HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021 March ; 9(3): 1053–1065. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2020.11.034.

Biologics for Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis: Current Status and

Future Prospect
Thanaporn Ratchataswan, MDA, Tina M. Banzon, MDA,E, Jacob P. Thyssen, MD, PhD,
DmSciB, Stephan Weidinger, MD, PhD, MaHMC, Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhDD, Wanda
Phipatanakul, MD, MSA,E
ADepartment of Allergy and Immunology, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
Author Manuscript

BDepartmentof Dermatology and Allergy, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, University of

Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
CDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel,
Kiel, Germany
DDepartment of Dermatology and Laboratory of Inflammatory Skin Diseases Icahn School of
Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
EHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Abstract
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory skin disease characterized by intense pruritus
Author Manuscript

and recurrent eczematous lesions which significantly impair quality of life. It is a heterogeneous
disease affecting both children and adults. The treatment of moderate-to-severe forms of AD is
challenging, as topical corticosteroids are often insufficient to achieve disease control or
inappropriate, and off-label use of immunosuppressants may have significant undesirable side
effects. The development of targeted biologic therapies specifically for AD is thus highly
desirable. Dupilumab is the only biologic therapy FDA-approved for the treatment of moderate-to-
severe AD in patients 6 years and older, with consistent long-term efficacy and safety trial data. In
this article, we review the mechanisms, safety, and efficacy of dupilumab from recent clinical
trials, and we review the current data, mechanism of action, clinical efficacy, and limitations of
new biologics currently in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials (lebrikizumab, tralokinumab, nemolizumab,
tezepelumab, and ISB 830).
Author Manuscript

Keywords
Atopic Dermatitis; Biologic therapy; Dupilumab; Eczema; GBR 830; ISB 830; Lebrikizumab;
Nemolizumab; Tezepelumab; Tralokinumab

Address manuscript correspondence to: Wanda Phipatanakul, MD, MS, Department of Allergy and Immunology, Boston Children’s
Hospital, 300 Longwood Avenue, Fegan, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02115, Phone: 617-970-1050
Wanda.Phipatanakul@childrens.harvard.edu.
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our
customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of
the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered
which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 2
Author Manuscript

Introduction
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most common chronic inflammatory skin diseases.
Describing its incidence and prevalence is challenging due to substantial variation in
diagnostic criteria used for its identification, fluctuating course, and geographical
differences. The majority of cases starts in early childhood, but AD can have heterogeneous
trajectory patterns, ranging from transient disease in early life, to relapsing remitting AD,
chronic persistent AD, and long periods of remission followed by recurrence, or adult-onset
AD.(1–3) While cumulative lifetime prevalence up to 30% has been reported, period
prevalences are estimated to be 7-14% in children and 5-12% in adults.(1–3)

The clinical hallmarks of AD are eczematous lesions and intense itch. Many patients suffer
from dry scaly skin and IgE-mediated sensitizations. Lesions can affect any part of the body,
Author Manuscript

but typically show age-related morphology and distribution, with face, trunk, and extensor
limb inflammatory involvement in infants and young children, and lichenified, chronic, dry
flexural distribution in adults.(4)However, compared with childhood-onset AD, presentation
of adult-onset AD is more heterogeneous, with more variation in lesional morphology and
distribution, and greater predilection for the head, neck, hands, and feet.(5)

The pathophysiology of AD is complex and multifactorial, with strong genetic susceptibility,

important contributions of immune dysregulation due to excessive T-helper(Th)2 and Th22
activity, with variable contributions of Th1/Th17, skin barrier dysfunction, and cutaneous
dysbiosis (Figure 1).(6–10) Skin barrier dysfunction is characterized by downregulation of
epidermal barrier proteins, including filaggrin, keratins, locrin, involucrin, and cell adhesion
molecules, a disturbed intercellular lipid composition, and an altered composition of the skin
Author Manuscript

microbiome, which together lead to increased permeability and proinflammatory signaling.

Cutaneous inflammation is characterized by upregulated type 2 cytokines, such as
interleukin(IL)-4, IL-13, and IL-31, heightening sensitization to allergens, risk of food
allergy, airway hyperreactivity, and contributing to skin barrier dysfunction.(11–14)

“The Th22 pathway has also been shown to be involved in AD, with IL-22 participating in
epidermal disorders. By attenuating keratinocyte terminal differentiation and inhibiting
tight-junction formation, IL-22 is thought to contribute to barrier dysfunction.”(15) However,
there is increasing evidence that AD is not dominated by one disease spectrum, but rather
involves multiple alternating immune pathways comprised by several endotypes.(9, 17–19)
Several subtypes, such as intrinsic, Asian, pediatric, and filaggrin-positive AD subcategories
were shown to have differential upregulation in Th17/Th22 or Th1 axes. Thus, Th1 and
Th17/Th22 modulation in addition to Th2 might provide broader and/or more sustained
Author Manuscript

therapeutic benefit.(10)

AD is associated with numerous atopic comorbidities, including asthma, allergic rhinitis,

food allergy, and eosinophilic esophagitis.(20) Increasing evidence supports the association
of AD with other systemic inflammatory diseases, including alopecia areata, vitiligo,
rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease,(21–25) although well powered
longitudinal studies are needed to confirm causal links. A systematic review of 74 studies

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 3

found no significant overall association between AD and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD),
Author Manuscript

and in children referred for patch testing, ACD was more common in those without AD.
(26, 27) It was also shown that ACD in the setting of AD has attenuated responses.(28)

Furthermore, patients with AD have increased risk of psychiatric conditions, including

attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, and depression.(20, 29)

The aim of AD management is to improve symptoms and achieve long-term eczema control
with a multistep approach tailored according to disease severity (Figure 2). For all patients,
basic management consists of continuous epidermal barrier repair with emollients and
avoidance of individual triggers. Oral antihistamines are not recommended, as little evidence
supports that they are effective for AD signs and symptoms, including pruritis.(4)

In moderate-to-severe AD, topical corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment. However,

patients with more severe AD often require treatment with systemic anti-inflammatory
Author Manuscript

drugs, which may lead to significant side effects and hence treatment cessation, and efficacy
is also moderate. Therefore, targeted biologics, large proteins which are injected and do not
penetrate the lipid bilayer cell membrane, involving pathways directly responsible for AD
are an attractive treatment. Dupilumab is the only biologic approved by the United States
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for
moderate-to-severe AD.(30, 31) While dupilumab shows good efficacy, only approximately
one-third of patients have complete clearance.(32) There is thus a large need for further
innovative therapeutics, including other biologics selectively targeting cytokines involved in
the inflammatory pathway of AD.(9)

The purpose of this review is to discuss the mechanisms, safety, and efficacy of biologics
recently approved and currently in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials for treatment of moderate-to-
Author Manuscript

severe AD (Table 1). In addition to biologics, other various targeted therapies, including
JAK inhibitors and phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors, are also in the pipeline for AD treatment
at different stages of clinical trial.

Dupilumab
Dupilumab is a human IgG4κ monoclonal antibody (mAb) blocking IL-4 receptor (IL-4Rα),
a shared receptor for IL-4 and IL-13,(33) key cytokines in Th2-mediated inflammation
playing major roles in AD pathogenesis. Dupilumab was first approved by the FDA in 2017
and EMA in 2019 for use in moderate-to-severe AD in adults and adolescents (≥12 years)
and recently approved in pediatric patients ages 6-11 years.(30, 31, 34) In 2018, dupilumab
was approved in the USA and Europe as add-on maintenance treatment in patients with
moderate-to-severe asthma with eosinophilic phenotype or oral corticosteroid-dependent
Author Manuscript

asthma,(31, 35) and was approved in 2019 for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis(36).
Beneficial effects of dupilumab were also reported in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis.
(37)

Efficacy and safety of dupilumab for treatment of AD has been studied in several phase 3
clinical trials, including SOLO-1, SOLO-2,(32) LIBERTY AD CHRONOS,(38) and
AD-1526.(39) In SOLO-1 and SOLO-2, dupilumab was used as monotherapy in adults with

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 4

moderate-to-severe AD inadequately controlled on topical therapies. Patients were

Author Manuscript

randomized to two dupilumab arms and placebo, with a loading dose of 600 mg
subcutaneously (SC) followed by 300 mg SC weekly, or a loading dose of 600 mg SC
followed by 300 mg SC every other week, or placebo once weekly.(32). Dupilumab achieved
significant improvement in the primary endpoints, which was Investigator’s Global
Assessment (IGA) score of 0/1 and improvement of ≥2 points in IGA from baseline score at
week 16. In SOLO-1, the primary outcome was achieved in 37% receiving weekly
dupilumab and 38% receiving dupilumab every other week, vs. 10% on placebo (Figure
3A). Results from SOLO-2 were similar. Both SOLO-1 and SOLO-2 demonstrated a higher
proportion of patients receiving dupilumab achieving EASI-75 vs. placebo (44%-52%
dupilumab; 12%-15% placebo, Figure 3B). Reductions in pruritis and depression, as well as
improved quality of life, also showed statistically significant differences vs placebo. In a
pooled analysis, dupilumab significantly improved pruritus within 1-3 days of treatment
initiation.(40)Dupilumab was overall well-tolerated, with conjunctivitis and injection site
Author Manuscript

reactions reported at a higher rate in treatment groups vs. placebo.

The LIBERTY AD CHRONOS trial studied long-term safety and efficacy of dupilumab
using similar dosing regimens to the SOLO trials, but on background topical corticosteroid
(TCS) and for a period of 52 weeks.(38). Similar to SOLO trials, the most frequent adverse
events (AEs) were conjunctivitis and injection site reactions. The trial had 2 primary
endpoints: IGA 0/1 and ≥2 points improvement from baseline, and EASI-75 improvement.
At week 16, a higher proportion of patients receiving both dupilumab regimens significantly
achieved primary outcomes vs. placebo (Figure 3A, 3B), with these efficacies maintained at
week 52.

In the LIBERTY AD SOLO-CONTINUE trial, high-responding patients treated with

Author Manuscript

dupilumab in SOLO were re-randomized to continue their original dupilumab regimen,

300mg SC weekly or every 2 weeks (q2w), 300mg SC every 4 weeks (q4w) or 8 weeks
(q8w), or placebo for 36 weeks.(41)Co-primary endpoints were percentage change in EASI
score from baseline and proportion of patients with EASI-75 at week 36. Patients on
dupilumab weekly or q2w showed continued response over time, with insignificant change
in percent EASI improvement from SOLO baseline vs. placebo (Table 1). In addition,
percent change with the other regimens dose dependently worsened. A significantly higher
proportion of patients on dupilumab weekly or q2w maintained EASI-75 vs. patients on
placebo (71.6% vs. 30.4%). Longer dosage intervals of dupilumab resulted in diminution of
EASI-75 response (58.3% on q4w, 54.9% on q8w). Consistent with the continuous co-
primary EASI end point, there was no overall loss of efficacy with dupilumab weekly or
q2w (baseline vs. week 35) in percentage change in peak pruritus numeric rating scale
Author Manuscript

(NRS), whereas there was a dose-dependent return of pruritus for the q4w,q8w and placebo
groups, particularly after week 12. No new safety signals were identified. These findings
confirm dupilumab’s efficacy and safety and support the regimen of 300 mg SC q2w for
long-term treatment.

In a phase 3 trial in adolescents ages 12-18 years (AD-1526), patients with moderate-to-
severe AD were randomized to dupilumab 300 mg SC q4w, 200/300 mg SC q2w (based on
weight <60 kg or ≥60 kg, respectively), or placebo.(39)Primary outcomes were percentage of

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 5

patients reaching IGA score of 0/1 and percentage of patients achieving EASI-75 at week
Author Manuscript

16. A greater percentage of adolescents in the treatment arms achieved primary outcomes vs.
placebo (Table 1, Figure 3A, 3B). Safety profiles in adolescents were similar to adults, with
conjunctivitis and injection site reactions the most common AEs. Furthermore, pooled
analysis from laboratory findings from three randomized controlled trials (SOLO-1,
SOLO-2, and LIBERTY AD CHRONOS) assessing the need for routine safety testing of
dupilumab concluded patients using dupilumab for moderate- to-severe AD do not need
routine laboratory testing, as there was no clinically major change in routine laboratory
parameters attributed to dupilumab.(42)

Moreover, the effectiveness and safety of dupilumab treatment in real-life clinical setting are
comparable to that of clinical trials. Twenty-two unique studies encompassing 3,303 AD
patients showed that after 16 weeks of dupilumab therapy, the pooled proportion of patients
achieving EASI-75 was 59.8%. Conjunctivitis was the most common adverse event, reported
Author Manuscript

in a pooled proportion of 26.1% compared to 8% in pooled data from clinical trials.(43) This
AE seems to be specific to AD, as it was not observed in patients involved in trials assessing
dupilumab in conjunction with asthma and nasal polyposis.(44) While it is currently not
possible to predict who will develop conjunctivitis during treatment with dupilumab,
patients with a history of allergic conjunctivitis seem to have a higher risk. However, the
pathophysiology of dupilumab-induced eye disorders remains unknown.(43) Furthermore,
biomarker analysis of a cohort study of daily practice dupilumab treatment up to 16 weeks
found that treatment with dupilumab also significantly suppressed disease severity-related
serum biomarkers thymus-and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC), pulmonary and
activation-regulated chemokine (PARC), periostin, and IL-22, and eosinophil related
markers eotaxin-1 and eotaxin-3.(45)
Author Manuscript

In adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD, dupilumab improved their health outcomes
compared to best supportive care, and additional costs led to an incremental cost-
effectiveness ratio ranging from 28,500 £ (low certainty) to $124,541 (US dollars; moderate
certainty), which are still likely to result in overall cost-effectiveness. However, all economic
analyses were performed in high-income countries in line with their health system
perspectives. Thus, their results may not be applicable to other countries.(46)

Phase 1 and 2 mechanistic studies involving skin biopsies and blood from patients treated
with dupilumab vs. placebo showed highly significant changes in the molecular signatures
only in patients treated with dupilumab. These included as expected Th2-related products,
but also extended to markers related to other immune axes, such as Th17/Th22, but not Th1.
(47, 48)A recent meta-analysis approach showed that the molecular improvements with
Author Manuscript

dupilumab in certain immune pathways (such as Th2), are on par to those induced by broad
systemic treatments, such as cyclosporine A.(49, 50) Furthermore, a systematic literature
review comparing efficacies of systemic therapies for the treatment of AD showed the
strongest evidence currently exists for dupilumab and cyclosporine at improving clinical
disease severity and quality of life.(51)

Several phase 3 clinical trials indicate that dupilumab is effective in AD, with the response
maintained for at least 1 year of continuous treatment in the majority of patients and with a

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 6

tolerable safety profile, but showed a higher incidence of conjunctivitis. About one-third of
Author Manuscript

all treated adult patients are clear in IGA from their AD. Up to 70% of patients achieve an
EASI-75, and it takes about 4 weeks to reach the full clinical outcome.

Lebrikizumab
Lebrikizumab is a humanized IgG4κ mAb that inhibits IL-13 signaling by binding free
IL-13 with very high affinity, blocking ability of IL-13 to bind IL-4Rα. This prevents
heterodimerization of IL-4Rα and IL-13 receptor alpha 1 chain (IL-13Rα1) subunits.
(52)IL-13 also downregulates filaggrin expression, an integral protein in formation and

maintenance of the epidermal barrier.(53)

A phase 2 study assessed the safety and efficacy of lebrikizumab administered

subcutaneously at three different doses in adults with moderate-to-severe AD inadequately
Author Manuscript

controlled with TCS and regular emollients for ≥1 month (125 mg single dose, 250 mg
single dose, 125 mg q4w, or placebo q4w for 12 weeks after a 2 week period of TCS run-in).
At the primary endpoint at week 12, EASI-50 was achieved in patients on 125 mg q4w
(82.4%; p=0.026), while a 62.3% response was observed in placebo group treated with TCS.
Furthermore, 125 mg q4w treatment showed significantly more patients achieving EASI-75
(54.9% vs. 34.0% placebo; p=0.036) and SCORAD improvements of ≥50% (SCORAD-50)
(51.0% vs. 26.4% placebo; p=0.012), while no statistically significant response was seen in
the single dose groups. None of the three different doses of lebrikizumab achieved
statistically significant improvement in pruritus visual analogue scale (VAS), Atopic
Dermatitis Impact Questionnaire, or DLQI. Lebrikizumab was well-tolerated, with only
mild-to-moderate AEs. No significant differences in AEs among treatment and placebo
groups were seen (66.7%; placebo 66.0%). The most frequent treatment associated AEs
Author Manuscript

included conjunctivitis (9.6%; placebo 8.0%) and herpetic infections (7.7%; placebo 0%).
(54)

A 16-week phase 2b study investigated the safety and efficacy of lebrikizumab monotherapy
125 mg SC q4w, 250 mg SC q4w, or 250 SC mg q2w (following a loading dose) for the
treatment of moderate-to-severe AD patients with chronic AD ≥1 year and uncontrolled by
topical treatments. Patients requiring rescue therapy could use TCS for as brief a period as
possible. The study showed significant dose-dependent improvement in average percentage
of change in EASI scores and pruritus NRS vs. placebo. Improvements in EASI score were
achieved in 62.3% of patients in the 125 mg q4w group (p=0.165), 69.2% of patients in the
250 mg q4w group (p=0.0022), and 72.1% in the 250 mg q2w group (p=0.0005), vs. 41.1%
in placebo group. Furthermore, the 250 mg groups showed significant difference vs. placebo
in secondary endpoints, including percent with score of 0/1 on IGA, EASI-50, EASI-75, and
Author Manuscript

EASI-90. In addition, no dose-response relationship in treatment emergent adverse events

(TEAEs) was observed. Rescue medication was used less in lebrikizumab treated patients
vs. placebo (125 mg q4w: 12.3%; 250 mg q4w: 12.5%; 250 mg q2w 13.3%; placebo
34.6%), and lebrikizumab treated patients had shorter duration of topical medication use.
AEs were mild-to-moderate, with the most common AEs upper respiratory tract infection
(7.5% all lebrikizumab groups, placebo 5.8%) and nasopharyngitis (6.6%; placebo 3.8% ).
(55)

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 7

While phase 2 trials of lebrikizumab demonstrated that blocking IL-13 alone may be
Author Manuscript

sufficient to see the efficacy signals in AD, head-to-head active comparator studies are
needed to provide the comparative efficacy of anti-IL-13 therapy alone vs. anti-IL-4/IL-13.
Phase 3 trials investigating the long-term safety and efficacy of lebrikizumab as
monotherapy of 52 weeks duration for treatment of moderate-to-severe AD is also currently
underway. (NCT04146363, NCT04178967, NCT04392154, NCT04250350).

Tralokinumab
Tralokinumab is a fully human IgG4κ mAb binding to unbound IL-13 cytokine with high
affinity, similar to lebrikizumab but at a different epitope, preventing IL-13 from binding to
both IL-13Rα1 and IL-13Rα2.(56)It was initially developed for the treatment of severe
asthma. However, in a phase 2b study, tralokinumab did not significantly reduce asthma
exacerbation rates in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma.(57)
Author Manuscript

In a 12-week phase 2b trial, tralokinumab was studied in moderate-to-severe AD adults.

Participants were randomized to receive placebo or tralokinumab SC q2w (45 mg, 150 mg,
or 300 mg) with concomitant TCS, after a 2-week run-in period with TCS. At baseline,
mean EASI score ranged from 24.8 to 27.3 for all tralokinumab groups and 26.4 for placebo.
The 150 mg or 300 mg group achieved clinically significant improvements in EASI scores
starting at week 4 vs. placebo. At week 12, the adjusted mean difference from baseline EASI
score was significantly different from placebo in patients treated with 150 mg (−4.36;
p=0.03) and 300 mg (−4.94; p=0.01). The greatest improvements in IGA score were
observed in the 300 mg group but did not achieve statistical significance (26.7% of
tralokinumab-treated patients vs. 11.8% placebo; p=0.06). The 300 mg group also had
statistically significant difference in secondary endpoints (DLQI, pruritis NRS score, and
Author Manuscript

SCORAD score) vs. placebo.(58)Furthermore, the exploratory analyses stratified the patients
by baseline serum biomarkers for IL-13 signaling, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4)
and periostin.(58, 59) Tralokinumab-treated groups in the DPP-4 high and periostin high
subgroups had greater improvements in EASI scores vs. the intended to treat (ITT)
population. Differences in IGA response for the treatment arm were also improved in the
same subgroups vs. ITT population. This presents the concept that the biomarkers DPP-4
and periostin may help identify patients who may have better targeted treatment response.
AEs were mild-to-moderate, with the most frequent event upper respiratory tract infection
(3.9% all tralokinumab groups; 3.9% placebo). Conjunctivitis was also reported (2.0% 45
mg, 5.9% 150 mg vs. 3.9% placebo). In terms of interpretation of this trial, due to the run-in
period and concomitant use of TCS, the real efficacy of this biologic may be confounded(52).
The observed improvements in placebo-treated participants indicate that TCS provided
Author Manuscript

partial benefit, despite all participants having inadequate disease control with such therapy at
enrollment. Although a study of tralokinumab monotherapy would provide a more definitive
measurement of efficacy than in combination with topical glucocorticoids, in clinical
practice it is expected that biologics will be prescribed concomitantly to topical therapies.(52)
Phase 3 trials of tralokinumab in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe AD have
recently been completed with results pending (NCT03131648, NCT03160885,
NCT03363854). A phase 3 trial investigating the long-term safety and efficacy of
tralokinumab in patients who participated in previous trials is also currently underway

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 8

(NCT03587805). Additionally, there is an active phase 3 trial studying the efficacy of

Author Manuscript

tralokinumab used as monotherapy for adolescents with moderate-to-severe AD

(NCT03526861).

Nemolizumab
Nemolizumab is a humanized IgG2κ anti-IL31 receptor α (IL31Rα) mAb.(60) IL-31, a
proinflammatory cytokine playing an important role in mediating pruritus via
overexpression of IL-31 receptors on sensory nerves,(61) is known as a perpetuator of the
itch-scratch cycle that results in disruption of the skin barrier in AD.(62) A phase 2b study
randomized patients with moderate-to-severe AD and severe AD-associated pruritus
uncontrolled by topical treatments to 10 mg, 30 mg, or 90 mg of subcutaneous nemolizumab
q4w or placebo until week 20, with a 12-week follow-up period until week 32.(60) Both
treatment and placebo groups applied TCS and moisturizers in addition to treatment. At
Author Manuscript

baseline, mean EASI score ranged from 24.2 to 25.9 for all nemolizumab groups and 27.0
for placebo. All groups showed improvement in the primary endpoint, the mean percentage
change in baseline EASI at 24 weeks vs. placebo, with the 30 mg group the most effective
(−68.8% vs. −52.1%; p=0.016). All doses of nemolizumab also showed statistically
significant improvements in peak pruritus NRS as early as week 1 (p<0.05), with the most
efficacious response seen in the 30 mg treatment arm (67.3% vs. 35.8% placebo at week 24,
p<0.001). Furthermore, the 30 mg group had significant difference from placebo in
secondary endpoints, including percentage of patients achieving EASI-50, EASI-75, and
EASI-90 (p<0.05). Nemolizumab was well-tolerated and had a good safety profile, with the
most common AEs nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and exacerbation of
AD. In addition, a dose-dependent increase in asthma related events was observed in patients
with a history of asthma. Some of these events might have occurred because effective
Author Manuscript

treatment with nemolizumab led to improved overall well-being and increased activity levels
that, in turn, triggered asthma symptoms. All asthma-related events were mild and
manageable.

In a 16-week phase 3 trial, Japanese patients with AD and moderate-to-severe pruritus and
inadequate response to topical agents and antihistamines were randomized to receive SC
nemolizumab (60 mg) or placebo q4w with concomitant topical agents. The primary
endpoint was mean percent change in the VAS score for pruritus.(63) At baseline, the median
VAS score for pruritus was 75 and median EASI score ranged from 22.7 (placebo) to 24.2
(nemolizumab). At week 16, mean percent change in the VAS score was −42.8% in the
nemolizumab group and −21.4% in the placebo (p<0.001). However, for the secondary
efficacy endpoints, including the change in EASI score and the time course of change in the
Author Manuscript

VAS score for pruritus up to 4 weeks, no adjustments were made for multiple comparisons,
from which no clinical inferences can be made. The mean percent change in EASI score was
−45.9% with nemolizumab and −33.2% with placebo. At day 15, the percent change in the
daily mean VAS score for pruritus was reported as early as day 2 (−10.3% nemolizumab vs.
−4.4% placebo). Overall, nemolizumab was well-tolerated, with only mild-to-moderate AEs.
Incidence of injection-site reactions was greater with nemolizumab vs. placebo (8% vs. 3%).
(63)

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 9

A phase 2 study testing the safety and pharmacokinetics of nemolizumab in adolescent

Author Manuscript

patients with AD is ongoing (NCT03921411). Two phase 3 studies are currently recruiting
to further test the efficacy and safety profile of nemolizumab in adults with moderate-to-
severe AD (NCT03985943, NCT03989349).

Tezepelumab
Tezepelumab is a fully human IgG2λ mAb binding thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP),
an epidermal keratinocyte-derived cytokine that activates dendritic cells to induce the
production of type 2 cytokines, including IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, and tumor necrosis factor
(TNF)-α, and contributes to pruritus in AD by activating cutaneous sensory neurons(64, 65).
Overexpression of TSLP in keratinocytes has been found in patients with acute or chronic
AD(66). High levels of TSLP in the serum have also been observed in children with AD.(67)
Author Manuscript

In a phase 2a trial, patients were randomized to receive 280 mg tezepelumab SC or placebo

q2w with concomitant TCS. However, the study failed to reach statistical significance in the
primary endpoint, EASI-50 vs. placebo, at week 12 (64.7% vs. 48.2%; p=0.091).(65)
Similarly, only a numerical difference between the two groups in IGA response rate was
observed at week 12 (19.3% vs. 12.8%; p=0.36). At other secondary endpoints, including
EASI-75, EASI-90, SCORAD, and NRS scores at week 12, patients treated with
tezepelumab did not achieve statistically significant improvements vs. placebo. In addition,
in an exploratory biomarker subgroup analysis, tezepelumab-treated patients who were
DPP-4 high, periostin low, CCL17/TARC low, or IgE high were found to have only
numerically greater response at week 12 compared to patients in opposing biomarker
subgroups. AEs were comparable between groups and were mild-to-moderate. Most AEs
were not considered treatment related, except for injection site erythema. Additional
Author Manuscript

common AEs were nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, upper respiratory tract infection, and
headache(65). Currently, a phase 2b trial is recruiting to assess the safety and efficacy of
tezepelumab as monotherapy and adjunct therapy with TCS (NCT03809663).

ISB 830 (previously GBR 830)

ISB 830 is a humanized IgG1 anti-OX40 mAb. Engagement of OX40 with its ligand
(OX40L) expressed on antigen presenting cells potentiates effector T cell responses.(10, 68)
In a phase 2a trial, the safety and efficacy of ISB 830 was assessed in adults with moderate-
to-severe AD and inadequate response to topical treatments. Patients were randomized 3:1 to
10 mg/kg intravenous (IV) ISB 830 or placebo on day 1 (baseline) and day 29. Biopsies
were collected on day 1, 29, and 71. Primary endpoints were TEAEs and changes in baseline
epidermal hyperplasia and gene expression of lesional biomarkers. Secondary endpoints
Author Manuscript

included percent improvement from baseline in SCORAD, IGA, BSA, and EASI scores.
However, the study analyzed statistical differences between treatment groups only in
primary endpoints and not in secondary endpoints. ISB 830 was well-tolerated with similar
TEAEs between treatment groups (63.0% vs. 63.0%). Nasopharyngitis was the only AEs
considered treatment related (8.7%).43 Biomarker analysis demonstrated that ISB 830 post-
treatment lesional skin had significant decline in levels of OX40+ T cells and OX40L+
dendritic cells (p<0.001). Furthermore, significant reductions in hyperplasia, epidermal

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 10

thickness (p<0.001), Keratin 16 (K16) mRNA expression (p<0.01), and Ki67+ cells (p
Author Manuscript

<0.001) were noted in ISB 830 treated groups by day 71. ISB 830 significantly decreased
the mRNA expression of cytokines along the Th1 axis— IFN-γ (p<0.01) and CXCL10
(p<0.001), Th2 axis—IL-31 (p<0.05), CCL11 (p<0.001), CCL17 (p<0.001), and TSLP
receptor (TSPLR) (p<0.001), and Th17/Th22 axis—IL-23p19 (p<0.001), IL-8 (p<0.01), and
S100A12 (p<0.001). However, other main Th2 (IL-4, IL-13) and Th17/Th22 (IL-17A, IL22)
cytokines were not significantly reduced with ISB 830. In terms of secondary outcome
measures, the ISB 830 group had a greater proportion of patients achieving EASI-50 vs.
placebo (76.9% vs. 37.5%). Similarly, an IGA response was reached by 23.1% of ISB 830
treated groups vs. 12.5% of placebo treated patients at day 71. Of note, 2 intravenous doses
of the drug administered 4 weeks apart induced significant improvement of tissue and
clinical measurements even 42 days after the last dose, suggesting ISB 830 may provide a
novel therapeutic paradigm for patients with moderate-to-severe AD. ISB 830 is currently in
Author Manuscript

phase 2b clinical trial in AD (NCT03568162).

Biologic therapies currently not undergoing trials in AD Fezakinumab

Fezakinumab is a human IgG1λ anti-IL-22 mAb.(69) IL-22, produced by Th22 cells, is
involved in epidermal hyperplasia and barrier defects in patients with AD. IL-22 levels have
been reported to correlate with AD disease severity and response to AD treatment.(15) A
small study of 60 patients with moderate-to-severe AD treated for 10 weeks with
fezakinumab SC q2w, with primary endpoint at week 12 and a secondary endpoint at week
20, showed clinical benefit in a portion of patients with severe disease, but not in moderate
patients.(69)A follow-up mechanistic study showed that responders were those with high
levels of IL-22, whereas patients with low IL-22 levels did not respond, and perhaps even
showed an exacerbation.(71) This study suggests the potential for a personalized medicine
Author Manuscript

approach based on distinct molecular mechanisms.

Anti-IL-17 Therapy
MOR106, a mouse and human IgG1 anti-IL-17C mAb, showed promising results from a
phase 1 study. Eighty-three percent of AD patients treated with MOR106 achieved EASI-50
vs. less than 20% in the placebo at week 4, with continued improvements in the treatment
group over the 10-week follow-up period.(72) However, two phase 2 trials testing the safety,
efficacy, and tolerability of MOR106 in patients with moderate-to-severe AD were
terminated, as they did not meet primary endpoints (NCT03568071, NCT03864627)(73).
Secukinumab, a human IgG1λ anti-IL-17A mAb, has recently completed phase 2 trial
(NCT02594098), with no significant changes in EASI or IGA scores. Another phase 2 trial
Author Manuscript

investigating secukinumab for moderate-to-severe AD recently completed with pending

results (NCT03568136).

Omalizumab and Ligelizumab

Omalizumab, a recombinant IgG1κ anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, has been used in AD
with variable results. A systematic review and meta-analysis of omalizumab in AD found
that fewer than 50% of the patients treated with this biologic achieved a significant clinical

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 11

improvement (defined as SCORAD-50, EASI-75, or IGA 0 or reduction by 2 points).(74)

Author Manuscript

Recently, a phase 4 trial in children with severe AD found that omalizumab significantly
reduced disease severity and topical steroid use.(75) A phase 2 trial of ligelizumab
(QGE031), a monoclonal antibody with greater affinity for IgE than omalizumab, was
completed in 2013 with no results posted, suggesting lack of efficacy in AD
(NCT01552629).

Conclusion
Targeted biologic agents play an increasing role in the treatment of AD patients refractory to
topical treatments. Compared with the off-label use of immunosuppressant medications, that
are still a mainstay of treatment for severe uncontrolled AD in some countries, these novel
biologic therapies appear to demonstrate considerably better risk-benefit ratios, although
there is little long-term data to date.(76) So far, only dupilumab is FDA approved, for which
Author Manuscript

trials and real-life studies have demonstrated considerable short and mid-term efficacy and
safety.(32, 33, 38, 39, 41–44) There is a large unmet need for development of additional
monoclonal antibodies targeting distinct immune pathways necessary to increase probability
of achieving disease control in AD patients, and combination therapy such as dupilumab
plus another systemic immunomodulatory agent and/or phototherapy has not been
adequately studied.(77)

Apart from dupilumab, several novel biologic agents have demonstrated promising results in
clinical trial. Lebrikizumab, tralokinumab, nemolizumab, and ISB 830 have shown favorable
results in achieving improvement in disease severity and multiple endpoint
outcomes(26, 54, 55, 58, 60). Compared to other treatments, nemolizumab appears to be
superior in improving pruritus, since it has a rapid onset of pruritus reduction as early as
Author Manuscript

dupilumab, which was within 2 days of treatment initiation(40, 60), and also maintained good
long-term effectiveness (78). Tezepelumab, however, did not show statistically significant
changes in primary outcome endpoints.(65)

There are several limitations in analyzing clinical trials in AD. Interpretation of the efficacy
of biologics can be confounded by concomitant TCS use, and the clinical application of
these drugs are limited, as children were excluded from most AD trials. Therefore, it is
imperative that future large-scale studies investigate the efficacy of biologics as
monotherapy in children with moderate-to-severe AD. Furthermore, long-term follow-up
studies assessing safety and persistence of efficacy of each biologic agent is critical for
patients with chronic AD. To further guide treatment decisions and guidelines, network
meta-analysis is also necessary to provide the best comparative effectiveness of biologic
therapies.
Author Manuscript

Acknowledgments
Financial Disclosure: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and
does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Conflict of Interest: Dr. Ratchataswan has nothing to disclose. Dr. Banzon is supported by T32 AI 007512 from
the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Thyssen has been an advisor/investigator/speaker for Regeneron, Sanofi-

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 12

Genzyme, Abbvie, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly & Co, and Pfizer. Dr. Weidinger has received institutional research grants
from Sanofi Deutschland GmbH, Leo Pharma, and La Roche Posay, has performed consultancies for Sanofi-
Author Manuscript

Genzyme, Regeneron, LEO Pharma, Abbvie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Kymab and Novartis, has lectured at educational
events sponsored by Sanofi-Genzyme, Regeneron, LEO Pharma, AbbVie, Novartis and Galderma, and is involved
in performing clinical trials with many pharmaceutical industries that manufacture drugs used for the treatment of
psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Dr. Guttman-Yassky is an employee of Mount Sinai and has received research funds
(grants paid to the institution) from Abbvie, Almirall, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Asana Biosciences, Boerhinger-
Ingelhiem, Celgene, Dermavant, DS Biopharma, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Ichnos Sciences, Innovaderm, Janssen,
Kiniska, Kyowa Kirin, Leo Pharma, Novan, Pfizer, Ralexar, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sienna Biopharma,
UCB and Union Therapeutics; and is a consultant for Abbvie, Aditum Bio, Almirall, Amgen, Asana Biosciences,
AstraZeneca, Boerhinger-Ingelhiem, Cara Therapeutics, Celgene, Concert, DBV, Dermira, DS Biopharma, Eli Lilly,
EMD Serono, Escalier, Galderma, Ichnos Sciences, Incyte Kyowa Kirin, Leo Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Pandion
Therapeutics, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Sienna Biopharma, Target
PharmaSolutions and Union Therapeutics. Dr. Phipatanakul is supported by the grants U01 AI 152033 and K24 AI
106822 from the National Institutes of Health and Allergy Asthma Awareness Initiative, Inc. Dr. Phipatanakul
reports consultancy fees from Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, GSK, and Astra Zeneca for therapeutics
related to Asthma, outside the submitted work.

Abbreviation:
Author Manuscript

AD Atopic dermatitis

ACD Allergic contact dermatitis

AEs Adverse events

BSA Body surface area

DLQI Dermatology Life Quality Index

EASI Eczema Area and Severity Index

EASI-50 Greater than 50% improvement in EASI score

Author Manuscript

EASI-75 Greater than 75% improvement in EASI score

EASI-90 Greater than 90% improvement in EASI score

IGA Investigator’s global assessment

ITT Intended to treat

mAb Monoclonal antibody

NRS Numeric rating scale

SCORAD Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis

SCORAD-50 Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis improvements of ≥ 50%

Author Manuscript

SC Subcutaneously

TCS Topical corticosteroid

TEAE Treatment-emergent Intended to treat

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 13

References
Author Manuscript

1. Thyssen JP, Andersen Y, Halling AS, Williams HC, Egeberg A. Strengths and limitations of the
United Kingdom Working Party criteria for atopic dermatitis in adults. Journal of the European
Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV. 2020;34(8):1764–72. [PubMed: 32176385]
2. Abuabara K, Ye M, McCulloch CE, Sullivan A, Margolis DJ, Strachan DP, et al. Clinical onset of
atopic eczema: Results from 2 nationally representative British birth cohorts followed through
midlife. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;144(3):710–9. [PubMed: 31260715]
3. Barbarot S, Auziere S, Gadkari A, Girolomoni G, Puig L, Simpson EL, et al. Epidemiology of
atopic dermatitis in adults: Results from an international survey. Allergy. 2018;73(6): 1284–93.
[PubMed: 29319189]
4. Weidinger S, Novak N. Atopic dermatitis. The Lancet. 2016;387(10023): 1109–22.
5. Silverberg JI. Adult-Onset Atopic Dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7(1):28–33.
[PubMed: 30598180]
6. Guttman-Yassky E, Krueger JG, Lebwohl MG. Systemic immune mechanisms in atopic dermatitis
and psoriasis with implications for treatment. Exp Dermatol. 2018;27(4):409–17. [PubMed:
Author Manuscript

28266782]
7. Langan SM, Irvine AD, Weidinger S. Atopic dermatitis. The Lancet. 2020;396(10247):345–60.
8. Brunner PM, Guttman-Yassky E, Leung DY. The immunology of atopic dermatitis and its
reversibility with broad-spectrum and targeted therapies. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
2017;139(4s):S65–s76. [PubMed: 28390479]
9. Czarnowicki T, He H, Krueger JG, Guttman-Yassky E. Atopic dermatitis endotypes and implications
for targeted therapeutics. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;143(1): 1–11. [PubMed: 30612663]
10. Guttman-Yassky E, Pavel AB, Zhou L, Estrada YD, Zhang N, Xu H, et al. GBR 830, an anti-
OX40, improves skin gene signatures and clinical scores in patients with atopic dermatitis. J
Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;144(2):482–93 e7. [PubMed: 30738171]
11. Hirasawa Y, Takai T, Nakamura T, Mitsuishi K, Gunawan H, Suto H, et al. Staphylococcus aureus
extracellular protease causes epidermal barrier dysfunction. J Invest Dermatol. 2010;130(2):614–7.
[PubMed: 19812593]
12. Sonesson A, Bartosik J, Christiansen J, Roscher I, Nilsson F, Schmidtchen A, et al. Sensitization to
Author Manuscript

skin-associated microorganisms in adult patients with atopic dermatitis is of importance for

disease severity. Acta Derm Venereol. 2013;93(3):340–5. [PubMed: 23073977]
13. van Drongelen V, Haisma EM, Out-Luiting JJ, Nibbering PH, El Ghalbzouri A. Reduced filaggrin
expression is accompanied by increased Staphylococcus aureus colonization of epidermal skin
models. Clin Exp Allergy. 2014;44(12):1515–24. [PubMed: 25352374]
14. Kopfnagel V, Harder J, Werfel T. Expression of antimicrobial peptides in atopic dermatitis and
possible immunoregulatory functions. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013; 13(5):531–6.
[PubMed: 23974683]
15. Gittler JK, Shemer A, Suárez-Fariñas M, Fuentes-Duculan J, Gulewicz KJ, Wang CQ, et al.
Progressive activation of T(H)2/T(H)22 cytokines and selective epidermal proteins characterizes
acute and chronic atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130(6):1344–54. [PubMed:
22951056]
16. Ahn K, Kim BE, Kim J, Leung DY. Recent advances in atopic dermatitis. Current opinion in
immunology. 2020;66:14–21. [PubMed: 32299014]
17. Noda S, Suárez-Fariñas M, Ungar B, Kim SJ, de Guzman Strong C, Xu H, et al. The Asian atopic
Author Manuscript

dermatitis phenotype combines features of atopic dermatitis and psoriasis with increased TH17
polarization. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;136(5):1254–64. [PubMed: 26428954]
18. Czarnowicki T, Esaki H, Gonzalez J, Malajian D, Shemer A, Noda S, et al. Early pediatric atopic
dermatitis shows only a cutaneous lymphocyte antigen (CLA)(+) TH2/TH1 cell imbalance,
whereas adults acquire CLA(+) TH22/TC22 cell subsets. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
2015;136(4):941–51.e3. [PubMed: 26242300]
19. Sanyal RD, Pavel AB, Glickman J, Chan TC, Zheng X, Zhang N, et al. Atopic dermatitis in
African American patients is T(H)2/T(H)22-skewed with T(H)1/T(H)17 attenuation. Ann Allergy
Asthma Immunol. 2019;122(1):99–110.e6. [PubMed: 30223113]

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 14

20. Silverberg JI. Comorbidities and the impact of atopic dermatitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol.
2019; 123(2): 144–51. [PubMed: 31034875]
Author Manuscript

21. Schmitt J, Schwarz K, Baurecht H, Hotze M, Folster-Holst R, Rodriguez E, et al. Atopic dermatitis
is associated with an increased risk for rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, and a
decreased risk for type 1 diabetes. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;137(1): 130–6. [PubMed:
26253344]
22. Mohan GC, Silverberg JI. Association of Vitiligo and Alopecia Areata With Atopic Dermatitis: A
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151(5):522–8. [PubMed:
25471826]
23. Drucker AM, Thompson JM, Li WQ, Cho E, Li T, Guttman-Yassky E, et al. Incident alopecia
areata and vitiligo in adult women with atopic dermatitis: Nurses’ Health Study 2. Allergy.
2017;72(5):831–4. [PubMed: 28101886]
24. Kridin K, Renert-Yuval Y, Guttman-Yassky E, Cohen AD. Alopecia Areata Is Associated with
Atopic Diathesis: Results from a Population-Based Study of 51,561 Patients. J Allergy Clin
Immunol Pract. 2020;8(4): 1323–8.e1. [PubMed: 32036002]
25. Glickman JW, Dubin C, Renert-Yuval Y, Dahabreh D, Kimmel GW, Auyeung K, et al. Cross-
Author Manuscript

sectional study of blood biomarkers of patients with moderate to severe alopecia areata reveals
systemic immune and cardiovascular biomarker dysregulation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020.
26. Hamann CR, Hamann D, Egeberg A, Johansen JD, Silverberg J, Thyssen JP. Association between
atopic dermatitis and contact sensitization: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad
Dermatol. 2017;77(1):70–8. [PubMed: 28392290]
27. Simonsen AB, Johansen JD, Deleuran M, Mortz CG, Sommerlund M. Contact allergy in children
with atopic dermatitis: a systematic review. Br J Dermatol. 2017;177(2):395–405. [PubMed:
28470762]
28. Correa da Rosa J, Malajian D, Shemer A, Rozenblit M, Dhingra N, Czarnowicki T, et al. Patients
with atopic dermatitis have attenuated and distinct contact hypersensitivity responses to common
allergens in skin. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015; 135(3):712–20. [PubMed: 25583101]
29. Hale G, Davies E, Grindlay DJC, Rogers NK, Harman KE. What’s new in atopic eczema? An
analysis of systematic reviews published in 2017. Part 2: epidemiology, aetiology and risk factors.
Clin Exp Dermatol. 2019;44(8):868–73. [PubMed: 31502320]
30. Silverberg JI. Atopic dermatitis treatment: Current state of the art and emerging therapies. Allergy
Author Manuscript

Asthma Proc. 2017;38(4):243–9. [PubMed: 28668106]

31. Agency EM. Dupixent (dupilumab): An overview of Dupixent and why it is authorised in the EU:
European Medicines Agency; 2019 [updated 03/10/2019; cited 2020 08/15]. Available from:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/dupixent.
32. Simpson EL, Bieber T, Guttman-Yassky E, Beck LA, Blauvelt A, Cork MJ, et al. Two Phase 3
Trials of Dupilumab versus Placebo in Atopic Dermatitis. New England Journal of Medicine.
2016;375(24):2335– 48.
33. Thaçi D, Simpson EL, Beck LA, Bieber T, Blauvelt A, Papp K, 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. The Lancet.
2016;387(10013):40–52.
34. Sanofi: FDA approves Dupixent® (dupilumab) as first biologic medicine for children aged 6 to 11
years with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Sanofi; [updated 26 May. Available from: https://
www.sanofi.com/en/media-room/press-releases/2020/2020-05-26-17-40-00#:~:text=PARIS
Author Manuscript

%20and%20TARRYTOWN%2C%20N.Y.,those%20therapies%20are%20not%20advisable.
35. Regeneron. FDA APPROVES ASTHMA INDICATION FOR DUPIXENT® (DUPILUMAB):
Regeneron; 2018 [updated 19/10/2018. Available from: https://investor.regeneron.com/news-
releases/news-release-details/fda-approves-asthma-indication-dupixentr-dupilumab.
36. FDA. FDA approves first treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps 2019 [cited 2020
16/8]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-
treatment-chronic-rhinosinusitis-nasal-polyps.

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 15

37. Hirano I, Dellon ES, Hamilton JD, Collins MH, Peterson K, Chehade M, et al. Efficacy of
Dupilumab in a Phase 2 Randomized Trial of Adults With Active Eosinophilic Esophagitis.
Author Manuscript

Gastroenterology. 2020; 158(1):111–22 e10. [PubMed: 31593702]

38. Blauvelt A, de Bruin-Weller M, Gooderham M, Cather JC, Weisman J, Pariser D, 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 (London, England). 2017;389(10086):2287–303.
39. Simpson EL, Paller AS, Siegfried EC, Boguniewicz M, Sher L, Gooderham MJ, et al. Efficacy and
Safety of Dupilumab in Adolescents With Uncontrolled Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A
Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2019.
40. Thaçi D, E LS, Deleuran M, Kataoka Y, Chen Z, Gadkari A, et al. Efficacy and safety of
dupilumab monotherapy in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a pooled analysis of
two phase 3 randomized trials (LIBERTY AD SOLO 1 and LIBERTY AD SOLO 2). Journal of
dermatological science. 2019;94(2):266–75. [PubMed: 31109652]
41. Worm M, Simpson EL, Thaci D, Bissonnette R, Lacour JP, Beissert S, et al. Efficacy and Safety of
Multiple Dupilumab Dose Regimens After Initial Successful Treatment in Patients With Atopic
Author Manuscript

Dermatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2019.

42. Wollenberg A, Beck LA, Blauvelt A, Simpson EL, Chen Z, Chen Q, et al. Laboratory safety of
dupilumab in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: results from three phase III trials (LIBERTY
AD SOLO 1, LIBERTY AD SOLO 2, LIBERTY AD CHRONOS). Br J Dermatol. 2020;182(5):
1120–35. [PubMed: 31407311]
43. Halling AS, Loft ND, Silverberg JI, Guttman-Yassky E, Thyssen JP. Real-world evidence of
dupilumab efficacy and risk of adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad
Dermatol. 2020.
44. Faiz S, Giovannelli J, Podevin C, Jachiet M, Bouaziz JD, Reguiai Z, et al. Effectiveness and safety
of dupilumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in a real-life French multicenter adult cohort. J
Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81(1):143–51. [PubMed: 30825533]
45. Ariëns LFM, van der Schaft J, Bakker DS, Balak D, Romeijn MLE, Kouwenhoven T, 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): 116–26.
[PubMed: 31593343]
Author Manuscript

46. Agache I, Song Y, Posso M, Alonso-Coello P, Rocha C, Sola I, et al. Efficacy and safety of
dupilumab for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A systematic review for the EAACI
biologicals guidelines. Allergy. 2020.
47. Hamilton JD, Suárez-Fariñas M, Dhingra N, Cardinale I, Li X, Kostic A, et al. Dupilumab
improves the molecular signature in skin of patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. J
Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134(6): 1293–300. [PubMed: 25482871]
48. Guttman-Yassky E, Bissonnette R, Ungar B, Suárez-Fariñas M, Ardeleanu M, Esaki H, et al.
Dupilumab progressively improves systemic and cutaneous abnormalities in patients with atopic
dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019; 143(1): 155–72. [PubMed: 30194992]
49. Glickman JW, Dubin C, Han J, Dahabreh D, Garcet S, Krueger JG, et al. Comparing cutaneous
molecular improvement with different treatments in atopic dermatitis patients. J Allergy Clin
Immunol. 2020;145(4): 1285–8. [PubMed: 31954776]
50. Glickman JW, Han J, Garcet S, Krueger JG, Pavel AB, Guttman-Yassky E. Improving evaluation of
drugs in atopic dermatitis by combining clinical and molecular measures. J Allergy Clin Immunol
Author Manuscript

Pract. 2020.
51. Seger EW, Wechter T, Strowd L, Feldman SR. Relative efficacy of systemic treatments for atopic
dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(2):411–6 e4. [PubMed: 30296535]
52. Bieber T Interleukin-13: Targeting an underestimated cytokine in atopic dermatitis. Allergy.
2020;75(1):54–62. [PubMed: 31230370]
53. Elias PM, Steinhoff M. “Outside-to-inside” (and now back to “outside”) pathogenic mechanisms in
atopic dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol. 2008;128(5): 1067–70. [PubMed: 18408746]
54. Simpson EL, Flohr C, Eichenfield LF, Bieber T, Sofen H, Taieb A, et al. Efficacy and safety of
lebrikizumab (an anti-IL-13 monoclonal antibody) in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 16

dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical corticosteroids: A randomized, placebo-controlled

phase II trial (TREBLE). J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(5):863–71 e11. [PubMed: 29353026]
Author Manuscript

55. Guttman-Yassky E, Blauvelt A, Eichenfield LF, Paller AS, Armstrong AW, Drew J, et al. Efficacy
and Safety of Lebrikizumab, a High-Affinity Interleukin 13 Inhibitor, in Adults With Moderate to
Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Phase 2b Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2020.
56. Popovic B, Breed J, Rees DG, Gardener MJ, Vinall LM, Kemp B, et al. Structural Characterisation
Reveals Mechanism of IL-13-Neutralising Monoclonal Antibody Tralokinumab as Inhibition of
Binding to IL-13Ralpha1 and IL-13Ralpha2. J Mol Biol. 2017;429(2):208–19. [PubMed:
27956146]
57. Brightling CE, Chanez P, Leigh R, O’Byrne PM, Korn S, She D, et al. Efficacy and safety of
tralokinumab in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-
controlled, phase 2b trial. The Lancet Respiratory medicine. 2015;3(9):692–701. [PubMed:
26231288]
58. Wollenberg A, Howell MD, Guttman-Yassky E, Silverberg JI, Kell C, Ranade K, et al. Treatment
of atopic dermatitis with tralokinumab, an anti-IL-13 mAb. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019; 143(1):
135–41. [PubMed: 29906525]
Author Manuscript

59. Izuhara K, Arima K, Ohta S, Suzuki S, Inamitsu M, Yamamoto K-i. Periostin in Allergic
Inflammation. Allergology International. 2014;63(2): 143–51.
60. Silverberg JI, Pinter A, Pulka G, Poulin Y, Bouaziz JD, Wollenberg A, et al. Phase 2B randomized
study of nemolizumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis and severe pruritus. J
Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;145(1):173–82. [PubMed: 31449914]
61. Miake S, Tsuji G, Takemura M, Hashimoto-Hachiya A, Vu YH, Furue M, et al. IL-4 Augments
IL-31/IL-31 Receptor Alpha Interaction Leading to Enhanced Ccl 17 and Ccl 22 Production in
Dendritic Cells: Implications for Atopic Dermatitis. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(16).
62. Feld M, Garcia R, Buddenkotte J, Katayama S, Lewis K, Muirhead G, et al. The pruritus- and
TH2-associated cytokine IL-31 promotes growth of sensory nerves. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
2016;138(2):500–8 e24. [PubMed: 27212086]
63. Kabashima K, Matsumura T, Komazaki H, Kawashima M, Nemolizumab JPSG. Trial of
Nemolizumab and Topical Agents for Atopic Dermatitis with Pruritus. N Engl J Med.
2020;383(2): 141–50. [PubMed: 32640132]
64. Wilson SR, The L, Batia LM, Beattie K, Katibah GE, McClain SP, et al. The epithelial cell-derived
Author Manuscript

atopic dermatitis cytokine TSLP activates neurons to induce itch. Cell. 2013;155(2):285–95.
[PubMed: 24094650]
65. Simpson EL, Parnes JR, She D, Crouch S, Rees W, Mo M, et al. Tezepelumab, an anti-thymic
stromal lymphopoietin monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic
dermatitis: A randomized phase 2a clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(4): 1013–21.
[PubMed: 30550828]
66. Soumelis V, Reche PA, Kanzler H, Yuan W, Edward G, Homey B, et al. Human epithelial cells
trigger dendritic cell mediated allergic inflammation by producing TSLP. Nat Immunol.
2002;3(7):673–80. [PubMed: 12055625]
67. Indra AK. Epidermal TSLP: a trigger factor for pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis. Expert Rev
Proteomics. 2013; 10(4):309–11. [PubMed: 23992412]
68. Webb GJ, Hirschfield GM, Lane PJ. OX40, OX40L and Autoimmunity: a Comprehensive Review.
Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2016;50(3):312–32. [PubMed: 26215166]
69. Guttman-Yassky E, Brunner PM, Neumann AU, Khattri S, Pavel AB, Malik K, et al. Efficacy and
Author Manuscript

safety of fezakinumab (an IL-22 monoclonal antibody) in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic
dermatitis inadequately controlled by conventional treatments: A randomized, double-blind, phase
2a trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(5):872–81 e6. [PubMed: 29353025]
70. Nograles KE, Zaba LC, Shemer A, Fuentes-Duculan J, Cardinale I, Kikuchi T, et al. IL-22-
producing “T22” T cells account for upregulated IL-22 in atopic dermatitis despite reduced IL-17-
producing TH17 T cells. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;123(6):1244–52.e2. [PubMed: 19439349]
71. Brunner PM, Pavel AB, Khattri S, Leonard A, Malik K, Rose S, et al. Baseline IL-22 expression in
patients with atopic dermatitis stratifies tissue responses to fezakinumab. J Allergy Clin Immunol.
2019; 143(1): 142–54. [PubMed: 30121291]

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 17

72. morphosys. MorphoSys and Galapagos Report First Promising Signs of Clinical Activity in a
Phase 1 Study With IL-17C-Antibody MOR106 in Atopic Dermatitis Patients 2017 [cited 2020
Author Manuscript

17/8]. Available from: https://www.morphosys.com/media-investors/media-center/morphosys-and-

galapagos-report-first-promising-signs-of-clinical.
73. morphosys. MorphoSys AG: MOR106 Clinical Development in Atopic Dermatitis Stopped 2019
[updated 28/10/2019; cited 2020 17/8]. Available from: https://www.morphosys.com/media-
investors/media-center/morphosys-ag-mor106-clinical-development-in-atopic-dermatitis-stopped.
74. Wang HH, Li YC, Huang YC. Efficacy of omalizumab in patients with atopic dermatitis: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;138(6): 1719–22.e1.
[PubMed: 27543070]
75. Chan S, Cornelius V, Cro S, Harper JI, Lack G. Treatment Effect of Omalizumab on Severe
Pediatric Atopic Dermatitis: The ADAPT Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA pediatrics.
2019;174(1):29–37.
76. Chun PIF, Lehman H. Current and Future Monoclonal Antibodies in the Treatment of Atopic
Dermatitis. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2020.
77. Johnson BB, Franco AI, Beck LA, Prezzano JC. Treatment-resistant atopic dermatitis: challenges
Author Manuscript

and solutions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2019;12:181–92.

78. Alexander H, Patton T, Jabbar-Lopez ZK, Manca A, Flohr C. Novel systemic therapies in atopic
dermatitis: what do we need to fulfil the promise of a treatment revolution? F1000Res. 2019;8.
[PubMed: 30854195]
79. Wollenberg A, Barbarot S, Bieber T, Christen-Zaech S, Deleuran M, Fink-Wagner A, et al.
Consensus-based European guidelines for treatment of atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis) in adults
and children: part II. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology :
JEADV. 2018;32(6):850–78. [PubMed: 29878606]
80. Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman B, et al. Strength of
recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the
medical literature. American family physician. 2004;69(3):548–56. [PubMed: 14971837]
81. Fishbein AB, Silverberg JI, Wilson EJ, Ong PY. Update on Atopic Dermatitis: Diagnosis, Severity
Assessment, and Treatment Selection. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8(1):91–101. [PubMed:
31474543]
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 18
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

FIGURE 1.
Atopic dermatitis pathogenesis and targets of biologics approved and in clinical
development for atopic dermatitis. DC, Dendritic cell; IFN, interferon; IgE, immunoglobulin
E; IL, interleukin; ILC, innate lymphoid cell; LC, langerhans cell; Th, T-helper; TNF,
tumour necrosis factor; TSLP, thymic stromal lymphopoietin.
Author Manuscript

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 19
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

FIGURE 2.
Step-care management of atopic dermatitis (AD). Acute and maintenance treatments for AD
across the spectrum of disease severity. aFor patients aged ≥2 years with mild-to-moderate
AD. bFor patients aged ≥6 years with moderate-to-severe AD. cNot approved by the Food
and Drug Administration to treat AD. dNot recommended for long-term maintenance. TCI,
Author Manuscript

Topical calcineurin inhibitor; TCS, topical corticosteroid. Adapted from Fishbein et al.81
Author Manuscript

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Ratchataswan et al. Page 20
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

FIGURE 3.
Primary endpoint (A) and key efficacy endpoints (B, C) of phase 3 trials of dupilumab for
the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. A, The proportions of patients who
achieved IGA 0/1 with ≥2 reductions from baseline at week 16 among patients who received
dupilumab q1w, q2w, or placebo in SOLO 1 and SOLO 2. Proportions of patients who
achieved IGA 0/1 at week 16 among were a primary endpoint for AD-1526. B, The
proportions of patients who achieved EASI-75 at week 16 among patients who received
dupilumab and placebo. EASI-75 was a co-primary endpoint in CHRONOS. C, The
proportions of patients with ≥4-point improvement in peak pruritus NRS score from baseline
at week 16 among patients who received dupilumab and placebo. P < .001 for all
comparisons with placebo in SOLO1/SOLO2. P < .0001 for all comparisons with placebo in
Author Manuscript

CHRONOS. P < .001 for all comparisons with placebo in AD-1526. EASI-75, Greater than
75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index score; IGA, Investigator’s global
assessment; NRS, numeric rating scale; q1w, every week; q2w, every other week. *In
CHRONOS, patients also received concomitant topical corticosteroid in every treatment
arm. **In AD-1526, patients received dupilumab every 2 weeks (green), every 4 weeks
(blue), or placebo.

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

TABLE 1.

Biologics currently approved or in clinical trials for atopic dermatitis

Strength of
Age Concomitant Current phase of recommendation,
group Duration TCS/rescue clinical trials grades of
Drug Mechanism Phase trial N (y) (wk) therapy Primary endpoint Adverse events underway evidence*79,80
Ratchataswan et al.

Dupilumab Anti-IL-4Rα Phase 3 422 ≥18 36 No Percent change in EASI Conjunctivitis (5.4% Phase 2: A, 1a(46)
mAb (SOLO- score (difference between weekly or q2w, 4.6% NCT03861455
CONTINUE) SOLO-CONTINUE q4w 3.6% q8w vs NCT03346434
baseline and week 36) 4.9% placebo), Phase 3:
Treatment group weekly or injection-site reactions NCT02612454
q2w: no significant change (10.8% weekly or q2w, NCT01949311
from SOLO-CONTINUE 6.9% q4w 7.1% q8w Phase 4:
baseline (−0.06%) q4w: vs 8.5% placebo) NCT03667014
−3.8% q8w: −6.8% NCT03389893
Placebo: −21.7% EASI-75 NCT03293030
Weekly or q2w: 71.6%† NCT04447417
NCT04033367
q4w: 58.3%‡ q8w: 54.9%‡
Placebo: 30.4%

Phase 3 251 12-18 16 Yes Percentage of participants Conjunctivitis (9.8%

(AD-1526) achieving an IGA response q2w, 10.8% q4w vs
200/300 mg q2w: 24.4%† 4.7% placebo),
injection-site reactions
300 mg q4w: 17.9%† vs. (8.5% q2w, 6.0% q4w
Placebo: 2.4% EASI-75 vs 3.5% placebo)
200/300 mg q2w: 41.5%†
300 mg q4w: 38.1%† vs.
Placebo: 8.2%

Lebrikizumab Anti-IL-13 Phase 2b 280 ≥18 16 Yes Percent change in EASI Upper respiratory tract Phase 3 B, 2b
mAb score 125 mg q4w: −62.3% infection (7.5% all NCT04146363
250 mg q4w: −69.2%† 250 lebrikizumab groups, NCT04178967
placebo 5.8%), NCT04392154
mg q2w: −72.1%† vs nasopharyngitis (6.6% NCT04250350
placebo: −41.1% all lebrikizumab NCT04250337
groups, placebo 3.8%)

Tralokinumab Anti-IL-13 Phase 2b 204 18-75 12 Yes Change from baseline in Upper respiratory tract Phase 3 B, 2b

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
mAb EASI score 150 mg: infection (3.9% all NCT03587805
−4.36‡ 300 mg: −4.94‡ tralokinumab groups NCT03761537
vs 3.9% placebo) NCT03526861

Nemolizumab Anti- Phase 2b 226 ≥18 24 Yes Percent change in EASI Dose-dependent Phase 2 A, 1b
IL-31Rα score At week 24: Greatest increase in asthma NCT03921411
mAb difference in 30 mg dose: exacerbations in NCT04365387
−68.8%‡ vs placebo: treatment group (3.6% Phase 3
−52.1% 10 mg, 12.3% 30 mg, NCT03985943
17.5% 90 mg vs 1.8% NCT03989349
placebo) NCT03989206
Page 21
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Strength of
Age Concomitant Current phase of recommendation,
group Duration TCS/rescue clinical trials grades of
Drug Mechanism Phase trial N (y) (wk) therapy Primary endpoint Adverse events underway evidence*79,80
Tezepelumab Anti-TSLP Phase 2a 113 18-75 12 Yes EASI-50 Failed to reach Injection-site erythema Phase 2b B, 2b
mAb statistical significance 280 (5.4% vs 0% placebo) NCT03809663
mg: 64.7% vs placebo:
48.2%
Ratchataswan et al.

ISB 830 Anti-OX40 Phase 2a 64 ≥18 12 No Incidence of TEAEs Headache (16%), Phase 2b B, 2b
mAb Similar across treatment atopic dermatitis NCT03568162
groups ISB 830: 63.0% (13%) nasopharyngitis
(29/46) vs Placebo: 63.0% (10%)
(10/16) Changes from
baseline in biomarkers
(epidermal hyperplasia and
cytokine) at day 71
Signification reductions in:
- hyperplasia measures† -
mRNA signature for Th1,
Th2, and Th17/Th22 axes†
- OX40+ T cells and
OX40L+ dendritic cells†

EASI, Eczema Area and Severity Index; EASI-50, greater than 50% improvement in EASI score; EASI-75, greater than 75% improvement in EASI score; IGA, Investigator’s Global Assessment; mAb,
monoclonal antibody; q2w, every 2 weeks; q4w, every 4 weeks; q8w, every 8 weeks; TCS, topical corticosteroid; TEAE, treatment-emergent adverse event.
*
(Strength of recommendation, Grades of evidence) = (A, 1a/1b), (B, 2a/2b/3a/3b), (C, 4) (D, Expert opinion).79
†
Statistical significance of at least P < .001.
‡
Statistical significance of at least P < .05.

J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 March 01.
Page 22