What are the classes, and why do they blur together?
I count eight broad groups. Topical steroids. Topical calcineurin inhibitors, meaning Protopic (tacrolimus) and Elidel (pimecrolimus). Calcipotriene, a vitamin D analogue. Opzelura (ruxolitinib) cream. Light treatment, meaning narrowband UVB and the excimer laser or lamp. Then whole-body medicines, surgical grafting such as RECELL, and depigmentation. They blur because most lists give you the names and stop there. Choosing between them is the question I see asked most. Evidence Evidence Evidence
What is known
- Sources cited, not yet graded
I read the BAD 2021 vitiligo guideline. It names potent or very potent topical steroids as a first choice. It names a calcineurin inhibitor cream as an option for the face. It names narrowband UVB as the first light option. It keeps cell grafting for vitiligo that is not changing and did not respond to other care. The AAD records that treatment is optional. The International Vitiligo Task Force records active and stable vitiligo as two states that change the plan.
What is uncertain
- Depends on you
A class map is not a ranking and not a sequence. It cannot say which class suits your skin, your goal, your health history, your budget or your access. The BAD guideline was written for UK care and sets no US labeling or coverage.
Questions for your dermatologist
Which of these classes are reasonable for me, and which are you ruling out?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.Does my vitiligo look active or stable to you right now?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.What goal are we treating: one visible area, or as much as possible?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
The groups, side by side
| Treatment group | How it is used | What it asks of you | Where it fits | Approval or evidence note | Read more |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topical steroids | Applied to the skin at home. | Not stated on this page | Not stated on this page | The BAD 2021 guideline names potent or very potent topical steroids as a first choice. | Topical steroids |
| Topical calcineurin inhibitors | Applied to the skin at home. Protopic (tacrolimus) and Elidel (pimecrolimus) are the two named here. | A pooled review reports a median treatment length of 3 months, ranging from 2 to 7 months. | The BAD 2021 guideline names a cream of this kind as an option for the face. | Pooled from studies rather than from a label. The review also reported results by body area. | Creams and ointments |
| Calcipotriene | Applied to the skin at home. It is a vitamin D analogue. | Not stated on this page | Not stated on this page | Mainly studied added to light treatment rather than used on its own. | Calcipotriene |
| Opzelura (ruxolitinib) cream | Applied to the skin at home. | The label says the prescriber should re-evaluate if you do not find the repigmentation meaningful by 24 weeks. | At Week 52, cream alone reached at least 50% improvement for 68.1% on head and neck excluding the face, 38.2% on hands, 29.3% on feet. | The review point above is read off the current US label for this cream. | Opzelura (ruxolitinib) cream |
| Light treatment | Light, given as a course at a clinic unit or on a prescribed home device. | The BAD leaflet describes a unit checking your skin at each visit. It asks you to keep off sunbeds for the whole course. | A pooled review of light treatment also reported repigmentation by body area. | The BAD 2021 guideline names narrowband UVB as the first light option. | Light treatment |
| Whole-body medicines | Taken as a tablet. | Not stated on this page | The BAD 2021 guideline says no current pill alone has enough proof for vitiligo that is not changing. | Europe authorized Rinvoq (upadacitinib) for nonsegmental vitiligo in July 2026. The US label for Litfulo (ritlecitinib) covers severe alopecia areata, not vitiligo. | Whole-body medicines |
| Surgical grafting, such as RECELL | A procedure, done in a trained professional setting. | Not stated on this page | The BAD 2021 guideline keeps cell grafting for vitiligo that is not changing and did not respond to other care. | The FDA record for the RECELL device covers stable depigmented vitiligo in a defined adult population. | RECELL and surgical options |
| Depigmentation | Applied to the skin. It removes the colour that is left instead of restoring it. | It is permanent. The Benoquin label states that after therapy the skin stays sensitive for life. | Not stated on this page | Not stated on this page | Depigmentation |
How long before a fair trial can be judged?
Longer than most people expect, and it differs by class. That gap is one of the few things that separates the classes cleanly. If you know the length up front, you are less likely to stop early or to keep going out of habit. Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence
What is known
- Sources cited, not yet graded
I read the current Opzelura label for its own review point. If repigmentation does not feel meaningful by 24 weeks, the label says the prescriber should re-evaluate. The maker adds that repigmentation is gradual and can take longer than that. A meta-analysis of calcineurin inhibitors reports a median treatment length of 3 months across pooled studies, ranging from 2 to 7 months. A phototherapy meta-analysis pooled results at 3, 6 and 12 months, so its own checkpoints sit that far apart.
What is uncertain
- Depends on you
A study length is not a plan, and none of these sources sets one. A Cochrane review found no included trial measured whether repigmentation was still there two years later. Pooled light figures describe groups, not one person. Your prescriber sets what happens and when.
Questions for your dermatologist
How long would you want me to stay with this before we judge it?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.What would count as enough change to keep going?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.What would you want to see before you suggest stopping or switching?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
Which body sites respond, and which respond least?
Face, neck and trunk tend to do better. Hands, feet and skin over bone tend to do least well. That pattern shows up across different treatments, so it is closer to a property of the site than of any one product. Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence
What is known
- Sources cited, not yet graded
The BAD 2021 guideline says the skin often does better on the face and trunk than on the hands and feet. I compared that with a regional breakdown of the ruxolitinib cream phase 3 programme, and the shape is the same. At Week 52, among people using the cream alone, 68.1% reached at least 50% improvement on the head and neck excluding the face. On the hands it was 38.2%, and on the feet 29.3%. Phototherapy and calcineurin reviews also pooled results by body area.
What is uncertain
- Depends on you
The regional figures come from one company programme, reported as a letter. It was not designed to compare body areas. A site that responds less is not a site nobody treats, and the numbers predict nothing for one person.
Questions for your dermatologist
Which of my patches would you expect to respond, and which are the hard ones?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.Does the site of my patches change which class you would suggest?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.If a hard site matters most to me, what does that change?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
What does each route actually ask of you?
Creams go on at home. Light treatment means a course, either at a clinic unit or on a prescribed home device. Grafting is a procedure in a trained professional setting. Depigmentation is the one that runs the other way, and it is permanent. Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence
What is known
- Sources cited, not yet graded
The BAD narrowband UVB leaflet describes a hospital unit where staff check skin at each visit. It asks you to stay off sunbeds for the whole course. It asks you to arrive without perfume, deodorant or other cosmetics. The FDA record for the RECELL device covers stable depigmented vitiligo in a defined adult population. A review of vitiligo surgery reports that response and adverse effects vary by method. Calcipotriene has mainly been studied added to light rather than alone. The Benoquin label states that after therapy the skin stays sensitive for life.
What is uncertain
- Depends on you
The BAD leaflet is written for a UK hospital unit and sets no rule for a home device. The FDA record does not approve every grafting procedure or guarantee a colour match. Much of the surgical evidence is not randomized. None of this decides what fits your week.
Questions for your dermatologist
What would this option ask of me in an ordinary week?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.Would this be done at a clinic, at home, or in a procedure room?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.Which part of this do people most often find hard to keep up?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
Which pills are approved, and which are still being studied?
The stage a medicine has reached matters as much as the results behind it. One oral JAK inhibitor is authorized for vitiligo in Europe. Others have company results but no regulator decision yet for vitiligo. Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence
What is known
- Sources cited, not yet graded
The BAD 2021 guideline says there is not enough proof to use any one current pill alone for vitiligo that is not changing. I checked the current US Litfulo label: it covers severe alopecia areata, and vitiligo is not among its indications. Pfizer reports that two Phase 3 vitiligo studies of that medicine met their facial and total-body endpoints across 2,174 participants. Incyte reports that its two povorcitinib Phase 3 studies met the facial endpoint. In Europe, the Commission authorized Rinvoq (upadacitinib) on 24 July 2026 for nonsegmental vitiligo in adults and adolescents aged 12 and over.
What is uncertain
- Depends on you
A company topline report is not peer-reviewed evidence and not a regulator decision. Exact response percentages were not released for the Litfulo vitiligo studies. A European authorization sets no US or UK approval, no coverage and no plan for you.
Questions for your dermatologist
Is an oral medicine something you would consider for me, and why or why not?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.Where does each of these stand where I live?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.Would a clinical trial be worth looking into in my case?
Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
Evidence behind this page
Sources
Each evidence badge opens the source and its limits. The full list stays available here.
- PfizerManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
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.
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
- SteadySkin last checked
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.
- Incyte CorporationManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
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.
- International Immunopharmacology (Liu X, Yao Z, Wang Y, Chai L, Zhou X)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
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.
- DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
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.
- Opzelura HCP / Incyte CorporationManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
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.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
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.
- Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (Passeron T, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
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.
- JAMA Dermatology (Lee JH, et al.)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
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.
- JAMA Dermatology (Bae JM, et al.)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
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.
- JAMA Dermatology (Ju HJ, et al.)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
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.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
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.
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Whitton ME, et al.)Systematic review · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
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.
- Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and VenereologyGuideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
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 Journal of Dermatology (Eleftheriadou V, et al.)Guideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
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.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
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 DermatologistsPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
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.