ArticleDermatology and therapy2026
Cost-Per-Responder Analysis for Tralokinumab and Dupilumab in Combination with Topical Corticosteroids in Patients with Moderate-To-Severe Atopic Dermatitis.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Demonstrate the Efficacy and Long-Term Safety of Dupilumab in Adult Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis
A Randomised, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Phase 3 Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Tralokinumab in Combination With Topical Corticosteroids in Subjects With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAtopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease, and patients with moderate-to-severe AD may require treatment with biologics in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS). The evidence of the cost-effectiveness of biologics in AD is scarce.
methodsA country-specific cost-per-responder analysis comparing tralokinumab in combination with TCS to dupilumab in combination with TCS was performed for France, Germany, Italy, UK, and Canada based on efficacy estimates (at week 32) from a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Response was defined as either a 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) or an Investigator's Global Assessment score of 0-1 (IGA-0/1). The analysis was repeated with different proportions (10-50%) of patients switching from once every 2 weeks (Q2W) to once every 4 weeks (Q4W) dosing (as per label) for tralokinumab from week 16 to week 32.
resultsThe cost per EASI-75 responder for tralokinumab + TCS ranged from €7118.57 to €13,918.80 in France, Germany, Italy, and UK, and in Canada it was C$19,466.03 when 40% of patients using tralokinumab switched from Q2W to Q4W dosing per label. The cost per EASI-75 responder for dupilumab + TCS ranged from €12,380.21 to €18,065.16 and C$23,140.33. The cost per EASI-75 and IGA-0/1 responder for tralokinumab + TCS was lower than for dupilumab, irrespective of the country and the proportion switching from Q2W to Q4W. The proportion of patients switching from Q2W to Q4W dosing for tralokinumab proportionally decreased the average cost per responder at week 32.
conclusionIn France, Germany, Italy, UK, and Canada, tralokinumab in combination with TCS may be more cost-effective for moderate-to-severe AD than dupilumab in combination with TCS at week 32 for EASI-75 and IGA-0/1 responders. The difference in cost-effectiveness depends on the efficacy and cost of the treatments and on the proportion of patients treated with tralokinumab who switch per label from Q2W to Q4W, which additionally reduces treatment cost. CLINICAL
trial registrationLIBERTY AD CHRONOS [10] NCT02260986, ECZTRA 3 [9] NCT03363854.
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.