Yu Xiao
Wanying Yang†- Department of Dermatology, The People’s Hospital of Longhua, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
Dupilumab was approved for the treatment of several dermatologic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, such as atopic dermatitis and bullous pemphigoid; whereas omalizumab is the first biological agent which was approved to treat chronic spontaneous urticaria. None of the published meta-analyses has provided the sufficient data regarding the safety of these two biologics, especially regarding their potential serious adverse events (SAEs). The aim of this study was, to comprehensively evaluate the safety of the two biologics dupilumab and omalizumab. In this study, we included 32 randomized trials, and performed meta-analyses on 113 types of SAEs regarding dupilumab and 61 types of SAEs regarding omalizumab. We identified that: (1) use of dupilumab was significantly associated with the lower incidence of atopic dermatitis, while use of omalizumab was significantly associated with the lower incidence of asthma; and (2) use of dupilumab was not significantly associated with the incidences of 112 other kinds of SAEs including various infectious diseases, while use of omalizumab was not significantly associated with the incidences of 60 other kinds of SAEs including various infectious diseases. This meta-analysis for the first time assessed the association between use of dupilumab or omalizumab and incidences of various SAEs, and identified that neither dupilumab use nor omalizumab use was associated with the increased risks of any SAEs including various infectious diseases. These findings further confirm the general safety of the two biologics dupilumab and omalizumab. This informs clinicians that there is no need to worry too much about the safety issues of these two biologics.
Introduction
Dupilumab is a newly developed monoclonal antibody and is able to block signaling of IL-4 and IL-13, both of which are crucial cytokines in the T2 response (1). This biologic agent has been approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, prurigo nodularis and bullous pemphigoid (2). Meanwhile, dupilumab has been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of concomitant atopic dermatitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (3). Moreover, the new possible indications of dupilumab are increasingly explored, and those include but are not limited to various skin diseases, such as nummular eczema, chronic hand eczema, allergic contact dermatitis, and alopecia areata (4). On the other hand, omalizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to free IgE and inhibits the binding of IgE to FcεRI on mast cells and basophils. This effect subsequently downregulates the expression of FcεRI on mast cells and basophils (5). Clinical studies show that omalizumab is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria (6, 7). Therefore, omalizumab become the first biological agent which was approved to treat chronic spontaneous urticaria (8, 9).
Several recent meta-analyses (10–13) have confirmed the intermediate effectiveness of dupilumab in treating atopic dermatitis, whereas a recent meta-analysis (14) have revealed the limited effectiveness of dupilumab in treating alopecia areata (in other words, the efficacy of dupilumab in alopecia areata is debated). Moreover, two recent meta-analyses (15, 16) have suggested the obvious effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria, whereas a recent meta-analysis (17) have shown the nonsignificant efficacy of omalizumab for the treatment of pemphigoid. The aforementioned meta-analyses have mainly focused on assessing the efficacy of dupilumab and omalizumab on several dermatologic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, but have provided no data (12–16) or the limited data (10, 11, 17) regarding the safety of these two biologics, especially regarding serious adverse events (SAEs) possibly associated with dupilumab and omalizumab. Therefore, we carried out a meta-analysis, with the purpose of comprehensively characterizing the safety of the two biologics dupilumab and omalizumab. To achieve this purpose, we evaluated the association between use of dupilumab or omalizumab and incidences of various SAEs including but not limited to various infectious diseases.
Methods
Relevant studies published before May 16, 2024 were searched via PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies eligible to be included in this meta-analysis were those randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled ≥300 participants, compared any of the two biologics (dupilumab and omalizumab) with an active drug, a placebo, or no drug, and reported various SAEs. In this meta-analysis, we included all the RCTs as long as they met the aforementioned criteria, whether the RCTs assessed dermatological diseases or other diseases. We extracted the data of various safety outcomes (i.e., various SAEs) from ClinicalTrials.gov. When extracting data, we gave priority to the data of which the control group was placebo. It meant that: when a study reported both the data of which the control group was a placebo and the data of which the control group was a non-placebo comparator, we only extracted the former data but not the later data. The data of which the study arm was switching from biologics of interest to non-biologics (or from non-biologics to biologics of interest) were excluded. We conducted meta-analyses on various safety outcomes, as long as they were reported by two or more of the included trials. We did meta-analysis based on the trials of dupilumab and omalizumab, respectively, using a fixed-effects model (when I2 was less than 50%) or a random-effects model (when I2 was great than or equal to 50%). Meta-analysis results were reported by the pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results
In this meta-analysis we included a total of 32 RCTs, which consisted of 16 dupilumab RCTs and 16 omalizumab RCTs. The ClinicalTrials.gov registration numbers of included dupilumab trials were NCT01854047, NCT01859988, NCT02260986, NCT02277743, NCT02277769, NCT02395133, NCT02414854, NCT02755649, NCT02898454, NCT02948959, NCT03345914, NCT03633617, NCT03720470, NCT03738397, NCT03930732, and NCT04345367. These 16 trials of dupilumab involved 10616 participants including 6512 dupilumab users and 4104 non-dupilumab users. The ClinicalTrials.gov registration numbers of included omalizumab trials were NCT00079937, NCT00096954, NCT00264849, NCT00314574, NCT00377572, NCT01202903, NCT01264939, NCT01287117, NCT01292473, NCT01430403, NCT01716754, NCT02477332, NCT03328897, NCT03369704, NCT03580356, and NCT03580369. These 16 trials of omalizumab involved 7656 participants including 4141 omalizumab users and 3515 non-omalizumab users.
Meta-analyses of dupilumab
The forest plots of meta-analyses of dupilumab and 113 safety outcomes are given in Supplementary Figure 1, and the summary results are presented in Supplementary Table 1. Dupilumab use was significantly associated with the lower incidence of one safety outcome, namely, Dermatitis atopic (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20–0.99; P = 0.047; I2 = 0.0%). Moreover, dupilumab use was not significantly associated with the incidences of the other 112 kinds of safety outcomes, including but not limited to various Infections And Infestations, i.e., Pneumonia (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31–1.24; P = 0.180; I2 = 0.0%), Appendicitis (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.20–3.14; P = 0.735; I2 = 0.0%), Urinary tract infection (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.20–4.38; P = 0.941; I2 = 0.0%), Sepsis (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03–1.07; P = 0.059; I2 = 0.0%), Gastroenteritis (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09–2.77; P = 0.422; I2 = 0.0%), Erysipelas (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.24–9.70; P = 0.651; I2 = 0.0%), Diverticulitis (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.09–3.70; P = 0.568; I2 = 0.0%), Cellulitis (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.22–8.78; P = 0.727; I2 = 0.0%), Bronchitis (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.10–3.82; P = 0.609; I2 = 0.0%), Upper respiratory tract infection (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.07–6.82; P = 0.767; I2 = 36.1%), Staphylococcal infection (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.02–2.29; P = 0.215; I2 = 0.0%), Septic shock (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.07–6.84; P = 0.769; I2 = 0.0%), Pyelonephritis (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.16–14.37; P = 0.726; I2 = 0.0%), Pneumonia bacterial (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.05–4.89; P = 0.560; I2 = 0.0%), Influenza (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04–3.25; P = 0.349; I2 = 0.0%), Herpes zoster (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.02–16.49; P = 0.704; I2 = 57.7%), Epiglottitis (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.16–14.67; P = 0.712; I2 = 0.0%), COVID-19 pneumonia (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.09–1.65; P = 0.199; I2 = 0.0%), COVID-19 (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.17–2.51; P = 0.531; I2 = 0.0%), Chronic sinusitis (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05–4.83; P = 0.552; I2 = 0.0%), and Abdominal wall abscess (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.09–8.27; P = 0.898; I2 = 14.7%).
Meta-analyses of omalizumab
The forest plots of meta-analyses of omalizumab and 61 safety outcomes are given in Supplementary Figure 2, and the summary results are presented in Supplementary Table 2. Omalizumab use was significantly associated with the lower incidence of one safety outcome, namely, Asthma (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45–0.86; P = 0.004; I2 = 4.8%). Moreover, omalizumab use was not significantly associated with the incidences of the other 60 kinds of safety outcomes, including but not limited to various Infections And Infestations, i.e., Pneumonia (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.19–1.08; P = 0.074; I2 = 0.0%), Appendicitis (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.43–5.82; P = 0.493; I2 = 0.0%), Urinary tract infection (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.19–4.39; P = 0.914; I2 = 0.0%), Upper respiratory tract infection (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.15–3.59; P = 0.696; I2 = 0.0%), Gastroenteritis (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.27–6.62; P = 0.720; I2 = 0.0%), Lower respiratory tract infection (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.07–2.47; P = 0.343; I2 = 0.0%), Influenza (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.13–4.75; P = 0.785; I2 = 0.0%), Gastroenteritis viral (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.12–4.12; P = 0.708; I2 = 0.0%), Bronchitis (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08–2.06; P = 0.283; I2 = 0.0%), Sinusitis (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.07–6.66; P = 0.752; I2 = 36.1%), Respiratory tract infection viral (RR 3.14, 95% CI 0.33–30.11; P = 0.321; I2 = 0.0%), Diverticulitis (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.13–8.52; P = 0.962; I2 = 0.0%), and Cellulitis (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.06–5.05; P = 0.579; I2 = 0.0%).
Discussion
This is the first meta-analysis that comprehensively assessed the association between use of dupilumab or omalizumab and incidences of various SAEs including various infectious diseases. By performing meta-analyses on 113 safety outcomes regarding dupilumab and 61 safety outcomes regarding omalizumab, we produced two key findings as follows. First, use of dupilumab was significantly associated with the lower incidence of atopic dermatitis, while use of omalizumab was significantly associated with the lower incidence of asthma. Second, use of dupilumab was not significantly associated with the incidences of 112 other kinds of SAEs including various infectious diseases, while use of omalizumab was not significantly associated with the incidences of 60 other kinds of SAEs including various infectious diseases.
Four meta-analyses (10–13) identified that dupilumab was effective in treating atopic dermatitis, while two meta-analyses (18, 19) showed that omalizumab was effective in treating asthma. These findings are consistent with the first finding in our meta-analysis. On the other hand, use of dupilumab was not associated with the increased risk of skin infections in Marko et al.’s meta-analysis (20), and dupilumab could reduce new/worsened allergy events versus placebo in Geba et al.’s meta-analysis (21). Moreover, Lin et al.’s meta-analysis (22) demonstrated that omalizumab led to the lower incidences of safety concerns as compared with the other immunosuppressants; and Xu et al.’s meta-analysis (23) demonstrated that omalizumab versus standard treatment had a higher safety profile due to having fewer adverse reactions. It is worth mentioning that dupilumab was observed to be also effective and safety for the treatment of adult atopic dermatitis in special populations (24). On the basis of these previous findings, the second finding in our meta-analysis further confirm the general safety of the two biologics (i.e., dupilumab and omalizumab).
This meta-analysis has two advantages. First, this meta-analysis analyzed a great many SAEs outcomes, which succeeded in fully assessing the safety of the two biologics dupilumab and omalizumab. Second, there was no heterogeneity or only a little heterogeneity observed in most of the outcomes analyzed in this meta-analysis. In contrast, this meta-analysis has two main disadvantages. First, some SAEs outcomes had relatively lower incidences, which resulted in relatively wider 95% CIs of RRs. Those wider 95% CIs meant insufficient statistical power. Therefore, future studies are needed to confirm those results that had wider 95% CIs. Second, since the adequate data were not available, we failed to conduct subgroup analyses according to disease type and drug dose. Therefore, further conducting relevant subgroup analyses in future studies is useful to confirm and expand upon our findings.
Conclusion
This meta-analysis for the first time assessed the association between use of dupilumab or omalizumab and incidences of various SAEs, and identified that neither dupilumab use nor omalizumab use was associated with the increased risks of any SAEs including but not limited to various infectious diseases. These findings further confirm the general safety of the two biologics dupilumab and omalizumab. In spite of this, the monitoring for adverse events should be constant and clinicians should be vigilant about it.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in this article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
YX: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. WY: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. MW: Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2024.1435370/full#supplementary-material
Supplementary Figure 1 | Forest plots of dupilumab.
Supplementary Figure 2 | Forest plots of omalizumab.
Supplementary Table 1 | Meta-analyses of dupilumab and 113 safety outcomes.
Supplementary Table 2 | Meta-analyses of omalizumab and 61 safety outcomes.
Abbreviations
SAEs, serious adverse events; RCTs, randomized controlled trials; RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.
References
1. Harb H, Chatila T. Mechanisms of dupilumab. Clin Exp Allergy. (2020) 50:5–14. doi: 10.1111/cea.13491
2. Olbrich H, Sadik C, Ludwig R, Thaçi D, Boch K. Dupilumab in inflammatory skin diseases: A systematic review. Biomolecules. (2023) 13:634. doi: 10.3390/biom13040634
3. Napolitano M, Maffei M, Patruno C, Leone C, Di Guida A, Potestio L, et al. Dupilumab effectiveness for the treatment of patients with concomitant atopic dermatitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis. Dermatol Ther. (2021) 34:e15120. doi: 10.1111/dth.15120
4. Muñoz-Bellido F, Moreno E, Dávila I. Dupilumab: A review of present indications and off-label uses. J Invest Allergy Clin. (2022) 32:97–115. doi: 10.18176/jiaci.0682
5. Kolkhir P, Altrichter S, Munoz M, Hawro T, Maurer M. New treatments for chronic urticaria. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. (2020) 124:2–12. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2019.08.014
6. Casale T, Gimenez-Arnau A, Bernstein J, Holden M, Zuberbier T, Maurer M. Omalizumab for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: A narrative review of current status. Dermatol Ther. (2023) 13:2573–88. doi: 10.1007/s13555-023-01040-9
7. Metz M, Vadasz Z, Kocatürk E, Giménez-Arnau A. Omalizumab updosing in chronic spontaneous urticaria: An overview of real-world evidence. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. (2020) 59:38–45. doi: 10.1007/s12016-020-08794-6
8. Agache I, Akdis C, Akdis M, Brockow K, Chivato T, Del G, et al. Eaaci biologicals guidelines-omalizumab for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria in adults and in the paediatric population 12-17 years old. Allergy. (2022) 77:17–38. doi: 10.1111/all.15030
9. Maurer M, Khan D, Elieh A, Kaplan A. Biologics for the use in chronic spontaneous urticaria: When and which. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. (2021) 9:1067–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.11.043
10. Chu A, Wong M, Rayner D, Guyatt G, Díaz M, Ceccacci R, et al. Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Allergy Clin Immunol. (2023) 152:1470–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2023.08.029
11. Chen Q, Cui L, Hu Y, Chen Z, Gao Y, Shi Y. Short-term efficacy and safety of biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors for patients with atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Heliyon. (2023) 9:e22014. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22014
12. Drucker A, Lam M, Elsawi R, Prieto-Merino D, Malek R, Ellis A, et al. Comparing binary efficacy outcomes for systemic immunomodulatory treatments for atopic dermatitis in a living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Br J Dermatol. (2024) 190:184–90. doi: 10.1093/bjd/ljad393
13. Wang L, Wang S, Zhang R. Efficacy of dupilumab plus topical corticosteroids in children with atopic dermatitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Immun Inflamm Dis. (2024) 12:e1133. doi: 10.1002/iid3.1133
14. Husein-ElAhmed H, Husein-ElAhmed S. Comparative efficacy of oral Janus kinase inhibitors and biologics in adult Alopecia areata: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. J Eur Acad Dermatol. (2024) 38:835–43. doi: 10.1111/jdv.19797
15. Qin H, Xiao X, Qin D, Xue P, Liu H, Li Y, et al. Different doses and courses of omalizumab for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. World Allergy Organ. (2024) 17:100898. doi: 10.1016/j.waojou.2024.100898
16. Zhao A, Zhang K, Wang Z, Ye K, Xu Z, Gong X, et al. Model-based meta-analysis of omalizumab in treating patients with chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria. J Evid Based Med. (2024) 17:242–4. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12604
17. Lin Z, Zhao Y, Li F, Li J, Huang X. Efficacy and safety of biological agents for pemphigoid: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Dermatol. (2023) 62:1000–8. doi: 10.1111/ijd.16678
18. Bousquet J, Humbert M, Gibson P, Kostikas K, Jaumont X, Pfister P, et al. Real-world effectiveness of omalizumab in severe allergic asthma: A meta-analysis of observational studies. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. (2021) 9:2702–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.01.011
19. Liao J, Tang J, Jiang Y, Wang Y, Ding J, He Y. Effects of omalizumab on lung function in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Adv Respir Dis. (2024) 18:17534666231221771. doi: 10.1177/17534666231221771
20. Marko M, Pawliczak R. Skin infections during dupilumab monotherapy in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis –a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. (2024) 20:121–34. doi: 10.1080/1744666X.2023.2271666
21. Geba G, Li D, Xu M, Mohammadi K, Attre R, Ardeleanu M, et al. Attenuating the atopic march: Meta-analysis of the dupilumab atopic dermatitis database for incident allergic events. J Allergy Clin Immunol. (2023) 151:756–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.08.026
22. Lin W, Lin S, Lee W, Lin C, Lin W, Chang H, et al. Effectiveness and safety of immunosuppressants and biological therapy for chronic spontaneous urticaria: A network meta-analysis. Biomedicines. (2022) 10:2152. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10092152
23. Xu B, Tang L, Huang W, Xie S, Ye J, Luo G. Meta-analysis of the adoption of omalizumab in the treatment of pediatric allergic diseases. Heliyon. (2024) 10:e29365. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29365
Keywords: biologics, dupilumab, omalizumab, safety, serious adverse events, atopic dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria
Citation: Xiao Y, Yang W and Wang M (2024) A comprehensive analysis on the safety of two biologics dupilumab and omalizumab. Front. Med. 11:1435370. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1435370
Received: 01 June 2024; Accepted: 29 July 2024;
Published: 08 August 2024.
Edited by:
Joel Correa Da Rosa, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United StatesReviewed by:
Takashi Hashimoto, Osaka City University, JapanLuca Potestio, University of Naples Federico II, Italy
Copyright © 2024 Xiao, Yang and Wang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Yu Xiao, yyyxy09@163.com
†These authors have contributed equally to this work