An expert consensus on managing dupilumab-related ocular surface disorders in people with atopic dermatitis 2024

• Published in: British journal of dermatology (1951)
• Main Authors: Ardern-Jones, Michael R, Brown, Sara J, Flohr, Carsten, Hossain, Parwez, Irvine, Alan D, Johnston, Graham A, Lane, Mark, Langan, Sinéad M, Laws, Philip, O'Driscoll, Daniel, O'Kane, Donal, Payne, Alice, Petrof, Gabriela, Pink, Andrew E, Rauz, Saaeha, Robbie, Scott, Gore, Sri K, Shah, Mili, Woolf, Richard T, Wang, Chenxi, Tumbeva, Stoyana, Mohd Mustapa, M Firouz
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 05.09.2024
• ISSN: 0007-0963; 1365-2133; 1365-2133
• DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljae344

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the most common inflammatory skin condition which affects all ages. New therapies, including the monoclonal antibody therapy dupilumab, offer excellent efficacy. However, in clinical trials, and emphasised in real-world observations, the unexpected increased frequency of ocular adverse effects became apparent. The effectiveness of dupilumab and the unpredictability of ocular adverse effects mean that clinicians need guidance on counselling patients prior to treatment and on managing them if they arise. The British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) and Royal College of Ophthalmologists collaborated on this consensus guidance on managing dupilumab-related ocular surface disorders (DROSD). A multidisciplinary group was formed of adult and paediatric dermatologists and ophthalmologists with DROSD expertise, patient representation, and BAD Clinical Standards Unit. A literature search was conducted, and the results reviewed. All recommendations were reviewed, discussed and voted on. The recommendations pertain to dermatology and ophthalmology management, and apply to all ages, unless otherwise stated. Importantly, initiation of dupilumab for AD should not be delayed for most eye disorders except acute new problems, e.g. infections, or potentially severe conditions, e.g. a history of corneal transplant (ophthalmology advice should be sought first). There is insufficient evidence to recommend lubricant drops prophylactically. Dermatologists should assess eye complaints to diagnose DROSD; a severity grading system is provided. DROSD management differs slightly in those aged <7 years as ocular complications may affect neuro-ocular development; therefore, irrespective of DROSD severity, this population should be referred for ophthalmology advice. In those aged ≥7 years, dermatologists should feel confident to trial treatment and reserve ophthalmology advice for severe or non-responding cases. Discussion about dupilumab withdrawal should be prompted by a significant impact on quality of life, threat to sight, or other complications. Although dupilumab is a highly effective agent for treating AD, the risk of ocular adverse effects should not inhibit clinicians or patients from using it, but clinicians should be aware of them. If a patient develops DROSD, there are clear pathways to assess severity and offer initial management; where ineffective, dermatologists should assess the urgency and seek advice from or initiate referral to ophthalmology. While the evidence reviewed for these guidelines reflects the extensive literature on dupilumab, we believe our advice has relevance for ocular surface disorders in atopic dermatitis (AD) patients treated with tralokinumab and lebrikizumab.