Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 298

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib in adults and adolescents with alopecia areata: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2b–3 trial

Open access
King, Brett, Zhang, Xingqi, Harcha, Walter Gubelin, Szepietowski, Jacek C, Shapiro, Jerry, Lynde, Charles, Mesinkovska, Natasha A, Zwillich, Samuel H, Napatalung, Lynne, Wajsbrot, Dalia, Fayyad, Rana, Freyman, Amy, Mitra, Debanjali, Purohit, Vivek, Sinclair, Rodney, Wolk, Robert·2023·The Lancet

Abstract

BACKGROUND Alopecia areata is characterised by non-scarring loss of scalp, face, or body hair. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib, an oral, selective dual JAK3/TEC family kinase inhibitor, in patients with alopecia areata. METHODS In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2b-3 trial done at 118 sites in 18 countries, patients aged 12 years and older with alopecia areata and at least 50% scalp hair loss were randomly assigned to oral ritlecitinib or placebo once-daily for 24 weeks, with or without a 4-week loading dose (50 mg, 30 mg, 10 mg, 200 mg loading dose followed by 50 mg, or 200 mg loading dose followed by 30 mg), followed by a 24-week extension period during which ritlecitinib groups continued their assigned doses and patients initially assigned to placebo switched to ritlecitinib 50 mg or 200 mg loading dose followed by 50 mg. Randomisation was done by use of an interactive response system and was stratified by baseline disease severity and age. The sponsor, patients, and investigators were masked to treatment, and all patients received the same number of tablets to maintain masking. The primary endpoint was Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score 20 or less at week 24. The primary endpoint was assessed in all assigned patients, regardless of whether they received treatment. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732807. FINDINGS Between Dec 3, 2018, and June 24, 2021, 1097 patients were screened and 718 were randomly assigned to receive ritlecitinib 200 mg + 50 mg (n=132), 200 mg + 30 mg (n=130), 50 mg (n=130), 30 mg (n=132), 10 mg (n=63), placebo to 50 mg (n=66), or placebo to 200 mg + 50 mg (n=65). 446 (62%) of 718 patients were female and 272 (38%) were male. 488 (68%) were White, 186 (26%) were Asian, and 27 (4%) were Black or African American. Of 718 patients randomly assigned, 104 patients discontinued treatment (34 withdrew, 19 adverse events [AEs], 12 physician decision, 12 lack of efficacy, 13 lost to follow up, five rolled over to long-term study transfer, four pregnancies, two protocol deviations, one declined to attend follow-up due to COVID-19, one attended last visit very late due to COVID-19, and one non-compliance). At week 24, 38 (31%) of 124 patients in the ritlecitinib 200 mg + 50 mg group, 27 (22%) of 121 patients in the 200 mg + 30 mg group, 29 (23%) of 124 patients in the 50 mg group, 17 (14%) of 119 patients in the 30 mg group, and two (2%) of 130 patients in the placebo group had a response based on SALT score 20 or less. The difference in response rate based on SALT score 20 or less between the placebo and the ritlecitinib 200 mg + 50 mg group was 29·1% (95% CI 21·2-37·9; p<0·0001), 20·8% (13·7-29·2; p<0·0001) for the 200 mg + 30 mg group, 21·9% (14·7-30·2; p<0·0001) for the 50 mg group, and 12·8% (6·7-20·4; p=0·0002) for the 30 mg group. Up to week 48 and including the follow-up period, AEs had been reported in 108 (82%) of 131 patients in the ritlecitinib 200 mg + 50 mg group, 105 (81%) of 129 patients in the 200 mg + 30 mg group, 110 (85%) of 130 patients in the 50 mg group, 106 (80%) of 132 patients in the 30 mg group, 47 (76%) of 62 patients in the 10 mg group, 54 (83%) of 65 patients placebo to ritlecitinib 200 mg + 50 mg in the extension period, and 57 (86%) of 66 patients in the placebo to 50 mg group. The incidence of each AE was similar between groups, and there were no deaths. INTERPRETATION Ritlecitinib was effective and well tolerated in patients aged 12 years and older with alopecia areata. Ritlecitinib might be a suitable treatment option for alopecia areata in patients who are candidates for systemic therapy. FUNDING Pfizer.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(23)00222-2

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 298

Metadata

Authors
King, B., Zhang, X., Harcha, W. G., Szepietowski, J. C., Shapiro, J., Lynde, C., Mesinkovska, N. A., Zwillich, S. H., Napatalung, L., Wajsbrot, D., Fayyad, R., Freyman, A., Mitra, D., Purohit, V., Sinclair, R., & Wolk, R.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-05
Volume
401
Issue
10387
Pages
1518-1529
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W4365517205
Cited by
298
References
29
FWCI
77.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib in adults and adolescents with alopecia areata: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2b–3 trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(23)00222-2
The paper
King, B., Zhang, X., Harcha, W. G., Szepietowski, J. C., Shapiro, J., Lynde, C., Mesinkovska, N. A., Zwillich, S. H., Napatalung, L., Wajsbrot, D., Fayyad, R., Freyman, A., Mitra, D., Purohit, V., Sinclair, R., & Wolk, R. (2023). Efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib in adults and adolescents with alopecia areata: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2b–3 trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(23)00222-2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.