ArticleJournal of health economics and outcomes research2026
A Cost-per-Responder Analysis of Ritlecitinib vs Baricitinib in Severe Alopecia Areata.
Article in Journal of health economics and outcomes research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ritlecitinib, a JAK3/TEC family kinase inhibitor, and baricitinib, a JAK1/2 inhibitor, are approved for treating severe alopecia areata (AA). Objective: Develop a cost-per-responder analysis for ritlecitinib and baricitinib for treating severe AA to estimate the budget impact based on clinical efficacy, available dosages, and pricing structure. Methods: A decision tree evaluated cost implications of once-daily ritlecitinib 50 mg, or baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg treatment over 1 year from a US perspective. Drug costs were estimated using wholesale acquisition costs. Distribution across treatment and dosing options were based on real-world evidence. We defined shorter-term response as Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score relative change from baseline ≥30% (SALT Δ≥30%; SALT Results: At Week 24, 52.10% of ritlecitinib initiators and 36.28% of baricitinib initiators achieved SALT Δ ≥30%; at Week 52, 40.26% and 30.63% of ritlecitinib and baricitinib initiators, respectively, achieved SALT ≤20. Baricitinib had a higher cost per responder than ritlecitinib at Weeks 24 ( Conclusions: Ritlecitinib 50 mg demonstrated a lower cost per responder than baricitinib 2 or 4 mg at Weeks 24 and 52, which may inform reimbursement or formulary inclusion of ritlecitinib for treating AA.
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.