AzTrials
AzTrials

Moderate Plaque PsoriasisPhase 3SPECTREMNCT06039189

Study of Guselkumab Versus Placebo for the Treatment of Low Body Surface Area Moderate Plaque Psoriasis

A Phase 3 study testing Guselkumab in people with Moderate Plaque Psoriasis, run by Janssen Research & Development, LLC at 64 sites in 2 countries.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of guselkumab compared to an inactive drug in participants with low body surface area moderate plaque psoriasis and special site involvement. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Moderate Plaque Psoriasis
What is being tested?
Guselkumab
Type of treatment
Injection or infusion
Could I receive a placebo?
Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
How many people
338 participants
Where
64 sitesin 2 countries
Study dates
24 Aug 2023to 14 Apr 2025
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

  • All participants must have a diagnosis of plaque psoriasis (with or without psoriatic arthritis) for at least 6 months before first administration of study intervention
  • All participants must meet the following disease severity criteria at screening and at baseline: (a) Overall Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) 3 (moderate) plaque psoriasis; (b) Body Surface Area (BSA) 2-15 percent (%) with at least 1 plaque outside of special sites; (c) Involvement of at least 1 special site with at least moderate severity. Qualifying sites include scalp with scalp-specific IGA greater than or equal to (>=) 3, face with facial psoriasis IGA >=3, intertriginous with intertriginous psoriasis IGA >=3, or genital with static physician global assessment of genitalia (sPGA-G) >=3
  • All participants be inadequately controlled with or intolerant of at least 1 prior topical therapy (including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, retinoids, vitamin D, or vitamin D/steroid and retinoid/steroid combinations, tacrolimus, pimecrolimus, anthralin/dithranol, coal tar preparations, tapinarof, roflumilast, etcetera) for the treatment of psoriasis at both screening
  • All participants be a candidate for phototherapy or systemic treatment for psoriasis

Who cannot join

  • Has a nonplaque form of psoriasis (example, erythrodermic, guttate, or pustular) at screening or randomization
  • Has current drug-induced psoriasis (for example, a new onset of psoriasis or an exacerbation of psoriasis from beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, or lithium)
  • For participants with palmoplantar involvement, confounding diagnoses, including, but not limited, to palmoplantar pustulosis, eczematous dermatitis, contact/irritant dermatitis, acquired keratoderma, etcetera, should be confirmed and excluded
  • Participants will not be eligible if they have ever received prior biologic (or biosimilars of) for the treatment of psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or any other indications that could impact the assessment of psoriasis. Prior biologics (or biosimilars of) may include, but not limited to, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (for example: adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, or certolizumab or biosimilars), interleukin (IL)-17 inhibitors (for example: secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, or bimekizumab), and IL-12/23 inhibitors (for example: ustekinumab), or IL-23 inhibitor (for example: guselkumab, risankizumab or tildrakizumab)
  • Has a history of chronic or recurrent infectious disease, including, but not limited to, chronic renal infection, chronic chest infection (for example, bronchiectasis), recurrent urinary tract infection (recurrent pyelonephritis or chronic non-remitting cystitis), fungal infection (mucocutaneous candidiasis), or open, draining, or infected skin wounds or ulcers

Trial locations and contacts

64 sites in 2 countries.

64 sites in 2 countries

United States45 sites
  • Arlington Center for Dermatology

    Arlington, Texas, 76011

  • Atlanta Biomedical Clinical Research

    Atlanta, Georgia, 303331

  • Bellair Dermatology

    Bellaire, Texas, 77401

  • Bexley dermatology research

    Bexley, Ohio, 43209

  • Total Dermatology

    Birmingham, Alabama, 35203

  • Cahaba Research Inc

    Birmingham, Alabama, 35244

  • TrueBlue Clinical Research

    Brandon, Florida, 33511

  • Metro Boston Clinical Partners

    Brighton, Massachusetts, 02135

  • Accellacare Research of Cary

    Cary, North Carolina, 27511

  • Dermatology and Laser Center of Charleston

    Charleston, South Carolina, 29414

  • Darst Dermatology

    Charlotte, North Carolina, 28277

  • Kindred Hair and Skin Center

    Columbia, Maryland, 21045

  • Remington Davis Inc

    Columbus, Ohio, 43215

  • Florida Academic Dermatology Centers

    Coral Gables, Florida, 33134

  • Modern Research Associates PLLC

    Dallas, Texas, 75231

  • Bare Dermatology

    Dallas, Texas, 75235

  • Menter Dermatology Research Institute

    Dallas, Texas, 75246

  • Revival Research

    Doral, Florida, 33122

  • California Dermatology & Clinical Research Institute

    Encinitas, California, 92024

  • University of Conn Health Center

    Farmington, Connecticut, 06030

  • Palmetto Clinical Trial Services, LLC

    Fountain Inn, South Carolina, 29644

  • First OC Dermatology

    Fountain Valley, California, 92708

  • Center for Clinical Studies

    Houston, Texas, 77004

  • Suzanne Bruce and Associates - The Center for Skin Research

    Houston, Texas, 77056-4132

  • Piedmont Plastic Surgery and Dermatology

    Huntersville, North Carolina, 28078

  • Glick Research Institute

    Margate, Florida, 33063

  • Apex Dermatology Mayfield Heights

    Mayfield Heights, Ohio, 44124

  • Miami VA Healthcare System

    Miami, Florida, 33124

  • Frontier Derm Partners CRO, LLC

    Mill Creek, Washington, 98102

  • Nashville Skin: Comprehensive Dermatology Center

    Nashville, Tennessee, 37212

  • Tennessee Clinical Research Center

    Nashville, Tennessee, 37215

  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

    New York, New York, 10003

  • Markowitz Medical OptiSkin

    New York, New York, 10128

  • Tory P Sullivan M D PA

    North Miami Beach, Florida, 33162

  • DermCare, LLC

    Quincy, Massachusetts, 02169

  • Practice Wang

    Riverside, California, 92505

  • DermAssociates, PC

    Rockville, Maryland, 20850

  • Lawrence J Green MD LLC

    Rockville, Maryland, 20850

  • Texas Dermatology and Laser Specialists

    San Antonio, Texas, 78218

  • Progressive Clinical Research

    San Antonio, Texas, 78229

  • Therapeutics Clinical Research

    San Diego, California, 92123

  • Rehlen, Bartlow, Goodman and Baron Dermatology Group

    Santa Ana, California, 92701

  • Clinical Science Institute

    Santa Monica, California, 90404

  • Acclaim Dermatology

    Sugar Land, Texas, 77479

  • Henry Ford Medical Center

    West Bloomfield, Michigan, 48322

Other trials in United States

Canada19 sites
  • CCA Medical Research Corporation

    Ajax, Ontario, L1S7K8

  • SimcoDerm Medical and Surgical Dermatology Centre

    Barrie, Ontario, L4M 7G1

  • Beacon Dermatology

    Calgary, Alberta, T3E 0B2

  • Rejuvenation Dermatology Clinic Edmonton Downtown

    Edmonton, Alberta, T5J 3S9

  • Brunswick Dermatology Center

    Fredericton, New Brunswick, E3B 1G9

  • Dermatrials Research

    Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 1Y2

  • Dr Wei Jing Loo Medicine Professional Corporation

    London, Ontario, N6H 5L5

  • North York Research Inc

    North York, Ontario, M2M 4J5

  • JRB Research Inc

    Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 7X3

  • The Centre de recherche Saint-Louis

    Québec, Quebec, G1W 4R4

  • Dr. Chih ho Hong Medical

    Surrey, British Columbia, V3R 6A7

  • Enverus Medical

    Surrey, British Columbia, V3V 0C6

  • Canadian Dermatology Center

    Toronto, Ontario, M3B 0A7

  • Toronto Research Centre

    Toronto, Ontario, M3H 5Y8

  • FACET Dermatology

    Toronto, Ontario, M4E 2Y9

  • Research Toronto

    Toronto, Ontario, M4W 2N2

  • K. Papp Clinical Research Inc.

    Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 1C4

  • Winnipeg Clinic

    Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3C 0N2

  • Wiseman Dermatology Research Inc.

    Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3M 3Z4

Other trials in Canada

About this study

Official title: A Phase 3b, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Guselkumab Versus Placebo for the Treatment of Low Body Surface Area (BSA) Moderate Plaque Psoriasis With Special Site Involvement

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of guselkumab compared to an inactive drug in participants with low body surface area moderate plaque psoriasis and special site involvement.

Being tested
Guselkumab, Placebo

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • GuselkumabDrug

    Also called CNTO1959, Tremfya

    Guselkumab will be administered as subcutaneous injection.

  • PlaceboDrug

    Placebo will be administered as subcutaneous injection.

Study groups in NCT06039189
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Group 1: GuselkumabExperimentalParticipants will receive guselkumab by subcutaneous injection with placebo as needed to maintain the blind.
Receives: Drug: Guselkumab; Drug: Placebo
Group 2: PlaceboPlacebo comparatorParticipants will receive placebo by subcutaneous injection then receive guselkumab by subcutaneous injection.
Receives: Drug: Guselkumab; Drug: Placebo

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Percentage of Participants Who Achieved an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Score of Cleared (0) or Minimal (1) at Week 16

    The IGA assesses participant's plaque psoriasis. Lesions were graded for induration, erythema and scaling, each using a 5 point scale. Induration: 0 = no evidence of plaque elevation, 1 = minimal plaque elevation, = 0.25 millimeters (mm); 2 = mild plaque elevation, = 0.5 mm; 3 = moderate plaque elevation, = 0.75 mm; 4 = severe plaque elevation, greater than (>) 1 mm; Erythema: 0 = no evidence of erythema, hyperpigmentation may be present, 1 = faint erythema, 2 = light red coloration, 3 = moderate red coloration, 4 = bright red coloration; Scaling: 0 = no evidence of scaling, 1 = minimal; occasional fine scale over less than 5% of the lesion, 2 = mild; fine scale dominates, 3 = moderate; coarse scale predominates, 4 = severe; thick, scale predominates. Final IGA score of psoriasis was based upon the average of induration, erythema and scaling scores assessed on a 5 point scale: cleared (0), minimal (1), mild (2), moderate (3), or severe (4). Higher score indicated more severe disease.

    Measured: Week 16

Secondary outcomes (14)
  1. Percent Change From Baseline in Body Surface Area (BSA) at Week 16

    Percent change from baseline in BSA at Week 16 was reported. A BSA was commonly used measure of severity of skin disease. It was defined as the percentage of surface area of the body involved with the condition being assessed, (that is, plaque psoriasis). BSA was assessed using hand print method where the surface area of the participant's hand including the palm and all 5 digits was used as a guide to estimate 1 percent (%) BSA. The baseline was defined as the closest measurement taken prior to or at the time of the first study drug administration date.

    Measured: Baseline (Week 0), Week 16

  2. Percent Change From Baseline in Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) Total Score at Week 16

    Percent change from baseline in PASI total score at Week 16 was reported. PASI was a system used for assessing and grading the severity of psoriatic lesions and their response to therapy. In the PASI system, the body was divided into 4 regions: the head, trunk, upper extremities, and lower extremities. Each of these areas were assessed and scored separately for erythema, induration, and scaling, which were each rated on a scale of 0 to 4 (0=none, 1 = slight, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe and 4 = very severe) and extent of involvement from 0 (indicated no involvement) to 6 (90% - 100% involvement). The PASI produced a numeric total score that could range from 0 (no psoriasis) to 72 (maximum psoriasis). Higher score indicated greater severity of psoriasis. The baseline was defined as the closest measurement taken prior to or at the time of the first study drug administration date.

    Measured: Baseline (Week 0), Week 16

  3. Percentage of Participants Who Achieved IGA Score of Cleared (0) at Week 16

    The IGA assesses participant's plaque psoriasis. Lesions were graded for induration, erythema and scaling, each using a 5 point scale. Induration: 0 = no evidence of plaque elevation, 1 = minimal plaque elevation, = 0.25 mm; 2 = mild plaque elevation, = 0.5 mm; 3 = moderate plaque elevation, = 0.75 mm; 4 = severe plaque elevation, greater than (>) 1 mm; Erythema: 0 = no evidence of erythema, hyperpigmentation may be present, 1 = faint erythema, 2 = light red coloration, 3 = moderate red coloration, 4 = bright red coloration; Scaling: 0 = no evidence of scaling, 1 = minimal; occasional fine scale over less than 5% of the lesion, 2 = mild; fine scale dominates, 3 = moderate; coarse scale predominates, 4 = severe; thick, scale predominates. Final IGA score of psoriasis was based upon the average of induration, erythema and scaling scores assessed on a 5 point scale: cleared (0), minimal (1), mild (2), moderate (3), or severe (4). Higher score indicated more severe disease.

    Measured: Week 16

  4. Percentage of Participants Who Achieved PASI 90 Response at Week 16

    Percentage of participants who achieved PASI 90 score (greater than or equal to [>=] 90% improvement from baseline in PASI) at Week 16 was reported. The PASI was a system used for assessing and grading the severity of psoriatic lesions and their response to therapy. In the PASI system, the body was divided into 4 regions: the head, trunk, upper extremities, and lower extremities. Each of these areas were assessed and scored separately for erythema, induration, and scaling, which were each rated on a scale of 0 to 4 (0 = none, 1 = slight, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe and 4 = very severe) and extent of involvement from 0 (indicated no involvement) to 6 (90% - 100% involvement). The PASI produced a numeric total score that could range from 0 (no psoriasis) to 72 (maximum psoriasis). Higher score indicated greater severity of psoriasis. The baseline was defined as the closest measurement taken prior to or at the time of the first study drug administration date.

    Measured: Week 16

  5. Percentage of Participants Who Achieved PASI 100 Response at Week 16

    Percentage of participants who achieved PASI-100 score (100% improvement from baseline in PASI) at Week 16 was reported. The PASI was a system used for assessing and grading the severity of psoriatic lesions and their response to therapy. In the PASI system, the body was divided into 4 regions: the head, trunk, upper extremities, and lower extremities. Each of these areas was assessed and scored separately for erythema, induration, and scaling, which were each rated on a scale of 0 to 4 (0=none, 1 = slight, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe and 4 = very severe) and extent of involvement from 0 (indicated no involvement) to 6 (90% - 100% involvement). The PASI produced a numeric total score that could range from 0 (no psoriasis) to 72 (maximum psoriasis). Higher score indicated greater severity of psoriasis. The baseline was defined as the closest measurement taken prior to or at the time of the first study drug administration date.

    Measured: Week 16

  6. Percentage of Participants Who Achieved Scalp Specific (ss)-IGA Score of Absence of Disease (0) or Very Mild Disease (1) at Week 16 Among Randomized Participants With Ss-IGA Score >=3 at Baseline

    The ss-IGA instrument was used to evaluate the disease severity of scalp psoriasis. The lesions were assessed in terms of the clinical signs of redness, thickness, and scaliness which was scored as: absence of disease = 0, very mild disease = 1, mild disease = 2, moderate disease = 3, and severe disease = 4. A higher score indicated more severe disease. The baseline was defined as the closest measurement taken prior to or at the time of the first study drug administration date.

    Measured: Week 16

  7. Percentage of Participants Who Achieved Static Physician's Global Assessment of Genitalia (sPGA-G) Score of 0 or 1 at Week 16 Among Randomized Participants With sPGA-G Score >=3 at Baseline

    The sPGA-G was a 6-point scale to assess the severity of genital psoriasis at a given time point. The sPGA-G evaluates erythema, plaque elevation, and scale of genital psoriatic lesions. The severity of genital psoriasis was assessed as clear (0), minimal (1), mild (2), moderate (3), severe (4), and very severe (5). Higher score indicates more severity. The baseline was defined as the closest measurement taken prior to or at the time of the first study drug administration date.

    Measured: Week 16

  8. Percentage of Participants Who Achieved Intertriginous IGA (i-IGA) Score of Clear (0) or Minimal (1) at Week 16 Among Randomized Participants With an i-IGA Score >=3 at Baseline

    The IGA used for the full body assessment was adapted with descriptions of disease features that were more consistent with intertriginous psoriasis presentation. The intertriginous areas assessed included the axillary, sub mammary, abdominal fold, inguinal, and intergluteal cleft/peri-anal region (distinct from genital/perineum involvement). The i-IGA was 5-point scale evaluating the severity of plaque psoriasis in the intertriginous area with scores defined as clear (0), minimal (1), mild (2), moderate (3), and severe (4). A higher score indicated greater disease severity. The baseline was defined as the closest measurement taken prior to or at the time of the first study drug administration date.

    Measured: Week 16

  9. Percentage of Participants Who Achieved Facial IGA (f-IGA) Score of Clear (0) or Minimal (1) at Week 16 Among Randomized Participants With f-IGA Score >=3 at Baseline

    The standard IGA used for full body evaluation was adapted for assessment of psoriasis on the face only. The f-IGA used a 5-point scale to assess overall facial disease severity, defined as clear (0), minimal (1), mild (2), moderate (3), and severe (4). A higher score indicated more severe facial psoriasis. The baseline was defined as the closest measurement taken prior to or at the time of the first study drug administration date.

    Measured: Week 16

  10. Change From Baseline in Psoriasis Symptom and Sign Diary (PSSD) Total Symptom Score at Week 16

    The PSSD was a patient reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire designed to measure the severity of psoriasis symptoms and signs for the assessment of treatment benefit. 7-day recall version was used. PSSD was a self-administered PRO instrument that included 11 items covering symptoms (itch, pain, stinging, burning and skin tightness) and participant observable signs (skin dryness, cracking, scaling, shedding or flaking, redness and bleeding) using 0 to 10 numerical rating scales for severity. Items were averaged on the weekly symptom score when at least 3 items (>=50 percentage of 5 items) on these scales were answered. The average value was converted into 0-100 scoring, such that symptom score = average value*10, where, 0= least severe and 100= most severe. Higher score indicated more severe disease. The baseline was defined as the closest measurement taken prior to or at the time of the first study drug administration date.

    Measured: Baseline (Week 0), Week 16

  11. Percentage of Participants Who Achieved >=4-Point Improvement From Baseline in PSSD Itch Score at Week 16 Among Participants With a PSSD Itch Score >=4 at Baseline

    PSSD was a PRO questionnaire designed to measure severity of psoriasis symptoms and signs for assessment of treatment benefit. 7-day recall version was used. PSSD was a self-administered PRO instrument that included 11 items covering symptoms(itch, pain, stinging, burning and skin tightness) and participant observable signs (skin dryness, cracking, scaling, shedding or flaking, redness and bleeding) using 0 to 10 numerical rating scales for severity. PSSD itch item score over seven days was averaged into a weekly itch score, ranging from 0 to 10 with higher scores indicating severe disease. Baseline was defined as the closest measurement taken prior to or at time of first study drug administration date.

    Measured: Week 16

  12. Percentage of Participants Who Achieved PSSD Individual Symptom Scale Score=0 at Week 16 Among Participants With a PSSD Symptom Score >0 at Baseline

    The PSSD was a PRO questionnaire designed to measure the severity of psoriasis symptoms and signs for the assessment of treatment benefit. 7-day recall version was used. PSSD was a self-administered PRO instrument that included 11 items covering symptoms (itch, pain, stinging, burning and skin tightness) and participant observable signs (skin dryness, cracking, scaling, shedding or flaking, redness and bleeding) using 0 to 10 numerical rating scales for severity. Items were averaged on the weekly symptom score when at least 3 items (>=50 percentage of 5 items) on these scales are answered. The average value was converted into 0-100 scoring, such that symptom score = average value*10, where, 0= least severe and 100= most severe. Higher score indicated more severe disease. The baseline was defined as the closest measurement taken prior to or at the time of the first study drug administration date.

    Measured: Week 16

  13. Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs)

    An adverse event (AE) was any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical study participant administered a pharmaceutical (investigational or non-investigational) product. An AE does not necessarily have a causal relationship with the intervention. TEAE was defined as any event that occurred after the start of initial study agent administration and those AEs that were presented at baseline but worsened in severity after the start of initial study agent administration.

    Measured: Group 1: Placebo: From Week 0 to Week 16; Group 1: Placebo followed by Guselkumab 100 mg: From Week 16 to Week 56; Group 2: Guselkumab 100 mg: From Week 0 to Week 56

  14. Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Serious Adverse Events (TESAEs)

    An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical study participant administered a pharmaceutical (investigational or non-investigational) product. An AE does not necessarily have a causal relationship with the intervention. Serious adverse event (SAE) was any untoward medical occurrence at any dose that: resulted in death, was life threatening, required inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, resulted in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, or resulted in congenital anomaly/birth defect. TEAE was defined as any event that occurred after the start of initial study agent administration and those AEs that were presented at baseline but worsened in severity after the start of initial study agent administration.

    Measured: Group 1: Placebo: From Week 0 to Week 16; Group 1: Placebo followed by Guselkumab 100 mg: From Week 16 to Week 56; Group 2: Guselkumab 100 mg: From Week 0 to Week 56

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted15 Sep 2023
  2. Study start24 Aug 2023
  3. Primary completion14 Apr 2025
  4. Study completion14 Apr 2025

Resources

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
Double blind
Who is masked
Participant, Investigator
Enrolment
338 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT06039189
Sponsor's protocol ID
CR109328
Other IDs
CNTO1959PSO3017
Acronym
SPECTREM
Status last verified
Apr 2026
First submitted
9 Sep 2023
Last updated
1 May 2026
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Yes: The data sharing policy of the Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson \& Johnson is available at www.janssen.com/clinical-trials/transparency. As noted on this site, requests for access to the study data can be submitted through Yale Open Data Access (YODA) Project site at yoda.yale.edu

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 3 study testing Guselkumab in people with Moderate Plaque Psoriasis, run by Janssen Research & Development, LLC at 64 sites in 2 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 4 inclusion and 5 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 1 May 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 64 sites in United States, Canada. 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. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. 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 1 May 2026). 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 Who Achieved an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Score of Cleared (0) or Minimal (1) 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?
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 1 May 2026.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in