Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40117618›Full record

ArticleDermatology practical & conceptual2025

Risankizumab Versus Secukinumab: A Real-World Efficacy and Cost per Responder Comparison in Patients With Psoriasis in Italy.

Federico Pirro, Giacomo Caldarola, Nicoletta Bernardini, Maria Grazia Celeste, Annunziata Dattola, Eleonora De Luca, Marco Galluzzo, Domenico Giordano, Chiara Izzi, Giulia Maretti and 12 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Dermatology practical & conceptual, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Federico PirroUOC di Dermatologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli - IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Giacomo CaldarolaUOC di Dermatologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli - IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Nicoletta BernardiniDermatology Unit "D. Innocenzi", Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome-Polo Pontino, Latina, Italy.
Maria Grazia CelesteHospital Pharmacy, Policlinico Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Annunziata DattolaUnit of Dermatology, Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Eleonora De LucaUOC di Dermatologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli - IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Marco GalluzzoDermatology Unit, Department of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Domenico GiordanoDepartment of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Sensory Organs, Sapienza University of Roma, Rome, Italy.
Chiara IzziHospital Pharmacy, Policlinico Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Giulia MarettiDermatology Unit, Department of Clinical Internal, Anesthesiological and Cardiovascular Science, University of La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.
Lorenzo MarcelliDermatology Unit, Department of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Roberto RavasioHEOR &RWE Lead, Market Access Provider, Milano, Italy.
Antonio Giovanni RichettaUnit of Dermatology, Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Nevena SkrozaDermatology Unit "D. Innocenzi", Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome-Polo Pontino, Latina, Italy.
Marina TalamontiDermatology Unit, Department of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Arianna ZangrilliDermatology Unit, Department of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Luca BianchiDermatology Unit, Department of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Giovanni PellacaniUnit of Dermatology, Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Severino PersechinoDepartment of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Sensory Organs, Sapienza University of Roma, Rome, Italy.
Concetta PotenzaDermatology Unit "D. Innocenzi", Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome-Polo Pontino, Latina, Italy.
Ketty PerisUOC di Dermatologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli - IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Clara De SimoneUOC di Dermatologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli - IRCCS, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRisankizumab and secukinumab are effective treatment options for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

objectivesWe sought to estimate the efficacy and the cost per responder of risankizumab and secukinumab by comparing these two drugs in a real-life setting.

methodsA multicentric retrospective study was conducted in patients from the Lazio region of Italy affected by moderate-to-severe psoriasis who initiated risankizumab or secukinumab between September 2020 to September 2022. Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) was measured at baseline and after 16, 52, and 78 weeks. Clinical responses were evaluated by PASI90 and PASI100 responses at the same timepoints. The cost per responder at week 16 and 52 was adopted as a cost-effectiveness indicator.

resultsIncluded were 141 patients, 74 (52.5%) treated with risankizumab and 67 (47.5%) treated with secukinumab. PASI90 responses in risankizumab-treated patients were higher than those observed in patients treated with secukinumab at both weeks 16 and 52 (79.7% versus 64.2% (P = 0.041) and 98.6% versus 83.6% (P = 0.003), respectively). Risankizumab also showed superior PASI100 rates at week 52 (85.5% versus 65.6%, P = 0.009). No statistically significant differences were observed in PASI90 and PASI100 rates between the 2 groups at week 78. The cost per PASI90 and PASI100 responder for risankizumab was lower at both weeks 16 (€5833.66 and €8394.78, compared to €8747.18 and €10746.53 for secukinumab) and 52 (€11798.90 and €13598.73 vs €15347.70 and €19568.31, respectively).

conclusionsRisankizumab showed superior efficacy than secukinumab and a lower cost per responder.

Identifiers

PMID40117618
PMCPMC11928122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.