4.6 Review

Real-world evidence of dupilumab efficacy and risk of adverse events: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.08.051

关键词

adverse events; atopic dermatitis; dupilumab; efficacy; real-world evidence; registries

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated real-world data on the efficacy and safety of dupilumab in the treatment of atopic dermatitis, showing good effectiveness in improving skin symptoms. However, ocular adverse events were commonly reported as the most frequent side effect, highlighting the need for monitoring systems to be established.
Background: Dupilumab, the first biological drug to be approved for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adolescents and adults, has shown good efficacy and safety in clinical trials. Objective: To evaluate real-world data on the efficacy and safety of dupilumab in atopic dermatitis. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for observational studies with data on efficacy, drug survival, and safety of dupilumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. Primary outcomes were mean percentage change in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score and proportion of atopic dermatitis patients achieving 50%, 75%, and 90% improvement in EASI score after dupilumab therapy. Results: Twenty-two unique studies encompassing 3303 atopic dermatitis patients were included. After 16 weeks of dupilumab therapy, the pooled proportion of patients achieving 50%, 75%, and 90% EASI score improvement was 85.1%, 59.8%, and 26.8%, respectively, and the weighted mean reduction in EASI score was 69.6%. Conjunctivitis was the most common adverse event, reported in a pooled proportion of 26.1%. Limitations: Limited data in terms of size and follow-up time were available. Conclusion: Real-world data show that dupilumab is a successful and well-tolerated therapy for atopic dermatitis, but ocular adverse events commonly occur. Registries are needed to monitor for adverse events.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据