Evidence Hub

Comparative safety of oral Janus kinase inhibitors and dupilumab in patients with atopic dermatitis: a population-based cohort study

S. Tsai, W. Phipatanakul, E. Hawryluk, M. Oyoshi, L. C. Schneider, Kevin Sheng-Kai Ma

Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2024

14,716 participants · 48 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Systemic Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) and dupilumab both have emerged as promising therapeutics for atopic dermatitis (AD). While dupilumab has a favorable safety profile, use of oral JAKi has been established in other diseases that carry potential comorbid susceptibilities that influence safety.

OBJECTIVE

To provide real-world evidence of the safety of oral JAKi in AD patients.

METHODS

The study used observational data from TriNetX (Cambridge, Massachusetts). Patients with AD treated with either oral JAKi (upadacitinib, abrocitinib, and baricitinib) or dupilumab were enrolled. The two treatment groups were propensity-score matched 1:1 based on demographics, comorbidities, and prior medications. Safety outcomes within two years after the initiation of medications were measured by hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 14,716 patients were included, with 942 patients treated with oral JAKi and 13,774 with dupilumab. The two treatment groups included 938 patients after matching. Treatment with oral JAKi was not associated with increased risks of mortality, malignancies, major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, renal events, or serious gastrointestinal events. However, patients receiving oral JAKi showed significantly higher risks of skin and subcutaneous tissue infection, herpes infection, acne, cytopenia, and hyperlipidemia, whereas the risk of ophthalmic complications was higher in those receiving dupilumab.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 14,716 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free