ArticleDermatology and therapy2024
Cost-Effectiveness Study of Difamilast 1% for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis in Adult Japanese Patients.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ritlecitinib Compared With No Treatment in Patients With Severe Alopecia Areata in Japan.The Journal of dermatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDifamilast has proven to be an effective treatment for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in Japan, but its cost-effectiveness remains unknown. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of difamilast 1% compared with delgocitinib 0.5% in Japanese adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD and compared with placebo in Japanese adult patients with all-severity AD from a Japanese public health-care perspective.
methodsThe analysis was conducted using a cost-effectiveness model from the Japanese public health-care perspective. This model had four health states ("clear," "mild," "moderate," and "severe") defined according to the Eczema Area and Severity Index score. The time horizon of the analysis was 1 year. Because the analysis period was short, no discount rate was applied. The proportions of patients previously estimated by the anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison were implemented in the model. The model was further populated with data from the literature. The main model outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, and outcomes, including the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. All prices were stated in JPY at the price level from 2018 April to 2019 March. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of the results.
resultsIn the base case, the cost-effectiveness of difamilast 1% compared with delgocitinib 0.5% and placebo was JPY 827,054/QALY and JPY 1,518,657/QALY, respectively. The PSA showed that the cost-effectiveness of difamilast 1% compared with delgocitinib 0.5% and placebo had a 66.6% and 99.6% probability of being below the JPY 5 million/QALY threshold, respectively.
conclusionThe results suggest that difamilast 1% is a more cost-effective treatment option compared with delgocitinib 0.5% in Japanese adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD and compared with placebo in adult patients with all-severity AD from a Japanese public health-care perspective.
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.