Letter to the Editor Regarding “Anchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Long-Term Maintenance of Efficacy of Tralokinumab and Lebrikizumab in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis”

We read with great interest the article by Augustin et al. [1] reporting the results of an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of tralokinumab and lebrikizumab in maintaining 16-week efficacy outcomes at week 52 for patients with moderate-tosevere atopic dermatitis (AD).The authors conducted a maintenance phase analysis (week 52 outcomes) using individual patient data from the ECZTRA 1 and 2 tralokinumab trials and aggregate data from the ADvocate 1 and 2 lebrikizumab trials, with individual patient data weighted to match ADvocate 1 and 2 baseline and week-16 characteristics.The authors concluded that tralokinumab and lebrikizumab had comparable maintenance of efficacy at 52 weeks among patients meeting response criteria at week 16.While the intent to compare long-term efficacy between these two biologics is commendable, both the selective patient population analyzed and limitations of the anchored MAIC approach when comparing data from maintenance periods, limit the robustness of the conclusions.The analysis examined a subset of patients who achieved week-16 responses.However, response rates differed markedly between treatments (52% for lebrikizumab vs 28% for tralokinumab) [1], creating an inherent imbalance in the populations being compared.The disparity in initial response rate is clinically meaningful