Funding sources: none.
Retracted: Meta-analysis on the comparison between two topical calcineurin inhibitors in atopic dermatitis
Article first published online: 12 MAR 2012
© 2012 Japanese Dermatological Association
The Journal of Dermatology
Volume 39, Issue 6, pages 520–526, June 2012
How to Cite
YIN, Z. Q., ZHANG, W. M., SONG, G. X. and LUO, D. (2012), Retracted: Meta-analysis on the comparison between two topical calcineurin inhibitors in atopic dermatitis. The Journal of Dermatology, 39: 520–526. doi: 10.1111/j.1346-8138.2012.01529.x
Conflicts of interest: none.
Author contributions: Z. Q. Y. and W. M. Z. contributed equally to this work. All the above-mentioned authors have participated sufficiently to take public responsibility for the work.
- Issue published online: 8 MAY 2012
- Article first published online: 12 MAR 2012
- Received 10 November 2011; accepted 28 January 2012.
Vol. 40, Issue 5, 418, Article first published online: 14 MAY 2013
- atopic dermatitis;
- calcineurin inhibitor;
Topical calcineurin inhibitors have proved to be suitable for the treatment of AD. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing efficacy and tolerance of tacrolimus with pimecrolimus in treatment of AD. According to our meta-analysis, tacrolimus 0.1% was more effective than pimecrolimus 1% in adult patients (week 3: risk ratio [RR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42–0.73), and tacrolimus (a combination of 0.03% and 0.1%) was also more effective than pimecrolimus 1% in pediatric patients (week 6/end of study: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63–0.92). Regardless of age or illness severity, tacrolimus 0.1% had higher efficacy than pimecrolimus 1% in the treatment of AD (week 3: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42–0.72). In adult patients, tacrolimus 0.1% had more adverse events than pimecrolimus 1% (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.02–1.66), but the incidence of adverse events between tacrolimus 0.1% (or 0.03%) and pimecrolimus 1% was not significantly different in pediatric patients. No matter whether the patients were adult or pediatric, more pimecrolimus-treated patients withdrew from the trials because of a lack of efficacy. Regardless of age and illness severity, more pimecrolimus 1%-treated patients withdrew from the trials because of a lack of efficacy, compared with tacrolimus 0.1% (or 0.03%)-treated patients. More pimecrolimus-treated pediatric patients withdrew from the trials because of adverse events (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.1–0.68). More pimecrolimus 1%-treated patients withdrew from the trials because of adverse events, compared with tacrolimus 0.03%-treated patients, regardless of age (RR 0.1, 95% CI 0.02–0.53). In conclusion, tacrolimus ointment has higher efficacy and better tolerance than pimecrolimus cream in treatment of AD.