Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41969170›Full record

ArticleJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV2026

Dupilumab versus tralokinumab in atopic dermatitis: A propensity score adjusted comparison from BioDay.

Lian F van der Gang, Nicolaas P A Zuithoff, Inge M Haeck, Veroniek E M Harbers, Simone Stadhouders-Keet, Klaziena Politiek, Albert J Oosting, Anneke M T van Lynden-van Nes, Hoo-Yin Lam, Anne-Moon van Tuyll van Serooskerken and 9 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Biological treatment in atopic dermatitis-Lessons from the BioDay registry.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026
    Article
  2. Dupilumab versus tralokinumab in atopic dermatitis: A propensity score adjusted comparison from BioDay.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
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

19 authors.

Lian F van der GangNational Expertise Centre for Atopic Dermatitis, Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7981-7771
Nicolaas P A ZuithoffJulius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Inge M HaeckNational Expertise Centre for Atopic Dermatitis, Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Veroniek E M HarbersDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Simone Stadhouders-KeetDepartment of Dermatology, Reinier de Graaf Hospital, Delft, The Netherlands.
Klaziena PolitiekDepartment of Dermatology, Frisius Medical Centre, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Albert J OostingDepartment of Dermatology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands.
Anneke M T van Lynden-van NesDepartment of Dermatology, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Hoo-Yin LamDepartment of Dermatology, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Anne-Moon van Tuyll van SerooskerkenDepartment of Dermatology, Haga Hospital, Den Haag, The Netherlands.
Shiarra M StewartDepartment of Dermatology, IJsselland Hospital, Capelle aan den IJssel, The Netherlands.
Antoni GostynskiDepartement of Dermatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1091-2914
Annebeth FlintermanDepartment of Dermatology, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Berit VelstraDepartment of Dermatology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Wouter R H TouwslagerDepartment of Dermatology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Francine C van ErpDepartment of Dermatology, TerGooi Medical Center, Hilversum, The Netherlands.
Marie L A SchuttelaarDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Marjolein S de Bruin-WellerNational Expertise Centre for Atopic Dermatitis, Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marlies de GraafNational Expertise Centre for Atopic Dermatitis, Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

LEO Pharma
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDupilumab and tralokinumab for atopic dermatitis (AD) target the type 2 axis through different mechanisms of action, which may lead to variation in effectiveness and safety. Head-to-head trials, however, are lacking.

objectivesTo compare the real-world effectiveness and safety of dupilumab and tralokinumab in AD.

methodsThis prospective cohort study enrolled biologic-/Janus kinase inhibitor-naïve AD patients (≥12 years) from the BioDay registry who initiated dupilumab or tralokinumab between November 2021 and September 2024. Visits were scheduled at baseline, 4 weeks and every 3 months up to 52 weeks. Effectiveness outcomes included Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), weekly mean pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), treat-to-target thresholds (EASI ≤ 7; NRS-pruritus ≤ 4, with patients discontinuing treatment considered non-responders) and drug survival. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed at each visit. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance treatment groups.

resultsIn total, 750 patients were included (643 dupilumab; 107 tralokinumab). After IPTW, baseline characteristics were well balanced. During follow-up, dupilumab patients had lower EASI scores than tralokinumab patients, although differences were not consistently statistically significant (p = 0.10). NRS-pruritus scores were significantly lower with dupilumab at all visits (p < 0.0001), mean differences did not exceed the 2-point clinical relevance threshold. The probability of achieving EASI ≤ 7 and NRS-pruritus ≤ 4 was higher with dupilumab (both p < 0.0001), with risk differences of 34.7% and 40.2% at 52 weeks, respectively. After 52 weeks, dupilumab drug survival was 92.6% vs. 70.6% for tralokinumab. Ocular surface disease incidence was similar (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.6-1.6, p = 0.94) between treatments, leading to discontinuation of dupilumab in n = 23 (3.4/100 PY) and tralokinumab in n = 5 (5.4/100 PY).

conclusionsIn this real-world comparison, dupilumab provided superior effectiveness compared with tralokinumab. In responders continuing treatment, EASI and NRS-pruritus differences were small. More substantial differences were observed when treatment targets EASI ≤ 7 and NRS-pruritus ≤ 4, and discontinuation rates were taken into account.

Indexed as

Antibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedDermatitis, AtopicAdultAntibodies, MonoclonalFemaleHumansMalePropensity ScoreProspective StudiesSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, Humanizeddupilumabtralokinumabatopic dermatitisdupilumabevidence‐based medicineobservational studypropensity scoretralokinumab

Identifiers

PMID41969170
PMCPMC13425254

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.