An Update on the Safety and Tolerability of Pimecrolimus Cream 1%: Evidence from Clinical Trials and Post-Marketing Surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this report, we review the data on the safety and tolerability of pimecrolimus cream 1% (Elidel) from clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance in patients with atopic dermatitis. These data demonstrate that topically applied pimecrolimus is minimally absorbed through the skin and has a favourable safety margin. The most common treatment-related adverse events are transient local reactions, particularly skin burning (16.1 and 12.9 events per 1,000 patient-months of follow-up in adults and children, respectively). When compared to the vehicle, the use of pimecrolimus cream 1% is associated with an increased incidence of herpes simplex virus infections in children (relative risk: 2.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.2-5.8; p = 0.017). However, pimecrolimus cream 1% does not increase the incidence of any skin infection in comparison with moderately potent topical corticosteroids and lacks other corticosteroid-related side effects such as skin atrophy. While cases of malignancy have been reported in patients who have used pimecrolimus cream 1%, there is no clinical evidence to establish that treatment with pimecrolimus cream 1% increases the risk of malignancy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".