Safety and Efficacy of Pimecrolimus in Atopic Dermatitis: A 5-Year Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Atopic dermatitis (AD) primarily affects infants and young children. Although topical corticosteroids (TCSs) are often prescribed, noncorticosteroid treatments are needed because compliance with TCSs is poor due to concerns about their side effects. In this longest and largest intervention study ever conducted in infants with mild-to-moderate AD, pimecrolimus 1% cream (PIM) was compared with TCSs. METHODS: A total of 2418 infants were enrolled in this 5-year open-label study. Infants were randomized to PIM (n = 1205; with short-term TCSs for disease flares) or TCSs (n = 1213). The primary objective was to compare safety; the secondary objective was to document PIM's long-term efficacy. Treatment success was defined as an Investigator's Global Assessment score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear). RESULTS: Both PIM and TCSs had a rapid onset of action with >50% of patients achieving treatment success by week 3. After 5 years, >85% and 95% of patients in each group achieved overall and facial treatment success, respectively. The PIM group required substantially fewer steroid days than the TCS group (7 vs 178). The profile and frequency of adverse events was similar in the 2 groups; in both groups, there was no evidence for impairment of humoral or cellular immunity. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term management of mild-to-moderate AD in infants with PIM or TCSs was safe without any effect on the immune system. PIM was steroid-sparing. The data suggest PIM had similar efficacy to TCS and support the use of PIM as a first-line treatment of mild-to-moderate AD in infants and children.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".