Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026
Dupilumab versus tralokinumab in atopic dermatitis: A propensity score adjusted comparison from BioDay.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
van der Gang Lian F, Zuithoff Nicolaas P A, Haeck Inge M, Harbers Veroniek E M, Stadhouders-Keet Simone, Politiek Klaziena, Oosting Albert J, van Lynden-van Nes Anneke M T, Lam Hoo-Yin, van Tuyll van Serooskerken Anne-Moon, Stewart Shiarra M, Gostynski Antoni, Flinterman Annebeth, Velstra Berit, Touwslager Wouter R H, van Erp Francine C, Schuttelaar Marie L A, de Bruin-Weller Marjolein S, de Graaf Marlies
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Dupilumab 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.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the real-world effectiveness and safety of dupilumab and tralokinumab in AD.
METHODS: This 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.
RESULTS: In 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).
CONCLUSIONS: In 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.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the real-world effectiveness and safety of dupilumab and tralokinumab in AD.
METHODS: This 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.
RESULTS: In 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).
CONCLUSIONS: In 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.