COMPARING 1.5% RUXOLITINIB CREAM AND OTHER THERAPIES FOR PEDIATRIC PATIENTS WITH ATOPIC DERMATITIS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS
Author(s)
Vimal H. Prajapati, MD1, Kerri Purdy, MD2, Alexander Luther, PhD3, Becky Hooper, MSc3, Nikita Sir, BHSc3, Christopher Drudge, PhD, MPH3, Heather Cameron, PhD3, Grace K. Wong, PhD4, Mehdi Larbi, MSc4;
1University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, 2Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada, 3EVERSANA, Burlington, ON, Canada, 4Incyte Biosciences Canada, Saint-Laurent, QC, Canada
1University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, 2Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada, 3EVERSANA, Burlington, ON, Canada, 4Incyte Biosciences Canada, Saint-Laurent, QC, Canada
OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of 1.5% ruxolitinib cream versus relevant therapies for patients aged 2-11 years with atopic dermatitis (AD).
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for therapies in pediatric AD, including phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulators, immunosuppressants, topical calcineurin inhibitors, and topical corticosteroids (TCS). Using a Bayesian framework, network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted for Investigator’s Global Assessment treatment success (IGA-TS), ≥75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75), ≥4-point reduction in Itch Numerical Rating Scale (Itch NRS4), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).
RESULTS: A total of 13 RCTs were included in the NMA. For each outcome, all treatments for which outcome data were reported, apart from dupilumab + TCS, could be connected in a network to 1.5% ruxolitinib cream through a common comparator (vehicle). For NMAs using primary timepoint data (Week 8) for TRuE-AD3, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream had similar or better efficacy across all outcomes. 1.5% ruxolitinib cream was superior to 0.05% roflumilast cream (odds ratio [95% credible interval], 3.86 [1.49-11.32]) and 2% crisaborole ointment (6.16 [2.60-16.81]) for IGA-TS and superior to 1% tapinarof cream (2.46 [1.03-6.27]) and 0.05% roflumilast cream (4.57 [2.00-11.30]) for EASI-75. 1.5% ruxolitinib cream had comparable incidence of TEAEs to all comparators. Similar efficacy and safety results were obtained with NMAs using Week 4 TRuE-AD3 data to align with the primary timepoint of the included roflumilast and crisaborole studies. 1.5% ruxolitinib cream was superior to 2% crisaborole ointment (3.76 [1.61-9.68]) for IGA-TS and superior to 1% tapinarof cream (2.61 [1.05-7.14]) and 0.05% roflumilast cream (4.85 [2.06-12.76]) for EASI-75.
CONCLUSIONS: Results of NMAs indicate 1.5% ruxolitinib cream offers similar or better disease control than that of available topical therapies for pediatric AD based on IGA-TS, EASI-75, and Itch NRS4 and similar safety in terms of TEAEs.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for therapies in pediatric AD, including phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, aryl hydrocarbon receptor modulators, immunosuppressants, topical calcineurin inhibitors, and topical corticosteroids (TCS). Using a Bayesian framework, network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted for Investigator’s Global Assessment treatment success (IGA-TS), ≥75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75), ≥4-point reduction in Itch Numerical Rating Scale (Itch NRS4), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).
RESULTS: A total of 13 RCTs were included in the NMA. For each outcome, all treatments for which outcome data were reported, apart from dupilumab + TCS, could be connected in a network to 1.5% ruxolitinib cream through a common comparator (vehicle). For NMAs using primary timepoint data (Week 8) for TRuE-AD3, 1.5% ruxolitinib cream had similar or better efficacy across all outcomes. 1.5% ruxolitinib cream was superior to 0.05% roflumilast cream (odds ratio [95% credible interval], 3.86 [1.49-11.32]) and 2% crisaborole ointment (6.16 [2.60-16.81]) for IGA-TS and superior to 1% tapinarof cream (2.46 [1.03-6.27]) and 0.05% roflumilast cream (4.57 [2.00-11.30]) for EASI-75. 1.5% ruxolitinib cream had comparable incidence of TEAEs to all comparators. Similar efficacy and safety results were obtained with NMAs using Week 4 TRuE-AD3 data to align with the primary timepoint of the included roflumilast and crisaborole studies. 1.5% ruxolitinib cream was superior to 2% crisaborole ointment (3.76 [1.61-9.68]) for IGA-TS and superior to 1% tapinarof cream (2.61 [1.05-7.14]) and 0.05% roflumilast cream (4.85 [2.06-12.76]) for EASI-75.
CONCLUSIONS: Results of NMAs indicate 1.5% ruxolitinib cream offers similar or better disease control than that of available topical therapies for pediatric AD based on IGA-TS, EASI-75, and Itch NRS4 and similar safety in terms of TEAEs.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
CO154
Topic
Clinical Outcomes
Topic Subcategory
Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, SDC: Sensory System Disorders (Ear, Eye, Dental, Skin)