ReviewThe Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology2025
Investigating Efficacy of Atopic Dermatitis Systemic Therapeutics After Discontinuation Part I: Biologics.
Review in The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The authors sought to review published literature on the efficacy of biologics as monotherapy for atopic dermatitis (AD) following discontinuation. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE was conducted examining drug withdrawal in AD clinical trials where participants were treated with biologics. Trials were included if they exclusively involved participants with AD that reported the maintenance or achievement of Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-75 and Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) scores of 0 or 1 after withdrawal of biologic therapy. Clinical trials involving multidrug regimens, including those investigating concomitant topical therapeutics, were excluded from our analysis. Results: Five clinical trial programs met our inclusion criteria, each investigating a different biologic: dupilumab, tralokinumab, lebrikizumab, amlitelimab, and rocatinlimab. Limitations: Limitations to this review include a small number of trials that met the inclusion criteria, variations in study design that hinder direct comparisons, and the absence of long-term follow up data. Conclusion: The variability in eligibility criteria, treatment durations, and withdrawal periods across trials presents a major challenge in assessing biologics for AD, complicating the comparison of their sustained responses in the absence of head-to-head studies. This heterogeneity, combined with factors such as disease duration and prior use of systemic medications before trial enrollment, hampers the identification of key pathways in AD pathogenesis and impedes efforts to better understand and characterize the disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40078859PMC11896617What 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.