A 24-month prospective study shows eosinophilia prevalence in severe asthma and dermatitis patients treated with dupilumab, suggesting mild effects.
Background/Objectives: Dupilumab is a human monoclonal antibody that targets both IL-4 and IL-13 signaling. Eosinophilia has been reported as a potential adverse event in treated patients in randomized controlled trials and 12-month real-life studies. This real-life, 24-month prospective study investigated the prevalence of eosinophilia, its consequences, and the effectiveness of dupilumab in a cohort of patients with severe asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and atopic dermatitis. Methods: A total of 66 adult patients treated with dupilumab were included in this study. ACT, SNOT-22, and Smell-VAS, EASI, and absolute blood eosinophil count (AEC) were assessed according to the type of diagnosis at baseline (T0), after 6 (T6), 12 (T12), 18 (T18), and 24 (T24) months post-dupilumab initiation. Results: All patients experienced significant improvement in both symptoms and disease control following dupilumab treatment. A total of 27 out of 66 (40.9%) patients developed eosinophilia within six months of treatment (AEC T6 mean ± SD 0.67 ± 0.68 109/L). Eosinophilia was generally mild and lasted on average for six months (AEC T12 mean ± SD 0.66 ± 0.65 109/L) with AEC normalization after 18 months of treatment (AEC T18 mean ± SD 0.58 ± 0.48 109/L). Ten patients (15.15%) developed hypereosinophilia, but no symptoms or signs of eosinophilic-related organ damage have been observed, with no need for dupilumab discontinuation. Conclusions: Dupilumab-related eosinophilia was common, generally mild, and transient, whereas persistent hypereosinophilia occurred in a small group of patients in the absence of symptoms or signs of eosinophilic damage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mormile et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: