Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in the treatment of recalcitrant vitiligo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Vitiligo is an acquired autoimmune disease resulting in depigmented patches of the skin, often leading to a significant psychosocial burden on patients. Building on recent advancements in understanding the immunological mechanisms in vitiligo pathogenesis, various potential treatment options such as JAK inhibitors are being clinically researched for vitiligo. In this study, upadacitinib was evaluated for its effectiveness and safety in treating recalcitrant vitiligo patients. Methods: This study was a prospective randomized clinical trial, thirty patients of group A were treated with Upadacitinib, a dose of 15 mg once daily for 16 weeks. Thirty patients of group B were treated with low dose oral prednisolone (0.3 mg/kg body weight) daily for 16 weeks and the severity of vitiligo was measured using the Vitiligo Area Severity Index (VASI). Results: The study shows that in Group A, the mean reduction of VASI score was lower in segmental vitiligo (1.24±0.43) and higher in acrofacial vitiligo (4.21±1.30). On the other hand, in Group B, the mean reduction of VASI score was almost similar in acrofacial vitiligo (2.17±0.35) and generalized vitiligo (2.23±0.44). The association between type of vitiligo and change in VASI score in Group A was statistically significant (0.002). At month 4, the VASI score was lower in group A (5.70±3.61) compared to group B (8.61±3.43), which was statistically significant (p=0.006). Conclusions: The observed repigmentation with minor adverse effects in all vitiligo patients with upadacitinib suggests that upadacitinib could be a promising therapeutic option for this challenging condition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".