Dupilumab response onset, maintenance, and durability in patients with severe CRSwNP.

Background: Responder analyses of SINUS phase 3 study data have shown clinically meaningful improvements across multiple outcomes of treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) with dupilumab.
Objective: Our aim was to gain a better understanding of dynamics of the response to dupilumab over 52 weeks.
Methods: We used data from the SINUS-52 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02898454) intention-to-treat population to perform a post hoc analysis of patients with severe CRSwNP who had received dupilumab, 300 mg once every 2 weeks, or placebo. Response, which was defined as an improvement from baseline of a least 1 point in Nasal Polyp Score (NPS), nasal congestion (NC) score, and loss of smell (LoS) score, as well as an improvement of at least 8.9 points on the 22-Item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), was assessed for rapidity, maintenance, and durability.
Results: The study included 303 patients (150 of whom received dupilumab and 153 of whom received placebo). For each outcome measure, a greater proportion of patients achieved a first response by week 16 (rapidity) with dupilumab versus with placebo; specifically, the respective differences in indicators between the 2 groups by week 16 were as follows: NPS, 75.3% versus 39.2%; NC score, 60.0% versus 24.2%; LoS score, 60.7% versus 15.7%; and SNOT-22 score, 83.3% versus 66.0%. Of those patients given dupilumab who had a response by week 16, more than 80% maintained their response at week 52 (maintenance). Over 52 weeks, greater proportions of those patients given dupilumab were responders on at least 80% of time points; specifically, the respective differences in indicators between the 2 groups by week 16 were as follows: NPS, 46.7% versus 2.6%; NC score, 46.7% versus 9.2%; LoS score, 47.3% versus 3.9%; and SNOT-22 score, 62.0% versus 21.6% (durability).
Conclusion: Most patients with CRSwNP achieve clinically meaningful responses to dupilumab by week 16, and most such patients in our study had maintenance and durability of response with continued treatment over time.
Competing Interests: Disclosure statement Supported by Sanofi, France, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, United States. Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: C. Bachert is an advisory board member of AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi. W. J. Fokkens reports research grants from BioInspire Technologies, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Novartis, and Sanofi. C. Hopkins is an advisory board member of AstraZeneca, BioInspire Technologies, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi. P. Gevaert reports clinical trial funding from and is an advisory board member of 3NT, Argenx, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Sanofi, and Stallergenes Greer. J. K. Han is an advisory board member of AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi. P. W. Hellings is an advisory board member of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi. S. E. Lee reports receiving clinical trial funding from and being an advisory board member of AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, and Sanofi and being an advisory board member of Novartis and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. A. H. Khan, J. Msihid, J. A. Jacob-Nara, and P. J. Rowe are employees of Sanofi and may hold stock and/or stock options in the company. S. Nash and Y. Deniz are employees and shareholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. H. Sacks is an employee of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and a shareholder of Optinose.
(Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)