372 The effect of dupilumab on biomarkers in a randomized phase 2b clinical trial in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis

A Short Cycle of Narrow-Band UVB Phototherapy in the Early Phase of Dupilumab Therapy Can Provide a Quicker Improvement of Severe Atopic Dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Since the best clinical response to dupilumab is achieved after 12-16 weeks, a combination therapy at the beginning of the treatment could be a helpful strategy to reach a faster response in patients with severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the benefit of a combination of dupilumab treatment with a short course of narrow-band ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) phototherapy.

METHODS

In the present pilot study adult patients suffering from severe AD were enrolled with a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with dupilumab alone or dupilumab plus NB-UVB phototherapy, for 12 weeks. After the twelfth week, all patients received dupilumab only. A follow-up visit took place after 16 weeks. Both clinician-oriented and patient-oriented scores were assessed at baseline (T0) and after 4 (T1), 12 (T2) and 16 (T3) weeks.

RESULTS

Forty-five adult patients were enrolled in the study. Both treatment regimens were well tolerated and very effective on all measured scores (EASI, SCORAD, BSA, NRS of itching, NRS of sleep loss, DLQI, POEM and HADS), but the combined regimen led to a more robust clinical improvement of lesions and relief of symptoms after 4 weeks. However, after 12 and 16 weeks, the additional therapeutic effect of phototherapy weakened.

CONCLUSION

NB-UVB phototherapy can provide a faster remission of severe AD in the first few weeks of dupilumab therapy.

Systemic treatments for eczema: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a common and chronic, relapsing, inflammatory skin disorder. It seriously impacts quality of life and economic outcomes, especially for those with moderate to severe eczema. Various treatments allow sustained control of the disease; however, their relative benefit remains unclear due to the limited number of trials directly comparing treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of different types of systemic immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe eczema using NMA and to generate rankings of available systemic immunosuppressive treatments for eczema according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to August 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic immunosuppressive agents for moderate to severe atopic eczema when compared against placebo or any other eligible eczema treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We synthesised data using pair-wise analysis and NMA to compare treatments and rank them according to their effectiveness. Effectiveness was assessed primarily by determining the proportion of participants who achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Safety was evaluated primarily by considering the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) and infection. We deemed short-term follow-up as ≤ 16 weeks and long-term follow-up as > 16 weeks. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for these primary outcomes using six domains of CiNEMA grading.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 74 studies, with 8177 randomised participants. Approximately 55% of participants were male, with average age of 32 years (range 2 to 84 years), although age and gender were unreported for 419 and 902 participants, respectively. Most of the included trials were placebo controlled (65%), 34% were head-to-head studies (15% assessed the effects of different doses of the same drug), and 1% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. All trials included participants with moderate to severe eczema, but 62% of studies did not separate data by severity; 38% of studies assessed only severe eczema. The total duration of included trials ranged from 2 weeks to 60 months, whereas treatment duration varied from a single dose (CIM331, KPL-716) to 60 months (methotrexate (MTX)). Seventy studies were available for quantitative synthesis; this review assessed 29 immunosuppressive agents from three classes of interventions. These included (1) conventional treatments, with ciclosporin assessed most commonly; (2) small molecule treatments, including phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors; and (3) biological treatments, including anti-CD31 receptors, anti-interleukin (IL)-22, anti-IL-31, anti-IL-13, anti-IL-12/23p40, anti-OX40, anti-TSLP, anti-CRTH2, and anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibodies, but most commonly dupilumab. Most trials (73) assessed outcomes at a short-term duration ranging from 2 to 16 weeks, whereas 33 trials assessed long-term outcomes, with duration ranging from 5 to 60 months. All participants were from a hospital setting. Fifty-two studies declared a source of funding, and of these, pharmaceutical companies funded 88%. We rated 37 studies as high risk; 21, unclear risk, and 16, low risk of bias, with studies most commonly at high risk of attrition bias. Network meta-analysis suggests that dupilumab ranks first for effectiveness when compared with other biological treatments. Dupilumab is more effective than placebo in achieving EASI75 (risk ratio (RR) 3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51 to 3.69) and improvement in POEM score (mean difference 7.30, 95% CI 6.61 to 8.00) at short-term follow-up (high-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the effects of dupilumab when compared with placebo, in terms of the proportion of participants who achieve EASI75 (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.60) at longer-term follow-up. Low-certainty evidence indicates that tralokinumab may be more effective than placebo in achieving short-term EASI75 (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.34), but there was no evidence for tralokinumab to allow us to assess short-term follow-up of POEM or long-term follow-up of EASI75. We are uncertain of the effect of ustekinumab compared with placebo in achieving EASI75 (long-term follow-up: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.45; short-term follow-up: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.97; both very low certainty). We found no evidence on ustekinumab for the POEM outcome. We are uncertain whether other immunosuppressive agents that targeted our key outcomes influence the achievement of short-term EASI75 compared with placebo due to low- or very low-certainty evidence. Dupilumab and ustekinumab were the only immunosuppressive agents evaluated for longer-term EASI75. Dupilumab was the only agent evaluated for improvement in POEM during short-term follow-up. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence indicates a lower proportion of participants with SAEs after treatment with QAW039 and dupilumab compared to placebo during short-term follow-up, but low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in SAEs during short-term follow-up of other immunosuppressive agents compared to placebo. Evidence for effects of immunosuppressive agents on risk of any infection during short-term follow-up and SAEs during long-term follow-up compared with placebo was of low or very low certainty but did not indicate a difference. We did not identify differences in other adverse events (AEs), but dupilumab is associated with specific AEs, including eye inflammation and eosinophilia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that dupilumab is the most effective biological treatment for eczema. Compared to placebo, dupilumab reduces eczema signs and symptoms in the short term for people with moderate to severe atopic eczema. Short-term safety outcomes from clinical trials did not reveal new safety concerns with dupilumab. Overall, evidence for the efficacy of most other immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe atopic eczema is of low or very low certainty. Given the lack of data comparing conventional with newer biological treatments for the primary outcomes, there remains high uncertainty for ranking the efficacy and safety of conventional treatments such as ciclosporin and biological treatments such as dupilumab. Most studies were placebo-controlled and assessed only short-term efficacy of immunosuppressive agents. Further adequately powered head-to-head RCTs should evaluate comparative long-term efficacy and safety of available treatments for moderate to severe eczema.

Efficacy of biologics in atopic dermatitis

Introduction: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a heterogeneous disease. Recent advancements in understanding AD pathogenesis resulted in the exponential expansion of its therapeutic pipeline, particularly following the success and FDA-approval of dupilumab. Different phenotypes of AD by age and ethnicity have also recently been described and clinical studies of emerging treatments will further clarify the role of each cytokine pathway in AD.Areas covered: We review the impressive repertoire of biologics for treatment of moderate-to-severe AD, including those targeting Th2, Th22, Th17/IL-23 and IgE. We highlight the scientific rationale behind each approach and provide a discussion of the most recent clinical efficacy and safety data.Expert opinion: AD is a complex disease and recent research has identified numerous endotypes, reinforcing the rationale for developing targeted therapeutics to antagonize these factors. Dupilumab has revolutionized AD treatment and its mechanistic studies also offer crucial insight into AD pathogenesis. Nevertheless, this biologic does not work for everyone, highlighting the need for a more precise approach to address the unique immune fingerprints of each AD subset. Ultimately targeted therapeutics will complement our understanding of the AD molecular map and help push AD management into an era of personalized medicine.

Understanding the immune landscape in atopic dermatitis: The era of biologics and emerging therapeutic approaches

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, systemic, inflammatory disease that affects the skin and is characterized by persistent itch and marked redness. AD is associated with an increased risk of skin infections and a reduced quality of life. Most AD treatment options to date were not designed to selectively target disease-causing pathways that have been established for this indication. Topical therapies have limited efficacy in moderate-to-severe disease, and systemic agents such as corticosteroids and immunosuppressants present with tolerability issues. Advances in the understanding of AD pathobiology have made possible a new generation of more disease-specific AD therapies. AD is characterized by the inappropriate activation of type 2 T helper (Th2) cells and type 2 innate lymphoid (ILC2) cells, with a predominant increase in type 2 cytokines in the skin, including interleukin (IL)-13 and IL-4. Both cytokines are implicated in tissue inflammation and epidermal barrier dysfunction, and monoclonal antibodies targeting each of these interleukins or their receptors are in clinical development in AD. In March 2017, dupilumab, a human anti-IL-4Rα antibody, became the first biologic to receive approval in the United States for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD. The anti-IL-13 monoclonal antibodies lebrikizumab and tralokinumab, which bind different IL-13 epitopes with potentially different effects, are currently in advanced-stage trials. Here, we briefly review the underlying pathobiology of AD, the scientific basis for current AD targets, and summarize current clinical studies of these agents, including new research to develop both predictive and response biomarkers to further advance AD therapy in the era of precision medicine.

Dupilumab: A Review in Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis

Dupilumab (Dupixent^®), a subcutaneously administered, fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody directed against the IL (interleukin)-4 receptor α subunit, blocks the signalling of IL-4 and IL-13, two T helper cell type 2 cytokines implicated in the immunopathology of atopic dermatitis (AD). It is the first biologic therapy to have been approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD in the EU and USA. In phase III trials in adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were inadequately controlled with topical medications and/or systemic treatments, such as ciclosporin, or for whom these therapies were not advisable, 16 weeks' treatment with dupilumab as monotherapy or in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) improved multiple measures of disease severity, pruritus, sleep disturbance, anxiety and depression, and quality of life compared with placebo. Moreover, the benefits of combination therapy at week 16 were maintained during long-term treatment for up to 1 year. Dupilumab, alone or added to TCS, was generally well tolerated, with low rates of serious adverse events and treatment discontinuations due to adverse events. Common adverse reactions included conjunctivitis, injection-site reactions and oral herpes. Thus, dupilumab represents a valuable new treatment option for adults with moderate-to-severe AD deemed appropriate for systemic therapy, a patient population for whom historically there has been a lack of safe and effective long-term treatments.