ArticleThe Journal of dermatology2026
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Ritlecitinib Compared With No Treatment in Patients With Severe Alopecia Areata in Japan.
Article in The Journal of dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The efficacy and safety of ritlecitinib, a dual inhibitor of Janus kinase 3 (JAK3) and tyrosine kinase expressed in hepatocellular carcinoma (TEC) family kinases, have been demonstrated in the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 trial that enrolled patients aged ≥ 12 years with alopecia areata (AA) and ≥ 50% scalp hair loss. The present analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ritlecitinib compared with no treatment for patients with AA and ≥ 50% scalp hair loss in Japan from a societal perspective. A Markov model stratified by health states based on the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) was developed to estimate the lifetime costs, including productivity loss, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with the treatment of AA. The comparator was no treatment, and clinical parameters were based on the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 trial. Costs and QALYs were discounted at an annual rate of 2%, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Over a lifetime horizon and with the base-case societal perspective, the incremental QALYs and incremental costs of ritlecitinib 50 mg were 1.09 QALYs and 5 262 471 Japanese yen (JPY) (34 766 United States dollars [USD]), respectively. The ICER was 4 816 589 JPY (31 820 USD) per QALY, which was below the cost-effectiveness threshold in Japan of 5 000 000 JPY (33 032 USD) per QALY. A one-way sensitivity analysis showed that parameters with the most notable effect on the ICER were the utility for patients with SALT score ≥ 50, percentage of work time missed due to presenteeism for patients with SALT score ≥ 50, and the discontinuation rate of ritlecitinib 50 mg. These results indicate that ritlecitinib 50 mg is cost-effective compared with no treatment for patients with AA and hair loss on ≥ 50% of the scalp from a societal perspective in Japan.
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.