Could Dupilumab Improve Sleep Quality in CRSwNP Patients: Myth or Reality? A Systematic Review
Antonio Moffa, Eugenio De Corso, Domiziana Nardelli, Ahmed Yassin Bahgat, Antonella Loperfido, Iman Al Afifi, Ewa Olszewska, Peter M. Baptista, Jacopo Galli, Manuele CasaleBackground/Objectives: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a type 2 inflammatory condition that significantly impairs health-related quality of life (HRQoL), particularly sleep quality. Beyond mechanical nasal obstruction, type 2 cytokines (IL-4, IL-13) are thought to directly disrupt sleep architecture. Dupilumab, an IL-4Rα antagonist, is approved for severe CRSwNP, but its specific effect on sleep quality remains under investigation. This systematic review aims to evaluate the impact of dupilumab on sleep quality in patients with severe, uncontrolled CRSwNP. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Web of Science up to June 2026. We included adult studies (≥1 month of dupilumab 300 mg every 15 days) reporting sleep outcomes using validated tools (Epworth Sleepiness Scale [ESS], Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index [PSQI], Insomnia Severity Index [ISI], or the SNOT-22 sleep domain). Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools. Results: Seven studies (n = 2164 patients) met inclusion criteria. Across observational and post hoc RCT analyses, dupilumab consistently improved the SNOT-22 sleep domain (mean reduction up to −7.02 points at 24 weeks; p < 0.001), PSQI, ESS, and ISI scores. One study reported a decrease in poor global sleep quality from 88.9% at baseline to 5.7% at 12 months. However, most observational studies had a serious risk of bias due to unaddressed confounding and lack of blinding. No polysomnographic data were reported. Conclusions: Dupilumab was associated with significant improvements in patient-reported sleep quality in CRSwNP patients across seven included studies. However, the evidence is limited by the absence of objective sleep measures, the serious risk of bias in most observational studies, and the lack of comparative head-to-head data. High-quality randomized controlled trials with prespecified sleep endpoints and polysomnographic assessments are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn.