Skip to content

A Controlled Clinical Study of Dupilumab in Patients With Bilateral Nasal Polyps

A Randomized, 24-Week Treatment, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Efficacy and Safety Study of Dupilumab 300 mg Every Other Week, in Patients With Bilateral Nasal Polyposis on a Background Therapy With Intranasal Corticosteroids

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02912468
Acronym
SINUS-24
Enrollment
276
Registered
2016-09-23
Start date
2016-12-05
Completion date
2018-07-05
Last updated
2019-07-25

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Chronic Rhinosinusitis Phenotype With Nasal Polyps (CRSwNP)

Keywords

Nasal polyposis, Chronic rhinosinusitis, Intranasal corticosteroids, Dupilumab, Human monoclonal antibody

Brief summary

Primary Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of dupilumab 300 milligram (mg) every 2 weeks (q2w) compared to placebo on a background of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) in reducing nasal congestion/obstruction (NC) severity and endoscopic nasal polyp score (NPS) in participants with bilateral nasal polyposis (NP). In addition for Japan participants, reduction in computed tomography (CT) scan opacification of the sinuses was a coprimary objective. Secondary Objectives: * To evaluate the efficacy of dupilumab in improving total symptoms score (TSS). * To evaluate the efficacy of dupilumab in improving sense of smell. * To evaluate the efficacy of dupilumab in reducing CT scan opacification of the sinuses (primary objective for Japan). * To evaluate ability of dupilumab in reducing proportion of participants requiring treatment with systemic corticosteroids or NP surgery. * To evaluate the effect of dupilumab on participant reported outcomes and health related quality of life outcome by sinonasal outcome test-22 (SNOT-22). * To evaluate the effect of dupilumab in the subgroups of participants with prior surgery and co-morbid asthma (including non-steroid antiinflammatory drug \[NSAID\] exacerbated respiratory disease \[ERD\]). * To evaluate residual effect in follow up. * To evaluate the safety of dupilumab in participants with bilateral NP. * To evaluate functional dupilumab concentrations (systemic exposure) and incidence of treatment-emergent anti-drug antibodies.

Detailed description

The total study duration per participant was expected to be up to 52 weeks that consisted of a 4-weeks run-in period, 24-weeks treatment period, and a 24-weeks post treatment period.

Interventions

Pharmaceutical form: Solution Route of administration: Subcutaneous

DRUGPlacebo

Pharmaceutical form: Solution Route of administration: Subcutaneous

DRUGMometasone furoate 50 micrograms

Pharmaceutical form: Suspension (Nasal spray) Route of administration: Intranasal

Sponsors

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
Sanofi
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)

Masking description

Dupilumab and placebo were provided in matching 2 milliliter (mL) pre-filled syringes. To protect the blind, each treatment kit was prepared such that the dupilumab dose and its corresponding placebo volume were identical and indistinguishable and were labelled with a treatment kit number.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Participants with bilateral sinonasal polyposis that despite prior treatment with systemic corticosteroids (SCS) anytime within the past 2 years; and/or had a medical contraindication / intolerance to SCS; and/or had prior surgery for NP at the screening visit, had: * An endoscopic bilateral NPS of at least 5 out of a maximum score of 8 (with a minimum score of 2 in each nasal cavity). * Ongoing symptoms (for at least 8 weeks prior to Visit \[V\] 1) of nasal congestion/blockage/obstruction with moderate or severe symptom severity (score 2 or 3) at V1 and a weekly average severity of greater than 1 at the time of randomization (V2), and another symptom such as loss of smell, rhinorrhea (anterior/posterior). * Signed written informed consent.

Exclusion criteria

* Participants \<18 years of age. * Participants who were previously treated in dupilumab studies. * Participants who had taken: * Biologic therapy/systemic immunosuppressant to treat inflammatory disease or autoimmune disease (eg, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, primary biliary cirrhosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, etc.) within 2 months before V1 or 5 half-lives, whichever was longer. * Any experimental monoclonal antibody (mAB) within 5 half-lives or within 6 months before V1 if the half-life was unknown. * Anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) therapy (omalizumab) within 130 days prior to V1. * Participants who received leukotriene antagonists/modifiers at V1 unless they were on a continuous treatment for at least 30 days prior to V1. * Initiated allergen immunotherapy within 3 months prior to V1 or planned to begin therapy or changed its dose during the run-in period or the randomized treatment period. * Participants who undergone any intranasal and/or sinus surgery (including polypectomy) within 6 months prior to V1. * Participants who had a sinonasal or sinus surgery changing the lateral wall structure of the nose making impossible the evaluation of NPS. * Participants with conditions/concomitant diseases making them nonevaluable at V1 or for the primary efficacy endpoint such as: * Antrochoanal polyps; * Nasal septal deviation that would occlude at least one nostril; * Acute sinusitis, nasal infection or upper respiratory infection; * Ongoing rhinitis medicamentosa; * Allergic granulomatous angiitis (Churg-Strauss syndrome), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Wegener's granulomatosis), Young's syndrome, Kartagener's syndrome or other dyskinetic ciliary syndromes, concomitant cystic fibrosis; * Radiologic suspicion, or confirmed invasive or expansive fungal rhinosinusitis. * Participants with nasal cavity malignant tumor and benign tumors (eg, papilloma, blood boil, etc). * Participants with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 50% or less (of predicted normal). * Participants who received concomitant treatment prohibited in the study. * Treatment with a live (attenuated) vaccine within 12 weeks before the baseline visit. * 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. * Active chronic or acute infection requiring systemic treatment within 2 weeks before the baseline visit. * Known or suspected history of immunosuppression. * Pregnant or breastfeeding women, or women planned to become pregnant or breastfeed during the study. * Women unwilling to use adequate birth control, if of reproductive potential and sexually active. The above information was not intended to contain all considerations relevant to a participant's potential participation in a clinical trial.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Congestion/Obstruction Symptom Severity ScoreBaseline, Week 24NC symptom severity was assessed by the participants on a daily basis from Visit 1 and throughout the study using an e-diary on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms, with higher scores indicated more severity. Least squares (LS) means and standard error (SE) were obtained from Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model described in Statistical Analysis Overview.
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Polyp ScoreBaseline, Week 24NPS: sum of right, left nostril scores, evaluated by nasal endoscopy. For each nostril, NPS was graded based on polyp size from 0 = no polyps to 4 = large polyps causing complete obstruction of inferior nasal cavity; lower score = smaller-sized polyps. Total NPS: sum of right and left nostril scores; ranges from 0 (no polyps) to 8 (large polyps), higher score = more severe disease. NPS was assessed by centralized, blinded, independent review of the nasal endoscopy video recordings. LS means and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model described in Statistical Analysis Overview.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) ScoreBaseline, Week 24The UPSIT was a 40-item test to measure the individual's ability to detect odors. Total score ranges from 0 (anosmia) to 40 (normal sense of smell), lower score indicated severe smell loss. LS means and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model described in Statistical Analysis Overview.
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant DailyBaseline, Week 24The severity of decreased/loss of sense of smell was reported by the participants using a 0 to 3 categorical scale (where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms), higher score indicated more severe symptoms. LS means and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model described in Statistical Analysis Overview.
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in 22-item Sino-nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) ScoresBaseline, Week 24The SNOT-22 is a validated questionnaire that was used to assess the impact of chronic rhinosinusitis phenotype with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). It is a 22 item questionnaire with each item assigned a score ranging from 0 (no problem) to 5 (problem as bad as it can be). The total score may range from 0 (no disease) to 110 (worst disease), lower scores representing better health related quality of life. LS means and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model described in Statistical Analysis Overview.
Rescue Treatment Use: Estimate of Percentage of Participants With >=1 Event by Week 24 Obtained Using Kaplan-Meier MethodBaseline up to Week 24Rescue treatment was defined as usage of systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or NP surgery (actual or planned) during the treatment period. Rescue treatment included: * SCS: Betamethasone, dexamethasone, dexamethasone sodium phosphate, Hydrocortisone sodium succinate, methylprednisolone, prednisolone, prednisolone metasulfobenzoate sodium, prednisone, and triamcinolone. * Sino-nasal surgery for nasal polyps when there was worsening of signs and/or symptoms during the study. Estimate of percentage of participants with event by Week 24 was obtained using Kaplan-Meier method.
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for RhinosinusitisBaseline, Week 24The VAS for rhinosinusitis was used to evaluate the total disease severity. The participants were asked to indicate on a 10 centimeters (cm) VAS the answer to the question, How troublesome are your symptoms of your rhinosinusitis? The range of the VAS was from 0 (not troublesome) to 10 (worse thinkable troublesome), where higher score indicated worse thinkable troublesome. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Peak Inspiratory Flow (NPIF)Baseline, Week 24NPIF evaluation represented a physiologic measure of the air flow through both nasal cavities during forced inspiration expressed in liters per minute. Higher NPIF values are indicative of better nasal air flow. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom ScoreBaseline, Week 24Rhinorrhea was reported by the participants using a 0 to 3 categorical scale (where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms), where higher scores indicated more severe symptoms. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 Second (FEV1) for Participants With AsthmaBaseline, Week 24FEV1 was the volume of air exhaled in the first second of a forced expiration as measured by spirometer. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6) Scores for Participants With AsthmaBaseline, Week 24ACQ-6 had 6 questions which assessed the most common asthma symptoms (woken by asthma, symptoms on waking, activity limitation, shortness of breath, wheezing, puffs/inhalations use). Participants were asked to recall how their asthma had been during the previous week and to respond to the symptom questions on a 7-point scale ranged from 0 = no impairment to 6 = maximum impairment. The ACQ-6 score was the mean of the scores of all 6 questions and therefore, ranged from 0 (totally controlled) to 6 (severely uncontrolled), with higher scores indicated lower asthma control. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, prior surgery, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Baseline, Week 28, Week 32, Week 36, Week 40, Week 44 and Week 48 (Post-baseline assessments performed 4-24 weeks after end of treatment)NC symptom severity was assessed by the participants on a daily basis from Visit 1 and throughout the study using an e-diary on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms, with higher scores indicated more severity. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in Nasal Polyp Score (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Baseline, Week 36, Week 48 (post-baseline assessments performed 12 and 24 weeks after end of treatment)NPS was the sum of right and left nostril scores, as evaluated by means of nasal endoscopy. For each nostril, NPS was graded based on polyp size from 0 to 4 (0 = no polyps to 4 = large polyps causing complete obstruction of the inferior nasal cavity), with a lower score indicating smaller-sized polyps. Total NPS was the sum of right and left nostril scores and ranges from 0 (no polyp) to 8 (large polyp), with highest score representing more severe disease. NPS was assessed by centralized, blinded, independent review of the nasal endoscopy video recordings. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. LS mean and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model.
Change From Baseline at Week 48 in Opacification of Sinuses Measured by Lund-Mackay Score (Assessment Performed 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Baseline, Week 48 (Post-baseline assessment performed 24 weeks after end of treatment)The LMK scoring system rated each of both the left and right frontal, maxillary, sphenoid, ostiomeatal complex, anterior ethmoid and posterior ethmoid sinuses using following grading: 0 = normal, 1 = partial opacification, 2 = total opacification. The total score was the sum of scores from each side and ranges from 0 (normal) to 24 (more opacified); higher score indicated more severe disease. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Total Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Baseline, Week 28, Week 32, Week 36, Week 40, Week 44 and Week 48 (Post-baseline assessments performed 4-24 weeks after end of treatment)The TSS was the sum of participant-assessed nasal symptom scores for NC/obstruction, decreased/loss of sense of smell, and rhinorrhea (anterior/posterior nasal discharge), each accessed on 0-3 categorical scale (where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms). Total score ranged from 0 (no symptoms) to 9 (severe symptoms). Higher score indicated more severe symptoms. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Week 48 in University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (Assessment Performed 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Baseline, Week 48 (Post-baseline assessment performed 24 weeks after end of treatment)The UPSIT was a 40-item test to measure the individual's ability to detect odors. Total score ranges from 0 (anosmia) to 40 (normal sense of smell), lower score indicated severe smell loss. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Baseline, Week 28, Week 32, Week 36, Week 40, Week 44 and Week 48 (Post-baseline assessments performed 4-24 weeks after end of treatment)The severity of decreased/loss of sense of smell was reported by the participants using a 0 to 3 categorical scale (where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms), higher score indicated more severe symptoms. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in 22-item Sino-nasal Outcome Test Scores (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Baseline, Week 36 and Week 48 (Post-baseline assessments performed 12 and 24 weeks after end of treatment)The SNOT-22 is a validated questionnaire that was used to assess the impact of CRSwNP on HRQoL. It is a 22 item questionnaire with each item assigned a score ranging from 0 (no problem) to 5 (problem as bad as it can be). The total score may range from 0 (no disease) to 110 (worst disease), lower scores representing better health related quality of life. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Opacification of Sinuses Measured by Lund-Mackay (LMK) ScoreBaseline, Week 24The LMK scoring system rated each of both the left and right frontal, maxillary, sphenoid, ostiomeatal complex, anterior ethmoid and posterior ethmoid sinuses using following grading: 0 = normal, 1 = partial opacification, 2 = total opacification. The total score was the sum of scores from each side and ranges from 0 (normal) to 24 (more opacified); higher score indicated more severe disease. LS means and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model described in Statistical Analysis Overview. NOTE: For Japan regulatory submission only, this endpoint is not included as a secondary outcome measure and is instead one of the co-primary outcome measures.
Change From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in Visual Analog Scale for Rhinosinusitis (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Baseline, Week 36 and Week 48 (Post-baseline assessments performed 12 and 24 weeks after end of treatment)The VAS for rhinosinusitis was used to evaluate the total disease severity. The participants were asked to indicate on a 10 cm VAS the answer to the question, How troublesome are your symptoms of your rhinosinusitis? The range of the VAS was from 0 (not troublesome) to 10 (worse thinkable troublesome), where higher score indicated worse thinkable troublesome. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Baseline, Week 28, Week 32, Week 36, Week 40, Week 44 and Week 48 (Post-baseline assessments performed 4-24 weeks after end of treatment)Rhinorrhea was reported by the participants using a 0 to 3 categorical scale (where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms), where higher scores indicated more severe symptoms. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Week 48 in Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 Second for Participants With Asthma (Assessment Performed 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Baseline, Week 48 (Post-baseline assessment performed 24 weeks after end of treatment)FEV1 was the volume of air exhaled in the first second of a forced expiration as measured by spirometer. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Week 48 in Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 Scores for Participants With Asthma (Assessment Performed 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Baseline, Week 48 (Post-baseline assessment performed 24 weeks after end of treatment)ACQ-6 had 6 questions which assessed the most common asthma symptoms (woken by asthma, symptoms on waking, activity limitation, shortness of breath, wheezing, puffs/inhalations use). Participants were asked to recall how their asthma had been during the previous week and to respond to the symptom questions on a 7-point scale ranged from 0 = no impairment to 6 = maximum impairment. The ACQ-6 score was the mean of the scores of all 6 questions and therefore, ranged from 0 (totally controlled) to 6 (severely uncontrolled), with higher scores indicated lower asthma control. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, prior surgery, and regions as covariates.
Number of Participants With Treatment-emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) and TEAEs Leading to Treatment DiscontinuationBaseline up to 98 days following the last administration of study drug (up to 36 weeks)An Adverse Event (AE) was defined as any untoward medical occurrence that did not necessarily have to have a causal relationship with the study treatment. TEAEs were defined as AEs that developed or worsened in grade or became serious during TEAE period which was defined as the period from the time of first dose of study drug until 98 days following the last administration of study drug. Serious adverse event (SAE) was defined as any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose: results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, is a congenital anomaly/birth defect, is a medically important event.
Functional Dupilumab Concentration in SerumBaseline, Week 4, 8, 16, 24, 36, End of study (Week 48)
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent And Treatment-Boosted Anti-drug Antibodies (ADA) ResponseBaseline to End of study (Week 48)ADA response were categorized as: treatment emergent and treatment boosted response. 1) Treatment emergent was defined as a positive response in the ADA assay post first dose, when baseline results are negative or missing. 2) Treatment boosted was defined as: An ADA positive response in the assay post first dose that is greater-than or equal to 4-fold over baseline titer levels, when baseline results are positive.
Mean Total Systemic Corticosteroids Rescue Dose Prescribed During Treatment PeriodBaseline to Week 24SCS included: Betamethasone, dexamethasone, dexamethasone sodium phosphate, hydrocortisone sodium succinate, methylprednisolone, prednisolone, prednisolone metasulfobenzoate sodium, prednisone, and triamcinolone. For every participant, total dose was calculated as (prescribed total daily dose\*duration of SCS use). Then, mean of the total dose of 25 participants (placebo group) and 9 participants (Dupilumab group) was derived.
Total Systemic Corticosteroids Rescue Intake Duration: Average Duration Per ParticipantBaseline to Week 24Rescue treatment was defined as usage of SCS or NP surgery (actual or planned) during the treatment period. SCS rescue intake duration was defined as the duration (in days) from start of SCS rescue medication till the end of SCS rescue treatment.
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in European Quality of Life 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Visual Analog Scale ScoreBaseline, Week 24The EQ-5D was a standardized HRQoL questionnaire consisting of EQ-5D descriptive system and EQ VAS. EQ-5D descriptive system comprised of 5 dimensions: mobility, selfcare, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension had 5 levels: no problems, slight problems, moderate problems, severe problems, and extreme problems. EQ-VAS recorded the participant's self-rated health on a vertical VAS that allowed them to indicate their health state that can range from 0 (worst imaginable) to 100 (best imaginable).
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score: Subgroup of Participants With AsthmaBaseline, Week 24NC symptom severity was assessed by the participants on a daily basis from Visit 1 and throughout the study using an e-diary on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms, with higher scores indicated more severity. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score: Subgroup of Participants With Prior Nasal Polyp SurgeryBaseline, Week 24NC symptom severity was assessed by the participants on a daily basis from Visit 1 and throughout the study using an e-diary on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms, with higher scores indicated more severity. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Polyp Score: Subgroup of Participants With AsthmaBaseline, Week 24NPS was the sum of right and left nostril scores, as evaluated by means of nasal endoscopy. For each nostril, NPS was graded from 0 to 4 (0 = no polyps to 4 = large polyps causing complete obstruction of the inferior nasal cavity), with a lower score indicating smaller-sized polyps. Total NPS was the sum of right and left nostril scores and ranges from 0 (no polyp) to 8 (large polyp), with highest score representing more severe disease. NPS was assessed by centralized, blinded, independent review of the nasal endoscopy video recordings. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. LS mean and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model.
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Polyp Score: Subgroup of Participants With Prior Nasal Polyp SurgeryBaseline, Week 24NPS was the sum of right and left nostril scores, as evaluated by means of nasal endoscopy. For each nostril, NPS was graded from 0 to 4 (0 = no polyps to 4 = large polyps causing complete obstruction of the inferior nasal cavity), with a lower score indicating smaller-sized polyps. Total NPS was the sum of right and left nostril scores and ranges from 0 (no polyp) to 8 (large polyp), with highest score representing more severe disease. NPS was assessed by centralized, blinded, independent review of the nasal endoscopy video recordings. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. LS mean and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model.
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Opacification of Sinuses Measured by Lund Mackay Score: Subgroup of Participants With AsthmaBaseline, Week 24The LMK scoring system rated each of both the left and right frontal, maxillary, sphenoid, ostiomeatal complex, anterior ethmoid and posterior ethmoid sinuses using following grading: 0 = normal, 1 = partial opacification, 2 = total opacification. The total score was the sum of scores from each side and ranges from 0 (normal) to 24 (more opacified); higher score indicated more severe disease. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Opacification of Sinuses Measured by Lund Mackay Score: Subgroup of Participants With Prior Nasal Polyp SurgeryBaseline, Week 24The LMK scoring system rated each of both the left and right frontal, maxillary, sphenoid, ostiomeatal complex, anterior ethmoid and posterior ethmoid sinuses using following grading: 0 = normal, 1 = partial opacification, 2 = total opacification. The total score was the sum of scores from each side and ranges from 0 (normal) to 24 (more opacified); higher score indicated more severe disease. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, and regions as covariates.
Rescue Treatment Use: Estimate of Percentage of Participants With >=1 Event by Week 48 Obtained Using Kaplan-Meier MethodBaseline up to Week 48Rescue treatment was defined as usage of SCS or NP surgery (actual or planned) during the study. Rescue treatment included: * SCS: Betamethasone, dexamethasone, dexamethasone sodium phosphate, Hydrocortisone sodium succinate, methylprednisolone, prednisolone, prednisolone metasulfobenzoate sodium, prednisone, and triamcinolone. * Sino-nasal surgery for nasal polyps when there was worsening of signs and/or symptoms during the study. Estimate of percentage of participants with event by Week 48 was obtained using Kaplan-Meier method.
Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Total Symptom Score (TSS)Baseline, Week 24The TSS was the sum of participant-assessed nasal symptom scores for nasal congestion/obstruction, decreased/loss of sense of smell, and rhinorrhea (anterior/posterior nasal discharge), each accessed on 0-3 categorical scale (where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms). Total score ranged from 0 (no symptoms) to 9 (severe symptoms). Higher score indicated more severe symptoms. LS means and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model described in Statistical Analysis Overview.

Countries

Bulgaria, Czechia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Participants were involved in the study from 05 December 2016 to 05 July 2018 at 67 active centers in 13 countries. A total of 506 participants were screened, of which 276 participants were enrolled and randomized to receive dupilumab 300 mg or placebo. A total of 230 participants failed screening mainly due to failure to meet inclusion criteria.

Pre-assignment details

Randomization was stratified by the presence of comorbid asthma and/or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug exacerbated respiratory disease (NSAID-ERD), prior nasal polyposis (NP) surgery (yes or no), and country.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Placebo
Placebo (for dupilumab), 1 SC injection q2w from Day 1 of Week 0 up to Week 24 added to background therapy of intranasal MFNS at stable dose.
133
Dupilumab 300 mg
Dupilumab 300 mg SC injection q2w from Day 1 of Week 0 up to Week 24 added to background therapy of intranasal MFNS at stable dose.
143
Total276

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyAdverse Event32
Overall StudyRandomized and not treated01
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject62

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicPlaceboTotalDupilumab 300 mg
Age, Continuous50.83 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.21
50.49 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.39
50.17 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.59
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
1 Participants6 Participants5 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
130 Participants268 Participants138 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Nasal Congestion/Obstruction (NC) Symptom Severity Score2.45 score on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.55
2.35 score on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.57
2.26 score on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.57
Nasal Polyp Score (NPS)5.86 score on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.31
5.75 score on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.28
5.64 score on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.23
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
7 Participants9 Participants2 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
126 Participants264 Participants138 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
63 Participants118 Participants55 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
70 Participants158 Participants88 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 1320 / 143
other
Total, other adverse events
61 / 13255 / 143
serious
Total, serious adverse events
19 / 1326 / 143

Outcome results

Primary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Congestion/Obstruction Symptom Severity Score

NC symptom severity was assessed by the participants on a daily basis from Visit 1 and throughout the study using an e-diary on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms, with higher scores indicated more severity. Least squares (LS) means and standard error (SE) were obtained from Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model described in Statistical Analysis Overview.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: The analysis was performed on intent-to-treat (ITT) population which included all randomized participants who were analyzed according to the treatment group allocated by randomization.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Congestion/Obstruction Symptom Severity Score-0.45 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Congestion/Obstruction Symptom Severity Score-1.34 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Comparison: Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the worst-observation carried forward (WOCF) and multiple imputation (MI). The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.07, -0.71]ANCOVA
Primary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Polyp Score

NPS: sum of right, left nostril scores, evaluated by nasal endoscopy. For each nostril, NPS was graded based on polyp size from 0 = no polyps to 4 = large polyps causing complete obstruction of inferior nasal cavity; lower score = smaller-sized polyps. Total NPS: sum of right and left nostril scores; ranges from 0 (no polyps) to 8 (large polyps), higher score = more severe disease. NPS was assessed by centralized, blinded, independent review of the nasal endoscopy video recordings. LS means and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model described in Statistical Analysis Overview.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' = participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Polyp Score0.17 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.15
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Polyp Score-1.89 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
Comparison: Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-2.43, -1.69]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in 22-item Sino-nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) Scores

The SNOT-22 is a validated questionnaire that was used to assess the impact of chronic rhinosinusitis phenotype with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). It is a 22 item questionnaire with each item assigned a score ranging from 0 (no problem) to 5 (problem as bad as it can be). The total score may range from 0 (no disease) to 110 (worst disease), lower scores representing better health related quality of life. LS means and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model described in Statistical Analysis Overview.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' = participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in 22-item Sino-nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) Scores-9.31 score on a scaleStandard Error 1.62
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in 22-item Sino-nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) Scores-30.43 score on a scaleStandard Error 1.54
Comparison: Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-25.17, -17.06]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6) Scores for Participants With Asthma

ACQ-6 had 6 questions which assessed the most common asthma symptoms (woken by asthma, symptoms on waking, activity limitation, shortness of breath, wheezing, puffs/inhalations use). Participants were asked to recall how their asthma had been during the previous week and to respond to the symptom questions on a 7-point scale ranged from 0 = no impairment to 6 = maximum impairment. The ACQ-6 score was the mean of the scores of all 6 questions and therefore, ranged from 0 (totally controlled) to 6 (severely uncontrolled), with higher scores indicated lower asthma control. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, prior surgery, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: Analysis was performed on a subset of participants which included all randomized participants with asthma and had available data for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6) Scores for Participants With Asthma-0.24 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6) Scores for Participants With Asthma-1.00 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in European Quality of Life 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Visual Analog Scale Score

The EQ-5D was a standardized HRQoL questionnaire consisting of EQ-5D descriptive system and EQ VAS. EQ-5D descriptive system comprised of 5 dimensions: mobility, selfcare, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension had 5 levels: no problems, slight problems, moderate problems, severe problems, and extreme problems. EQ-VAS recorded the participant's self-rated health on a vertical VAS that allowed them to indicate their health state that can range from 0 (worst imaginable) to 100 (best imaginable).

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' = participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in European Quality of Life 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Visual Analog Scale Score1.74 score on a scaleStandard Error 1.54
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in European Quality of Life 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) Visual Analog Scale Score12.00 score on a scaleStandard Error 1.48
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 Second (FEV1) for Participants With Asthma

FEV1 was the volume of air exhaled in the first second of a forced expiration as measured by spirometer. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: Analysis was performed on a subset of participants which included all randomized participants with asthma.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 Second (FEV1) for Participants With Asthma-0.06 litersStandard Error 0.05
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 Second (FEV1) for Participants With Asthma0.15 litersStandard Error 0.05
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score: Subgroup of Participants With Asthma

NC symptom severity was assessed by the participants on a daily basis from Visit 1 and throughout the study using an e-diary on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms, with higher scores indicated more severity. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: Analysis was performed on a subset of participants, which included all randomized participants with asthma.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score: Subgroup of Participants With Asthma-0.36 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score: Subgroup of Participants With Asthma-1.48 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score: Subgroup of Participants With Prior Nasal Polyp Surgery

NC symptom severity was assessed by the participants on a daily basis from Visit 1 and throughout the study using an e-diary on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms, with higher scores indicated more severity. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: Analysis was performed on a subset of participants, which included all randomized participants with prior NP surgery history.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score: Subgroup of Participants With Prior Nasal Polyp Surgery-0.52 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score: Subgroup of Participants With Prior Nasal Polyp Surgery-1.41 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Peak Inspiratory Flow (NPIF)

NPIF evaluation represented a physiologic measure of the air flow through both nasal cavities during forced inspiration expressed in liters per minute. Higher NPIF values are indicative of better nasal air flow. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Peak Inspiratory Flow (NPIF)14.09 liters per minuteStandard Error 3.97
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Peak Inspiratory Flow (NPIF)54.50 liters per minuteStandard Error 3.73
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Polyp Score: Subgroup of Participants With Asthma

NPS was the sum of right and left nostril scores, as evaluated by means of nasal endoscopy. For each nostril, NPS was graded from 0 to 4 (0 = no polyps to 4 = large polyps causing complete obstruction of the inferior nasal cavity), with a lower score indicating smaller-sized polyps. Total NPS was the sum of right and left nostril scores and ranges from 0 (no polyp) to 8 (large polyp), with highest score representing more severe disease. NPS was assessed by centralized, blinded, independent review of the nasal endoscopy video recordings. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. LS mean and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: Analysis was performed on a subset of participants, which included all randomized participants with asthma and had available data for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Polyp Score: Subgroup of Participants With Asthma0.27 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.2
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Polyp Score: Subgroup of Participants With Asthma-1.89 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.2
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Polyp Score: Subgroup of Participants With Prior Nasal Polyp Surgery

NPS was the sum of right and left nostril scores, as evaluated by means of nasal endoscopy. For each nostril, NPS was graded from 0 to 4 (0 = no polyps to 4 = large polyps causing complete obstruction of the inferior nasal cavity), with a lower score indicating smaller-sized polyps. Total NPS was the sum of right and left nostril scores and ranges from 0 (no polyp) to 8 (large polyp), with highest score representing more severe disease. NPS was assessed by centralized, blinded, independent review of the nasal endoscopy video recordings. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. LS mean and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: Analysis was performed on a subset of participants, which included all randomized participants with prior NP surgery history and had available data for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Polyp Score: Subgroup of Participants With Prior Nasal Polyp Surgery0.14 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.18
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Nasal Polyp Score: Subgroup of Participants With Prior Nasal Polyp Surgery-1.86 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.18
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Opacification of Sinuses Measured by Lund-Mackay (LMK) Score

The LMK scoring system rated each of both the left and right frontal, maxillary, sphenoid, ostiomeatal complex, anterior ethmoid and posterior ethmoid sinuses using following grading: 0 = normal, 1 = partial opacification, 2 = total opacification. The total score was the sum of scores from each side and ranges from 0 (normal) to 24 (more opacified); higher score indicated more severe disease. LS means and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model described in Statistical Analysis Overview. NOTE: For Japan regulatory submission only, this endpoint is not included as a secondary outcome measure and is instead one of the co-primary outcome measures.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' = participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Opacification of Sinuses Measured by Lund-Mackay (LMK) Score-0.74 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.37
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Opacification of Sinuses Measured by Lund-Mackay (LMK) Score-8.18 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.34
Comparison: Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-8.35, -6.53]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Opacification of Sinuses Measured by Lund Mackay Score: Subgroup of Participants With Asthma

The LMK scoring system rated each of both the left and right frontal, maxillary, sphenoid, ostiomeatal complex, anterior ethmoid and posterior ethmoid sinuses using following grading: 0 = normal, 1 = partial opacification, 2 = total opacification. The total score was the sum of scores from each side and ranges from 0 (normal) to 24 (more opacified); higher score indicated more severe disease. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: Analysis was performed on a subset of participants, which included all randomized participants with asthma and had available data for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Opacification of Sinuses Measured by Lund Mackay Score: Subgroup of Participants With Asthma-0.15 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.47
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Opacification of Sinuses Measured by Lund Mackay Score: Subgroup of Participants With Asthma-7.97 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.47
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Opacification of Sinuses Measured by Lund Mackay Score: Subgroup of Participants With Prior Nasal Polyp Surgery

The LMK scoring system rated each of both the left and right frontal, maxillary, sphenoid, ostiomeatal complex, anterior ethmoid and posterior ethmoid sinuses using following grading: 0 = normal, 1 = partial opacification, 2 = total opacification. The total score was the sum of scores from each side and ranges from 0 (normal) to 24 (more opacified); higher score indicated more severe disease. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: Analysis was performed on a subset of participants, which included all randomized participants with prior NP surgery history and had available data for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Opacification of Sinuses Measured by Lund Mackay Score: Subgroup of Participants With Prior Nasal Polyp Surgery-0.39 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.42
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Opacification of Sinuses Measured by Lund Mackay Score: Subgroup of Participants With Prior Nasal Polyp Surgery-7.60 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.41
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score

Rhinorrhea was reported by the participants using a 0 to 3 categorical scale (where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms), where higher scores indicated more severe symptoms. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score-0.42 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score-1.04 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily

The severity of decreased/loss of sense of smell was reported by the participants using a 0 to 3 categorical scale (where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms), higher score indicated more severe symptoms. LS means and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model described in Statistical Analysis Overview.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily-0.29 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily-1.41 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Comparison: Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.31, -0.93]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) Score

The UPSIT was a 40-item test to measure the individual's ability to detect odors. Total score ranges from 0 (anosmia) to 40 (normal sense of smell), lower score indicated severe smell loss. LS means and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model described in Statistical Analysis Overview.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' = participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) Score0.70 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.71
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) Score11.26 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.67
Comparison: Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [8.79, 12.34]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Total Symptom Score (TSS)

The TSS was the sum of participant-assessed nasal symptom scores for nasal congestion/obstruction, decreased/loss of sense of smell, and rhinorrhea (anterior/posterior nasal discharge), each accessed on 0-3 categorical scale (where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms). Total score ranged from 0 (no symptoms) to 9 (severe symptoms). Higher score indicated more severe symptoms. LS means and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model described in Statistical Analysis Overview.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Total Symptom Score (TSS)-1.17 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.17
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Total Symptom Score (TSS)-3.77 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
Comparison: Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates. Statistical inference obtained from all imputed data was combined using Rubin's rule.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-3.04, -2.17]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 24 in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for Rhinosinusitis

The VAS for rhinosinusitis was used to evaluate the total disease severity. The participants were asked to indicate on a 10 centimeters (cm) VAS the answer to the question, How troublesome are your symptoms of your rhinosinusitis? The range of the VAS was from 0 (not troublesome) to 10 (worse thinkable troublesome), where higher score indicated worse thinkable troublesome. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 24

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' = participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for Rhinosinusitis-1.34 centimetersStandard Error 0.24
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 24 in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for Rhinosinusitis-4.54 centimetersStandard Error 0.23
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 48 in Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 Scores for Participants With Asthma (Assessment Performed 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)

ACQ-6 had 6 questions which assessed the most common asthma symptoms (woken by asthma, symptoms on waking, activity limitation, shortness of breath, wheezing, puffs/inhalations use). Participants were asked to recall how their asthma had been during the previous week and to respond to the symptom questions on a 7-point scale ranged from 0 = no impairment to 6 = maximum impairment. The ACQ-6 score was the mean of the scores of all 6 questions and therefore, ranged from 0 (totally controlled) to 6 (severely uncontrolled), with higher scores indicated lower asthma control. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with the corresponding baseline value, treatment group, prior surgery, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 48 (Post-baseline assessment performed 24 weeks after end of treatment)

Population: Analysis was performed on a subset of participants which included all randomized participants with asthma and had available data for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 48 in Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 Scores for Participants With Asthma (Assessment Performed 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)-0.09 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 48 in Asthma Control Questionnaire-6 Scores for Participants With Asthma (Assessment Performed 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)-0.55 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 48 in Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 Second for Participants With Asthma (Assessment Performed 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)

FEV1 was the volume of air exhaled in the first second of a forced expiration as measured by spirometer. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 48 (Post-baseline assessment performed 24 weeks after end of treatment)

Population: Analysis was performed on a subset of participants which included all randomized participants with asthma.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 48 in Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 Second for Participants With Asthma (Assessment Performed 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)-0.11 litersStandard Error 0.05
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 48 in Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 Second for Participants With Asthma (Assessment Performed 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)-0.05 litersStandard Error 0.05
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 48 in Opacification of Sinuses Measured by Lund-Mackay Score (Assessment Performed 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)

The LMK scoring system rated each of both the left and right frontal, maxillary, sphenoid, ostiomeatal complex, anterior ethmoid and posterior ethmoid sinuses using following grading: 0 = normal, 1 = partial opacification, 2 = total opacification. The total score was the sum of scores from each side and ranges from 0 (normal) to 24 (more opacified); higher score indicated more severe disease. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 48 (Post-baseline assessment performed 24 weeks after end of treatment)

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' = participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 48 in Opacification of Sinuses Measured by Lund-Mackay Score (Assessment Performed 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)-0.82 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.38
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 48 in Opacification of Sinuses Measured by Lund-Mackay Score (Assessment Performed 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)-2.62 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.36
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Week 48 in University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (Assessment Performed 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)

The UPSIT was a 40-item test to measure the individual's ability to detect odors. Total score ranges from 0 (anosmia) to 40 (normal sense of smell), lower score indicated severe smell loss. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 48 (Post-baseline assessment performed 24 weeks after end of treatment)

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' = participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Week 48 in University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (Assessment Performed 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)0.21 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.77
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Week 48 in University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (Assessment Performed 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)4.20 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.73
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)

NC symptom severity was assessed by the participants on a daily basis from Visit 1 and throughout the study using an e-diary on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms, with higher scores indicated more severity. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 28, Week 32, Week 36, Week 40, Week 44 and Week 48 (Post-baseline assessments performed 4-24 weeks after end of treatment)

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 28-0.48 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 32-0.50 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 36-0.53 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 40-0.51 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 44-0.49 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 48-0.52 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 44-0.77 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 28-1.36 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 40-0.83 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 32-1.33 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 48-0.77 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Nasal Congestion Symptom Severity Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 36-1.05 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)

Rhinorrhea was reported by the participants using a 0 to 3 categorical scale (where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms), where higher scores indicated more severe symptoms. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 28, Week 32, Week 36, Week 40, Week 44 and Week 48 (Post-baseline assessments performed 4-24 weeks after end of treatment)

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 32-0.43 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 40-0.44 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 28-0.42 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 44-0.41 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 36-0.44 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 48-0.45 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 48-0.58 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 28-1.04 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 32-0.97 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 36-0.80 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 40-0.63 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Rhinorrhea Daily Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 44-0.58 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)

The severity of decreased/loss of sense of smell was reported by the participants using a 0 to 3 categorical scale (where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms), higher score indicated more severe symptoms. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 28, Week 32, Week 36, Week 40, Week 44 and Week 48 (Post-baseline assessments performed 4-24 weeks after end of treatment)

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 28-0.28 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 32-0.31 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 36-0.33 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 40-0.30 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 44-0.28 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 48-0.30 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 44-0.74 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 28-1.45 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 40-0.83 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 32-1.36 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 48-0.71 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.06
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Severity of Decreased/Loss of Smell as Assessed by Participant Daily (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 36-1.07 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Total Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)

The TSS was the sum of participant-assessed nasal symptom scores for NC/obstruction, decreased/loss of sense of smell, and rhinorrhea (anterior/posterior nasal discharge), each accessed on 0-3 categorical scale (where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = mild symptoms, 2 = moderate symptoms and 3 = severe symptoms). Total score ranged from 0 (no symptoms) to 9 (severe symptoms). Higher score indicated more severe symptoms. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 28, Week 32, Week 36, Week 40, Week 44 and Week 48 (Post-baseline assessments performed 4-24 weeks after end of treatment)

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Total Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 28-1.18 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.17
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Total Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 32-1.25 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.17
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Total Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 36-1.31 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.18
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Total Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 40-1.27 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.18
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Total Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 44-1.20 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.18
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Total Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 48-1.28 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.19
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Total Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 44-2.09 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.17
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Total Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 28-3.84 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Total Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 40-2.28 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.17
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Total Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 32-3.64 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.17
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Total Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 48-2.05 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.18
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 in Total Symptom Score (Assessments Performed 4-24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 36-2.91 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.17
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in 22-item Sino-nasal Outcome Test Scores (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)

The SNOT-22 is a validated questionnaire that was used to assess the impact of CRSwNP on HRQoL. It is a 22 item questionnaire with each item assigned a score ranging from 0 (no problem) to 5 (problem as bad as it can be). The total score may range from 0 (no disease) to 110 (worst disease), lower scores representing better health related quality of life. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 36 and Week 48 (Post-baseline assessments performed 12 and 24 weeks after end of treatment)

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' = participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in 22-item Sino-nasal Outcome Test Scores (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 36-8.31 score on a scaleStandard Error 1.75
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in 22-item Sino-nasal Outcome Test Scores (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 48-8.36 score on a scaleStandard Error 1.88
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in 22-item Sino-nasal Outcome Test Scores (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 36-20.87 score on a scaleStandard Error 1.67
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in 22-item Sino-nasal Outcome Test Scores (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 48-17.66 score on a scaleStandard Error 1.8
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in Nasal Polyp Score (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)

NPS was the sum of right and left nostril scores, as evaluated by means of nasal endoscopy. For each nostril, NPS was graded based on polyp size from 0 to 4 (0 = no polyps to 4 = large polyps causing complete obstruction of the inferior nasal cavity), with a lower score indicating smaller-sized polyps. Total NPS was the sum of right and left nostril scores and ranges from 0 (no polyp) to 8 (large polyp), with highest score representing more severe disease. NPS was assessed by centralized, blinded, independent review of the nasal endoscopy video recordings. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. LS mean and SE were obtained from ANCOVA model.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 36, Week 48 (post-baseline assessments performed 12 and 24 weeks after end of treatment)

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' = participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in Nasal Polyp Score (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 36-0.06 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in Nasal Polyp Score (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 480.14 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in Nasal Polyp Score (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 36-0.99 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in Nasal Polyp Score (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 48-0.66 score on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
Secondary

Change From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in Visual Analog Scale for Rhinosinusitis (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)

The VAS for rhinosinusitis was used to evaluate the total disease severity. The participants were asked to indicate on a 10 cm VAS the answer to the question, How troublesome are your symptoms of your rhinosinusitis? The range of the VAS was from 0 (not troublesome) to 10 (worse thinkable troublesome), where higher score indicated worse thinkable troublesome. Data were analyzed using a hybrid method of the WOCF and MI. The imputed completed data were analyzed by fitting an ANCOVA model with corresponding baseline, treatment group, asthma/NSAID-ERD status, prior surgery history, and regions as covariates.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 36 and Week 48 (Post-baseline assessments performed 12 and 24 weeks after end of treatment)

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' = participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in Visual Analog Scale for Rhinosinusitis (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 36-1.36 centimetersStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboChange From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in Visual Analog Scale for Rhinosinusitis (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 48-1.17 centimetersStandard Error 0.25
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in Visual Analog Scale for Rhinosinusitis (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 36-3.02 centimetersStandard Error 0.25
Dupilumab 300 mgChange From Baseline at Weeks 36 and 48 in Visual Analog Scale for Rhinosinusitis (Assessments Performed 12 and 24 Weeks After End of Treatment)Week 48-2.42 centimetersStandard Error 0.24
Secondary

Functional Dupilumab Concentration in Serum

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 8, 16, 24, 36, End of study (Week 48)

Population: Analysis performed on pharmacokinetic population, which included participants who received atleast 1 dose of IMP with atleast 1 evaluable functional IMP concentration. Here, 'number analyzed'=number of participants with available data for each specified category. Data for this outcome measure was not planned to be collected and analyzed for placebo

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboFunctional Dupilumab Concentration in SerumBaseline0.00 nanogram/milliliterStandard Deviation 0
PlaceboFunctional Dupilumab Concentration in SerumWeek 431267.18 nanogram/milliliterStandard Deviation 13008.16
PlaceboFunctional Dupilumab Concentration in SerumWeek 848306.73 nanogram/milliliterStandard Deviation 20621.18
PlaceboFunctional Dupilumab Concentration in SerumWeek 1663958.12 nanogram/milliliterStandard Deviation 29822.3
PlaceboFunctional Dupilumab Concentration in SerumWeek 2469224.11 nanogram/milliliterStandard Deviation 36933.7
PlaceboFunctional Dupilumab Concentration in SerumWeek 36356.53 nanogram/milliliterStandard Deviation 1501.69
PlaceboFunctional Dupilumab Concentration in SerumWeek 4839.00 nanogram/milliliterStandard Deviation 0
Secondary

Mean Total Systemic Corticosteroids Rescue Dose Prescribed During Treatment Period

SCS included: Betamethasone, dexamethasone, dexamethasone sodium phosphate, hydrocortisone sodium succinate, methylprednisolone, prednisolone, prednisolone metasulfobenzoate sodium, prednisone, and triamcinolone. For every participant, total dose was calculated as (prescribed total daily dose\*duration of SCS use). Then, mean of the total dose of 25 participants (placebo group) and 9 participants (Dupilumab group) was derived.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 24

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' = participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboMean Total Systemic Corticosteroids Rescue Dose Prescribed During Treatment Period366.07 milligramsStandard Deviation 247.07
Dupilumab 300 mgMean Total Systemic Corticosteroids Rescue Dose Prescribed During Treatment Period686.65 milligramsStandard Deviation 1575.86
Secondary

Number of Participants With Treatment-emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) and TEAEs Leading to Treatment Discontinuation

An Adverse Event (AE) was defined as any untoward medical occurrence that did not necessarily have to have a causal relationship with the study treatment. TEAEs were defined as AEs that developed or worsened in grade or became serious during TEAE period which was defined as the period from the time of first dose of study drug until 98 days following the last administration of study drug. Serious adverse event (SAE) was defined as any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose: results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, is a congenital anomaly/birth defect, is a medically important event.

Time frame: Baseline up to 98 days following the last administration of study drug (up to 36 weeks)

Population: The analysis was performed on safety population which included all participants who received at least 1 dose or part of a dose of the Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP), analyzed according to the treatment actually received.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Treatment-emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) and TEAEs Leading to Treatment DiscontinuationAny TEAE93 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Treatment-emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) and TEAEs Leading to Treatment DiscontinuationAny treatment emergent SAE19 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Treatment-emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) and TEAEs Leading to Treatment DiscontinuationTEAE leading to treatment discontinuation3 Participants
Dupilumab 300 mgNumber of Participants With Treatment-emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) and TEAEs Leading to Treatment DiscontinuationAny TEAE93 Participants
Dupilumab 300 mgNumber of Participants With Treatment-emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) and TEAEs Leading to Treatment DiscontinuationAny treatment emergent SAE6 Participants
Dupilumab 300 mgNumber of Participants With Treatment-emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) and TEAEs Leading to Treatment DiscontinuationTEAE leading to treatment discontinuation5 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent And Treatment-Boosted Anti-drug Antibodies (ADA) Response

ADA response were categorized as: treatment emergent and treatment boosted response. 1) Treatment emergent was defined as a positive response in the ADA assay post first dose, when baseline results are negative or missing. 2) Treatment boosted was defined as: An ADA positive response in the assay post first dose that is greater-than or equal to 4-fold over baseline titer levels, when baseline results are positive.

Time frame: Baseline to End of study (Week 48)

Population: The analysis was performed on ADA population which included participants who received at least 1 dose of IMP with at least one non-missing ADA assay result following the first dose of the study medication.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent And Treatment-Boosted Anti-drug Antibodies (ADA) ResponseWith treatment-emergent ADA7 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent And Treatment-Boosted Anti-drug Antibodies (ADA) ResponseWith treatment-boosted ADA0 Participants
Dupilumab 300 mgNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent And Treatment-Boosted Anti-drug Antibodies (ADA) ResponseWith treatment-emergent ADA22 Participants
Dupilumab 300 mgNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent And Treatment-Boosted Anti-drug Antibodies (ADA) ResponseWith treatment-boosted ADA0 Participants
Secondary

Rescue Treatment Use: Estimate of Percentage of Participants With >=1 Event by Week 24 Obtained Using Kaplan-Meier Method

Rescue treatment was defined as usage of systemic corticosteroids (SCS) or NP surgery (actual or planned) during the treatment period. Rescue treatment included: * SCS: Betamethasone, dexamethasone, dexamethasone sodium phosphate, Hydrocortisone sodium succinate, methylprednisolone, prednisolone, prednisolone metasulfobenzoate sodium, prednisone, and triamcinolone. * Sino-nasal surgery for nasal polyps when there was worsening of signs and/or symptoms during the study. Estimate of percentage of participants with event by Week 24 was obtained using Kaplan-Meier method.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
PlaceboRescue Treatment Use: Estimate of Percentage of Participants With >=1 Event by Week 24 Obtained Using Kaplan-Meier MethodSCS treatment18.9 percentage of participants with event
PlaceboRescue Treatment Use: Estimate of Percentage of Participants With >=1 Event by Week 24 Obtained Using Kaplan-Meier MethodNP surgery7.5 percentage of participants with event
Dupilumab 300 mgRescue Treatment Use: Estimate of Percentage of Participants With >=1 Event by Week 24 Obtained Using Kaplan-Meier MethodSCS treatment6.5 percentage of participants with event
Dupilumab 300 mgRescue Treatment Use: Estimate of Percentage of Participants With >=1 Event by Week 24 Obtained Using Kaplan-Meier MethodNP surgery2.1 percentage of participants with event
Secondary

Rescue Treatment Use: Estimate of Percentage of Participants With >=1 Event by Week 48 Obtained Using Kaplan-Meier Method

Rescue treatment was defined as usage of SCS or NP surgery (actual or planned) during the study. Rescue treatment included: * SCS: Betamethasone, dexamethasone, dexamethasone sodium phosphate, Hydrocortisone sodium succinate, methylprednisolone, prednisolone, prednisolone metasulfobenzoate sodium, prednisone, and triamcinolone. * Sino-nasal surgery for nasal polyps when there was worsening of signs and/or symptoms during the study. Estimate of percentage of participants with event by Week 48 was obtained using Kaplan-Meier method.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 48

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
PlaceboRescue Treatment Use: Estimate of Percentage of Participants With >=1 Event by Week 48 Obtained Using Kaplan-Meier MethodSCS treatment28.8 percentage of participants with event
PlaceboRescue Treatment Use: Estimate of Percentage of Participants With >=1 Event by Week 48 Obtained Using Kaplan-Meier MethodNP surgery12.5 percentage of participants with event
Dupilumab 300 mgRescue Treatment Use: Estimate of Percentage of Participants With >=1 Event by Week 48 Obtained Using Kaplan-Meier MethodSCS treatment21.4 percentage of participants with event
Dupilumab 300 mgRescue Treatment Use: Estimate of Percentage of Participants With >=1 Event by Week 48 Obtained Using Kaplan-Meier MethodNP surgery6.3 percentage of participants with event
Secondary

Total Systemic Corticosteroids Rescue Intake Duration: Average Duration Per Participant

Rescue treatment was defined as usage of SCS or NP surgery (actual or planned) during the treatment period. SCS rescue intake duration was defined as the duration (in days) from start of SCS rescue medication till the end of SCS rescue treatment.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 24

Population: The analysis was performed on ITT population. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' = participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboTotal Systemic Corticosteroids Rescue Intake Duration: Average Duration Per Participant11.04 daysStandard Deviation 6.79
Dupilumab 300 mgTotal Systemic Corticosteroids Rescue Intake Duration: Average Duration Per Participant23.33 daysStandard Deviation 50.13

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 1, 2026