DUPIXENT REDUCED THE FREQUENCY AND
SEVERITY OF DYSPHAGIA SYMPTOMS1,2

64% reduction in DSQ
score at Week 24 and 81%
reduction at Week 52a,b

Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) total score in Parts B and B-Ca-c

Part A

  • Week 4c: -9-point reduction (28%) from baseline with DUPIXENT
    (n=42) vs -4-point reduction (11%) with placebo (n=39)
  • Week 24b: -21.9-point reduction (69%) from baseline with
    DUPIXENT (n=42) vs -9.6-point reduction (32%) with placebo
    (n=39) (P<0.001)

Part A-C

  • Week 52b: -23.4-point reduction (76%) from baseline after
    52 weeks of treatment with DUPIXENT (n=29)
  • Week 52b: -21.7-point reduction (66%) from baseline after
    switching to DUPIXENT from placebo at Week 24 (n=23)

Extended active treatment period, results are descriptive at Week 52. Definitive conclusions cannot be made due to limitations associated with extended active treatment design, including lack of comparator arm and decreasing sample size.

aTotal biweekly DSQ scores range from 0 to 84; higher scores indicate greater frequency and severity of dysphagia.1

bCoprimary endpoint at Week 24; secondary endpoint at Week 52.1,2

cWeek 4 assessment is a post hoc analysis; results are descriptive.2

The Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ)
A patient-reported assessment that measures the frequency and severity of dysphagia over a 14-day period; higher score indicated greater frequency and severity of dysphagia1,4

LSM, least squares mean.

DUPIXENT DEMONSTRATED GREATER HISTOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS1,2

59% of patients demonstrated
histologic remission
at Week
24 and 85% at Week 52

Histologic Remission
(≤6 EOS/HPF peak esophageal
intraepithelial EOS count)

Histologic Response
(<15 EOS/HPF peak esophageal
intraepithelial EOS count)

Histologic Response
  • Week 24 (Part A): 64% of patients with DUPIXENT (n=42) vs 8%
    with placebo (n=39)
  • Week 52 (Part A-C): 82% of patients after 52 weeks of treatment
    with DUPIXENT (n=34) and 70% after switching to DUPIXENT from
    placebo at Week 24 (n=30)

Extended active treatment period, results are descriptive at Week 52. Definitive conclusions cannot be made due to limitations associated with
extended active treatment design, including lack of comparator arm and decreasing sample size.

dCo-primary endpoint at Week 24; secondary endpoint at Week 52.1,2

eSecondary endpoint at Weeks 24 and 52. In Part B, this endpoint was ordered after the point at which hierarchical testing procedure failed; results are descriptive.2

Peak Esophageal Intraepithelial Eosinophil Count
Used to confirm diagnosis and determine treatment response. Histologic data are reported as the percentage of patients achieving the defined EOS threshold.5

EOS, eosinophil; EOS/HPF, eosinophils per high-power field.

VISIBLE CHANGES IN THE ESOPHAGUS WERE OBSERVED2

EREFS total score was
reduced at Weeks 24 and 52f

Reduction in EREFS
total score

Part A
  • Week 24f: -3.2-point reduction (49%) from baseline with
    DUPIXENT (n=42) vs -0.3-point reduction (5%) with placebo (n=39)
Part A-C
  • Week 52f: -4.1-point reduction (63%) from baseline after
    52 weeks of treatment with DUPIXENT (n=35)
  • Week 52f: -3.9-point reduction (65%) from baseline after
    switching to DUPIXENT from placebo at Week 24 (n=30)

Extended active treatment period, results are descriptive at Week 52. Definitive conclusions cannot be made due to limitations associated with
extended active treatment design, including lack of comparator arm and decreasing sample size.

f Secondary endpoint at Weeks 24 and 52. Results are descriptive; thresholds for clinically meaningful changes in EREFS scores have not been established.
Additionally, in Part B this endpoint was ordered after the point at which hierarchical testing procedure failed.2

Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS)
EREFS is a clinician-reported rating of the severity of 5 endoscopic features: edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and stricture.6

LSM, least squares mean.

Connect with a DUPIXENT
Field Representative to
get answers to your
product-related
questions

CONTACT A REP