SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2024
Systematic literature review on early clinical evidence for immune-resolution therapies and potential benefits to patients and healthcare providers.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Several current therapies for autoimmune diseases do not provide sustained remission. Therapies that focus on the restoration of homeostasis within the immune system (i.e., immune resolution) could overcome the limitations of current therapies and provide more durable remission. However, there is no established consensus on appropriate clinical trial designs and endpoints to evaluate such therapies. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) focusing on five index diseases (asthma, atopic dermatitis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE], and ulcerative colitis) to explore published literature on 1) expert opinion on immune-resolution outcomes that should be measured in clinical trials; and 2) quantification of immune resolution in previous clinical trials. Methods: The SLR was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Embase and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched (2013-2023) for published English language articles. Conference proceedings (2020-2022) from American Academy of Dermatology, American College of Rheumatology, Digestive Disease Week, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology were searched to include relevant abstracts. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023406489). Results: The SLR included 26 publications on 20 trials and 12 expert opinions. Expert opinions generally lacked specific recommendations on the assessment of immune resolution in clinical trials and instead suggested targets or biomarkers for future therapies. The targets included thymic stromal lymphopoietin ( Discussion: Existing literature does not offer clear guidance on the evaluation of immune resolution in interventional studies. Further research and consensus are needed to assess a treatment's ability to induce long-term remission or low disease activity. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023406489, identifier CRD42023406489.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.