ArticleThe Journal of dermatology2025
Using patient preference to inform ritlecitinib dose selection for alopecia areata treatment.
Article in The Journal of dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- JAK Inhibitors for Alopecia Areata: Approved Therapies, Efficacy, and Unanswered Questions.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
- Using patient preference to inform ritlecitinib dose selection for alopecia areata treatment.The Journal of dermatology · 2025Article
- Estimation of health utility values for alopecia areata.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ritlecitinib is an oral Janus kinase 3/tyrosine kinase expressed in hepatocellular carcinoma (JAK3/TEC) family kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of severe alopecia areata (AA). Benefit-risk profiles of two doses of ritlecitinib (50 mg vs 30 mg once daily) were evaluated by integrating patient preferences and clinical efficacy and safety estimates for ritlecitinib. A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was utilized to elicit preferences for benefit and safety attributes of systemic AA treatments. Benefits included probabilities of ≥80% scalp hair coverage and achieving moderate to normal eyebrows and eyelashes. Potential risks included 3-year probabilities of serious infection, cancer, and blood clots. Preference estimates were used to calculate the maximum acceptable risk (MAR) that patients would accept for expected increases in benefit from choosing a higher ritlecitinib dose over a lower dose. Ritlecitinib benefits were calculated from the ALLEGRO-2b/3 clinical trial. MARs were calculated separately for each risk and jointly for all possible combinations. Adults (n = 201) with physician-confirmed ≥50% scalp hair loss from AA participated. To achieve expected increases in the probabilities of ≥80% scalp hair coverage or moderate to normal eyebrows and eyelashes when choosing 50 mg over 30 mg of ritlecitinib, patients would be willing to accept increases in each 3-year risk up to a mean of 3.88 absolute percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.86-4.90) for serious infection, 1.63 (95% CI, 1.08-2.18) for cancer, and 5.30 (95% CI, 3.60-7.00) for blood clots. These results, combined with the estimated differences in risks between the two doses, indicate that patients with AA value increases in the probabilities of scalp, eyebrow, and eyelash hair regrowth, with the average patient accepting increases in potential treatment-related risks for the 50-mg dose in exchange for higher efficacy than 30 mg. The DCE approach to measuring risk tolerance, combined with comparisons to expected benefit and risk differences, can be used to optimize AA treatment dose selection.
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.