Introduction Indirect treatment comparison was used to compare approved doses of baricitinib and dupilumab for treating adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who are candidates for systemic therapy. Methods Baricitinib and dupilumab were compared (Bucher method) at weeks 4 and 16. Performance in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) was analyzed in patients with inadequate response or inadvisable to topical therapies (population A) and cyclosporine (population B). Population A was additionally examined as monotherapy. Results For the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75, baricitinib and dupilumab were similar. A ≥ 4-point improvement in itch numerical rating scale (NRS) was significantly more likely with baricitinib 4 mg than dupilumab in population A as monotherapy (RR = 2.62, 95% CI 1.22, 5.61, p = 0.013) and in TCS combination at week 4. These differences were not significant by week 16. For the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), baricitinib 4 mg and dupilumab were similar on mean difference in change from baseline (MDcfb), though some differences were seen between baricitinib 2 mg and dupilumab at week 16 for the population A monotherapy (MDcfb = 2.05, 95% CI 0.53, 3.56, p = 0.016) and TCS combination therapy (MDcfb = 2.48, 95% CI 0.46, 4.50, p = 0.016) groups, and in population B (MDcfb = 3.38 95% CI 1.18, 5.58, p = 0.003). Conclusions Baricitinib potentially offers more rapid improvement in itch while providing similar efficacy on EASI75 and DLQI outcomes compared with dupilumab.

ObjectivesWe aimed to quantify patient preferences for efficacy, safety and convenience features of atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments.Design and settingOnline discrete choice experiment survey.ParticipantsAdults in the UK, France and Spain who had used AD treatments during the past 2 years.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPreferences for attributes were analysed using a multinomial logit model. Willingness to make trade-offs was expressed as the maximum acceptable decrease (MAD) in the probability of achieving clear/almost clear skin at week 16.ResultsThe survey was completed by 404 patients (44.1±12.0 years; 65% women; 64% moderate/severe eczema). Most patients (68%) had no prior experience of using self-injectable treatments for AD or any other illness. Participants most valued increasing the chance of achieving a meaningful reduction in itch at week 16 from 20% to 50%, followed by reducing the risks of serious infections from 6% to 0% and of eye inflammation from 20% to 0%. Participants were willing to accept a decrease in the possibility of achieving clear/almost clear skin to obtain a treatment that can be paused (MAD=24.1%), requires occasional check-ups (MAD=16.1%) or no check-ups (MAD=20.9%) over frequent check-ups, is administered as a one time per day or two times per day oral pill versus a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks (MAD=16.6%), has a 2-day over 2-week onset of action (MAD=11.3%), and can be used for flare management (MAD=5.8%).ConclusionsAlthough patients with AD most valued treatment benefits and risks, they were willing to tolerate reduced efficacy to obtain a rapid onset, oral administration, less frequent monitoring and a treatment that can be paused. Understanding patients’ preferences for AD therapies, including new targeted therapies, can aid shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and support health technology assessments.