Dupilumab treatment in patients with atopic dermatitis: a comparative cohort study between the Netherlands and Japan shows a discrepancy in patient-reported outcome measures

L. E.M. de Wijs, R. F.T. Fujimoto, E. R. Andrinopoulou, T. Nijsten, D. Hijnen*, Y. Kataoka

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)
9 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Dupilumab was equally effective among all racial subgroups in clinical trials, but a direct comparison in daily practice is lacking. Objectives: To investigate the effectiveness of dupilumab in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) in the Netherlands and Japan over 80 weeks of treatment. Methods: A longitudinal comparative cohort study was conducted in patients with AD who were treated with dupilumab in daily practice. We used linear mixed-effects models to determine changes over time. Results: We found statistically significant differences in sex, disease onset, body mass index and therapeutic history between Dutch (n = 208) and Japanese (n = 153) patients. The baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score was higher in Japanese patients (23·8 vs. 14·8), while baseline Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were higher in Dutch patients. EASI scores decreased quickly to a level indicating ‘mild disease’ (EASI < 7), and remained low in both countries. However, PROMs showed different trajectories with better scores in Japan. Conclusions: Dupilumab showed significant, comparable and sustained improvement of EASI scores in Japanese and Dutch patients. However, we found striking differences in the effect on PROMs between the countries, with a better outcome in Japanese patients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)555-562
Number of pages8
JournalBritish Journal of Dermatology
Volume185
Issue number3
Early online date3 Mar 2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2021

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Dupilumab treatment in patients with atopic dermatitis: a comparative cohort study between the Netherlands and Japan shows a discrepancy in patient-reported outcome measures'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this