Long-term safety and disease control with ruxolitinib cream in atopic dermatitis: Results from two phase 3 studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ruxolitinib cream demonstrated safety and efficacy over 8 weeks in 2 double-blind phase 3 atopic dermatitis studies (NCT03745638/NCT03745651). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term safety (LTS) and disease control with ruxolitinib cream. METHODS: Patients initially randomized to twice-daily 0.75%/1.5% ruxolitinib cream maintained their regimen during the 44-week LTS period (as-needed treatment). Patients on vehicle were rerandomized (1:1) at week 8 to either ruxolitinib cream strength. Safety and disease control (Investigator's Global Assessment score 0/1 and affected body surface area) were assessed. RESULTS: Over 52 weeks, adverse events were reported in 67.4%/62.6%/53.5%/57.6% of patients in 0.75%/1.5% ruxolitinib cream/vehicle to 0.75% ruxolitinib cream/vehicle to 1.5% ruxolitinib cream groups (n = 426/446/101/99). Most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection (10.3%/11.4%/5.9%/7.1%) and nasopharyngitis (8.9%/9.9%/7.9%/14.1%). Most adverse events were considered unrelated to treatment. Application site reactions were infrequent (3.8%/1.8%/1.0%/1.0%). Disease control was achieved throughout the LTS; 74.1% to 77.8% of patients had Investigator's Global Assessment 0/1 at week 52, and mean affected body surface area was low (1.4%-1.8%). LIMITATIONS: LTS had no control treatment. CONCLUSION: During 44 weeks of as-needed treatment, ruxolitinib cream demonstrated effective disease control and tolerability; low ruxolitinib plasma concentrations alongside safety findings reflecting known risk factors suggest physiologically meaningful systemic Janus kinase inhibition is highly unlikely.
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 | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".