SynthesisDermatology and therapy2026
Nemolizumab Versus Dupilumab in the Treatment of Prurigo Nodularis: Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Dermatology and therapy, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a chronic skin condition characterized by severe, persistent pruritus and impairment in health-related quality of life. Dupilumab and nemolizumab are the only treatments approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for PN. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, this study evaluated the comparative clinical efficacy and safety of nemolizumab versus dupilumab in an indirect treatment comparison. A systematic literature review (SLR) identified clinical trials reporting efficacy and/or safety outcomes in PN. Searches were conducted on 1 December 2025 in Embase, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PsycInfo. Evidence from the SLR was synthesized using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to generate comparative estimates. Sensitivity analyses assessed robustness to assumptions regarding missing data and differences in concomitant topical corticosteroid or calcineurin inhibitor use. Five trials were included. In base-case analyses, nemolizumab generally demonstrated greater estimated efficacy than dupilumab across pruritus-related outcomes, with statistically significant differences for selected endpoints and time points. Estimated treatment differences significantly favored nemolizumab for change from baseline in Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) at 24 weeks (mean difference - 1.30; 95% credible interval [CrI] - 2.49 to - 0.18), PP-NRS response (≥ 4-point improvement) at 12 weeks (odds ratio [OR] 3.27; 95% CrI 1.41 to 7.27), and the composite endpoint of Investigator Global Assessment success and PP-NRS response at 12/16 weeks (OR 3.35; 95% CrI 1.19 to 10.09). At earlier time points (4-6 weeks), change from baseline in PP-NRS also significantly favored nemolizumab. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with base-case findings. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between treatments. These findings suggest that nemolizumab may provide greater improvement in key pruritus and disease severity outcomes compared with dupilumab in patients with PN, although uncertainty remains for several endpoints.
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.