ArticleThe Australasian journal of dermatology2026
A Retrospective Review of Real-World Patterns of Biologic Use in Dermatology Across Metropolitan, Regional and Rural Settings.
Article in The Australasian 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiologic therapies have transformed the management of inflammatory dermatologic conditions, including atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, and chronic spontaneous urticaria. However, studies in Australia and abroad highlight reduced uptake in regional areas, underscoring the need to address inequities in access. METHOD(S): A retrospective audit was performed of adult patients prescribed Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) subsidised biologics for severe atopic dermatitis, chronic plaque psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, or chronic spontaneous urticaria between 1 January 2022 and 31 July 2025. Complete biologic treatment histories were collected for all identified patients, including prescriptions initiated before or continuing after the study period.
resultsA total of 372 patients received PBS-subsidised biologic medications for severe atopic dermatitis (42.7%), chronic spontaneous urticaria (25.8%), chronic plaque psoriasis (22.0%), and hidradenitis suppurativa (9.4%). Approximately 17% of all patients lived in regional/remote areas (Modified Monash Model [MMM] 3-5). Dupilumab (n = 159) and omalizumab (n = 96) were the most commonly prescribed first-line biologics overall. While wait times for appointments and biologic initiation were comparable across rurality classifications (median 72-77 days to first appointment, 226-304 days to first biologic), patients from MMM 3-5 regions faced significantly higher costs per appointment (MMM 3-5 $110, MMM 2 $53 and MMM 1 $36).
conclusionsThis study highlights regional disparities in biologic therapy access within an Australian tertiary dermatology service. Addressing these inequities is vital to achieving equitable and sustainable dermatologic care.
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.