Key Points
Question
What is the efficacy and safety of dupilumab monotherapy in adolescents with moderate to severe inadequately controlled atopic dermatitis?
Findings
In this randomized phase 3 clinical trial including 251 adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, dupilumab 200 or 300 mg every 2 weeks and 300 mg every 4 weeks resulted in a significant treatment response vs placebo following 16-week treatment, with an acceptable safety profile.
Meaning
The findings appear to support the use of dupilumab for the treatment of adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.
Abstract
Importance
Adolescents with atopic dermatitis (AD) have high disease burden negatively affecting quality of life, with limited treatment options. The efficacy and safety of dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody, approved for treatment in adolescent patients with inadequately controlled AD, remain unknown in this patient population.
Objective
To assess the efficacy and safety of dupilumab monotherapy in adolescents with moderate to severe inadequately controlled AD.
Design, Setting, and Participants
A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 clinical trial was conducted at 45 US and Canadian centers between March 21, 2017, and June 5, 2018. A total of 251 adolescents with moderate to severe AD inadequately controlled by topical medications or for whom topical therapy was inadvisable were included.
Interventions
Patients were randomized (1:1:1; interactive-response system; stratified by severity and body weight) to 16-week treatment with dupilumab, 200 mg (n = 43; baseline weight <60 kg), or dupilumab, 300 mg (n = 39; baseline weight ≥60 kg), every 2 weeks; dupilumab, 300 mg, every 4 weeks (n = 84); or placebo (n = 85).
Main Outcomes and Measures
Proportion of patients with 75% or more improvement from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) (scores range from 0 to 72, with higher scores indicating greater severity) and Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) 0 or 1 on a 5-point scale (scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater severity) at week 16.
Results
A total of 251 patients were randomized (mean [SD] age, 14.5 [1.7] years; 148 [59.0%] male). Of 250 patients with data available on concurrent allergic conditions, most had comorbid type 2 diseases (asthma, 134 [53.6%]; food allergies, 60.8%; allergic rhinitis, 65.6%). A total of 240 patients (95.6%) completed the study. Dupilumab achieved both coprimary end points at week 16. The proportion of patients with EASI-75 improvement from baseline increased (every 2 weeks, 41.5%; every 4 weeks, 38.1%; placebo, 8.2%) with differences vs placebo of 33.2% (95% CI, 21.1%-45.4%) for every 2 weeks and 29.9% (95% CI, 17.9%-41.8%) for every 4 weeks (P < .001). Efficacy of the every-2-week regimen was generally superior to the every-4-week regimen. Patients in the dupilumab arms had higher percentage values of conjunctivitis (every 2 weeks, 9.8%; every 4 weeks, 10.8%; placebo, 4.7%) and injection-site reactions (every 2 weeks, 8.5%; every 4 weeks, 6.0%; placebo, 3.5%), and lower nonherpetic skin infections (every 2 weeks, 9.8%; every 4 weeks, 9.6%; placebo, 18.8%).
Conclusions and Relevance
In this study, dupilumab significantly improved AD signs, symptoms, and quality of life in adolescents with moderate to severe AD, with an acceptable safety profile. Placebo-corrected efficacy and safety of dupilumab were similar in adolescents and adults.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03054428
This phase 3 randomized clinical trial evaluates the efficacy and safety of 2 dose regimens of dupilumab for treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adolescents.
Introduction
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, predominantly type 2 inflammatory skin disease characterized by intense pruritus and often associated with atopic and nonatopic comorbidities,1,2,3 reflecting the systemic nature of the disease. Contrary to the common misperception that AD is a mild, spontaneously resolving childhood disease, the prevalence of AD in adolescents (age, 13-17 years) is estimated to range from 0.2% to 24.6% worldwide and from 7.0% to 8.6% in the United States.4,5 Up to one-third of these patients are estimated to have moderate to severe disease,6 along with a higher risk of atopic comorbidities and a higher disease burden.7 Itching, associated sleep loss, and the chronic, relapsing nature of AD negatively affect quality of life (QoL) of patients and family members.8,9 Atopic dermatitis in adolescents is associated with poorer performance in school, difficulties in forming social relationships and participating in sports, and increased rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation.9,10,11
Topical therapies adequately treat mild AD, but moderate to severe AD often requires systemic treatment. Until recently, the only systemic medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat pediatric AD were systemic corticosteroids. Moreover, available guidelines discourage use of systemic corticosteroids.12,13 Systemic immunosuppressants, such as cyclosporine, have been used off-label, restricted by long-term adverse effects.14
Dupilumab is a fully human VelocImmune-derived monoclonal antibody (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc)15,16 that reduces type 2 inflammation by blocking the shared receptor subunit for interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13, thus inhibiting signaling of both cytokines.17,18 The IL-4/IL-13 cytokines are key mediators of type 2 diseases, including AD and associated atopic diseases (eg, asthma, allergic rhinitis, food allergies, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and eosinophilic esophagitis).17 In phase 3 trials, dupilumab significantly improved AD signs and symptoms, including pruritus, anxiety and depression, and QoL in adults with moderate to severe AD, with an acceptable safety profile.19,20,21 Dupilumab is approved for subcutaneous administration for the treatment of patients aged 12 years or older with a 400-mg loading dose followed by 200 mg every 2 weeks in adolescents (age, ≥12 to <18 years) with baseline body weight less than 60 kg or a 600-mg loading dose followed by 300 mg every 2 weeks in adolescents weighing 60 kg or more in the United States with moderate to severe AD inadequately controlled with topical prescription therapies or when those therapies are not advisable.22 In addition, dupilumab is approved for use in patients aged 12 years or older with moderate to severe AD who are candidates for systemic therapy in the European Union and for certain patients with other type 2 inflammatory diseases, including asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, in multiple countries.19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28 Dupilumab has also shown efficacy and safety in other type 2 immune diseases, such as eosinophilic esophagitis,29 and is being investigated as a potential novel treatment in adolescents with eosinophilic esophagitis30 and in younger children with AD,31 asthma,32 and food allergy.33 We report results from a phase 3 trial on the efficacy and safety of dupilumab monotherapy in adolescents with moderate to severe AD inadequately controlled by topical therapies. The primary results from the phase 3 trial reported herein led to FDA approval of dupilumab in this patient population.22
Methods
Study Design and Oversight
This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial (R668-AD-1526, LIBERTY AD ADOL) was conducted between March 21, 2017, and June 5, 2018, in 45 study centers (hospitals, clinics, and academic institutions) in the United States and Canada. The trial protocol is available in Supplement 1. The trial was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki,34 International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidelines, and applicable regulatory requirements. The protocol was reviewed and approved by institutional review boards/ethics committees at all centers. An independent data and safety monitoring committee monitored patient safety (unblinded) and integrity of study results. For all patients, at least 1 parent or legal guardian provided written informed consent, and patients provided written informed assent. Participants were reimbursed for travel expenses.
Patients
Eligible patients were 12 years or older to younger than 18 years with moderate to severe AD inadequately controlled by topical treatment or for whom topical treatment was medically inadvisable. Patients had chronic AD, as per American Academy of Dermatology criteria35 for 1 year or more before screening (detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are given in the eMethods in Supplement 2). Patient eligibility was assessed during a 35-day screening period that involved washout of prior medications.
Randomization and Blinding
Eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1) by an interactive voice response system and stratified by baseline Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score (3 vs 4) and body weight (<60 kg vs ≥60 kg) to 16-week treatment with subcutaneous dupilumab every 2 or every 4 weeks or placebo every 2 weeks (Figure 1). This regimen was based on data from a phase 2b dose-ranging study and 2 phase 3 studies in adults19,36 and a study in patients aged 6 to younger than 18 years.37 To account for differences in body size from adults, a tiered weight-based regimen was studied. In the dupilumab every-2-week group, patients weighing less than 60 kg received 200 mg after a 400-mg loading dose on day 1; patients weighing 60 kg or more received 300 mg after a 600-mg loading dose on day 1. In the dupilumab every-4-week group, all patients received 300 mg after a 600-mg loading dose. To maintain blinding, all patients received injections every 2 weeks (dupilumab or placebo) from day 1; patients in the dupilumab every-4-week group received placebo in the weeks that dupilumab was not given (eMethods in Supplement 2 gives additional information on the blinding procedure).
Figure 1. CONSORT Diagram.
OLE indicates open-label extension trial (NCT02612454).
aOne patient in the every-4-week dupilumab group who was randomized but did not receive treatment was included in the efficacy, but not the safety, analysis.
Procedures
Patients applied moisturizers twice daily for 7 or more days before randomization and throughout the study. A 35-day screening period preceded initiation of the study drug. Systemic nonsteroidal immunosuppressants, systemic or topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, and topical crisaborole could be used only as rescue treatment by patients with intolerable AD symptoms at the discretion of the investigator (additional details in eMethods in Supplement 2). Patients who completed the 16-week treatment period were eligible to participate in an open-label extension study (R668-AD-1434, LIBERTY AD PED-OLE, NCT02612454); patients not enrolling in the open-label extension study were followed up for 12 additional weeks.
Outcomes
Coprimary end points per European Medicines Agency feedback were the proportion of patients with IGA scores of 0 or 1 (as in other dupilumab trials,19 scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater severity; the clinically meaningful within-person change or response definition for this scale has not been determined) and 2 or more points improvement from baseline or 75% or more improvement from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) scale at week 16. Scores on the EASI range from 0 to 72, with higher scores indicating greater severity, and a change of 6.6 has been estimated as the clinically meaningful within-person change or response definition. The EASI-75 score was a key secondary end point in the United States. Other key secondary end points at week 16 were the percentage changes from baseline in EASI and Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and proportion of patients with a 3-point or more or 4-point or more improvement from baseline in Peak Pruritus NRS (assesses the maximum itch intensity in the previous 24 hours on a scale ranging from 0 to 10, with higher values indicating worse itching; clinically meaningful within-person change or response definition is 4 points). Other secondary end points included 50% or more or 90% or more improvement from baseline in EASI (EASI-50/EASI-90) at week 16, percentage change in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (combined score of investigator-reported disease severity and affected body surface area and patient-reported symptoms of itch and sleep loss; scores range from 0 to 103, with higher scores indicating greater severity; a change of 8.7 has been estimated as the clinically meaningful within-person change or response definition) and changes in Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (scores range from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating greater effect on QoL; a clinically meaningful within-person change or response definition is 6 points), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (composite measure of patient-reported symptoms including the effect of symptoms on sleep, evaluates frequency of symptoms, including itch, and the effect of AD on sleep on a scale of 0 to 28, with higher scores indicating greater severity; clinically meaningful within-person change or response definition is 6 points), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores from baseline to week 16 (measures patient-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression on a scale from 0 to 42; scores on HADS-A [measuring anxiety] and HADS-D [measuring depression] subscales range from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating a greater burden of anxiety or depression symptoms; clinically meaningful within-person change or response definition for this scale has not been determined; recommended cutoff score for identifying patients with anxiety or depression is 8) (eMethods in Supplement 2 gives a full list of end points). Because adolescent patients with AD have high rates of comorbid type 2 diseases, we also explored the potential benefit of dupilumab in asthma, allergic rhinitis, and food allergy in prespecified analyses. The effect of dupilumab on asthma control in adolescent patients with ongoing comorbid asthma was assessed by the 5-question version of the Juniper Asthma Control Questionnaire, whereas the effect of dupilumab on symptoms of allergic rhinitis in adolescent patients with ongoing allergic rhinitis was assessed by the Total Nasal Symptoms Score; the summed Total Nasal Symptoms Score included the following 4 nasal symptoms: rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, nasal itching, and sneezing, each rated on a 0 to 3 scale of severity.
Serum was collected for pharmacokinetic evaluation and biomarker analyses at various times during treatment. Safety assessments included evaluation of treatment-emergent adverse events, laboratory test measurements, and vital signs. Safety end points included incidences of serious treatment-emergent adverse events and nonherpetic skin infection.
Statistical Analysis
Randomization of 240 patients was planned (eMethods in Supplement 2 indicates power calculations). The efficacy population included all randomized patients. For the coprimary and binary secondary end points, the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used with adjustment for randomization strata (disease severity and weight group). Patients who withdrew from the study or received rescue medication, as well as those with other missing data, were counted as nonresponders at all subsequent times, including week 16. For continuous end points, data collected after rescue medication use were set as missing; subsequent missing data were imputed by multiple imputation. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for both binary and continuous end points (eMethods in Supplement 2). A multiplicity adjustment approach (hierarchical procedure; eMethods in Supplement 2) was used to control the overall type I error rate at .05 for the primary and secondary end points for the 2 dupilumab regimens vs placebo. Each hypothesis was formally tested only if the preceding one was significant at the 2-sided .05 significance level.
The safety population was defined as all randomized patients who received 1 or more injection of the study drug. Pharmacokinetic analysis included descriptive statistics of functional dupilumab serum concentration at each measurement point by dose. The association between functional dupilumab serum concentration and clinical response (IGA and EASI scales) was assessed; eMethods in Supplement 2 gives additional details. All statistical tests were 2-tailed with a 5% level of statistical significance. All analyses were performed using SAS, version 9.2 or higher (SAS Institute, Inc).
Results
Patients
Between April 7, 2017, and December 13, 2017, a total of 251 patients of 295 screened were randomized to dupilumab, 200 or 300 mg, every 2 weeks (n = 82; 43 received 200 mg and 39 received 300 mg); dupilumab, 300 mg, every 4 weeks (n = 84); or placebo (n = 85). A high proportion of these patients (240 [95.6%]) completed the study treatment (Figure 1). Treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics that reflected a substantial disease burden (eg, influence on QoL and mental health) (Table 1). Overall, high proportions of 250 patients with available data (230 [92.0%]) had 1 or more comorbid type 2 diseases. Of the 250 individuals with data on specific conditions, 164 had allergic rhinitis (65.6%), 134 had asthma (53.6%), 152 had food allergy (60.8%), and 106 had received prior systemic therapy for AD (42.4%) (Table 1).
Table 1. Baseline Demographics and Disease Characteristics.
| Characteristic | Placebo (n = 85) | Dupilumab 300 mg Every 4 wk (n = 84) | Dupilumab 200/300 mg Every 2 wk (n = 82) | All Patients (n = 251) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean (SD), y | 14.5 (1.8) | 14.4 (1.6) | 14.5 (1.7) | 14.5 (1.7) |
| Age, No. (%), y | ||||
| ≥12 to <15 | 41 (48.2) | 45 (53.6) | 43 (52.4) | 129 (51.4) |
| ≥15 to <18 | 44 (51.8) | 39 (46.4) | 39 (47.6) | 122 (48.6) |
| Male, No. (%) | 53 (62.4) | 52 (61.9) | 43 (52.4) | 148 (59.0) |
| Ethnicity, No. (%) | ||||
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 72 (84.7) | 64 (76.2) | 69 (84.1) | 205 (81.7) |
| Hispanic or Latino | 13 (15.3) | 20 (23.8) | 13 (15.9) | 46 (18.3) |
| Race, No. (%) | ||||
| White | 48 (56.5) | 55 (65.5) | 54 (65.9) | 157 (62.5) |
| Black or African American | 15 (17.6) | 8 (9.5) | 7 (8.5) | 30 (12.0) |
| Asian | 13 (15.3) | 13 (15.5) | 12 (14.6) | 38 (15.1) |
| Weight, mean (SD), kg | 64.4 (21.5) | 65.8 (20.1) | 65.6 (24.5) | 65.2 (22.0) |
| Weight, No. (%) | ||||
| <60 kg | 43 (50.6) | 42 (50.0) | 43 (52.4) | 128 (51.0) |
| ≥60 kg | 42 (49.4) | 42 (50.0) | 39 (47.6) | 123 (49.0) |
| BMI, mean (SD) | 23.9 (6.0) | 24.1 (5.9) | 24.9 (7.9) | 24.3 (6.6) |
| Duration of AD, mean (SD), y | 12.3 (3.4) | 11.9 (3.2) | 12.5 (3.0) | 12.2 (3.2) |
| EASI score, mean (SD)a | 35.5 (14.0) | 35.8 (14.8) | 35.3 (13.8) | 35.5 (14.2) |
| Patients with IGA score, No. (%)b | ||||
| 3 | 39 (45.9) | 38 (45.2) | 39 (47.6) | 116 (46.2) |
| 4 | 46 (54.1) | 46 (54.8) | 43 (52.4) | 135 (53.8) |
| Peak Pruritus NRS score, mean (SD)c | 7.7 (1.6) | 7.5 (1.8) | 7.5 (1.5) | 7.6 (1.7) |
| Percent BSA involvement, mean (SD) | 56.4 (24.1) | 56.9 (23.5) | 56.0 (21.4) | 56.5 (23.0) |
| SCORAD score, mean (SD)d | 70.4 (13.3) | 69.8 (14.1) | 70.6 (13.9) | 70.3 (13.7) |
| CDLQI score, mean (SD)e | 13.1 (6.7) | 14.8 (7.4) | 13.0 (6.2) | 13.6 (6.8) |
| POEM score, mean (SD)f | 21.1 (5.4) | 21.1 (5.5) | 21.0 (5.0) | 21.0 (5.3) |
| Total HADS score, mean (SD)g | 11.6 (7.8) | 13.3 (8.2) | 12.6 (8.0) | 12.5 (8.0) |
| Serum TARC, median (Q1-Q3), pg/mL | 2160.0 (1120.0-6000.0) | 2095.0 (1110.0-5350.0) | 2940.0 (974.0-7320.0) | 2320.0 (1080.0-6280.0) |
| Serum total IgE, median (Q1-Q3), kU/mL | 3983.0 (813.0-10931.0) | 3482.0 (728.0-10000.0) | 3739.5 (1699.0-9517.0) | 3785.0 (967.0-10000.0) |
| Serum LDH concentration, median (Q1-Q3), U/L | 259.0 (223.0-321.0) | 275.5 (227.0-362.0) | 277.0 (213.0-344.0) | 271.0 (223.0-346.0) |
| Blood eosinophil count/μL | 660 (320-1130) | 680 (345-980) | 600 (380-1120) | 650 (370-1100) |
| Patients with ≥1 concurrent allergic condition, No. (%) | 78 (91.8) | 73 (88.0)h | 79 (96.3) | 230 (92.0)i |
| Allergic rhinitis | 57 (67.1) | 48 (57.8) | 59 (72.0) | 164 (65.6) |
| Asthma | 46 (54.1) | 42 (50.6) | 46 (56.1) | 134 (53.6) |
| Food allergy | 48 (56.5) | 52 (62.7) | 52 (63.4) | 152 (60.8) |
| Allergic conjunctivitis | 16 (18.8) | 21 (25.3) | 20 (24.4) | 57 (22.8) |
| Hives | 22 (25.9) | 28 (33.7) | 22 (26.8) | 72 (28.8) |
| Chronic rhinosinusitis | 7 (8.2) | 6 (7.2) | 6 (7.3) | 19 (7.6) |
| Nasal polyps | 2 (2.4) | 1 (1.2) | 2 (2.4) | 5 (2.0) |
| Eosinophilic esophagitis | 0 | 0 | 1 (1.2) | 1 (0.4) |
| Other allergiesj | 62 (72.9) | 53 (63.9) | 58 (70.7) | 173 (69.2) |
| Patients receiving prior systemic medications for AD, No. (%) | 33 (38.8) | 38 (45.8)h | 35 (42.7) | 106 (42.4)i |
| Corticosteroids | 21 (24.7) | 27 (32.5) | 21 (25.6) | 69 (27.6) |
| Nonsteroidal immunosuppressants | 17 (20.0) | 15 (18.1) | 20 (24.4) | 52 (20.8) |
| Azathioprine | 1 (1.2) | 1 (1.2) | 0 | 2 (0.8) |
| Cyclosporine | 12 (14.1) | 6 (7.2) | 14 (17.1) | 32 (12.8) |
| Methotrexate | 6 (7.1) | 10 (12.0) | 10 (12.2) | 26 (10.4) |
| Mycophenolate | 0 | 1 (1.2) | 2 (2.4) | 3 (1.2) |
Abbreviations: AD, atopic dermatitis; BMI, body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared); BSA, body surface area; CDLQI, Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index; EASI, Eczema Area and Severity Index; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; IGA, Investigator’s Global Assessment; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; NRS, Numerical Rating Scale; POEM, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure; Q1, first quartile; Q3, third quartile; QoL, quality of life; SCORAD, SCORing Atopic Dermatitis; TARC, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine.
SI conversion factors: To convert eosinophils to 109 per liter, multiply by 0.001; LDS to microkatals per liter, multiply by 0.0167.
Scores range from 0 to 72, with higher scores indicating greater severity; a change of 6.6 has been estimated as the clinically meaningful within-person change or response definition.
Scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater severity; the clinically meaningful within-person change or response definition for this scale has not been determined.
Patient-reported measure that assesses the maximum itch intensity in the previous 24 hours on a scale ranging from 0 to 10, with higher values indicating worse itching. The clinically meaningful within-person change or response definition is 4 points.
Combined score of investigator-reported disease severity and affected BSA and patient-reported symptoms of itch and sleep loss; scores range from 0 to 103, with higher scores indicating greater severity; a change of 8.7 has been estimated as the clinically meaningful within-person change or response definition.
Evaluates health-related QoL on a scale of 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating greater effect on QoL. The clinically meaningful within-person change or response definition is 6 points.
Composite measure of patient-reported symptoms, evaluates the frequency of symptoms (including itching) and the effect of AD on sleep on a scale of 0 to 28, with higher scores indicating greater severity; the clinically meaningful within-person change or response definition is 6 points.
Measures patient-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression on a scale from 0 to 42; scores on HADS-A (measuring anxiety) and HADS-D (measuring depression) subscales range from 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating a greater burden of anxiety or depression symptoms; the clinically meaningful within-person change or response definition for this scale has not been determined. The recommended cutoff score for identifying patients with anxiety or depression is 8.
Data available on 83 patients.
Data available on 250 patients.
Includes allergies to, for example, medications, animals, plants, mold, and dust mites.
Coprimary Outcomes
Dupilumab achieved both coprimary end points. A significantly higher proportion of patients reached EASI-75 at week 16 in both the every-2-week (34 [41.5%]) and every-4-week (32 [38.1%]) groups vs placebo (7 [8.2%]). Differences vs placebo were 33.2% (95% CI, 21.1%-45.4%) for every 2 weeks and 29.9% (95% CI, 17.9%-41.8%) for every 4 weeks (both regimens, P < .001) (Table 2, Figure 2A). The proportions of patients reaching IGA 0 or 1 at week 16 was also significantly higher with every 2 weeks (20 [24.4%]) and every 4 weeks (15 [17.9%]) vs placebo (2 [2.4%]). Differences vs placebo were 22.0% (95% CI, 12.2%-31.9%) for every 2 weeks and 15.5% (95% CI, 6.7%-24.3%) for every 4 weeks (both P < .001) (Table 2, Figure 2B).
Table 2. Efficacy Outcomesa.
| Outcome | Placebo (n = 85) | Dupilumab 300 mg Every 4 wk (n = 84) | Dupilumab 200/300 mg Every 2 wk (n = 82) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients with IGA 0 or 1 score at week 16, No. (%) | 2 (2.4) | 15 (17.9)b | 20 (24.4)b |
| Difference vs placebo, % (95% CI) | NA | 15.5 (6.7-24.3) | 22.0 (12.2-31.9) |
| Patients with EASI-75 score at week 16, No. (%) | 7 (8.2) | 32 (38.1)b | 34 (41.5)b |
| Difference vs placebo, % (95% CI) | NA | 29.9 (17.9-41.8) | 33.2 (21.1-45.4) |
| EASI score at baseline, mean (SD)c | 35.5 (14.0) | 35.8 (14.8) | 35.3 (13.8) |
| EASI score at week 16, mean (SD)c | 24.1 (15.5) | 12.3 (11.1) | 13.0 (12.6) |
| Percent change from baseline to week 16 in EASI score, LS mean (SE) | −23.6 (5.5) | −64.8 (4.5)b | −65.9 (4.0)b |
| Percent difference vs placebo, LS mean (95% CI) | NA | −41.2 (−54.4 to −28.0) | −42.3 (−55.6 to −29.0) |
| Weekly average of daily Peak Pruritus NRS score at baseline, mean (SD)c | 7.7 (1.6) | 7.5 (1.8) | 7.5 (1.5) |
| Weekly average of daily Peak Pruritus NRS score at week 16, mean (SD)c | 6.0 (2.3) | 4.0 (2.7) | 3.9 (2.2) |
| Percent change from baseline to week 16 in weekly average of daily Peak Pruritus NRS score, LS mean (SE) | −19.0 (4.1) | −45.5 (3.5)b | −47.9 (3.4)b |
| Percent difference vs placebo, LS mean (95% CI) | NA | −26.5 (−37.5 to −15.6) | −29.0 (−39.5 to −18.4) |
| Proportion of patients with ≥3-point improvement (reduction) from baseline to week 16 in weekly average of daily Peak Pruritus NRS, No./No. available (%) | 8/85 (9.4) | 32/83 (38.6)b | 40/82 (48.8)b |
| Difference vs placebo, % (95% CI) | NA | 29.1 (17.0-41.3) | 39.4 (26.9-51.8) |
| Proportion of patients with ≥4-point improvement (reduction) from baseline to week 16 in weekly average of daily Peak Pruritus NRS, No./No. available (%) | 4/84 (4.8) | 22/83 (26.5)b | 30/82 (36.6)b |
| Difference vs placebo, % (95% CI) | NA | 21.7 (11.2-32.3) | 31.8 (20.5-43.2) |
| Patients with EASI-50 score at week 16, No. (%) | 11 (12.9) | 46 (54.8)b | 50 (61.0)b |
| Difference vs placebo (95% CI) | NA | 41.8 (29.0-54.6) | 48.0 (35.3-60.8) |
| Patients with EASI-90 score at week 16, No. (%) | 2 (2.4) | 16 (19.0)b | 19 (23.2)b |
| Difference vs placebo (95% CI) | NA | 16.7 (7.7-25.7) | 20.8 (11.1-30.5) |
| Time to onset of end point | |||
| Peak Pruritus NRS score improvement ≥3 points | NA | ||
| Median (95% CI), wk | NC | 6.0 (5-11)d | 5.4 (4-8)b |
| Hazard ratio (95% CI) | NA | 1.9 (1.2-2.8) | 2.2 (1.5-3.4) |
| Peak Pruritus NRS score improvement ≥4 points | |||
| Median (95% CI), wk | NC | 11.0 (6-NC) | 11.4 (9-NC) |
| Hazard ratio (95% CI) | NA | 2.3 (1.4-3.9)e | 2.40 (1.5-4.0)b |
| Percent BSA at baseline, mean (SD)c | 56.4 (24.1) | 56.9 (23.5) | 56.0 (21.4) |
| Percent BSA at week 16, mean (SD)c | 42.1 (25.4) | 23.4 (19.9) | 26.4 (25.4) |
| Change in percent BSA from baseline to week 16, LS mean (SE) | −11.7 (2.7) | −33.4 (2.3)b | −30.1 (2.3)b |
| Difference vs placebo, LS mean (95% CI) | NA | −21.8 (−29.0 to −14.6) | −18.4 (−25.1 to −11.8) |
| SCORAD at baseline, mean (SD)c | 70.4 (13.2) | 69.8 (14.1) | 70.6 (13.9) |
| SCORAD at week 16, mean (SD)c | 53.1 (19.7) | 35.8 (17.8) | 34.9 (18.6) |
| Percent change from baseline to week 16 in SCORAD score, LS mean (SE) | −17.6 (3.8) | −47.5 (3.2)b | −51.6 (3.2)b |
| Percent difference vs placebo, LS mean (95% CI) | NA | −29.9 (−40.0 to −19.8) | −34.0 (−43.4 to −24.6) |
| CDLQI score at baseline, mean (SD)c | 13.1 (6.7) | 14.8 (7.4) | 13.0 (6.2) |
| CDLQI score at week 16, mean (SD)c | 7.9 (6.5) | 5.2 (5.1) | 5.0 (4.1) |
| Change from baseline to week 16 in CDLQI score, LS mean (SE) | −5.1 (0.6) | −8.8 (0.5)b | −8.5 (0.5)b |
| Difference vs placebo, LS mean (95% CI) | NA | −3.7 (−5.2 to −2.2) | −3.4 (−5.0 to −1.8) |
| POEM score at baseline, mean (SD)c | 21.1 (5.4) | 21.1 (5.5) | 21.0 (5.0) |
| POEM score at week 16, mean (SD)c | 16.2 (8.3) | 11.2 (7.4) | 10.8 (6.9) |
| Change from baseline to week 16 in POEM score, LS mean (SE) | −3.8 (1.0) | −9.5 (0.9)b | −10.1 (0.8)b |
| Difference vs placebo, LS mean (95% CI) | NA | −5.7 (−8.2 to −3.2) | −6.3 (−8.6 to −4.0) |
| Change from baseline to week 16 in weekly average of daily Peak Pruritus NRS score, LS mean (SE) | −1.5 (0.3) | −3.4 (0.3)b | −3.7 (0.3)b |
| Difference vs placebo, LS mean (95% CI) | NA | −1.9 (−2.7 to −1.1) | −2.2 (−2.9 to −1.4) |
| Percent change from baseline to week 4 in weekly average of daily Peak Pruritus NRS score, LS mean (SE) | −12.5 (3.1) | −33.1 (3.1)b | −34.7 (3.0)b |
| Percent difference vs placebo, LS mean (95% CI) | NA | −20.6 (−29.1 to −12.1) | −22.2 (−30.6 to −13.9) |
| Total HADS score at baseline, mean (SD)c | 11.6 (7.8) | 13.3 (8.2) | 12.6 (8.0) |
| Total HADS score at week 16, mean (SD)c | 8.4 (7.6) | 7.6 (7.2) | 8.5 (8.2) |
| Change from baseline to week 16 in total HADS score, LS mean (SE) | −2.5 (0.8) | −5.2 (0.7)f | −3.8 (0.7)g |
| Difference vs placebo, LS mean (95% CI) | NA | −2.7 (−4.8 to −0.6) | −1.3 (−3.3 to 0.8) |
| Proportion of patients with reduction of weekly average of daily Peak Pruritus NRS score ≥4 points from baseline at week 4, No./No. available, % | 4/84 (4.8) | 17/83 (20.5)h | 18/82 (22.0)i |
| Difference vs placebo, LS mean (95% CI) | NA | 15.7 (5.9-25.5) | 17.2 (7.1-27.2) |
Abbreviations: BSA, body surface area; CDLQI, Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index; EASI, Eczema Area and Severity Index; EASI-50, 50% improvement from baseline in EASI score; EASI-75, 75% improvement from baseline in EASI score; EASI-90, 90% improvement from baseline in EASI score; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; IGA, Investigator’s Global Assessment; LS, least squares; NA, not applicable; NC, not calculable; NRS, Numerical Rating Scale; POEM, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure; SCORAD, Scoring Atopic Dermatitis.
Explanation of test scoring is given in Table 1 footnotes.
P < .001.
All observed data values regardless of rescue treatment use.
P = .003.
P = .001.
Nominal P = .01.
Nominal P = .22.
Nominal P = .003.
Nominal P < .001 vs placebo.
Figure 2. Proportion of Patients Achieving Coprimary End Points Over Time to Week 16.
A, Patients achieving 75% or more improvement from baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75). B, Patients achieving Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) scores of 0 or 1.
aP < .001 vs placebo.
Key Secondary Outcomes
Both dupilumab regimens significantly improved the first key secondary end point: least-squares mean percentage change from baseline to week 16 in EASI (every 2 weeks, −65.9; every 4 weeks, −64.8; placebo, −23.6). The least-squares mean percentage differences vs placebo were −42.3 (95% CI, −55.6 to −29.0) for every 2 weeks and −41.2 (95% CI, −54.4 to −28.0) for every 4 weeks (both regimens, P < .001) (Table 2, Figure 3A). Significant improvement was also seen for the second key secondary end point: least-squares mean percentage change from baseline to week 16 in Peak Pruritus NRS (every 2 weeks, −47.9; every 4 weeks, −45.5; placebo, −19.0). The least-squares mean percentage differences vs placebo were −29.0 (95% CI, −39.5 to −18.4) for every 2 weeks and −26.5 (95% CI, −37.5 to −15.6) for every 4 weeks (both regimens, P < .001) (Table 2, Figure 3B). The proportion of patients with 3 points or more or 4 points or more improvement from baseline in Peak Pruritus NRS was significantly higher with dupilumab than placebo at week 16. Proportions of patients with at least 3-point improvement from baseline at week 16 were the following: every 2 weeks, 48.8%; every 4 weeks, 38.6%; and placebo, 9.4%. Proportions of patients with at least 4-point improvement from baseline at week 16 were the following: every 2 weeks, 36.6%; every 4 weeks, 26.5%; and placebo, 4.8% (Table 2, eFigure 1 in Supplement 2).
Figure 3. Least-Squares (LS) Mean Percentage Changes and LS Mean (SE) Changes From Baseline to Week 16.
A, LS mean percentage change in Eczema Area and Severity Index score. B, LS mean percentage change in weekly average of daily Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score. C, LS mean change in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure score. D, LS mean change in Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) score.
aP < .001 vs placebo.
For the primary and key secondary outcomes, sensitivity analyses (last observation carried forward for imputation of missing data, or all observed data regardless of rescue treatment use) were consistent with the primary analysis, demonstrating that efficacy was robust irrespective of imputation method used. For example, for patients receiving dupilumab every 2 weeks, differences vs placebo for least-squares mean percentage change from baseline to week 16 in EASI were −34.9 (95% CI, −44.8 to −25.1; P < .001) using all observed data regardless of rescue treatment use, and −46.0 (95% CI, −56.8 to −35.3; P < .001) using the last observation carried forward for imputation of missing data (eFigure 2, eFigure 3, eTable 1 in Supplement 2).
Other Secondary Outcomes
The time to onset of improvement in Peak Pruritus NRS was significantly shorter in the dupilumab than placebo groups (Table 2). The least-squares mean percentage change from baseline to week 4 in Peak Pruritus NRS was significantly greater with both dupilumab regimens vs placebo (every 2 weeks, −34.7; every 4 weeks, −33.1; placebo, −12.5) (Table 2, Figure 3B), and a greater proportion of dupilumab-treated patients than placebo-treated patients had 4 points or more improvement in Peak Pruritus NRS at week 4 (prespecified time point) (every 2 weeks, 22.0%; every 4 weeks, 20.5%; placebo, 4.8%) (Table 2, eFigure 1 in Supplement 2). Significantly higher proportions of patients treated with both dupilumab regimens reached EASI-50 and EASI-90 at week 16 (EASI-50: every 2 weeks, 61.0%; every 4 weeks, 54.8%; placebo, 12.9%; EASI-90: every 2 weeks, 23.2%; every 4 weeks, 19.0%; placebo, 2.4%) (Table 2). Both dupilumab regimens also significantly improved SCORing Atopic Dermatitis results at week 16 (Table 2); reduced frequency of patient-reported AD symptoms (including itch and sleep loss) and improved QoL significantly vs placebo measured by Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (least-squares mean changes from baseline to week 16: every 2 weeks, −10.1; every 4 weeks, −9.5; placebo, −3.8), and Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index scores (least-squares mean changes from baseline to week 16: every 2 weeks, −8.5; every 4 weeks, −8.8; placebo, −5.1) (Table 2, Figure 1C,D). Improvements in total HADS score were numerically greater with dupilumab than placebo and with every-4-week than every-2-week regimens (every 2 weeks, −3.8; every 4 weeks, −5.2; placebo, −2.5) (Table 2). In addition, the proportion of patients requiring rescue medication was higher in the placebo group than the dupilumab groups (every 2 weeks, 20.7%; every 4 weeks, 32.1%; placebo, 58.8% (eFigure 4 in Supplement 2).
Additional Efficacy Analyses
Because the dupilumab every-2-week dose was based on body weight, efficacy was assessed by body weight subgroup (<60 kg vs ≥60 kg). In both subgroups, dupilumab-treated patients were more likely than placebo-treated patients to have IGA 0 or 1, EASI-75, or 4-point or more improvement in Peak Pruritus NRS at week 16 and to achieve greater improvement in least-squares mean percentage change from baseline to week 16 in EASI. For example, in patients receiving dupilumab every 2 weeks, the rates at week 16 for IGA 0 or 1 were 30.2% vs 2.3% for placebo in those weighing less than 60 kg, and 17.9% vs 2.4% in patients weighing 60 kg or more; for EASI-75, rates were 46.5% vs 7.0% for placebo in patients weighing less than 60 kg, and 35.9% vs 9.5% for placebo in patients weighing 60 kg or more (eFigure 5 in Supplement 2). In both weight groups, the every-2-week regimens generally provided numerically superior responses compared with the every-4-week regimen on all prespecified end points except EASI-75 and mean percentage change in EASI, for which each dose regimen provided comparable responses (eFigure 5 in Supplement 2).
Pharmacokinetic Analyses
Pharmacokinetic analysis was conducted on 249 patients. At week 16, steady state mean trough concentrations of functional dupilumab were approximately 3-fold higher in patients receiving dupilumab, 200 or 300 mg, every 2 weeks (54.5 mg/L) than those receiving dupilumab, 300 mg, every 4 weeks (19.8 mg/L) (eFigure 6A in Supplement 2). Many patients receiving the every-4-week regimen, particularly those of greater body weight, had trough concentrations at or near the lower limit of quantification (eFigure 6B in Supplement 2). The dupilumab every-2-week regimen achieved similar exposure in patients with body weight less than 60 kg (200 mg) (mean [SD], 51.3 [24.2] mg/mL); and 60 kg or more (300 mg) (mean [SD], 57.9 [30.0] mg/mL); with dupilumab, 300 mg, every 4 weeks, trough concentrations were lower in patients weighing 60 kg or more (mean [SD], 13.1 [11.9] mg/mL) than in those weighing less than 60 kg (mean [SD], 27.2 [16.1] mg/mL); and in those in the upper weight ranges (eFigure 6B,C in Supplement 2). A positive exposure-response association was observed; higher dupilumab trough concentrations were associated with a higher proportion of patients having IGA 0 or 1 and a greater percentage change from baseline in EASI (eFigure 7 in Supplement 2).
Biomarker Analyses
Both dupilumab groups showed reductions from baseline in blood eosinophil count and significant suppression of blood lactate dehydrogenase level, serum thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC) (also known as CCL17), and total IgE concentrations compared with placebo. For example, for the patients receiving dupilumab every 2 weeks, the difference in median change from baseline to at week 16 in total IgE concentrations vs placebo was −2524.0 kU/L (95% CI, −3579.0 to −1783.6 kU/L) (eFigure 8, eTable 2 in Supplement 2).
Efficacy in Comorbid Conditions
At week 16, patients with comorbid asthma or allergic rhinitis showed numerically greater improvement in asthma control (measured by least-squares mean changes from baseline in the Juniper Asthma Control Questionnaire) (for the patients receiving dupilumab every 2 weeks, least-squares mean difference vs placebo at week 16 was −0.58; 95% CI, −1.07 to −0.10) and numerically greater reduction in symptoms of allergic rhinitis (measured by least-squares mean changes from baseline in the Total Nasal Symptom Score) with dupilumab vs placebo (for the patients receiving dupilumab every 2 weeks, the difference in least-squares mean change from baseline at week 16 vs placebo was −0.81; 95% CI, −2.74 to 1.12) (eTable 3 in Supplement 2). Dupilumab also significantly suppressed IgE concentrations for specific food allergens (cow’s milk, egg white, and peanut) and aeroallergens (cat dander and dust mite) at week 16. For example, for patients receiving dupilumab every 2 weeks, the difference in median percentage change from baseline at week 16 vs placebo for suppressed IgE concentrations for peanut allergens was −53.9% (95% CI, −63.2% to −41.5%) and for cat dander was −55.2 (95% CI, −66.8 to −42.7) (eTable 4 in Supplement 2).
Safety
The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar across treatment groups (Table 3).38 One patient (placebo group) discontinued treatment owing to an adverse event (AD exacerbation) unrelated to the study drug. One serious adverse event (appendicitis) was reported in the placebo group. Incidence of infections was similar across treatment groups; nonherpetic skin infection rates were numerically lower in the dupilumab vs placebo groups (every 2 weeks, 8 patients [9.8%]; every 4 weeks, 8 [9.6%]; placebo, 16 [18.8%]) (Table 3). Incidence of conjunctivitis was higher in the dupilumab vs placebo groups (every 2 weeks, 8 patients [9.8%]; every 4 weeks, 9 [10.8%]; placebo, 4 [4.7%]), as well as injection-site reactions (every 2 weeks, 7 patients [8.5%]; every 4 weeks, 5 [6.0%]; placebo, 3 [3.5%]), with a dose-dependent increase in injection-site reactions (Table 3, eTable 5 in Supplement 2). None of these events was serious or severe or led to treatment discontinuation. No deaths occurred during the study.
Table 3. Adverse Events During the Study Treatment Period.
| Adverse Events | No. (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo (n = 85) | Dupilumab 300 mg Every 4 wk (n = 83) | Dupilumab 200/300 mg Every 2 wk (n = 82) | |
| Patients with TEAE | 59 (69.4) | 53 (63.9) | 59 (72.0) |
| Patients with TEAE leading to discontinuation of study drug permanently | 1 (1.2) | 0 | 0 |
| Serious TEAE | 1 (1.2) | 0 | 0 |
| Death | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Most common TEAEsa | |||
| Dermatitis atopic (PT) | 21 (24.7) | 15 (18.1) | 15 (18.3) |
| Skin infections (adjudicated) | 17 (20.0) | 11 (13.3) | 9 (11.0) |
| Skin infections excluding herpetic skin infections (adjudicated) | 16 (18.8) | 8 (9.6) | 8 (9.8) |
| Upper respiratory tract infection (PT) | 15 (17.6) | 6 (7.2) | 10 (12.2) |
| Headache (PT) | 9 (10.6) | 4 (4.8) | 9 (11.0) |
| Conjunctivitisb | 4 (4.7) | 9 (10.8) | 8 (9.8) |
| Nasopharyngitis (PT) | 4 (4.7) | 9 (10.8) | 3 (3.7) |
| Infections and infestations (SOC)c | 37 (43.5) | 38 (45.8) | 34 (41.5) |
| Injection-site reactions (HLT) | 3 (3.5) | 5 (6.0) | 7 (8.5) |
| Herpes viral infections (HLT) | 3 (3.5) | 4 (4.8) | 1 (1.2) |
Abbreviations: HLT, high-level term; PT, preferred term; SOC, system organ class; TEAE, treatment-emergent adverse event.
Adverse events reported according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA)38 preferred term occurring in 5% or more of patients in any treatment group.
Includes MedDRA PTs atopic keratoconjunctivitis, conjunctivitis, conjunctivitis allergic, conjunctivitis bacterial, and conjunctivitis viral.
The SOCs according to MedDRA.
Discussion
In adolescents with moderate to severe AD, 16-week dupilumab monotherapy compared with placebo resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in signs and symptoms of AD, including itch and sleep, and QoL.
While the every-2-week and every-4-week regimens had similar safety, the every-2-week regimen was numerically superior in most categorical efficacy end points, including the proportion of patients with IGA 0 or 1. Pharmacokinetic data support the every-2-week dosing approval, as this dose provided higher dupilumab trough concentrations—a factor associated with greater efficacy. The tiered weight-based every-2-week regimen normalized exposure in patients with body weight less than 60 kg and 60 kg or more; dupilumab was more effective than placebo in both subgroups, and results in patients weighing less than 60 kg were at least comparable to those in patients weighing 60 kg or more in all key efficacy measures. These data, therefore, support tiered weight-based dosing.
Compared with the adult AD population of the LIBERTY AD SOLO 1 and SOLO 2 phase 3 trials,19 this adolescent population had higher baseline disease severity, rates of atopic comorbidities, and median serum total IgE concentrations (eTable 6 in Supplement 2). The placebo-adjusted response in the adolescent every-2-week group was greater than or comparable to that in the adult every-2-week group for all primary and key secondary end points, except IGA 0 or 1, which was lower in adolescents (eTable 7, eFigure 9 in Supplement 2). A higher placebo response was observed in adults compared with adolescents (eTable 7, eFigure 9 in Supplement 2). The cumulative proportion of patients needing rescue treatment in the dupilumab every-2-week and placebo groups was higher in adolescents than in adults (eFigure 10 in Supplement 2). Safety results were generally similar in adolescents and adults; in both groups, dupilumab was associated with increases in injection-site reaction and conjunctivitis, and with reductions in nonherpetic skin infections (eTable 8 in Supplement 2).
Evaluation of dupilumab efficacy in adolescents with AD, separately from adult patients, was necessary given the possible mechanistic differences in disease mediators between these patient populations. The efficacy and safety results were consistent between the adolescent and adult AD populations, in particular, the marked improvements in mean percentage change in EASI, which is the most powerful continuous measure reflecting disease improvement. Although the unadjusted response rates on categorical measures were lower in adolescents than adults, this difference could be explained by the greater disease severity in adolescents at baseline, which is also reflected in the lower placebo response rates for adolescents and the higher use of rescue medication.
These results suggest that IL-4/IL-13 are fundamental mediators of AD in both patient populations and further distinguish dupilumab as a targeted immunomodulator that lacks broad immunosuppressive effects. This finding is further supported by the marked suppression by dupilumab observed using measures of systemic type 2 inflammation that are known to correlate with AD severity (eg, serum TARC, total IgE, and LDH concentration39,40,41,42), as was seen in adults. Furthermore, the dupilumab-mediated improvements observed in comorbid conditions, such as asthma and allergic rhinitis, support the role of IL-4/IL-13 in these diseases. We also observed significant suppression of allergen-specific IgE concentrations for aeroallergies by dupilumab, which was consistent with the reported role of IL-4 in allergic asthma.43 The efficacy of dupilumab on comorbid atopic conditions will be reported in a future study of the adult population with AD.
Limitations
This trial has limitations. These limitations include the relatively short treatment period (16 weeks) and the fact that dupilumab was not assessed in combination with other medications (eg, topical corticosteroids), as was done in some of the dupilumab trials in adults.20
Conclusions
Dupilumab monotherapy resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in disease signs and symptoms, including pruritus and sleep loss, and a positive effect on QoL. The every-2-week regimen was numerically superior to the every-4-week regimen on categorical end points. Dupilumab had an acceptable safety profile and the placebo-adjusted efficacy and safety in adolescents with moderate to severe AD were similar to those in adults. To our knowledge, this trial is the largest to date of a systemic treatment for pediatric AD and the first confirmatory trial showing a favorable benefit-to-risk profile of a monoclonal antibody in this patient population with high unmet medical need. The findings provide evidence of the importance of targeted type 2 cytokine blockade, in particular IL-4/IL-13, in reducing the clinical severity and extensive effect of AD in adolescents, with the potential to simultaneously address the high burden of type 2 comorbidities.
Trial Protocol
eAppendix. Study Investigators and Coordinators
eMethods. Detailed Methodology
eReferences
eTable 1. Efficacy Sensitivity Analyses
eTable 2. Median Changes From Baseline in Blood Biomarker Concentrations Over Time
eTable 3. Effect of Dupilumab on Asthma Control and Symptoms of Allergic Rhinitis at Week 16
eTable 4. Median Percentage Changes From Baseline in Serum Allergen-Specific IgE Concentrations
eTable 5. Conjunctivitis Events Reported During the Study Treatment Period Conjunctivitis Events Reported During the Study Treatment Period
eTable 6. Baseline Characteristics in Adolescents and Adults (Enrolled in the SOLO 1 and 2 Trials) During the 16-Week Treatment Period
eTable 7. Efficacy at Week 16 in Adolescents and Adults (Enrolled in the SOLO 1 and 2 Trials)
eTable 8. Safety in Adolescents and Adults (Enrolled in the SOLO 1 and 2 Trials)
eFigure 1. Proportion of Patients With ≥4-Point Improvement (Reduction) in Peak Pruritus NRS Score at Week 16
eFigure 2. Patients With EASI-75 and IGA 0 or 1 at Week 16: Primary Analysis (Censored) and Sensitivity Analysis (Uncensored)
eFigure 3. LS Mean Percent Changes: Primary Analysis (Censored) and Sensitivity Analysis (Uncensored)
eFigure 4. Cumulative Proportion of Patients Requiring Rescue Medication During the Study Treatment Period
eFigure 5. Week 16 Analysis by Body Weight
eFigure 6. Concentrations of Functional Dupilumab in Serum
eFigure 7. Efficacy Response with Dupilumab According to Functional Dupilumab Serum Concentration Quartile
eFigure 8. Median Percentage Changes From Baseline in Biomarkers
eFigure 9. Comparison of Efficacy in Adolescents and Adults Receiving Dupilumab in SOLO 1 and 2
eFigure 10. Comparison of Cumulative Rescue Treatment Use in Adolescents and Adults in SOLO 1 and 2
Data Sharing Statement
References
- 1.Brunner PM, Silverberg JI, Guttman-Yassky E, et al. ; Councilors of the International Eczema Council . Increasing comorbidities suggest that atopic dermatitis is a systemic disorder. J Invest Dermatol. 2017;137(1):18-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2016.08.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Shrestha S, Miao R, Wang L, Chao J, Yuce H, Wei W. Burden of atopic dermatitis in the United States: analysis of healthcare claims data in the commercial, Medicare, and Medi-Cal databases. Adv Ther. 2017;34(8):1989-2006. doi: 10.1007/s12325-017-0582-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Paller A, Jaworski JC, Simpson EL, et al. Major comorbidities of atopic dermatitis: beyond allergic disorders. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2018;19(6):821-838. doi: 10.1007/s40257-018-0383-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Shaw TE, Currie GP, Koudelka CW, Simpson EL. Eczema prevalence in the United States: data from the 2003 National Survey of Children’s Health. J Invest Dermatol. 2011;131(1):67-73. doi: 10.1038/jid.2010.251 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Odhiambo JA, Williams HC, Clayton TO, Robertson CF, Asher MI; ISAAC Phase Three Study Group . Global variations in prevalence of eczema symptoms in children from ISAAC Phase Three. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124(6):1251-8.e23. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2009.10.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Data Resource Center for Child & Adolescent Health . National Survey of Children’s Health. http://www.childhealthdata.org. Published 2007. Accessed April 18, 2019.
- 7.Silverberg JI, Simpson EL. Association between severe eczema in children and multiple comorbid conditions and increased healthcare utilization. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2013;24(5):476-486. doi: 10.1111/pai.12095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Marciniak J, Reich A, Szepietowski JC. Quality of life of parents of children with atopic dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol. 2017;97(6):711-714. doi: 10.2340/00015555-2633 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ricci G, Bellini F, Dondi A, Patrizi A, Pession A. Atopic dermatitis in adolescence. Dermatol Reports. 2011;4(1):e1. doi: 10.4081/dr.2012.e1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Slattery MJ, Essex MJ, Paletz EM, et al. Depression, anxiety, and dermatologic quality of life in adolescents with atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;128(3):668-671. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2011.05.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Halvorsen JA, Lien L, Dalgard F, Bjertness E, Stern RS. Suicidal ideation, mental health problems, and social function in adolescents with eczema: a population-based study. J Invest Dermatol. 2014;134(7):1847-1854. doi: 10.1038/jid.2014.70 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Sidbury R, Davis DM, Cohen DE, et al. ; American Academy of Dermatology . Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 3. Management and treatment with phototherapy and systemic agents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71(2):327-349. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.03.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Drucker AM, Eyerich K, de Bruin-Weller MS, et al. Use of systemic corticosteroids for atopic dermatitis: International Eczema Council consensus statement. Br J Dermatol. 2018;178(3):768-775. doi: 10.1111/bjd.15928 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Totri CR, Eichenfield LF, Logan K, et al. Prescribing practices for systemic agents in the treatment of severe pediatric atopic dermatitis in the US and Canada: The PeDRA TREAT survey. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(2):281-285. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2016.09.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Macdonald LE, Karow M, Stevens S, et al. Precise and in situ genetic humanization of 6 Mb of mouse immunoglobulin genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(14):5147-5152. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1323896111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Murphy AJ, Macdonald LE, Stevens S, et al. Mice with megabase humanization of their immunoglobulin genes generate antibodies as efficiently as normal mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(14):5153-5158. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1324022111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Gandhi NA, Pirozzi G, Graham NMH. Commonality of the IL-4/IL-13 pathway in atopic diseases. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2017;13(5):425-437. doi: 10.1080/1744666X.2017.1298443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Guttman-Yassky E, Bissonnette R, Ungar B, et al. Dupilumab progressively improves systemic and cutaneous abnormalities in patients with atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;143(1):155-172. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2018.08.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Simpson EL, Bieber T, Guttman-Yassky E, et al. SOLO 1 and SOLO 2 Investigators. Two phase 3 trials of dupilumab vs. placebo in atopic dermatitis. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(24):2335-2348. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Blauvelt A, de Bruin-Weller M, Gooderham M, et al. Long-term management of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis with dupilumab and concomitant topical corticosteroids (LIBERTY AD CHRONOS): a 1-year, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10086):2287-2303. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31191-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.de Bruin-Weller M, Thaçi D, Smith CH, et al. Dupilumab with concomitant topical corticosteroid treatment in adults with atopic dermatitis with an inadequate response or intolerance to ciclosporin A or when this treatment is medically inadvisable: a placebo-controlled, randomized phase III clinical trial (LIBERTY AD CAFÉ). Br J Dermatol. 2018;178(5):1083-1101. doi: 10.1111/bjd.16156 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Dupixent (dupilumab) injection [package insert]. United States Food and Drug Administration. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/761055s014lbl.pdf. Published June 2019. Accessed August 19, 2019.
- 23.Dupixent (dupilumab) Summary of product characteristics. European Medicines Agency. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/004390/WC500236507.pdf. Published June 5, 2019. Accessed August 19, 2019.
- 24.Wenzel S, Castro M, Corren J, et al. Dupilumab efficacy and safety in adults with uncontrolled persistent asthma despite use of medium-to-high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus a long-acting β2 agonist: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled pivotal phase 2b dose-ranging trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10039):31-44. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30307-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Rabe KF, Nair P, Brusselle G, et al. Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in glucocorticoid-dependent severe asthma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(26):2475-2485. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Castro M, Corren J, Pavord ID, et al. Dupilumab efficacy and safety in moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(26):2486-2496. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Bachert C, Mannent L, Naclerio RM, et al. Effect of subcutaneous dupilumab on nasal polyp burden in patients with chronic sinusitis and nasal polyposis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(5):469-479. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.19330 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Bachert C, Han JK, Desrosiers M, et al. Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (LIBERTY NP SINUS-24 and LIBERTY NP SINUS-52): results from two multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase 3 trials. [published online September 19, 2019]. Lancet. 2019;S0140-6736(19)31881-1. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31881-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Hirano I, Dellon ES, Hamilton JD, et al. Efficacy of dupilumab in a phase 2 randomized trial of adults with active eosinophilic esophagitis [published online October 5, 2019]. Gastroenterology. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2019.09.042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.ClinicalTrials.gov . Study to Determine the Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab in Adult and Adolescent Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE). NCT03633617. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03633617. Accessed October 4, 2019.
- 31.ClinicalTrials.gov . Safety, Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy of Dupilumab in Patients ≥6 Months to <6 Years With Severe Atopic Dermatitis (Liberty AD PRESCHOOL). NCT03346434. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03346434. Accessed October 4, 2019.
- 32.ClinicalTrials.gov . Evaluation of Dupilumab in Children With Uncontrolled Asthma (VOYAGE). NCT02948959. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02948959. Accessed July 5, 2019.
- 33.ClinicalTrials.gov . Study in Pediatric Subjects With Peanut Allergy to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab as Adjunct to AR101 (Peanut Oral Immunotherapy). NCT03682770. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03682770. Accessed July 5, 2019.
- 34.World Medical Association . World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Chamlin SL, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 1. Diagnosis and assessment of atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70(2):338-351. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.10.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Thaçi D, Simpson EL, Beck LA, et al. Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical treatments: a randomised, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging phase 2b trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10013):40-52. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00388-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Cork M, Thaçi D, DiCioccio T, et al. Dupilumab in adolescents with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: results from a phase IIa open-label trial and subsequent phase III open-label extension [published online October 8, 2019]. Br J Dermatol. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18476 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.MedDRA. Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. https://www.meddra.org/how-to-use/support-documentation/english. Accessed October 4, 2019.
- 39.Kou K, Aihara M, Matsunaga T, et al. Association of serum interleukin-18 and other biomarkers with disease severity in adults with atopic dermatitis. Arch Dermatol Res. 2012;304(4):305-312. doi: 10.1007/s00403-011-1198-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Thijs JL, de Bruin-Weller MS, Hijnen D. Current and future biomarkers in atopic dermatitis. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2017;37(1):51-61. doi: 10.1016/j.iac.2016.08.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Ungar B, Garcet S, Gonzalez J, et al. An integrated model of atopic dermatitis biomarkers highlights the systemic nature of the disease. J Invest Dermatol. 2017;137(3):603-613. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2016.09.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Brunner PM, Suárez-Fariñas M, He H, et al. The atopic dermatitis blood signature is characterized by increases in inflammatory and cardiovascular risk proteins. Sci Rep. 2017;7:8707. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-09207-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Corren J, Castro M, O’Riordan T, et al. Dupilumab efficacy in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe allergic asthma [published online September 12, 2019]. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;S2213-2198(19)30775-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.08.050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Trial Protocol
eAppendix. Study Investigators and Coordinators
eMethods. Detailed Methodology
eReferences
eTable 1. Efficacy Sensitivity Analyses
eTable 2. Median Changes From Baseline in Blood Biomarker Concentrations Over Time
eTable 3. Effect of Dupilumab on Asthma Control and Symptoms of Allergic Rhinitis at Week 16
eTable 4. Median Percentage Changes From Baseline in Serum Allergen-Specific IgE Concentrations
eTable 5. Conjunctivitis Events Reported During the Study Treatment Period Conjunctivitis Events Reported During the Study Treatment Period
eTable 6. Baseline Characteristics in Adolescents and Adults (Enrolled in the SOLO 1 and 2 Trials) During the 16-Week Treatment Period
eTable 7. Efficacy at Week 16 in Adolescents and Adults (Enrolled in the SOLO 1 and 2 Trials)
eTable 8. Safety in Adolescents and Adults (Enrolled in the SOLO 1 and 2 Trials)
eFigure 1. Proportion of Patients With ≥4-Point Improvement (Reduction) in Peak Pruritus NRS Score at Week 16
eFigure 2. Patients With EASI-75 and IGA 0 or 1 at Week 16: Primary Analysis (Censored) and Sensitivity Analysis (Uncensored)
eFigure 3. LS Mean Percent Changes: Primary Analysis (Censored) and Sensitivity Analysis (Uncensored)
eFigure 4. Cumulative Proportion of Patients Requiring Rescue Medication During the Study Treatment Period
eFigure 5. Week 16 Analysis by Body Weight
eFigure 6. Concentrations of Functional Dupilumab in Serum
eFigure 7. Efficacy Response with Dupilumab According to Functional Dupilumab Serum Concentration Quartile
eFigure 8. Median Percentage Changes From Baseline in Biomarkers
eFigure 9. Comparison of Efficacy in Adolescents and Adults Receiving Dupilumab in SOLO 1 and 2
eFigure 10. Comparison of Cumulative Rescue Treatment Use in Adolescents and Adults in SOLO 1 and 2
Data Sharing Statement