Dupilumab versus tralokinumab in atopic dermatitis: A propensity score adjusted comparison from BioDay

Read full text
Authors: Lian F. van der Gang, Nicolaas P. A. Zuithoff, I Haeck, Veroniek E. M. Harbers, Simone Stadhouders‐Keet, Klaziena Politiek, Albert J. Oosting, Anneke M.T. van Lynden-van Nes, Hoo‐Yin Lam, Anne-Moon van Tuyll van Serooskerken, S. Stewart, Antoni Gostyński
+7 more Annebeth Flinterman, Berit Velstra, Wouter R. H. Touwslager, Francine C. van Erp, Marie L. A. Schuttelaar, Marjolein S. de Bruin‐Weller, Marlies de Graaf
Cited by: 3
References: 43

Abstract

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.

Fields of Study & Subjects

Dermatology and Skin Diseases Asthma and respiratory diseases Allergic Rhinitis and Sensitization

Publication details

Journal / source
Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology
Publisher
Wiley
Volume
40
Issue
8
Pages
1359–1371
Publication date
13 April 2026
Language
EN