ArticleDermatology and therapy2026
Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Baricitinib and Ritlecitinib in Severe Alopecia Areata: A Real-World Monocentric Retrospective Study.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- JAK Inhibitors for Alopecia Areata: Approved Therapies, Efficacy, and Unanswered Questions.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBaricitinib and ritlecitinib are approved targeted therapies for severe alopecia areata (AA), but direct comparative real-world data remain limited. This monocentric retrospective study evaluated the treatment profile, effectiveness, and safety of both agents in routine clinical practice.
methodsWe included 160 patients with severe AA, defined by a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score ≥ 50, treated with baricitinib 4 mg (n = 110) or ritlecitinib 50 mg (n = 50). Clinical outcomes were assessed at baseline, week 16, and week 52; week 104 data were available for baricitinib. The primary endpoint was achieving SALT ≤ 20 at week 52. Secondary outcomes included SALT ≤ 20 at weeks 16 and 104, improvement in eyebrow and eyelash involvement assessed using clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) measures, treatment discontinuation, and safety.
resultsBoth treatments were associated with progressive clinical improvement through week 52. SALT ≤ 20 response rates were comparable for baricitinib and ritlecitinib at week 16 (39.6% vs. 36.8%) and increased similarly at week 52 (65.5% vs. 61.5%). Among patients with baseline ClinRO scores ≥ 2, eyelash response was achieved by 40.0% and 41.7% of patients at week 16, increasing to 63.0% and 60.0% at week 52, respectively. Eyebrow response was achieved by 35.1% and 28.6% at week 16 and by 59.4% and 40.0% at week 52, respectively. Discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) was infrequent in both groups (3.6% vs. 3.1%). Non-severe AEs were more frequent with baricitinib than with ritlecitinib (42.7% vs. 26.0%), mainly driven by weight gain, while no major cardiovascular, thromboembolic, or malignancy-related events were observed.
conclusionIn this real-world retrospective study, baricitinib and ritlecitinib showed comparable effectiveness through week 52 and favorable safety profiles in patients with severe AA, supporting their role as effective targeted therapies in routine clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.