%202.png)
PRESCRIBED BIOLOGIC*
BY ENTs AND ALLERGISTS2
LEADING THE WAY IN AFRS, WITH THE FIRST AND ONLY BIOLOGIC APPROVED FOR TREATMENT1
With DUPIXENT, aim to address underlying type 2 inflammation in this challenging subtype of CRS1,4-7
Sources of type 2 inflammation
DUPIXENT targets IL-4 and IL-13 signaling, two of the key and central drivers of underlying type 2 inflammation1,8,9,†
† The mechanism of dupilumab
action has not been definitively
established.1
A SPECTRUM OF SYMPTOMS
Rapid results at Week 4 for NC score and Week 2 for UPSIT score, both sustained through Week 521,10,b-e
Post hoc analyses at Week 4 and Week 2 were not multiplicity controlled. UPSIT score is patient reported and analysis at Week 52 was not multiplicity controlled. Results are descriptive. Definitive conclusions cannot be made.10
Significant improvement across other select key measures of AFRS: LMK-CT score and NPS at Weeks 24 and 521,10,f-i
WITH LESS NEED FOR SURGERY AND SYSTEMIC STEROIDS
REDUCTION
in the need for sinus surgery and/or systemic steroids compared to placebo through Week 52 (HR: 0.079 [95% CI: 0.001, 0.627]) (secondary endpoint)1
Primary endpoint:
9.17 reduction in sinus opacification as measured by LMK-CT score at Week 52 from a baseline score of 17.50
with DUPIXENT (n=33) vs 1.81 reduction from a baseline score of 18.45 with placebo (n=29); LSM difference:
-7.36 (95% CI: -9.38, -5.35) (P<0.0001).1,10,f
bReduction in NC score in the DUPIXENT group was observed as early as the first assessment at Week 4, NC score reduction of 0.53 from a baseline score of 1.86 with DUPIXENT (n=33) vs reduction of 0.13 from a baseline score of 2.05 with placebo (n=29); LSM difference vs placebo: -0.40 (95% CI: -0.63, -0.18)10
cImprovement in mean UPSIT score in the DUPIXENT group was observed as early as the first assessment at Week 2, UPSIT score increase of 6.03 from a baseline score of 15.75 with DUPIXENT (n=33) vs increase of 0.17 from a baseline score of 17.19 with placebo (n=29); LSM difference vs placebo: 5.86 (95% CI: 2.32, 9.39).10
d81% reduction in NC score, -1.57 from a baseline score of 1.86, with DUPIXENT (n=33) at Week 52 (secondary endpoint) vs 11% reduction, -0.17 from a baseline score of 2.05, with placebo (n=29); LSM difference: -1.40 (95% CI: -1.77, -1.02) (P<0.0001).1,10
e92% improvement in UPSIT score, 9.45 from a baseline score of 15.75, with DUPIXENT (n=33) at Week 52 vs 37% improvement, 2.12 from a baseline score of 17.19, with placebo (n=29); LSM difference: 7.33 (95% CI: 3.06, 11.59).10
f50% reduction in sinus opacification as measured by LMK-CT score, -9.17 from a baseline score of 17.50, with DUPIXENT (n=33) at Week 52 (primary endpoint) vs 10% reduction, -1.81 from a baseline score of 18.45, with placebo (n=29); LSM difference: -7.36 (95% CI: -9.38, -5.35) (P<0.0001).1,10
gAt Week 24 (secondary endpoint), LMK-CT score reduction of 7.38 from a baseline score of 17.50 with DUPIXENT (n=33) vs reduction of 1.93 from a baseline score of 18.45 with placebo (n=29); LSM difference between DUPIXENT and placebo: -5.45 (95% CI: -7.48, -3.43) (P<0.0001).1,10
h63% improvement in NPS, -3.32 from a baseline score of 5.12, with DUPIXENT (n=33) at Week 52 (secondary endpoint) vs 4% improvement, -0.55 from a baseline score of 5.38, with placebo (n=29); LSM difference: -2.77 (95% CI: -3.82, -1.72) (P<0.0001).1,10
i61% improvement in NPS, -3.16 from a baseline score of 5.12, with DUPIXENT (n=33) at Week 24 (secondary endpoint) vs 15% improvement, -0.80 from a baseline score of 5.38, with placebo (n=29); LSM difference: -2.36 (95% CI: -3.31, -1.41) (P<0.0001).1,10
AD, atopic dermatitis; BP, bullous pemphigoid; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CRS, chronic rhinosinusitis; CRSwNP, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps; CSU, chronic spontaneous urticaria; EoE, eosinophilic esophagitis; LMK-CT, Lund-Mackay computed tomography; LSM, least squares mean; NC, nasal congestion; NPS, nasal polyp score; PN, prurigo nodularis; UPSIT, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test.
Multiple Administration Options1
Offer your adult and pediatric patients aged 6 years
and older flexible administration: at home or in office.
Demonstrated
Safety Profile1
The safety profile of DUPIXENT in patients with AFRS was similar to the safety profile of DUPIXENT in patients with CRSwNP. Most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥1%) in adult patients with CRSwNP are injection site reactions,j eosinophilia, insomnia, toothache, gastritis, arthralgia, and conjunctivitis.k
jInjection site reactions cluster includes injection site reaction, pain, bruising, and swelling.
kConjunctivitis cluster includes conjunctivitis, allergic conjunctivitis, bacterial conjunctivitis, viral conjunctivitis, giant papillary conjunctivitis, eye irritation, and eye inflammation.
View safety data
SAFETY PROFILE STUDIED IN >9000 PATIENTS ACROSS US APPROVED INDICATIONS1,11,l
Questions About DUPIXENT?
Connect with a Field Representative to discuss questions you may have about prescribing DUPIXENT to your patients with AFRS.