing 100 and 200 mg abrocitinib with the placebo group. The results serve as a basis for treatment decision-making at these doses, whilst excluding other major therapeutic drugs from the scope of this review. Despite the limitations in the present study, the present meta-analysis provides a systematic evaluation pathway for subsequent multi-arm studies on 100 mg abrocitinib and single-arm studies exploring the efficacy of its combined application. Additionally, it offers an avenue for further investigating the association between abrocitinib dosage and infection risk. Despite these limitations, the controversial effects of abrocitinib between 100 and 200 mg on pruritus, eczema symptoms and tolerance in patients with moderate-to-severe AD were mentioned.

Both 100 and 200 mg doses of abrocitinib can rapidly alleviate the clinical symptoms of pruritus and eczema in patients with moderate-to-severe AD, which are generally well tolerated compared with patients as demonstrated by the acceptable adverse reactions profile. However, there is risk of infection is different in patients treated with different doses of abrocitinib, rendering it necessary to perform additional benefit-risk assessments of patients. Due to the objective factors of the systematic review, the results of the present study are mainly for reference and require multi-center, strictly designed, high-quality and large-scale clinical trials for validation.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding Statement

Funding: The present study was supported by the Science and Technology Plan Fund from Yaan Science and Technology Bureau (grant no. 22KJJH0039); Beijing Medical Award Foundation ‘Rui Ying IV phase’ scientific research project (grant no. YXJL-2023-0866-0316).

Availability of data and materials

The data generated in the present study may be requested from the corresponding author.

Authors' contributions

XX and LF conceived and designed the study. XX performed the literature search, extracted and analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript. JZ and FH extracted and analyzed data and reviewed the manuscript. LF revised the manuscript. XX and JZ confirm the authenticity of all the raw data. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  • 1.Dini V, Iannone M, Michelucci A, Manzo Margiotta F, Granieri G, Salvia G, Oranges T, Janowska A, Morganti R, Romanelli M. Ultra-high frequency ultrasound (UHFUS) assessment of barrier function in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis during dupilumab treatment. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023;13(2721) doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13172721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Silverberg JI, Gelfand JM, Margolis DJ, Boguniewicz M, Fonacier L, Grayson MH, Simpson EL, Ong PY, Chiesa Fuxench ZC. Patient burden and quality of life in atopic dermatitis in US adults: A population-based cross-sectional study. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018;121:340–347. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2018.07.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Vilsbøll AW, Anderson P, Piercy J, Milligan G, Kragh N. extent and impact of inadequate disease control in US adults with a history of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis following introduction of new treatments. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) 2021;11:475–486. doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00488-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rerknimitr P, Otsuka A, Nakashima C, Kabashima K. The etiopathogenesis of atopic dermatitis: Barrier disruption, immunological derangement, and pruritus. Infamm Regen. 2017;37(14) doi: 10.1186/s41232-017-0044-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Williams H, Robertson C, Stewart A, Aït-Khaled N, Anabwani G, Anderson R, Asher I, Beasley R, Björkstén B, Burr M, et al. Worldwide variations in the prevalence of symptoms of atopic eczema in the international study of asthma and allergies in childhood. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999;103:125–138. doi: 10.1016/s0091-6749(99)70536-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Odhiambo JA, Williams HC, Clayton TO, Robertson CF, Asher MI. Global variations in prevalence of eczema symptoms in children from ISAAC phase three. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124:1251–1258.e23. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2009.10.009. ISAAC Phase Three Study Group. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mandlik DS, Mandlik SK. Atopic dermatitis: New insight into the etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and novel treatment strategies. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol. 2021;43:105–125. doi: 10.1080/08923973.2021.1889583. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dubin C, Del Duca E, Guttman-Yassky E. The IL-4, IL-13 and IL-31 pathways in atopic dermatitis. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2021;17:835–852. doi: 10.1080/1744666X.2021.1940962. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Thyssen JP, Halling AS, Schmid-Grendelmeier P, Guttman-Yassky E, Silverberg JI. Comorbidities of atopic dermatitis-what does the evidence say? J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2023;151:1155–1162. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.12.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Weidinger S, Novak N. Atopic dermatitis. Lancet. 2016;387:1109–1122. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00149-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Paolino A, Alexander H, Broderick C, Flohr C. Non-biologic systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis: Current state of the art and future directions. Clin Exp Allergy. 2023;53:495–510. doi: 10.1111/cea.14301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Drucker AM, Morra DE, Prieto-Merino D, Ellis AG, Yiu ZZN, Rochwerg B, Di Giorgio S, Arents BWM, Burton T, Spuls PI, et al. Systemic immunomodulatory treatments for atopic Dermatitis: Update of a living systematic review and network meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2022;158:523–532. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.0455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Blauvelt A, Teixeira HD, Simpson EL, Costanzo A, De Bruin-Weller M, Barbarot S, Prajapati VH, Lio P, Hu X, Wu T, et al. Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib vs dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:1047–1055. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.3023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Buhl T, Rosmarin D, Serra-Baldrich E, Fernandez-Peñas P, Igarashi A, Konstantinou MP, Chen S, Lu N, Pierce E, Casillas M. Itch and sleep improvements with baricitinib in patients with atopic dermatitis: A post hoc analysis of 3 phase 3 studies. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) 2021;11:971–182. doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00534-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Blauvelt A, Ardern-Jones MR, Bieber T, Hong HCH, Chu CY, Liu M, Yang Y, Ladizinski B, Teixeira H, Calimlim BM, Thyssen JP. 28032 Rapid itch improvement with upadacitinib with or without concomitant topical corticosteroids (TCS) in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD): Results from 3 phase 3 studies (Measure Up1, Measure Up 2, and AD Up) J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85(AB171) [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Silverberg JI, Yosipovitch G, Simpson EL, Kim BS, Wu JJ, Eckert L, Guillemin I, Chen Z, Ardeleanu M, Bansal A, et al. Dupilumab treatment results in early and sustained improvements in itch in adolescents and adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: Analysis of the randomized phase 3 studies SOLO 1 and SOLO 2, AD ADOL, and CHRONOS. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82:1328–1336. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.02.060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Simpson E, Wollenberg A, Soong W, Mark T, Kuznetsova A, Steffensen LA, Silverberg J. Rapid and sustained improvements in itch and sleep with tralokinumab treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe Atopic Dermatitis, a post hoc analysis of pooled data from ECZTRA 1 and 2. SKIN J Cutan Med. 2021;5(S61) [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Reich K, Silverberg JI, Papp KA, Deleuran M, Katoh N, Strober B, Beck LA, de Bruin-Weller M, Werfel T, Zhang F, et al. Abrocitinib efficacy and safety in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Results from phase 3 studies, including the long-term extension JADE EXTEND study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2023;37:2056–2066. doi: 10.1111/jdv.19280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Simpson EL, Silverberg JI, Thyssen JP, Viguier M, Thaçi D, de Bruin-Weller M, Weidinger S, Chan G, DiBonaventura M, Biswas P, et al. Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib in patients with severe and/or difficult-to-treat atopic dermatitis: A post hoc analysis of the randomized phase 3 JADE COMPARE trial. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023;24:609–621. doi: 10.1007/s40257-023-00785-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Berthe P, Scailteux LM, Lescoat A, Staumont D, Coiffier G, Guéret P, Dupuy A, Oger E, Droitcourt C. Oral Janus kinase inhibitors and venous thromboembolic events in atopic dermatitis: Protocols for a case-time control study and a nested case-control study based on the French national health insurance (SNDS) cohort. BMJ Open. 2022;12(e059979) doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059979. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tong Z, Zhang Y, Zhou K, Zou Y, Wu Z, Chen J, Zhuang Z, Zhao Y, Gong T, Ji C. An observational study of abrocitinib in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis after switching from dupilumab. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;89:826–828. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2023.05.077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Blauvelt A, de Bruin-Weller M, Gooderham M, Cather JC, Weisman J, Pariser D, Simpson EL, Papp KA, Hong HC, Rubel D, et al. Long-term management of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis with dupilumab and concomitant topical corticosteroids (LIBERTY AD CHRONOS): A 1-year, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;389:2287–2303. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31191-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Banerjee S, Biehl A, Gadina M, Hasni S, Schwartz DM. JAK-STAT signaling as a target for inflammatory and autoimmune diseases: Current and future prospects. Drugs. 2017;77:521–546. doi: 10.1007/s40265-017-0701-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Blauvelt A, Silverberg JI, Lynde CW, Bieber T, Eisman S, Zdybski J, Gubelin W, Simpson EL, Valenzuela F, Criado PR, et al. Abrocitinib induction, randomized withdrawal, and retreatment in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Results from the JAK1 atopic dermatitis efficacy and safety (JADE) REGIMEN phase 3 trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;86:104–112. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.05.075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Clarke B, Yates M, Adas M, Bechman K, Galloway J. The safety of JAK-1 inhibitors. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2021;60 (Suppl 2):ii24–ii30. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaa895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Romero Jiménez RM, Herranz Pinto P, Campos Domínguez M, Aceituno Mata S, Bellmunt A, Prades M, Arumi D, Hernández-Martín I, Herrera-Lasso V, Llevat N, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of abrocitinib compared with other systemic treatments for severe atopic dermatitis in spain. Pharmacoecon Open. 2024;8:291–302. doi: 10.1007/s41669-023-00459-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Edwards SJ, Karner C, Jhita T, Barton S, Marceniuk G, Yiu ZZN, Wittmann M. Abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Health Technol Assess. 2024;28:1–113. doi: 10.3310/LEXB9006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lugović-Mihić L, Meštrović-Štefekov J, Potočnjak I, Cindrić T, Ilić I, Lovrić I, Skalicki L, Bešlić I, Pondeljak N. Atopic dermatitis: Disease features, therapeutic options, and a multidisciplinary approach. Life (Basel) 2023;13(1419) doi: 10.3390/life13061419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lipsky BA, Senneville É, Abbas ZG, Aragón-Sánchez J, Diggle M, Embil JM, Kono S, Lavery LA, Malone M, van Asten SA, et al. Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update) Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020;36 (Suppl 1)(e3280) doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gu H, Chen XS, Chen K, Yan Y, Jin H. Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis. Chin J Dermatology. 2000;33:222–226. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2133.2001.04379.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Langley RGB, Feldman SR, Nyirady J, van de Kerkhof P, Papavassilis C. The 5-point investigator's global assessment (IGA) scale: A modified tool for evaluating plaque psoriasis severity in clinical trials. J Dermatolog Treat. 2015;26:23–31. doi: 10.3109/09546634.2013.865009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hanifin JM, Baghoomian W, Grinich E, Leshem YA, Jacobson M, Simpson EL. The eczema area and severity index-a practical guide. Dermatitis. 2022;33:187–192. doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Napolitano M, Ferrucci SM, Foggia L, Hansel K, Pezzolo E, Stingeni L, Antonelli E, Picone V, Patruno C. Comparison of long-term effectiveness and safety of upadacitinib for atopic dermatitis between dupilumab-exposed and dupilumab-naïve patients. Clin Drug Investig. 2024;44:71–77. doi: 10.1007/s40261-023-01336-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339(b2700) doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Veazie S, Peterson K, Bourne D, Anderson J, Damschroder L, Gunnar W. Implementing high-reliability organization principles into practice: A rapid evidence review. J Patient Saf. 2022;18:e320–e328. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000768. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochranehandbook.org. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Atkins D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Harbour RT, Hill S, Jaeschke R, Liberati A, Magrini N, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: Pilot study of a new system. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005;5(25) doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-5-25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JP, Thomas J. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: A new edition of the cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10(ED000142) doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28:1290–1299. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000065484.95996.AF. Editorial Board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bieber T, Simpson EL, Silverberg JI, Thaçi D, Paul C, Pink AE, Kataoka Y, Chu CY, DiBonaventura M, Rojo R, et al. Abrocitinib versus placebo or dupilumab for atopic dermatitis. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1101–1112. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2019380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Eichenfield LF, Flohr C, Sidbury R, Siegfried E, Szalai Z, Galus R, Yao Z, Takahashi H, Barbarot S, Feeney C, et al. Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib in combination with topical therapy in adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: The JADE TEEN randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157:1165–1173. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.2830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Gooderham MJ, Forman SB, Bissonnette R, Beebe JS, Zhang W, Banfield C, Zhu L, Papacharalambous J, Vincent MS, Peeva E. Efficacy and safety of oral Janus kinase 1 inhibitor abrocitinib for patients with atopic dermatitis: A phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155:1371–1379. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.2855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Silverberg JI, Simpson EL, Thyssen JP, Gooderham M, Chan G, Feeney C, Biswas P, Valdez H, DiBonaventura M, Nduaka C, Rojo R. Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156:863–873. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Simpson EL, Sinclair R, Forman S, Wollenberg A, Aschoff R, Cork M, Bieber T, Thyssen JP, Yosipovitch G, Flohr C, et al. Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (JADE MONO-1): A multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2020;396:255–266. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30732-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA , et al: The cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343(d5928) doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Boguniewicz M, Fonacier L, Guttman-Yassky E, Ong PY, Silverberg J, Farrar JR. Atopic dermatitis yardstick: Practical recommendations for an evolving therapeutic landscape. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018;120:10–22.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2017.10.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Reich K, Thyssen JP, Blauvelt A, Eyerich K, Soong W, Rice ZP, Hong HC, Katoh N, Valenzuela F, DiBonaventura M, et al. Efficacy and safety of abrocitinib versus dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2022;400:273–282. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01199-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Boeri M, Sutphin J, Hauber B, Cappelleri JC, Romero W, Di Bonaventura M. Quantifying patient preferences for systemic atopic dermatitis treatments using a discrete-choice experiment. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022;33:1449–1458. doi: 10.1080/09546634.2020.1832185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Boytsov NN, Gorritz M, Wang X, Malatestinic WN, Wade RL, Goldblum OM. The current treatment landscape in adult atopic dermatitis in the United States: Results from a cross-sectional real-world study. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022;33:1707–1717. doi: 10.1080/09546634.2021.1898530. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD. Systematic reviews in health care: Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ. 2001;323:101–105. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Howell MD, Kuo FI, Smith PA. Targeting the Janus kinase family in autoimmune skin diseases. Front Immunol. 2019;10(2342) doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Sroka-Tomaszewska J, Trzeciak M. Molecular mecha-nisms of atopic dermatitis pathogenesis. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(4130) doi: 10.3390/ijms22084130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Gooderham MJ, Pink AE, Simpson EL, Silverberg JI, Güler E, Watkins M. Abrocitinib 100 mg once daily for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A review of efficacy and safety, and expert opinion on use in clinical practice. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) 2023;13:1893–1907. doi: 10.1007/s13555-023-00948-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Simpson EL, Silverberg JI, Nosbaum A, Winthrop KL, Guttman-Yassky E, Hoffmeister KM, Egeberg A, Valdez H, Zhang M, Farooqui SA, et al. Integrated safety analysis of abrocitinib for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis from the phase II and phase III clinical trial program. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2021;22:693–707. doi: 10.1007/s40257-021-00618-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Lee AJ, Ashkar AA. The dual nature of type I and type II interferons. Front Immunol. 2018;9(2061) doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data generated in the present study may be requested from the corresponding author.

Articles from Biomedical Reports are provided here courtesy of Spandidos Publications

RESOURCES