Dermatitis, AtopicPhase 3SOLO 1NCT02277743
Study of Dupilumab Monotherapy Administered to Adult Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis
A Phase 3 study testing Dupilumab in people with Dermatitis, Atopic, run by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at 101 sites in 10 countries.
Trial summary
This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study to confirm the efficacy and safety of Dupilumab monotherapy in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Dermatitis, Atopic
- What is being tested?
- Dupilumab
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 671 participants
- Where
- 101 sitesin 10 countries
- Study dates
- Oct 2014to Feb 2016
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Male or female, 18 years or older
- Chronic AD (according to American Academy of Dermatology Consensus Criteria Eichenfield 2014) that has been present for at least 3 years before the screening visit;
- Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) Score ≥16 at the screening and baseline visits;
- Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Score ≥3 (on the 0 to 4 IGA scale, in which 3 is moderate and 4 is severe) at the screening and baseline visits;
- ≥10% body surface area (BSA) of AD involvement at the screening and baseline visits;
- Documented recent history (within 6 months before the screening visit) of inadequate response to treatment with topical medications or for whom topical treatments are otherwise medically inadvisable (e.g, because of important side effects or safety risks).
Who cannot join
- Participation in a prior Dupilumab clinical study;
- Treatment with an investigational drug within 8 weeks or within 5 half-lives (if known), whichever was longer, before the baseline visit;
- Having used any of the following treatments within 4 weeks before the baseline visit, or any condition that, in the opinion of the investigator, was likely to require such treatment(s) during the first 4 weeks of study treatment:
- Immunosuppressive/ immunomodulating drugs (e.g, systemic corticosteroids, cyclosporine, mycophenolate-mofetil, IFN-γ, Janus kinase inhibitors, azathioprine, methotrexate, etc.);
- Phototherapy for AD
- Treatment with topical corticosteroids (TCS) or topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) within 1 week before the baseline visit;
Show all 20Show fewer
- Treatment with biologics as follows:
- Any cell-depleting agents including but not limited to rituximab: within 6 months before the baseline visit, or until lymphocyte count returns to normal, whichever was longer
- Other biologics: within 5 half-lives (if known) or 16 weeks prior to baseline visit, whichever was longer
- Regular use (more than 2 visits per week) of a tanning booth/ parlor within 4 weeks of the screening visit;
- Planned or anticipated use of any prohibited medications and procedures during study treatment;
- Treatment with a live (attenuated) vaccine within 12 weeks before the baseline visit;
- Active chronic or acute infection requiring treatment with systemic antibiotics, antivirals, antiparasitics, antiprotozoals, or antifungals within 2 weeks before the baseline visit, or superficial skin infections within 1 week before the baseline visit. NOTE: Participants might be rescreened after infection resolves;
- Known or suspected history of immunosuppression, including history of invasive opportunistic infections (e.g, tuberculosis [TB], histoplasmosis, listeriosis, coccidioidomycosis, pneumocystosis, aspergillosis) despite infection resolution: or unusually frequent, recurrent, or prolonged infections, per investigator judgment;
- History of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or positive HIV serology at screening;
- Positive with hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) or hepatitis C antibody at the screening visit;
- Participant was a member of the investigational team or his/her immediate family;
- Pregnant or breastfeeding women, or women planning to become pregnant or breastfeed during the study;
- Women unwilling to use adequate birth control, if of reproductive potential and sexually active.
- Note: The information listed above is not intended to contain all considerations relevant to a participant's potential participation in this clinical trial therefore not all inclusion/ exclusion criteria are listed.
Trial locations and contacts
101 sites in 10 countries.
101 sites in 10 countries
United States45 sites
Study site
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Study site
Birmingham, Alabama
Study site
Boca Raton, Florida
Study site
Boston, Massachusetts
Study site
Buffalo, New York
Study site
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Study site
Chicago, Illinois
Study site
Clearwater, Florida
Study site
Clovis, California
Study site
Corning, New York
Study site
East Windsor, New Jersey
Study site
Evansville, Indiana
Study site
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Study site
Fort Smith, Arkansas
Study site
High Point, North Carolina
Study site
Indianapolis, Indiana
Study site
Knoxville, Tennessee
Study site
Lomita, California
Study site
Los Angeles, California
Study site
Louisville, Kentucky
Study site
Miami, Florida
Study site
Miami Lakes, Florida
Study site
New Hyde Park, New York
Study site
Newington, New Hampshire
Study site
Newnan, Georgia
Study site
Newport News, Virginia
Study site
Norfolk, Virginia
Study site
Normal, Illinois
Study site
Oceanside, California
Study site
Ogden, Utah
Study site
Palmdale, California
Study site
Pensacola, Florida
Study site
Rochester, New York
Study site
Rogers, Arkansas
Study site
Rolling Hills Estates, California
Study site
San Antonio, Texas
Study site
San Diego, California
Study site
Santa Monica, California
Study site
Spokane, Washington
Study site
St Louis, Missouri
Study site
Stockton, California
Study site
Tampa, Florida
Study site
Troy, Michigan
Study site
Upland, Pennsylvania
Study site
Waco, Texas
Japan19 sites
Study site
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo
Study site
Chuo-ku, Tokyo
Study site
Fukuyama, Hiroshima
Study site
Gifu
Study site
Habikino, Osaka
Study site
Hamamatsu, Shizuoka
Study site
Hiroshima
Study site
Inashiki, Ibaraki
Study site
Kofu, Yamanashi
Study site
Kurume, Fukuoka
Study site
Kyoto
Study site
Nerima-ku, Tokyo
Study site
Neyagawa, Osaka
Study site
Osaka
Study site
Sakai, Osaka
Study site
Shinagawa, Tokyo
Study site
Shinjuku, Tokyo
Study site
Takatsuki, Osaka
Study site
Yokohama, Kanagawa
Germany12 sites
Study site
Berlin
Study site
Bielefed
Study site
Blaubeuren Abbey
Study site
Erlangen
Study site
Halle
Study site
Hamburg
Study site
Hanover
Study site
München
Study site
Münster
Study site
Osnabrück
Study site
Schwerin
Study site
Stuttgart
Canada8 sites
Study site
Bathurst, New Brunswick
Study site
Hamilton, Ontario
Study site
Mississauga, Ontario
Study site
Newmarket, Ontario
Study site
Ottawa, Ontario
Study site
Richmond Hill, Ontario
Study site
Toronto, Ontario
Study site
Winnepeg, Manitoba
Spain6 sites
Study site
Alcañiz
Study site
Alicante
Study site
Barcelona
Study site
Madrid
Study site
Seville
Study site
Valencia
About this study
Official title: A Phase 3 Confirmatory Study Investigating the Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab Monotherapy Administered to Adult Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis
This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study to confirm the efficacy and safety of Dupilumab monotherapy in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).
- Conditions
- Dermatitis, Atopic
- Being tested
- Dupilumab, Placebo (for Dupilumab)
- Medical subject headings
- Dermatitis, Atopic
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
DupilumabDrug
Also called REGN668, SAR231893, DUPIXENT®
Subcutaneous injection alternated among the different quadrants of the abdomen, upper thighs and upper arms
Placebo (for Dupilumab)Drug
Subcutaneous injection alternated among the different quadrants of the abdomen, upper thighs and upper arms
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Experimental | Two subcutaneous injections of Placebo (for Dupilumab) as a loading dose on Day 1 followed by a single injection once weekly (qw) from Week 1 to Week 15. Receives: Drug: Placebo (for Dupilumab) |
| Dupilumab 300 mg once weekly (qw) | Experimental | Two subcutaneous injections of Dupilumab 300 mg (for a total of 600 mg) as a loading dose on Day 1, followed by a single 300 mg injection of Dupilumab qw from Week 1 to Week 15. Receives: Drug: Dupilumab |
| Dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) | Experimental | Two subcutaneous injections of Dupilumab 300 mg (for a total of 600 mg) as a loading dose on Day 1, followed by a placebo alternating with single 300 mg injection of Dupilumab qw from Week 1 to Week 15. Receives: Drug: Dupilumab; Drug: Placebo (for Dupilumab) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Percentage of Participants With Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Score of "0" or "1" and Reduction From Baseline of ≥2 Points at Week 16
IGA is an assessment scale used to determine severity of AD and clinical response to treatment on a 5-point scale (0 = clear; 1 = almost clear; 2 = mild; 3 = moderate; 4 = severe) based on erythema and papulation/infiltration. Therapeutic response is an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear). Participants with IGA score of "0" or "1" and a reduction from baseline of ≥2 points at Week 16 were reported. Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.
Measured: Week 16
Secondary outcomes (20)
Percentage of Participants With Eczema Area and Severity Index-75 (EASI-75) (≥75% Improvement From Baseline) at Week 16
The EASI score was used to measure the severity and extent of AD and measured erythema, infiltration, excoriation and lichenification on 4 anatomic regions of the body: head, trunk, upper and lower extremities. The total EASI score ranges from 0 (minimum) to 72 (maximum) points, with the higher scores reflecting the worse severity of AD. EASI-75 responders were the participants who achieved ≥75% overall improvement in EASI score from baseline to Week 16. Values after first rescue treatment use were set to missing and participants with missing EASI score at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.
Measured: Week 16
Percentage of Participants With Improvement (Reduction ≥4 Points) of Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score From Baseline to Week 16
Pruritus NRS was an assessment tool that was used to report the intensity of a participant's pruritus (itch), both maximum and average intensity, during a 24-hour recall period. Participants were asked the following question: how would a participant rate his itch at the worst moment during the previous 24 hours (for maximum itch intensity on a scale of 0 - 10 [0 = no itch; 10 = worst itch imaginable]). Participants achieving a reduction of ≥4 points from baseline in weekly average of peak daily pruritus NRS score at Week 16 were reported. Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.
Measured: Baseline to Week 16
Percentage of Participants With Improvement (Reduction ≥3 Points) of Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score From Baseline to Week 16
Pruritus NRS was an assessment tool that was used to report the intensity of a participant's pruritus (itch), both maximum and average intensity, during a 24-hour recall period. Participants were asked the following question: how would a participant rate his itch at the worst moment during the previous 24 hours (for maximum itch intensity on a scale of 0 - 10 [0 = no itch; 10 = worst itch imaginable]). Participants achieving a reduction of ≥3 points from baseline in weekly average of peak daily pruritus NRS score at Week 16 were reported. Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.
Measured: Baseline to Week 16
Percent Change From Baseline in Peak Daily Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score to Week 16
Pruritus NRS was an assessment tool that was used to report the intensity of a participant's pruritus (itch), both maximum and average intensity, during a 24-hour recall period. Participants were asked the following question: how would a participant rate his itch at the worst moment during the previous 24 hours (for maximum itch intensity on a scale of 0 - 10 [0 = no itch; 10 = worst itch imaginable]).
Measured: Baseline to Week 16
Percentage of Participants With Improvement (Reduction ≥4 Points) of Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score From Baseline to Week 4
Pruritus NRS was an assessment tool that was used to report the intensity of a participant's pruritus (itch), both maximum and average intensity, during a 24-hour recall period. Participants were asked the following question: how would a participant rate his itch at the worst moment during the previous 24 hours (for maximum itch intensity on a scale of 0 - 10 [0 = no itch; 10 = worst itch imaginable]). Participants achieving a reduction of ≥4 points from baseline in weekly average of peak daily pruritus NRS score at Week 4 were reported. Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and subjects with missing peak NRS at Week 4 were considered as non-responders.
Measured: Baseline to Week 4
Percentage of Participants With Improvement (Reduction ≥4 Points) of Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score From Baseline to Week 2
Pruritus NRS was an assessment tool that was used to report the intensity of a participant's pruritus (itch), both maximum and average intensity, during a 24-hour recall period. Participants were asked the following question: how would a participant rate his itch at the worst moment during the previous 24 hours (for maximum itch intensity on a scale of 0 - 10 [0 = no itch; 10 = worst itch imaginable]). Participants achieving a reduction of ≥4 points from baseline in weekly average of peak daily pruritus NRS score at Week 2 were reported. Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing peak NRS at Week 2 were considered as non-responders.
Measured: Baseline to Week 2
Change From Baseline in Peak Daily Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score to Week 16
Pruritus NRS was an assessment tool that was used to report the intensity of a participant's pruritus (itch), both maximum and average intensity, during a 24-hour recall period. Participants were asked the following question: how would a participant rate his itch at the worst moment during the previous 24 hours (for maximum itch intensity on a scale of 0 - 10 [0 = no itch; 10 = worst itch imaginable]).
Measured: Baseline to Week 16
Percent Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) Score to Week 16
The EASI score was used to measure the severity and extent of AD and measured erythema, infiltration, excoriation and lichenification on 4 anatomic regions of the body: head, trunk, upper and lower extremities. The total EASI score ranges from 0 (minimum) to 72 (maximum) points, with the higher scores reflecting the worse severity of AD.
Measured: Baseline to Week 16
Percentage of Participants With Eczema Area and Severity Index-50 (EASI-50) (≥50% Improvement From Baseline) at Week 16
The EASI score was used to measure the severity and extent of AD and measured erythema, infiltration, excoriation and lichenification on 4 anatomic regions of the body: head, trunk, upper and lower extremities. The total EASI score ranges from 0 (minimum) to 72 (maximum) points, with the higher scores reflecting the worse severity of AD. EASI-50 responders were the participants who achieved ≥50% overall improvement in EASI score from baseline to Week 16. Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing EASI-50 scores at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.
Measured: Week 16
Percentage of Participants With Eczema Area and Severity Index-90 (EASI-90) (≥90% Improvement From Baseline) at Week 16
The EASI score was used to measure the severity and extent of AD and measured erythema, infiltration, excoriation and lichenification on 4 anatomic regions of the body: head, trunk, upper and lower extremities. The total EASI score ranges from 0 (minimum) to 72 (maximum) points, with the higher scores reflecting the worse severity of AD. EASI-90 responders were the participants who achieved ≥90% overall improvement in EASI score from baseline to Week 16. Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing EASI-90 scores at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.
Measured: Week 16
Change From Baseline in Percent Body Surface Area (BSA) to Week 16
BSA affected by AD was assessed for each section of the body (the possible highest score for each region was: head and neck [9%], anterior trunk [18%], back [18%], upper limbs [18%], lower limbs [36%], and genitals [1%]). It was reported as a percentage of all major body sections combined.
Measured: Baseline to Week 16
Percent Change From Baseline in the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Score to Week 16
SCORAD is a clinical tool for assessing the severity of AD developed by the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis (Severity scoring of atopic dermatitis: the SCORAD index). Consensus Report of the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis. Dermatology (Basel) 186 (1): 23-31. 1993. Extent and intensity of eczema as well as subjective signs (insomnia, etc.) are assessed and scored. Total score ranges from 0 (absent disease) to 103 (severe disease).
Measured: Baseline to Week 16
Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) to Week 16
The DLQI is a 10-item, validated questionnaire used in clinical practice and clinical trials to assess the impact of AD disease symptoms and treatment on quality of life (QOL). The 10 questions assessed QOL over the past week, with an overall scoring of 0 (absent disease) to 30 (severe disease); a high score was indicative of a poor QOL.
Measured: Baseline to Week 16
Change From Baseline in Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) to Week 16
The POEM is a 7-item questionnaire that assesses disease symptoms (dryness, itching, flaking, cracking, sleep loss, bleeding and weeping) with a scoring system of 0 (absent disease) to 28 (severe disease) (high score indicative of poor quality of life [QOL]).
Measured: Baseline to Week 16
Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) to Week 16
HADS is a fourteen item scale. Seven of the items relate to anxiety and seven items relate to depression. Each item on the questionnaire is scored from 0 (minimum score) - 3 (maximum score) and this means that a person can score between 0 (no symptoms) and 21 (severe symptoms) for either anxiety or depression. Cut-offs for identifying psychiatric distress has been reported as 7 to 8 for possible presence, 10 to 11 for probable presence, and 14 to 15 for severe anxiety or depression.
Measured: Baseline to Week 16
Percent Change From Baseline in Global Individual Signs Score (GISS) to Week 16
Individual components of the AD lesions (erythema, infiltration/ papulation, excoriations, and lichenification) were rated globally (each assessed for the whole body, not by anatomical region) on a 4-point scale (0= none, 1= mild, 2= moderate and 3= severe) using the EASI severity grading criteria. Total score ranges from 0 (absent disease) to 12 (severe disease).
Measured: Baseline to Week 16
Percent Change From Baseline in Peak Daily Pruritus NRS Score to Week 2
Pruritus NRS was an assessment tool that was used to report the intensity of a participant's pruritus (itch), both maximum and average intensity, during a 24-hour recall period. Participants were asked the following question: how would a participant rate his itch at the worst moment during the previous 24 hours (for maximum itch intensity on a scale of 0 - 10 [0 = no itch; 10 = worst itch imaginable]).
Measured: Baseline to Week 2
Percentage of Participants With Skin Infection Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) Requiring Systemic Treatment
Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were defined as AEs that developed or worsened or became serious during on-treatment period (time from the first dose of study drug up to the end of study [Week 28]). A serious adverse event (SAE) was defined as any untoward medical occurrence that resulted in any of the following outcomes: death, life-threatening, required initial or prolonged in-patient hospitalization, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly/birth defect, or considered as medically important event. Any TEAE included participants with both serious and non-serious AEs. Statistical significance in the hierarchical testing of secondary hypotheses was broken at this endpoint. Therefore, subsequent secondary efficacy endpoints were not tested for statistical significance.
Measured: Baseline up to Week 16
Percentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Serious Adverse Events (TESAEs) From Baseline Through Week 16
Any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received investigational medicinal product (IMP) was considered an AE without regard to possibility of causal relationship with this treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were defined as AEs that developed or worsened or became serious during on-treatment period (time from the first dose of study drug up to the end of study [Week 28]). A serious adverse event (SAE) was defined as any untoward medical occurrence that resulted in any of the following outcomes: death, life-threatening, required initial or prolonged in-patient hospitalization, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly/birth defect, or considered as medically important event. Any TEAE included participants with both serious and non-serious AEs.
Measured: Baseline up to Week 16
Percentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) Leading to Treatment Discontinuation From Baseline Through Week 16
Any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received investigational medicinal product (IMP) was considered an AE without regard to possibility of causal relationship with this treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were defined as AEs that developed or worsened or became serious during on-treatment period (time from the first dose of study drug up to the end of study [Week 28]). A serious adverse event (SAE) was defined as any untoward medical occurrence that resulted in any of the following outcomes: death, life-threatening, required initial or prolonged in-patient hospitalization, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly/birth defect, or considered as medically important event. Any TEAE included participants with both serious and non-serious AEs.
Measured: Baseline up to Week 16
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted29 Oct 2014 (estimated)
- Study startOct 2014
- Primary completionNov 2015
- Study completionFeb 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (19)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Dermatitis, AtopicStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Regeneron PharmaceuticalsThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 671 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
- Sponsor type
- Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Collaborators
- Sanofi
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Clinical Trial Management, Study director, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02277743
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- R668-AD-1334
- Acronym
- SOLO 1
- Status last verified
- Nov 2017
- First submitted
- 27 Oct 2014
- Last updated
- 21 Nov 2017
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- Yes
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Simpson EL, Bieber T, Guttman-Yassky E, Beck LA, Blauvelt A, Cork MJ, Silverberg JI, Deleuran M, Kataoka Y, Lacour JP, Kingo K, Worm M, Poulin Y, Wollenberg A, Soo Y, Graham NM, Pirozzi G, Akinlade B, Staudinger H, Mastey V, Eckert L, Gadkari A, Stahl N, Yancopoulos GD, Ardeleanu M; SOLO 1 and SOLO 2 Investigators. Two Phase 3 Trials of Dupilumab versus Placebo in Atopic Dermatitis. N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 15;375(24):2335-2348. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610020. Epub 2016 Sep 30.
PubMed 27690741Shin E, Bhat AG, Ramanathan M. Large Language Models for Clinical Trial Protocol Assessments. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2026 Feb;119(2):393-402. doi: 10.1002/cpt.70096. Epub 2025 Oct 21.
PubMed 41121745Langley RG, Gherardi G, Coleman A, Ardeleanu M, Rodriguez-Marco A, Levy S, Bansal A, Chen Z, Rossi AB, Shumel B, Khokhar FA. The Safety Data of Dupilumab for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Infants, Children, Adolescents, and Adults. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2025 Nov;26(6):981-1002. doi: 10.1007/s40257-025-00952-w. Epub 2025 Sep 24.
PubMed 40993471Kamal MA, Kosloski MP, Lai CH, Partridge MA, Rajadhyaksha M, Kanamaluru V, Bansal A, Shabbir A, Shumel B, Ardeleanu M, Richards SM, Yan H, Xu CR, Rodriguez-Marco A, Xiao J, Khokhar FA, Gherardi G, Babilonia E, Maloney J, Mortensen E, Akinlade B, Braunstein N, Stahl N, Torri A, Davis JD, DiCioccio AT. Immunogenicity of dupilumab in adult and pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis. Front Immunol. 2024 Nov 11;15:1466372. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1466372. eCollection 2024.
PubMed 39588375Silverberg JI, Lynde CW, Abuabara K, Patruno C, de Benedetto A, Zhang H, Thomas RB, Bego-Le-Bagousse G, Khokhar FA, Vakil J, Marco AR, Levit NA. Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab Maintained in Adults >/= 60 Years of Age with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: Analysis of Pooled Data from Four Randomized Clinical Trials. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 May;24(3):469-483. doi: 10.1007/s40257-022-00754-4. Epub 2023 Feb 20.
PubMed 36808602Paller AS, Silverberg JI, Cork MJ, Guttman-Yassky E, Lockshin B, Irvine AD, Kim MB, Kabashima K, Chen Z, Lu Y, Bansal A, Rossi AB, Shabbir A. Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab in Patients With Erythrodermic Atopic Dermatitis: A Post Hoc Analysis of 6 Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA Dermatol. 2023 Mar 1;159(3):255-266. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.6192.
PubMed 36723913Silverberg JI, Boguniewicz M, Hanifin J, Papp KA, Zhang H, Rossi AB, Levit NA. Dupilumab Treatment in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis is Efficacious Regardless of Age of Disease Onset: a Post Hoc Analysis of Two Phase 3 Clinical Trials. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022 Dec;12(12):2731-2746. doi: 10.1007/s13555-022-00822-x. Epub 2022 Oct 21.
PubMed 36269503Wechsler ME, Klion AD, Paggiaro P, Nair P, Staumont-Salle D, Radwan A, Johnson RR, Kapoor U, Khokhar FA, Daizadeh N, Chen Z, Laws E, Ortiz B, Jacob-Nara JA, Mannent LP, Rowe PJ, Deniz Y. Effect of Dupilumab on Blood Eosinophil Counts in Patients With Asthma, Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps, Atopic Dermatitis, or Eosinophilic Esophagitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2022 Oct;10(10):2695-2709. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.05.019. Epub 2022 May 28.
PubMed 35636689Armstrong A, Blauvelt A, Simpson EL, Smith CH, Herranz P, Kataoka Y, Seo SJ, Ferrucci SM, Chao J, Chen Z, Rossi AB, Shumel B, Tomondy P. Continued Treatment with Dupilumab is Associated with Improved Efficacy in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis Not Achieving Optimal Responses with Short-Term Treatment. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022 Jan;12(1):195-202. doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00643-4. Epub 2021 Dec 13.
PubMed 34897582Paller AS, Tan JKL, Bagel J, Rossi AB, Shumel B, Zhang H, Abramova A. IGAxBSA composite for assessing disease severity and response in patients with atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2022 Mar;186(3):496-507. doi: 10.1111/bjd.20872. Epub 2022 Feb 25.
PubMed 34726270Griffiths C, de Bruin-Weller M, Deleuran M, Fargnoli MC, Staumont-Salle D, Hong CH, Sanchez-Carazo J, Foley P, Seo SJ, Msihid J, Chen Z, Cyr SL, Rossi AB. Dupilumab in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis and Prior Use of Systemic Non-Steroidal Immunosuppressants: Analysis of Four Phase 3 Trials. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 Aug;11(4):1357-1372. doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00558-0. Epub 2021 Jun 18.
PubMed 34142350Hamilton JD, Harel S, Swanson BN, Brian W, Chen Z, Rice MS, Amin N, Ardeleanu M, Radin A, Shumel B, Ruddy M, Patel N, Pirozzi G, Mannent L, Graham NMH. Dupilumab suppresses type 2 inflammatory biomarkers across multiple atopic, allergic diseases. Clin Exp Allergy. 2021 Jul;51(7):915-931. doi: 10.1111/cea.13954. Epub 2021 Jun 26.
PubMed 34037993Boguniewicz M, Beck LA, Sher L, Guttman-Yassky E, Thaci D, Blauvelt A, Worm M, Corren J, Soong W, Lio P, Rossi AB, Lu Y, Chao J, Eckert L, Gadkari A, Hultsch T, Ruddy M, Mannent LP, Graham NMH, Pirozzi G, Chen Z, Ardeleanu M. Dupilumab Improves Asthma and Sinonasal Outcomes in Adults with Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021 Mar;9(3):1212-1223.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.12.059. Epub 2021 Jan 13.
PubMed 33453450Silverberg JI, Simpson EL, Guttman-Yassky E, Cork MJ, de Bruin-Weller M, Yosipovitch G, Eckert L, Chen Z, Ardeleanu M, Shumel B, Hultsch T, Rossi AB, Hamilton JD, Orengo JM, Ruddy M, Graham NMH, Pirozzi G, Gadkari A. Dupilumab Significantly Modulates Pain and Discomfort in Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Post Hoc Analysis of 5 Randomized Clinical Trials. Dermatitis. 2021 Oct 1;32(1S):S81-S91. doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000698.
PubMed 33165005Alexis AF, Rendon M, Silverberg JI, Pariser DM, Lockshin B, Griffiths CE, Weisman J, Wollenberg A, Chen Z, Davis JD, Li M, Eckert L, Gadkari A, Shumel B, Rossi AB, Graham NM, Ardeleanu M. Efficacy of Dupilumab in Different Racial Subgroups of Adults With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Three Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Trials. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019 Aug 1;18(8):804-813.
PubMed 31424712
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 21 Nov 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Phase 3 Confirmatory Study Investigating the Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab Monotherapy Administered to Adult Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02277743
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SOLO 1 / R668-AD-1334
- Conditions
- Dermatitis, Atopic
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 671 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Regeneron PharmaceuticalsIndustry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Collaborators
- Sanofi
- Study start
- Oct 2014
- Primary completion
- Nov 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Feb 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 29 Oct 2014 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 21 Nov 2017
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study to confirm the efficacy and safety of Dupilumab monotherapy in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Experimental | Drug: Placebo (for Dupilumab)Two subcutaneous injections of Placebo (for Dupilumab) as a loading dose on Day 1 followed by a single injection once weekly (qw) from Week 1 to Week 15. |
| Dupilumab 300 mg once weekly (qw) | Experimental | Drug: DupilumabTwo subcutaneous injections of Dupilumab 300 mg (for a total of 600 mg) as a loading dose on Day 1, followed by a single 300 mg injection of Dupilumab qw from Week 1 to Week 15. |
| Dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) | Experimental | Drug: Dupilumab, Drug: Placebo (for Dupilumab)Two subcutaneous injections of Dupilumab 300 mg (for a total of 600 mg) as a loading dose on Day 1, followed by a placebo alternating with single 300 mg injection of Dupilumab qw from Week 1 to Week 15. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Male or female, 18 years or older
- Chronic AD (according to American Academy of Dermatology Consensus Criteria Eichenfield 2014) that has been present for at least 3 years before the screening visit;
- Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) Score ≥16 at the screening and baseline visits;
- Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Score ≥3 (on the 0 to 4 IGA scale, in which 3 is moderate and 4 is severe) at the screening and baseline visits;
- ≥10% body surface area (BSA) of AD involvement at the screening and baseline visits;
Key exclusion criteria (20 listed)
- Participation in a prior Dupilumab clinical study;
- Treatment with an investigational drug within 8 weeks or within 5 half-lives (if known), whichever was longer, before the baseline visit;
- Having used any of the following treatments within 4 weeks before the baseline visit, or any condition that, in the opinion of the investigator, was likely to require such treatment(s) during the first 4 weeks of study treatment:
- Treatment with topical corticosteroids (TCS) or topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) within 1 week before the baseline visit;
- Treatment with biologics as follows:
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| DupilumabAlso: REGN668, SAR231893, DUPIXENT®Subcutaneous injection alternated among the different quadrants of the abdomen, upper thighs and upper arms | Drug | Dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (q2w), Dupilumab 300 mg once weekly (qw) |
| Placebo (for Dupilumab)Subcutaneous injection alternated among the different quadrants of the abdomen, upper thighs and upper arms | Drug | Dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (q2w), Placebo |
Primary outcome
Percentage of Participants With Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Score of "0" or "1" and Reduction From Baseline of ≥2 Points at Week 16
Time frame: Week 16
IGA is an assessment scale used to determine severity of AD and clinical response to treatment on a 5-point scale (0 = clear; 1 = almost clear; 2 = mild; 3 = moderate; 4 = severe) based on erythema and papulation/infiltration. Therapeutic response is an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear). Participants with IGA score of "0" or "1" and a reduction from baseline of ≥2 points at Week 16 were reported. Values after first rescue treatment were set to missing and participants with missing IGA scores at Week 16 were considered as non-responders.
20 secondary outcomes
Percentage of Participants With Eczema Area and Severity Index-75 (EASI-75) (≥75% Improvement From Baseline) at Week 16
Time frame: Week 16
Percentage of Participants With Improvement (Reduction ≥4 Points) of Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score From Baseline to Week 16
Time frame: Baseline to Week 16
Percentage of Participants With Improvement (Reduction ≥3 Points) of Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score From Baseline to Week 16
Time frame: Baseline to Week 16
Percent Change From Baseline in Peak Daily Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score to Week 16
Time frame: Baseline to Week 16
Percentage of Participants With Improvement (Reduction ≥4 Points) of Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score From Baseline to Week 4
Time frame: Baseline to Week 4
Percentage of Participants With Improvement (Reduction ≥4 Points) of Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score From Baseline to Week 2
Time frame: Baseline to Week 2
Change From Baseline in Peak Daily Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Score to Week 16
Time frame: Baseline to Week 16
Percent Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) Score to Week 16
Time frame: Baseline to Week 16
Percentage of Participants With Eczema Area and Severity Index-50 (EASI-50) (≥50% Improvement From Baseline) at Week 16
Time frame: Week 16
Percentage of Participants With Eczema Area and Severity Index-90 (EASI-90) (≥90% Improvement From Baseline) at Week 16
Time frame: Week 16
Change From Baseline in Percent Body Surface Area (BSA) to Week 16
Time frame: Baseline to Week 16
Percent Change From Baseline in the SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Score to Week 16
Time frame: Baseline to Week 16
Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) to Week 16
Time frame: Baseline to Week 16
Change From Baseline in Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) to Week 16
Time frame: Baseline to Week 16
Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) to Week 16
Time frame: Baseline to Week 16
Percent Change From Baseline in Global Individual Signs Score (GISS) to Week 16
Time frame: Baseline to Week 16
Percent Change From Baseline in Peak Daily Pruritus NRS Score to Week 2
Time frame: Baseline to Week 2
Percentage of Participants With Skin Infection Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) Requiring Systemic Treatment
Time frame: Baseline up to Week 16
Percentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Serious Adverse Events (TESAEs) From Baseline Through Week 16
Time frame: Baseline up to Week 16
Percentage of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) Leading to Treatment Discontinuation From Baseline Through Week 16
Time frame: Baseline up to Week 16
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 21 Nov 2017.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Results publication: PubMed 27690741Simpson EL, Bieber T, Guttman-Yassky E, Beck LA, Blauvelt A, Cork MJ, Silverberg JI, Deleuran M, Kataoka Y, Lacour JP, Kingo K, Worm M, Poulin Y, Wollenberg A, Soo Y, Graham NM, Pirozzi G, Akinlade B, Staudinger H, Mastey V, Eckert L, Gadkari A, Stahl N, Yancopoulos GD, Ardeleanu M; SOLO 1 and SOLO 2 Investigators. Two Phase 3 Trials of Dupilumab versus Placebo in Atopic Dermatitis. N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 15;375(24):2335-2348. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610020. Epub 2016 Sep 30.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 41121745Shin E, Bhat AG, Ramanathan M. Large Language Models for Clinical Trial Protocol Assessments. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2026 Feb;119(2):393-402. doi: 10.1002/cpt.70096. Epub 2025 Oct 21.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 40993471Langley RG, Gherardi G, Coleman A, Ardeleanu M, Rodriguez-Marco A, Levy S, Bansal A, Chen Z, Rossi AB, Shumel B, Khokhar FA. The Safety Data of Dupilumab for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Infants, Children, Adolescents, and Adults. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2025 Nov;26(6):981-1002. doi: 10.1007/s40257-025-00952-w. Epub 2025 Sep 24.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 39588375Kamal MA, Kosloski MP, Lai CH, Partridge MA, Rajadhyaksha M, Kanamaluru V, Bansal A, Shabbir A, Shumel B, Ardeleanu M, Richards SM, Yan H, Xu CR, Rodriguez-Marco A, Xiao J, Khokhar FA, Gherardi G, Babilonia E, Maloney J, Mortensen E, Akinlade B, Braunstein N, Stahl N, Torri A, Davis JD, DiCioccio AT. Immunogenicity of dupilumab in adult and pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis. Front Immunol. 2024 Nov 11;15:1466372. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1466372. eCollection 2024.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 36808602Silverberg JI, Lynde CW, Abuabara K, Patruno C, de Benedetto A, Zhang H, Thomas RB, Bego-Le-Bagousse G, Khokhar FA, Vakil J, Marco AR, Levit NA. Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab Maintained in Adults >/= 60 Years of Age with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: Analysis of Pooled Data from Four Randomized Clinical Trials. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 May;24(3):469-483. doi: 10.1007/s40257-022-00754-4. Epub 2023 Feb 20.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 36723913Paller AS, Silverberg JI, Cork MJ, Guttman-Yassky E, Lockshin B, Irvine AD, Kim MB, Kabashima K, Chen Z, Lu Y, Bansal A, Rossi AB, Shabbir A. Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab in Patients With Erythrodermic Atopic Dermatitis: A Post Hoc Analysis of 6 Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA Dermatol. 2023 Mar 1;159(3):255-266. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.6192.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 36269503Silverberg JI, Boguniewicz M, Hanifin J, Papp KA, Zhang H, Rossi AB, Levit NA. Dupilumab Treatment in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis is Efficacious Regardless of Age of Disease Onset: a Post Hoc Analysis of Two Phase 3 Clinical Trials. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022 Dec;12(12):2731-2746. doi: 10.1007/s13555-022-00822-x. Epub 2022 Oct 21.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 35636689Wechsler ME, Klion AD, Paggiaro P, Nair P, Staumont-Salle D, Radwan A, Johnson RR, Kapoor U, Khokhar FA, Daizadeh N, Chen Z, Laws E, Ortiz B, Jacob-Nara JA, Mannent LP, Rowe PJ, Deniz Y. Effect of Dupilumab on Blood Eosinophil Counts in Patients With Asthma, Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps, Atopic Dermatitis, or Eosinophilic Esophagitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2022 Oct;10(10):2695-2709. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.05.019. Epub 2022 May 28.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 34897582Armstrong A, Blauvelt A, Simpson EL, Smith CH, Herranz P, Kataoka Y, Seo SJ, Ferrucci SM, Chao J, Chen Z, Rossi AB, Shumel B, Tomondy P. Continued Treatment with Dupilumab is Associated with Improved Efficacy in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis Not Achieving Optimal Responses with Short-Term Treatment. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022 Jan;12(1):195-202. doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00643-4. Epub 2021 Dec 13.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 34726270Paller AS, Tan JKL, Bagel J, Rossi AB, Shumel B, Zhang H, Abramova A. IGAxBSA composite for assessing disease severity and response in patients with atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2022 Mar;186(3):496-507. doi: 10.1111/bjd.20872. Epub 2022 Feb 25.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 34142350Griffiths C, de Bruin-Weller M, Deleuran M, Fargnoli MC, Staumont-Salle D, Hong CH, Sanchez-Carazo J, Foley P, Seo SJ, Msihid J, Chen Z, Cyr SL, Rossi AB. Dupilumab in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis and Prior Use of Systemic Non-Steroidal Immunosuppressants: Analysis of Four Phase 3 Trials. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2021 Aug;11(4):1357-1372. doi: 10.1007/s13555-021-00558-0. Epub 2021 Jun 18.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 34037993Hamilton JD, Harel S, Swanson BN, Brian W, Chen Z, Rice MS, Amin N, Ardeleanu M, Radin A, Shumel B, Ruddy M, Patel N, Pirozzi G, Mannent L, Graham NMH. Dupilumab suppresses type 2 inflammatory biomarkers across multiple atopic, allergic diseases. Clin Exp Allergy. 2021 Jul;51(7):915-931. doi: 10.1111/cea.13954. Epub 2021 Jun 26.
Related trials for Dermatitis, Atopic
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
A Phase I Study of GLR2053 Tablets in Chinese Healthy Adult Participants
Atopic Dermatitis
RecruitingObservational study
Blood, Urine, and Tissue Collection for Cutaneous Lymphoma, Eczema, and Atopic Dermatitis Research
Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma, Sezary Syndrome
RecruitingPhase 1
First-in-Human Trial to Assess REGN20423 in Healthy Adult Participants and Adult Participants With Atopic Dermatitis
Healthy Volunteer, Atopic Dermatitis
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
A Study of HSK60002 Tablets in Participants With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis
Dermatitis Atopic
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study to Learn About the Study Medicine Called Tilrekimig in People With Moderate-to Severe Eczema
Atopic Dermatitis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Clinical Trial Management study director
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
101 sites in 10 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing Dupilumab in people with Dermatitis, Atopic, run by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at 101 sites in 10 countries.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 20 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 21 Nov 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 101 sites in United States, Japan, Germany, Canada, Spain and 5 more countries. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 21 Nov 2017). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Percentage of Participants With Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Score of "0" or "1" and Reduction From Baseline of ≥2 Points at Week 16 (time frame: Week 16). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02277743, which also lists 19 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 21 Nov 2017.