My most recent postings have dissected the protocol, the patients, the methods and the fine print of the Dupilumab studies reported in the medical literature. Severe failings are evident in all the above criteria. What, therefore can we expect from the results and conclusions? This assessment will group together all Dupilumab studies.

My findings are:

  1. 25% of both the placebo and the drug group needed corticosteroid rescue – how much? – how often? This defeats any positivity to the study drug – they were addicted to steroids, not bad eczema patients.
  2. All the evaluated criteria were subjective – no scientific, well-controlled, objective criteria were used in the studies. This is the lowest kind of scientific study – studies of vitamins, acupuncture, supplements, and usually worthless drugs are vilified by the medical establishment for this kind of approach and reporting.

    The parameters discussed were:

    1. Itching
    2. Depression
    3. Anxiety
    4. Functioning – quality of life
    5. “How do you feel?”

    Good researchers know that this type of reporting is very suspect. All subject patients want to please the investigators. Placebo control patients do not obviate this concern about double bland controlled studies.

  3. There are lists after lists of statistical numbers that the average medical reader finds difficult to discern. The pages of graphs where drug is matched against placebo show only differences of 30% vs. 60% or 20% vs. 40% in the parameters that were asked. This minor percent difference is hardly evident when it comes to the benefit of a new drug. This primobolan might be a statistically significant difference for the acceptance of the paper, in the literature and for FDA approval, but this minor difference rarely shows drug effectiveness when used in the outside world.
  4. The papers conclusions – ‘great results.’ I passionately and strongly disagree on scientific grounds.
  5. The suffering RSS patients should not be further mismanaged with stellar pronouncements coming out of very questionable studies and conclusions. The authors, drug companies and the National Eczema Association should be held accountable for misleading patients who have endured enough already.