Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Sep;39(9):1576-1587.
doi: 10.1111/jdv.20670. Epub 2025 Apr 2.

Dupilumab shows no elevated risk for maternal adverse pregnancy outcomes: A propensity-matched cohort study

Affiliations

Dupilumab shows no elevated risk for maternal adverse pregnancy outcomes: A propensity-matched cohort study

Sophie L Preuß et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2025 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Type 2 chronic inflammatory diseases (T2IDs) are highly prevalent among women of reproductive age. Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody, is increasingly used to treat T2IDs. While dupilumab is not approved during pregnancy, smaller studies suggest no increased risk of pregnancy complications (adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs)). Additional data are required to better assess the drug's safety during pregnancy.

Objectives: To retrospectively assess the risk of APOs in dupilumab-treated pregnant women in a large real-world database.

Methods: Pregnant women with T2ID and dupilumab treatment during pregnancy were retrieved from the US Collaborative Network of TriNetX. Pregnant women with T2ID and without dupilumab treatment served as controls. Propensity score matching (PSM) for demographics, diagnoses, medications and putative APO risk factors was employed. Outcomes analysed included various maternal pregnancy complications, including premature obstetric labour, pregnancy-induced hypertension, gestational diabetes, puerperal infections and spontaneous abortion. Survival analyses were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, outcome differences the log-rank test and hazard ratios (HR) the Cox regression model.

Results: During pregnancy, 293 women were exposed to dupilumab. Following PSM, no increased risks for APOs were noted. Of note, reduced risks for premature obstetric labour (HR: 0.11, confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.45, p = 0.0002) and 'any APO' (HR: 0.53, CI: 0.33-0.84, p = 0.0067) in the dupilumab-treated group were found. Furthermore, no difference in risks for any APO was noted between dupilumab-treated and untreated women up to 6 months before pregnancy or during the postpartum period.

Conclusions: This large-scale propensity-matched retrospective cohort study suggests a favourable safety profile of dupilumab during pregnancy. Given the difficulties of prospective studies during pregnancy, it provides valuable insights, though further studies are needed to confirm these findings and explore causal relationships.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that this study was designed and conducted in the absence of any financial or commercial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. SP received support for travel from TriNetX unrelated to the current work. HZ received support for meeting attendance and/or travel from Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Almirall, Janssen and TriNetX unrelated to the current work.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Graphical representation of the study design structure.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
(a) Risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) in patients with dupilumab treatment during pregnancy and controls. Points indicate hazard ratios (HR), error bars correspond to the confidence interval (CI). Patients with the outcome prior to the index event were excluded, resulting in different group sizes for each outcome. *To protect patient privacy, numbers are rounded up to 10. (b) Nelson Aalen Plot contrasting the risk of ‘any APO’ in patients with dupilumab treatment during pregnancy and controls. Outcomes up to 270 days after the index event (pregnancy with or without dupilumab treatment) are shown. Data are based on 293 electronic health records (EHRs) for cases and propensity‐matched controls. (c) Nelson Aalen Plot contrasting the risk of preterm labour in patients with dupilumab treatment during pregnancy and controls. Outcomes up to 270 days after the index event (pregnancy with or without dupilumab treatment) are shown. Data are based on 293 EHRs for cases and propensity‐matched controls.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) in patients with dupilumab treatment and T2ID compared to controls without dupilumab treatment and without T2ID. Points indicate hazard ratios (HR), error bars correspond to the confidence interval (CI). Patients with the outcome prior to the index event were excluded. Data are based on 283 electronic health records (EHRs) for cases and propensity‐matched controls. *To protect patient privacy, numbers are rounded up to 10.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) in patients with T2IDs compared to controls without any T2ID. Points indicate hazard ratios (HR), error bars correspond to the confidence interval (CI). Patients with the outcome prior to the index event were excluded.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) in patients with dupilumab treatment 6 months to 1 day before pregnancy and controls. Points indicate hazard ratios (HR), error bars correspond to the confidence interval (CI). Patients with the outcome prior to the index event were excluded. Data are based on 243 electronic health records (EHRs) for cases and propensity‐matched controls. *To protect patient privacy, numbers are rounded up to 10.
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs) in patients with dupilumab treatment during pregnancy or postpartum and controls. Points indicate hazard ratios (HR), error bars correspond to the confidence interval (CI). Patients with the outcome prior to the index event were excluded. Data are based on 300 electronic health records (EHRs) for cases and propensity‐matched controls. *To protect patient privacy, numbers are rounded up to 10.

References

    1. Dierick BJH, van der Molen T, Flokstra‐de Blok BMJ, Muraro A, Postma MJ, Kocks JWH, et al. Burden and socioeconomics of asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis and food allergy. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2020;20(5):437–453. - PubMed
    1. Richard MA, Paul C, Nijsten T, Gisondi P, Salavastru C, Taieb C, et al. Prevalence of most common skin diseases in Europe: a population‐based study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2022;36(7):1088–1096. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Harrop J, Chinn S, Verlato G, Olivieri M, Norbäck D, Wjst M, et al. Eczema, atopy and allergen exposure in adults: a population‐based study. Clin Exp Allergy. 2007;37(4):526–535. - PubMed
    1. Balakirski G, Novak N. Atopic dermatitis and pregnancy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022;149(4):1185–1194. - PubMed
    1. Flores KF, Bandoli G, Chambers CD, Schatz M, Palmsten K. Asthma prevalence among women aged 18 to 44 in the United States: national health and nutrition examination survey 2001‐2016. J Asthma. 2020;57(7):693–702. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances