Population and applicability

Who was studied?

A study result starts with the people and settings that produced it. This ledger shows the population fields recorded for reviewed or published outcome, safety, and body-site claims - and says “Not reported” instead of guessing.

Last updated September 20, 2026

How to use this page

Missing reporting is a research limitation. It is not proof that a group was excluded, and it is not proof that a treatment does or does not work for that group. Geography, race, ethnicity, and skin tone or phototype answer different questions and remain separate here.

Applicability describes how far one claim can travel beyond the evidence behind it. It does not estimate a personal result. For unfamiliar terms, see the plain-language glossary; for how a claim reaches this page at all, see how SteadySkin handles evidence.

Confidence and limits

A peer-reviewed randomized phase 2 trial enrolled 185 adults. At the primary week-24 assessment, the facial outcome was statistically supported in two of the three studied Rinvoq groups versus placebo, but not the third. AbbVie later reported week-48 results from two randomized phase 3 studies: Study 1 included 206 people assigned Rinvoq and 102 assigned placebo; Study 2 included 205 and 101. At least 50% improvement in the total-body score occurred in 19.4% versus 5.9% and 21.5% versus 5.9%. At least 75% improvement in the facial score occurred in 25.2% versus 5.9% and 23.4% versus 6.9%. The phase 3 percentages are sponsor-reported topline results, not peer-reviewed findings.
Limited evidence. The phase 3 result tables were not peer reviewed when checked, no direct treatment comparison was made, and averages do not predict an individual or body-site result.
The current US Rinvoq label carries boxed warnings for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major cardiovascular events, and thrombosis. It lists known hypersensitivity to upadacitinib or an ingredient as a contraindication. The EMA says Rinvoq must not be used with tuberculosis or another serious infection, severe liver problems, or pregnancy. It also describes additional limits when no suitable alternative exists for older adults or people with cardiovascular or cancer risk. Screening, laboratory monitoring, vaccine review, pregnancy and breastfeeding precautions, medicine interactions, and personal infection, cancer, cardiovascular, clotting, and gastrointestinal history belong in specialist care.
Reasonably supported. A warning list does not calculate personal risk, determine eligibility, or replace screening and monitoring by the prescribing team.
The outcome evidence is sparse and old. In a retrospective series of 18 people with severe vitiligo, 8 were reported as completely depigmented and 3 as having dramatic but incomplete depigmentation; complications were frequent. This uncontrolled series cannot predict a uniform result or compare monobenzone fairly with other paths.
Limited evidence. The series is very small, retrospective, uncontrolled, and not reported with modern standardized outcomes or reliable body-site detail.
The historical label limits monobenzone to final depigmentation in disseminated idiopathic vitiligo affecting more than half of body surface. It lists use for another condition and prior sensitivity or allergy to the product or its ingredients as contraindications. Monobenzone can cause irreversible, irregular, excessive, distant, or cosmetically unacceptable depigmentation, along with irritation, burning, eczema, and sensitization. The archived label also leaves long-term cancer risk and several pregnancy, breastfeeding, and pediatric questions unresolved; successful depigmentation creates lifelong sun-sensitivity considerations.
Reasonably supported. The label establishes serious boundaries but does not quantify personal risk, predict uniformity, or establish long-term safety.
At week 24, 9 of 25 RECELL areas reached at least 80% repigmentation versus 0 of 25 matched controls. That was the pivotal within-person randomized study of 25 adults with stable focal, segmental, or generalized vitiligo. Fourteen of 25 RECELL areas, or 56%, reached more than 50% repigmentation versus 3 of 25 controls, or 12%. No studied area reached complete repigmentation.
Reasonably supported. The study was small, the RECELL side also received laser preparation, and neither side achieved complete repigmentation.
RECELL is contraindicated for known hypersensitivity to trypsin or compound sodium lactate, also called Hartmann’s solution. The instructions also say skin-sample collection should not be used when there is known hypersensitivity to anesthetics, adrenaline or epinephrine, povidone-iodine, or chlorhexidine. The procedure adds a donor wound, ablative-laser resurfacing, anesthesia, dressings, and wound aftercare. Reported or labeled concerns include scarring, hypertrophic scarring, redness, itching, infection, Koebner phenomenon, worsening vitiligo, and limits for several body sites and populations. The Koebner phenomenon is the name for patches that develop where previously unaffected skin was injured. A procedure injures skin on purpose, at the donor site and at the treated one.
Reasonably supported. The small pivotal population cannot quantify a personal risk or establish safety in excluded settings, populations, or body sites.
A peer-reviewed randomized phase 2 study treated 364 adults with active nonsegmental vitiligo. At week 24, four of five active arms had statistically significant differences from placebo, with three distinct mean facial-score improvements: 21.2% in two arms, 18.5%, and 14.6%. Placebo worsened by 2.1%, and people with stable-only vitiligo were excluded. A sponsor-linked analysis reported group-level facial-score changes in Fitzpatrick types I–III and IV–VI. That does not establish the same response for every skin tone or person. Pfizer later said the 607-person TRANQUILLO and 1,567-person TRANQUILLO 2 studies met facial and total-body endpoints. The release did not provide response percentages or full result tables, and the current TRANQUILLO 2 registry now lists 1,571 enrolled, so the public enrollment counts are not identical.
Limited evidence. Phase 3 result percentages and full tables were unavailable, public enrollment counts differ, no direct treatment comparison was made, and group results do not predict an individual outcome.
The current US Litfulo label, written for severe alopecia areata, carries boxed warnings for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major cardiovascular events, and thrombosis. It lists known hypersensitivity to ritlecitinib or an ingredient as a contraindication. It also describes infection and tuberculosis screening, blood-count monitoring, vaccination, interaction, pregnancy, breastfeeding, liver-related precautions, and a June 2026 warning about hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes. Parts of the boxed-warning context come from a large postmarketing study of another JAK inhibitor. That study was in people age 50 or older with rheumatoid arthritis and at least one cardiovascular risk factor. Some events occurred in Litfulo’s alopecia areata safety database. These boundaries matter, but they are not vitiligo-specific event rates or a personal risk calculation.
Reasonably supported. A label warning list does not calculate personal risk, establish vitiligo-specific rates, determine eligibility or replace specialist screening and monitoring.
A peer-reviewed randomized phase 2 study enrolled 171 adults with extensive nonsegmental vitiligo. At week 24, the mean total-body score improved by 15.7% to 19.1% across the studied povorcitinib groups while the placebo group worsened by 2.3%; the study reported limited demographic diversity. A later descriptive post hoc analysis followed 103 people who received povorcitinib throughout the study. It reported week-52 VASI50 response proportions from 25.8% for feet to 57.3% for head and neck outside the face. It had no placebo comparison at week 52 and cannot predict an individual site. The registries list 467 participants in STOP-V1 and 450 in STOP-V2. Incyte later said that at week 52, 18.9% reached F-VASI75 (at least 75% improvement from baseline in the facial score). That was versus 6.8% with placebo in STOP-V1, and 18.9% versus 3.1% in STOP-V2. Those phase 3 percentages are sponsor-reported topline results, not posted registry results or peer-reviewed findings.
Limited evidence. Phase 3 percentages remain sponsor toplines, no full result tables were posted, no direct treatment comparison was made, and group results do not predict an individual outcome.
The phase 2 publication reported a similar incidence of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events across study groups, and no new safety signal. The phase 3 registries excluded people with several infection, cancer, cardiovascular, clotting, pregnancy, laboratory, and prior-treatment risks. The sources I read do not include an approved povorcitinib vitiligo product label. So they do not supply a complete labeled contraindication, warning, interaction, monitoring, pregnancy, or long-term safety profile. Safety language from another JAK medicine cannot be transferred as if it were povorcitinib evidence.
Limited evidence. Shorter-term study reporting and eligibility exclusions do not create a complete contraindication, warning, interaction, monitoring or long-term safety profile.
Medical narrowband UVB can treat psoriasis in the skin. It does not treat inflammation in the joints and is not a treatment for psoriatic arthritis. Tanning beds and casual sunlight are not substitutes for prescribed, medically supervised phototherapy.
Limited evidence. Knowing that boundary does not decide whether phototherapy fits your skin, compare it with a systemic option, or point you to a treatment setting. Your skin and joint needs may require coordinated plans.
Ask what findings support psoriasis and what remains uncertain. Generalized pustular psoriasis and erythroderma require same-day specialist assessment. Seek urgent clinical help for a sudden widespread pustular eruption or extensive, rapidly spreading redness. Feeling acutely unwell increases the urgency, but do not wait for fever or other systemic symptoms.
Limited evidence. A photo, questionnaire or checklist cannot confirm psoriasis, identify a subtype or decide urgency for an individual. Other conditions can look similar.
Bring your medicine list and ask how infections, vaccines, pregnancy or pregnancy plans, other health conditions and prior treatment reactions change the options. Each medicine has product-specific limits and monitoring rather than one class-wide checklist.
Limited evidence. This checklist cannot identify a contraindication, interpret a test, tell you to stop a medicine or replace the current label and clinician instructions.
Common local effects include burning, stinging, itching, or irritation where you apply it. With stronger products or longer use, skin can thin, bruise more easily, develop stretch marks, show small visible blood vessels, or change color. Widespread, prolonged, or occluded use raises the chance the steroid is absorbed into the body, not just the skin. Call your dermatologist about thinning skin, persistent burning, or a flare after you stop - do not just stop cold without a plan.
Limited evidence. None of these sources is a study that reports how often a given side effect actually occurs. They describe the range of what can happen, not your personal risk, and they do not cover every product on the market.
Common local effects include irritated skin, burning, itching, swelling, peeling, dryness, and redness, which typically ease with continued use. The FDA label for calcipotriene cream lists local irritation and dermatitis, and tells you not to use the cream on the face. The more serious but low-risk concern is hypercalcemia - too much calcium in the blood, which can weaken bones, cause kidney stones, or affect the heart and brain. NPF specifically flags excessive calcium in urine as a common effect of calcitriol. An extremely uncommon change in calcium-metabolism limits means stopping treatment until calcium normalizes. Call your dermatologist about persistent irritation, or anything that feels like it might be more than a local skin reaction.
Limited evidence. None of these sources is a study reporting how often a given side effect actually occurs. They describe the range of what can happen, not your personal risk. Calcitriol in particular carries a light-sensitivity and skin-tumor-risk note on its label; how much that matters for you is your prescriber’s call.
The most common effects are local skin irritation - redness, peeling, dryness, itching, or a burning sensation - which is one reason it is often paired with a steroid. Tazarotene also increases sun sensitivity, so sunscreen and protective clothing belong in your routine while you use it. The FDA label says tazarotene must not be used during pregnancy because it can cause fetal harm. Anyone who could become pregnant needs a negative pregnancy test before starting and must use effective birth control while using it. Call your dermatologist about severe irritation, or anything that feels like more than the expected redness.
Limited evidence. None of these sources quantifies how often a given side effect occurs, or your own personal risk. Whether a specific reaction is expected irritation or something to stop and call about is a judgment your dermatologist makes for your case.
The most common early effects with either Protopic (tacrolimus) or Elidel (pimecrolimus) are burning and itching where you apply it. The tacrolimus label reports burning in roughly 46% to 58% and itching in roughly 41% to 46% of people in its own studies. Most episodes start in the first few days, last minutes, and ease as treatment continues or the skin clears. Both drugs carry an FDA boxed warning against continuous long-term use. Rare cases of lymphoma or skin cancer have been reported, though AAD notes dermatologists have not observed this increased risk in everyday practice. Both labels tell you to minimize sun exposure during treatment and avoid tanning beds, sunlamps, and UV therapy. Call your dermatologist about persistent burning, or anything that feels like more than the expected early reaction.
Limited evidence. The reported local-reaction rates come from eczema trials, not a psoriasis-specific study, and neither source quantifies how often the rarer boxed-warning risk actually occurs. Whether a specific reaction is expected irritation or something to stop and call about is a judgment your dermatologist makes for your case.
In the trials that led to approval, the most common effects were diarrhea (3.1%), headache (2.4%), trouble sleeping (1.4%), nausea (1.2%), and pain where you applied it (1.0%). There is no boxed warning on this medicine. It is not approved for anyone with moderate to severe liver problems, and it can interact with certain other medicines that affect the same liver enzymes. Call your dermatologist about diarrhea or any symptom that does not ease with continued use.
Limited evidence. The label does not say how often any one side effect leads someone to stop treatment. Which symptom is expected irritation versus something to stop and call about is your dermatologist’s judgment, for your case.
In the trials that led to approval, the most common effect was folliculitis: inflamed hair follicles, which can look like small pimple-like bumps. It happened in 20% of people on tapinarof versus 1% on vehicle. Other reported effects: nasopharyngitis (11% vs 9%), contact dermatitis (7% vs 1%), headache (4% vs 1%), itching (3% vs 1%), and influenza (2% vs 1%). There is no boxed warning and no contraindication listed on the label. AAD describes the most common side effect in plain terms as a skin reaction. Call your dermatologist about any reaction that does not ease with continued use.
Limited evidence. The label does not say how often any one side effect leads someone to stop treatment. Which reaction is expected irritation versus something to stop and call about is your dermatologist’s judgment, for your case.
The most common reaction is sunburn-like: redness, tenderness, mild stinging or burning after a session. Dark spots can appear where you were treated, more often with medium-to-dark skin tones. Itching can happen too. Blisters and true burns are uncommon but possible, especially if a dose runs ahead of what your skin tolerates. Over years of treatment, treated skin can age faster, and the added ultraviolet exposure raises long-term skin cancer risk. That is why your dermatologist matches your dose to your skin type and raises it gradually. Call your dermatologist about a reaction that does not fade quickly, a blister, or pain.
Limited evidence. None of these sources gives an exact percentage for how often each side effect happens in people being treated for psoriasis specifically. None states the long-term skin cancer risk as a specific number, only that it is increased.
People I have heard from worry about the liver first, and about how much blood testing this takes. The FDA boxed warning, its strongest warning, covers four areas. Methotrexate can cause fetal death, and it is not safe during pregnancy for non-cancer use. It can trigger severe allergic reactions in people with a prior serious reaction to it. It carries a real risk of serious, sometimes fatal, reactions affecting the bone marrow, digestive tract, liver, lungs, skin, or kidneys, which is why close monitoring is required. And taking it daily by mistake, instead of weekly, has caused deaths. More common effects include nausea, vomiting, appetite loss, mouth sores, and fatigue. Tell your dermatologist about these, since your dose or a folic acid supplement can often be adjusted. Avoid alcohol, since it raises the risk of liver damage.
Limited evidence. The label’s own detailed adverse-reaction rate table comes from rheumatoid arthritis trials, not a psoriasis-specific study. Do not read those exact percentages as a psoriasis rate.
The current label carries two boxed warnings, its strongest warnings. The first states that only physicians experienced in immunosuppressive therapy should prescribe cyclosporine, because of an increased risk of infection and certain cancers. The second, specific to psoriasis, states that people previously treated with PUVA face a higher skin-cancer risk on cyclosporine. That second warning also states that cyclosporine can cause high blood pressure and kidney damage. Because of that risk, the label requires checking blood pressure and kidney-function blood tests every two weeks for the first three months. After that, checks continue monthly once you are stable. Other reported effects include high cholesterol, excess hair growth, gum swelling, tingling, and stomach upset. Avoid grapefruit and grapefruit juice, which can raise cyclosporine levels, and tell your dermatologist before any vaccination.
Limited evidence. None of these sources gives an exact rate for any side effect in a psoriasis-specific trial population, and none predicts your own risk.
The label carries a boxed warning, its strongest kind. Acitretin causes severe birth defects if taken during pregnancy. It must not be used by anyone who is pregnant, or who plans to become pregnant. People I have heard from ask whether drinking makes their psoriasis worse, and here alcohol matters for a different reason. Because alcohol can turn acitretin into a longer-lasting related compound, anyone who could become pregnant must avoid all alcohol during treatment. That alcohol restriction continues for two months after stopping. Pregnancy must also be avoided for three years after stopping acitretin. That requires two effective forms of birth control, plus a pregnancy test every three months during that window. The same three-year rule applies to donating blood. Very common effects, seen in more than three-quarters of trial patients, include chapped or cracked lips, dry eyes and mouth, skin peeling, hair thinning, and joint pain. Rarer but serious risks include liver inflammation, pancreatitis, a pressure buildup around the brain, and depression. Blood tests for liver function and cholesterol are required before starting. They continue every one to two weeks until your levels are stable.
Limited evidence. None of these sources gives an exact rate for every side effect in a psoriasis-specific trial population, beyond the mucocutaneous and joint figures the label reports. None predicts your own risk.
Apremilast carries no boxed warning, but it does carry several warnings worth knowing. It can increase the risk of depression; the label advises watching for new or worsening depression, suicidal thoughts, or other mood changes. It can also cause weight loss: in trials, 10 to 12% of adults lost 5 to 10% of their body weight, so your dermatologist should monitor your weight regularly. The most common side effects in plaque-psoriasis trials were diarrhea and nausea (17% each), upper-respiratory infection (9%), and headache (6%), most within the first few weeks. If diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting become severe, your dermatologist may lower your dose or pause treatment.
Limited evidence. The label does not state how often a side effect leads someone to stop treatment altogether, and does not predict your own risk.
Deucravacitinib carries no boxed warning, but it does carry real warnings worth knowing. It can increase the risk of infections, including serious ones; the label advises against starting it during an active or serious infection. Herpes zoster (shingles) has been reported, including a multidermatomal form in some people with a normally functioning immune system. A small number of lymphoma cases were reported in trials (0.3 per 100 patient-years). It commonly raises a muscle enzyme called creatine phosphokinase (CPK), and the label says to discontinue if it rises markedly. Triglycerides are checked periodically. Liver enzymes are checked at baseline and during treatment only if you have known or suspected liver disease, unlike the routine bloodwork methotrexate or cyclosporine require for everyone. In the week-16 psoriasis trials, the most common reactions were upper respiratory infections (19.2% versus 14.8% on placebo) and CPK increase (2.7% versus 1.2%). Less common reactions were herpes simplex (2.0% versus 0.2%), mouth ulcers (1.9% versus 0%), folliculitis (1.7% versus 0%), and acne (1.4% versus 0.2%).
Limited evidence. The label does not report an age, skin-tone, race, or ethnicity breakdown of those rates. It also does not state how often a reaction leads to stopping treatment, or predict your own risk.
Monitoring burden is one of the biggest practical differences between these five. Methotrexate and cyclosporine both require regular blood testing throughout treatment - cyclosporine’s label calls for blood-pressure and kidney-function checks every two weeks for the first three months. Acitretin requires liver-function and cholesterol testing, plus - for anyone who can become pregnant - pregnancy tests and strict contraception continuing three years after stopping. Apremilast needs no routine blood testing, but its label calls for weight and mood monitoring. Deucravacitinib checks liver enzymes only if you have known or suspected liver disease, a lighter routine-testing burden than methotrexate or cyclosporine. It still calls for a tuberculosis check before starting. Three of the five - methotrexate, cyclosporine, and acitretin - carry an FDA boxed warning, the agency’s strongest kind. Apremilast and deucravacitinib do not carry a boxed warning, though each has its own real warnings. Apremilast’s cover depression and weight loss; deucravacitinib’s cover infection, shingles, and a small reported lymphoma rate.
Limited evidence. None of these labels states how a specific reader’s own health history changes their personal monitoring schedule or risk level.
Local irritation - burning, stinging, or itching - is common across most of these six. Steroids can thin skin with overuse, and stopping abruptly can cause a rebound flare. Vitamin D analogues carry a rare hypercalcemia risk: too much calcium in the blood. Tazarotene raises sun sensitivity and must not be used during pregnancy. Calcineurin inhibitors carry an FDA boxed warning about rare lymphoma and skin-cancer reports with continuous long-term use. AAD notes dermatologists have not seen that risk reflected in everyday practice. Roflumilast and tapinarof carry no boxed warning. Roflumilast’s most common trial effects were diarrhea and headache. Tapinarof’s most common trial effect was folliculitis, inflamed hair follicles, in 20% of trial participants.
Limited evidence. None of these labels states how a specific reader’s own health history changes their personal risk level.
People I have heard from ask about the infection risk before they ask how well a biologic clears skin. Every biologic listed here can raise the risk of infection, because each one calms down a piece of the immune system on purpose. Report a fever, cough, flu-like symptoms, or any other infection sign to your dermatologist right away. TNF-class biologics carry a specific FDA boxed warning. MedlinePlus’s summary of the adalimumab (Humira) label states that using it may decrease your ability to fight infection and increase the chance of a serious infection. That same label states some children, teenagers, and young adults who received adalimumab or a similar medicine developed severe or life-threatening cancers. It also states adults face an increased risk of skin cancer, lymphoma, and other cancers. Two IL-17-class drugs carry their own distinct warning. Brodalumab’s label carries a boxed warning for suicidal ideation and behavior that calls for regular evaluation of suicide risk. Bimekizumab’s current label carries a similar warning and precaution. Common, non-boxed side effects reported across the group include upper respiratory infection, injection-site reactions, flu-like symptoms, urinary tract infection, and headache.
Limited evidence. These sources describe the adalimumab label and two IL-17 drugs’ specific psychiatric warning language. They are not an individual label for the other drugs or the other classes. None of them says how often a serious reaction happens to you, or which class is safest for someone with your health history.
Know when the written plan says to stop and contact the clinical team. Keep a separate manufacturer route for faults, damage, error messages or support with the exact device.
Limited evidence. A manufacturer can explain its equipment but cannot replace the prescriber or authorize a clinical change.
Generalized pustular psoriasis and erythroderma require same-day specialist assessment. Seek urgent clinical help for a sudden widespread pustular eruption or extensive, rapidly spreading redness. Feeling acutely unwell increases the urgency, but do not wait for fever or other systemic symptoms.
Reasonably supported. NICE is UK guidance. This copy does not identify a subtype, assess an individual emergency, or replace local emergency and specialist pathways.
Medical phototherapy can treat psoriasis in the skin. It does not treat joint inflammation and is not a treatment for psoriatic arthritis. Joint concerns need a separate clinical assessment.
Reasonably supported. This boundary does not decide whether phototherapy fits a reader’s skin or diagnose joint disease.
No. A commercial tanning device and prescribed narrowband UVB are not interchangeable. A tanning booth is not a shortcut around a medical light-treatment plan.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Your role is to prepare, observe, record, and report. Your prescriber decides whether to start, continue, change, pause, or restart treatment, and the current instructions for your exact device govern its operation.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
The guideline I read describes reviewing the diagnosis and how it appears, current medicines, sensitivity to light, skin-cancer history, prior ultraviolet treatment, pregnancy, and other individual risks. Use this as a conversation starter - not as a self-test that says NB-UVB is or is not safe for you.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Several common medicine groups can make skin react more strongly to ultraviolet light. Your prescriber reviews everything you take before and during treatment. Bring the complete list, and do not stop or change anything on your own.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
No. A color change can be subtle or hard to interpret, especially in deeper skin tones. Know what your skin looks and feels like before treatment, and report pain, tenderness, heat, swelling, blistering, marked itching, or another concerning change. No visible redness does not mean you should change the plan yourself.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Ask your team, and ask before the sunny week rather than after it. The light you are given and the light outside are the same kind of energy, so time outdoors is not separate from your course. The British patient leaflet asks people not to sunbathe or use a sunbed for the whole of a course. It also asks them to keep out of the sun enough that skin does not burn.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Some ordinary products change how skin answers ultraviolet light. The British leaflet asks people not to wear perfume, deodorant, aftershave or other cosmetics to a treatment. Some of them contain substances that make skin more sensitive to light, and the result can be patchy discoloured skin that takes months to fade.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
The leaflet treats them as one account, and it is honest that the account is estimated rather than measured. It says the full risk of this particular light is not known, and that the estimate it gives assumes narrowband UVB behaves like sunlight. On that assumption, courses repeated across a lifetime raise the risk of treatable skin cancer.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Use only the eye protection approved for your exact device or by your phototherapy team. Keep it on unless that team gives you a specific plan for treating the eyelids.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Yes. Using the same kind of equipment does not make the reasons for treatment, alternatives, or monitoring identical across conditions. A vitiligo decision needs vitiligo guidance as well as phototherapy guidance. A psoriasis decision needs psoriasis-specific guidance.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Stop and use the manufacturer’s official support route rather than testing, opening, bypassing, or repairing the device yourself. If you are in the United States, use the FDA route when a medical-device problem should also be reported to the regulator.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Do not use, test, or repair equipment that arrives damaged, unstable, wet, incomplete, or different from the packing list. Keep the box and packaging, photograph the damage, labels, and serial numbers, and contact the seller first, then the manufacturer if it looks like a hardware fault. Have ready for manufacturer support: exact model and serial number Photos of the damage, labels, and packaging What arrived versus what the packing list says should have
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Use a stable location that meets your exact manual’s placement, space, electrical, ventilation, and storage requirements and your clinical plan’s positioning and protection boundaries. Do not copy a setup from a photograph, another device, or a general checklist.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Keep children, pets, and untrained visitors outside the treatment area while the device is in use. When it is not in use, secure the device, keys, controls, cables, lamps, and accessories exactly as the manual directs. Locks or access controls do not replace supervision or manufacturer safeguards.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Stop using the device if it is damaged, unstable, wet, or missing required parts. Also stop if it acts differently from the manual or shows an alert you do not understand. Contact official support. Do not keep testing it, open it, bypass a control, or improvise a repair.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Ask the manufacturer how your exact device should be retired, then check local rules for electronic equipment and hazardous materials. Do not put the unit or its lamps in ordinary household trash unless the exact product guidance and local rules allow it.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Do not assume you can. Some fluorescent phototherapy lamps contain mercury and need an appropriate lamp-recycling or hazardous-material route. Read the exact lamp label and device manual, then confirm what your local collection program accepts.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Keep people and pets away, then follow current government, local-authority, and manufacturer instructions for the exact lamp. Do not improvise a cleanup from memory. Directions for ventilation, collection, packaging, and disposal can depend on the lamp and where you live.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Before you sell, service, or discard a device, match its model and unit identifiers to the current official recall record. FDA recall record 221313, posted July 15, 2026, covers a limited group of Phothera 600/ClearLink systems; it is not a recall of every Phothera product or every home phototherapy device.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Do not open, bypass, test, repair, or substitute lamps or electrical parts outside the exact current manual and authorized service route. If a lamp or assembly is damaged, stop and contact the manufacturer.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
I will not tell you how to invent or store a code, bypass a counter, estimate remaining treatments, or treat what I have written here as authorization. Follow your current prescribed plan and your device’s exact instructions.
Limited evidence. The sources support group-level clinical context or exact manufacturer and regulator facts. They do not choose a setting or device, provide treatment settings, establish individual safety, diagnose a reaction or fault, authorize resale, or replace the current manual and professional support.
Narrowband UVB and targeted light are established clinician-directed options for some people with vitiligo. Treatment in a clinic and treatment at home create different practical burdens, but neither setting guarantees repigmentation or removes the need for qualified oversight.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
Procedures that move or prepare pigment-producing cells are specialist options for carefully selected people with stable vitiligo. They are not an automatic next step after creams or light treatment. You also need to consider eligibility, risks, healing, access, and incomplete or uneven results.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
The HI-Light Vitiligo Trial is the largest randomized trial of a topical steroid cream for vitiligo. It found that participant-reported treatment success at 9 months was lower for patches on the hands and feet than for patches on other parts of the body. The trial did not publish the exact percentage for each body region in its main results.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
Studies and guidelines show that steroid creams can help color return for some people. They cannot predict whether your patches will respond. They also cannot predict how much change you may see or whether it will last. Results differ across products, body sites, and studies. In the HI-Light trial, 17% of people using the steroid cream alone reached participant-reported treatment success at 9 months. 3% reached the trial’s stricter, blinded-assessed threshold of at least 75% repigmentation at 9 months. Across all groups in that trial, more than 40% had lost some of their treatment response by 21 months.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
Steroid creams can cause skin problems where you apply them. These include thinning, small visible blood vessels, stretch-mark-like lines, and acne-like bumps. In some cases, the medicine can also get into the bloodstream. In the HI-Light trial, skin thinning was reported in about 2.5% of participants (13 of 517) across all trial groups, including one person using a placebo cream. A new skin change during treatment needs your care team’s interpretation, not an assumption either way.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
In the pooled studies, tacrolimus and Elidel (pimecrolimus) together did far better on the face and neck than anywhere else. About 35% of people reached a marked response there. On the trunk and limbs, about 2% did. On hands and feet, almost no one did.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
Research on topical calcineurin inhibitors, including Protopic (tacrolimus), reports repigmentation in some people with vitiligo. In the pooled studies, about 18% of people using a calcineurin inhibitor alone reached a marked response, most of a patch’s color back. Adding narrowband UVB nearly tripled that, to about 48%. The studies vary, and personal response, extent of change, and durability remain individual.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
People I have heard from ask about side effects early, and this warning is the part that worries them. The US label for tacrolimus ointment carries the FDA’s strongest safety alert. This is called a “boxed warning.” It notes rare cancer reports but says the medicine has not been proven to cause them. It also warns against continuous long-term use. Burning, stinging, soreness, or itching can occur where you apply it. The label’s own studies reported burning in roughly 46% to 58% of patients and itching in roughly 41% to 46%, most starting in the first few days and easing with continued use.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
Tell both the prescriber and phototherapy team. The tacrolimus label tells patients to minimize or avoid natural and artificial sunlight, including ultraviolet treatment, while vitiligo guidelines discuss selected clinician-supervised combinations. That conflict needs an explicit, coordinated answer; it is not permission to combine them on your own.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
A 2019 meta-analysis pooled tacrolimus and pimecrolimus together across 46 studies and found responses varied sharply by body area. About 35% of people reached a marked response on the face and neck. About 2% did on the trunk and limbs, and almost no one did on the hands and feet. That pooled figure does not isolate pimecrolimus from tacrolimus at any site. The strongest results, on the face, come mostly from studies of tacrolimus or of both drugs together - not from a pimecrolimus-only facial study.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
One small randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial tested pimecrolimus cream by itself, not pooled with tacrolimus. It enrolled 20 adults with symmetrical vitiligo patches on the arms and legs - no facial patches. Each person used pimecrolimus on one side and vehicle cream on the other, twice daily, for 6 months. At month 2, modest repigmentation (roughly 1%-25% of the patch) appeared in 12 of 17 evaluable pimecrolimus-treated sides, compared with 9 of 17 vehicle-treated sides. By month 6, that gap had mostly closed: only 3 of 14 pimecrolimus-treated sides still showed improvement, against 2 of 14 on vehicle. The trial found no statistically significant difference in average patch size between the two creams.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
The US pimecrolimus label carries the FDA’s strongest safety alert. This is called a “boxed warning.” It notes rare cancer reports but says the medicine has not been proven to cause them. It warns against continuous long-term use. Burning can occur where you apply it. The label’s own adult clinical-trial data come from a 1-year trial of 328 adults for its approved eczema use, not a vitiligo-specific safety study. That trial reported application-site burning in about 26% of people, headache in about 25%, nasopharyngitis in about 8%, and influenza in about 10%. Separately, the one small pimecrolimus-only vitiligo trial reported no treatment-related adverse events and no skin thinning in its 20 participants. A trial that size cannot rule out an uncommon reaction.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
People I have heard from ask whether it works, and then where it works. It depends a great deal on where your patches are, and the trials measured the face and the whole body separately. At Week 24, on the face, 29.9% of people using Opzelura reached at least 75% improvement, against 7.5% and 12.9% on the inactive cream. Across the whole body, at the halfway bar, it was 20.6% and 23.9%, against 5.1% and 6.8%. The same figures read the other way round say this: On the face, about 7 in 10 did not reach the three-quarter bar. 70.1% in each trial. Across the whole body, 79.4% and 76.1% did not reach even the halfway bar. At the three-quarter bar across the whole body, 95.9% and 92.0% did not reach it. No trial can tell you what your own patches will do.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
The US label carries the FDA’s strongest safety alert, called a “boxed warning.” It covers serious risks reported with this drug class, called JAK inhibitors. Separately, in the vitiligo trials themselves, the most common reactions were milder and far more frequent than the boxed-warning risks. They were application-site acne (6%), application-site itching (5%), a common-cold-type illness (4%), headache (4%), urinary tract infection (2%), application-site redness (2%), and fever (1%). Serious infections Cancer Major heart problems Blood clots Death
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
A 2022 systematic review pooled 14 studies, 642 patients, testing a vitamin D analog added to phototherapy against phototherapy alone. Combining either calcipotriol or tacalcitol with narrowband UVB was linked to more people responding overall. Broken out by analog, calcipotriol specifically showed a smaller effect (a relative risk of 1.24) than tacalcitol (2.25) - a statistically significant difference. The review found no added benefit when a vitamin D analog was combined with PUVA or excimer light instead of narrowband UVB.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
One right-left comparison trial tested this directly. Twenty people with generalized vitiligo received narrowband UVB on both sides of the body, with calcipotriol added twice daily to one side only. Overall, 55% (11 of 20) reached cosmetically acceptable repigmentation - but the trial did not find an advantage on the calcipotriol side. At the 24th session, the side without calcipotriol actually did significantly better. By the 48th, 72nd, and 96th sessions, there was no significant difference between the two sides.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
The psoriasis label reports skin irritation in about 10%-15% of patients - the most common reaction - and rash, itching, dermatitis, or worsening of psoriasis in about 1%-10%. Reports since approval also include contact dermatitis. The label instructs not to use the cream on the face, and lists hypercalcemia or vitamin D toxicity as contraindications, along with calcium-related and ultraviolet precautions. Those label facts help define safety questions; they do not establish vitiligo benefit, support a self-directed combination, or predict personal risk.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
Tell both the prescriber and phototherapy team. The calcipotriene label tells patients applying it to sun-exposed skin to avoid excessive natural or artificial sunlight. It separately tells physicians they may wish to limit or avoid phototherapy in patients using this product. That is a direct tension with the off-label vitiligo practice of pairing calcipotriene with narrowband UVB - the exact combination most of the vitiligo evidence is about. That conflict needs an explicit, coordinated answer; it is not permission to combine them on your own.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
Diet and supplements are one of the things people I have heard from ask about most. No specific diet is proven to stop vitiligo or restore color. Nutritious food can support your general health. A diagnosed deficiency or another condition may need its own care. Neither creates one “vitiligo diet” for everyone.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
These general consumer sources describe variable evidence, product content, interaction, and contamination risks. They do not establish a vitiligo repigmentation benefit.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
The case for it rests on one small trial. Cochrane analyzed a trial of 47 people in which oral ginkgo did better than placebo. The 2020 review named it the one supplement it rated promising on its own rather than alongside light. That is where the evidence stops.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
The main trial points that way without proving it. Fifty people took the extract or a placebo alongside narrowband UVB. Repigmentation on the head and neck was 44 per cent with the extract and 27 per cent with placebo. The authors report that as P = 0.06, which does not clear the usual bar.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
Nothing published shows that. The study people cite is a 2013 pilot of 16 people with vitiligo. It had no placebo group and nobody was blinded. The authors report repigmentation in 14 of the 16, and a study built that way cannot show what caused it.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
It has a name, the Coimbra protocol, and it comes from the group behind that 2013 pilot. Its own safety paper reports normal average blood results in 319 people. It states its conclusion as safety under supervision by experienced doctors, with a strict diet and a fluid requirement alongside it. I do not publish the amounts, the diet or the tests.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
A cream was. A 2022 pilot randomized 30 people to a turmeric cream or a placebo cream, one on each side of the body, and 24 finished. The treated patches improved more than the placebo ones. Nothing in it tests turmeric swallowed as a capsule or eaten as a spice.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
You deserve a specific answer about the exact product - not a judgment based only on the tradition’s name. I used an Ayurvedic treatment called Switra Niwarane on a patch over my eyelid, consistently, and that spot repigmented. It was pills together with a powder mixed into a paste with lemon juice, applied to the skin and then put in morning or evening sunlight. That is what happened to me, and it is not a regimen for you. I do not publish what I took or for how long. Paste plus sunlight is the same principle as PUVA and other photosensitizer-plus-UV treatments. If you are considering something like it, ask the seller for a heavy-metal test certificate and tell your dermatologist what you are using. Never apply it and then use a phototherapy lamp the same day without your clinician knowing. These general consumer sources do not establish a vitiligo repigmentation benefit, and some products can cause harm.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
Reviews of acupuncture for vitiligo do report possible benefit, and they are weak enough that the finding cannot be relied on. An overview of the published systematic reviews found critical methodological and reporting weaknesses and mixed certainty across them.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
They may support wellbeing, coping, sleep, or stress for some people, even though there is not evidence that they repigment vitiligo. These are optional supports - not proof that stress caused your vitiligo or that coping better will change its course.
Limited evidence. The sources support only their studied, regulated or consensus context. They do not select a treatment, provide a regimen or sequence, predict a personal result, or remove population, body-site, labeling and jurisdiction limits.
In each of two controlled Opzelura trials, 29.9% of participants reached at least 75% improvement in facial vitiligo at Week 24, compared with 7.5% and 12.9% using vehicle cream. Across the whole body, 20.6% and 23.9% reached at least 50% improvement, compared with 5.1% and 6.8%.
Limited evidence. This profile is orientation, not prescribing guidance. It does not choose a product, provide a regimen, transfer evidence across medicines or body areas, predict a personal result, establish personal risk, or replace the current label and clinician review.
The current Opzelura label lists common vitiligo-trial reactions and carries boxed warnings and other material precautions; some boxed-warning evidence comes from oral JAK-inhibitor studies in a different population.
Limited evidence. This profile is orientation, not prescribing guidance. It does not choose a product, provide a regimen, transfer evidence across medicines or body areas, predict a personal result, establish personal risk, or replace the current label and clinician review.
Guidelines and a systematic review support discussing topical calcineurin inhibitors for vitiligo, but heterogeneous studies do not make tacrolimus and Elidel (pimecrolimus) interchangeable or predict one patch’s response.
Limited evidence. This profile is orientation, not prescribing guidance. It does not choose a product, provide a regimen, transfer evidence across medicines or body areas, predict a personal result, establish personal risk, or replace the current label and clinician review.
The current tacrolimus ointment label describes local reactions, a boxed warning, and ultraviolet precautions in its labeled atopic-dermatitis context; vitiligo use is off-label.
Limited evidence. This profile is orientation, not prescribing guidance. It does not choose a product, provide a regimen, transfer evidence across medicines or body areas, predict a personal result, establish personal risk, or replace the current label and clinician review.
Guidelines support selected topical corticosteroids for limited vitiligo, but one studied mometasone-and-light combination cannot establish benefit for every steroid, formulation, or body area.
Limited evidence. This profile is orientation, not prescribing guidance. It does not choose a product, provide a regimen, transfer evidence across medicines or body areas, predict a personal result, establish personal risk, or replace the current label and clinician review.
Current mometasone, clobetasol, and betamethasone labels describe local and systemic risks that depend on the exact ingredient, formulation, body area, exposure, and patient context.
Limited evidence. This profile is orientation, not prescribing guidance. It does not choose a product, provide a regimen, transfer evidence across medicines or body areas, predict a personal result, establish personal risk, or replace the current label and clinician review.
The current calcipotriene label describes local skin reactions, calcium-related and ultraviolet precautions, an instruction not to use the cream on the face, and hypercalcemia or vitamin D toxicity contraindications in its labeled psoriasis context; those facts do not establish vitiligo benefit.
Limited evidence. This profile is orientation, not prescribing guidance. It does not choose a product, provide a regimen, transfer evidence across medicines or body areas, predict a personal result, establish personal risk, or replace the current label and clinician review.
DermNet says the black light a Wood lamp emits is harmless, and its reason is specific rather than general. In DermNet’s words, the lamp does not emit the short-wavelength ultraviolet B at 290 to 320 nm. So, DermNet says, it does not cause sunburn or otherwise damage healthy skin.
Limited evidence. The sources support general clinical, measurement, psychosocial, public-service or research orientation. They do not diagnose, predict response, establish a legal entitlement, or provide individualized treatment, crisis or legal advice.
The American Academy of Dermatology says to avoid tanning, indoors and outdoors. Its reason runs the opposite way from the idea. Tanning increases the contrast between your natural color and the light spots and patches, so vitiligo becomes more noticeable.
Limited evidence. The sources support general sunscreen, UPF-clothing and UV-index regulatory and patient-education orientation. They are not vitiligo research, do not measure a burn rate for depigmented skin, do not rank a brand or ingredient, and do not replace label directions or clinician guidance for one person.
You are being asked to give up months to this, so here are the numbers rather than adjectives. A 2017 review pooled narrowband UVB studies: 29 in all, covering 1201 people. But each bar and time point uses only the studies that reported it, so the pools below are smaller. The review kept people who stopped early where it could. Otherwise it counted the group described at the final assessment. Two bars were reported: At least a quarter of the pigment back: 62.1% of people at 3 months, 74.2% at 6 months, 75.0% at 12 months. At least three quarters back: 13.0% at 3 months, 19.2% at 6 months, 35.7% at 12 months.
Limited evidence. The sources support a patient-facing decision map and group-level evidence only. They do not diagnose activity, select or sequence treatment, provide a regimen, interpret photographs, determine pregnancy safety, or predict an individual result.
No. PUVA has its own pooled figures in that review, and they sit lower. Excimer light has no comparable pooled figure at all. PUVA, at least a quarter of the pigment back: 51.4% at 6 months and 61.6% at 12 months. PUVA, at least three quarters back: 8.5% at 6 months and 13.6% at 12 months. Excimer light: this review did not pool it, and I have no equivalent pooled figure to publish.
Limited evidence. The sources support a patient-facing decision map and group-level evidence only. They do not diagnose activity, select or sequence treatment, provide a regimen, interpret photographs, determine pregnancy safety, or predict an individual result.
The most common short-term effect is erythema, a sunburn-type reaction. Itching, dry skin, and cold sores returning can also happen. Pain or blistering needs prompt instructions from your treating team, not a guess. With repeated courses over months or years, skin exposed to the light can show photoageing - wrinkling and discolouration. Clinics build in a safety review once a course reaches a set number of treatments. The full long-term skin-cancer risk specific to narrowband UVB is not established. One UK hospital unit’s own patient materials estimate lifetime risk using an assumption that narrowband UVB behaves like sunlight, not a direct measurement.
Limited evidence. The sources support a patient-facing decision map and group-level evidence only. They do not diagnose activity, select or sequence treatment, provide a regimen, interpret photographs, determine pregnancy safety, or predict an individual result.
No, and the gap is wide enough to change what you should expect. The same review pooled narrowband UVB results by body area after at least 6 months. At least three quarters of the pigment came back for: Face and neck: 44.2% of 153 people in 5 studies. Trunk: 26.1% of 134 people in 5 studies. Arms and legs, hands and feet excluded: 17.3% of 162 people in 5 studies. Hands and feet: nobody. None of 172 people in 6 studies reached that bar.
Limited evidence. The sources support a patient-facing decision map and group-level evidence only. They do not diagnose activity, select or sequence treatment, provide a regimen, interpret photographs, determine pregnancy safety, or predict an individual result.
Ask about incomplete or uneven color return, mismatched color or texture, scarring, healing, and how long results may last. Also ask what support is available if the result misses your goal. A procedure cannot guarantee a lasting or even-looking result.
Limited evidence. The sources support a patient-facing decision map and group-level evidence only. They do not diagnose activity, select or sequence treatment, provide a regimen, interpret photographs, determine pregnancy safety, or predict an individual result.
Depigmentation is a specialist path that reduces remaining color for selected people with extensive vitiligo. It is not a routine cosmetic shortcut. The change may be permanent and may create lifelong sun-sensitivity concerns. It requires careful medical and mental-health discussion.
Limited evidence. The sources support a patient-facing decision map and group-level evidence only. They do not diagnose activity, select or sequence treatment, provide a regimen, interpret photographs, determine pregnancy safety, or predict an individual result.
Because one whole-body percentage hides the differences that matter to you. I read a 2017 review that pooled narrowband UVB results by area after at least 6 months. At least three quarters of the pigment came back for: Face and neck: 44.2% of 153 people in 5 studies. Trunk: 26.1% of 134 people in 5 studies. Arms and legs, hands and feet excluded: 17.3% of 162 people in 5 studies. Hands and feet: none of 172 people in 6 studies.
Limited evidence. The sources support a patient-facing decision map and group-level evidence only. They do not diagnose activity, select or sequence treatment, provide a regimen, interpret photographs, determine pregnancy safety, or predict an individual result.
No, and the pooled numbers show how far apart they are. Nobody in the hands-and-feet group reached the near-complete bar, against 44.2% for face and neck. A treatment can still be worth it for one priority area while another area carries a different expectation.
Limited evidence. The sources support a patient-facing decision map and group-level evidence only. They do not diagnose activity, select or sequence treatment, provide a regimen, interpret photographs, determine pregnancy safety, or predict an individual result.
No. Vitiligo has treatment and supportive-care options, including topical medicines, light treatment, selected whole-body medicines or procedures, camouflage, and mental-health support. What it does not have is a guaranteed permanent cure or one treatment that works for everyone.
Limited evidence. The sources support a patient-facing decision map and group-level evidence only. They do not diagnose activity, select or sequence treatment, provide a regimen, interpret photographs, determine pregnancy safety, or predict an individual result.
No. A traditional or natural label may explain why a practice matters to someone. It does not prove color return, purity, safe interactions, or freedom from harmful ingredients.
Limited evidence. The sources support a patient-facing decision map and group-level evidence only. They do not diagnose activity, select or sequence treatment, provide a regimen, interpret photographs, determine pregnancy safety, or predict an individual result.
The research does not say. The largest pooled review of narrowband UVB counted how many people had responded at 6 months and at 12 months. But each count came from a different set of studies. It never followed one group of early responders to see how many later stalled. A plateau in your own course is still real. How common that is across everyone is not something these numbers can show.
Limited evidence. The sources support general course-planning and review concepts only. They do not provide a regimen, determine when to resume or stop treatment, diagnose a reaction, or predict an individual outcome.
The same pooled review answers that, if you read its percentages the other way round. At 12 months it reports two separate pools. One is 512 people across 8 studies, for the quarter-back bar. The other is 540 people across 9 studies, for the three-quarters bar: 25.0% had less than a quarter of their pigment back. About one person in four. That is the 75.0% our phototherapy page publishes, taken away from 100. 64.3% had less than three quarters back, from the same page’s 35.7%. On hands and feet, pooled separately after at least 6 months, 89.0% had less than a quarter back, from that page’s 11.0%. Nobody reached three quarters.
Limited evidence. The sources support general course-planning and review concepts only. They do not provide a regimen, determine when to resume or stop treatment, diagnose a reaction, or predict an individual outcome.
Maintenance means continuing some treatment after a response settles, to try to hold the result. After a plateau, a prescriber may continue, taper, pause, or stop the course. That decision belongs to your prescriber, working from your record and current guidance.
Limited evidence. The sources support general course-planning and review concepts only. They do not provide a regimen, determine when to resume or stop treatment, diagnose a reaction, or predict an individual outcome.
Narrowband UVB can cause erythema, including painful sunburn-type reactions, and requires a defined reaction and contact plan.
Reasonably supported. A website cannot grade a reaction, estimate personal risk, or replace the treating team’s instructions.

Applicability check

Who was studied?

These fields show what the cited evidence reports about the people and body sites behind outcome or safety claims. “Not reported” means the reviewed source omitted the field; “Pending exact source review” means SteadySkin has not made that determination yet.

A peer-reviewed randomized phase 2 trial enrolled 185 adults. At the primary week-24 assessment, the facial outcome was statistically supported in two of the three studied Rinvoq groups versus placebo, but not the third. AbbVie later reported week-48 results from two randomized phase 3 studies: Study 1 included 206 people assigned Rinvoq and 102 assigned placebo; Study 2 included 205 and 101. At least 50% improvement in the total-body score occurred in 19.4% versus 5.9% and 21.5% versus 5.9%. At least 75% improvement in the facial score occurred in 25.2% versus 5.9% and 23.4% versus 6.9%. The phase 3 percentages are sponsor-reported topline results, not peer-reviewed findings.

Age range: The phase 2 study enrolled adults. The phase 3 program enrolled adults and adolescents.
Condition subtype: Nonsegmental vitiligo.
Severity or extent: The trials required measurable facial and total-body involvement; the phase 3 population was considered eligible for systemic therapy.
Sample size: 185 adults in phase 2 and 614 people across the two phase 3 studies.
Geography and care setting: Phase 2 ran at 33 sites in the United States, Canada, France, and Japan.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Facial and total-body outcomes were reported. Separate reliable response estimates for hands, feet, genitals, scalp, or other individual regions were not reported in the reviewed sources.

What that means for this page: These group results apply most directly to people resembling the trial populations. They do not predict response for an individual, establish equal effects by body site, or settle benefit and safety outside the studied population.

The current US Rinvoq label carries boxed warnings for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major cardiovascular events, and thrombosis. It lists known hypersensitivity to upadacitinib or an ingredient as a contraindication. The EMA says Rinvoq must not be used with tuberculosis or another serious infection, severe liver problems, or pregnancy. It also describes additional limits when no suitable alternative exists for older adults or people with cardiovascular or cancer risk. Screening, laboratory monitoring, vaccine review, pregnancy and breastfeeding precautions, medicine interactions, and personal infection, cancer, cardiovascular, clotting, and gastrointestinal history belong in specialist care.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The current label supplies a general systemic JAK-inhibitor safety boundary. Some boxed-warning evidence comes from another JAK inhibitor in older rheumatoid-arthritis populations with cardiovascular risk. That evidence must not be converted into a vitiligo-specific event rate or a personal risk estimate.

The outcome evidence is sparse and old. In a retrospective series of 18 people with severe vitiligo, 8 were reported as completely depigmented and 3 as having dramatic but incomplete depigmentation; complications were frequent. This uncontrolled series cannot predict a uniform result or compare monobenzone fairly with other paths.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Severe vitiligo.
Severity or extent: Severe or extensive vitiligo.
Sample size: 18 people in a retrospective case series.
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The uncontrolled historical series is too small and poorly reported for a reliable modern success rate, body-site estimate, comparison, long-term safety conclusion, or individual prediction.

The historical label limits monobenzone to final depigmentation in disseminated idiopathic vitiligo affecting more than half of body surface. It lists use for another condition and prior sensitivity or allergy to the product or its ingredients as contraindications. Monobenzone can cause irreversible, irregular, excessive, distant, or cosmetically unacceptable depigmentation, along with irritation, burning, eczema, and sensitization. The archived label also leaves long-term cancer risk and several pregnancy, breastfeeding, and pediatric questions unresolved; successful depigmentation creates lifelong sun-sensitivity considerations.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The archived label establishes material hazards and unknowns for the historically approved product. It does not quantify personal risk, establish the quality of a compounded preparation, or resolve modern long-term evidence gaps.

At week 24, 9 of 25 RECELL areas reached at least 80% repigmentation versus 0 of 25 matched controls. That was the pivotal within-person randomized study of 25 adults with stable focal, segmental, or generalized vitiligo. Fourteen of 25 RECELL areas, or 56%, reached more than 50% repigmentation versus 3 of 25 controls, or 12%. No studied area reached complete repigmentation.

Age range: Adults.
Condition subtype: Stable focal, segmental, and generalized vitiligo.
Severity or extent: Participants had selected stable lesions, limited total depigmented body-surface involvement, and unsatisfactory response to earlier topical or phototherapy care.
Sample size: 25 adults each contributed matched RECELL and control areas.
Geography and care setting: Ten procedural study sites.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: FDA reported 80% White, 12% Asian, and 8% African American participants.
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Head, neck, dorsal hands, dorsal feet, arms, legs, trunk, and other areas were studied.

What that means for this page: The small study supports the complete studied package for selected stable adult lesions. It does not establish outcomes for active disease, children, excluded body sites, every skin tone, every center, or RECELL without laser preparation and later phototherapy.

RECELL is contraindicated for known hypersensitivity to trypsin or compound sodium lactate, also called Hartmann’s solution. The instructions also say skin-sample collection should not be used when there is known hypersensitivity to anesthetics, adrenaline or epinephrine, povidone-iodine, or chlorhexidine. The procedure adds a donor wound, ablative-laser resurfacing, anesthesia, dressings, and wound aftercare. Reported or labeled concerns include scarring, hypertrophic scarring, redness, itching, infection, Koebner phenomenon, worsening vitiligo, and limits for several body sites and populations. The Koebner phenomenon is the name for patches that develop where previously unaffected skin was injured. A procedure injures skin on purpose, at the donor site and at the treated one.

Age range: Adults.
Condition subtype: Stable vitiligo.
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: 25 adults in the pivotal safety population.
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: The instructions state that safety and effectiveness are not established for several sites including lips, eyelids, palms, and soles.

What that means for this page: The FDA record provides trial and device-package safety boundaries. The small population cannot supply a precise personal event rate or establish safety in excluded populations, body sites, active disease, or every procedural center.

A peer-reviewed randomized phase 2 study treated 364 adults with active nonsegmental vitiligo. At week 24, four of five active arms had statistically significant differences from placebo, with three distinct mean facial-score improvements: 21.2% in two arms, 18.5%, and 14.6%. Placebo worsened by 2.1%, and people with stable-only vitiligo were excluded. A sponsor-linked analysis reported group-level facial-score changes in Fitzpatrick types I–III and IV–VI. That does not establish the same response for every skin tone or person. Pfizer later said the 607-person TRANQUILLO and 1,567-person TRANQUILLO 2 studies met facial and total-body endpoints. The release did not provide response percentages or full result tables, and the current TRANQUILLO 2 registry now lists 1,571 enrolled, so the public enrollment counts are not identical.

Age range: The peer-reviewed phase 2 study enrolled adults ages 18–65; TRANQUILLO enrolled people age 12 or older, and TRANQUILLO 2 enrolled adults.
Condition subtype: The peer-reviewed phase 2 study required active nonsegmental vitiligo and excluded stable-only disease; the phase 3 registries allowed active or stable nonsegmental vitiligo.
Severity or extent: The study required measurable facial and total-body involvement.
Sample size: Phase 2 treated 364 adults. The phase 3 records report 607 participants in TRANQUILLO and 1,571 in the current TRANQUILLO 2 registry; Pfizer’s topline release described 1,567 for TRANQUILLO 2.
Geography and care setting: The phase 2 study ran at 80 sites across 10 countries.
Skin tone or phototype: A sponsor-linked phase 2 analysis reported groups for Fitzpatrick types I–III and IV–VI.
Race: The phase 2 publication reported 67.6% White, 2.7% Black, and 23.6% Asian participants.
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Facial and total-body scores were reported. Reliable separate estimates for hands, feet, genitals, scalp, or other individual regions were not provided in the reviewed sources.

What that means for this page: The peer-reviewed numeric result applies most directly to adults with active nonsegmental vitiligo resembling the phase 2 population. The separate phase 3 topline covers broader active-or-stable populations, including adolescents in TRANQUILLO, but supplies no response percentages or demographic subgroup tables. Neither evidence layer establishes the same response for every skin tone, every body site, or an individual person.

The current US Litfulo label, written for severe alopecia areata, carries boxed warnings for serious infections, mortality, malignancy, major cardiovascular events, and thrombosis. It lists known hypersensitivity to ritlecitinib or an ingredient as a contraindication. It also describes infection and tuberculosis screening, blood-count monitoring, vaccination, interaction, pregnancy, breastfeeding, liver-related precautions, and a June 2026 warning about hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes. Parts of the boxed-warning context come from a large postmarketing study of another JAK inhibitor. That study was in people age 50 or older with rheumatoid arthritis and at least one cardiovascular risk factor. Some events occurred in Litfulo’s alopecia areata safety database. These boundaries matter, but they are not vitiligo-specific event rates or a personal risk calculation.

Age range: The label safety database included people age 12 or older with severe alopecia areata; only 2.5% of the placebo-controlled population was age 65 or older.
Condition subtype: The evidence population had alopecia areata, not vitiligo.
Severity or extent: The label safety evidence was collected in severe alopecia areata.
Sample size: The label reports 1,628 people with alopecia areata exposed to Litfulo.
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: The placebo-controlled label population was 70.7% White.
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The current label supplies a material systemic safety boundary in its approved alopecia context. It does not provide vitiligo-specific event rates. Parts of the boxed-warning context rely on a postmarketing study of another JAK inhibitor. That study was in rheumatoid-arthritis patients age 50 or older with at least one cardiovascular risk factor, not the Litfulo alopecia population.

A peer-reviewed randomized phase 2 study enrolled 171 adults with extensive nonsegmental vitiligo. At week 24, the mean total-body score improved by 15.7% to 19.1% across the studied povorcitinib groups while the placebo group worsened by 2.3%; the study reported limited demographic diversity. A later descriptive post hoc analysis followed 103 people who received povorcitinib throughout the study. It reported week-52 VASI50 response proportions from 25.8% for feet to 57.3% for head and neck outside the face. It had no placebo comparison at week 52 and cannot predict an individual site. The registries list 467 participants in STOP-V1 and 450 in STOP-V2. Incyte later said that at week 52, 18.9% reached F-VASI75 (at least 75% improvement from baseline in the facial score). That was versus 6.8% with placebo in STOP-V1, and 18.9% versus 3.1% in STOP-V2. Those phase 3 percentages are sponsor-reported topline results, not posted registry results or peer-reviewed findings.

Age range: Adults.
Condition subtype: Nonsegmental vitiligo.
Severity or extent: Phase 2 studied extensive disease. The phase 3 registries required minimum total-body and facial involvement using prespecified body-surface and VASI thresholds.
Sample size: Phase 2 randomized 171 adults. The phase 3 registries list 467 participants in STOP-V1 and 450 in STOP-V2.
Geography and care setting: A multicenter study conducted in Canada and the United States.
Skin tone or phototype: The descriptive extension analysis reported Fitzpatrick type subgroups.
Race: The descriptive extension analysis reported White and non-White subgroups.
Ethnicity: The phase 2 publication reported 32 of 171 participants (18.7%) as Hispanic.
Body sites: Facial and total-body scores were reported. A descriptive post hoc analysis of 103 extension-evaluable participants reported week-52 VASI50 response proportions from 25.8% for feet to 57.3% for head and neck outside the face. It was pooled, post hoc and lacked a week-52 placebo comparator.

What that means for this page: The peer-reviewed numeric result applies most directly to adults with extensive nonsegmental vitiligo resembling the phase 2 population. The separate STOP-V1 and STOP-V2 percentages are sponsor toplines for phase 3 adults meeting registry-defined minimum facial and total-body involvement. Phase 3 demographic subgroup tables are not public. Limited phase 2 demographic diversity and descriptive post hoc subgroup and body-region analyses restrict generalization; group results do not predict an individual or body-site response.

The phase 2 publication reported a similar incidence of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events across study groups, and no new safety signal. The phase 3 registries excluded people with several infection, cancer, cardiovascular, clotting, pregnancy, laboratory, and prior-treatment risks. The sources I read do not include an approved povorcitinib vitiligo product label. So they do not supply a complete labeled contraindication, warning, interaction, monitoring, pregnancy, or long-term safety profile. Safety language from another JAK medicine cannot be transferred as if it were povorcitinib evidence.

Age range: Adults.
Condition subtype: Nonsegmental vitiligo.
Severity or extent: Extensive disease in phase 2.
Sample size: 168 treated adults in the phase 2 safety population.
Geography and care setting: A multicenter study conducted in Canada and the United States.
Skin tone or phototype: The phase 2 publication reported baseline Fitzpatrick skin-type categories.
Race: The phase 2 publication reported baseline race categories and noted limited demographic diversity.
Ethnicity: The phase 2 randomized population included 32 of 171 participants (18.7%) identified as Hispanic.
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: Shorter-term study reporting and phase 3 eligibility rules do not supply a complete commercial-product safety profile, long-term risk estimate, pediatric evidence, or personal risk calculation.

One evidence record, 2 statements

Medical narrowband UVB can treat psoriasis in the skin. It does not treat inflammation in the joints and is not a treatment for psoriatic arthritis. Tanning beds and casual sunlight are not substitutes for prescribed, medically supervised phototherapy.

Medical phototherapy can treat psoriasis in the skin. It does not treat joint inflammation and is not a treatment for psoriatic arthritis. Joint concerns need a separate clinical assessment.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is a UK narrowband UVB clinical guideline, one a UK hospital patient leaflet last updated June 2022, and one US patient education page on psoriatic-arthritis diagnosis. None reports a study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: These are guidance and patient-education documents, not a study of joint outcomes. They establish that phototherapy targets skin and not joints, and that joint disease needs separate clinical assessment. They do not quantify how often skin and joint disease occur together or assess an individual reader.

Ask what findings support psoriasis and what remains uncertain. Generalized pustular psoriasis and erythroderma require same-day specialist assessment. Seek urgent clinical help for a sudden widespread pustular eruption or extensive, rapidly spreading redness. Feeling acutely unwell increases the urgency, but do not wait for fever or other systemic symptoms.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: Sources are a UK guideline and US patient-education and label pages. None is a study. None reports an enrolled study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: NICE names two presentations needing same-day specialist care: generalised pustular psoriasis and erythroderma. Neither source is a study of who develops these or how often. A written description cannot decide urgency for one reader. That judgment needs in-person clinical assessment.

Bring your medicine list and ask how infections, vaccines, pregnancy or pregnancy plans, other health conditions and prior treatment reactions change the options. Each medicine has product-specific limits and monitoring rather than one class-wide checklist.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: Sources are a UK guideline and US patient-education and label pages. None is a study. None reports an enrolled study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The systemic guideline and the Icotyde label each set their own precautions and monitoring. Neither is one class-wide rule. Neither source reports how often a reader hits an infection, vaccine or pregnancy-planning question. This stays a prompt to ask a clinician, not a safety determination.

Common local effects include burning, stinging, itching, or irritation where you apply it. With stronger products or longer use, skin can thin, bruise more easily, develop stretch marks, show small visible blood vessels, or change color. Widespread, prolonged, or occluded use raises the chance the steroid is absorbed into the body, not just the skin. Call your dermatologist about thinning skin, persistent burning, or a flare after you stop - do not just stop cold without a plan.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is National Psoriasis Foundation patient education and two are current US drug labels (clobetasol propionate ointment, betamethasone dipropionate cream). None is a study; none reports an enrolled population or how often a given side effect occurs.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: These are patient-education and product-label sources describing the range of possible local and systemic side effects and the rebound-flare risk of stopping abruptly. They do not quantify how often any one side effect occurs, compare products, or assess an individual reader’s risk.

Common local effects include irritated skin, burning, itching, swelling, peeling, dryness, and redness, which typically ease with continued use. The FDA label for calcipotriene cream lists local irritation and dermatitis, and tells you not to use the cream on the face. The more serious but low-risk concern is hypercalcemia - too much calcium in the blood, which can weaken bones, cause kidney stones, or affect the heart and brain. NPF specifically flags excessive calcium in urine as a common effect of calcitriol. An extremely uncommon change in calcium-metabolism limits means stopping treatment until calcium normalizes. Call your dermatologist about persistent irritation, or anything that feels like it might be more than a local skin reaction.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: Two sources are patient education (AAD, NPF). One is a current US drug label (calcipotriene cream). None is a study. None reports how often a side effect occurs.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: These sources describe the range of possible local side effects and the rarer calcium-related risk this drug class carries. They do not quantify how often any one side effect occurs, compare products, or assess an individual reader’s risk.

The most common effects are local skin irritation - redness, peeling, dryness, itching, or a burning sensation - which is one reason it is often paired with a steroid. Tazarotene also increases sun sensitivity, so sunscreen and protective clothing belong in your routine while you use it. The FDA label says tazarotene must not be used during pregnancy because it can cause fetal harm. Anyone who could become pregnant needs a negative pregnancy test before starting and must use effective birth control while using it. Call your dermatologist about severe irritation, or anything that feels like more than the expected redness.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: Two sources are patient education (AAD, NPF). One is a current US drug label (TAZORAC cream). None is a study. None reports how often a side effect occurs.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: These sources describe the range of possible local side effects, the sun-sensitivity risk, and the pregnancy contraindication this drug carries. They do not quantify how often any one side effect occurs or assess an individual reader’s risk.

The most common early effects with either Protopic (tacrolimus) or Elidel (pimecrolimus) are burning and itching where you apply it. The tacrolimus label reports burning in roughly 46% to 58% and itching in roughly 41% to 46% of people in its own studies. Most episodes start in the first few days, last minutes, and ease as treatment continues or the skin clears. Both drugs carry an FDA boxed warning against continuous long-term use. Rare cases of lymphoma or skin cancer have been reported, though AAD notes dermatologists have not observed this increased risk in everyday practice. Both labels tell you to minimize sun exposure during treatment and avoid tanning beds, sunlamps, and UV therapy. Call your dermatologist about persistent burning, or anything that feels like more than the expected early reaction.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is American Academy of Dermatology patient education. Two are current US drug labels (tacrolimus ointment, pimecrolimus cream). The tacrolimus label reports burning and itching rates from its own trials (roughly 46-58% and 41-46%). That is a trial rate for eczema, not a study of either drug used for psoriasis. Neither label nor AAD says how often the rarer boxed-warning risk happens.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: These sources describe the range of possible local side effects, the reported rates from eczema trials, and the boxed-warning language on long-term use and rare cancer reports. They do not say how often the rarer risk happens, show it for psoriasis, or judge one reader’s risk.

In the trials that led to approval, the most common effects were diarrhea (3.1%), headache (2.4%), trouble sleeping (1.4%), nausea (1.2%), and pain where you applied it (1.0%). There is no boxed warning on this medicine. It is not approved for anyone with moderate to severe liver problems, and it can interact with certain other medicines that affect the same liver enzymes. Call your dermatologist about diarrhea or any symptom that does not ease with continued use.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is the current US drug label for roflumilast cream, reporting its own psoriasis-trial adverse-reaction rates (diarrhea 3.1%, headache 2.4%, insomnia 1.4%, nausea 1.2%, application site pain 1.0%). The other is American Academy of Dermatology patient education, which lists the same reaction types in plain language. Neither source says how often any one reaction leads someone to stop treatment.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: These sources describe the trial-reported rates of the most common local and systemic effects and the liver-impairment contraindication. They do not quantify how often a reaction leads to stopping treatment or judge one reader’s risk.

In the trials that led to approval, the most common effect was folliculitis: inflamed hair follicles, which can look like small pimple-like bumps. It happened in 20% of people on tapinarof versus 1% on vehicle. Other reported effects: nasopharyngitis (11% vs 9%), contact dermatitis (7% vs 1%), headache (4% vs 1%), itching (3% vs 1%), and influenza (2% vs 1%). There is no boxed warning and no contraindication listed on the label. AAD describes the most common side effect in plain terms as a skin reaction. Call your dermatologist about any reaction that does not ease with continued use.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is the current US drug label for tapinarof cream, reporting its own combined PSOARING 1/PSOARING 2 psoriasis-trial adverse-reaction rates (folliculitis 20%, nasopharyngitis 11%, contact dermatitis 7%, headache 4%, itching 3%, influenza 2%). These rates come from 683 tapinarof and 342 vehicle participants. The other source is American Academy of Dermatology patient education, which names a skin reaction as the most common effect in plain language. Neither source says how often any one reaction leads someone to stop treatment.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: These sources describe the trial-reported rates of the most common local and systemic effects. Neither lists a contraindication or boxed warning for this medicine. They do not quantify how often a reaction leads to stopping treatment or judge one reader’s risk.

The most common reaction is sunburn-like: redness, tenderness, mild stinging or burning after a session. Dark spots can appear where you were treated, more often with medium-to-dark skin tones. Itching can happen too. Blisters and true burns are uncommon but possible, especially if a dose runs ahead of what your skin tolerates. Over years of treatment, treated skin can age faster, and the added ultraviolet exposure raises long-term skin cancer risk. That is why your dermatologist matches your dose to your skin type and raises it gradually. Call your dermatologist about a reaction that does not fade quickly, a blister, or pain.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: Two sources are patient education (AAD, NPF), describing the range of possible reactions in plain language. One is a UK clinical guideline (BAD and British Photodermatology Group) covering the safety framework behind dose calibration. None is a study of a psoriasis-specific patient cohort, and none states how often a given reaction happens in people being treated for psoriasis.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: These sources describe the range of possible immediate and long-term reactions, including the increased long-term skin cancer risk. Neither quantifies how often any one of them happens or judges one reader’s risk.

People I have heard from worry about the liver first, and about how much blood testing this takes. The FDA boxed warning, its strongest warning, covers four areas. Methotrexate can cause fetal death, and it is not safe during pregnancy for non-cancer use. It can trigger severe allergic reactions in people with a prior serious reaction to it. It carries a real risk of serious, sometimes fatal, reactions affecting the bone marrow, digestive tract, liver, lungs, skin, or kidneys, which is why close monitoring is required. And taking it daily by mistake, instead of weekly, has caused deaths. More common effects include nausea, vomiting, appetite loss, mouth sores, and fatigue. Tell your dermatologist about these, since your dose or a folic acid supplement can often be adjusted. Avoid alcohol, since it raises the risk of liver damage.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is the current US drug label for methotrexate tablets (Trexall). Its adverse-reaction rates come from short rheumatoid arthritis trials, not psoriasis. Two sources are patient education (AAD, National Psoriasis Foundation), describing common reactions and the monitoring schedule in plain language. None reports a trial population with psoriasis.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: These sources describe the boxed-warning categories, the weekly-dosing-error risk, common reactions, and the monitoring routine used to catch rarer problems. None states how often a reaction happens in psoriasis care, and none judges one reader’s risk.

The current label carries two boxed warnings, its strongest warnings. The first states that only physicians experienced in immunosuppressive therapy should prescribe cyclosporine, because of an increased risk of infection and certain cancers. The second, specific to psoriasis, states that people previously treated with PUVA face a higher skin-cancer risk on cyclosporine. That second warning also states that cyclosporine can cause high blood pressure and kidney damage. Because of that risk, the label requires checking blood pressure and kidney-function blood tests every two weeks for the first three months. After that, checks continue monthly once you are stable. Other reported effects include high cholesterol, excess hair growth, gum swelling, tingling, and stomach upset. Avoid grapefruit and grapefruit juice, which can raise cyclosporine levels, and tell your dermatologist before any vaccination.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is the current US drug label for cyclosporine (Neoral). Two sources are patient education (AAD, National Psoriasis Foundation), describing common reactions and the monitoring schedule in plain language. None reports an adverse-reaction rate table from a psoriasis-specific trial population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: These sources describe the two boxed-warning categories, the required blood-pressure and kidney-function monitoring schedule, common reactions, and the grapefruit interaction. None states how often a reaction happens in psoriasis care, and none judges one reader’s risk.

The label carries a boxed warning, its strongest kind. Acitretin causes severe birth defects if taken during pregnancy. It must not be used by anyone who is pregnant, or who plans to become pregnant. People I have heard from ask whether drinking makes their psoriasis worse, and here alcohol matters for a different reason. Because alcohol can turn acitretin into a longer-lasting related compound, anyone who could become pregnant must avoid all alcohol during treatment. That alcohol restriction continues for two months after stopping. Pregnancy must also be avoided for three years after stopping acitretin. That requires two effective forms of birth control, plus a pregnancy test every three months during that window. The same three-year rule applies to donating blood. Very common effects, seen in more than three-quarters of trial patients, include chapped or cracked lips, dry eyes and mouth, skin peeling, hair thinning, and joint pain. Rarer but serious risks include liver inflammation, pancreatitis, a pressure buildup around the brain, and depression. Blood tests for liver function and cholesterol are required before starting. They continue every one to two weeks until your levels are stable.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is the current US drug label for acitretin (Soriatane). Two sources are patient education (AAD, National Psoriasis Foundation), describing common reactions and the monitoring schedule in plain language. The label reports the most common reactions occurred in more than three-quarters of trial patients, but does not report a full psoriasis-specific adverse-reaction rate table.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: These sources describe the boxed pregnancy warning, the alcohol and blood-donation restrictions, the monitoring schedule, and the range of common and serious reactions. None states how often a reaction happens in psoriasis care beyond the mucocutaneous and joint figures, and none judges one reader’s risk.

Apremilast carries no boxed warning, but it does carry several warnings worth knowing. It can increase the risk of depression; the label advises watching for new or worsening depression, suicidal thoughts, or other mood changes. It can also cause weight loss: in trials, 10 to 12% of adults lost 5 to 10% of their body weight, so your dermatologist should monitor your weight regularly. The most common side effects in plaque-psoriasis trials were diarrhea and nausea (17% each), upper-respiratory infection (9%), and headache (6%), most within the first few weeks. If diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting become severe, your dermatologist may lower your dose or pause treatment.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: The source is the current US drug label for Otezla (apremilast), reporting its own plaque-psoriasis-trial adverse-reaction rates. It does not report an age, skin-tone, race, or ethnicity breakdown of those rates.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: These rates come from the label’s own plaque-psoriasis clinical trials, but do not break results down by age, skin tone, race, or ethnicity. They also do not quantify how often a reaction leads to stopping treatment, or judge one reader’s risk.

Deucravacitinib carries no boxed warning, but it does carry real warnings worth knowing. It can increase the risk of infections, including serious ones; the label advises against starting it during an active or serious infection. Herpes zoster (shingles) has been reported, including a multidermatomal form in some people with a normally functioning immune system. A small number of lymphoma cases were reported in trials (0.3 per 100 patient-years). It commonly raises a muscle enzyme called creatine phosphokinase (CPK), and the label says to discontinue if it rises markedly. Triglycerides are checked periodically. Liver enzymes are checked at baseline and during treatment only if you have known or suspected liver disease, unlike the routine bloodwork methotrexate or cyclosporine require for everyone. In the week-16 psoriasis trials, the most common reactions were upper respiratory infections (19.2% versus 14.8% on placebo) and CPK increase (2.7% versus 1.2%). Less common reactions were herpes simplex (2.0% versus 0.2%), mouth ulcers (1.9% versus 0%), folliculitis (1.7% versus 0%), and acne (1.4% versus 0.2%).

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: The source is the current US drug label for Sotyktu (deucravacitinib), reporting its own plaque-psoriasis-trial adverse-reaction rates from the POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 trials. It does not report an age, skin-tone, race, or ethnicity breakdown of those rates.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

Monitoring burden is one of the biggest practical differences between these five. Methotrexate and cyclosporine both require regular blood testing throughout treatment - cyclosporine’s label calls for blood-pressure and kidney-function checks every two weeks for the first three months. Acitretin requires liver-function and cholesterol testing, plus - for anyone who can become pregnant - pregnancy tests and strict contraception continuing three years after stopping. Apremilast needs no routine blood testing, but its label calls for weight and mood monitoring. Deucravacitinib checks liver enzymes only if you have known or suspected liver disease, a lighter routine-testing burden than methotrexate or cyclosporine. It still calls for a tuberculosis check before starting. Three of the five - methotrexate, cyclosporine, and acitretin - carry an FDA boxed warning, the agency’s strongest kind. Apremilast and deucravacitinib do not carry a boxed warning, though each has its own real warnings. Apremilast’s cover depression and weight loss; deucravacitinib’s cover infection, shingles, and a small reported lymphoma rate.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: The sources are five separate US drug labels: methotrexate, cyclosporine, acitretin, apremilast, deucravacitinib. Each reports its own monitoring rules and warnings. None compares all five drugs in one study.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: Each label covers only its own drug. None ranks the five drugs side by side. None says which warning matters most for one reader.

Local irritation - burning, stinging, or itching - is common across most of these six. Steroids can thin skin with overuse, and stopping abruptly can cause a rebound flare. Vitamin D analogues carry a rare hypercalcemia risk: too much calcium in the blood. Tazarotene raises sun sensitivity and must not be used during pregnancy. Calcineurin inhibitors carry an FDA boxed warning about rare lymphoma and skin-cancer reports with continuous long-term use. AAD notes dermatologists have not seen that risk reflected in everyday practice. Roflumilast and tapinarof carry no boxed warning. Roflumilast’s most common trial effects were diarrhea and headache. Tapinarof’s most common trial effect was folliculitis, inflamed hair follicles, in 20% of trial participants.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: The sources are six separate current US drug labels or AAD/NPF patient-education pages: topical steroids, vitamin D analogues, tazarotene, calcineurin inhibitors, roflumilast, tapinarof. Each reports its own side effects. None compares all six drugs in one study.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: Each source covers only its own drug or drug class. None ranks the six side by side. None says which warning matters most for one reader.

People I have heard from ask about the infection risk before they ask how well a biologic clears skin. Every biologic listed here can raise the risk of infection, because each one calms down a piece of the immune system on purpose. Report a fever, cough, flu-like symptoms, or any other infection sign to your dermatologist right away. TNF-class biologics carry a specific FDA boxed warning. MedlinePlus’s summary of the adalimumab (Humira) label states that using it may decrease your ability to fight infection and increase the chance of a serious infection. That same label states some children, teenagers, and young adults who received adalimumab or a similar medicine developed severe or life-threatening cancers. It also states adults face an increased risk of skin cancer, lymphoma, and other cancers. Two IL-17-class drugs carry their own distinct warning. Brodalumab’s label carries a boxed warning for suicidal ideation and behavior that calls for regular evaluation of suicide risk. Bimekizumab’s current label carries a similar warning and precaution. Common, non-boxed side effects reported across the group include upper respiratory infection, injection-site reactions, flu-like symptoms, urinary tract infection, and headache.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is MedlinePlus’s summary of the current US adalimumab label, covering only that one TNF-class drug. Two sources are patient education (AAD, National Psoriasis Foundation) and one is a secondary clinical-guidance summary of the joint AAD-NPF biologics guideline (Healio), naming the brodalumab and bimekizumab suicidal-ideation warnings. None reports an enrolled study population or how often a given reaction occurs across all twelve named drugs.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: These sources describe one TNF drug’s boxed-warning language, two IL-17 drugs’ psychiatric warning language, and general infection-risk and common-reaction language across the class. They do not report a class-wide adverse-reaction rate table, quantify how often any one reaction happens, or judge one reader’s risk.

Know when the written plan says to stop and contact the clinical team. Keep a separate manufacturer route for faults, damage, error messages or support with the exact device.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is a UK narrowband UVB clinical guideline, one is a US FDA regulatory reporting page, and one is a manufacturer product-manuals page. None reports an enrolled study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: These are a clinical guideline, a regulator reporting page and a manufacturer support page. None is a study of how often a home program runs into a clinical reaction or a device fault. None studies who a written plan should name as the stop-and-call contact. They support that clinical reactions and device problems have separate report routes. They do not assess an individual reader’s plan, device or reaction.

Generalized pustular psoriasis and erythroderma require same-day specialist assessment. Seek urgent clinical help for a sudden widespread pustular eruption or extensive, rapidly spreading redness. Feeling acutely unwell increases the urgency, but do not wait for fever or other systemic symptoms.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: NICE CG153 is a UK clinical guideline for assessing and managing psoriasis in adults, children and young people across primary and specialist care. It reports no study population of its own.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: This is UK clinical guidance directing same-day specialist assessment for these patterns, not a study of how many people develop them or how they respond to it. It does not identify a subtype, quantify individual risk, or replace a local emergency or specialist pathway.

No. A commercial tanning device and prescribed narrowband UVB are not interchangeable. A tanning booth is not a shortcut around a medical light-treatment plan.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is the UK narrowband UVB guideline for clinic and home services. The other is a UK hospital unit patient leaflet, last updated June 2022 and past its own review date. Neither reports a study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: Both sources are guidance, not a study. They separate sunlight, tanning devices, narrowband UVB and other light treatments because the light source, purpose and safety steps differ. Neither compares outcomes between a tanning bed and prescribed treatment, and neither describes people who tried a substitute.

Your role is to prepare, observe, record, and report. Your prescriber decides whether to start, continue, change, pause, or restart treatment, and the current instructions for your exact device govern its operation.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is the UK narrowband UVB guideline for clinic and home services. The other is a UK hospital unit patient leaflet, last updated June 2022 and past its own review date. Neither reports a study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: These are guidance documents. They place assessment, prescribing, monitoring and decisions about reactions within a clinical service. They report no patient group and set no rule a reader can apply without their own care team.

The guideline I read describes reviewing the diagnosis and how it appears, current medicines, sensitivity to light, skin-cancer history, prior ultraviolet treatment, pregnancy, and other individual risks. Use this as a conversation starter - not as a self-test that says NB-UVB is or is not safe for you.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: The narrowband UVB guideline is written for UK phototherapy services, in clinic and at home. It reports no study population of its own.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The guideline lists factors a clinician reviews before treatment, such as current medicines, light sensitivity, skin-cancer history and pregnancy. It gives this as clinical assessment, not a checklist that tells a reader whether treatment is safe for them. It reports no patient group.

Several common medicine groups can make skin react more strongly to ultraviolet light. Your prescriber reviews everything you take before and during treatment. Bring the complete list, and do not stop or change anything on your own.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is the UK narrowband UVB guideline for clinic and home services. The other is a UK hospital unit patient leaflet, last updated June 2022 and past its own review date. Neither reports a study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The guideline and the leaflet name medicine groups that can raise light sensitivity, including some antibiotics, some diuretics, and herbal products such as St John’s wort. Neither is a study and neither reports how often a reaction follows. Taking one of these does not by itself rule treatment in or out.

No. A color change can be subtle or hard to interpret, especially in deeper skin tones. Know what your skin looks and feels like before treatment, and report pain, tenderness, heat, swelling, blistering, marked itching, or another concerning change. No visible redness does not mean you should change the plan yourself.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is the UK narrowband UVB guideline for clinic and home services. The other is a UK hospital unit patient leaflet, last updated June 2022 and past its own review date. Neither reports a study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Any treated skin, both depigmented and surrounding. The guidance gives no body-site breakdown for recognising a reaction.

What that means for this page: Both sources are guidance. They ask people to know their own skin and to report pain, heat, swelling, blistering or marked itch rather than judge a reaction by colour. Neither reports a patient group and neither sets a colour threshold, so this record cannot describe one by skin tone.

Ask your team, and ask before the sunny week rather than after it. The light you are given and the light outside are the same kind of energy, so time outdoors is not separate from your course. The British patient leaflet asks people not to sunbathe or use a sunbed for the whole of a course. It also asks them to keep out of the sun enough that skin does not burn.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: The patient leaflet is written for a UK hospital unit whose staff check skin at each visit. It has not been updated since June 2022 and its review date has passed. It reports no study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The leaflet asks people not to sunbathe or use a sunbed for a whole course, and to keep skin from burning. It sets no rule for a home panel and puts no number on how much time outdoors adds for one person. It reports no patient group.

Some ordinary products change how skin answers ultraviolet light. The British leaflet asks people not to wear perfume, deodorant, aftershave or other cosmetics to a treatment. Some of them contain substances that make skin more sensitive to light, and the result can be patchy discoloured skin that takes months to fade.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is the UK hospital unit leaflet, past its review date. The other two are current US prescribing information for Protopic (tacrolimus) and Elidel (pimecrolimus). None reports a study population for this point.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The leaflet asks people to arrive without perfume, deodorant or cosmetics and to use only a suitable moisturiser before a session. The Protopic (tacrolimus) and Elidel (pimecrolimus) labels tell people using those products to avoid ultraviolet treatment and limit sun. None of the three is a study, and none names a product, order or timing for one person.

The leaflet treats them as one account, and it is honest that the account is estimated rather than measured. It says the full risk of this particular light is not known, and that the estimate it gives assumes narrowband UVB behaves like sunlight. On that assumption, courses repeated across a lifetime raise the risk of treatable skin cancer.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: The patient leaflet is written for a UK hospital phototherapy unit. It has not been updated since June 2022 and its review date has passed. It reports no study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: The leaflet says the estimated skin-cancer risk is lower for someone whose face is not treated. It gives no other body-site breakdown.

What that means for this page: The leaflet states plainly that the full risk of narrowband UVB is not known, and that its lifetime-risk estimate assumes the treatment behaves like sunlight. Its one-in-ten skin-cancer figure is a UK population figure, not a personal risk. It reports no patient group.

Use only the eye protection approved for your exact device or by your phototherapy team. Keep it on unless that team gives you a specific plan for treating the eyelids.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is the UK narrowband UVB guideline. The other two are manufacturer manuals and support pages for named phototherapy units. None reports a study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: The eyes and eyelids. The guideline covers eye protection during treatment; treating the eyelid skin itself is described as a separate clinical decision.

What that means for this page: The guideline recommends ultraviolet-protective goggles during treatment, and the device manuals state that protection is model-specific. None is a study, and none certifies a particular product sold today. An eyelid exception is described as a clinical decision, not a step to take at home.

Yes. Using the same kind of equipment does not make the reasons for treatment, alternatives, or monitoring identical across conditions. A vitiligo decision needs vitiligo guidance as well as phototherapy guidance. A psoriasis decision needs psoriasis-specific guidance.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: The sources are the UK narrowband UVB guideline, the 2021 UK vitiligo guideline, and the 2023 International Vitiligo Task Force statement. All are consensus guidance, not studies of a patient group.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: All three sources are consensus guidance. They describe different goals, patterns, alternatives and monitoring for different conditions, and say the same equipment does not make those the same. Body areas, disease activity and other health conditions still change the decision, so it is left to a treating team.

Stop and use the manufacturer’s official support route rather than testing, opening, bypassing, or repairing the device yourself. If you are in the United States, use the FDA route when a medical-device problem should also be reported to the regulator.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is the US FDA MedWatch reporting page. The others are manufacturer support routes for named phototherapy devices. None reports a study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The MedWatch page is a reporting route and the device pages are manufacturer support routes. None is a study, and none decides whether a report is required or proves that a device caused a health problem. A device fault and a health concern can occur together and still need separate routes.

One evidence record, 8 statements

Do not use, test, or repair equipment that arrives damaged, unstable, wet, incomplete, or different from the packing list. Keep the box and packaging, photograph the damage, labels, and serial numbers, and contact the seller first, then the manufacturer if it looks like a hardware fault. Have ready for manufacturer support: exact model and serial number Photos of the damage, labels, and packaging What arrived versus what the packing list says should have

Procedures that move or prepare pigment-producing cells are specialist options for carefully selected people with stable vitiligo. They are not an automatic next step after creams or light treatment. You also need to consider eligibility, risks, healing, access, and incomplete or uneven results.

Steroid creams can cause skin problems where you apply them. These include thinning, small visible blood vessels, stretch-mark-like lines, and acne-like bumps. In some cases, the medicine can also get into the bloodstream. In the HI-Light trial, skin thinning was reported in about 2.5% of participants (13 of 517) across all trial groups, including one person using a placebo cream. A new skin change during treatment needs your care team’s interpretation, not an assumption either way.

The US label carries the FDA’s strongest safety alert, called a “boxed warning.” It covers serious risks reported with this drug class, called JAK inhibitors. Separately, in the vitiligo trials themselves, the most common reactions were milder and far more frequent than the boxed-warning risks. They were application-site acne (6%), application-site itching (5%), a common-cold-type illness (4%), headache (4%), urinary tract infection (2%), application-site redness (2%), and fever (1%). Serious infections Cancer Major heart problems Blood clots Death

DermNet says the black light a Wood lamp emits is harmless, and its reason is specific rather than general. In DermNet’s words, the lamp does not emit the short-wavelength ultraviolet B at 290 to 320 nm. So, DermNet says, it does not cause sunburn or otherwise damage healthy skin.

The most common short-term effect is erythema, a sunburn-type reaction. Itching, dry skin, and cold sores returning can also happen. Pain or blistering needs prompt instructions from your treating team, not a guess. With repeated courses over months or years, skin exposed to the light can show photoageing - wrinkling and discolouration. Clinics build in a safety review once a course reaches a set number of treatments. The full long-term skin-cancer risk specific to narrowband UVB is not established. One UK hospital unit’s own patient materials estimate lifetime risk using an assumption that narrowband UVB behaves like sunlight, not a direct measurement.

Depigmentation is a specialist path that reduces remaining color for selected people with extensive vitiligo. It is not a routine cosmetic shortcut. The change may be permanent and may create lifelong sun-sensitivity concerns. It requires careful medical and mental-health discussion.

No. A traditional or natural label may explain why a practice matters to someone. It does not prove color return, purity, safe interactions, or freedom from harmful ingredients.

Age range: Pending exact source review
Condition subtype: Pending exact source review
Severity or extent: Pending exact source review
Sample size: Pending exact source review
Geography and care setting: Pending exact source review
Skin tone or phototype: Pending exact source review
Race: Pending exact source review
Ethnicity: Pending exact source review
Body sites: Pending exact source review

What that means for this page: This is explicitly gated as a safety claim, but exact population extraction is still pending. It cannot publish or support an estimate of individual risk until that review is complete.

Use a stable location that meets your exact manual’s placement, space, electrical, ventilation, and storage requirements and your clinical plan’s positioning and protection boundaries. Do not copy a setup from a photograph, another device, or a general checklist.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: Three first-party records for named home phototherapy products: the Phothera manuals index, one SolRx E-Series spec sheet, and Zerigo Health terms. None is a study or reports a population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The Phothera record is an index to model-specific manuals. The Solarc record is one spec sheet. It lists model, lamp, electrical, and fuse facts. It has no installation, maintenance, or support sections. Zerigo’s terms describe its prescription device and service. They do not document room placement or storage. These sources do not set one room rule for every device or report results for any household.

Keep children, pets, and untrained visitors outside the treatment area while the device is in use. When it is not in use, secure the device, keys, controls, cables, lamps, and accessories exactly as the manual directs. Locks or access controls do not replace supervision or manufacturer safeguards.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: Three first-party records for named home phototherapy products: the Phothera manuals index, one SolRx E-Series spec sheet, and Zerigo Health terms. None is a study or reports a population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The Phothera record is an index to model-specific manuals. The Solarc record is one spec sheet. It has no access-control or storage instructions. Zerigo’s terms describe its service and app. They do not describe locks, key storage, or household controls. None tests access controls, reports incidents, describes a group of households, or sets one control for every device. Exact requirements remain in the current device documents, not in this source set.

Stop using the device if it is damaged, unstable, wet, or missing required parts. Also stop if it acts differently from the manual or shows an alert you do not understand. Contact official support. Do not keep testing it, open it, bypass a control, or improvise a repair.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: Three first-party records for named home phototherapy products: the Phothera manuals index, one SolRx E-Series spec sheet, and Zerigo Health terms. None is a study or reports a population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The Phothera record is an index to model-specific manuals. The Solarc record is one spec sheet. It has no maintenance or support section. Zerigo’s terms separate technical support from medical advice. They name its Member and Care Guides but give no steps for alerts or damage. None reports how often faults happen, why one happened, or one rule for every device. The current device documents and official support remain necessary.

Ask the manufacturer how your exact device should be retired, then check local rules for electronic equipment and hazardous materials. Do not put the unit or its lamps in ordinary household trash unless the exact product guidance and local rules allow it.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is the Phothera disposal FAQ, a manufacturer page dated July 2026. The other is US EPA consumer guidance on mercury-containing bulbs. Neither reports a study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The Phothera FAQ says the maker does not buy, resell, accept or dispose of used devices. It points owners to local device-recycling and lamp-recycling routes. The EPA page recommends recycling mercury-containing bulbs where a local option exists. It says state and local rules can be stricter. Neither source is a study. The EPA page does not mention phototherapy lamps. Neither names the retirement route for one model in one place.

Do not assume you can. Some fluorescent phototherapy lamps contain mercury and need an appropriate lamp-recycling or hazardous-material route. Read the exact lamp label and device manual, then confirm what your local collection program accepts.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: US EPA consumer guidance, the Phothera disposal FAQ and manuals index, and one SolRx E-Series spec sheet. None reports a study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The EPA page recommends recycling fluorescent and other mercury-containing bulbs through a local program. It notes some states forbid putting them in the trash. It lists household bulb types and does not mention phototherapy lamps. The Phothera FAQ says its UV lamps contain mercury and should be recycled under local rules. The Solarc page identifies the lamp for its named models, while the Phothera index points to model-specific manuals. None is a study. None confirms what a particular lamp contains or which local facility accepts it. The exact lamp label and manual decide that.

Keep people and pets away, then follow current government, local-authority, and manufacturer instructions for the exact lamp. Do not improvise a cleanup from memory. Directions for ventilation, collection, packaging, and disposal can depend on the lamp and where you live.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: US EPA household cleanup guidance for a broken mercury-containing bulb, the Phothera disposal FAQ and manuals index, and one SolRx E-Series spec sheet. None reports a study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The EPA page gives a full set of household steps for a broken compact fluorescent lamp or other bulb with mercury. It names no phototherapy lamp. It does not cover every setting, injury, or possible exposure. The Phothera records give its disposal position and route to product manuals. The Solarc record is only a spec sheet and adds no cleanup steps. None confirms the contents of one lamp. Use the full live EPA protocol I link in the Sources section below, with guidance for the exact lamp and from the maker and local authority. This note is not a cleanup checklist.

Before you sell, service, or discard a device, match its model and unit identifiers to the current official recall record. FDA recall record 221313, posted July 15, 2026, covers a limited group of Phothera 600/ClearLink systems; it is not a recall of every Phothera product or every home phototherapy device.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is a single FDA device-recall record. The other is the Phothera manuals index. Neither reports a study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: FDA record 221313 is one Class II recall, posted 15 July 2026. Daavlin Distributing Company filed it over a software calibration fault. It covers a listed set of Phothera 600 units on one ClearLink controller software version. It is not a finding about every Phothera product or every home phototherapy device. The manufacturer page is a manuals index, not a study. Neither source shows whether a particular unit is included. The serial numbers, software version and dates inside the live record decide that, and the register changes over time.

Do not open, bypass, test, repair, or substitute lamps or electrical parts outside the exact current manual and authorized service route. If a lamp or assembly is damaged, stop and contact the manufacturer.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: Three first-party records for named home phototherapy products: the Phothera manuals index, one SolRx E-Series spec sheet, and Zerigo Health terms. None is a study or reports a population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The Phothera record is an index to model-specific manuals. The Solarc record lists models, lamps, electrical facts, and fuse ratings. It has no maintenance or support sections. Zerigo’s terms describe its prescription device and service. They do not cover lamp fit or repair instructions. This source set gives no repair step, replacement part, or safe-handling rule across devices. Only the exact current manual and authorized support record can establish those details for one unit.

I will not tell you how to invent or store a code, bypass a counter, estimate remaining treatments, or treat what I have written here as authorization. Follow your current prescribed plan and your device’s exact instructions.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: Sources are a US federal regulation (21 CFR 801.109) and manufacturer support documents. Neither is a study. Neither reports an enrolled population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: eCFR 801.109 restricts a prescription device to sale by, or on the order of, a licensed practitioner. It does not decide one private transaction, transfer a prescription, or override state law. The manufacturer documents are support material, not a study of who bypasses a counter or how often. None of the three settles whether continuing without resolving the message is safe for one person. That is the prescriber’s call.

One evidence record, 5 statements

Narrowband UVB and targeted light are established clinician-directed options for some people with vitiligo. Treatment in a clinic and treatment at home create different practical burdens, but neither setting guarantees repigmentation or removes the need for qualified oversight.

Studies and guidelines show that steroid creams can help color return for some people. They cannot predict whether your patches will respond. They also cannot predict how much change you may see or whether it will last. Results differ across products, body sites, and studies. In the HI-Light trial, 17% of people using the steroid cream alone reached participant-reported treatment success at 9 months. 3% reached the trial’s stricter, blinded-assessed threshold of at least 75% repigmentation at 9 months. Across all groups in that trial, more than 40% had lost some of their treatment response by 21 months.

People I have heard from ask whether it works, and then where it works. It depends a great deal on where your patches are, and the trials measured the face and the whole body separately. At Week 24, on the face, 29.9% of people using Opzelura reached at least 75% improvement, against 7.5% and 12.9% on the inactive cream. Across the whole body, at the halfway bar, it was 20.6% and 23.9%, against 5.1% and 6.8%. The same figures read the other way round say this: On the face, about 7 in 10 did not reach the three-quarter bar. 70.1% in each trial. Across the whole body, 79.4% and 76.1% did not reach even the halfway bar. At the three-quarter bar across the whole body, 95.9% and 92.0% did not reach it. No trial can tell you what your own patches will do.

Ask about incomplete or uneven color return, mismatched color or texture, scarring, healing, and how long results may last. Also ask what support is available if the result misses your goal. A procedure cannot guarantee a lasting or even-looking result.

No. Vitiligo has treatment and supportive-care options, including topical medicines, light treatment, selected whole-body medicines or procedures, camouflage, and mental-health support. What it does not have is a guaranteed permanent cure or one treatment that works for everyone.

Age range: Pending exact source review
Condition subtype: Pending exact source review
Severity or extent: Pending exact source review
Sample size: Pending exact source review
Geography and care setting: Pending exact source review
Skin tone or phototype: Pending exact source review
Race: Pending exact source review
Ethnicity: Pending exact source review
Body sites: Pending exact source review

What that means for this page: This is explicitly gated as a group-level outcome claim, but exact population extraction is still pending. It cannot publish or support an individual prediction until that review is complete.

The HI-Light Vitiligo Trial is the largest randomized trial of a topical steroid cream for vitiligo. It found that participant-reported treatment success at 9 months was lower for patches on the hands and feet than for patches on other parts of the body. The trial did not publish the exact percentage for each body region in its main results.

Age range: Adults and children over age 5 were randomized. No upper age limit was set. Mean ages across groups were about 37 to 39 years.
Condition subtype: Nonsegmental vitiligo. Each patch had to be active within the prior 12 months.
Severity or extent: About 10% or less of body surface area affected.
Sample size: 517 people were randomized into three groups: steroid cream alone (173), home narrowband UVB alone (169), and the combination (175). All were treated at 16 UK hospitals.
Geography and care setting: United Kingdom. 16 hospital dermatology departments. Participants came from clinics and general-practice mailouts.
Skin tone or phototype: Fitzpatrick skin phototype (types I through VI) was recorded. Reported shares ran from about 1% (type I) to about 25% (type V), varying by group.
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Participant-reported success at 9 months was lower for hand and foot patches than for patches elsewhere. The trial did not publish an exact number for each body region in its main tables.

What that means for this page: This is one trial of one regimen: mometasone furoate 0.1% ointment, once daily, on alternating weeks. It reports a direction, not a number, for how body area changes response. It is not a prediction for one person, one patch, or one body site.

One evidence record, 2 statements

In the pooled studies, tacrolimus and Elidel (pimecrolimus) together did far better on the face and neck than anywhere else. About 35% of people reached a marked response there. On the trunk and limbs, about 2% did. On hands and feet, almost no one did.

Research on topical calcineurin inhibitors, including Protopic (tacrolimus), reports repigmentation in some people with vitiligo. In the pooled studies, about 18% of people using a calcineurin inhibitor alone reached a marked response, most of a patch’s color back. Adding narrowband UVB nearly tripled that, to about 48%. The studies vary, and personal response, extent of change, and durability remain individual.

Age range: Children and adults were pooled together. One subgroup of 162 children, in 5 studies, was reported apart from the rest. The review states no adult age range.
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: 46 of 56 identified studies, 1,499 people, were used to judge response. Pooled response figures came from smaller subsets: 520 people in 19 studies for a marked response, 560 people in 21 studies for at least a mild response. Protopic (tacrolimus) and Elidel (pimecrolimus) were pooled together, not counted apart.
Geography and care setting: Studies came from the United States, Mexico, India, France, Spain, Austria, Turkey, Iran, Italy, Germany, China, Thailand, Canada, Belgium, Pakistan, Brazil and Bangladesh.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Face and neck showed the best pooled response, a marked response in about 35%. Trunk and limbs showed about 2%. Hands and feet showed close to none.

What that means for this page: This is a pooled average across studies that used Protopic (tacrolimus), Elidel (pimecrolimus), or both, with considerable differences in design and protocol. It does not isolate tacrolimus. It is not a prediction for one person, one patch or one body site, and it sets no dose or schedule.

People I have heard from ask about side effects early, and this warning is the part that worries them. The US label for tacrolimus ointment carries the FDA’s strongest safety alert. This is called a “boxed warning.” It notes rare cancer reports but says the medicine has not been proven to cause them. It also warns against continuous long-term use. Burning, stinging, soreness, or itching can occur where you apply it. The label’s own studies reported burning in roughly 46% to 58% of patients and itching in roughly 41% to 46%, most starting in the first few days and easing with continued use.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: The tacrolimus label is current US prescribing information and its Medication Guide. It reports no study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The label is regulatory, not a study of a patient group. It reports rare cancer cases and says a causal link is unproven. It does not estimate one person’s risk or say how often local reactions occur.

Tell both the prescriber and phototherapy team. The tacrolimus label tells patients to minimize or avoid natural and artificial sunlight, including ultraviolet treatment, while vitiligo guidelines discuss selected clinician-supervised combinations. That conflict needs an explicit, coordinated answer; it is not permission to combine them on your own.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is the current US tacrolimus label. The other two are the 2021 UK vitiligo guideline and the 2023 worldwide Task Force statement. None reports a study population for this point.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The label sets a US regulatory warning against added ultraviolet exposure. The two guidelines describe selected clinician-supervised combinations from a wider evidence base. None of the three is a study, and none resolves the conflict for one person. That needs a coordinated prescriber and phototherapy plan.

A 2019 meta-analysis pooled tacrolimus and pimecrolimus together across 46 studies and found responses varied sharply by body area. About 35% of people reached a marked response on the face and neck. About 2% did on the trunk and limbs, and almost no one did on the hands and feet. That pooled figure does not isolate pimecrolimus from tacrolimus at any site. The strongest results, on the face, come mostly from studies of tacrolimus or of both drugs together - not from a pimecrolimus-only facial study.

Age range: Children and adults were pooled together. One subgroup of 162 children, in 5 studies, was reported apart from the rest. The review states no adult age range.
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: 46 of 56 identified studies, 1,499 people, were used to judge response. Pooled response figures came from smaller subsets: 520 people in 19 studies for a marked response, 560 people in 21 studies for at least a mild response. Protopic (tacrolimus) and Elidel (pimecrolimus) were pooled together, not counted apart.
Geography and care setting: Studies came from the United States, Mexico, India, France, Spain, Austria, Turkey, Iran, Italy, Germany, China, Thailand, Canada, Belgium, Pakistan, Brazil and Bangladesh.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Face and neck showed the best pooled response, a marked response in about 35%. Trunk and limbs showed about 2%. Hands and feet showed close to none.

What that means for this page: This is a pooled average across studies that used Protopic (tacrolimus), Elidel (pimecrolimus), or both, with considerable differences in design and protocol. It does not isolate pimecrolimus. It is not a prediction for one person, one patch or one body site, and it sets no dose or schedule.

One small randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial tested pimecrolimus cream by itself, not pooled with tacrolimus. It enrolled 20 adults with symmetrical vitiligo patches on the arms and legs - no facial patches. Each person used pimecrolimus on one side and vehicle cream on the other, twice daily, for 6 months. At month 2, modest repigmentation (roughly 1%-25% of the patch) appeared in 12 of 17 evaluable pimecrolimus-treated sides, compared with 9 of 17 vehicle-treated sides. By month 6, that gap had mostly closed: only 3 of 14 pimecrolimus-treated sides still showed improvement, against 2 of 14 on vehicle. The trial found no statistically significant difference in average patch size between the two creams.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Symmetrical vitiligo patches on the arms and legs. The trial excluded facial patches.
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: 20 adults were randomized in a crossover design, one side of the body treated with pimecrolimus and the other with vehicle. 17 sides were evaluable at month 2 and 14 at month 6.
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Only extremity (arm and leg) patches were studied. No facial or other-site patches were included.

What that means for this page: This is one small trial of one regimen - pimecrolimus cream twice daily for 6 months - in 20 adults with non-facial patches. It found no statistically significant benefit over vehicle by month 6. It cannot rule out a different result on the face, in a larger group, or over a different course, and it is not a prediction for one person.

The US pimecrolimus label carries the FDA’s strongest safety alert. This is called a “boxed warning.” It notes rare cancer reports but says the medicine has not been proven to cause them. It warns against continuous long-term use. Burning can occur where you apply it. The label’s own adult clinical-trial data come from a 1-year trial of 328 adults for its approved eczema use, not a vitiligo-specific safety study. That trial reported application-site burning in about 26% of people, headache in about 25%, nasopharyngitis in about 8%, and influenza in about 10%. Separately, the one small pimecrolimus-only vitiligo trial reported no treatment-related adverse events and no skin thinning in its 20 participants. A trial that size cannot rule out an uncommon reaction.

Age range: The label’s adult adverse-reaction table comes from a 1-year active-comparator trial restricted to adults. It reports no exact age range.
Condition subtype: Atopic dermatitis, the label’s approved indication - not vitiligo.
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: 328 adults treated with pimecrolimus cream in a 1-year active-comparator trial.
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The percentages above come from the label’s own adult eczema-trial population, not a vitiligo-specific safety study. It reports rare cancer cases separately and says a causal link is unproven. Neither figure estimates one person’s risk or how often a reaction happens specifically in someone using pimecrolimus for vitiligo.

A 2022 systematic review pooled 14 studies, 642 patients, testing a vitamin D analog added to phototherapy against phototherapy alone. Combining either calcipotriol or tacalcitol with narrowband UVB was linked to more people responding overall. Broken out by analog, calcipotriol specifically showed a smaller effect (a relative risk of 1.24) than tacalcitol (2.25) - a statistically significant difference. The review found no added benefit when a vitamin D analog was combined with PUVA or excimer light instead of narrowband UVB.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Vitiligo, across the pooled studies.
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: 14 studies, 642 patients. Each tested calcipotriol or tacalcitol added to light treatment. The by-analog breakdown does not give its own sample size for calcipotriol alone.
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: This is a pooled review across studies using calcipotriol, tacalcitol, or both. Studies used different types of light: narrowband UVB, PUVA, excimer light. The calcipotriol-only figure (RR 1.24) is smaller than the tacalcitol-only figure (RR 2.25). It applies only to the narrowband UVB pairing. The review found no added benefit for a vitamin D analog paired with PUVA or excimer light. It is not a prediction for one person, one patch, or one body site. It sets no dose or schedule.

One right-left comparison trial tested this directly. Twenty people with generalized vitiligo received narrowband UVB on both sides of the body, with calcipotriol added twice daily to one side only. Overall, 55% (11 of 20) reached cosmetically acceptable repigmentation - but the trial did not find an advantage on the calcipotriol side. At the 24th session, the side without calcipotriol actually did significantly better. By the 48th, 72nd, and 96th sessions, there was no significant difference between the two sides.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Generalized vitiligo.
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: 20 patients. Each was their own comparison: narrowband UVB on both sides, calcipotriol added twice daily to one side only.
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: This is one small trial in 20 patients with generalized vitiligo. It found no added benefit from calcipotriol over narrowband UVB alone, at any session count. It found a disadvantage at session 24. It cannot rule out a different result in a larger group or a different vitiligo pattern. It is not a prediction for one person.

The psoriasis label reports skin irritation in about 10%-15% of patients - the most common reaction - and rash, itching, dermatitis, or worsening of psoriasis in about 1%-10%. Reports since approval also include contact dermatitis. The label instructs not to use the cream on the face, and lists hypercalcemia or vitamin D toxicity as contraindications, along with calcium-related and ultraviolet precautions. Those label facts help define safety questions; they do not establish vitiligo benefit, support a self-directed combination, or predict personal risk.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Plaque psoriasis, the label’s approved indication - not vitiligo.
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: The label’s clinical-trial adverse-reaction rates come from its 8-week psoriasis trial period. It reports no exact number of subjects for these percentages.
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The percentages above come from the label’s own psoriasis trial population, over 8 weeks. That is not a vitiligo-specific safety study. Neither figure estimates one person’s risk, or how often a reaction happens in someone using calcipotriene for vitiligo alongside phototherapy.

Tell both the prescriber and phototherapy team. The calcipotriene label tells patients applying it to sun-exposed skin to avoid excessive natural or artificial sunlight. It separately tells physicians they may wish to limit or avoid phototherapy in patients using this product. That is a direct tension with the off-label vitiligo practice of pairing calcipotriene with narrowband UVB - the exact combination most of the vitiligo evidence is about. That conflict needs an explicit, coordinated answer; it is not permission to combine them on your own.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is the current US calcipotriene label. The other is the 2021 UK vitiligo guideline. Neither reports a study population for this point.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The label sets a US caution against added ultraviolet exposure. It separately tells physicians they may wish to limit or avoid phototherapy in patients using this product. Vitiligo research on this medicine studies it paired with phototherapy - the same combination the label cautions about. Neither source resolves this conflict for one person. That needs a coordinated prescriber and phototherapy plan.

Diet and supplements are one of the things people I have heard from ask about most. No specific diet is proven to stop vitiligo or restore color. Nutritious food can support your general health. A diagnosed deficiency or another condition may need its own care. Neither creates one “vitiligo diet” for everyone.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is the 2021 UK vitiligo guideline, written for UK clinical care. The other is US patient education from NIAMS. Neither is a study of a diet and neither reports a study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: Neither source is a study of a diet in people with vitiligo. Both are guidance pages that describe treatment types in general terms. Neither names, tests or rules out any one diet. This claim states a gap in the guidance, not a group result.

These general consumer sources describe variable evidence, product content, interaction, and contamination risks. They do not establish a vitiligo repigmentation benefit.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: The cited 2020 systematic review of nutrition, supplement and herbal-based adjunctive therapies for vitiligo covers 26 studies. It does not give a combined participant count across them. The BAD guideline and the NCCIH supplement page are guidance, not studies, and report no sample.
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The review calls its own studies mixed, and most tested a supplement alongside another treatment, not alone. It does not say who paid for them. It does not check any one product for quality or safety. The other two sources are guidance and general consumer pages, not vitiligo safety studies. Together they support that the evidence is thin and that unregulated products carry real risk. None of them gives a rate for that risk.

The case for it rests on one small trial. Cochrane analyzed a trial of 47 people in which oral ginkgo did better than placebo. The 2020 review named it the one supplement it rated promising on its own rather than alongside light. That is where the evidence stops.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: The trial behind this finding enrolled 47 people. Cochrane analyzed it inside its review of 96 vitiligo trials covering 4,512 people overall. The 2020 supplement review names the same finding without giving a separate participant count.
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: This is one small trial inside a larger review. No age, skin tone, geography, race or ethnicity is reported for it. It shows ginkgo did better than placebo, and it stops there. No one checked whether the result lasted two years. Forty-seven people is not proof that a bottle on a shelf will do the same.

The main trial points that way without proving it. Fifty people took the extract or a placebo alongside narrowband UVB. Repigmentation on the head and neck was 44 per cent with the extract and 27 per cent with placebo. The authors report that as P = 0.06, which does not clear the usual bar.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Vitiligo vulgaris. The trial does not break its result down by a further subtype.
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: 50 people with vitiligo vulgaris, randomly assigned to oral Polypodium leucotomos extract or placebo, each alongside narrowband UVB, for 25 to 26 weeks.
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Head and neck repigmentation was 44% with the extract versus 27% with placebo (P = 0.06). Trunk, arms and legs, and hands and feet moved by 4 to 6 percentage points each, and none of those differences were significant.

What that means for this page: This is one trial of 50 people, not a pooled review. It names no age, skin tone, race or ethnicity for its group. Its head-and-neck result is a trend, not a proven effect. It tested the extract only together with narrowband UVB, never alone. The authors’ idea that lighter skin might respond more is a passing comment, not a checked result.

Nothing published shows that. The study people cite is a 2013 pilot of 16 people with vitiligo. It had no placebo group and nobody was blinded. The authors report repigmentation in 14 of the 16, and a study built that way cannot show what caused it.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: The authors report that 14 of the 16 people with vitiligo had between 25 and 75 per cent repigmentation; the study does not grade baseline severity or extent before treatment.
Sample size: 16 people with vitiligo and 9 with psoriasis (25 people total), in an open-label study with no control group and no blinding, over six months.
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: This is one pilot of 25 people, 16 of them with vitiligo, with no control group and no blinding. No age, skin tone, geography, race or ethnicity is reported for the group. The authors say they left out a comparison group on purpose. So the study cannot show that vitamin D caused the change it recorded. I do not treat it as evidence you can act on.

It has a name, the Coimbra protocol, and it comes from the group behind that 2013 pilot. Its own safety paper reports normal average blood results in 319 people. It states its conclusion as safety under supervision by experienced doctors, with a strict diet and a fluid requirement alongside it. I do not publish the amounts, the diet or the tests.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: The safety series covers 319 people with a range of autoimmune conditions; vitiligo is not analyzed as its own group within it. The NIH fact sheet is general consumer guidance and never mentions vitiligo.
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: 319 people with autoimmune conditions, treated for up to three and a half years, in the safety series. The NIH fact sheet is not a study and reports no sample.
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The safety series checks blood and kidney results in 319 people with autoimmune disease of many kinds. It is not about vitiligo, and it does not measure repigmentation. The doctors who treat these patients wrote it themselves; nobody outside checked their work. Its safety finding only holds under the close supervision, diet and monitoring it describes. The NIH page is general guidance about vitamin D and never mentions vitiligo or this protocol.

A cream was. A 2022 pilot randomized 30 people to a turmeric cream or a placebo cream, one on each side of the body, and 24 finished. The treated patches improved more than the placebo ones. Nothing in it tests turmeric swallowed as a capsule or eaten as a spice.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Mild to moderate vitiligo, as described by the authors. The trial does not further subtype by pattern.
Severity or extent: Described by the authors as mild to moderate vitiligo; no further severity grading is reported.
Sample size: 30 people entered this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot; 24 finished. Each person used the turmeric cream on one side of the body and a placebo cream on the other, over four months.
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Applied topically, one side of the body per person against a placebo cream on the other side; the trial does not name which specific body sites were treated.

What that means for this page: This is one pilot of 30 people; 24 finished it. No age, skin tone, geography, race or ethnicity is reported for the group. It tested a cream put on the skin, not turmeric taken by mouth or eaten as a spice. The authors call it a pilot, and thirty people is not enough to prove a benefit beyond the mild-to-moderate patches it describes.

You deserve a specific answer about the exact product - not a judgment based only on the tradition’s name. I used an Ayurvedic treatment called Switra Niwarane on a patch over my eyelid, consistently, and that spot repigmented. It was pills together with a powder mixed into a paste with lemon juice, applied to the skin and then put in morning or evening sunlight. That is what happened to me, and it is not a regimen for you. I do not publish what I took or for how long. Paste plus sunlight is the same principle as PUVA and other photosensitizer-plus-UV treatments. If you are considering something like it, ask the seller for a heavy-metal test certificate and tell your dermatologist what you are using. Never apply it and then use a phototherapy lamp the same day without your clinician knowing. These general consumer sources do not establish a vitiligo repigmentation benefit, and some products can cause harm.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: Both sources are general US health pages, not vitiligo trials. Neither names a study group, place, skin tone, race, ethnicity or body site. They support that Ayurvedic products can vary in quality and sometimes hold toxic metals. They also support that homeopathy has no proven effect for any condition. That is general safety context, not a vitiligo finding about any one product.

Reviews of acupuncture for vitiligo do report possible benefit, and they are weak enough that the finding cannot be relied on. An overview of the published systematic reviews found critical methodological and reporting weaknesses and mixed certainty across them.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: This is an overview of published reviews about acupuncture for vitiligo, not one study. It gives no combined group size, age, place, skin tone, race or ethnicity for what those reviews covered. It reports that the reviews it looked at have real problems with their methods and their reporting. That is why I treat any reported benefit as unreliable, not a result to expect.

They may support wellbeing, coping, sleep, or stress for some people, even though there is not evidence that they repigment vitiligo. These are optional supports - not proof that stress caused your vitiligo or that coping better will change its course.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: Neither source is a trial of a coping practice. Both are guidance telling clinicians to notice mental-health effects and offer support. Neither names a study group. Neither claims that any one practice repigments vitiligo or has been measured for wellbeing in a defined group.

In each of two controlled Opzelura trials, 29.9% of participants reached at least 75% improvement in facial vitiligo at Week 24, compared with 7.5% and 12.9% using vehicle cream. Across the whole body, 20.6% and 23.9% reached at least 50% improvement, compared with 5.1% and 6.8%.

Age range: Age 12 years and older; 11% were age 12–17 and 7% were age 65 or older.
Condition subtype: Nonsegmental vitiligo.
Severity or extent: At least 0.5% facial and at least 3% non-facial body-surface involvement, with total vitiligo involvement up to 10%.
Sample size: 674 participants across two randomized trials.
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Fitzpatrick I 2%, II 30%, III 40%, IV 19%, V 7%, and VI 2%.
Race: 82% White, 5% Black, 4% Asian, and 9% other races.
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: The primary outcome was facial repigmentation; total-body assessment included face, hands, feet, limbs, and trunk.

What that means for this page: These controlled results apply most directly to people resembling the trial population. They do not establish the same response for segmental vitiligo, greater body-surface involvement, younger children, every body site, or an individual patient.

The current Opzelura label lists common vitiligo-trial reactions and carries boxed warnings and other material precautions; some boxed-warning evidence comes from oral JAK-inhibitor studies in a different population.

Age range: Age 12 years and older; 11% were age 12–17 and 7% were age 65 or older.
Condition subtype: Nonsegmental vitiligo.
Severity or extent: At least 0.5% facial and at least 3% non-facial body-surface involvement, with total vitiligo involvement up to 10%.
Sample size: 674 participants across two randomized trials.
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Fitzpatrick I 2%, II 30%, III 40%, IV 19%, V 7%, and VI 2%.
Race: 82% White, 5% Black, 4% Asian, and 9% other races.
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: The primary outcome was facial repigmentation; total-body assessment included face, hands, feet, limbs, and trunk.

What that means for this page: Common-reaction data came from the vitiligo program, while several serious boxed-warning observations came from oral JAK-inhibitor studies in older rheumatoid-arthritis populations with cardiovascular risk. The label applies those warnings to Opzelura, but the evidence contexts must not be treated as identical or used to calculate personal risk.

Guidelines and a systematic review support discussing topical calcineurin inhibitors for vitiligo, but heterogeneous studies do not make tacrolimus and Elidel (pimecrolimus) interchangeable or predict one patch’s response.

Age range: Pending exact source review
Condition subtype: Pending exact source review
Severity or extent: Pending exact source review
Sample size: Pending exact source review
Geography and care setting: Pending exact source review
Skin tone or phototype: Pending exact source review
Race: Pending exact source review
Ethnicity: Pending exact source review
Body sites: Pending exact source review

What that means for this page: The pooled review spans different ages, products, body sites, durations, and combinations. Exact study-population extraction remains pending, so this draft cannot support a product-specific or individual response estimate.

The current tacrolimus ointment label describes local reactions, a boxed warning, and ultraviolet precautions in its labeled atopic-dermatitis context; vitiligo use is off-label.

Age range: Pending exact source review
Condition subtype: Pending exact source review
Severity or extent: Pending exact source review
Sample size: Pending exact source review
Geography and care setting: Pending exact source review
Skin tone or phototype: Pending exact source review
Race: Pending exact source review
Ethnicity: Pending exact source review
Body sites: Pending exact source review

What that means for this page: The label is for atopic dermatitis rather than vitiligo, and exact population and body-site extraction remains pending. It supports a safety boundary, not a vitiligo-specific adverse-event rate or personal risk estimate.

Guidelines support selected topical corticosteroids for limited vitiligo, but one studied mometasone-and-light combination cannot establish benefit for every steroid, formulation, or body area.

Age range: Pending exact source review
Condition subtype: Pending exact source review
Severity or extent: Pending exact source review
Sample size: Pending exact source review
Geography and care setting: Pending exact source review
Skin tone or phototype: Pending exact source review
Race: Pending exact source review
Ethnicity: Pending exact source review
Body sites: Pending exact source review

What that means for this page: The guideline and HI-Light trial cover defined but different populations and treatment contexts. Exact extraction remains pending, and the evidence cannot be transferred to every steroid product, formulation, body site, or plan.

Current mometasone, clobetasol, and betamethasone labels describe local and systemic risks that depend on the exact ingredient, formulation, body area, exposure, and patient context.

Age range: Pending exact source review
Condition subtype: Pending exact source review
Severity or extent: Pending exact source review
Sample size: Pending exact source review
Geography and care setting: Pending exact source review
Skin tone or phototype: Pending exact source review
Race: Pending exact source review
Ethnicity: Pending exact source review
Body sites: Pending exact source review

What that means for this page: These are product-label safety boundaries across different labeled skin conditions, not vitiligo-specific event rates. Exact population and body-site extraction remains pending and the products are not interchangeable.

The current calcipotriene label describes local skin reactions, calcium-related and ultraviolet precautions, an instruction not to use the cream on the face, and hypercalcemia or vitamin D toxicity contraindications in its labeled psoriasis context; those facts do not establish vitiligo benefit.

Age range: Pending exact source review
Condition subtype: Pending exact source review
Severity or extent: Pending exact source review
Sample size: Pending exact source review
Geography and care setting: Pending exact source review
Skin tone or phototype: Pending exact source review
Race: Pending exact source review
Ethnicity: Pending exact source review
Body sites: Pending exact source review

What that means for this page: The label is for psoriasis rather than vitiligo. Exact population and body-site extraction remains pending, and it cannot establish a vitiligo-specific adverse-event rate or personal risk estimate.

The American Academy of Dermatology says to avoid tanning, indoors and outdoors. Its reason runs the opposite way from the idea. Tanning increases the contrast between your natural color and the light spots and patches, so vitiligo becomes more noticeable.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: One source is AAD patient education, which discloses support from Incyte Dermatology. The other is a WHO/WMO/UNEP public-health guide. Neither reports a study population.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: Neither source measured anyone with vitiligo who tanned the rest of their skin. The AAD page states the contrast reason and, separately, that a bad sunburn can worsen vitiligo, without a figure for either. The WHO guide lists a suntan being healthy or protective as a common misconception, not a study finding. Neither source can tell one person how much contrast their own tanning would create.

One evidence record, 5 statements

You are being asked to give up months to this, so here are the numbers rather than adjectives. A 2017 review pooled narrowband UVB studies: 29 in all, covering 1201 people. But each bar and time point uses only the studies that reported it, so the pools below are smaller. The review kept people who stopped early where it could. Otherwise it counted the group described at the final assessment. Two bars were reported: At least a quarter of the pigment back: 62.1% of people at 3 months, 74.2% at 6 months, 75.0% at 12 months. At least three quarters back: 13.0% at 3 months, 19.2% at 6 months, 35.7% at 12 months.

No, and the gap is wide enough to change what you should expect. The same review pooled narrowband UVB results by body area after at least 6 months. At least three quarters of the pigment came back for: Face and neck: 44.2% of 153 people in 5 studies. Trunk: 26.1% of 134 people in 5 studies. Arms and legs, hands and feet excluded: 17.3% of 162 people in 5 studies. Hands and feet: nobody. None of 172 people in 6 studies reached that bar.

Because one whole-body percentage hides the differences that matter to you. I read a 2017 review that pooled narrowband UVB results by area after at least 6 months. At least three quarters of the pigment came back for: Face and neck: 44.2% of 153 people in 5 studies. Trunk: 26.1% of 134 people in 5 studies. Arms and legs, hands and feet excluded: 17.3% of 162 people in 5 studies. Hands and feet: none of 172 people in 6 studies.

No, and the pooled numbers show how far apart they are. Nobody in the hands-and-feet group reached the near-complete bar, against 44.2% for face and neck. A treatment can still be worth it for one priority area while another area carries a different expectation.

Age range: Three of the pooled studies enrolled children only, 8 enrolled adults only, and 24 enrolled all ages. Reported mean ages ran from about 10 to about 49 years, and individual ages from 3 to 77.
Condition subtype: Generalized or nonsegmental vitiligo. Segmental vitiligo was not the subject of this pooled review.
Severity or extent: Extent requirements differed by study. Some required at least 2% of body surface, others 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% or more. Many studies did not state an extent.
Sample size: 1428 people across 35 prospective studies. 1201 people in 29 studies received narrowband UVB, and 227 people in 9 studies received PUVA.
Geography and care setting: The pooled studies came from Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Egypt, England, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Korea, Nepal, Norway, the Netherlands, Tunisia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. All were prospective studies, so treatment was given in a study setting.
Skin tone or phototype: Fitzpatrick skin types were listed study by study and spanned types I to VI, most often types II to V. Several studies did not record skin type.
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: For narrowband UVB, face and neck, trunk, extremities, and hands and feet were pooled separately after at least 6 months. PUVA was not pooled by body site, because too few of the studies reported it.

What that means for this page: These are pooled averages for groups of people in studies published up to January 2016. They describe what happened to those groups. They are not a prediction for you or for one patch, and the review sets no device, schedule or dose. Because the pooling combined single treatment arms, these percentages are not a measured difference against no treatment.

The research does not say. The largest pooled review of narrowband UVB counted how many people had responded at 6 months and at 12 months. But each count came from a different set of studies. It never followed one group of early responders to see how many later stalled. A plateau in your own course is still real. How common that is across everyone is not something these numbers can show.

Age range: Three of the pooled studies enrolled children only, 8 enrolled adults only, and 24 enrolled all ages. Reported mean ages ran from about 10 to about 49 years, and individual ages from 3 to 77.
Condition subtype: Generalized or nonsegmental vitiligo. Segmental vitiligo was not the subject of this pooled review.
Severity or extent: Extent requirements differed by study. Some required at least 2% of body surface, others 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% or more. Many studies did not state an extent.
Sample size: 1428 people across 35 prospective studies. 1201 people in 29 studies received narrowband UVB, and 227 people in 9 studies received PUVA.
Geography and care setting: The pooled studies came from Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Egypt, England, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Korea, Nepal, Norway, the Netherlands, Tunisia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. All were prospective studies, so treatment was given in a study setting.
Skin tone or phototype: Fitzpatrick skin types were listed study by study and spanned types I to VI, most often types II to V. Several studies did not record skin type.
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: For narrowband UVB, face and neck, trunk, extremities, and hands and feet were pooled separately after at least 6 months. PUVA was not pooled by body site, because too few of the studies reported it.

What that means for this page: The 2017 review pooled separate sets of studies at 3, 6 and 12 months. It did not follow one group of early responders to count how many later stalled. The 2023 Task Force statement is expert consensus, not a patient group. Together they cannot say how common a plateau is, whether one person has reached one, or what comes next.

The same pooled review answers that, if you read its percentages the other way round. At 12 months it reports two separate pools. One is 512 people across 8 studies, for the quarter-back bar. The other is 540 people across 9 studies, for the three-quarters bar: 25.0% had less than a quarter of their pigment back. About one person in four. That is the 75.0% our phototherapy page publishes, taken away from 100. 64.3% had less than three quarters back, from the same page’s 35.7%. On hands and feet, pooled separately after at least 6 months, 89.0% had less than a quarter back, from that page’s 11.0%. Nobody reached three quarters.

Age range: Three of the pooled studies enrolled children only, 8 enrolled adults only, and 24 enrolled all ages. Reported mean ages ran from about 10 to about 49 years, and individual ages from 3 to 77.
Condition subtype: Generalized or nonsegmental vitiligo. Segmental vitiligo was not the subject of this pooled review.
Severity or extent: Extent requirements differed by study. Some required at least 2% of body surface, others 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% or more. Many studies did not state an extent.
Sample size: The review as a whole pooled 1201 people across 29 narrowband UVB studies. Each figure inverted here rests on a smaller subset. The 12-month quarter-back bar used 512 people in 8 studies. The three-quarters bar used 540 people in 9 studies. The hands-and-feet pool used 172 people in 6 studies.
Geography and care setting: The pooled studies came from Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Egypt, England, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Korea, Nepal, Norway, the Netherlands, Tunisia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. All were prospective studies, so treatment was given in a study setting.
Skin tone or phototype: Fitzpatrick skin types were listed study by study and spanned types I to VI, most often types II to V. Several studies did not record skin type.
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: For narrowband UVB, face and neck, trunk, extremities, and hands and feet were pooled separately after at least 6 months. PUVA was not pooled by body site, because too few of the studies reported it.

What that means for this page: These are arithmetic complements of pooled group averages, not a second pooling. The studies were published up to January 2016. The review kept people who stopped early where it could, and otherwise counted the group at final assessment. So a pooled figure is not guaranteed to hold everyone enrolled. The single-arm pooling had no untreated comparison. The review does not report how many people worsened. None of this predicts one person or one patch.

Maintenance means continuing some treatment after a response settles, to try to hold the result. After a plateau, a prescriber may continue, taper, pause, or stop the course. That decision belongs to your prescriber, working from your record and current guidance.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: The narrowband UVB guideline is written for UK phototherapy services, in clinic and at home. The Task Force statement is a worldwide expert position for primary and specialist care. Neither reports a study population of its own.
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: The narrowband UVB guideline notes that likely response varies by site, giving the face and trunk against the hands and feet as the example. Neither document reports a patient group for this plan-review point.

What that means for this page: These are consensus guidance documents, not a study of one group of people. They ask the prescribing team to review the response so far, from photographs and the person’s record, and to weigh the risks and burden of a longer course. The Task Force adds that evidence for narrowband UVB as a maintenance treatment is limited. They set no schedule or dose and estimate no outcome or risk for any one person.

Narrowband UVB can cause erythema, including painful sunburn-type reactions, and requires a defined reaction and contact plan.

Age range: Not reported
Condition subtype: Not reported
Severity or extent: Not reported
Sample size: Not reported
Geography and care setting: Not reported
Skin tone or phototype: Not reported
Race: Not reported
Ethnicity: Not reported
Body sites: Not reported

What that means for this page: The cited guidance establishes a general safety boundary. It does not quantify risk or establish that every age, condition, care setting, skin tone, or body site is represented.

Evidence behind this page

Sources

Each evidence badge opens the source and its limits. The full list stays available here.

Phothera Product Manuals (opens in a new tab)
Phothera PhototherapyManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
Published
Mar 3, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the current first-party route to Phothera device and accessory manuals and shows that instructions are model- and controller-specific.
What it does not support
It does not establish clinical suitability, comparative benefit, the condition of an individual unit, or that one manual applies to a related or legacy model; each exact linked manual and revision still requires verification.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Solarc/SolRx E-Series UVB Phototherapy System User’s Manual, revision 5.4A (opens in a new tab)
Solarc Systems Inc.Manufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
Published
Sep 18, 2020
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports one page of the named SolRx E-Series manual revision, its specifications page. That page carries the models covered, the narrowband waveband, the bulb type and count, the nominal irradiance figures with their stated caution, and the per-device electrical and fuse ratings. It does not support another SolRx family, confirm that this is the newest revision for an individual unit, establish clinical suitability, or prove comparative safety or effectiveness; the owner must verify the exact current manual with Solarc.
What it does not support
The linked file is that one page, not the whole manual. It does not carry the installation, protective-equipment, maintenance or support sections that the rest of the manual holds.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Zerigo Health Terms of Use (opens in a new tab)
Zerigo Health, Inc.Manufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
Published
Mar 6, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Zerigo’s current first-party description of its United States prescription device, required mobile application, Member Guide, Care Guide support, data-enabled service model, transfer restrictions, and distinction between technical support and medical advice.
What it does not support
It does not independently establish comparative benefit, coverage, privacy quality, clinical suitability, or that the program terms will remain unchanged.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Class 2 Device Recall: Photera 600 (opens in a new tab)
U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Jul 15, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that FDA posted an open Class II recall record for the exact Phothera 600/ClearLink population identified in that record and directs potentially affected owners to the firm’s official notice and technical-service route.
What it does not support
It does not apply to every Phothera product, every controller or every home phototherapy device, and it must not be used without checking the exact current model, unit identifiers, software scope, dates, and recall status in the live FDA record.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Reporting Serious Problems to FDA (opens in a new tab)
U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Jul 31, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that patients, consumers, and health professionals can use FDA MedWatch to report serious reactions, product-quality problems, product-use errors, and other serious problems involving human medical products, including medical devices.
What it does not support
It does not determine whether a report is required, prove causation, replace clinical care, or replace the manufacturer’s equipment-support route.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Frequently Asked Questions: phototherapy device and lamp disposal (opens in a new tab)
Phothera PhototherapyManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
Published
Jul 9, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Phothera’s current first-party statement that it does not purchase, resell, accept, or dispose of used devices and that owners should use local device-recycling and mercury-containing-lamp routes.
What it does not support
It does not establish the law or available collection service in a reader’s jurisdiction, confirm the composition of an unverified lamp, apply to another manufacturer, or authorize a person to remove or repair hardware.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Recycling and Disposal of CFLs and Other Bulbs that Contain Mercury (opens in a new tab)
U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Nov 26, 2025
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports EPA’s United States consumer recommendation to use available local recycling for fluorescent and other mercury-containing lamps and its warning that state and local requirements can be stricter.
What it does not support
It does not show that every phototherapy light source contains mercury, identify an individual lamp, select a recycler, or replace current state, local, facility, or manufacturer instructions.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Cleaning Up a Broken CFL: recommendations for a CFL or other mercury-containing bulb (opens in a new tab)
U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Oct 16, 2025
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports current United States household guidance for keeping people and pets away and following source-specific cleanup, ventilation, collection, and local-disposal steps after a mercury-containing bulb breaks.
What it does not support
It does not confirm that an individual phototherapy lamp contains mercury, cover every commercial or clinical setting, replace local requirements, address device repair, or triage an injury or possible exposure.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
21 CFR 801.109 - Prescription devices (opens in a new tab)
Electronic Code of Federal RegulationsRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Jul 31, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the federal prescription-device labeling and distribution framework.
What it does not support
It does not decide whether a specific private transaction is lawful, replace state law, authorize a seller, transfer a prescription, or establish that a used unit is safe or supported.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Patient Frequently Asked Questions (opens in a new tab)
PhotheraManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Jan 1, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: This is first-party support information from a device manufacturer.
What this source supports
Supports the manufacturer-specific route of contacting the prescribing office when a Phothera unit indicates that authorization is needed.
What it does not support
It does not authorize treatment, apply to another manufacturer, or support inventing, storing, bypassing or reproducing an authorization code.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Vitiligo: How to make it less visible and prevent spreading (opens in a new tab)
American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
Published
Apr 15, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 22, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports patient-facing context that skin which has lost its color can burn readily and that shade, clothing and labeled sunscreen use are broad protection options. It also supports that for some people a skin injury triggers new spots or patches, and it names cuts, scrapes and burns. The wound a tattoo makes can lead to the Koebner phenomenon, with new spots appearing about 10 to 14 days later. It supports that a tattoo added for pigment may not blend with natural skin color, that its color can eventually bleed, and that the vitiligo underneath can spread over time. It supports the page telling readers to avoid tanning, indoors and outdoors, because tanning increases the contrast between natural skin color and the light spots and patches. That is what it says makes vitiligo more noticeable. It supports that tanning beds, sun lamps and other indoor tanning devices are not safe alternatives to the sun. Like the sun, they can burn skin that has lost pigment and worsen vitiligo. It supports that a bad sunburn can worsen vitiligo, and that on a lighter skin tone untanned skin often makes the spots and patches less noticeable. It supports that self-tanners and skin dyes tend to last 3 to 5 days, against one day for makeup. It names dihydroxyacetone as the ingredient to look for, and says natural-looking results take practice. It supports that vitiligo increases the risk of some other diseases such as thyroid disease, and that a dermatologist can monitor for them.
What it does not support
The page acknowledges support from Incyte Dermatology, so it does not independently establish treatment efficacy. It does not establish a personalized sun plan, a product ranking or a treatment-day instruction. It gives no frequency for injury-related patches and no way to tell in advance who they happen to. It gives no measure of how much tanning changes contrast, no threshold for a bad sunburn, and no way to tell whether one person’s vitiligo will worsen. It compares no tanning device with prescribed narrowband UVB and establishes nothing about medical phototherapy. It names no product or brand for camouflage, self-tanner or skin dye.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Worldwide expert recommendations for the diagnosis and management of vitiligo: International Vitiligo Task Force Part 2 (opens in a new tab)
Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and VenereologyGuideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Sep 15, 2023
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The journal is the publisher. This label refers to extensive author relationships disclosed for the recommendation, not to the journal itself.
What this source supports
Supports an expert-consensus map of established, off-label and developing Vitiligo treatment categories and makes clear that research is continuing.
What it does not support
It is an international consensus with extensive author relationships, not independent comparative proof, current U.S. regulatory status for every option or a personal treatment sequence.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Global Solar UV Index: A Practical Guide (opens in a new tab)
World Health Organization, with the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation ProtectionGuideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Jun 13, 2002
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 21, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that the Global Solar UV Index is a measure of the ultraviolet level at the Earth’s surface. It names six things that change that level. The first is sun elevation. The higher the sun, the higher the level, so it varies with time of day and time of year. Outside the tropics the highest levels come at around solar noon in the summer months. The second is latitude, and the closer to equatorial regions the higher the levels. The third is cloud cover. Levels are highest under cloudless skies, but can still be high under cloud, because scattering can act like reflection from a surface. The fourth is altitude. A thinner atmosphere absorbs less, and levels rise by 10% to 12% for every 1000 metres. The fifth is ozone, which varies over the year and even across a day. The sixth is ground reflection. Fresh snow can reflect as much as 80% of ultraviolet, sea foam about 25%, and dry beach sand about 15%. It supports that the ultraviolet region covers 100 to 400 nm. It divides into UVA at 315 to 400 nm, UVB at 280 to 315 nm and UVC at 100 to 280 nm. All UVC and about 90% of UVB are absorbed by ozone, water vapour, oxygen and carbon dioxide. It supports that the maximum level falls in the four-hour period around solar noon. Solar noon falls between local noon and 2 p.m., depending on location and on daylight saving. It supports an international presentation in five categories. They are low at 1 and 2, moderate at 3 to 5, high at 6 and 7, very high at 8 to 10, and extreme at 11 and above. It supports that up to 80% of solar ultraviolet can penetrate light cloud cover. It supports that haze can even increase exposure. It supports that water offers only minimal protection, and that reflections from water can enhance exposure. It supports that levels are generally lower in winter. It supports that snow reflection can double overall exposure, especially at high altitude. It names early spring, when temperatures are low and the rays are unexpectedly strong. It carries a table of common misconceptions. That table includes a suntan being healthy, a tan protecting you, being unable to burn on a cloudy day, being unable to burn while in the water, and winter ultraviolet not being dangerous.
What it does not support
It is an educational and reporting guide for authorities and media, not a trial. It was published in 2002, and its reflectance and altitude figures are stated without a measurement range. It never mentions vitiligo. It measures nothing about skin where pigment has been lost, so it supports no statement about depigmented patches. It sets no exposure time for any person and predicts nothing for one. Its sun-protection categories are recommendations this site reports rather than issues. Nothing on it describes a prescribed course of phototherapy, and nothing on it is used here to weigh one.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Wood lamp skin examination (opens in a new tab)
DermNet (A/Prof Amanda Oakley, Dermatologist, Hamilton, New Zealand)Patient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Jun 20, 2024
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 21, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that a Wood lamp examination is a diagnostic test. Skin or hair is examined while exposed to the black light a Wood lamp emits. It supports that black light is invisible to the naked eye. It sits in the ultraviolet spectrum, at a wavelength just shorter than the colour violet. It supports that the lamp glows violet in a dark environment. That is because it also emits some light in the violet part of the spectrum. It supports that a traditional Wood lamp is a low-output mercury arc covered by a Wood filter. That filter is barium silicate and 9% nickel oxide. It supports that the lamp emits wavelength 320 to 450 nm, with a peak at 365 nm. It supports that a Baltimore physicist, Robert W. Wood, invented it in 1903. It supports that modern black light sources may be specially designed BLB fluorescent lamps. They may also be mercury vapour lamps, light-emitting diodes or incandescent lamps. It supports that fluorescent black light tubes carry a dark blue filter coating. That coating filters out most visible light. It supports that fluorescence is a coloured glow. It is seen when certain substances absorb black light and emit it again at a longer wavelength in the visible spectrum. It names collagen and porphyrins as such substances. It supports that items on the skin surface can also fluoresce. It names fabric, topical medications and soap residue. It supports that skin to be examined should ideally not have been recently washed. It should ideally not have had makeup, deodorant or moisturising cream applied. Those can fluoresce and cause a false positive result. It supports that room lights are turned off and the surroundings darkened completely. It supports that the examiner waits to adapt to the dark. The lamp is then held about 10 to 30 cm away and the skin examined for a few seconds. It states that the examination is painless and safe. It supports that normal healthy skin is slightly blue under the lamp. It shows white spots where skin is thickened, yellow where it is oily and purple where it is dehydrated. It supports that clothing lint often shines bright white. It supports that a Wood lamp is used to identify the extent of pigmented or depigmented patches, and to detect fluorescence. It supports that loss of pigmentation, giving vitiligo as its example, is one of the things a Wood lamp may reveal. It reports that use as identifying affected areas in light-skinned people. It supports that hypopigmented skin has sharper borders under black light. It supports that hypopigmented skin fluoresces bright blue-white, or sometimes yellowish green, due to accumulated biopterins. It supports that the black light emitted by a Wood lamp is harmless. It supports that the lamp does not emit short-wavelength ultraviolet B radiation at 290 to 320 nm. So it does not cause sunburn or otherwise damage healthy skin. It supports that a patient with extreme photosensitivity might develop a rash on skin exposed to black light. It adds that the examination is usually very brief, and unlikely to cause problems even in very photosensitive patients. It supports that it is prudent to ask the patient to close their eyes when the face is examined. It supports that nightclubs use a Wood lamp to check fluorescent re-entry stamps. That sits in a list of non-medical uses that also names law enforcement, banks and gemology.
What it does not support
It is a dermatology reference page, not a trial and not a measurement of any one person. Its statement that black light is harmless describes a medical Wood lamp used briefly at 10 to 30 cm. It measures no venue light fitting and no evening of exposure. It sets no safe length of time under any lamp. That statement also rests on the absence of ultraviolet B, which is what causes sunburn. It is not a finding about skin where pigment has been lost. It reports the vitiligo use as identifying affected areas in light-skinned people. It grades nothing about how visible a patch is to another person. It names no lighting product sold for a venue and measures no output from one. It puts ultraviolet B at 290 to 320 nm, where the World Health Organization guide registered here puts it at 280 to 315 nm. Nothing on it identifies a rash on a reader or directs the care of one. It says nothing about a course of narrowband UVB prescribed by a clinician. Its author line is dated August 2014 and the page records a last review of 11 July 2023, so parts of it are older than the revision date registered here.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Wood lamp examination (opens in a new tab)
MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of MedicinePatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Oct 14, 2024
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 21, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that a Wood lamp examination is a test that uses ultraviolet light to look at the skin closely. It supports that Black light test and Ultraviolet light test are alternative names for the same examination. It supports that the test is usually done in a dermatologist’s office, and that you sit in a dark room for it. It supports that the doctor holds the lamp 4 to 5 inches, or 10 to 12.5 cm, from the skin to look for colour changes. It supports that you will have no discomfort during the test. It supports that no special steps are needed beforehand, beyond a doctor’s instruction about creams or medicines on the skin. It supports that the test is done to look for bacterial infections, fungal infections and porphyria. It supports that it is also done to look for skin colouring changes, naming vitiligo and some skin cancers. It supports that not all types of bacteria and fungi show up under the light. It supports that normally the skin will not shine under the ultraviolet light. It supports that the exam may help a doctor confirm a fungal or bacterial infection, or diagnose vitiligo. It supports that it may also help a doctor learn what is causing light or dark coloured spots on skin. It supports that washing the skin before the test may cause a false-negative result. It supports that a room that is not dark enough can change the result. It supports that other materials glow under the light. It names some deodorants, make-up, soaps and sometimes lint. It supports that the risk it lists is to the eye. It says not to look directly into the ultraviolet light, as the light may harm the eye.
What it does not support
It is a consumer medical encyclopedia entry, not a trial. It describes a brief examination in a clinician’s office. It measures nothing about a light fitting in a public place, and gives no length of time that is safe under any lamp. It publishes no wavelength and never explains why skin without pigment looks different under the light. It measures nothing about how visible a patch is to another person. It does not diagnose vitiligo on its own, and says only that the exam may help a doctor do so. It lists no risk to skin at all, which is an absence of a statement rather than a finding of safety. Its content is written and reviewed by A.D.A.M. for the National Library of Medicine, and its stated review date of 14 October 2024 is what fixes its currency.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Non-invasive skin measurement methods and diagnostics for vitiligo: a systematic review (opens in a new tab)
Frontiers in Medicine (Abdi P, Anthony MR, Farkouh C, Chan AR, Kooner A, Qureshi S, Maibach H)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
Published
Jul 27, 2023
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 22, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that a Wood lamp is a handheld device. It emits long-wave ultraviolet light. It supports a range of 320 to 450 nm, with a peak at 365 nm. It supports that the lamp carries a magnifying lens. It supports that patches outlined under a Wood lamp were much more prominent. That led to finding new patches not seen in ordinary light. It also led to finding that known patches had spread. It supports that the review grades the method as low cost, painless and easy to use. It grades it as rapid, portable and non-radiative, with results in real time. It supports that the review grades four limits. The first is false negative results, above all in darker skin tones. The second is that the result depends on the operator. The third is that lighting can limit it. The fourth is that uneven skin colour makes the spread of pale skin hard to judge. It supports one further point, made in the review’s section on ultraviolet light photography. Vitiligo shows up well in those photographs because the skin fluoresces more. That is because the pigment that would sit over it is gone.
What it does not support
It is a systematic review of ways to measure and diagnose vitiligo in people who already have it. It is not a trial. It measures nothing on any one reader. Its Wood lamp material sits inside the section on ultraviolet light photography. There is no separate Wood lamp section. Its sentence about fluorescence and missing pigment is written about photography. So it is not a Wood lamp finding. It is not a statement about what in the skin makes the glow. It never names biopterins and does not settle that question. It describes a clinical exam. It measures no venue light fitting. It sets no length of time that is safe under any lamp. It carries no finding about harm to skin or eyes from a black light. So it supports no part of a safety conclusion. It measures nothing about how visible a patch is to another person. Its false negative limit in darker skin tones is a limit of the method. It is not a prediction about any reader.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
TRANQUILLO: Litfulo (ritlecitinib) in Adults and Adolescents With Active or Stable Nonsegmental Vitiligo (opens in a new tab)
ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of MedicineTrial registry · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Feb 27, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 16, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: ClinicalTrials.gov and the National Library of Medicine host the record. The study sponsor supplies the registered study information, so the host name does not make the trial independent.
What this source supports
Supports a sponsor-run phase 3 study of oral ritlecitinib in people age 12 or older with active or stable nonsegmental vitiligo.
What it does not support
The registry reports 607 participants, registered facial and total-body outcomes, completed status, and no posted results. A completed trial is not an FDA vitiligo approval, a published benefit-risk conclusion, a recommendation, or evidence that the medicine is available for vitiligo outside research or off-label care.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Rinvoq: EMA medicine overview and safety information (opens in a new tab)
European Medicines AgencyRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Jul 15, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 15, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the EMA safety overview, including EU restrictions concerning tuberculosis or another serious infection, severe liver problems, pregnancy, and additional caution when no suitable alternative exists for older adults or people with cardiovascular or cancer risk. It does not calculate personal risk, establish reimbursement, or supply a vitiligo regimen.
What it does not support
The product-information document linked from this page was dated before the July 24, 2026 vitiligo authorization decision and must not be treated as the source of the new vitiligo indication.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Rinvoq (upadacitinib): current US prescribing information and Medication Guide (opens in a new tab)
DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Jun 30, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for current US labeling but not independent efficacy evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the current US indications and boxed safety information.
What it does not support
Vitiligo is not among the current US indications. The label does not settle a pending application, establish approval elsewhere or create a vitiligo treatment plan.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Positive topline Phase 3 results for Litfulo in nonsegmental vitiligo (opens in a new tab)
PfizerManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Jul 30, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Pfizer manufactures Litfulo, sponsored the studies and reported the topline results before full peer-reviewed results were available.
What this source supports
Supports the manufacturer-reported result that two Phase 3 studies met prespecified facial and total-body endpoints, the stated program size of 2,174 participants across 271 sites, and planned global adult regulatory filings; exact response percentages were not released.
What it does not support
It is not peer-reviewed evidence, a regulatory decision, proof of comparative superiority or an approved vitiligo indication.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Efficacy and safety of oral ritlecitinib for the treatment of active nonsegmental vitiligo: a randomized phase 2b clinical trial (opens in a new tab)
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (Ezzedine K, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Feb 1, 2023
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 15, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Pfizer sponsored the study; several authors were Pfizer employees or consultants, and other authors disclosed company relationships.
What this source supports
Supports the randomized phase 2 design, 364 treated adults with active nonsegmental vitiligo, group-level facial outcome, reported study safety through the extension, and the explicit exclusion of people with stable-only vitiligo.
What it does not support
The sponsor-linked trial does not establish a vitiligo approval, direct superiority over another treatment, stable-vitiligo outcomes, reliable results for every body site, long-term safety or an individual result.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib in vitiligo patients across Fitzpatrick skin types with biomarker analyses (opens in a new tab)
Experimental Dermatology (Peeva E, et al.)Observational study · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Sep 1, 2024
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 16, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Pfizer sponsored the underlying study; several authors were Pfizer employees and other authors disclosed company relationships.
What this source supports
Supports a sponsor-linked analysis of the phase 2 population by Fitzpatrick skin type, including 247 people in types I–III and 117 in types IV–VI, group-level facial-score changes through the extension, and similar reported treatment-emergent-event patterns across those groups.
What it does not support
The analysis does not establish equal response for every skin tone, race or ethnicity, explain an individual result, supply phase 3 subgroup evidence, establish a vitiligo approval or replace body-site-specific evidence.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
A study of Litfulo (ritlecitinib) oral capsules in adults with nonsegmental vitiligo (active and stable), Tranquillo 2 (opens in a new tab)
ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of MedicineTrial registry · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Oct 10, 2023
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 15, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: ClinicalTrials.gov hosts the record, while Pfizer sponsors the study and supplies the registered information.
What this source supports
Supports the adult randomized phase 3 design, active and stable nonsegmental-vitiligo population, current enrollment record, study status, registered facial and total-body outcomes, and absence of posted result tables when reviewed.
What it does not support
Registration is not peer review, a regulatory decision, proof of benefit, an explanation for differing public enrollment counts or a personal treatment plan.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Litfulo (ritlecitinib): current US prescribing information and Medication Guide (opens in a new tab)
DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Jun 17, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for current US labeling but not independent efficacy evidence.
What this source supports
Supports Litfulo identity, its current US severe-alopecia indication, boxed warnings, contraindication and other label safety boundaries. Vitiligo is not among the current US indications. Also supports the recommended dosage for the approved indication: 50 mg orally once daily, with or without food, with no loading dose or titration.
What it does not support
The alopecia label does not establish a vitiligo indication, vitiligo-specific event rates, individual suitability, coverage, a vitiligo regimen or approval in another jurisdiction.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Litfulo: EMA medicine overview and product information (opens in a new tab)
European Medicines AgencyRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Sep 15, 2023
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 15, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the current European Union severe-alopecia indication and European safety overview. The reviewed European product information does not include a vitiligo indication.
What it does not support
It does not establish a later vitiligo decision, national reimbursement, a vitiligo regimen, individual suitability or status outside the European Union.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Efficacy and safety of the oral Janus kinase 1 inhibitor povorcitinib in patients with extensive vitiligo in a phase 2, randomized, double-blinded, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled study (opens in a new tab)
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (Pandya AG, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Oct 1, 2025
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 15, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte sponsored the study; several authors were Incyte employees or shareholders, and other authors disclosed company relationships.
What this source supports
Supports the randomized phase 2 design, 171 adults with extensive nonsegmental vitiligo, group-level total-body outcome, continued improvement in the extension, reported study safety and the explicit limitation of limited demographic diversity.
What it does not support
The sponsor-linked trial does not establish approval, direct superiority over another treatment, every body-site outcome, a full commercial-product safety profile, long-term safety or an individual result.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Post hoc subgroup and body region analyses of VASI outcomes among patients with vitiligo in a phase 2 povorcitinib trial (opens in a new tab)
Advances in Therapy (Passeron T, et al.)Observational study · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Jul 13, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 16, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte sponsored the underlying study; several authors were Incyte employees or shareholders and other authors disclosed company relationships.
What this source supports
Supports a descriptive post hoc analysis of 103 extension-evaluable adults who received povorcitinib throughout the phase 2 study, including subgroup reporting and week-52 VASI50 response proportions ranging from 25.8% for feet to 57.3% for head and neck outside the face.
What it does not support
The small pooled extension analysis was post hoc, descriptive and lacked a placebo comparator at week 52. It does not establish a reliable individual body-site prediction, phase 3 subgroup results, comparative superiority, approval, long-term safety or a personal treatment plan.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
A study to evaluate efficacy and safety of povorcitinib in participants with nonsegmental vitiligo (STOP-V1) (opens in a new tab)
ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of MedicineTrial registry · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Nov 2, 2023
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 15, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: ClinicalTrials.gov hosts the record, while Incyte sponsors the study and supplies the registered information.
What this source supports
Supports the adult randomized phase 3 design, nonsegmental-vitiligo eligibility, 467-person enrollment record, study status, registered facial outcome and absence of posted result tables when reviewed.
What it does not support
Registration is not peer review, a regulatory decision, a published benefit-risk conclusion or a personal treatment plan.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
A study to evaluate efficacy and safety of povorcitinib in participants with nonsegmental vitiligo (STOP-V2) (opens in a new tab)
ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of MedicineTrial registry · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Nov 2, 2023
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 15, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: ClinicalTrials.gov hosts the record, while Incyte sponsors the study and supplies the registered information.
What this source supports
Supports the adult randomized phase 3 design, nonsegmental-vitiligo eligibility, 450-person enrollment record, study status, registered facial outcome and absence of posted result tables when reviewed.
What it does not support
Registration is not peer review, a regulatory decision, a published benefit-risk conclusion or a personal treatment plan.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
First-quarter 2026 povorcitinib vitiligo Phase 3 topline update (opens in a new tab)
Incyte CorporationManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Apr 28, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 15, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte develops povorcitinib, sponsored the studies, analyzed the results and issued the topline update before full peer-reviewed results were available.
What this source supports
Supports only Incyte’s report that STOP-V1 and STOP-V2 met the facial endpoint, the stated absolute response percentages, selected topline safety language and planned future vitiligo regulatory filings.
What it does not support
The update is not peer-reviewed publication, a regulator decision, proof of availability, direct comparison with another treatment, a complete safety profile or an individual prediction.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Mometasone furoate ointment: US prescribing information (opens in a new tab)
DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Jul 7, 2025
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent efficacy evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the approved indication and product-specific local and systemic corticosteroid warnings for this ointment.
What it does not support
It is one current US product label, not a vitiligo indication, a class-wide substitute for every corticosteroid label or independent evidence of vitiligo benefit. Its Dosage and Administration section supports discontinuing once control is achieved and reassessing the diagnosis if no improvement is seen within 2 weeks; its Patient Counseling section notes pediatric safety and effectiveness beyond 3 weeks of use is not known. It is one currently marketed product listed under its generic chemical name, not a brand-name label.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Clobetasol propionate ointment 0.05%: US prescribing information (opens in a new tab)
DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Oct 22, 2025
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent vitiligo evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the 0.05% ointment identity and product-specific potency, local-reaction, skin-atrophy, systemic-absorption, body-area and duration warnings.
What it does not support
It does not approve clobetasol for vitiligo, establish vitiligo benefit, or create a regimen for another product. Its Dosage and Administration section supports that treatment should be limited to 2 consecutive weeks and that amounts greater than 50 g per week should not be used, stated specifically to reduce the risk of HPA-axis suppression and local skin effects. It is one currently marketed product listed under its generic chemical name, not a brand-name label.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Betamethasone dipropionate cream 0.05%: US prescribing information (opens in a new tab)
DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
May 4, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent vitiligo evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the 0.05% cream identity, current tube presentations and product-specific warnings.
What it does not support
It does not approve betamethasone dipropionate for vitiligo, establish vitiligo benefit, or show that similarly numbered steroid percentages have the same potency.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Protopic (tacrolimus) ointment: US prescribing information and Medication Guide (opens in a new tab)
DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Jan 28, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent efficacy evidence.
What this source supports
It establishes the US atopic-dermatitis indication, boxed warning, local effects, long-term-use precaution, and ultraviolet instructions for this product. Its mechanism-of-action section supports that tacrolimus binds FKBP-12 to block calcineurin phosphatase, preventing the T-cell activation that its boxed warning and local-effect data describe. Its local-adverse-reaction data supports burning in roughly 46-58% and itching in roughly 41-46% of studied patients, most often in the first few days and easing as treatment continues. Its Dosage and Administration section supports applying a thin layer twice daily and re-examining the patient if signs and symptoms do not improve within six weeks.
What it does not support
It does not approve tacrolimus for vitiligo or psoriasis, establish efficacy for either, or resolve off-label guideline discussion of supervised combinations. Its dosing and six-week re-examination window are stated for its approved atopic-dermatitis indication, not as a vitiligo-specific schedule.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Elidel (pimecrolimus) cream: US prescribing information and Medication Guide (opens in a new tab)
DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Apr 30, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent efficacy evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the US atopic-dermatitis indication, boxed warning, application-site effects, long-term-use precaution and instructions to avoid ultraviolet treatment and minimize natural or artificial sunlight. This label itself is a generic pimecrolimus cream filing (packager Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, a division of Bausch Health US, LLC), not the original brand Elidel label, so it also supports that a generic pimecrolimus cream is currently marketed. Its Dosage and Administration section supports applying a thin layer twice daily and re-examining the patient if signs and symptoms persist beyond six weeks; its boxed warning separately supports that continuous long-term use should be avoided. Its adult 1-year active-comparator adverse-reaction table (328 pimecrolimus-treated subjects) supports application-site burning in about 25.9%, headache in about 25.4%, nasopharyngitis in about 7.6%, and influenza in about 9.8% of that adult trial population.
What it does not support
It does not approve pimecrolimus for vitiligo or psoriasis, establish efficacy for either, or resolve off-label guideline discussion of supervised combinations. Its dosing and six-week re-examination window, and its adult adverse-reaction percentages, are stated for its approved atopic-dermatitis indication and trial population, not as a vitiligo-specific schedule or vitiligo-trial safety rate.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Calcipotriene cream 0.005%: US prescribing information (opens in a new tab)
DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Oct 27, 2025
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent vitiligo evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the psoriasis indication, 0.005% cream strength, current tube presentations, local irritation and dermatitis reports, the instruction not to use the cream on the face, contraindications for hypercalcemia or vitamin D toxicity, and calcium-related and ultraviolet precautions. Its Dosage and Administration section supports applying a thin layer twice daily, and that the label’s own safety and efficacy data cover an 8-week psoriasis treatment period. It supports that the label advises patients to avoid excessive natural or artificial sunlight and separately tells physicians they may wish to limit or avoid phototherapy in patients using this product. Its clinical-trial adverse-reaction data support skin irritation in about 10%-15% of patients (the most frequent reaction) and rash, itching, dermatitis, or worsening of psoriasis in about 1%-10%; post-approval reports separately support contact dermatitis, including allergic contact dermatitis.
What it does not support
It does not approve calcipotriene for vitiligo, establish vitiligo benefit, support a self-directed combination, or state a vitiligo-specific frequency, duration, or adverse-reaction rate. Its 8-week duration and adverse-reaction percentages are from psoriasis clinical trials, not a vitiligo population.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Vitamin D analogs combined with different types of phototherapy in the treatment of vitiligo: A systematic review of randomized trials and within-patient studies (opens in a new tab)
International Immunopharmacology (Liu X, Yao Z, Wang Y, Chai L, Zhou X)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
Published
Aug 1, 2022
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Funding independence was not established in this review; the authors are affiliated with a single academic center and no commercial sponsor was identified.
What this source supports
Supports that this review pooled fourteen trials and within-patient studies, 642 patients. Each tested a vitamin D analog (calcipotriol or tacalcitol) added to phototherapy, against phototherapy alone, for vitiligo. Supports that adding either analog to narrowband UVB beat narrowband UVB alone on three measures: more patients responding (RR 1.67), less treatment failure (RR 0.43), and more excellent responses (RR 7.48). Supports that, broken out by analog, tacalcitol plus narrowband UVB had a larger effect on response (RR 2.25) than calcipotriol plus narrowband UVB (RR 1.24). That gap between the two analogs was itself statistically significant (p = 0.002). Supports that the review did not find better results when a vitamin D analog was combined with PUVA or excimer light instead. Supports that reported side effects across the pooled studies were minor and temporary.
What it does not support
The pooled, either-analog headline figure (RR 1.67) is not a calcipotriol-specific result. The review’s own by-analog breakdown shows calcipotriol’s effect (RR 1.24) was smaller than tacalcitol’s. It does not establish benefit for calcipotriol combined with PUVA or excimer light, predict an individual result, or set a dose or schedule.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
No additional effect of topical calcipotriol on narrow-band UVB phototherapy in patients with generalized vitiligo (opens in a new tab)
Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine (Ada S, Sahin S, Boztepe G, Karaduman A, Kolemen F)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
Published
Apr 1, 2005
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Funding independence was not established in this review.
What this source supports
Supports that this trial enrolled 20 patients with generalized vitiligo. It compared two sides of the body, within the same patient, single-blinded. Each patient received narrowband UVB, on a clinician-set weekly schedule, up to 96 sessions total, on both sides. Calcipotriol 0.005% went on one side only, twice daily. Supports that 55% (11 of 20) of patients reached cosmetically acceptable repigmentation overall, counting both sides together. Supports that the side without calcipotriol did significantly better than the calcipotriol side at the 24th session. Supports that no significant difference between the two sides was found at the 48th, 72nd, or 96th sessions.
What it does not support
It does not find an added benefit from calcipotriol at any session count studied. Its one early-session finding favored the side without calcipotriol. It is one small trial of one regimen. It cannot rule out a different result in a larger group, a different vitiligo pattern, or a different phototherapy schedule, and it is not a prediction for one person.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Opzelura (ruxolitinib) cream: current US prescribing information and Medication Guide (opens in a new tab)
DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
Published
Jun 30, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the defined US nonsegmental-vitiligo indication, limitations of use, boxed warnings, skin-cancer and ultraviolet precautions, and clinical-study labeling.
What it does not support
It also supports the labeled dosing instruction: "Apply a thin layer of OPZELURA topically twice daily to affected areas of up to 10% body surface area." It further supports the labeled re-evaluation point: "If the patient does not find the repigmentation meaningful by 24 weeks, the patient should be re-evaluated by the healthcare provider." It also supports the vitiligo-trial adverse-reaction rates at 1% incidence or greater: application-site acne 6%, application-site itching 5%, a common-cold-type illness (nasopharyngitis) 4%, headache 4%, urinary tract infection 2%, application-site redness (erythema) 2%, and fever (pyrexia) 1%. It does not guarantee benefit, establish suitability beyond the labeled population, authorize adding phototherapy, or state which reaction should prompt a call to the prescriber beyond directing patients to the Medication Guide and their healthcare provider.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Patient Expectations: Nonsegmental Vitiligo (opens in a new tab)
Opzelura HCP / Incyte CorporationManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Oct 1, 2025
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte manufactures Opzelura and sponsors the page and featured clinician. It is a promotional source and not independent evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the manufacturer’s current expectation framing that repigmentation is gradual, varies by person and body area, and may take longer than 24 weeks, plus its dated claim that Opzelura is the only FDA-approved prescription medicine specifically for vitiligo repigmentation. The current FDA label independently controls the indication, trial endpoints, warnings and product facts.
What it does not support
It does not independently establish comparative superiority, predict an individual timeline, turn a compensated testimonial into typical experience, or establish that an injected or oral medicine could never receive a future approval.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
RECELL Autologous Cell Harvesting Device: FDA approval and vitiligo indication (opens in a new tab)
U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Jun 16, 2023
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports FDA authorization of this device for repigmentation of stable depigmented vitiligo lesions in a defined adult population and trained professional setting.
What it does not support
It does not approve every grafting procedure, define stability for a reader or guarantee color match, durability or satisfaction.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Randomized controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home-based narrowband ultraviolet B for active and limited vitiligo: results of the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial (opens in a new tab)
British Journal of Dermatology (Thomas KS, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
Published
Dec 28, 2020
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a group-level benefit for the exact supervised topical-corticosteroid and home handheld-light combination studied in active limited vitiligo, alongside minority success, reactions and limited maintenance after treatment ended.
What it does not support
It does not create a general home plan, support other product-device combinations or predict an individual result. The topical-corticosteroid-alone arm used mometasone furoate 0.1% ointment, applied once daily on alternating weeks for up to 9 months. It supports 17% (20/119) reaching participant-reported treatment success at 9 months, and 3% (4/115) reaching the trial’s stricter blinded-assessed ≥75% repigmentation at 9 months. Skin thinning was reported in 2.5% (13/517) of participants across all trial groups, including one on placebo ointment. Over 40% of participants across all groups reported loss of treatment response by 21 months. It supports that participant-reported treatment success at 9 months was lower for patches on the hands and feet than on other body regions, without publishing an exact per-region percentage in its main results tables. The trial randomized 517 adults and children, aged over 5, with nonsegmental vitiligo covering about 10% or less of body surface area and at least one patch active in the prior 12 months, across 16 UK hospitals.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Opzelura (ruxolitinib) cream - Two Phase 3, Randomized, Controlled Trials for Vitiligo (opens in a new tab)
New England Journal of Medicine (Rosmarin D, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
Published
Oct 19, 2022
SteadySkin last checked
Jul 31, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports greater prespecified facial and whole-body repigmentation outcomes with ruxolitinib cream than vehicle in the studied nonsegmental-vitiligo population.
What it does not support
The trials were funded by Incyte and do not guarantee individual benefit, establish broad comparative superiority or answer every long-term and outside-population question.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
TRuE-V1: Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 - posted results (opens in a new tab)
ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of MedicineTrial registry · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Aug 22, 2025
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 22, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte Corporation sponsored the trial and supplies the posted result tables. ClinicalTrials.gov and the National Library of Medicine host the record; hosting it does not make the trial independent.
What this source supports
Supports the whole-body Week 24 result that the current US label does not tabulate: 20.6% of TRuE-V1 participants against 5.1% on vehicle cream reached at least 50% improvement in the total body Vitiligo Area Scoring Index. At the three-quarter bar the figures are 4.1% against 1.8%. The table counts all 330 randomized participants. Its facial figures are 29.8% against 7.4%, which is what the trials own report in the New England Journal of Medicine prints.
What it does not support
It is the sponsor posting its own result tables, not a peer-reviewed analysis or an independent audit. Missing scores were filled in by statistical imputation rather than measured. Everyone enrolled had vitiligo covering 10% or less of their body surface, so a whole-body percentage here describes that group and not a person with widespread patches, and it predicts no individual result.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
TRuE-V2: Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 2 - posted results (opens in a new tab)
ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of MedicineTrial registry · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Aug 22, 2025
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 22, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte Corporation sponsored the trial and supplies the posted result tables. ClinicalTrials.gov and the National Library of Medicine host the record; hosting it does not make the trial independent.
What this source supports
Supports the whole-body Week 24 result that the current US label does not tabulate: 23.9% of TRuE-V2 participants against 6.8% on vehicle cream reached at least 50% improvement in the total body Vitiligo Area Scoring Index. At the three-quarter bar the figures are 8.0% against 1.8%. It also records why this trial reads differently in different documents. Every table here leaves out one study site for serious protocol noncompliance, so 222 and 109 people are counted of the 344 enrolled. On that population the facial figures are 30.9% against 11.4%, which are the New England Journal of Medicine numbers rather than the label ones.
What it does not support
It is the sponsor posting its own result tables, not a peer-reviewed analysis or an independent audit. Missing scores were filled in by statistical imputation rather than measured. Everyone enrolled had vitiligo covering 10% or less of their body surface, so a whole-body percentage here describes that group and not a person with widespread patches, and it predicts no individual result.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Randomized, double-blind treatment withdrawal or continuation with ruxolitinib cream in vitiligo: findings from the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo (TRuE-V) long-term extension phase III study (opens in a new tab)
British Journal of Dermatology (Harris JE, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Dec 26, 2025
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 21, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte Corporation funded the study and states a role in its design, conduct, analysis and manuscript review.
What this source supports
Supports that facial repigmentation was often held for a further year. Among people who had reached near-complete facial repigmentation at Week 52, 38 of 55 randomized to continue ruxolitinib cream and 22 of 56 randomized to vehicle still held at least 75% facial improvement at Week 104.
What it does not support
It does not predict an individual result. Everyone in it had already responded, the rollover design set no sample size for a powered comparison between the two groups, and more people left the withdrawal group than the continuation group.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Repigmentation by body region in patients with vitiligo treated with ruxolitinib cream over 52 weeks (opens in a new tab)
Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (Passeron T, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Jul 16, 2024
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 21, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte Corporation funded the analysis, two of its employees are authors, and it reports the company’s own phase 3 programme.
What this source supports
Supports that repigmentation differed by body region in the pooled phase 3 data, and that hands and feet responded least. At Week 52, among people who applied ruxolitinib cream only, 68.1% reached at least 50% improvement on the head and neck excluding the face, 38.2% on the hands and 29.3% on the feet.
What it does not support
It is a regional breakdown of one company programme reported as a letter, not a trial designed to compare body areas or to compare this cream with anything else. It does not predict what any one area will do.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Elidel (pimecrolimus) cream in adult patients with vitiligo: a randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled study (opens in a new tab)
Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft (Dawid M, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
Published
Oct 25, 2006
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that this randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled crossover study enrolled 20 adults with symmetrical vitiligo patches on the extremities (no facial patches), each using pimecrolimus cream on one side and vehicle on the other, twice daily, for 6 months. It supports that modest (roughly 1%-25%) repigmentation appeared at month 2 in 12 of 17 evaluable pimecrolimus-treated sides versus 9 of 17 vehicle-treated sides. It supports that by month 6 only 3 of 14 pimecrolimus-treated sides versus 2 of 14 vehicle-treated sides still showed improvement, and that the study found no statistically significant difference in mean target-patch size between pimecrolimus and vehicle. It supports that treatment was well tolerated, with no treatment-related adverse events and no application-site skin atrophy reported in this small sample.
What it does not support
It does not settle efficacy for facial patches, children, other populations, larger sample sizes, or combinations with phototherapy. An author affiliation creates a commercial-independence limitation, and its small size (20 people) cannot rule out an effect a larger trial might detect, or an uncommon adverse reaction.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Treatment Outcomes of Topical Calcineurin Inhibitor Therapy for Patients With Vitiligo: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (opens in a new tab)
JAMA Dermatology (Lee JH, et al.)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
Published
May 29, 2019
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports pooled group-level repigmentation outcomes for topical calcineurin inhibitors alone and with phototherapy, including variation by body area.
What it does not support
Considerable study heterogeneity limits product-specific and individual inference, and the review does not override current product labels or prove one medicine superior. Supports the exact pooled figures: 55.0% (560 patients, 21 studies) reached at least a mild (>=25%) response, 38.5% (619 patients, 23 studies) reached a moderate (>=50%) response, and 18.1% (520 patients, 19 studies) reached a marked (>=75%) response using a calcineurin inhibitor alone, versus 47.5% marked response when combined with phototherapy. Supports a median treatment duration of 3 months (range 2-7 months) across the pooled studies.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Phototherapy for Vitiligo: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (opens in a new tab)
JAMA Dermatology (Bae JM, et al.)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
Published
Mar 29, 2017
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 3, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the separate pooled repigmentation rates and participant counts the review reports for narrowband UVB and PUVA at 3, 6 and 12 months, and the narrowband UVB rates pooled by body region after at least 6 months. Each pooled figure rests on the subset of studies that reported that measure at that time, not on the full review. It also supports plainly labelled arithmetic complements of those reported rates.
What it does not support
The pooled arms are single-group, so they describe what happened to those groups, not what the light caused. The review planned an intention-to-treat count and kept people who stopped early where it could; otherwise it used the group described at the final assessment, so no pooled figure is guaranteed to cover every enrolled participant. It does not report how many people worsened during treatment, does not predict an individual course, and sets no device, schedule or dose.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
A Systematic Review of Nutrition, Supplement, and Herbal-Based Adjunctive Therapies for Vitiligo (opens in a new tab)
Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (Shakhbazova A, et al.)Systematic review · Supporting research, tier 3Independence not established
Published
Dec 18, 2020
SteadySkin last checked
Jul 31, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that nutrition, supplement and herbal studies are heterogeneous, often adjunctive and insufficient to establish a universal diet or reliable stand-alone vitiligo treatment.
What it does not support
Commercial independence was not established in this review; it does not establish product equivalence, quality, safety, an individual deficiency or a recommendation to use a reviewed ingredient.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Dietary and Herbal Supplements (opens in a new tab)
National Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Feb 1, 2020
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports general US consumer context that supplement evidence and product content vary and that interactions, contamination and health-condition risks are possible.
What it does not support
It is not vitiligo-specific efficacy evidence, a product-quality verification service or an individual safety determination.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Ayurvedic Medicine: In Depth (opens in a new tab)
National Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Jan 1, 2019
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that Ayurveda includes varied products and practices, that high-quality evidence is limited for many health claims and that some preparations may contain toxic metals.
What it does not support
It does not evaluate a specific vitiligo product, establish repigmentation benefit or treat an entire tradition as one intervention.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Homeopathy: What You Need To Know (opens in a new tab)
National Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Apr 1, 2021
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that evidence does not establish homeopathy as effective for a specific health condition and that some labeled products can contain active ingredients with side effects or interactions.
What it does not support
It is not a vitiligo trial, an assessment of every individual product or a substitute for product-specific safety review.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Acupuncture for vitiligo: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis (opens in a new tab)
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (Zhao J, et al.)Systematic review · Supporting research, tier 3Independent source
Published
Dec 18, 2023
SteadySkin last checked
Jul 31, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that published acupuncture reviews report possible benefit but have critical methodological and reporting weaknesses and mixed evidence certainty.
What it does not support
It does not establish acupuncture as a standard repigmentation treatment, validate every related procedure or support an individual recommendation.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Surgical Interventions for Patients With Vitiligo: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (opens in a new tab)
JAMA Dermatology (Ju HJ, et al.)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
Published
Feb 17, 2021
SteadySkin last checked
Jul 31, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that multiple surgical techniques have been studied for selected stable vitiligo and that reported response and adverse effects vary by method and study.
What it does not support
Much of the evidence is nonrandomized and an author reported industry relationships; the review does not determine stability, eligibility, color match, durability or individual outcome.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Upadacitinib for the treatment of vitiligo: a phase 2 randomized trial (opens in a new tab)
eClinicalMedicine (Passeron T, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Jun 10, 2024
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: AbbVie funded the study, and multiple authors were AbbVie employees. The peer-reviewed design and results remain sponsor-linked evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the reported randomized phase 2 design, 185-adult study population, facial and total-body outcomes, continued improvement during follow-up, and reported adverse events.
What it does not support
It does not establish approval, comparative superiority, reliable outcomes for individual hands or feet, long-term safety, or an individual result.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
A Study to Assess Adverse Events and Change in Disease Activity of Oral Upadacitinib in People With Non-Segmental Vitiligo (Viti-Up) (opens in a new tab)
ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of MedicineTrial registry · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Nov 6, 2023
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: ClinicalTrials.gov hosts the record, while AbbVie sponsors the studies and supplies the registered information.
What this source supports
Supports the replicate randomized phase 3 protocol, enrolled population, study status, and the registered exploratory narrowband-UVB substudy. The registry did not post phase 3 result tables or a combination result when reviewed.
What it does not support
Registration is not peer review, regulatory approval, proof that adding phototherapy helps, or a personal treatment plan.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Positive topline results from Phase 3 Viti-Up studies of Rinvoq in vitiligo (opens in a new tab)
AbbVieManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Oct 29, 2025
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: AbbVie manufactures Rinvoq, sponsored the studies, analyzed the results, and issued the release before full peer-reviewed publication.
What this source supports
Supports only AbbVie’s reported Viti-Up enrollment, facial and total-body response percentages, selected adverse-event summary, and sponsor interpretation.
What it does not support
The release is not peer-reviewed trial publication, direct comparison with another treatment, body-site-specific proof for hands or feet, long-term safety evidence, or an individual prediction.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Benoquin (monobenzone) cream prescribing information (opens in a new tab)
U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Jan 1, 2003
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 21, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The product company authored the prescribing information hosted by FDA. It is authoritative for the historical label but not independent clinical evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the historical US indication for final depigmentation in extensive disseminated idiopathic vitiligo, the purpose and mechanism limits, permanence and distant-depigmentation warnings, listed reactions, contraindication boundary, and long-term unknowns. Re-read in full on 2026-08-21 for what it states about sun, which is in three places. Under Precautions, General, it states that following therapy with the cream the skin will be sensitive for the rest of the patient’s life, and that the person must use sunscreens during exposure to the sun. Under Clinical Pharmacology it states that exposure to sunlight reduces the depigmenting effect of the drug. The same section states that the histology of the skin after depigmentation with topical monobenzone is the same as that seen in vitiligo, the epidermis being normal except for the absence of identifiable melanocytes. Under Dosage and Administration it states that prolonged exposure to sunlight should be avoided during treatment, or that a sunscreen should be used. Under Carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, impairment of fertility it states that no long term studies have been performed to evaluate carcinogenic potential.
What it does not support
The archived label does not establish current commercial availability, approval of a compounded preparation, predictable uniform results, suitability, a personal plan, or current status outside the US. Its sun statements are the label instructing a patient under a prescriber; SteadySkin reports them as the label’s wording and issues none of them as advice. It sets no sun protection factor, no interval and no exposure limit, and it measures nothing about how depigmented skin behaves in sunlight beyond the sensitivity statement itself. Because it performed no long term carcinogenicity study, it establishes nothing about skin cancer risk after depigmentation in either direction. The document carries a printed revision of August 2000 and an FDA banner stating it may not be the latest approved label, so it is used only for what it plainly states and never as current guidance.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Monobenzylether of hydroquinone. A retrospective study of treatment of 18 vitiligo patients and a review of the literature (opens in a new tab)
British Journal of Dermatology (Mosher DB, Parrish JA, Fitzpatrick TB)Observational study · Supporting research, tier 3Independent source
Published
Dec 1, 1977
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports only the reported outcomes, complications, and satisfaction observations in a retrospective series of 18 people using monobenzyl ether of hydroquinone for final depigmentation.
What it does not support
The very small uncontrolled series cannot establish a predictable success rate, body-site response, long-term safety, comparison with other paths, or an individual outcome.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
RECELL: Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data for stable vitiligo (opens in a new tab)
U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Jun 16, 2023
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: FDA authored the regulatory summary, while the pivotal evidence was manufacturer-sponsored and submitted. The decision record is authoritative but the underlying clinical evidence is not independent.
What this source supports
Supports the FDA-reviewed device description, pivotal within-person randomized study of 25 adults, population and body sites, absolute repigmentation outcomes, adverse events, contraindications, limitations, and the fact that the studied RECELL area also received ablative-laser preparation and later narrowband UVB.
What it does not support
The study cannot isolate the cell suspension from laser preparation, establish use without later phototherapy, predict an individual result, prove complete repigmentation, or establish current authorization outside the US.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
RECELL instructions for use for stable vitiligo (opens in a new tab)
U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Jun 16, 2023
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: FDA hosts the approved instructions supplied by the device manufacturer. They control product use but are not independent comparative evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the trained-professional setting, donor-skin processing, ablative-laser surface preparation, contraindications, warnings, aftercare responsibilities, and body-site and population limitations in the approved US instructions.
What it does not support
The instructions do not select a patient, center, lesion, laser, aftercare plan, or predict response, color match, recovery, or coverage.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Interventions for vitiligo (opens in a new tab)
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Whitton ME, et al.)Systematic review · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Feb 24, 2015
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 21, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Cochrane reviews are prepared to a published method and are not funded by a maker of any reviewed product.
What this source supports
Supports that 96 randomized trials covering 4,512 people had been published on vitiligo treatment when this review closed its search. Among the analyses of more than 75 per cent repigmentation, one trial of 47 people found oral ginkgo biloba better than placebo. Most included trials enrolled fewer than 50 people. Only five of the 96 reported all three of the review’s primary outcomes, which were quality of life, more than 75 per cent repigmentation, and adverse effects. No included trial measured whether repigmentation was still there two years later.
What it does not support
It reviews trials and does not recommend one. It does not establish any supplement as a treatment, set an amount to take, compare brands or preparations, or predict what one person will get. Its search closed in October 2013, so it cannot speak to anything published after that.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Treatment of vitiligo vulgaris with narrow-band UVB and oral Polypodium leucotomos extract: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study (opens in a new tab)
Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (Middelkamp-Hup MA, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
Published
Aug 1, 2007
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 21, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The published record read here does not state who funded the trial or what relationship the authors had with the extract’s maker, so independence is recorded as not established rather than assumed.
What this source supports
Supports that 50 people with vitiligo vulgaris were randomly assigned to oral Polypodium leucotomos extract or to placebo, each alongside narrowband UVB, for 25 to 26 weeks. Head and neck repigmentation was 44 per cent with the extract and 27 per cent with placebo, which the authors report as P = 0.06. The differences at the trunk, at the arms and legs, and at the hands and feet were between 4 and 6 percentage points and were not significant. The authors describe the head and neck finding as a clear trend.
What it does not support
A P value of 0.06 does not establish the effect. The trial tested one extract taken together with narrowband UVB, so it says nothing about the extract used on its own, about another brand or preparation, or about a site other than the head and neck. The authors suggest the effect may be larger in lighter skin types, which is a suggestion in their discussion and not a finding. It sets no amount and predicts nothing for one person.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
A pilot study assessing the effect of prolonged administration of high daily doses of vitamin D on the clinical course of vitiligo and psoriasis (opens in a new tab)
Dermato-Endocrinology (Finamor DC, et al.)Observational study · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
Published
Jan 1, 2013
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 21, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The paper has no control group, and a later case series records that the approach it reports now carries the surname of its senior author, so independence from an interest in the result is not established.
What this source supports
Supports that 16 people with vitiligo and 9 with psoriasis took a high daily dose of vitamin D for six months in an open-label study with no control group and no blinding. The authors report that 14 of the 16 people with vitiligo had between 25 and 75 per cent repigmentation. Blood levels of vitamin D rose steeply in both groups, and the authors state that no clinical or laboratory sign of toxicity was seen in any of the 25 participants.
What it does not support
With no control group and no blinding, it cannot show what caused the change it reports, and the authors say they avoided a placebo group deliberately. The authors also state that their design precludes establishing an optimal daily amount. It is 25 people over six months, so it establishes neither efficacy nor long-term safety, and I do not publish the amount used, the diet that accompanied it, or the tests that were run.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Safety data in patients with autoimmune diseases during treatment with high doses of vitamin D3 according to the "Coimbra protocol" (opens in a new tab)
Nutrients (Amon U, Yaguboglu R, Ennis M, Holick MF, Amon J)Observational study · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
Published
Apr 10, 2022
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 21, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The series reports on patients treated by its own authors under the protocol it is assessing, which is a report on their own practice rather than an independent check of it.
What this source supports
Supports that the high-dose vitamin D approach patients meet online is called the Coimbra protocol, and that it is named for the Brazilian group who reported the 2013 pilot. It supports that hypercalcemia and impaired kidney function are the main concerns raised against it. It reports laboratory results for 319 people with a range of autoimmune conditions, treated for up to three and a half years, with mean values inside the normal range for serum calcium, creatinine, estimated GFR, cystatin C, TSH and 24-hour urinary calcium. Its conclusion is stated as safety under appropriate supervision by experienced physicians, alongside a strict low-calcium diet and a daily fluid requirement.
What it does not support
It is a report by the treating clinicians on their own patients, not a controlled trial and not an independent audit. It measures laboratory safety, not repigmentation, and vitiligo is not analysed as its own group. Its safety statement is conditional on the supervision, diet and monitoring it describes, so it does not support anyone following the approach without them. It sets no amount for this site to publish and establishes nothing about what would happen to one person.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Vitamin D: Fact Sheet for Consumers (opens in a new tab)
NIH Office of Dietary SupplementsPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Nov 8, 2022
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 21, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: A US government consumer fact sheet with no product to sell.
What this source supports
Supports that the NIH publishes an upper daily limit for vitamin D for adults, and that going far above it is a real hazard rather than a wasted purchase. It states that very high blood levels of vitamin D can cause nausea, vomiting, muscle weakness, confusion, pain, loss of appetite, dehydration, excessive urination and thirst, and kidney stones, and that extremely high levels can cause kidney failure, irregular heartbeat and death. It states that high levels are almost always caused by taking excessive amounts from supplements.
What it does not support
It is general consumer guidance and never mentions vitiligo. It does not evaluate any vitiligo treatment, assess the Coimbra protocol, establish what any one person’s level is or should be, or say what dose is right for anyone. Its own numbers are reported here as the NIH saying them and are never issued by this site as an instruction.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Therapeutic effects of turmeric topical cream in vitiligo: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study (opens in a new tab)
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (Jalalmanesh S, et al.)Randomized trial · Supporting research, tier 3Independence not established
Published
Feb 7, 2022
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 21, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The published record read here does not state the funding source or the authors’ interests, so independence is recorded as not established rather than assumed.
What this source supports
Supports that 30 people with vitiligo entered a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot of a turmeric cream put on the skin, and that 24 of them finished it. Each person used the turmeric cream on one side of the body and a placebo cream on the other, over four months. The authors report that patch size fell and appearance improved more on the turmeric side than on the placebo side, and they describe the setting as mild to moderate vitiligo.
What it does not support
It is a pilot of 30 people and the authors call it one. It tested a cream put on the skin, not turmeric or curcumin taken by mouth and not a kitchen spice. It does not identify what any product on sale contains, establish a benefit beyond mild to moderate patches, support replacing an existing treatment, or predict a result for one person.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Psoriasis: assessment and management - recommendations (opens in a new tab)
National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceGuideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Oct 24, 2012
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports psoriasis assessment across skin, nails, high-impact sites, life impact and joint concerns; same-day specialist assessment for generalised pustular psoriasis or erythroderma; and a treatment map that includes topical, phototherapy and systemic options.
What it does not support
It is UK guidance and does not diagnose a reader, create a US treatment sequence, determine personal urgency from a description, or establish current US labeling or coverage.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
ICOTYDE (icotrokinra) tablets, for oral use - prescribing information revised March 2026 (opens in a new tab)
U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
Published
Mar 1, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: FDA-approved prescribing information is authoritative for US labeling; it is product-specific regulator-approved labeling, not independent comparative clinical evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the current FDA-approved labeled plaque-psoriasis population, oral route, IL-23 receptor mechanism, and label precautions for Icotyde (icotrokinra).
What it does not support
The label states only “Revised: 3/2026”; it does not establish an exact revision day or the approval-action date. It also does not establish comparative superiority, personal suitability, insurance coverage, mature postmarketing evidence, or a class-wide conclusion. SteadySkin does not reproduce its regimen.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Psoriasis clinical guideline: systemic non-biological therapies (opens in a new tab)
American Academy of DermatologyGuideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Sep 1, 2020
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The guideline reports author relationships; it is not independent comparative proof for an individual choice.
What this source supports
Supports that methotrexate, apremilast, cyclosporine and acitretin are established systemic nonbiologic options considered in psoriasis care.
What it does not support
It does not select, rank or prescribe an option for an individual reader.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Psoriasis: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Steps to Take (opens in a new tab)
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Oct 1, 2023
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a broad patient-facing map of topical treatment, phototherapy, oral systemic treatment and biologic treatment. Also supports that a doctor usually diagnoses psoriasis by examining the skin, scalp and nails, and by asking about itchy or burning skin, medications, family history, recent illness or severe stress, and joint tenderness. Also supports that a doctor may take a small skin sample to examine under a microscope to rule out other skin conditions that look like psoriasis.
What it does not support
It does not rank categories or choose treatment for a particular person. It does not list a blood test as part of diagnosing psoriasis itself, and it does not diagnose psoriatic arthritis.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Psoriatic Arthritis: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Steps to Take (opens in a new tab)
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Aug 1, 2024
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports bringing joint, tendon, swelling, stiffness and nail concerns to a clinician because diagnosis uses clinical assessment and may require further evaluation.
What it does not support
It is not an online screening result and cannot diagnose psoriatic arthritis from a checklist.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Topical Steroids (opens in a new tab)
National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
Published
May 14, 2025
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The organization provides patient education, but its editorial and funding independence for this page was not independently reviewed.
What this source supports
Supports that topical steroids range from super-potent to least potent, and that guidance advises not using one for longer than three weeks without checking with a clinician. Side effects include skin thinning, pigment change, easy bruising, stretch marks, redness and dilated blood vessels. Systemic absorption is a risk with widespread, prolonged or occluded use, and abruptly stopping a topical steroid can cause a psoriasis flare.
What it does not support
It does not name which specific product falls in which potency class, quantify how often a side effect occurs, or set a course length for any specific product or body site.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Psoriasis treatment: Synthetic vitamin D (opens in a new tab)
American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
May 22, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that synthetic vitamin D (vitamin D analogues) slows rapidly growing skin cells, flattens thick psoriasis, and removes scale, and can treat nail and scalp psoriasis specifically. Most people apply it twice a day and notice improvement within about two weeks. It can be safely combined with a strong corticosteroid. The combination tends to work better than either alone and can reduce the side effects that come with using a strong steroid, which allows longer-term use. Common side effects are irritated skin, burning, itching, swelling, peeling, dryness, and redness, which typically resolve with continued use. A more serious but low-risk side effect is hypercalcemia, which can weaken bones, cause kidney stones, or affect the heart and brain.
What it does not support
The page does not display its own separate revision date; the date recorded here matches the same AAD psoriasis treatment section’s dated overview page checked the same day. It does not name a specific percentage of people who improve, quantify how often hypercalcemia occurs, or set a maximum course length.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Non-Steroidal Treatment for Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (opens in a new tab)
National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
Published
Jun 30, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The organization provides patient education, but its editorial and funding independence for this page was not independently reviewed.
What this source supports
Supports that Dovonex (calcipotriene), a synthetic vitamin D3, slows skin cell growth, flattens plaques, and removes scale, and treats scalp and nail psoriasis. Supports that Vectical (calcitriol), the naturally occurring active form of vitamin D3, helps control excessive skin cell production and cannot be applied to the face, lips, or eyes. Supports that Taclonex combines calcipotriene with a steroid. Calcipotriene side effects listed: skin irritation, stinging, burning, dry skin, peeling, rash, dermatitis, and worsening of psoriasis. Calcitriol side effects: excessive calcium in urine is common. An extremely uncommon side effect is a change in calcium metabolism limits, which should stop treatment until calcium normalizes. Increased skin tumor risk from light sensitivity is also noted. Supports that Tazorac (tazarotene), a vitamin A derivative topical retinoid, slows skin cell growth. It is normal for psoriasis plaques to become very red, often intensely so but generally not painful, before clearing when using tazarotene. Tazarotene side effects include skin irritation, dry skin, and increased sun sensitivity; sunscreen and protective clothing are recommended during use.
What it does not support
It does not give an application frequency for calcitriol, name a percentage of people who improve, or publish pricing. It does not mention combining tazarotene with a steroid or include a pregnancy warning for tazarotene on this page.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Psoriasis treatment: A retinoid you apply to the skin (opens in a new tab)
American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
May 22, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that tazarotene, a topical retinoid (synthetic vitamin A), slows rapidly growing skin cells, reduces thick psoriasis, decreases scale, and lessens redness and swelling. Often prescribed alongside a topical corticosteroid, which reduces skin irritation and produces longer-lasting results and a longer remission than tazarotene alone. Applied once daily as a thin layer. A few patients see complete clearing; most see about a 50% reduction, with remission lasting up to three months. Common side effects are irritation (redness, peeling, dryness, itching, burning) and increased sun sensitivity. Must not be used during pregnancy because it can cause birth defects. On nail psoriasis, can reduce nail thickness, treat crumbling nails, and help restore normal nail growth.
What it does not support
The page does not display its own separate revision date; the date recorded here matches the same AAD psoriasis treatment section’s dated overview page checked the same day. It does not name an exact percentage-of-patients figure beyond "most," quantify how often a side effect occurs, or state a fixed number of weeks before a check-in.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
TAZORAC (tazarotene) cream, 0.05% and 0.1%: US prescribing information (opens in a new tab)
DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Nov 13, 2025
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent psoriasis evidence.
What this source supports
Supports that TAZORAC cream 0.05% and 0.1% are indicated for topical treatment of plaque psoriasis (0.1% also for acne vulgaris). Supports the dosing: a thin layer once daily in the evening, starting at 0.05% with an increase to 0.1% only if tolerated and indicated. Supports the pregnancy contraindication - may cause fetal harm - and the requirement for a negative pregnancy test within two weeks before starting and effective contraception during use. Supports local skin reaction warnings (itching, burning, redness, peeling) and the instruction to avoid eyes, mouth, and mucous membranes and not to use on eczema-affected skin. Supports the photosensitivity warning to avoid sun, sunlamps, and weather extremes and wear sunscreen.
What it does not support
The label does not mention a generic version of TAZORAC cream, quantify how often a given side effect occurs, or state a retail price.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Psoriasis treatment: Tacrolimus ointment and pimecrolimus cream (opens in a new tab)
American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
May 22, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that tacrolimus ointment and pimecrolimus cream are FDA approved to treat atopic dermatitis (eczema), not psoriasis, so dermatologists prescribe either for psoriasis off-label. Supports use on plaque psoriasis on the face and other delicate areas including the genitals, and on inverse psoriasis (armpits, under the breasts, groin, or face). Supports that most people apply either medicine twice a day, and that no improvement after six weeks is a signal to check back with a dermatologist. Supports that the FDA warns of a possible increased risk of lymphoma or skin cancer, while noting dermatologists have not observed this increased risk in day-to-day practice.
What it does not support
The page does not display its own separate revision date; the date recorded here matches the same AAD psoriasis treatment section’s dated overview page checked the same day. It does not explain the calcineurin mechanism of action, name a percentage of people who improve, or state a retail price.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
ZORYVE (roflumilast) cream: US prescribing information (opens in a new tab)
DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Jan 1, 2024
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company (Arcutis Biotherapeutics) submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent psoriasis evidence.
What this source supports
Supports that ZORYVE cream 0.3% is FDA approved for topical treatment of plaque psoriasis, including intertriginous areas, in patients 2 years of age and older. Supports the mechanism (a phosphodiesterase-4, PDE4, inhibitor, working by inhibiting PDE4 enzyme activity and letting cyclic AMP build up inside cells, while stating the exact therapeutic mechanism remains incompletely understood). Supports the dosing (apply once daily to affected areas and rub in completely; topical use only, not for eye, mouth, or intravaginal use; wash hands after applying). Supports the most common adverse reactions reported in at least 1% of psoriasis trial participants: diarrhea (3.1%), headache (2.4%), insomnia (1.4%), nausea (1.2%), and application site pain (1.0%). Supports the contraindication in moderate to severe liver impairment (Child-Pugh B or C) and the drug-interaction caution with strong CYP3A4/CYP1A2 inhibitors.
What it does not support
The label does not carry a boxed warning, does not quantify how often any side effect leads someone to stop treatment, and does not state a retail price.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Psoriasis: Diagnosis and treatment (opens in a new tab)
American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
May 22, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that roflumilast (Zoryve) cream is FDA approved for patients with plaque psoriasis, applied once a day as instructed. Supports that in the studies that led to approval it worked quickly to reduce itch and clear psoriasis. Supports that a roflumilast foam version treats scalp and body psoriasis, applied once daily. Supports the patient-facing side-effect list for the cream: diarrhea, headache, and feeling sick to your stomach (nausea). Supports, for tapinarof (VTAMA) cream, that it is prescribed for adults with mild, moderate, or severe psoriasis and can be applied anywhere on the body, including the face. Supports that about 40% of patients were clear or almost clear after 12 weeks of using it, and that patients who stopped after clearing stayed clear for an average of 12 weeks. Supports that the most common side effect is a skin reaction.
What it does not support
The page does not name an exact response percentage, a specific check-in timeline, or a retail price for roflumilast. For tapinarof, the page does not name folliculitis specifically, break down its "skin reaction" side effect by exact rate, or state a retail price.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
VTAMA (tapinarof) cream: US prescribing information (opens in a new tab)
DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Jan 1, 2024
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company (Organon, formerly Dermavant Sciences) submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent psoriasis evidence.
What this source supports
Supports that VTAMA cream 1% is FDA approved for topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults, with no stated site or duration restriction, and is not for oral, ophthalmic, or intravaginal use. Supports the mechanism (an aryl hydrocarbon receptor, AhR, agonist), while stating the specific mechanisms by which VTAMA cream exerts its therapeutic actions in plaque psoriasis are unknown. Supports the dosing (apply a thin layer to affected areas once daily; wash hands after application unless treating the hands). Supports the PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 phase 3 trial results at week 12, defined as PGA success: a score of clear or almost clear with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline. That was reached by 36% (n=340) of the tapinarof group versus 6% (n=170) on vehicle in PSOARING 1, and 40% (n=343) versus 6% (n=172) in PSOARING 2. Supports the remittive-effect finding: among the 73 trial responders who achieved complete clearance and had treatment withdrawn, the median time to first worsening (PGA of 2 or higher) was 114 days. Supports the most common adverse reactions in the combined psoriasis trials (683 on tapinarof, 342 on vehicle): folliculitis (20% vs 1%), nasopharyngitis (11% vs 9%), contact dermatitis (7% vs 1%), headache (4% vs 1%), itching (3% vs 1%), and influenza (2% vs 1%). Supports that the label lists no contraindications and carries no boxed warning.
What it does not support
The label does not approve tapinarof for psoriasis in anyone under 18, does not quantify how often any side effect leads someone to stop treatment, and does not state a retail price. Its pediatric approval is for a different condition (atopic dermatitis), not psoriasis.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Psoriasis treatment: Phototherapy (opens in a new tab)
American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Jan 1, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that narrowband UVB works by slowing the growth of rapidly growing skin cells and suppressing an overly active immune system. Supports that it also reduces inflammation and reduces or eliminates itch. Supports that most patients need regular sessions across several weeks, on a schedule the dermatologist sets and adjusts, and that steady improvement follows a consistent schedule. Supports that dermatologists typically evaluate response after the first several treatments. Supports the immediate side effects: a sunburn-like reaction, mild stinging or burning, dark spots more common in medium-to-dark complexions, itching, and rare blisters or burns. Supports the long-term effects: freckles, early skin aging, and increased skin cancer risk. Supports that the treatment is considered safe and effective for most people with psoriasis, including children, pregnant women, and people who are immunocompromised, without stating an exact success percentage.
What it does not support
Does not state a specific response percentage, does not quantify the rate of any individual side effect, and does not give a retail price or insurance-coverage detail.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Phototherapy (opens in a new tab)
National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Jan 1, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that narrowband UVB penetrates the skin and slows the growth of affected skin cells, using a smaller range of ultraviolet light than broad-band UVB. Supports that narrowband UVB may require fewer treatments per week than broad-band UVB, may clear psoriasis faster, and may produce longer remissions. Supports that phototherapy overall has high success rates in improving psoriasis symptoms without stating an exact percentage. Supports the side effects of redness, stinging, and burns, and the increased long-term risk of skin cancer, and recommends discussing risks with a healthcare provider and keeping regular check-ups under medical supervision.
What it does not support
Does not state a specific number of sessions per week, a timeline to results, an exact side-effect rate, or pricing or insurance-coverage detail.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Psoriasis treatment: Methotrexate (opens in a new tab)
American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Jan 1, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that methotrexate works by suppressing the overactive immune system behind psoriasis, and can effectively treat severe psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and nail psoriasis. Supports that most people taking methotrexate see less psoriasis in four to six weeks, with full clearing sometimes taking up to six months. Supports that methotrexate is usually taken once a week, never more often without a dermatologist saying so. Supports that it comes as a pill, liquid, or at-home injection, and that it should be supplemented with folic acid. Supports the common side effects of vomiting, nausea, appetite loss, mouth sores, mouth redness and swelling, and fatigue. Supports that these should be reported to a dermatologist right away.
What it does not support
Does not report an exact side-effect rate, does not report a psoriasis-specific clinical-trial population, and does not predict an individual reader’s dose, response, or timeline.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Methotrexate for Psoriasis (opens in a new tab)
National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
Published
Mar 25, 2025
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The organization provides patient education, but its editorial and funding independence for this page was not independently reviewed. It is used only for patient-facing treatment-category and monitoring context.
What this source supports
Supports that methotrexate binds to and inhibits an enzyme involved in the rapid growth of skin cells, slowing that growth. Supports that regular blood tests are required to confirm the drug is being safely processed by the liver, white blood cells, and bone marrow. Supports that less common long-term risks include liver damage and reversible liver scarring, a reduced white blood cell count with higher infection risk, and rare lymphoma or bone marrow toxicity. Supports that alcohol should be avoided to reduce liver problems. Supports that men should be off methotrexate at least three months, and women at least four months, before trying to conceive.
What it does not support
Does not report an exact monitoring interval as a single universal schedule, does not report a psoriasis-specific trial population, and does not assess an individual reader’s risk.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
TREXALL (methotrexate) tablet, film coated - label (opens in a new tab)
U.S. National Library of Medicine (DailyMed)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Jun 17, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the boxed warning, the label’s strongest warning, in four parts. It covers embryo-fetal toxicity, including fetal death; the drug is contraindicated in pregnancy for non-cancer use. It covers contraindication after a prior severe hypersensitivity reaction. It covers serious, sometimes fatal, reactions affecting the bone marrow, GI tract, liver, lungs, skin, and kidneys, which is why close monitoring is required. It covers death reported when tablets were taken daily by mistake instead of weekly. Supports the labeled psoriasis dosage of 10 to 25 mg orally once weekly, raised gradually to a maximum of 30 mg weekly, with folic or folinic acid supplementation recommended. Supports contraception during treatment and for 6 months after the final dose for females of reproductive potential, and 3 months after the final dose for males. Supports an adverse-reaction table from 12-18 week rheumatoid arthritis studies. At 10% or greater: elevated liver tests (15%) and nausea or vomiting (10%). In the 3%-10% range: stomatitis and low platelet count. In the 1%-3% range: rash, diarrhea, hair loss, and low blood-cell counts.
What it does not support
The adverse-reaction rate table comes from rheumatoid arthritis trials, not a study of people with psoriasis, and does not state how often any reaction occurs in psoriasis treatment. Does not predict an individual reader’s dose or response.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Psoriasis treatment: Cyclosporine (opens in a new tab)
American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Jan 1, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that cyclosporine is an immunosuppressant originally developed to prevent organ rejection in transplant recipients, and that its psoriasis benefit was found by accident in transplant patients. Supports that it is taken daily as a pill, at the same time each day, and that a course typically runs 12 to 16 weeks. Supports that 80% to 90% of patients treated for 12 to 16 weeks had rapid improvement, and that remission after stopping lasts about 14 weeks. Supports that the most serious possible side effects are kidney damage and high blood pressure, with blood pressure checked every other week initially. Supports an increased risk of squamous cell skin cancer, higher for people who have had more than 200 PUVA treatments. Supports avoiding grapefruit, grapefruit juice, St. John’s Wort, and heavy alcohol, and consulting a dermatologist before vaccination.
What it does not support
Does not report an exact side-effect rate, does not report a psoriasis-specific clinical-trial population, and does not predict an individual reader’s dose, response, or timeline.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Cyclosporine for Psoriasis (opens in a new tab)
National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
Published
Mar 25, 2025
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The organization provides patient education, but its editorial and funding independence for this page was not independently reviewed. It is used only for patient-facing treatment-category and monitoring context.
What this source supports
Supports that cyclosporine suppresses the immune system and slows the growth of certain immune cells. Supports that it is taken daily by mouth as a capsule or liquid, and that a lower dose may be used when combined with a topical treatment. Supports that the FDA recommends cyclosporine not be used for longer than one year, though some doctors prescribe it longer, and that there is no specific guideline for how long to wait before resuming it. Supports that some improvement can appear after two weeks on stronger doses, with three to four months typically needed to reach optimal control. Supports that people previously treated with methotrexate, PUVA, UVB, coal tar, or radiation therapy face an increased skin-cancer risk on cyclosporine. Supports that kidney function is monitored before and during treatment, blood pressure is checked frequently, grapefruit juice should be avoided, and vaccines may be less effective while on cyclosporine.
What it does not support
Does not report an exact monitoring interval as a single universal schedule, does not report a psoriasis-specific trial population, and does not assess an individual reader’s risk.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
NEORAL (cyclosporine) capsule, liquid filled - label (opens in a new tab)
U.S. National Library of Medicine (DailyMed)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Aug 10, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports two boxed warnings, the label’s strongest warnings. The first states that only physicians experienced in immunosuppressive therapy should prescribe cyclosporine, because of an increased risk of infection and malignancy. The second, specific to psoriasis, states that patients previously treated with PUVA face an increased risk of skin cancer on cyclosporine, and that cyclosporine can cause hypertension and kidney damage (nephrotoxicity). Supports a labeled psoriasis dosing range of 2.5 mg/kg/day to a maximum of 4.0 mg/kg/day, split into two daily doses. Supports that blood pressure and serum creatinine/BUN should be evaluated every two weeks during the initial three months of therapy, then monthly if the patient is stable. Supports that psoriasis patients with abnormal kidney function, uncontrolled high blood pressure, or malignancy should not receive cyclosporine. Supports that concurrent PUVA, UVB, methotrexate, other immunosuppressive agents, coal tar, or radiation therapy should not be given with it. Supports that most patients relapse after stopping.
What it does not support
This label, as currently published, does not itself state a fixed outer limit on how long a course of psoriasis treatment may run; it states only that relapse is expected after stopping. Does not predict an individual reader’s dose or response.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Psoriasis treatment: Oral retinoids (opens in a new tab)
American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Jan 1, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that acitretin is an oral retinoid, related to vitamin A, that the FDA has approved for severe psoriasis and that it does not suppress the immune system. Supports that it treats guttate, plaque, and pustular psoriasis on the hands and feet, extensive pustular psoriasis, erythrodermic psoriasis, and severe psoriasis in HIV-positive patients. Supports that it is taken once a day after the main meal, with fat-containing food or milk to help absorption. Supports that most patients start seeing some improvement after about two weeks, and that it can take up to twelve weeks. Supports common side effects including cracked and swollen lips, dry eyes and mouth, chapped skin, hair loss, brittle nails, unhealthy cholesterol levels, and vision problems. Supports that women who are pregnant or plan to become pregnant should not take acitretin. Supports that they must wait three years after stopping before trying to become pregnant, and should not donate blood during that same three-year window.
What it does not support
Does not report a psoriasis-specific clinical-trial adverse-reaction rate table, does not report an alcohol-interaction warning, and does not predict an individual reader’s dose, response, or timeline.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Soriatane for Psoriasis (opens in a new tab)
National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
Published
Jan 1, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The organization provides patient education, but its editorial and funding independence for this page was not independently reviewed. It is used only for patient-facing treatment-category and monitoring context.
What this source supports
Supports that Soriatane (acitretin) is FDA-approved for severe plaque, guttate, pustular, erythrodermic, or palmoplantar psoriasis in adults, and that the exact way it controls psoriasis is not known. Supports that it comes in 10 mg and 25 mg capsules taken once daily with food, with the dose adjusted by individual response. Supports that skin improvement usually appears after eight to sixteen weeks, and that peak effect can take up to six months, especially for plaque psoriasis. Supports that it is often combined with phototherapy, and sometimes with biologics or used in rotation with cyclosporine or methotrexate. Supports the pregnancy contraindication and the requirement for two negative pregnancy tests and two forms of birth control. Supports the restriction against alcohol during treatment and for two months after stopping, to prevent conversion to a longer-lasting related compound. Supports common side effects including hair loss, dry skin and mouth, bleeding gums, nosebleeds, peeling fingertips, mood changes, headache, joint pain, night-vision changes, and elevated liver enzymes. Supports the three-year blood-donation restriction after stopping treatment.
What it does not support
Does not report a psoriasis-specific clinical-trial population size, does not report an exact reaction rate, and does not assess an individual reader’s risk.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
SORIATANE (acitretin) capsule - label (opens in a new tab)
U.S. National Library of Medicine (DailyMed)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Jun 1, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the boxed warning that Soriatane must not be used by anyone who is pregnant, or who intends to become pregnant at any time within three years of stopping. Supports contraindication in patients with severely impaired liver or kidney function, or abnormally elevated blood lipids, and contraindication for concurrent methotrexate (hepatitis risk) or tetracyclines (intracranial pressure risk). Supports that vitamin A and other oral retinoids must be avoided concurrently, and that phototherapy doses must be reduced when combined with Soriatane because of an increased burn risk. Supports initial dosing of 25 to 50 mg per day as a single dose with the main meal, with maintenance dosing adjusted by individual response. Supports the requirement for two negative pregnancy tests before starting, and two effective forms of birth control for at least one month before through three years after treatment. Supports a repeated pregnancy test every three months during that three-year window. Supports the alcohol restriction for female patients of reproductive potential during treatment and for two months after, due to conversion to a longer-lasting related compound. Supports common reactions in more than three-quarters of patients (cheilitis, dry eyes, skin peeling, dry skin, hair loss, nail disorder, joint pain). Supports serious reactions including hepatitis, pancreatitis, a pressure buildup around the brain, and depression. Supports liver-function and lipid testing before treatment and every one to two weeks until levels are stable.
What it does not support
This label, as currently published, does not itself state a fixed outer limit on how long a course of psoriasis treatment may run; it states only that maintenance dosing is adjusted by response. Does not predict an individual reader’s dose or response.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
OTEZLA (apremilast) tablet, film coated - label (opens in a new tab)
U.S. National Library of Medicine (DailyMed)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Dec 1, 2025
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that Otezla (apremilast) is a PDE4 inhibitor that increases intracellular cAMP, and that its specific mechanism of therapeutic action is not well defined. Supports the plaque-psoriasis indication for adult and eligible pediatric patients who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, regardless of severity, and the separate psoriatic-arthritis and Behçet’s-disease-oral-ulcer indications. Supports the warning against strong CYP3A4 inducers such as rifampin, phenobarbital, carbamazepine, and phenytoin, since rifampin reduced apremilast’s AUC by 72% and loss of efficacy may occur. Supports the reduced maintenance dose (30 mg or 20 mg once daily, by age/weight) for severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance under 30 mL/min). Supports the exact five-day titration schedule (10 mg day 1 AM, up to 30 mg BID by day 6) and the Otezla XR 75 mg once-daily maintenance alternative. Supports the depression/suicidal-ideation warning, the weight-loss monitoring requirement (10-12% of adults lost 5-10% body weight in trials), and the dosage-reduction guidance for severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. Supports the plaque-psoriasis trial adverse-reaction rates: diarrhea 17%, nausea 17%, upper respiratory tract infection 9%, headache 6%. Supports that no boxed warning is present on this label.
What it does not support
This label does not report an age, skin-tone, race, or ethnicity breakdown of its plaque-psoriasis trial adverse-reaction rates. It also does not state how often a reaction leads to stopping treatment, or predict an individual reader’s dose or response.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
SOTYKTU (deucravacitinib) tablet, film coated - label (opens in a new tab)
U.S. National Library of Medicine (DailyMed)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Jun 1, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that Sotyktu (deucravacitinib) is a TYK2 inhibitor. Supports that it binds the regulatory domain of TYK2 rather than the catalytic domain, stabilizing an inhibitory interaction that produces allosteric inhibition of receptor-mediated TYK2 activation and downstream STAT signaling. Supports the moderate-to-severe plaque-psoriasis indication for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. Supports the separate active-psoriatic-arthritis indication for adults. Supports the caution against combining it with other potent immunosuppressants and against live vaccines during treatment. Supports the recommendation to evaluate for tuberculosis before starting. Supports the precaution against starting during an active or serious infection, including active hepatitis B or C. Supports that no dose adjustment is needed for renal impairment or mild-to-moderate liver impairment. Supports that severe liver impairment is not recommended. Supports the fixed 6 mg once-daily dose with or without food and no titration schedule. Supports the instruction not to crush, cut, or chew the tablet. Supports the PASI 75 response rates at week 16 for deucravacitinib, placebo, and the apremilast comparator arm in both POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 trials (PSO-1: 58% vs 13% vs 35%; PSO-2: 53% vs 9% vs 40%). Supports the week 24 PASI 75 rates for deucravacitinib versus the apremilast arm (PSO-1: 69% vs 38%; PSO-2: 58% vs 38%). Supports the infection-risk warning and the herpes zoster reports, including a multidermatomal presentation. Supports the lymphoma reports (0.3 per 100 patient-years) and the creatine-phosphokinase/triglyceride/liver-enzyme monitoring guidance. Supports the plaque-psoriasis trial adverse-reaction rates at week 16 (upper respiratory infection 19.2% vs 14.8% placebo, blood CPK increased 2.7% vs 1.2%, herpes simplex 2.0% vs 0.2%, mouth ulcers 1.9% vs 0%, folliculitis 1.7% vs 0%, acne 1.4% vs 0.2%). Supports that no boxed warning is present on this label.
What it does not support
This label does not report an age, skin-tone, race, or ethnicity breakdown of its plaque-psoriasis trial adverse-reaction rates. It also does not state how often a reaction leads to stopping treatment, or predict an individual reader’s dose or response.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Psoriasis treatment: Biologics (opens in a new tab)
American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Jan 1, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that a biologic specifically targets, or quiets, the part of the immune system that is overactive because of psoriasis. Supports the twelve named FDA-approved biologics (Cimzia/certolizumab pegol, Cosentyx/secukinumab, Enbrel/etanercept, Humira/adalimumab, Ilumya/tildrakizumab, Remicade/infliximab, Siliq/brodalumab, Simponi/golimumab, Skyrizi/risankizumab, Stelara/ustekinumab, Taltz/ixekizumab, Tremfya/guselkumab). Supports that dosing is given as a shot or an infusion, with dosing frequency ranging from twice a week to once every three months. Supports that infliximab specifically requires an in-office or infusion-center IV infusion rather than a self-administered shot. Supports that biologics can stop psoriatic-arthritis joint pain, stiffness, and swelling and prevent it from worsening. Supports the common side effects of upper respiratory tract infection, injection-site skin reaction, flu-like symptoms, urinary tract infection, and headache. Supports that biologics raise infection risk, particularly for people with diabetes, tobacco use, an infection history, or advanced age. Supports that blood tests and tuberculosis testing are typically required before starting, with some patients needing additional tests. Supports that four biologics are FDA-approved for children with moderate-to-severe psoriasis from around age four to six and up, depending on the drug.
What it does not support
Does not report PASI or other trial-response data, a boxed-warning quote for any specific drug, an exact screening protocol, or cost/pricing information. Does not predict an individual reader’s response or risk.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Adalimumab Injection (opens in a new tab)
U.S. National Library of Medicine (MedlinePlus)Patient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Jan 1, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the adalimumab (Humira) label’s boxed-warning language. It states adalimumab injection may decrease the ability to fight infection and increase the chance of developing a serious infection. Supports that some children, teenagers, and young adults who received adalimumab or a similar medication developed severe or life-threatening cancers. Supports that adults receiving adalimumab may be more likely to develop skin cancer, lymphoma, and other cancers. Supports that a doctor will perform a TB skin test and may order a hepatitis B blood test before starting, and may treat a latent infection first if one is found.
What it does not support
Reports only on adalimumab, one drug in the TNF class, not on every TNF-class drug’s own label or on any IL-17, IL-23, or IL-12/23 drug. Does not report PASI/trial-response data, dosing frequency, or cost. Does not predict an individual reader’s risk.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Biologic Therapy | Psoriasis | Clinical Guidance (opens in a new tab)
HealioPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Jan 1, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports week 12-16 PASI response ranges by biologic class, summarized from the joint AAD-NPF biologics guideline and related clinical literature. Anti-TNF agents: roughly 49%-80% PASI 75. The IL-12/23 drug ustekinumab: roughly 66%-75% PASI 75. IL-17 agents: roughly 77%-91% PASI 90. IL-23 p19 agents: roughly 70%-75% PASI 90. Supports that brodalumab’s label carries a boxed warning calling for regular evaluation of suicide risk, and that bimekizumab’s current US prescribing information includes a Warning and Precaution for suicidal ideation and behavior. Supports a general statement that TNF-class registries and studies warn that these medicines could potentially increase infection risk.
What it does not support
Is a secondary clinical-guidance summary, not the primary guideline document or a primary trial report itself. Does not report a single head-to-head trial comparing classes on the same PASI threshold, a specific reader’s risk, or cost.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Worldwide expert recommendations for the diagnosis and management of vitiligo: International Vitiligo Task Force Part 1 (opens in a new tab)
Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and VenereologyGuideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
Published
Sep 25, 2023
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The journal is the publisher. This label refers to extensive author relationships disclosed for the recommendation, not to the journal itself.
What this source supports
It supports current expert-consensus terminology, clinical assessment, disease-activity evaluation, treatment-goal discussion, and shared decision-making. Its modified assessment check list names where the patches are as a disease feature, and gives genital involvement as its own example. It records white hairs as an item of its own, apart from what the vitiligo has done in the past six months. Its classification table keeps mucosal vitiligo as a subtype, both across more than one site and at one site alone. It supports planning care around what is there to work with, and its example is hair that still has its color. It names stable vitiligo and active vitiligo as two different states that change the care plan. Its shared-decision steps ask what the patient wants from care. At the time it was written, one cream form of a newer drug type had just been approved. Pill forms of that same drug type were still being studied.
What it does not support
It is not independent comparative proof. It cannot diagnose a reader from a description or photograph. It gives no figure for genital involvement, and it does not name lichen sclerosus. It does not set out the Vitiligo European Task Force grading scale. It puts no figure on white hairs and predicts nothing for one person.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
British Association of Dermatologists guidelines for the management of people with vitiligo 2021 (opens in a new tab)
British Journal of Dermatology (Eleftheriadou V, et al.)Guideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Jan 1, 2022
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the clinical history and assessment domains, evaluation of associated autoimmune conditions, its recommendation for thyroid function and antithyroid antibody screening, current classification context, treatment-option map, psychosocial assessment, medical photography and the limits of pediatric evidence. Its classification table defines mucosal vitiligo as the oral or genital mucosae. One mucosal site alone is filed as undetermined or unclassified. Its differential diagnosis table lists genital or extragenital lichen sclerosus among the conditions that can be mistaken for vitiligo. That table also lists eczema, psoriasis, lichen planus, pityriasis alba and piebaldism. It calls autoimmunity a contributor to the pathogenesis of vitiligo. It reports an earlier review finding a possible negative impact on intimacy and sexual functioning. It tells clinicians to discuss the psychosocial impact of living with the condition. R28 offers a skin camouflage visit to people who want one. R10 to R14 name potent or very potent topical steroids as the first choice, with a topical calcineurin-inhibitor cream as an option for the face. These are different creams with different proof behind them. R20 names narrowband UVB as the first light option. It says the skin often does better on the face and trunk than on hands and feet. It says there is not enough proof to use any one current pill alone for vitiligo that is not changing. R25 and Table 2 keep cell grafting for vitiligo that is not changing and did not respond to other care. They also say a doctor cannot always tell if the vitiligo has truly stopped changing.
What it does not support
It was designed for UK care and reviewed literature through May 2019; it does not establish a universal testing plan, prescribe an individual plan, or establish current US labeling or coverage. Its differential diagnosis table is a list, not a method a reader can apply to their own skin. It does not say how to tell any two of those conditions apart. It gives no figure for how often vitiligo affects genital skin.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Vitiligo: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Steps to Take (opens in a new tab)
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Oct 1, 2022
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a patient-facing description of clinician diagnosis using history and examination, possible use of a Wood lamp and selected tests, broad treatment categories, variable response and whole-person support.
What it does not support
It is educational context, not primary efficacy evidence, an online diagnostic method or a universal testing checklist.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Revised classification/nomenclature of vitiligo and related issues: the Vitiligo Global Issues Consensus Conference (opens in a new tab)
Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research (Ezzedine K, et al.)Guideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
May 1, 2012
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 8, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports separating segmental vitiligo from nonsegmental forms and recognizing mixed and initially unclassified presentations. Classification is a clinical and longitudinal judgment. Its section on the Koebner phenomenon supports defining that phenomenon as patches developing at sites of previously unaffected skin that was specifically injured. It endorses the Vitiligo European Task Force classification of that phenomenon into history-based, clinical-observation-based and experimentally induced forms. Its section on mucosal vitiligo defines that term as the oral or genital mucosae. Where the patches are at one site alone, and especially a genital one, that section says a differential diagnosis of lichen sclerosus should be addressed by biopsy. It records that genital lichen sclerosus and vitiligo have been reported together.
What it does not support
It does not support self-classification from symmetry, one patch or a photograph, and it does not predict an individual response. On the Koebner phenomenon it records a general impression that the phenomenon and disease stability are related, then states that objective data are lacking. It also says scientific evidence is lacking for attributing vitiligo to daily friction from washing, dressing, personal care, sports, occupational activity or pressure from clothing. On lichen sclerosus it cites one reference from 2000 and calls a link a possibility, not a finding. It counts nothing and gives no rate.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Vitiligo: Diagnosis and treatment (opens in a new tab)
American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
Published
Apr 15, 2026
SteadySkin last checked
Sep 14, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports current US patient-language context that lighter patches have multiple causes, dermatologists diagnose vitiligo from history and examination, treatment is optional and several broad management paths exist.
What it does not support
The page acknowledges support from Incyte Dermatology, so it does not independently establish drug efficacy or comparative superiority.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
British Association of Dermatologists and British Photodermatology Group guidelines for narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy 2022 (opens in a new tab)
British Journal of Dermatology (Goulden V, et al.)Guideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
Published
Sep 1, 2022
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 22, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
It supports that traditional NB-UVB fluorescent lamps emit a narrow UVB band peaking around 311 nanometres. It backs wearing UV-protective goggles and keeping UV scatter off people nearby. It records the consent form naming goggles and the same clothing at each session. It also covers clinical uses, how it compares with other light treatments, safety limits including sunburn-type reactions, and the added safeguards home phototherapy needs.
What it does not support
It does not provide a personal treatment plan, approve a particular home setup, or replace the instructions for your own device. SteadySkin never reproduces its treatment schedules.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
Phototherapy - NB-UVB (patient information leaflet) (opens in a new tab)
British Association of DermatologistsPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
Published
Jun 1, 2022
SteadySkin last checked
Aug 21, 2026
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
It supports a plain-language explanation that NB-UVB uses a small part of the UVB spectrum, is used for conditions including psoriasis, eczema, and vitiligo, and is distinct from sunlight or a sunbed. It also supports what a unit asks of its own patients during a course. It asks them not to sunbathe or use a sunbed for the whole of it, and to reduce sun exposure so that skin does not burn. It asks them to report a medicine, a cream, or newly exposed skin such as a haircut. It asks them to arrive without perfume, deodorant, aftershave or other cosmetics, because some of those raise light sensitivity and can leave patchy discolouration for months. It carries the unit’s own account of repeated courses. It states that the full risk of narrowband UVB is not known, and that roughly one in ten people in the UK develop skin cancer. It states that a review becomes usual practice past a stated number of treatments, and that many treatments can bring the wrinkling and discolouration of photoageing.
What it does not support
It is patient education, not primary evidence for an efficacy claim. Its printed next review date was June 2025 and it has not been updated since June 2022. It is therefore used only for what it plainly states, and never as current guidance. It is written for a UK hospital unit whose nurses examine skin at every visit, so it sets no rule for a device used at home. Its numbers stay in this record rather than in the copy. Those are the sun protection factor and star rating it names, the hours it names, the treatment count that triggers a review, and the multiple by which it estimates lifetime risk. That multiple is stated there as an assumption that narrowband UVB behaves like sunlight, not as a measurement.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.

Questions to carry into the conversation

How similar is the studied population to the question we are discussing?
Which missing population detail matters most for interpreting this claim?
Are we applying evidence beyond the condition, setting, or body sites studied?

How to use this page

Confidence and limits

Who was studied?

Medical narrowband UVB can treat psoriasis in the skin. It does not treat inflammation in the joints and is not a treatment for psoriatic arthritis. Tanning beds and casual sunlight are not substitutes for prescribed, medically supervised phototherapy.

Medical phototherapy can treat psoriasis in the skin. It does not treat joint inflammation and is not a treatment for psoriatic arthritis. Joint concerns need a separate clinical assessment.

Bring your medicine list and ask how infections, vaccines, pregnancy or pregnancy plans, other health conditions and prior treatment reactions change the options. Each medicine has product-specific limits and monitoring rather than one class-wide checklist.

Know when the written plan says to stop and contact the clinical team. Keep a separate manufacturer route for faults, damage, error messages or support with the exact device.

Generalized pustular psoriasis and erythroderma require same-day specialist assessment. Seek urgent clinical help for a sudden widespread pustular eruption or extensive, rapidly spreading redness. Feeling acutely unwell increases the urgency, but do not wait for fever or other systemic symptoms.

No. A commercial tanning device and prescribed narrowband UVB are not interchangeable. A tanning booth is not a shortcut around a medical light-treatment plan.

Your role is to prepare, observe, record, and report. Your prescriber decides whether to start, continue, change, pause, or restart treatment, and the current instructions for your exact device govern its operation.

Several common medicine groups can make skin react more strongly to ultraviolet light. Your prescriber reviews everything you take before and during treatment. Bring the complete list, and do not stop or change anything on your own.

Use only the eye protection approved for your exact device or by your phototherapy team. Keep it on unless that team gives you a specific plan for treating the eyelids.

Yes. Using the same kind of equipment does not make the reasons for treatment, alternatives, or monitoring identical across conditions. A vitiligo decision needs vitiligo guidance as well as phototherapy guidance. A psoriasis decision needs psoriasis-specific guidance.

Stop and use the manufacturer’s official support route rather than testing, opening, bypassing, or repairing the device yourself. If you are in the United States, use the FDA route when a medical-device problem should also be reported to the regulator.

Procedures that move or prepare pigment-producing cells are specialist options for carefully selected people with stable vitiligo. They are not an automatic next step after creams or light treatment. You also need to consider eligibility, risks, healing, access, and incomplete or uneven results.

DermNet says the black light a Wood lamp emits is harmless, and its reason is specific rather than general. In DermNet’s words, the lamp does not emit the short-wavelength ultraviolet B at 290 to 320 nm. So, DermNet says, it does not cause sunburn or otherwise damage healthy skin.

Depigmentation is a specialist path that reduces remaining color for selected people with extensive vitiligo. It is not a routine cosmetic shortcut. The change may be permanent and may create lifelong sun-sensitivity concerns. It requires careful medical and mental-health discussion.

No. A traditional or natural label may explain why a practice matters to someone. It does not prove color return, purity, safe interactions, or freedom from harmful ingredients.

Use a stable location that meets your exact manual’s placement, space, electrical, ventilation, and storage requirements and your clinical plan’s positioning and protection boundaries. Do not copy a setup from a photograph, another device, or a general checklist.

Keep children, pets, and untrained visitors outside the treatment area while the device is in use. When it is not in use, secure the device, keys, controls, cables, lamps, and accessories exactly as the manual directs. Locks or access controls do not replace supervision or manufacturer safeguards.

Stop using the device if it is damaged, unstable, wet, or missing required parts. Also stop if it acts differently from the manual or shows an alert you do not understand. Contact official support. Do not keep testing it, open it, bypass a control, or improvise a repair.

Ask the manufacturer how your exact device should be retired, then check local rules for electronic equipment and hazardous materials. Do not put the unit or its lamps in ordinary household trash unless the exact product guidance and local rules allow it.

Do not assume you can. Some fluorescent phototherapy lamps contain mercury and need an appropriate lamp-recycling or hazardous-material route. Read the exact lamp label and device manual, then confirm what your local collection program accepts.

Keep people and pets away, then follow current government, local-authority, and manufacturer instructions for the exact lamp. Do not improvise a cleanup from memory. Directions for ventilation, collection, packaging, and disposal can depend on the lamp and where you live.

Do not open, bypass, test, repair, or substitute lamps or electrical parts outside the exact current manual and authorized service route. If a lamp or assembly is damaged, stop and contact the manufacturer.

I will not tell you how to invent or store a code, bypass a counter, estimate remaining treatments, or treat what I have written here as authorization. Follow your current prescribed plan and your device’s exact instructions.

Narrowband UVB and targeted light are established clinician-directed options for some people with vitiligo. Treatment in a clinic and treatment at home create different practical burdens, but neither setting guarantees repigmentation or removes the need for qualified oversight.

Ask about incomplete or uneven color return, mismatched color or texture, scarring, healing, and how long results may last. Also ask what support is available if the result misses your goal. A procedure cannot guarantee a lasting or even-looking result.

No. Vitiligo has treatment and supportive-care options, including topical medicines, light treatment, selected whole-body medicines or procedures, camouflage, and mental-health support. What it does not have is a guaranteed permanent cure or one treatment that works for everyone.

In the pooled studies, tacrolimus and Elidel (pimecrolimus) together did far better on the face and neck than anywhere else. About 35% of people reached a marked response there. On the trunk and limbs, about 2% did. On hands and feet, almost no one did.

These general consumer sources describe variable evidence, product content, interaction, and contamination risks. They do not establish a vitiligo repigmentation benefit.

The case for it rests on one small trial. Cochrane analyzed a trial of 47 people in which oral ginkgo did better than placebo. The 2020 review named it the one supplement it rated promising on its own rather than alongside light. That is where the evidence stops.

The main trial points that way without proving it. Fifty people took the extract or a placebo alongside narrowband UVB. Repigmentation on the head and neck was 44 per cent with the extract and 27 per cent with placebo. The authors report that as P = 0.06, which does not clear the usual bar.

Nothing published shows that. The study people cite is a 2013 pilot of 16 people with vitiligo. It had no placebo group and nobody was blinded. The authors report repigmentation in 14 of the 16, and a study built that way cannot show what caused it.

A cream was. A 2022 pilot randomized 30 people to a turmeric cream or a placebo cream, one on each side of the body, and 24 finished. The treated patches improved more than the placebo ones. Nothing in it tests turmeric swallowed as a capsule or eaten as a spice.

Reviews of acupuncture for vitiligo do report possible benefit, and they are weak enough that the finding cannot be relied on. An overview of the published systematic reviews found critical methodological and reporting weaknesses and mixed certainty across them.

They may support wellbeing, coping, sleep, or stress for some people, even though there is not evidence that they repigment vitiligo. These are optional supports - not proof that stress caused your vitiligo or that coping better will change its course.

In each of two controlled Opzelura trials, 29.9% of participants reached at least 75% improvement in facial vitiligo at Week 24, compared with 7.5% and 12.9% using vehicle cream. Across the whole body, 20.6% and 23.9% reached at least 50% improvement, compared with 5.1% and 6.8%.

The current Opzelura label lists common vitiligo-trial reactions and carries boxed warnings and other material precautions; some boxed-warning evidence comes from oral JAK-inhibitor studies in a different population.

Guidelines and a systematic review support discussing topical calcineurin inhibitors for vitiligo, but heterogeneous studies do not make tacrolimus and Elidel (pimecrolimus) interchangeable or predict one patch’s response.

The current tacrolimus ointment label describes local reactions, a boxed warning, and ultraviolet precautions in its labeled atopic-dermatitis context; vitiligo use is off-label.

Guidelines support selected topical corticosteroids for limited vitiligo, but one studied mometasone-and-light combination cannot establish benefit for every steroid, formulation, or body area.

Current mometasone, clobetasol, and betamethasone labels describe local and systemic risks that depend on the exact ingredient, formulation, body area, exposure, and patient context.

The current calcipotriene label describes local skin reactions, calcium-related and ultraviolet precautions, an instruction not to use the cream on the face, and hypercalcemia or vitamin D toxicity contraindications in its labeled psoriasis context; those facts do not establish vitiligo benefit.

The American Academy of Dermatology says to avoid tanning, indoors and outdoors. Its reason runs the opposite way from the idea. Tanning increases the contrast between your natural color and the light spots and patches, so vitiligo becomes more noticeable.

No, and the pooled numbers show how far apart they are. Nobody in the hands-and-feet group reached the near-complete bar, against 44.2% for face and neck. A treatment can still be worth it for one priority area while another area carries a different expectation.

Maintenance means continuing some treatment after a response settles, to try to hold the result. After a plateau, a prescriber may continue, taper, pause, or stop the course. That decision belongs to your prescriber, working from your record and current guidance.

Narrowband UVB can cause erythema, including painful sunburn-type reactions, and requires a defined reaction and contact plan.

Sources

What this source supports

What it does not support

What this source supports

What it does not support

What this source supports

What it does not support

What this source supports

What it does not support

What this source supports

What it does not support

What this source supports

What it does not support

What this source supports

What it does not support

What this source supports

What it does not support

What this source supports

What it does not support

What this source supports

What it does not support

What this source supports

What it does not support

What this source supports

What it does not support

What this source supports

What it does not support

What this source supports

What it does not support