ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Med.
Sec. Precision Medicine
COMPARATIVE SAFETY PROFILES OF DUPILUMAB AND NEMOLIZUMAB IN PRURIGO NODULARIS: AN INDIRECT META-ANALYSIS TO INFORM CLINICAL DECISION-MAKING
Provisionally accepted
- 1Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China
- 2The Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: Prurigo nodularis (PN), a chronic inflammatory skin disease with significant disease burden, lacks effective therapies. Dupilumab (IL-4Rα inhibitor) and nemolizumab (IL-31 receptor antagonist) show efficacy in trials but have heterogeneous safety data without direct comparisons. Objective: To indirectly compare safety profiles of dupilumab and nemolizumab in PN, addressing trial design heterogeneity (efficacy endpoints, treatment durations, safety reporting). Method: Following PRISMA guidelines, five RCTs (dupilumab: 2 trials; nemolizumab: 3 trials) were analyzed. Safety outcomes (adverse events [AEs], serious AEs [SAEs], treatment discontinuation, mechanism-specific events) were standardized via time-proportional hazard models. Risk ratios (RR) and absolute risk differences (ARD) were calculated using Cochrane tools and indirect comparison frameworks. Result: In standardized indirect comparisons, dupilumab and nemolizumab showed broadly similar safety profiles for overall adverse events (indirect RR=1.11, 95% CI:0.85–1.47; moderate certainty), serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation. Exploratory analyses of mechanism-specific events revealed non-significant directional differences requiring cautious interpretation: dupilumab showed a numerically higher incidence of conjunctivitis (RR=2.01, 95% CI:0.29–13.77) with confidence intervals spanning two orders of magnitude, while nemolizumab showed a similar pattern for edema (RR=1.64, 95% CI:0.52–5.18). These signals, derived from sparse event data (n≤15 cases) and overlapping confidence intervals across all comparisons, should be regarded as hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory evidence. Limitations inherent to indirect methodology – including trial design heterogeneity (endpoint definitions: IGA PN-S vs. PP-NRS; duration:12–24 weeks) and absence of severity-stratified reporting – preclude definitive safety conclusions. All comparisons must be interpreted within the constraint of unmeasured confounding factors potentially influencing indirect estimates.
Keywords: prurigo nodularis, Dupilumab, Nemolizumab, Safety, Meta-analysis
Received: 16 May 2025; Accepted: 28 Oct 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Feng, wang, Tan and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Xiaojie Zhang, 15662410165@163.com
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.