Dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) is not fully characterized.
Objective
The aim of the study was to characterize the incidence of bacterial and nonbacterial conjunctivitis among patients with AD who initiated dupilumab.
Methods
Pooling longitudinal claims data from 2 US databases, we identified AD patients who newly filled either dupilumab or methotrexate, mycophenolate or cyclosporine, between March 2017 and January 2020. Outcomes were conjunctivitis and its subtypes, bacterial, allergic, and keratoconjunctivitis. Patient follow-up lasted 6 months and 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching-controlled confounding.
Results
Within 6 months of treatment initiation, the incidence of conjunctivitis was 6.6% in 3744 dupilumab initiators; bacterial conjunctivitis, 1.5%; allergic conjunctivitis, 2.2%; keratoconjunctivitis, 0.8%; and conjunctivitis requiring ophthalmic medication, 2.7%. After PS matching, dupilumab doubled the risk of conjunctivitis compared with methotrexate (relative risk [RR] 2.12; 1.56–2.91), mycophenolate (RR = 2.43; 1.32–4.47), or cyclosporine (RR = 1.83; 1.05–3.20). Risk of bacterial conjunctivitis was 1.6- to 4.0-fold increased with wide confidence intervals, and allergic conjunctivitis was increased 2.7- to 7-fold. There was no increased risk of keratoconjunctivitis. Patients with comorbid asthma had a further increased risk of conjunctivitis.
Conclusions
One in 15 patients treated with dupilumab developed conjunctivitis driven by bacterial and allergic conjunctivitis and not keratoconjunctivitis. This risk was further increased with comorbid asthma.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeckLA, ThaciD, HamiltonJD, et al.Dupilumab treatment in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. N Engl J Med, 2014; 371(2):130–139.
2.
SimpsonEL, GadkariA, WormM, et al.Dupilumab therapy provides clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs): a phase IIb, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial in adult patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). J Am Acad Dermatol, 2016; 75(3):506–515.
3.
ThaciD, SimpsonEL, BeckLA, et al.Efficacy and safety of dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical treatments: a randomised, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging phase 2b trial. Lancet, 2016; 387(10013):40–52.
4.
SimpsonEL, BieberT, Guttman-YasskyE, et al.Two phase 3 trials of dupilumab versus placebo in atopic dermatitis. N Engl J Med, 2016; 375(24):2335–2348.
5.
BlauveltA, de Bruin-WellerM, GooderhamM, et al.Long-term management of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis with dupilumab and concomitant topical corticosteroids (LIBERTY AD CHRONOS): a 1-year, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet, 2017; 389(10086):2287–2303.
6.
AriënsLFM, van der SchaftJ, BakkerDS, et al.Dupilumab is very effective in a large cohort of difficult-to-treat adult atopic dermatitis patients: first clinical and biomarker results from the BioDay registry. Allergy, 2020; 75(1):116–126.
7.
TreisterAD, Kraff-CooperC, LioPA. Risk factors for dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol, 2018; 154(10):1208–1211.
8.
LibermanP, ShiferaAS, BerkenstockM. Dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis in patients with atopic dermatitis. Cornea, 2020; 39:784–786.
9.
MaudinetA, Law-KouneS, DuretzC, et al.Ocular surface diseases induced by dupilumab in severe atopic dermatitis. Ophthalmol Therapy, 2019; 8(3):485–490.
10.
SchneeweissMC, KimSC, WyssR, et al.Dupilumab and the risk of conjunctivitis and serious infection in patients with atopic dermatitis: a propensity score-matched cohort study. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2021; 84(2):300–311.
11.
BarbieriJS, BunyaVY, Massaro-GiordanoM, et al.Encounters and medication use for ocular surface disorders among patients treated with dupilumab: a cohort study. JAAD Int, 2021; 4:1–9.
12.
SchneeweissS, AvornJ. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol, 2005; 58(4):323–337.
13.
HernanMA, SauerBC, Hernandez-DiazS, et al.Specifying a target trial prevents immortal time bias and other self-inflicted injuries in observational analyses. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016; 79:70–75.
14.
SchneeweissS. A basic study design for expedited safety signal evaluation based on electronic healthcare data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 2010; 19(8):858–868.
15.
WollenbergA, BarbarotS, BieberT, et al.Consensus-based European guidelines for treatment of atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis) in adults and children: part II. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2018; 32(6):850–878.
16.
SidburyR, DavisDM, CohenDE, et al.Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 3. Management and treatment with phototherapy and systemic agents. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2014; 71(2):327–349.
17.
JohnsonES, BartmanBA, BriesacherBA, et al.The incident user design in comparative effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 2013; 22(1):1–6.
18.
SchwartzGF, KotakS, MardekianJ, et al.Incidence of new coding for dry eye and ocular infection in open-angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension patients treated with prostaglandin analogs: retrospective analysis of three medical/pharmacy claims databases. BMC Ophthalmol, 2011; 11:14.
19.
SuhDC, SungJ, GauseD, et al.Economic burden of atopic manifestations in patients with atopic dermatitis—analysis of administrative claims. J Manag Care Pharma, 2007; 13(9):778–789.
20.
SmithAF, WaycasterC. Estimate of the direct and indirect annual cost of bacterial conjunctivitis in the United States. BMC Ophthalmol, 2009; 9:13.
21.
ChenYH, LinCL, BauDT, et al.Risk of allergic conjunctivitis in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a population-based retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open, 2017; 7(6):e015795.
22.
BrookhartMA, SchneeweissS, RothmanKJ, et al.Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol, 2006; 163(12):1149–1156.
23.
RosenbaumPR, RubinDB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 1983; 70:41–55.
24.
RassenJA, ShelatAA, MyersJ, et al.One-to-many propensity score matching in cohort studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 2012; 21(suppl 2):69–80.
25.
FranklinJM, RassenJA, AckermannD, et al.Metrics for covariate balance in cohort studies of causal effects. Stat Med, 2014; 33(10):1685–1699.
26.
AustinPC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med, 2009; 28(25):3083–3107.
27.
ThackerSB. Meta-analysis. A quantitative approach to research integration. JAMA, 1988; 259(11):1685–1689.
WangSV, VerpillatP, RassenJA, et al.Transparency and reproducibility of observational cohort studies using large healthcare databases. Clin Pharmacol Ther, 2016; 99(3):325–332.
30.
PatornoE, SchneeweissS, GopalakrishnanC, et al.Using real-world data to predict findings of an ongoing phase IV cardiovascular outcome trial: cardiovascular safety of linagliptin versus glimepiride. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42(12):2204–2210.
31.
FranklinJM, PatornoE, DesaiRJ, et al.Emulating randomized clinical trials with nonrandomized real-world evidence studies: first results from the RCT DUPLICATE Initiative. Circulation, 2010; 143:1002–1013.
32.
Aetion Evidence Platform®. Software for real-world data analysis. Aetion, Inc. 2020.
33.
ShermanRE, AndersonSA, Dal PanGJ, et al.Real-world evidence—what is it and what can it tell us?. N Engl J Med, 2016; 375(23):2293–2297.
34.
AkinladeB, Guttman-YasskyE, de Bruin-WellerM, et al.Conjunctivitis in dupilumab clinical trials. Br J Dermatol, 2019; 181(3):459–473.
35.
WanKH, ChenLJ, RongSS, et al.Topical cyclosporine in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis: a meta-analysis. Ophthalmology, 2013; 120(11):2197–2203.
36.
YangL, FuJ, ZhouY. Research progress in atopic march. Front Immunol, 2020; 11:1907.
37.
ThyssenJP, de Bruin-WellerMS, PallerAS, et al.Conjunctivitis in atopic dermatitis patients with and without dupilumab therapy—International Eczema Council survey and opinion. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 2019; 33(7):1224–1231.
38.
AgnihotriG, ShiK, LioPA. A clinician's guide to the recognition and management of dupilumab-associated conjunctivitis. Drugs R D, 2019; 19(4):311–318.
39.
AustinPC, MamdaniMM, StukelTA, et al.The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. Stat Med, 2005; 24(10):1563–1578.
40.
AustinPC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat, 2011; 10(2):150–161.
41.
SuissaS, GarbeE. Primer: administrative health databases in observational studies of drug effects—advantages and disadvantages. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol, 2007; 3(12):725–732.
42.
SchneeweissS, PatrickAR, StürmerT, et al.Increasing levels of restriction in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies of elderly and comparison with randomized trial results. Med Care, 2007; 45(10 Supl 2):S131–S142.
