ArticleBioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy2018
Determining the Value of Two Biologic Drugs for Chronic Inflammatory Skin Diseases: Results of a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.
Article in BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Contribution of Dostarlimab to First-Line Treatment of Advanced or Recurrent Endometrial Cancer in Spain: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Holistic Value Assessment of Tirbanibulin for Actinic Keratosis: European Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Article
- Evaluating vonoprazan and tegoprazan for gastroesophageal reflux disease treatment in Chinese Healthcare: an EVIDEM framework analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of antibody-based preventive alternatives for respiratory syncytial virus: a novel multi-criteria decision analysis framework and assessment of nirsevimab in Spain.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit-risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Article
- Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Determine the Value of Prophylaxis Relative to On-Demand Treatment in Hemophilia A and Emicizumab versus Replacement Therapy in the Greek Healthcare Setting.Clinical drug investigation · 2022Review
- A Multiple Stakeholder Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Diabetic Macular Edema Management: The MULTIDEX-EMD Study.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2020Article
- A multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) applied to three long-term prophylactic treatments for hereditary angioedema in Spain.Global & regional health technology assessmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveMulti-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is a tool that systematically considers multiple factors relevant to health decision-making. The aim of this study was to use an MCDA to assess the value of dupilumab for severe atopic dermatitis compared with secukinumab for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Spain.
methodFollowing the EVIDEM (Evidence and Value: Impact on DEcision Making) methodology, the estimated value of both interventions was obtained by means of an additive linear model that combined the individual weighting (between 1 and 5) of each criterion with the individual scoring of each intervention in each criterion. Dupilumab was evaluated against placebo, while secukinumab was evaluated against placebo, etanercept and ustekinumab. A retest was performed to assess the reproducibility of weights, scores and value estimates.
resultsThe overall MCDA value estimate for dupilumab versus placebo was 0.51 ± 0.14. This value was higher than those obtained for secukinumab: 0.48 ± 0.15 versus placebo, 0.45 ± 0.15 versus etanercept and 0.39 ± 0.18 versus ustekinumab. The highest-value contribution was reported by the patients' group, followed by the clinical professionals and the decision makers. A fundamental element that explained the difference in the scoring between pathologies was the availability of therapeutic alternatives. The retest confirmed the consistency and replicability of the analysis.
conclusionsUnder this methodology, and assuming similar economic costs per patient for both treatments, the results indicated that the overall value estimated of dupilumab for severe atopic dermatitis was similar to, or slightly higher than, that of secukinumab for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.