Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are promising treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors for AD treatment via the “Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation” approach. We identified 15 randomized controlled trials comparing oral or topical JAK inhibitors against placebo to treat AD. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and the numbers-needed-to-treat (NNTs)/numbers-needed-to-harm (NNHs) were calculated. Patients treated with JAK inhibitors were associated with higher rates of achieving eczema area and severity index-75 (rate ratio (RR): 2.84; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.20–3.67; I2: 38.9%; NNT = 3.97), Investigator’s Global Assessment response (RR: 2.99; 95% CI: 2.26–3.95; I2: 0%; NNT = 5.72), and pruritus numerical rating scale response (RR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.90–3.35; I2: 39.4%; NNT = 4.91) than those treated with placebo. Moreover, patients treated with JAK inhibitors had a higher risk of treatment-emergent adverse events (RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.02–1.28; I2: 52%; NNH = 14.80) but not adverse events leading to drug discontinuation. According to the evidence-based results, JAK inhibitors are potentially effective strategies (certainty of evidence: “moderate”) for treating AD with tolerable side effects (certainty of evidence: “low”). Nevertheless, long-term follow-up is required.

ImportanceThe risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), especially when receiving treatment with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, is unclear.ObjectiveTo determine the association of AD with incident VTE and evaluate the risk of incident VTE among patients with AD who were receiving treatment with JAK inhibitors.Data SourcesThe MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched with no restrictions on language nor geographic locations from their respective inception to February 5, 2022.Study SelectionCohort studies examining the association of AD with incident VTE and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) reporting VTE events in participants with AD receiving JAK inhibitors were included. Around 0.7% of initially identified articles met the selection criteria.Data Extraction and SynthesisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed. The risk of bias of included cohort studies and RCTs was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2, respectively. A random-effects model meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the pooled hazard ratio (HR) and risk difference for incident VTE.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe HRs for incident VTE associated with AD and risk difference for incident VTE between participants with AD who were receiving treatment with JAK inhibitors and controls receiving placebo or dupilumab.ResultsTwo cohort studies and 15 RCTs with a total of 466 993 participants were included. The meta-analysis found no significant association of AD with incident VTE (HR, 0.95; 95% CI 0.62-1.45; incidence rate of VTE, 0.23 events/100 patient-years). Overall, 3 of 5722 patients with AD (0.05%) who were receiving treatment with JAK inhibitors experienced VTE compared with 1 of 3065 patients with AD (0.03%) receiving placebo or dupilumab (Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, 0; 95% CI, 0-0). The incidence rate of VTE was 0.15 and 0.12 events per 100 patient-years in participants with AD receiving JAK inhibitors and placebo, respectively. The findings were similar in 4 unique JAK inhibitors (abrocitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and SHR0302).Conclusions and RelevanceThe results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that the currently available evidence does not detect an increased risk of VTE associated with AD or treatment with JAK inhibitors. These findings may provide a reference for clinicians in prescribing JAK inhibitors for patients with AD.

Introduction: Awareness of psoriasis-related comorbidities has been established in the current guidelines; however, evidence regarding the association of bone density or bone fragility with psoriatic disease remains inconclusive. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess bone mineral density and the risk of osteoporosis and fractures in patients with psoriatic disease, including those with cutaneous psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. We searched electronic databases for published observational studies. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model. Pooled estimates and their confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Small-study effects were examined using the Doi plot and Luis Furuya–Kanamori index. Results: The analysis of the standardized mean difference in the absolute value of bone mineral density at different measuring sites (lumbar spine, femoral neck, and total hip) revealed no significant difference between patients with psoriatic disease and non-psoriatic controls. The pooled results of the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) demonstrated no increased risk of osteoporosis in patients with psoriatic disease. Notably, patients with psoriatic disease had a higher OR of developing bone fractures (adjusted OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.12; I2: 0%). Conclusion: Patients with psoriatic disease may be more likely to develop fractures compared with non-psoriatic controls. This higher risk for fracture may not necessarily be associated with lower bone mineral density nor a higher risk for osteoporosis.

No abstract