Core Insights - Dupixent (dupilumab) demonstrated superiority over Xolair (omalizumab) in treating chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) in patients with coexisting asthma, as shown in the EVEREST phase 4 study [1][4][6] Group 1: Study Overview - The EVEREST study involved 360 adults with severe, uncontrolled CRSwNP and coexisting asthma, randomized to receive either Dupixent 300 mg every two weeks or omalizumab based on weight and IgE levels [2][6] - The study assessed various primary and secondary endpoints over a 24-week period, with results presented at the EAACI Annual Congress [1][6] Group 2: Efficacy Results - Dupixent showed a 1.60-point superior reduction in nasal polyp size (p<0.0001) and an 8.0-point superior improvement in the ability to identify different smells (p<0.0001) compared to omalizumab [5] - Other significant improvements included a 0.58-point reduction in nasal congestion (p<0.0001), a 1.74-point reduction in symptom severity (p<0.0001), and a 12.7-point difference in health-related quality of life (p<0.0001) [5] Group 3: Safety Profile - The safety profile of Dupixent was consistent with its known profile, with adverse events reported in 64% of Dupixent patients and 67% of omalizumab patients [3][4] - Serious adverse events occurred in 2% of Dupixent patients compared to 4% for omalizumab, indicating a generally similar safety profile [3][4] Group 4: Mechanism of Action - Dupixent targets interleukin-4 (IL-4) and interleukin-13 (IL-13), key drivers of type 2 inflammation, reinforcing its efficacy in treating both upper and lower respiratory diseases [4][8] Group 5: Regulatory Status - Dupixent has received regulatory approvals in over 60 countries for various indications, including CRSwNP, asthma, and other allergic conditions, with more than one million patients treated globally [9][10]
Press Release: EAACI: Dupixent demonstrated superiority over Xolair (omalizumab) in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in patients with coexisting asthma in first-ever presented phase 4 head-to-head respiratory study