What Is the Risk of Harm Associated With Topical Calcineurin Inhibitors?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), tacrolimus (Protopic) and pimecrolimus (Elidel), were approved in the early 2000s and were widely used as a nonsteroid treatment for atopic dermatitis (AD) in adult and pediatric populations. In 2005, the addition of a boxed warning was mandated for TCIs based on a potential risk of malignancy, and there was subsequently a substantial decline in their use. Since then, evidence has mounted to support the safety of this class of medications and suggests that the increased risk of malignancy remains theoretical. This review aims to dispel some of the common myths surrounding the safety of TCIs by evaluating the key evidence regarding their safety and tolerability in adult and pediatric populations. Four major themes are addressed in a practical question-and-answer format: the risk of harm associated with TCIs including common and serious adverse events; warnings and precautions for their use including the risk of systemic absorption, immunosuppression, and malignancy; the comparative safety of TCIs; and suggestions for counselling patients about the risk of harm with TCIs. Based on the available evidence, international professional dermatological organizations and regulatory authorities have concluded that the benefits of TCIs outweigh their potential risks when used in the appropriate patient populations for the recommended duration of time.
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 | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".