Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review and meta-analysis shows tapinarof improves IGA and EASI-75 responses in patients with AD.
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of 1% tapinarof cream once daily (QD) in patients with mild-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for placebo-controlled, randomized trials up to March 2025. Four studies reporting five randomized trials involving a total of 1191 patients met the inclusion criteria. Primary endpoints included Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) success and achievement of Eczema Area and Severity Index 75% (EASI-75) response. Secondary outcomes included improvement in Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (PP-NRS) scores and incidence of adverse events (AEs). After eight weeks, patients receiving tapinarof 1% QD were associated with significantly higher IGA success rates (risk ratio (RR) = 3.03, 95% CI: 1.94-4.74, p = 0.002), EASI-75 response rates (RR = 2.99, 95% CI: 1.94-4.60, p = 0.002), and clinically meaningful improvement in PP-NRS scores of ≥4 points (RR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.10-2.26, p = 0.03) compared to placebo. Tapinarof also showed a modest but statistically significant increase in the overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) (RR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.02-1.90, p = 0.04), while the rate of serious AEs was not significantly different between groups (RR = 1.98, 95% CI: 0.36-24.69, p = 0.31). In conclusion, tapinarof cream 1% QD demonstrated significant efficacy in treating mild-to-severe AD, with improvements in clinical signs and pruritus. It was generally well tolerated, supporting its use as a non-steroidal topical therapy in this patient population. Protocol registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD420251000807), with risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB 2) tool and certainty of evidence appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saifi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: