Next Article in Journal
Structural Adaptation of the Single-Stranded DNA-Binding Protein C-Terminal to DNA Metabolizing Partners Guides Inhibitor Design
Previous Article in Journal
Block Copolymer Micelles Encapsulating Au(III) Bis(Dithiolene) Complexes as Promising Nanostructures with Antiplasmodial Activity
Previous Article in Special Issue
Blockage of the IL-31 Pathway as a Potential Target Therapy for Atopic Dermatitis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pharmaceutics
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/pharmaceutics15041031
pharmaceutics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Association between Dupilumab and Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

by
Tzu-Yi Lin
1,2,†,
Ching-Ya Wang
1,2,†,
Fang-Ying Wang
2,3,
Eugene Yu-Chuan Kang
2,4,5,* and
Yih-Shiou Hwang
2,4,6,7,*
1
Department of Education, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
2
School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
3
Department of Dermatology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
4
Department of Ophthalmology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
5
Graduate Institute of Clinical Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan 333, Taiwan
6
Department of Ophthalmology, Jen-Ai Hospital Dali Branch, Taichung 412, Taiwan
7
Department of Ophthalmology, Xiamen Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Xiamen 361000, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Pharmaceutics 2023, 15(4), 1031; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15041031
Submission received: 21 February 2023 / Revised: 19 March 2023 / Accepted: 20 March 2023 / Published: 23 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New and Emerging Target-Oriented Drugs for Atopic Dermatitis)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Conjunctivitis is commonly reported in dupilumab users with atopic dermatitis (AD), and few studies have compared the risk of conjunctivitis among patients with different indications. This study aimed to investigate the association between dupilumab and conjunctivitis in various diseases. The protocol of this study was registered on PROSPERO (ID CRD42023396204). The electronic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted for the period from their inception to January 2023. Only placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The main outcome was the incidence of conjunctivitis during the study period. The subgroup analysis was performed for patients with AD and non-AD indications, which include asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and eosinophilic esophagitis. In total, 23 RCTs involving 9153 patients were included for meta-analysis. Dupilumab users exhibited significantly higher risk of conjunctivitis (risk ratio [RR], 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34–2.67) than placebo users. Notably, significantly increased incidence of conjunctivitis was observed in the dupilumab group relative to the placebo group among patients with AD (RR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.84–3.12) but not among patients with non-AD indications (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.43–1.13). In conclusion, only dupilumab users with AD but not those with non-AD indications reported an elevated incidence of conjunctivitis.

1. Introduction

Dupilumab is the first human monoclonal antibody approved for inadequately controlled atopic dermatitis (AD) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency in 2017 [1]. This agent blocks interleukin (IL)-4 receptor α, which is the shared subunit of IL-4 and IL-13 receptors and the key driver of various T-helper-2-mediated diseases [2,3]. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the efficacy and safety of dupilumab to identify novel indications, such as asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), and eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. Studies have reported that dupilumab is an effective and well tolerated therapy for moderate-to-severe AD, but ocular adverse events (e.g., blepharitis, conjunctivitis, keratitis, and dry eye disease) are commonly reported in patients who receive dupilumab [12,13,14]. Notably, conjunctivitis of all phenotypes and etiologies serves as the dominant ocular adverse event in the aforementioned RCTs of dupilumab [15].
The distinct pathophysiology of various indications may lead to different levels of conjunctivitis risk among dupilumab users. A higher incidence of conjunctivitis in the dupilumab group than in the placebo group was commonly reported in the RCTs of AD [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Despite this possible ocular adverse event, dupilumab revolutionized the management of moderate-to-severe AD among adults, adolescents, and children [29,30,31]. However, in the RCTs involving patients with non-AD indications, the dupilumab and placebo groups usually exhibited a similar risk of conjunctivitis [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have mostly focused on patients diagnosed with AD; by contrast, no study used the pooled data to compare the risk of conjunctivitis between dupilumab users with AD and those with non-AD indications [12,32]. To clarify the associations between dupilumab and conjunctivitis with different indications, we systematically reviewed all RCTs comparing dupilumab and placebo users in various diseases and synthesized the available data for meta-analysis.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

The protocol of this study was registered on PROSPERO (ID CRD42023396204). Our systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline (Table S1). Two authors (Lin TY and Wang CY) independently searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from their inception to January 2023. Specifically, titles and abstracts were screened to identify eligible studies. We used the keyword “dupilumab” to conduct an extensive search; the search strategy is presented in Table S2. Conjunctivitis is represented as an adverse event that occurs after the administration of dupilumab. The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities preferred terms (MedDRA PTs) for conjunctivitis are conjunctivitis, allergic conjunctivitis, bacterial conjunctivitis, viral conjunctivitis, adenoviral conjunctivitis, and atopic keratoconjunctivitis.

2.2. Study Selection

Only RCTs that contained at least two arms, namely the dupilumab and placebo arms, were included in the present study. The studies containing treatment groups with concomitant usage of topical steroids were also included to expand the generalizability of this study. Articles were not limited to those in English, and no restriction was set for age, gender, or geography of the study population. If the same population was presented in multiple publications, only the most comprehensive data set was included in our study. The articles without a detailed abstract or full text were excluded from the present study. The references of the included studies were manually checked for potentially relevant articles. The full text of studies that were eligible for inclusion and those that were potentially eligible for inclusion was retrieved.

2.3. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

The two authors (Lin TY and Wang CY) carefully read the full text, supplementary materials, and study protocol of each study. Information on the first author; the publication year; the type of RCT; the sample size; the participant characteristics; the indication, dosage, frequency, and drug survival associated with dupilumab; the incidence of conjunctivitis; and the treatment and follow-up periods were extracted using a predetermined form. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias tool, version 2. We assessed the risk of bias of each RCT based on five dimensions, namely randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of outcome, and selection of reported results. Judgment was reported as “low risk,” “some concerns,” or “high risk.” The overall quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Any discrepancy was resolved through discussions involving the corresponding authors.

2.4. Data Synthesis and Analysis

Dichotomous outcomes are presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The heterogeneity among the studies was assessed with a chi-square test. The I2 statistic was used to calculate the percentage of total variation among the studies. Different indications might suggest anticipated clinical heterogeneity, so the meta-analysis was performed with the random-effects model. A subgroup analysis was conducted for patients with AD and non-AD indications. A sensitivity analysis was performed by changing the applied methods, including Mantel–Haenszel and inverse variance methods. If an outcome was reported by >10 studies, publication bias was evaluated by visually inspecting funnel plots. A p value of <0.05 indicated statistical significance. All analyses were conducted using Review Manager (RevMan) software (version 5.4; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014).

3. Results

3.1. Outcomes of the Literature Search and Characteristics of Included Studies

Throughout the search process, 1342 studies were retrieved, of which 890 studies were removed for duplication (Figure 1). Based on titles and abstracts, we excluded five studies with no placebo groups, eight studies with no reported incidence of conjunctivitis, three studies with subsequent use of dupilumab in the placebo group, and two studies with a placebo group that was matched to those receiving other drugs. Eventually, 21 articles covering 23 RCTs that reported usable results were included for analysis. These 23 RCTs were considered together for qualitative and quantitative analyses because they used similar protocols and examined similar pooled events. The characteristics of the included articles are presented in Table 1. These 23 RCTs examined various populations; specifically, 14 populations had AD, 4 populations had asthma, 3 populations had CRSwNP, and 2 populations had EE. Most of these RCTs were multinational trials, and only one was conducted only in Asia [26]. A summary of the risk of bias of the included studies is presented in Table S3. The blinding of the participants, investigators, and outcome assessors was considered adequate in most RCTs; outcome assessors were not masked in only one RCT [8]. Selective reporting was suspected in one RCT because its treatment period was longer than its follow-up period (treatment vs. follow-up was 52 weeks vs. 24 weeks) [8]. In Table S4, the overall quality of evidence for the association between dupilumab and conjunctivitis was low because of inconsistencies and imprecision. However, the overall quality of evidence obtained through our subgroup analyses of the patients with AD and non-AD indications was high.

3.2. Conjunctivitis in Dupilumab versus Placebo Users

In the 23 RCTs with 7797 patients, conjunctivitis was reported in 366 out of 6040 patients who received dupilumab and in 101 out of 3113 patients who received placebos. The dupilumab group exhibited a significantly higher incidence of conjunctivitis (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.34–2.67; I2 = 46%, p = 0.01; Figure 2) relative to the placebo group. Among all the adult, adolescent, and child populations examined in the 23 RCTs, the risk of conjunctivitis was higher in dupilumab users than in placebo users. A sensitivity analysis revealed similar results for all methods (Table 2). No asymmetry was observed in the funnel plot generated in the present study (Figure 3). Most patients with conjunctivitis responded well to topical treatments. No patient discontinued their dupilumab therapy because of conjunctivitis.

3.3. Conjunctivitis in Dupilumab versus Placebo Users with AD and Non-AD indications

Based on the indications of dupilumab, we classified all RCTs into AD and non-AD groups for subgroup analysis. In the AD group, dupilumab users exhibited a significantly higher rate of conjunctivitis relative to placebo users (RR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.89–3.12; I2 = 0%, p = 0.66; Figure 2). However, dupilumab and placebo users exhibited comparable rates of conjunctivitis in the non-AD group (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.44–1.13; I2 = 0%, p = 0.54; Figure 2). A sensitivity analysis revealed similar results for all methods (Table 2).

4. Discussion

Our results indicated that dupilumab users exhibited a higher incidence of conjunctivitis than placebo users. Notably, an increased risk of conjunctivitis in the dupilumab group was observed merely among the patients with AD, which is consistent with the current evidence. However, this condition was not observed among the patients with non-AD indications.
In the present study, dupilumab users exhibited a significantly higher incidence of conjunctivitis relative to placebo users. A subgroup analysis revealed that a significantly higher rate of conjunctivitis was observed in the AD group but not in the non-AD group. The heterogeneity of all included RCTs was considerable; however, the heterogeneity of RCTs that examined AD and non-AD indications was adequate. The similar outcomes obtained through a sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of our results. A funnel plot asymmetry test did not reveal any publication bias in the present study. The GRADE system results indicated that the overall certainty of evidence for the association between dupilumab and conjunctivitis in the patients with AD and non-AD indications was high. Consistent with an early meta-analysis of four RCTs involving patients with AD, the dupilumab group of the present study exhibited a significantly higher risk of conjunctivitis (RR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.79–3.89) relative to the placebo group of the present study [32]. Also, a recent study of multiple centers in Italy confirmed the great safety profile of dupilumab [33]. Conjunctivitis served as one of the most frequent adverse events (17.3%), and only a few adolescents discontinued dupilumab therapy due to conjunctivitis (1.6%). Similar to the information from the RCTs, dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis was usually mild in the real-world data.
This ocular adverse event could have been caused mainly by AD rather than dupilumab. AD can disrupt the immune-mediated response of the lymphoid tissue and impair the epithelial barrier in the conjunctiva [34,35]. Moreover, frequent rubbing due to itching can cause mechanical trauma to exaggerate the destruction of the ocular surface [36,37]. With the administration of dupilumab, the blockage of the signaling pathways of IL-4 and IL-13 further reduces the number of goblet cells of the conjunctiva in patients with AD [38,39]. The resulting decrease in mucin production can cause tear film instability and even conjunctivitis [40,41]. Increased eosinophilic factors in tears, an infestation of Demodex mites, and the increased activity of OX40 ligands have been proposed to explain the specific interplay between dupilumab and conjunctivitis in patients with AD; however, these hypotheses have yet to be proven [42,43,44]. Further investigations with ocular samples are required to characterize the molecular and cellular changes that occur before, during, and after dupilumab therapy.
Most patients who develop conjunctivitis lack ophthalmic referral for a full evaluation involving the use of standard tools. Notably, the differentiation between the flaring-up of AD-related conjunctivitis and dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis on the basis of clinical manifestations is a difficult task, and these two medical conditions share common pathogeneses. According to the study protocols of the included RCTs, ocular adverse events were generally diagnosed by dermatologists, allergists, or investigators [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. In the included RCTs, blepharitis and keratitis, which were also common in patients with AD, were also challenging to distinguish from conjunctivitis. Furthermore, microbiologic tests were seldom conducted in these RCTs. Therefore, confirming whether a case of conjunctivitis was infectious, allergic, or idiopathic was difficult. The MedDRA PTs “conjunctivitis” (classified under the infections and infestations category) and “conjunctivitis allergic” (classified under the eye disorders category) were sometimes used ambiguously. A discrepancy in the assignment of conjunctivitis PTs might have limited the accuracy of the comparisons. In the present study, multiple MedDRA PTs were clustered to prevent fragmentation from occurring during signal detection.
Conjunctivitis causes various symptoms, including frequent itching and excessive discharge, which reduce a patient’s quality of life [45,46]. Moreover, the comorbidities of conjunctivitis (e.g., blepharitis, keratitis, and dry eye disease) can exaggerate the disruption of the ocular surface [47,48,49]. Insufficient protection and persistent inflammation can cause recurrent conjunctivitis [50,51]. This vicious cycle may lead to more severe diseases, such as corneal scar, corneal neovascularization, and recurrent corneal erosion syndrome, which require cornea transplantation to prevent blindness [52,53,54]. Consequently, timely identification and intervention are essential for dupilumab users with AD because of their high risk of conjunctivitis. A consensus regarding the optimal approach for managing the conjunctivitis of dupilumab users has yet to be reached. A clear protocol is required for patients with AD who intend to use dupilumab. All patients who develop conjunctivitis should be referred to ophthalmologists for a full evaluation. Thereafter, therapeutic strategies can be individualized for each patient based on the type and severity of their conjunctivitis, concomitant medication use, and the presence of comorbidities. Administering timely and effective treatments for conjunctivitis can increase the quality of life of patients undergoing dupilumab therapy.
The present systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs still has some limitations. First, an ophthalmic referral was not necessary in the study protocols of most of the included RCTs. The lack of a thorough evaluation may lead to the underdiagnosis or overdiagnosis of conjunctivitis. Nevertheless, this relative effect should be unbiased because no difference was detected between dupilumab and placebo users. Second, the duration and treatment of conjunctivitis could not be analyzed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Most included RCTs merely reported the incidence of adverse events and did not present the follow-up data. Further studies were required to acquire the information to deal with dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis.
Second, the association between ocular history and the incidence of conjunctivitis after dupilumab therapy could not be investigated. High prevalence of ocular surface diseases was reported in the patients with moderate-to-severe AD before dupilumab therapy [55,56]. Moreover, the patients with ocular surface diseases at baseline tended to develop conjunctivitis with higher severity than those without [15]. However, ophthalmic evaluation at baseline was not necessarily performed in most RCTs, and not all patients provided their ocular history. Also, the differentiation between flaring-up of AD-related or dupilumab-associated adverse events could be challenging due to the lack of information.
Third, awareness bias was identified based on the increasing rate of conjunctivitis in the placebo groups in various included RCTs over time. The increase in physician attention and patient reporting increased the prevalence at baseline and the incidence during the study periods [57]. Additionally, conjunctivitis, which is a known ocular adverse event, may prevent investigators from including patients with severe ocular diseases. Furthermore, recall bias could have occurred when ocular symptoms were misinterpreted by patients or investigators [58]. Finally, the CRSwNP and EE populations examined by the included RCTs were small because the indications pertaining to these diseases are still being developed. In further analyses, data from ongoing and future studies should be incorporated.

5. Conclusions

Dupilumab users exhibited a higher incidence of conjunctivitis relative to placebo users. Notably, an increased rate of conjunctivitis in the dupilumab group was detected in the patients with AD, which is consistent with the current evidence. However, this condition was not observed in the patients with non-AD indications. Further studies are required to clarify the pathogenesis of conjunctivitis in dupilumab users with AD and to develop standardized guidelines for managing and even preventing conjunctivitis.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pharmaceutics15041031/s1: Table S1: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) of study; Table S2: Search strategy of study; Table S3: Summary of authors’ judgement of risk of bias of included studies; Table S4: Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) evidence table for conjunctivitis in patients receiving dupilumab versus placebo.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.-Y.L. and C.-Y.W.; Formal analysis, F.-Y.W. and E.Y.-C.K.; Methodology, T.-Y.L. and C.-Y.W.; Project administration, E.Y.-C.K. and Y.-S.H.; Supervision, E.Y.-C.K. and Y.-S.H.; Writing – original draft, T.-Y.L. and C.-Y.W.; Writing – review and editing, F.-Y.W. and E.Y.-C.K.. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Halling, A.S.; Loft, N.; Silverberg, J.I.; Guttman-Yassky, E.; Thyssen, J.P. Real-world evidence of dupilumab efficacy and risk of adverse events: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2021, 84, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gandhi, N.A.; Bennett, B.L.; Graham, N.M.; Pirozzi, G.; Stahl, N.; Yancopoulos, G.D. Targeting key proximal drivers of type 2 inflammation in disease. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2016, 15, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Imai, Y.; Kusakabe, M.; Nagai, M.; Yasuda, K.; Yamanishi, K. Dupilumab Effects on Innate Lymphoid Cell and Helper T Cell Populations in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis. JID Innov. Ski. Sci. Mol. Popul. Health 2021, 1, 100003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wenzel, S.; Castro, M.; Corren, J.; Maspero, J.; Wang, L.; Zhang, B.; Pirozzi, G.; Sutherland, E.R.; Evans, R.R.; Joish, V.N.; 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, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Castro, M.; Corren, J.; Pavord, I.D.; Maspero, J.; Wenzel, S.; Rabe, K.F.; Busse, W.W.; Ford, L.; Sher, L.; FitzGerald, J.M.; et al. Dupilumab Efficacy and Safety in Moderate-to-Severe Uncontrolled Asthma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, 2486–2496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rabe, K.F.; Nair, P.; Brusselle, G.; Maspero, J.F.; Castro, M.; Sher, L.; Zhu, H.; Hamilton, J.D.; Swanson, B.N.; Khan, A.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab in Glucocorticoid-Dependent Severe Asthma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, 2475–2485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bacharier, L.B.; Maspero, J.F.; Katelaris, C.H.; Fiocchi, A.G.; Gagnon, R.; de Mir, I.; Jain, N.; Sher, L.D.; Mao, X.; Liu, D.; et al. Dupilumab in Children with Uncontrolled Moderate-to-Severe Asthma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 385, 2230–2240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bachert, C.; Han, J.K.; Desrosiers, M.; Hellings, P.W.; Amin, N.; Lee, S.E.; Mullol, J.; Greos, L.S.; Bosso, J.V.; Laidlaw, T.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. Lancet 2019, 394, 1638–1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Bachert, C.; Mannent, L.; Naclerio, R.M.; Mullol, J.; Ferguson, B.J.; Gevaert, P.; Hellings, P.; Jiao, L.; Wang, L.; Evans, R.R.; 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, 469–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hirano, I.; Dellon, E.S.; Hamilton, J.D.; Collins, M.H.; Peterson, K.; Chehade, M.; Schoepfer, A.M.; Safroneeva, E.; Rothenberg, M.E.; Falk, G.W.; et al. Efficacy of Dupilumab in a Phase 2 Randomized Trial of Adults With Active Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Gastroenterology 2020, 158, 111–122.e110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Dellon, E.S.; Rothenberg, M.E.; Collins, M.H.; Hirano, I.; Chehade, M.; Bredenoord, A.J.; Lucendo, A.J.; Spergel, J.M.; Aceves, S.; Sun, X.; et al. Dupilumab in Adults and Adolescents with Eosinophilic Esophagitis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 387, 2317–2330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Neagu, N.; Dianzani, C.; Avallone, G.; Dell’Aquila, C.; Morariu, S.H.; Zalaudek, I.; Conforti, C. Dupilumab ocular side effects in patients with atopic dermatitis: A systematic review. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. JEADV 2022, 36, 820–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Popiela, M.Z.; Barbara, R.; Turnbull, A.M.J.; Corden, E.; Martinez-Falero, B.S.; O’Driscoll, D.; Ardern-Jones, M.R.; Hossain, P.N. Dupilumab-associated ocular surface disease: Presentation, management and long-term sequelae. Eye 2021, 35, 3277–3284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Maudinet, A.; Law-Koune, S.; Duretz, C.; Lasek, A.; Modiano, P.; Tran, T.H.C. Ocular Surface Diseases Induced by Dupilumab in Severe Atopic Dermatitis. Ophthalmol. Ther. 2019, 8, 485–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Akinlade, B.; Guttman-Yassky, E.; de Bruin-Weller, M.; Simpson, E.L.; Blauvelt, A.; Cork, M.J.; Prens, E.; Asbell, P.; Akpek, E.; Corren, J.; et al. Conjunctivitis in dupilumab clinical trials. Br. J. Dermatol. 2019, 181, 459–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Beck, L.A.; Thaçi, D.; Hamilton, J.D.; Graham, N.M.; Bieber, T.; Rocklin, R.; Ming, J.E.; Ren, H.; Kao, R.; Simpson, E.; et al. Dupilumab treatment in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Thaçi, D.; Simpson, E.L.; Beck, L.A.; Bieber, T.; Blauvelt, A.; Papp, K.; Soong, W.; Worm, M.; Szepietowski, J.C.; Sofen, H.; 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, 40–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Guttman-Yassky, E.; Bissonnette, R.; Ungar, B.; Suárez-Fariñas, M.; Ardeleanu, M.; Esaki, H.; Suprun, M.; Estrada, Y.; Xu, H.; Peng, X.; et al. Dupilumab progressively improves systemic and cutaneous abnormalities in patients with atopic dermatitis. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2019, 143, 155–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Blauvelt, A.; Simpson, E.L.; Tyring, S.K.; Purcell, L.A.; Shumel, B.; Petro, C.D.; Akinlade, B.; Gadkari, A.; Eckert, L.; Graham, N.M.H.; et al. Dupilumab does not affect correlates of vaccine-induced immunity: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2019, 80, 158–167.e151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Blauvelt, A.; de Bruin-Weller, M.; Gooderham, M.; Cather, J.C.; Weisman, J.; Pariser, D.; Simpson, E.L.; Papp, K.A.; Hong, H.C.; Rubel, D.; 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, 2287–2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Simpson, E.L.; Bieber, T.; Guttman-Yassky, E.; Beck, L.A.; Blauvelt, A.; Cork, M.J.; Silverberg, J.I.; Deleuran, M.; Kataoka, Y.; Lacour, J.P.; et al. Two Phase 3 Trials of Dupilumab versus Placebo in Atopic Dermatitis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 2335–2348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Worm, M.; Simpson, E.L.; Thaçi, D.; Bissonnette, R.; Lacour, J.P.; Beissert, S.; Kawashima, M.; Ferrándiz, C.; Smith, C.H.; Beck, L.A.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Multiple Dupilumab Dose Regimens After Initial Successful Treatment in Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2020, 156, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. de Bruin-Weller, M.; Thaçi, D.; Smith, C.H.; Reich, K.; Cork, M.J.; Radin, A.; Zhang, Q.; Akinlade, B.; Gadkari, A.; Eckert, L.; 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, 1083–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Simpson, E.L.; Paller, A.S.; Siegfried, E.C.; Boguniewicz, M.; Sher, L.; Gooderham, M.J.; Beck, L.A.; Guttman-Yassky, E.; Pariser, D.; Blauvelt, A.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab in Adolescents With Uncontrolled Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2020, 156, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Paller, A.S.; Siegfried, E.C.; Thaçi, D.; Wollenberg, A.; Cork, M.J.; Arkwright, P.D.; Gooderham, M.; Beck, L.A.; Boguniewicz, M.; Sher, L.; et al. Efficacy and safety of dupilumab with concomitant topical corticosteroids in children 6 to 11 years old with severe atopic dermatitis: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2020, 83, 1282–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Zhao, Y.; Wu, L.; Lu, Q.; Gao, X.; Zhu, X.; Yao, X.; Li, L.; Li, W.; Ding, Y.; Song, Z.; et al. The efficacy and safety of dupilumab in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Br. J. Dermatol. 2022, 186, 633–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Merola, J.F.; Chiou, A.S.; During, E. 33558 Dupilumab significantly improves sleep disturbance in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Results of the DUPISTAD study. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2022, 87, AB46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Paller, A.S.; Simpson, E.L.; Siegfried, E.C.; Cork, M.J.; Wollenberg, A.; Arkwright, P.D.; Soong, W.; Gonzalez, M.E.; Schneider, L.C.; Sidbury, R.; et al. Dupilumab in children aged 6 months to younger than 6 years with uncontrolled atopic dermatitis: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2022, 400, 908–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Patruno, C.; Napolitano, M.; Argenziano, G.; Peris, K.; Ortoncelli, M.; Girolomoni, G.; Offidani, A.; Ferrucci, S.M.; Amoruso, G.F.; Rossi, M.; et al. Dupilumab therapy of atopic dermatitis of the elderly: A multicentre, real-life study. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. JEADV 2021, 35, 958–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Napolitano, M.; Fabbrocini, G.; Neri, I.; Stingeni, L.; Boccaletti, V.; Piccolo, V.; Amoruso, G.F.; Malara, G.; De Pasquale, R.; Di Brizzi, E.V.; et al. Dupilumab Treatment in Children Aged 6-11 Years With Atopic Dermatitis: A Multicentre, Real-Life Study. Paediatr. Drugs 2022, 24, 671–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fargnoli, M.C.; Esposito, M.; Ferrucci, S.; Girolomoni, G.; Offidani, A.; Patrizi, A.; Peris, K.; Costanzo, A.; Malara, G.; Pellacani, G.; et al. Real-life experience on effectiveness and safety of dupilumab in adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. J. Dermatol. Treat. 2021, 32, 507–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ou, Z.; Chen, C.; Chen, A.; Yang, Y.; Zhou, W. Adverse events of Dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A meta-analysis. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2018, 54, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Stingeni, L.; Bianchi, L.; Antonelli, E.; Caroppo, E.S.; Ferrucci, S.M.; Gurioli, C.; Ortoncelli, M.; Fabbrocini, G.; Nettis, E.; Schena, D.; et al. A 52-week update of a multicentre Italian real-world experience on effectiveness and safety of dupilumab in adolescents with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. JEADV 2023, 37, e384–e388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Foster, C.S.; Rice, B.A.; Dutt, J.E. Immunopathology of atopic keratoconjunctivitis. Ophthalmology 1991, 98, 1190–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wu, K.K.; Borba, A.J.; Deng, P.H.; Armstrong, A.W. Association between atopic dermatitis and conjunctivitis in adults: A population-based study in the United States. J. Dermatol. Treat. 2021, 32, 455–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hsu, J.I.; Pflugfelder, S.C.; Kim, S.J. Ocular complications of atopic dermatitis. Cutis 2019, 104, 189–193. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  37. Pietruszyńska, M.; Zawadzka-Krajewska, A.; Duda, P.; Rogowska, M.; Grabska-Liberek, I.; Kulus, M. Ophthalmic manifestations of atopic dermatitis. Postep. Dermatol. I Alergol. 2020, 37, 174–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Bakker, D.S.; Ariens, L.F.M.; van Luijk, C.; van der Schaft, J.; Thijs, J.L.; Schuttelaar, M.L.A.; van Wijk, F.; Knol, E.F.; Balak, D.M.W.; van Dijk, M.R.; et al. Goblet cell scarcity and conjunctival inflammation during treatment with dupilumab in patients with atopic dermatitis. Br. J. Dermatol. 2019, 180, 1248–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Voorberg, A.N.; den Dunnen, W.F.A.; Wijdh, R.H.J.; de Bruin-Weller, M.S.; Schuttelaar, M.L.A. Recurrence of conjunctival goblet cells after discontinuation of dupilumab in a patient with dupilumab-related conjunctivitis. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. JEADV 2020, 34, e64–e66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Barnett, B.P.; Afshari, N.A. Dupilumab-Associated Mucin Deficiency (DAMD). Transl. Vis. Sci. Technol. 2020, 9, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Tauqeer, Z.; Jinno, S.E.; Chung, C.W.; Massaro-Giordano, M.; Bunya, V.Y. Clinical Characteristics and Treatment for Dupilumab-Related Ocular Complications in Atopic Dermatitis Patients. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2022, 16, 947–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kimura, A.; Takeda, A.; Ikebukuro, T.; Hori, J. Serum IgE reduction and paradoxical eosinophilia associated with allergic conjunctivitis after dupilumab therapy. J. Ophthalmic Inflamm. Infect. 2021, 11, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. de Bruin-Weller, M.; Graham, N.M.H.; Pirozzi, G.; Shumel, B. Could conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis treated with dupilumab be caused by colonization with Demodex and increased interleukin-17 levels?: Reply from the authors. Br. J. Dermatol. 2018, 178, 1220–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Wollenberg, A.; Ariens, L.; Thurau, S.; van Luijk, C.; Seegräber, M.; de Bruin-Weller, M. Conjunctivitis occurring in atopic dermatitis patients treated with dupilumab-clinical characteristics and treatment. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2018, 6, 1778–1780.e1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Zhang, S.Y.; Li, J.; Liu, R.; Lao, H.Y.; Fan, Z.; Jin, L.; Liang, L.; Liu, Y. Association of Allergic Conjunctivitis With Health-Related Quality of Life in Children and Their Parents. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2021, 139, 830–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mikhail, E.; Azizoglu, S.; Gokhale, M.; Suphioglu, C. Questionnaires Assessing the Quality of Life of Ocular Allergy Patients. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2020, 8, 2945–2952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Golden, M.I.; Meyer, J.J.; Patel, B.C. Dry Eye Syndrome. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing LLC.: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  48. Suzuki, T. Inflamed Obstructive Meibomian Gland Dysfunction Causes Ocular Surface Inflammation. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018, 59, des94–des101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Singh, P.; Gupta, A.; Tripathy, K. Keratitis. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing LLC.: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hung, N.; Kang, E.Y.; Lee, T.W.; Chen, T.H.; Shyu, Y.C.; Sun, C.C. The Risks of Corneal Surface Damage in Aqueous-Deficient Dry Eye Disease: A 17-Year Population-Based Study in Taiwan. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2021, 227, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hashmi, M.F.; Gurnani, B.; Benson, S. Conjunctivitis. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing LLC.: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kang, E.Y.; Chen, H.T.; Hsueh, Y.J.; Chen, H.C.; Tan, H.Y.; Hsiao, C.H.; Yeh, L.K.; Wu, W.C. Corneal Sensitivity and Tear Function in Recurrent Corneal Erosion Syndrome. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2020, 61, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Nicholas, M.P.; Mysore, N. Corneal neovascularization. Exp. Eye Res. 2021, 202, 108363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Feizi, S.; Javadi, M.A.; Alemzadeh-Ansari, M.; Arabi, A.; Shahraki, T.; Kheirkhah, A. Management of corneal complications in vernal keratoconjunctivitis: A review. Ocul. Surf. 2021, 19, 282–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Achten, R.E.; Bakker, D.S.; van Luijk, C.M.; van der Wal, M.; de Graaf, M.; van Wijk, F.; Zuithoff, N.P.A.; van der Rijst, L.P.; Boesjes, C.M.; Thijs, J.L.; et al. Ocular surface disease is common in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis patients. Clin. Exp. Allergy J. Br. Soc. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2022, 52, 801–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ravn, N.H.; Ahmadzay, Z.F.; Christensen, T.A.; Larsen, H.H.P.; Loft, N.; Rævdal, P.; Heegaard, S.; Kolko, M.; Egeberg, A.; Silverberg, J.I.; et al. Bidirectional association between atopic dermatitis, conjunctivitis, and other ocular surface diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2021, 85, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Althubaiti, A. Information bias in health research: Definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2016, 9, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Gopal, D.P.; Chetty, U.; O’Donnell, P.; Gajria, C.; Blackadder-Weinstein, J. Implicit bias in healthcare: Clinical practice, research and decision making. Future Healthc. J. 2021, 8, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pharmaceutics 15 01031 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow diagram of study selection.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of study selection.
Pharmaceutics 15 01031 g001
Pharmaceutics 15 01031 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest plot of conjunctivitis in dupilumab versus placebo users. Abbreviation: AD, atopic dermatitis.
Figure 2. Forest plot of conjunctivitis in dupilumab versus placebo users. Abbreviation: AD, atopic dermatitis.
Pharmaceutics 15 01031 g002
Pharmaceutics 15 01031 g003 550
Figure 3. Funnel plot of conjunctivitis in dupilumab versus placebo users. Abbreviation: AD, atopic dermatitis.
Figure 3. Funnel plot of conjunctivitis in dupilumab versus placebo users. Abbreviation: AD, atopic dermatitis.
Pharmaceutics 15 01031 g003
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Publication
(RCT Identifier)		Indication of DupilumabType of RCTNumber of PatientsAge *Gender #Drug Survival
of Dupilumab		Incidence of ConjunctivitisFollow-Up Time of AEs
Beck 2014
(NCT01548404)		Atopic dermatitisTwo-arm, triple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg QW (n = 55) vs.
Placebo QW (n = 54) for 12 weeks		Adult
36.5 (11.69)		46.8%/53.2%74.55%
(41/55)		23.64% (13/55) dupilumab vs. 3.70% (2/54) placebo28 weeks
Simpson 2016
(NCT02277743)
(NCT02277769)		Atopic dermatitisThree-arm, triple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg QW (n = 223) vs.
Dupilumab 300mg Q2W (n = 224) vs.
Placebo QW (n = 224) for 16 weeks		Adult
39.5 (14.31)		41.9%/58.1%90.60% (405/447)6.52% (60/920) dupilumab
vs. 1.54% (7/456) placebo		28 weeks
Atopic dermatitisThree-arm, triple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg QW (n = 239) vs.
Dupilumab 300mg Q2W (n = 233) vs.
Placebo QW (n = 236) for 15 weeks		Adult
37.1 (14.17)		42.4%/57.6%93.45% (441/473)28 weeks
Thaçi 2016
(NCT01859988)		Atopic dermatitisSix-arm, quadruple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300 mg QW (n = 63) vs.
Dupilumab 300 mg Q2W (n = 64) vs.
Dupilumab 200 mg Q2W (n = 62) vs.
Dupilumab 300 mg Q4W (n = 65) vs.
Dupilumab 100 mg Q4W (n = 65) vs.
Placebo QW (n = 61) for 15 weeks		Adult
37.0 (12.06)		38.3%/61.7%73.90% (235/318)6.60% (21/318) dupilumab vs. 3.28% (2/61) placebo32 weeks
Blauvelt 2017
(NCT02260986)		Atopic dermatitisThree-arm, triple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg QW (n = 319) vs.
Dupilumab 300mg Q2W (n = 106) vs.
Placebo QW (n = 315) for 51 weeks		Adult
37.1 (13.46)		39.7%/60.3%91.75% (371/425)17.88% (76/425) dupilumab
vs. 7.94% (25/315) placebo		52 weeks
Bruin-Weller 2018
(NCT02755649)		Atopic dermatitisThree-arm, quadruple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg QW +TCS (n = 110) vs.
Dupilumab 300mg Q2W+TCS (n = 107) vs.
Placebo QW +TCS (n = 108) for 16 weeks		Adult
38.4 (13.13)		38.8%/61.2%99.08% (215/217)22.12% (48/217) dupilumab
vs. 11.11% (12/108) placebo		28 weeks
Blauvelt 2019
(NCT02210780)		Atopic dermatitisTwo-arm, triple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg QW (n = 97) vs.
Placebo QW (n = 97) for 15 weeks		Adult
39.6 (13.77)		51.0%/49.0%91.75%
(89/97)		8.25% (8/97) dupilumab
vs. 0.00% (0/97) placebo		32 weeks
Guttman-Yassky 2019
(NCT01979016)		Atopic dermatitisTwo-arm, quadruple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 200mg QW (n = 27) vs.
Placebo QW (n = 27) for 15 weeks		Adult
41.3 (14.81)		44.4%/55.6%96.30%
(26/27)		11.11% (3/27) dupilumab
vs. 3.70% (1/27) placebo		32 weeks
Paller 2020
(NCT03345914}		Atopic dermatitisThree-arm, quadruple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg Q4W +TCS (n = 120) vs.
Dupilumab 300/100mg Q2W+TCS (n = 122) vs.
Placebo QW +TCS (n = 120) for 16 weeks		Child
8.5 (1.72)		50.1%/49.9%97.13% (237/244)10.74% (26/242) dupilumab
vs. 4.17% (5/120) placebo		28 weeks
Worm 2020
(NCT02395133)		Atopic dermatitisFour-arm, triple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg QW/Q2W (n = 169) vs.
Dupilumab 300mg Q4W (n = 86) vs.
Dupilumab 300mg Q8W (n = 84) vs.
Placebo QW (n=83) for 36 weeks		Adult
38.2 (14.46)		46.2%/53.8%90.27% (306/339)4.73% (16/338) dupilumab
vs. 4.88% (4/82) placebo		36 weeks
Simpson 2020
(NCT03054428)		Atopic dermatitisThree-arm, quadruple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300/200mg Q2W (n = 82) vs.
Dupilumab 300mg Q4W (n = 84) vs.
Placebo Q2W (n = 85) for 16 weeks		Adolescent
14.5 (1.70)		41.0%/59.0%96.39% (160/166)10.30% (17/165) dupilumab
vs. 4.71% (4/85) placebo		28 weeks
Merola 2022
(NCT04033367)		Atopic dermatitisTwo-arm, quadruple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg Q2W (n = 127) vs.
Placebo Q2W (n = 61) for 12 weeks		Adult
35.7 (14.89)		51.6%/48.4%96.06%
(122/127)		9.45% (12/127) dupilumab
vs. 4.92% (3/61) placebo		12 weeks
Paller 2022
(NCT03346434)		Atopic dermatitisTwo-arm, quadruple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 400/200mg Q4W + TCS (n = 83) vs.
Placebo Q2W + TCS (n = 79) for 12 weeks		Child
4.0 (0.8)		61.1%/38.9%100.00%
(83/83)		4.82% (4/83) dupilumab
vs. 0.00% (0/78) placebo		28 weeks
Zhao 2022
(NCT03912259)		Atopic dermatitisTwo-arm, quadruple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg Q2W (n = 82) vs.
Placebo Q2W (n=83) for 16 weeks		Adult
30.6 (11.49)		28.5%/71.5%92.68%
(76/82)		18.29% (15/82) dupilumab
vs. 6.02% (5/83) placebo		28 weeks
Wenzel 2016
(NCT01854047)		AsthmaFive-arm, triple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg Q2W (n = 154) vs.
Dupilumab 200mg Q2W (n = 157) vs.
Dupilumab 300mg Q4W (n = 150) vs.
Dupilumab 100mg Q4W (n = 157) vs.
Placebo Q2W (n = 158) for 22 weeks		Adult
48.6 (13.00)		63.1%/36.9%92.14% (563/611)1.15% (7/611) dupilumab
vs. 1.27% (2/158) placebo		40 weeks
Castro 2018
(NCT02414854)		AsthmaFour-arm, triple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg Q2W (n = 633) vs.
Dupilumab 200mg Q2W (n = 631) vs.
Placebo 300mg Q2W (n = 321) vs.
Placebo 200mg Q2W (n = 317) for 50 weeks		Adult
47.9 (15.30) 		62.9%/37.1%92.41% (1168/1264)1.74% (22/1263) dupilumab
vs. 2.37% (15/634) placebo		64 weeks
Rabe 2018
(NCT02528214)		AsthmaTwo-arm, triple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg Q2W (n = 103) vs.
Placebo Q2W (n = 107) for 24 weeks		Adult
51.3 (12.60)		60.5%/39.5%97.09% (100/103)0.97% (1/103) dupilumab
vs. 0.93% (1/107) placebo		36 weeks
Bacharier 2021
(NCT02948959)		AsthmaTwo-arm, triple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 200/100mg Q2W (n = 273) vs.
Placebo Q2W (n=135) for 52 weeks		Child
8.9 (1.6)		35.8%/64.2%90.84% (248/273)2.58% (7/271) dupilumab
vs. 6.72% (9/134) placebo		64 weeks
Bachert 2016
(NCT01920893)		CRSwNP Two-arm, triple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg QW (n = 30) vs.
Placebo QW (n = 30) for 15 weeks		Adult
48.4 (9.40)		43.3%/56.7%93.33%
(28/30)		0.00% (0/30) dupilumab
vs. 3.33% (1/30) placebo		32 weeks
Bachert 2019
(NCT02898454)
(NCT02912468)		CRSwNPThree-arm, quadruple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg Q2W (n = 150) vs.
Dupilumab 300mg Q2W then Q4W (n = 145) vs.
Placebo Q2W (n = 153) for 52 weeks		Adult
51.95 (12.45)		37.7%/62.3%96.27% (284/295)1.59% (7/440) dupilumab
vs. 0.35% (1/282) placebo		24 weeks
CRSwNPTwo-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg Q2W (n = 143) vs.
Placebo Q2W (n = 133) for 24 weeks		Adult
50.49 (13.39)		42.8%/57.2%96.50% (138/143)24 weeks
Hirano 2020
(NCT02379052)		EETwo-arm, triple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTDupilumab 300mg QW (n = 23) vs.
Placebo QW (n = 24) for 12 weeks		Adult
34.7 (10.94)		51.1%/48.9%78.26%
(18/23)		0.00% (0/23) dupilumab
vs. 0.00% (0/24) placebo		28 weeks
Dellon 2020
(NCT03633617)		EEFive-arm, quadruple-blind, placebo-controlled RCTPart A
Dupilumab 300mg QW (n = 42) vs.
Placebo QW (n = 39) for 24 weeks
Part B
Dupilumab 300mg QW (n = 80) vs.
Dupilumab 300mg Q2W (n = 81) vs.
Placebo QW (n = 79) for 24 weeks		Adult
28.1 (13.12)		63.7%/36.3%94.09% (191/203)1.48% (3/203) dupilumab
vs. 1.71% (2/117) placebo		24 weeks
Abbreviations: AE, adverse event; CRSwNP, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps; EE, eosinophilic esophagitis; RCT, randomized controlled trial. * Data were presented as means (standard deviations, SDs). # Data were presented as proportion of female to male patients.
Table
Table 2. Sensitivity analysis through various methods for included studies *.
Table 2. Sensitivity analysis through various methods for included studies *.
MethodsModelsOdds Ratio (95%Cl)Relative Risk (95%Cl)
Conjunctivitis in dupilumab versus placebo users
Mantel–HaenszelRandom effects2.01 (1.38–2.93)1.89 (1.34–2.67)
Inverse varianceRandom effects2.01 (1.39–2.92)1.89 (1.34–2.66)
Conjunctivitis in dupilumab versus placebo users with AD
Mantel–HaenszelRandom effects2.71 (2.06–3.55)2.43 (1.89–3.12)
Inverse varianceRandom effects2.71 (2.06–3.55)2.43(1.85–3.61)
Conjunctivitis in dupilumab versus placebo users with non-AD indications
Mantel–HaenszelRandom effects0.71 (0.44–1.14)0.71 (0.44–1.13)
Inverse varianceRandom effects0.70 (0.42–1.14)0.71 (0.44–1.13)
Abbreviations: AD, atopic dermatitis; CI, confidence interval; N/A, not applicable. * Studies with no events in both groups were excluded.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lin, T.-Y.; Wang, C.-Y.; Wang, F.-Y.; Kang, E.Y.-C.; Hwang, Y.-S. Association between Dupilumab and Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 1031. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15041031

AMA Style

Lin T-Y, Wang C-Y, Wang F-Y, Kang EY-C, Hwang Y-S. Association between Dupilumab and Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Pharmaceutics. 2023; 15(4):1031. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15041031

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lin, Tzu-Yi, Ching-Ya Wang, Fang-Ying Wang, Eugene Yu-Chuan Kang, and Yih-Shiou Hwang. 2023. "Association between Dupilumab and Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials" Pharmaceutics 15, no. 4: 1031. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15041031

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop