ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Dupilumab has shown to be an effective and safe treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictive factors of response (PRF) in patients with moderate-to-severe AD treated with dupilumab. METHODS: Observational, retrospective and multicentre study conducted on adult patients diagnosed with moderate-to-severe AD treated with dupilumab, with a post-treatment follow-up of at least 16 weeks. The primary endpoints were EASI-75 and the IGA scale at week 52. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients were included in the analysis. Mean age was 38 ± 15.1 years and 116 (58.6%) were men. The most prevalent AD-predominant phenotypes were flexural eczema (45.3%), head-and-neck eczema (18.2%) and erythroderma (17.7%). At week 52, 140 (86.4%) patients achieved EASI-75 and 119 (93.0%) achieved an improvement in ≥2 points from baseline in IGA score. Women were 3.6 times more likely to achieve EASI-75 response than men (Odds ratio: 3.58; p = 0.020). While increased body mass index significantly reduced the probability of obtaining an improvement of ≥2 points in the IGA scale at week 52 (odds ratio: 0.88; p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Dupilumab was an effective treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. Additionally, sex and body mass index were significantly associated with achieving EASI-75 and an improvement of ≥2 points in the IGA scale, respectively, at week 52.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , Dermatitis, Atopic , Eczema , Adult , Male , Humans , Female , Young Adult , Middle Aged , Dermatitis, Atopic/drug therapy , Dermatitis, Atopic/diagnosis , Retrospective Studies , Double-Blind Method , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome , Immunoglobulin AABSTRACT
Background: The guidelines for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) recommend adding omalizumab to the treatment of patients with uncontrolled disease despite four-fold doses of second-generation antihistamines (AH). On the contrary, some studies revealed that omalizumab was effective without concomitant AH and several authors suggest tapering off AH when CSU is controlled with omalizumab. Objectives: The aim of our study was to evaluate the use of AH during treatment with omalizumab in patients with CSU in real clinical practice. Materials & Methods: This was a multicentre cross-sectional and observational study conducted by the Catalan and Balearic Chronic Urticaria Network (XUrCB) based on a cohort of 298 CSU patients treated with omalizumab. Results: In total, 23.5% of our patients decided themselves to stop taking AH during omalizumab treatment. The ratio of patients with CSU without concomitant inducible urticaria and the percentage of patients with a good response to omalizumab (UAS7≤6 and/or UCT ≥12) were higher in those who stopped taking AH. Conclusion: More studies are required to identify the phenotypic characteristics of patients responding to omalizumab as monotherapy in order to avoid overtreating with AH. Our study suggests that patients with CSU without concomitant inducible urticaria and those who achieve a good response to omalizumab tend to be controlled by omalizumab without AH. In order to establish guidelines on how to stop AH, further evidenced-based studies are required.
