AzTrials
AzTrials

Dermatitis, AtopicPhase 3SOLO 1NCT02277743

Study of Dupilumab Monotherapy Administered to Adult Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis

A Phase 3 study testing Dupilumab in people with Dermatitis, Atopic, run by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at 101 sites in 10 countries.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study to confirm the efficacy and safety of Dupilumab monotherapy in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Dermatitis, Atopic
What is being tested?
Dupilumab
Type of treatment
Injection or infusion
Could I receive a placebo?
Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
How many people
671 participants
Where
101 sitesin 10 countries
Study dates
Oct 2014to Feb 2016
Phase
Phase 3
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Male or female, 18 years or older
  • Chronic AD (according to American Academy of Dermatology Consensus Criteria Eichenfield 2014) that has been present for at least 3 years before the screening visit;
  • Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) Score ≥16 at the screening and baseline visits;
  • Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Score ≥3 (on the 0 to 4 IGA scale, in which 3 is moderate and 4 is severe) at the screening and baseline visits;
  • ≥10% body surface area (BSA) of AD involvement at the screening and baseline visits;
  • Documented recent history (within 6 months before the screening visit) of inadequate response to treatment with topical medications or for whom topical treatments are otherwise medically inadvisable (e.g, because of important side effects or safety risks).

Who cannot join

  • Participation in a prior Dupilumab clinical study;
  • Treatment with an investigational drug within 8 weeks or within 5 half-lives (if known), whichever was longer, before the baseline visit;
  • Having used any of the following treatments within 4 weeks before the baseline visit, or any condition that, in the opinion of the investigator, was likely to require such treatment(s) during the first 4 weeks of study treatment:
  • Immunosuppressive/ immunomodulating drugs (e.g, systemic corticosteroids, cyclosporine, mycophenolate-mofetil, IFN-γ, Janus kinase inhibitors, azathioprine, methotrexate, etc.);
  • Phototherapy for AD
  • Treatment with topical corticosteroids (TCS) or topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) within 1 week before the baseline visit;
Show all 20Show fewer
  • Treatment with biologics as follows:
  • Any cell-depleting agents including but not limited to rituximab: within 6 months before the baseline visit, or until lymphocyte count returns to normal, whichever was longer
  • Other biologics: within 5 half-lives (if known) or 16 weeks prior to baseline visit, whichever was longer
  • Regular use (more than 2 visits per week) of a tanning booth/ parlor within 4 weeks of the screening visit;
  • Planned or anticipated use of any prohibited medications and procedures during study treatment;
  • Treatment with a live (attenuated) vaccine within 12 weeks before the baseline visit;
  • Active chronic or acute infection requiring treatment with systemic antibiotics, antivirals, antiparasitics, antiprotozoals, or antifungals within 2 weeks before the baseline visit, or superficial skin infections within 1 week before the baseline visit. NOTE: Participants might be rescreened after infection resolves;
  • Known or suspected history of immunosuppression, including history of invasive opportunistic infections (e.g, tuberculosis [TB], histoplasmosis, listeriosis, coccidioidomycosis, pneumocystosis, aspergillosis) despite infection resolution: or unusually frequent, recurrent, or prolonged infections, per investigator judgment;
  • History of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or positive HIV serology at screening;
  • Positive with hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) or hepatitis C antibody at the screening visit;
  • Participant was a member of the investigational team or his/her immediate family;
  • Pregnant or breastfeeding women, or women planning to become pregnant or breastfeed during the study;
  • Women unwilling to use adequate birth control, if of reproductive potential and sexually active.
  • Note: The information listed above is not intended to contain all considerations relevant to a participant's potential participation in this clinical trial therefore not all inclusion/ exclusion criteria are listed.

Trial locations and contacts

101 sites in 10 countries.

101 sites in 10 countries

United States45 sites
  • Study site

    Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

  • Study site

    Birmingham, Alabama

  • Study site

    Boca Raton, Florida

  • Study site

    Boston, Massachusetts

  • Study site

    Buffalo, New York

  • Study site

    Chattanooga, Tennessee

  • Study site

    Chicago, Illinois

  • Study site

    Clearwater, Florida

  • Study site

    Clovis, California

  • Study site

    Corning, New York

  • Study site

    East Windsor, New Jersey

  • Study site

    Evansville, Indiana

  • Study site

    Fort Lauderdale, Florida

  • Study site

    Fort Smith, Arkansas

  • Study site

    High Point, North Carolina

  • Study site

    Indianapolis, Indiana

  • Study site

    Knoxville, Tennessee

  • Study site

    Lomita, California

  • Study site

    Los Angeles, California

  • Study site

    Louisville, Kentucky

  • Study site

    Miami, Florida

  • Study site

    Miami Lakes, Florida

  • Study site

    New Hyde Park, New York

  • Study site

    Newington, New Hampshire

  • Study site

    Newnan, Georgia

  • Study site

    Newport News, Virginia

  • Study site

    Norfolk, Virginia

  • Study site

    Normal, Illinois

  • Study site

    Oceanside, California

  • Study site

    Ogden, Utah

  • Study site

    Palmdale, California

  • Study site

    Pensacola, Florida

  • Study site

    Rochester, New York

  • Study site

    Rogers, Arkansas

  • Study site

    Rolling Hills Estates, California

  • Study site

    San Antonio, Texas

  • Study site

    San Diego, California

  • Study site

    Santa Monica, California

  • Study site

    Spokane, Washington

  • Study site

    St Louis, Missouri

  • Study site

    Stockton, California

  • Study site

    Tampa, Florida

  • Study site

    Troy, Michigan

  • Study site

    Upland, Pennsylvania

  • Study site

    Waco, Texas

Other trials in United States

Japan19 sites
  • Study site

    Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo

  • Study site

    Chuo-ku, Tokyo

  • Study site

    Fukuyama, Hiroshima

  • Study site

    Gifu

  • Study site

    Habikino, Osaka

  • Study site

    Hamamatsu, Shizuoka

  • Study site

    Hiroshima

  • Study site

    Inashiki, Ibaraki

  • Study site

    Kofu, Yamanashi

  • Study site

    Kurume, Fukuoka

  • Study site

    Kyoto

  • Study site

    Nerima-ku, Tokyo

  • Study site

    Neyagawa, Osaka

  • Study site

    Osaka

  • Study site

    Sakai, Osaka

  • Study site

    Shinagawa, Tokyo

  • Study site

    Shinjuku, Tokyo

  • Study site

    Takatsuki, Osaka

  • Study site

    Yokohama, Kanagawa

Other trials in Japan

Germany12 sites
  • Study site

    Berlin

  • Study site

    Bielefed

  • Study site

    Blaubeuren Abbey

  • Study site

    Erlangen

  • Study site

    Halle

  • Study site

    Hamburg

  • Study site

    Hanover

  • Study site

    München

  • Study site

    Münster

  • Study site

    Osnabrück

  • Study site

    Schwerin

  • Study site

    Stuttgart

Other trials in Germany

Canada8 sites
  • Study site

    Bathurst, New Brunswick

  • Study site

    Hamilton, Ontario

  • Study site

    Mississauga, Ontario

  • Study site

    Newmarket, Ontario

  • Study site

    Ottawa, Ontario

  • Study site

    Richmond Hill, Ontario

  • Study site

    Toronto, Ontario

  • Study site

    Winnepeg, Manitoba

Other trials in Canada

Spain6 sites
  • Study site

    Alcañiz

  • Study site

    Alicante

  • Study site

    Barcelona

  • Study site

    Madrid

  • Study site

    Seville

  • Study site

    Valencia

Other trials in Spain

Bulgaria3 sites
  • Study site

    Dupnitsa

  • Study site

    Plovdiv

  • Study site

    Sofia

Other trials in Bulgaria

Finland3 sites
  • Study site

    Helsinki

  • Study site

    Tampere

  • Study site

    Turku

Other trials in Finland

Denmark2 sites
  • Study site

    Copenhagen

  • Study site

    Hellerup

Other trials in Denmark

Estonia2 sites
  • Study site

    Tallinn

  • Study site

    Tartu

Other trials in Estonia

Singapore1 site
  • Study site

    Singapore

Other trials in Singapore

About this study

Official title: A Phase 3 Confirmatory Study Investigating the Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab Monotherapy Administered to Adult Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis

This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study to confirm the efficacy and safety of Dupilumab monotherapy in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

Being tested
Dupilumab, Placebo (for Dupilumab)
Medical subject headings
Dermatitis, Atopic

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • DupilumabDrug

    Also called REGN668, SAR231893, DUPIXENT®

    Subcutaneous injection alternated among the different quadrants of the abdomen, upper thighs and upper arms

  • Placebo (for Dupilumab)Drug

    Subcutaneous injection alternated among the different quadrants of the abdomen, upper thighs and upper arms

Study groups in NCT02277743
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
PlaceboExperimentalTwo subcutaneous injections of Placebo (for Dupilumab) as a loading dose on Day 1 followed by a single injection once weekly (qw) from Week 1 to Week 15.
Receives: Drug: Placebo (for Dupilumab)
Dupilumab 300 mg once weekly (qw)ExperimentalTwo subcutaneous injections of Dupilumab 300 mg (for a total of 600 mg) as a loading dose on Day 1, followed by a single 300 mg injection of Dupilumab qw from Week 1 to Week 15.
Receives: Drug: Dupilumab
Dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (q2w)ExperimentalTwo subcutaneous injections of Dupilumab 300 mg (for a total of 600 mg) as a loading dose on Day 1, followed by a placebo alternating with single 300 mg injection of Dupilumab qw from Week 1 to Week 15.
Receives: Drug: Dupilumab; Drug: Placebo (for Dupilumab)

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Percentage of Participants With Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Score of "0" or "1" and Reduction From Baseline of ≥2 Points at Week 16

    IGA is an assessment scale used to determine severity of AD and clinical response to treatment on a 5-point scale (0 = clear; 1 = almost clear; 2 = mild; 3 = moderate; 4 = severe) based on erythema and papulation/infiltration. Therapeutic response is an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear). Participants with IGA score of "0" or "1" and a reduction from baseline of ≥2 points at Week 16 were reported. Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.

    Measured: Week 16

Secondary outcomes (20)
  1. Percentage of Participants With Eczema Area and Severity Index-75 (EASI-75) (≥75% Improvement From Baseline) at Week 16

    The EASI score was used to measure the severity and extent of AD and measured erythema, infiltration, excoriation and lichenification on 4 anatomic regions of the body: head, trunk, upper and lower extremities. The total EASI score ranges from 0 (minimum) to 72 (maximum) points, with the higher scores reflecting the worse severity of AD. EASI-75 responders were the participants who achieved ≥75% overall improvement in EASI score from baseline to Week 16. Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.

    Measured: Week 16

  2. Percentage of Participants With Improvement (Reduction ≥4 Points) of Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score From Baseline to Week 16

    Pruritus NRS was an assessment tool that was used to report the intensity of a participant's pruritus (itch), both maximum and average intensity, during a 24-hour recall period. Participants were asked the following question: how would a participant rate his itch at the worst moment during the previous 24 hours (for maximum itch intensity on a scale of 0 - 10 [0 = no itch; 10 = worst itch imaginable]). Participants achieving a reduction of ≥4 points from baseline in weekly average of peak daily pruritus NRS score at Week 16 were reported. Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.

    Measured: Baseline to Week 16

  3. Percentage of Participants With Improvement (Reduction ≥3 Points) of Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score From Baseline to Week 16

    Pruritus NRS was an assessment tool that was used to report the intensity of a participant's pruritus (itch), both maximum and average intensity, during a 24-hour recall period. Participants were asked the following question: how would a participant rate his itch at the worst moment during the previous 24 hours (for maximum itch intensity on a scale of 0 - 10 [0 = no itch; 10 = worst itch imaginable]). Participants achieving a reduction of ≥3 points from baseline in weekly average of peak daily pruritus NRS score at Week 16 were reported. Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.

    Measured: Baseline to Week 16

  4. Percent Change From Baseline in Peak Daily Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score to Week 16

    Pruritus NRS was an assessment tool that was used to report the intensity of a participant's pruritus (itch), both maximum and average intensity, during a 24-hour recall period. Participants were asked the following question: how would a participant rate his itch at the worst moment during the previous 24 hours (for maximum itch intensity on a scale of 0 - 10 [0 = no itch; 10 = worst itch imaginable]).

    Measured: Baseline to Week 16

  5. Percentage of Participants With Improvement (Reduction ≥4 Points) of Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score From Baseline to Week 4

    Pruritus NRS was an assessment tool that was used to report the intensity of a participant's pruritus (itch), both maximum and average intensity, during a 24-hour recall period. Participants were asked the following question: how would a participant rate his itch at the worst moment during the previous 24 hours (for maximum itch intensity on a scale of 0 - 10 [0 = no itch; 10 = worst itch imaginable]). Participants achieving a reduction of ≥4 points from baseline in weekly average of peak daily pruritus NRS score at Week 4 were reported. Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and subjects with missing peak NRS at Week 4 were considered as non-responders.

    Measured: Baseline to Week 4

  6. Percentage of Participants With Improvement (Reduction ≥4 Points) of Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score From Baseline to Week 2

    Pruritus NRS was an assessment tool that was used to report the intensity of a participant's pruritus (itch), both maximum and average intensity, during a 24-hour recall period. Participants were asked the following question: how would a participant rate his itch at the worst moment during the previous 24 hours (for maximum itch intensity on a scale of 0 - 10 [0 = no itch; 10 = worst itch imaginable]). Participants achieving a reduction of ≥4 points from baseline in weekly average of peak daily pruritus NRS score at Week 2 were reported. Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 2 were considered as non-responders.

    Measured: Baseline to Week 2

  7. Change From Baseline in Peak Daily Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score to Week 16

    Pruritus NRS was an assessment tool that was used to report the intensity of a participant's pruritus (itch), both maximum and average intensity, during a 24-hour recall period. Participants were asked the following question: how would a participant rate his itch at the worst moment during the previous 24 hours (for maximum itch intensity on a scale of 0 - 10 [0 = no itch; 10 = worst itch imaginable]).

    Measured: Baseline to Week 16

  8. Percent Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) Score to Week 16

    The EASI score was used to measure the severity and extent of AD and measured erythema, infiltration, excoriation and lichenification on 4 anatomic regions of the body: head, trunk, upper and lower extremities. The total EASI score ranges from 0 (minimum) to 72 (maximum) points, with the higher scores reflecting the worse severity of AD.

    Measured: Baseline to Week 16

  9. Percentage of Participants With Eczema Area and Severity Index-50 (EASI-50) (≥50% Improvement From Baseline) at Week 16

    The EASI score was used to measure the severity and extent of AD and measured erythema, infiltration, excoriation and lichenification on 4 anatomic regions of the body: head, trunk, upper and lower extremities. The total EASI score ranges from 0 (minimum) to 72 (maximum) points, with the higher scores reflecting the worse severity of AD. EASI-50 responders were the participants who achieved ≥50% overall improvement in EASI score from baseline to Week 16. Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing EASI-50 scores at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.

    Measured: Week 16

  10. Percentage of Participants With Eczema Area and Severity Index-90 (EASI-90) (≥90% Improvement From Baseline) at Week 16

    The EASI score was used to measure the severity and extent of AD and measured erythema, infiltration, excoriation and lichenification on 4 anatomic regions of the body: head, trunk, upper and lower extremities. The total EASI score ranges from 0 (minimum) to 72 (maximum) points, with the higher scores reflecting the worse severity of AD. EASI-90 responders were the participants who achieved ≥90% overall improvement in EASI score from baseline to Week 16. Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing EASI-90 scores at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.

    Measured: Week 16

  11. Change From Baseline in Percent Body Surface Area (BSA) to Week 16

    BSA affected by AD was assessed for each section of the body (the possible highest score for each region was: head and neck [9%], anterior trunk [18%], back [18%], upper limbs [18%], lower limbs [36%], and genitals [1%]). It was reported as a percentage of all major body sections combined.

    Measured: Baseline to Week 16

  12. Percent Change From Baseline in the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Score to Week 16

    SCORAD is a clinical tool for assessing the severity of AD developed by the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis (Severity scoring of atopic dermatitis: the SCORAD index). Consensus Report of the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis. Dermatology (Basel) 186 (1): 23-31. 1993. Extent and intensity of eczema as well as subjective signs (insomnia, etc.) are assessed and scored. Total score ranges from 0 (absent disease) to 103 (severe disease).

    Measured: Baseline to Week 16

  13. Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) to Week 16

    The DLQI is a 10-item, validated questionnaire used in clinical practice and clinical trials to assess the impact of AD disease symptoms and treatment on quality of life (QOL). The 10 questions assessed QOL over the past week, with an overall scoring of 0 (absent disease) to 30 (severe disease); a high score was indicative of a poor QOL.

    Measured: Baseline to Week 16

  14. Change From Baseline in Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) to Week 16

    The POEM is a 7-item questionnaire that assesses disease symptoms (dryness, itching, flaking, cracking, sleep loss, bleeding and weeping) with a scoring system of 0 (absent disease) to 28 (severe disease) (high score indicative of poor quality of life [QOL]).

    Measured: Baseline to Week 16

  15. Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) to Week 16

    HADS is a fourteen item scale. Seven of the items relate to anxiety and seven items relate to depression. Each item on the questionnaire is scored from 0 (minimum score) - 3 (maximum score) and this means that a person can score between 0 (no symptoms) and 21 (severe symptoms) for either anxiety or depression. Cut-offs for identifying psychiatric distress has been reported as 7 to 8 for possible presence, 10 to 11 for probable presence, and 14 to 15 for severe anxiety or depression.

    Measured: Baseline to Week 16

  16. Percent Change From Baseline in Global Individual Signs Score (GISS) to Week 16

    Individual components of the AD lesions (erythema, infiltration/ papulation, excoriations, and lichenification) were rated globally (each assessed for the whole body, not by anatomical region) on a 4-point scale (0= none, 1= mild, 2= moderate and 3= severe) using the EASI severity grading criteria. Total score ranges from 0 (absent disease) to 12 (severe disease).

    Measured: Baseline to Week 16

  17. Percent Change From Baseline in Peak Daily Pruritus NRS Score to Week 2

    Pruritus NRS was an assessment tool that was used to report the intensity of a participant's pruritus (itch), both maximum and average intensity, during a 24-hour recall period. Participants were asked the following question: how would a participant rate his itch at the worst moment during the previous 24 hours (for maximum itch intensity on a scale of 0 - 10 [0 = no itch; 10 = worst itch imaginable]).

    Measured: Baseline to Week 2

  18. Percentage of Participants With Skin Infection Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) Requiring Systemic Treatment

    Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were defined as AEs that developed or worsened or became serious during on-treatment period (time from the first dose of study drug up to the end of study [Week 28]). A serious adverse event (SAE) was defined as any untoward medical occurrence that resulted in any of the following outcomes: death, life-threatening, required initial or prolonged in-patient hospitalization, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly/birth defect, or considered as medically important event. Any TEAE included participants with both serious and non-serious AEs. Statistical significance in the hierarchical testing of secondary hypotheses was broken at this endpoint. Therefore, subsequent secondary efficacy endpoints were not tested for statistical significance.

    Measured: Baseline up to Week 16

  19. Percentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Serious Adverse Events (TESAEs) From Baseline Through Week 16

    Any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received investigational medicinal product (IMP) was considered an AE without regard to possibility of causal relationship with this treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were defined as AEs that developed or worsened or became serious during on-treatment period (time from the first dose of study drug up to the end of study [Week 28]). A serious adverse event (SAE) was defined as any untoward medical occurrence that resulted in any of the following outcomes: death, life-threatening, required initial or prolonged in-patient hospitalization, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly/birth defect, or considered as medically important event. Any TEAE included participants with both serious and non-serious AEs.

    Measured: Baseline up to Week 16

  20. Percentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) Leading to Treatment Discontinuation From Baseline Through Week 16

    Any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received investigational medicinal product (IMP) was considered an AE without regard to possibility of causal relationship with this treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were defined as AEs that developed or worsened or became serious during on-treatment period (time from the first dose of study drug up to the end of study [Week 28]). A serious adverse event (SAE) was defined as any untoward medical occurrence that resulted in any of the following outcomes: death, life-threatening, required initial or prolonged in-patient hospitalization, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly/birth defect, or considered as medically important event. Any TEAE included participants with both serious and non-serious AEs.

    Measured: Baseline up to Week 16

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted29 Oct 2014 (estimated)
  2. Study startOct 2014
  3. Primary completionNov 2015
  4. Study completionFeb 2016

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Triple blind
Who is masked
Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
671 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02277743
Sponsor's protocol ID
R668-AD-1334
Acronym
SOLO 1
Status last verified
Nov 2017
First submitted
27 Oct 2014
Last updated
21 Nov 2017
Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
No

Publications

  • Simpson EL, Bieber T, Guttman-Yassky E, Beck LA, Blauvelt A, Cork MJ, Silverberg JI, Deleuran M, Kataoka Y, Lacour JP, Kingo K, Worm M, Poulin Y, Wollenberg A, Soo Y, Graham NM, Pirozzi G, Akinlade B, Staudinger H, Mastey V, Eckert L, Gadkari A, Stahl N, Yancopoulos GD, Ardeleanu M; SOLO 1 and SOLO 2 Investigators. Two Phase 3 Trials of Dupilumab versus Placebo in Atopic Dermatitis. N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 15;375(24):2335-2348. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610020. Epub 2016 Sep 30.

    PubMed 27690741
  • Shin E, Bhat AG, Ramanathan M. Large Language Models for Clinical Trial Protocol Assessments. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2026 Feb;119(2):393-402. doi: 10.1002/cpt.70096. Epub 2025 Oct 21.

    PubMed 41121745
  • Langley RG, Gherardi G, Coleman A, Ardeleanu M, Rodriguez-Marco A, Levy S, Bansal A, Chen Z, Rossi AB, Shumel B, Khokhar FA. The Safety Data of Dupilumab for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Infants, Children, Adolescents, and Adults. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2025 Nov;26(6):981-1002. doi: 10.1007/s40257-025-00952-w. Epub 2025 Sep 24.

    PubMed 40993471
  • Kamal MA, Kosloski MP, Lai CH, Partridge MA, Rajadhyaksha M, Kanamaluru V, Bansal A, Shabbir A, Shumel B, Ardeleanu M, Richards SM, Yan H, Xu CR, Rodriguez-Marco A, Xiao J, Khokhar FA, Gherardi G, Babilonia E, Maloney J, Mortensen E, Akinlade B, Braunstein N, Stahl N, Torri A, Davis JD, DiCioccio AT. Immunogenicity of dupilumab in adult and pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis. Front Immunol. 2024 Nov 11;15:1466372. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1466372. eCollection 2024.

    PubMed 39588375
  • Silverberg JI, Lynde CW, Abuabara K, Patruno C, de Benedetto A, Zhang H, Thomas RB, Bego-Le-Bagousse G, Khokhar FA, Vakil J, Marco AR, Levit NA. Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab Maintained in Adults >/= 60 Years of Age with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: Analysis of Pooled Data from Four Randomized Clinical Trials. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 May;24(3):469-483. doi: 10.1007/s40257-022-00754-4. Epub 2023 Feb 20.

    PubMed 36808602
  • Paller AS, Silverberg JI, Cork MJ, Guttman-Yassky E, Lockshin B, Irvine AD, Kim MB, Kabashima K, Chen Z, Lu Y, Bansal A, Rossi AB, Shabbir A. Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab in Patients With Erythrodermic Atopic Dermatitis: A Post Hoc Analysis of 6 Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA Dermatol. 2023 Mar 1;159(3):255-266. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.6192.

    PubMed 36723913
  • Silverberg JI, Boguniewicz M, Hanifin J, Papp KA, Zhang H, Rossi AB, Levit NA. Dupilumab Treatment in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis is Efficacious Regardless of Age of Disease Onset: a Post Hoc Analysis of Two Phase 3 Clinical Trials. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022 Dec;12(12):2731-2746. doi: 10.1007/s13555-022-00822-x. Epub 2022 Oct 21.

    PubMed 36269503
  • Wechsler ME, Klion AD, Paggiaro P, Nair P, Staumont-Salle D, Radwan A, Johnson RR, Kapoor U, Khokhar FA, Daizadeh N, Chen Z, Laws E, Ortiz B, Jacob-Nara JA, Mannent LP, Rowe PJ, Deniz Y. Effect of Dupilumab on Blood Eosinophil Counts in Patients With Asthma, Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps, Atopic Dermatitis, or Eosinophilic Esophagitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2022 Oct;10(10):2695-2709. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.05.019. Epub 2022 May 28.

    PubMed 35636689
  • Armstrong A, Blauvelt A, Simpson EL, Smith CH, Herranz P, Kataoka Y, Seo SJ, Ferrucci SM, Chao J, Chen Z, Rossi AB, Shumel B, Tomondy P. Continued Treatment with Dupilumab is Associated with Improved Efficacy in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis Not Achieving Optimal Responses with Short-Term Treatment. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022 Jan;12(1):195-202. doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00643-4. Epub 2021 Dec 13.

    PubMed 34897582
  • Paller AS, Tan JKL, Bagel J, Rossi AB, Shumel B, Zhang H, Abramova A. IGAxBSA composite for assessing disease severity and response in patients with atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2022 Mar;186(3):496-507. doi: 10.1111/bjd.20872. Epub 2022 Feb 25.

    PubMed 34726270
  • Griffiths C, de Bruin-Weller M, Deleuran M, Fargnoli MC, Staumont-Salle D, Hong CH, Sanchez-Carazo J, Foley P, Seo SJ, Msihid J, Chen Z, Cyr SL, Rossi AB. Dupilumab in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis and Prior Use of Systemic Non-Steroidal Immunosuppressants: Analysis of Four Phase 3 Trials. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 Aug;11(4):1357-1372. doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00558-0. Epub 2021 Jun 18.

    PubMed 34142350
  • Hamilton JD, Harel S, Swanson BN, Brian W, Chen Z, Rice MS, Amin N, Ardeleanu M, Radin A, Shumel B, Ruddy M, Patel N, Pirozzi G, Mannent L, Graham NMH. Dupilumab suppresses type 2 inflammatory biomarkers across multiple atopic, allergic diseases. Clin Exp Allergy. 2021 Jul;51(7):915-931. doi: 10.1111/cea.13954. Epub 2021 Jun 26.

    PubMed 34037993
  • Boguniewicz M, Beck LA, Sher L, Guttman-Yassky E, Thaci D, Blauvelt A, Worm M, Corren J, Soong W, Lio P, Rossi AB, Lu Y, Chao J, Eckert L, Gadkari A, Hultsch T, Ruddy M, Mannent LP, Graham NMH, Pirozzi G, Chen Z, Ardeleanu M. Dupilumab Improves Asthma and Sinonasal Outcomes in Adults with Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021 Mar;9(3):1212-1223.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.12.059. Epub 2021 Jan 13.

    PubMed 33453450
  • Silverberg JI, Simpson EL, Guttman-Yassky E, Cork MJ, de Bruin-Weller M, Yosipovitch G, Eckert L, Chen Z, Ardeleanu M, Shumel B, Hultsch T, Rossi AB, Hamilton JD, Orengo JM, Ruddy M, Graham NMH, Pirozzi G, Gadkari A. Dupilumab Significantly Modulates Pain and Discomfort in Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Post Hoc Analysis of 5 Randomized Clinical Trials. Dermatitis. 2021 Oct 1;32(1S):S81-S91. doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000698.

    PubMed 33165005
  • Alexis AF, Rendon M, Silverberg JI, Pariser DM, Lockshin B, Griffiths CE, Weisman J, Wollenberg A, Chen Z, Davis JD, Li M, Eckert L, Gadkari A, Shumel B, Rossi AB, Graham NM, Ardeleanu M. Efficacy of Dupilumab in Different Racial Subgroups of Adults With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Three Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Trials. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019 Aug 1;18(8):804-813.

    PubMed 31424712

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 3 study testing Dupilumab in people with Dermatitis, Atopic, run by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at 101 sites in 10 countries.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 20 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 21 Nov 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 101 sites in United States, Japan, Germany, Canada, Spain and 5 more countries. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

What does this phase mean?

Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 21 Nov 2017). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Percentage of Participants With Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Score of "0" or "1" and Reduction From Baseline of ≥2 Points at Week 16 (time frame: Week 16). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02277743, which also lists 19 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 21 Nov 2017.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in