MVIIIHealth The MVIII app
← Back

Research · Medication

Dupilumab

Against placebo in phase 3 trials and meta-analyses, dupilumab injections cleared or almost cleared eczema in about 37% against 9%, cut severe asthma attacks by about half, and shrank nasal polyps. COPD flare-ups fell about a third in people with high eosinophils. Conjunctivitis rose mainly in eczema, about 10% against 2%. It carries no boxed warning.

Add to Bio HackChecked 2026-11-14
Status
Prescription biologic in the US, injected under the skin. FDA-approved for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis from 6 months of age, moderate-to-severe eosinophilic or steroid-dependent asthma from 6 years, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps from 12 years, eosinophilic esophagitis from 1 year, prurigo nodularis, COPD with an eosinophilic phenotype, chronic spontaneous urticaria from 2 years, bullous pemphigoid, and allergic fungal rhinosinusitis from 6 years after sinus surgery. The label carries no boxed warning.
Also called
Dupixent, IL-4 receptor alpha antagonist, anti-IL-4R antibody, interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 blocker, eczema biologic, asthma biologic
Taken for
eczema, atopic dermatitis, itchy skin, asthma, asthma attacks, nasal polyps, chronic sinusitis, loss of smell, eosinophilic esophagitis, trouble swallowing, prurigo nodularis, COPD, chronic hives, bullous pemphigoid, allergic fungal sinusitis

Strong several reviews agree · Moderate one review or consistent trials · Limited one or a few small studies · Untested no study in people, listed with what it rests on

Shown to help8

Reported risks9

What people take it for, and what was found

Shown to help8

StrongVery common

Eczema (atopic dermatitis)

Shown to clear or almost clear eczema in about 36 to 38% of adults at 16 weeks, against 8 to 10% on placebo injections.

Compared with placebo injections [1][2][3][4]

The numbers and sources
How common
Very common: more than 1 in 10 people.
Effect
In SOLO 1 and SOLO 2, dupilumab 300 mg injected under the skin every other week for 16 weeks gave a score of clear or almost clear, with at least a 2-point improvement, in 38% and 36% of adults, against 10% and 8% on placebo. Weekly dosing gave 37% and 36% [1]. Pooling 6 trials, dupilumab raised the share reaching this response (RR 3.82, 95% CI 3.23 to 4.51) and lowered eczema severity scores (SMD -0.89, 95% CI -1.0 to -0.78), with adverse events as common as on placebo (RR 1.0) [2]. Across 14 placebo-controlled trials, a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) was 2.89 times as common on dupilumab (95% CI 2.47 to 3.38), and results matched in adults and in children and adolescents [3]. In a network meta-analysis of 39 trials, dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks lowered EASI 11.3 points more than placebo (95% credible interval 9.7 to 13.1, high certainty) [4].
Population
671 and 708 adults with moderate-to-severe eczema not controlled by topical treatment [1]; 2,447 adults in 6 RCTs [2]; 3,817 adults and 618 children and adolescents in 14 RCTs [3]; 6,360 patients in 39 trials of systemic drugs [4].
Sources
[1], [2], [3], [4]
Caveats
Most trials lasted 16 weeks or less [4]. The SOLO trials were funded by the makers, Sanofi and Regeneron, and enrolled adults only [1].
Strong

Severe asthma attacks and lung function

Shown to lower severe asthma attacks against placebo when added to inhalers, by about 48% in the largest trial and more in people with higher blood eosinophils.

Compared with placebo injections added to usual asthma treatment [6][7][8]

The numbers and sources
Effect
In QUEST, the yearly rate of severe exacerbations was 0.46 on dupilumab 200 mg under the skin every 2 weeks and 0.87 on placebo, 47.7% lower, with similar results at 300 mg. In people with blood eosinophils of 300 per cubic millimeter or more, rates were 0.37 against 1.08, 65.8% lower (95% CI 52.0 to 75.6). FEV1 rose 0.32 liters by week 12, 0.14 liters more than placebo [6]. Pooling 4 RCTs, severe exacerbations fell (RR 0.44, I² 42%) and FEV1 rose 0.14 liters more than placebo (95% CI 0.12 to 0.17), with no difference in adverse events apart from injection site reactions [7]. A second meta-analysis of 5 studies found a lower risk of severe exacerbation (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.79) and better asthma control and quality of life scores [8].
Population
1,902 people aged 12 and older with uncontrolled asthma, treated 52 weeks [6]; 2,992 patients in 4 RCTs [7]; 3,369 patients in 5 studies [8].
Sources
[6], [7], [8]
Caveats
The two meta-analyses pooled largely the same trials and their exacerbation estimates differ (RR 0.44 and 0.73) [7][8]. QUEST was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron [6].
Moderate

Nasal polyps (chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps)

Shown to shrink nasal polyps and ease nasal congestion against placebo in adults with severe disease, and to cut use of oral steroids and repeat sinus surgery.

Compared with placebo injections added to standard care with nasal steroid spray [9]; placebo [10]

The numbers and sources
Effect
In SINUS-24 and SINUS-52, dupilumab 300 mg under the skin every 2 weeks lowered the nasal polyp score at 24 weeks by 2.06 (95% CI 1.69 to 2.43) and 1.80 (95% CI 1.51 to 2.10) points more than placebo, the nasal congestion score by 0.89 and 0.87 points more, and the sinus CT score by 7.44 and 5.13 points more. The most common adverse events were more frequent on placebo [9]. Pooling 3 RCTs and 25 other studies, dupilumab improved smell (MD 10.83, 95% CI 9.59 to 12.08) and lowered systemic corticosteroid use (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.39) and revision surgery (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.52) [10].
Population
276 and 448 adults with severe nasal polyps despite nasal steroids, past systemic steroids or surgery [9]; 784 adults [10].
Sources
[9], [10]
Caveats
The meta-analysis mixed 3 RCTs with 25 nonrandomized studies [10]. Both trials were funded by the makers [9].
Limited

Allergic fungal sinusitis

One trial found clearer sinus scans and less congestion at 52 weeks on dupilumab than placebo in people with allergic fungal sinusitis, and fewer needing steroids or surgery.

Compared with placebo injections [11]

The numbers and sources
Effect
At week 52 the sinus CT score improved 7.36 points more on dupilumab than placebo (95% CI 5.35 to 9.38). At week 24, nasal congestion improved 0.87 points more and nasal polyp score 2.36 points more. Dupilumab lowered the risk of needing systemic corticosteroids or sinus surgery by 92% (risk difference -29.1%, 95% CI -46.42 to -11.79). Adverse events occurred in 69.7% on dupilumab and 78.6% on placebo [11].
Population
62 people aged 6 and older with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis, 33 on dupilumab and 29 on placebo, over 52 weeks [11].
Sources
[11]
Caveats
One small trial [11].
ModerateVery common

Eosinophilic esophagitis

Shown to bring esophageal eosinophils to remission levels in about 60% at 24 weeks against 5 to 6% on placebo, and to ease swallowing trouble with weekly dosing.

Compared with placebo injections [12][13]; placebo and swallowed steroids, compared indirectly [14]

The numbers and sources
How common
Very common: more than 1 in 10 people.
Effect
In Part A of the phase 3 trial, histologic remission occurred in 60% (25 of 42) on dupilumab 300 mg under the skin weekly and 5% (2 of 39) on placebo, a 55-point difference (95% CI 40 to 71). In Part B it occurred in 59% on weekly dosing, 60% on dosing every 2 weeks and 6% on placebo. Swallowing scores improved with weekly dosing (difference -12.32 in Part A and -9.92 in Part B) but not with dosing every 2 weeks (difference -0.51, 95% CI -5.42 to 4.41) [12]. A network meta-analysis of 3 RCTs found higher odds of histologic remission than placebo with dosing every 2 weeks (OR 26.88, 95% CI 11.98 to 60.29) and weekly (OR 29.15, 95% CI 13.68 to 62.12), with more serious adverse events on weekly dosing [13]. A network meta-analysis of 13 RCTs found moderate to high certainty benefit for swallowing symptoms at 12 and 24 weeks with dupilumab 300 mg against placebo and active comparators [14].
Population
81 people aged 12 and older in Part A and 240 in Part B [12]; 470 participants including 102 children under 12 in 3 RCTs [13]; 13 RCTs in people aged 12 and older [14].
Sources
[12], [13], [14]
Caveats
Most of the data come from one trial program funded by the makers [12][13]. Serious adverse events occurred in 7 people on weekly dosing, 1 on dosing every 2 weeks and 1 on placebo [12]. Most steroid trials in [14] were short and none compared steroids with biologics directly.
Moderate

COPD flare-ups

Shown to lower moderate or severe COPD flare-ups by about 30 to 34% against placebo in people with blood eosinophils of 300 or more.

Compared with placebo injections added to triple inhaler therapy [15]; placebo injections [16]; placebo, in a network analysis with other biologics [17]

The numbers and sources
Effect
In BOREAS, the yearly rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was 0.78 on dupilumab 300 mg under the skin every 2 weeks and 1.10 on placebo (rate ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.86), and FEV1 rose 83 mL more by week 12 [15]. In NOTUS, rates were 0.86 against 1.30 (rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.82), and FEV1 rose 82 mL more by week 12 [16]. A network meta-analysis of 8 studies found fewer exacerbations (-0.44 a year, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.10) and better St. George's quality of life scores (-3.41 points) than placebo in people with eosinophils of 200 or more [17].
Population
939 adults with COPD, blood eosinophils of 300 per microliter or more and raised exacerbation risk despite triple therapy, over 52 weeks [15]; 935 adults with COPD and eosinophils of 300 or more [16]; 8 trials of biologics in COPD [17].
Sources
[15], [16], [17]
Caveats
NOTUS reported its primary analysis after a positive interim look, with 721 of 935 people reaching week 52 [16]. Both trials were funded by the makers and enrolled only people with raised eosinophils [15][16].
ModerateVery common

Itch in prurigo nodularis

Shown to ease severe itch in prurigo nodularis against placebo, with a 4-point drop in itch in 60% against 18% at 24 weeks in one of two trials.

Compared with placebo injections [18]

The numbers and sources
How common
Very common: more than 1 in 10 people.
Effect
A drop of 4 points or more in worst itch was reached at week 24 by 60.0% on dupilumab 300 mg under the skin every 2 weeks and 18.4% on placebo in PRIME, and at week 12 by 37.2% and 22.0% in PRIME2. Both trials met their key secondary end points, including nodules falling to 5 or fewer at week 24 [18].
Population
151 and 160 adults with at least 20 nodules and severe itch not controlled by topical treatment, over 24 weeks [18].
Sources
[18]
Caveats
Two trials reported together, with different time points for the main end point [18].
Limited

Chronic hives (chronic spontaneous urticaria)

Small trials found less hive activity and itch than placebo in people not helped by antihistamines who had not used omalizumab, with smaller effects after omalizumab failed.

Compared with placebo injections [19]; omalizumab and remibrutinib, compared indirectly [20]

The numbers and sources
Effect
In people who had not used omalizumab, the weekly urticaria activity score improved 8.5 points more than placebo (95% CI 3.9 to 13.2) and the itch score 4.2 points more. In people who had not tolerated or responded fully to omalizumab, activity improved 5.8 points more (95% CI 0.3 to 11.4), and the itch difference was not significant [19]. In a network meta-analysis of 15 studies, omalizumab 300 mg had the largest effects on hive activity, itch and remission, and dupilumab gave sustained itch relief with a delayed onset [20].
Population
138 people aged 6 and older and 108 aged 12 and older with symptoms despite H1 antihistamines [19]; 4,913 patients in 15 studies [20].
Sources
[19], [20]
Caveats
The study of people who had tried omalizumab missed its main end point [19]. The network comparison is indirect [20].

Mixed results2

Limited

Eczema, compared with other drugs taken by mouth

Mixed results: one trial found fewer responders on dupilumab than on oral upadacitinib, while a network analysis placed dupilumab level with cyclosporine and possibly ahead of methotrexate.

Compared with oral upadacitinib 30 mg a day [5]; cyclosporine, methotrexate and azathioprine, compared indirectly [4]

The numbers and sources
Effect
In the double-blind, double-dummy Heads Up trial, a 75% improvement in EASI at week 16 was reached by 61.1% on dupilumab 300 mg under the skin every other week and 71.0% on upadacitinib 30 mg by mouth daily (P = .006). Complete clearing (EASI-100) at week 16 was 7.6% against 27.9%. Conjunctivitis and injection-site reactions were more common on dupilumab, and serious infection, eczema herpeticum, herpes zoster and lab-related adverse events were more common on upadacitinib [5]. In a network meta-analysis, cyclosporine (SMD -1.1, low certainty) and dupilumab (SMD -0.9, high certainty) cleared signs of eczema to a similar degree against placebo, and both may have exceeded methotrexate (SMD -0.6, low certainty) and azathioprine (SMD -0.4, low certainty) [4].
Population
692 adults with moderate-to-severe eczema over 24 weeks [5]; 39 trials with 6,360 patients [4].
Sources
[5], [4]
Caveats
One head-to-head trial [5]. The comparisons with cyclosporine, methotrexate and azathioprine are indirect, and most are low certainty [4].
Limited

Bullous pemphigoid

One trial found sustained remission in 18.3% on dupilumab against 6.1% on placebo with oral steroids, a difference whose interval crossed zero, and more itch relief.

Compared with placebo injections, both arms with tapering oral corticosteroids [21]

The numbers and sources
Effect
At week 36, sustained remission off oral steroids was reached by 18.3% on dupilumab and 6.1% on placebo, a difference of 12.2 points (95% CI -0.8 to 26.1). A 4-point drop in itch was reached by 38.3% and 10.5% (difference 27.8 points, 95% CI 11.6 to 43.4). Rescue therapy was needed by 53% and 79%, and the median oral steroid dose through week 36 was 2.8 g against 4.1 g [21].
Population
106 adults with bullous pemphigoid, mean age 71.3, in the ADEPT trial, all starting prednisone or prednisolone [21].
Sources
[21]
Caveats
One trial, read from the label's clinical studies section [21].

Doses studied

All doses are injections under the skin. The eczema trials used 300 mg every other week or weekly after a 600 mg first dose [1], and the label gives 600 mg then 300 mg every 2 weeks for adults, with weight-based doses every 2 or 4 weeks for children [21]. The asthma trial used 200 or 300 mg every 2 weeks after a 400 or 600 mg first dose [6]. The nasal polyp, COPD and prurigo nodularis trials used 300 mg every 2 weeks [9][15][16][18]. The eosinophilic esophagitis trial used 300 mg weekly or every 2 weeks [12], and the label gives 300 mg weekly from 40 kg [21]. The bullous pemphigoid trial used 600 mg then 300 mg every other week with oral steroids [21].

Risks

Reported risks7

StrongVery common

Injection site reactions

Shown to raise injection site reactions, 14 to 18% against 6% on placebo in asthma trials and 10% against 5% in eczema trials.

The numbers and sources
How common
Very common: more than 1 in 10 people.
Effect
Injection site reactions (redness, swelling, itching, pain) occurred in 14% on 200 mg and 18% on 300 mg against 6% on placebo in the asthma trials, most often with the first, larger dose, and in 10% against 5% in the eczema trials [21]. Pooled asthma trials found injection site reactions 1.91 times as common as placebo (95% CI 1.41 to 2.59) [7].
Population
779, 788 and 792 people with asthma on 200 mg, 300 mg and placebo; 529 and 517 adults with eczema [21]; 2,992 patients in 4 asthma RCTs [7].
Sources
[21], [7]
Caveats
The rate was 6% against 4% in the nasal polyp trials and 1.2% against 0.2% in COPD [21].
ModerateCommon

Conjunctivitis, keratitis and other eye surface problems

Shown to raise conjunctivitis in eczema, 10% against 2% on placebo, but not in asthma. The label also warns of keratitis and reported vision loss.

The numbers and sources
How common
Common: between 1 in 100 and 1 in 10 people.
Effect
In the 16-week eczema trials, conjunctivitis occurred in 51 of 529 people (10%) on dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks and 12 of 517 (2%) on placebo, keratitis in under 1% against 0, and with topical steroids keratitis in 4% against 0. Rates were 4% against 1% in prurigo nodularis, 1.4% against 1% in COPD and 7.5% against 0% in bullous pemphigoid. After approval, ectropion, scarring of the eye surface, blocked tear ducts and temporary or lasting vision loss including blindness were reported, some needing surgery [21]. Pooling 23 RCTs, conjunctivitis was more common than on placebo (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.67), in eczema (RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.84 to 3.12) but not in other indications (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.13) [22]. Across the trial program, higher eczema severity and a past history of conjunctivitis were linked to more conjunctivitis, and most cases were mild to moderate [23].
Population
9,153 patients in 23 placebo-controlled RCTs [22]; trial participants with eczema (2,629), asthma (2,876), nasal polyps (60) and eosinophilic esophagitis (47) [23]; label trial pools [21].
Sources
[21], [22], [23]
Caveats
The pooled analysis [23] was written by company and academic authors. Postmarketing reports give no rate [21].
ModerateCommon

Raised blood eosinophils, eosinophilic pneumonia and vasculitis

Shown to raise blood eosinophil counts in some people, 4.1% against 0.6% in the largest asthma trial. The label warns of eosinophilic pneumonia and vasculitis cases in asthma.

The numbers and sources
How common
Common: between 1 in 100 and 1 in 10 people.
Effect
In QUEST, eosinophilia after the start of treatment occurred in 4.1% on dupilumab and 0.6% on placebo [6]. Across trials, eosinophil counts of 5,000 per microliter or more occurred in under 3% on dupilumab and under 0.5% on placebo, and in COPD counts of 1,000 or more in 13.6% against 8.1%. Cases of eosinophilic pneumonia and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis were reported in the asthma program, which the label says may follow a cut in oral steroid dose [21].
Population
1,902 people with asthma [6]; label trial pools [21].
Sources
[6], [21]
Caveats
In eczema, asthma and nasal polyp trials overall, eosinophil counts of 500 or more were about as common as on placebo [21].
LimitedStudied in childrenCommon

Parasitic worm infections and live vaccines

One trial in children with asthma found worm infections in 2.2% on dupilumab against 0.7% on placebo. The label says to avoid live vaccines during treatment.

The numbers and sources
How common
Common: between 1 in 100 and 1 in 10 people.
Effect
In the trial of children aged 6 to 11 with asthma, worm infections occurred in 6 children (2.2%) on dupilumab and 1 (0.7%) on placebo, mostly pinworm, all mild to moderate and treated without stopping dupilumab. People with known worm infections were left out of trials. The label says it is not known whether live vaccines given during treatment are affected [21].
Population
405 children aged 6 to 11 with moderate-to-severe asthma in VOYAGE [21].
Sources
[21]
Caveats
Few events in one trial [21].
LimitedHow often is not known

New psoriasis and facial skin reactions

The label warns of new-onset psoriasis, including in people without a family history, and facial redness, scaling and burning reported after approval.

The numbers and sources
How common
How often is not known: the sources give no rate.
Effect
Psoriasis began weeks to months after the first dose in postmarketing reports and resolved partly or fully when dupilumab was stopped. Facial skin reactions, vasculitis and angioedema were also reported after approval [21].
Population
Postmarketing reports in people treated for eczema and asthma [21].
Sources
[21]
Caveats
Voluntary reports from a population of unknown size give no rate [21].
LimitedHow often is not known

Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma appearing or worsening

Case reports: 547 people developed cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, mostly mycosis fungoides, a mean 8.9 months after starting dupilumab for eczema. Experts judged it may unmask existing disease.

The numbers and sources
How common
How often is not known: the sources give no rate.
Effect
Across 51 studies reporting cases, new or worsening skin lesions appeared a mean 8.9 months after starting dupilumab and were diagnosed as mycosis fungoides in 72% and Sézary syndrome in 11%. Dupilumab was stopped in 75%, and 44 of 63 people with follow-up reached remission. An expert panel agreed dupilumab may unmask or worsen existing lymphoma [26].
Population
547 patients, mean age 58, in case reports and series [26].
Sources
[26]
Caveats
Case reports cannot give a rate or show whether dupilumab caused the lymphoma or revealed one first taken for eczema [26].
LimitedHow often is not known

Allergic reactions

The label warns of hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, serum sickness, angioedema and severe rashes, and says to stop dupilumab if one occurs.

The numbers and sources
How common
How often is not known: the sources give no rate.
Effect
Anaphylaxis, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, serum sickness or serum sickness-like reactions, angioedema, generalized hives, rash, erythema nodosum and erythema multiforme have been reported. Known hypersensitivity to dupilumab is the label's only contraindication [21].
Population
Trial and postmarketing reports [21].
Sources
[21]
Caveats
The label gives no overall rate [21].

Mixed results2

ModerateCommon

Cold sores and other infections

Mixed results: cold sores were 4% against 2% on placebo in eczema trials, while pooled trials found fewer skin infections and no rise in herpes infections overall.

The numbers and sources
How common
Common: between 1 in 100 and 1 in 10 people.
Effect
In the 16-week eczema trials, oral herpes occurred in 4% on dupilumab and 2% on placebo, and other herpes simplex infections in 2% against 1% [21]. Pooling 8 RCTs in eczema, skin infections were less common on dupilumab (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70), as was eczema herpeticum (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.84), with no difference in herpesvirus infections overall (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.74) or all infections (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.16) [24]. In bullous pemphigoid, herpes zoster occurred in 4% against 0% [21].
Population
2,706 participants in 8 RCTs over 4 to 52 weeks [24]; label trial pools [21].
Sources
[21], [24]
Caveats
Follow-up in most trials was short [24]. The authors judged the drop in skin infections likely related to milder eczema [24].
ModerateCommon

Joint pain

Mixed results: joint pain was slightly more common than placebo in nasal polyp and COPD trials, while a review of eczema studies with a control group found no rise.

The numbers and sources
How common
Common: between 1 in 100 and 1 in 10 people.
Effect
Joint pain occurred in 3% on dupilumab and 2% on placebo in the nasal polyp trials, and 3.1% against 2.7% in COPD. The label warns that some people had trouble walking, some were hospitalized, and new psoriatic arthritis needing treatment was reported [21]. Across 34 studies in eczema, the pooled share with joint pain on dupilumab was 1.74% (95% CI 1.12 to 2.68) and inflammatory arthritis 2.62%. In 8 studies with a control group, the relative risk of joint pain was 0.68 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.58) [25].
Population
440 and 282 adults in the nasal polyp safety pool, 938 and 934 in COPD [21]; 15,101 patients in 34 eczema studies [25].
Sources
[21], [25]
Caveats
Most studies in [25] were observational.

Checked, no increase found1

LimitedStudied in pregnancy

Use in pregnancy

Limited evidence: case reports and one cohort of 29 exposed pregnancies found no rise in birth defects or other adverse outcomes. The antibody crosses the placenta.

The numbers and sources
How common
How often is not known: the sources give no rate.
Effect
The label states that case reports and case series have not identified a drug-associated risk of major birth defects, miscarriage or adverse maternal or fetal outcomes, that IgG antibodies cross the placenta most in the third trimester, and that a pregnancy registry is running. Monkey studies at 10 times the human dose found no developmental harm [21]. In 29 pregnancies exposed mostly in the first trimester, median 6 weeks, adverse pregnancy, birth, newborn and postpartum outcomes did not differ from controls [27].
Population
Case reports [21]; 29 exposed pregnancies among 951 women of childbearing age with eczema at 19 Italian hospitals [27].
Sources
[21], [27]
Caveats
Every pregnancy in [27] was unplanned and dupilumab was stopped once it was known, so exposure later in pregnancy was not studied.

Claims tested and not found

  1. That dupilumab raises skin infections in eczema. Pooled RCTs found fewer skin infections (RR 0.54) and less eczema herpeticum than placebo [24].
  2. That conjunctivitis is raised in every use. Pooling 23 RCTs, conjunctivitis rose in eczema but not in asthma, nasal polyps or eosinophilic esophagitis (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.13) [22].
  3. That dosing every 2 weeks eases swallowing in eosinophilic esophagitis. It raised remission rates, but swallowing scores did not differ from placebo (difference -0.51, 95% CI -5.42 to 4.41) [12].

Sources

  1. Simpson EL, Bieber T, Guttman-Yassky E, et al. Two Phase 3 Trials of Dupilumab versus Placebo in Atopic Dermatitis. New England Journal of Medicine. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1610020
  2. Wang FP, Tang XJ, Wei CQ, et al. Dupilumab treatment in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dermatological Science. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdermsci.2018.01.016
  3. Koskeridis F, Evangelou E, Ntzani EE, et al. Treatment With Dupilumab in Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/12034754221130969
  4. Drucker AM, Ellis AG, Bohdanowicz M, et al. Systemic Immunomodulatory Treatments for Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatology. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0796
  5. Blauvelt A, Teixeira HD, Simpson EL, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib vs Dupilumab in Adults With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Dermatology. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.3023
  6. Castro M, Corren J, Pavord ID, et al. Dupilumab Efficacy and Safety in Moderate-to-Severe Uncontrolled Asthma. New England Journal of Medicine. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1804092
  7. Zayed Y, Kheiri B, Banifadel M, et al. Dupilumab safety and efficacy in uncontrolled asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Journal of Asthma. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2018.1520865
  8. Xiong XF, Zhu M, Wu HX, et al. Efficacy and safety of dupilumab for the treatment of uncontrolled asthma: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Respiratory Research. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-019-1065-3
  9. 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. The Lancet. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31881-1
  10. Sim L, Md Shukri N, Yaacob NM, et al. Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512433.2025.2468970
  11. Luong AU, Levy JM, Wise SK, et al. Dupilumab for patients with allergic fungal rhinosinusitis. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2026.07.006
  12. Dellon ES, Rothenberg ME, Collins MH, et al. Dupilumab in Adults and Adolescents with Eosinophilic Esophagitis. New England Journal of Medicine. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2205982
  13. Chu SH, Chen JJ, Chen CC, et al. Efficacy of Dupilumab in the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Life. 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/life15020307
  14. Al Hayek M, Lucendo AJ, Savarino EV, et al. Efficacy of Biological and Steroid Therapies in Adolescent and Adult Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis With Meta-Regression. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2026.04.003
  15. Bhatt SP, Rabe KF, Hanania NA, et al. Dupilumab for COPD with Type 2 Inflammation Indicated by Eosinophil Counts. New England Journal of Medicine. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2303951
  16. Bhatt SP, Rabe KF, Hanania NA, et al. Dupilumab for COPD with Blood Eosinophil Evidence of Type 2 Inflammation. New England Journal of Medicine. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2401304
  17. Li S, Yi B, Wang H, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Biologics Targeting Type 2 Inflammation in COPD: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. 2025. https://doi.org/10.2147/copd.s504774
  18. Yosipovitch G, Mollanazar N, Ständer S, et al. Dupilumab in patients with prurigo nodularis: two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials. Nature Medicine. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-023-02320-9
  19. Maurer M, Casale TB, Saini SS, et al. Dupilumab in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (LIBERTY-CSU CUPID): Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2024.01.028
  20. Xiong G, Rayner DG, Kim L, et al. Comparative efficacy of omalizumab, dupilumab, and remibrutinib in chronic spontaneous urticaria: a network meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Journal of Dermatological Treatment. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546634.2025.2580374
  21. Dupixent (dupilumab) injection, for subcutaneous use, prescribing information (Sanofi-Aventis U.S.). 2026. DailyMed, US National Library of Medicine. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=595f437d-2729-40bb-9c62-c8ece1f82780
  22. Lin TY, Wang CY, Wang FY, et al. Association between Dupilumab and Conjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Pharmaceutics. 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15041031
  23. Akinlade B, Guttman-Yassky E, de Bruin-Weller M, et al. Conjunctivitis in dupilumab clinical trials. British Journal of Dermatology. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.17869
  24. Fleming P, Drucker AM. Risk of infection in patients with atopic dermatitis treated with dupilumab: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2017.09.052
  25. See Tow HX, Yew YW. Joint Pain and Inflammatory Arthropathy after Dupilumab Use in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Dermatitis. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1089/derm.2025.0038
  26. Amatore F, Neildez M, de Masson A, et al. Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas and dupilumab for atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and expert consensus. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.70407
  27. Avallone G, Cavallo F, Tancredi A, et al. Association between maternal dupilumab exposure and pregnancy outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A nationwide retrospective cohort study. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.19794

Everything in the library