Efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib cream for the treatment of atopic dermatitis: Results from 2 phase 3, randomized, double-blind studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ruxolitinib (RUX) cream demonstrated potent anti-inflammatory and antipruritic efficacy in a phase 2 study in adults with atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate 8-week efficacy and safety in 2 phase 3 studies of RUX cream in patients with AD. METHODS: Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Atopic Dermatitis Study 1 (NCT03745638) and Study 2 (NCT03745651) enrolled patients aged ≥12 years with AD for ≥2 years, an Investigator's Global Assessment score of 2/3, and 3%-20% affected body surface area. Patients were randomized 2:2:1 to twice-daily 0.75% RUX cream, 1.5% RUX cream, or vehicle cream for 8 continuous weeks. The primary endpoint was Investigator's Global Assessment treatment success at week 8 (Investigator's Global Assessment score of 0/1 and ≥2-grade improvement from baseline). RESULTS: In the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Atopic Dermatitis Study 1 and 2, 631 and 618 patients were randomized (631/577 analyzed for efficacy). Significantly more patients achieved Investigator's Global Assessment treatment success with 0.75% RUX cream (50.0%/39.0%) and 1.5% RUX cream (53.8%/51.3%) versus vehicle (15.1%/7.6%; P < .0001) at week 8. Significant itch reductions versus vehicle were reported within 12 hours of first application of 1.5% RUX (P < .05). Application site reactions were infrequent (<1%) and lower with RUX versus vehicle; none were clinically significant. LIMITATIONS: Longer-term safety data are not yet available. CONCLUSIONS: RUX cream showed anti-inflammatory and prompt antipruritic effects with superior efficacy versus vehicle and was well tolerated.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".