ReviewClinical drug investigation2020
Revisiting Therapies for Atopic Dermatitis that Failed Clinical Trials.
Review in Clinical drug investigation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translational characterization of a house dust mite-induced murine model of dermatitis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Atopic dermatitis: an expanding therapeutic pipeline for a complex disease.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2022Review
- Type 2 immunity-driven diseases: Towards a multidisciplinary approach.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2021Review
- Experimental Drugs with the Potential to Treat Atopic Eczema.Journal of experimental pharmacology · 2021Review
- Th2 Modulation of Transient Receptor Potential Channels: An Unmet Therapeutic Intervention for Atopic Dermatitis.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple pathways contribute to the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis (AD), and various targeted topical, biologic, and oral systemic agents have subsequently been developed. This review examines the mechanism of action and study designs of agents that have failed trials for AD to identify lessons that may shed light on reasons for their failure. Clinicaltrials.gov was searched for completed, placebo-controlled phase II and III studies assessing agents for AD that did not meet the primary endpoint, specifically reduction of AD severity. PubMed was then searched for further data on the agents identified with known mechanism of actions. Only phase II trials met inclusion criteria. Analyses of the mechanisms of action, study design, and patient demographics of the failed clinical trials for the following agents are presented: apremilast and roflumilast (PDE-4 inhibitors), fevipiprant and temapiprant (CRTH2 inhibitors), and tezepelumab and ustekinumab (monoclonal antibodies). Agents that did not meet their trial endpoints for AD may still hold therapeutic value in certain subpopulation groups or other diseases. Validating phase II trials based off subgroup analyses from previous trials may be warranted as our understanding of the pathophysiology of AD continues to grow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32172523What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.