Brief · Use case · Medical Affairs
Atopic Dermatitis Evidence Review.
LiveEvidence ReviewReview the evidence comparing biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors in atopic dermatitis on clearance and safety, with certainty rated per outcome.
Atopic Dermatitis Evidence Review is a ready-made use case for Medical Affairs. It ships under the Evidence Review template.
For medical affairs leads. You get the PICO, the main studies with effect and risk of bias, certainty per outcome with the reason and the gaps in comparative evidence. Studies are cited or marked as gaps.
Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.
The decision
What does the published evidence show when biologic and Janus kinase inhibitor treatments for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis are compared on skin clearance and safety?
What is reviewed
Few trials compare these treatments head to head, so most of the comparison comes from network meta-analyses. The review says which comparisons are direct and which are indirect.
| Evidence | What it holds | What the review does with it |
|---|---|---|
| Living network meta-analysis | A living review in JAMA Dermatology that used Bayesian network meta-analysis and GRADE. Upadacitinib 30 mg daily (mean difference 2.7 in EASI change, 95% CrI 0.6 to 4.7, high certainty) and abrocitinib 200 mg daily (2.2, 95% CrI 0.2 to 4.0, high certainty) reduced EASI slightly more than dupilumab. Upadacitinib 15 mg showed little or no difference. It covers up to 16 weeks in adults.1 | Continuous EASI change, not responder proportions. |
| Guideline evidence review | The systematic review and network meta-analysis for the 2023 allergy and immunology guideline covered 149 trials, with certainty rated by GRADE.2 | Read for the outcomes it rated and for the safety findings. |
| Responder numbers | A published table of numbers needed to treat for EASI-75 exists, but its source study and certainty were not identified.3 | Not used until the source is confirmed. |
What the review does
Mostly indirect comparison. The ranking comes from networks that link trials through common comparators. The review marks each comparison as direct or indirect and lowers certainty where the network is thin.1,2
Efficacy and safety point in different directions. The guideline review found that high-dose upadacitinib was among the most effective on most outcomes, and that dupilumab, lebrikizumab and tralokinumab were of intermediate effectiveness and among the safest. The review reports both, as the sources state them.2
Duration is short. The network covers up to 16 weeks. Long-term safety, which matters most for the Janus kinase inhibitors, sits in a different body of evidence and is flagged as open.1
Recommended length
Standard
The question is narrow and the studies are few enough to tabulate. Standard carries the PICO, the studies, the effect, the certainty and the open question in about 1,300 words.
You can pick another length on the form. The other two stay available.
Assumptions the review checks
The review states the assumptions its question and its rating rest on, and says what each gap limits. Examples for this question:
- Trial populations are similar enough for the network to hold.
- Skin clearance at 16 weeks is the outcome the reader needs.
- Safety findings from trials reflect safety in routine use.
Standards, guidance and sources
Evidence
The decision practice behind the memo itself is on the template page.
What gets flagged
Any comparison that is only indirect, any estimate in change of EASI that is read as a responder rate, and any figure with no identified source.
What arrives
- The question and the bottom line
- How the evidence was found
- The evidence
- What it shows
- How strong it is
- Where studies disagree
- Where the evidence is thin
- What the evidence does not answer
What it will not do
It is a rapid review, not a systematic one. It reports the effects the studies reported, does not pool them into a new estimate, and labels every certainty rating as analyst judgment.
It does not recommend a treatment or rank products for clinical use.
It is not a systematic review. It uses a bounded search, says so, and recommends a full literature review when completeness matters.
It does not pool studies into a new estimate. It reports the effects the studies reported.
It does not compute a missing interval or plot a missing effect as zero. Both are marked as gaps.
References
- [1] Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA Dermatology (living review), 2021. Estimates as given in search excerpts; the paper was not read in full.
- [2] Systematic review and network meta-analysis of systemic immunomodulatory treatments for atopic dermatitis, for the 2023 AAAAI/ACAAI guidelines. Search results describe the 2023 guideline review; this link was returned for the topic and may point to an earlier related review. Check before relying on it.
- [3] Baseline-risk-adjusted numbers needed to treat for systemic atopic dermatitis treatments. Journal of Skin. Table seen in search excerpts only; source study and certainty not identified.
Links checked 9 October 2026
These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.
About the Brief service
A Brief is a written answer from one specialist, at the depth you asked for. It arrives with its sources, and it closes by saying plainly what would change the conclusion. Nothing is hidden behind a summary, and anything the expert could not source is marked as a gap rather than filled in.
To edit a saved template, open New → Brief → From template, or the library rail on the service form.