ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2025
New pharmacotherapies for the erythropoietic protoporphyrias: an analysis of trial protocols from a patient perspective.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe erythropoietic protoporphyrias (EPP) are a group of ultra-rare (1:100.000) inborn errors of the heme biosynthesis characterised by painful phototoxic reactions in tissue exposed to visible light. Afamelanotide is the only approved treatment for EPP and effectively prevents phototoxic reactions and improves the quality of life of the patients. In the past years, several new potential treatment options for EPP have been identified, some of which are currently under investigation in clinical trials. While these developments could improve patient care, it is important to know how safety and efficacy of drug candidates compare to the existing treatment, i.e. afamelanotide.
methodsWe identified pharmacotherapies (leaving out, for example, topical applications such as sunscreens or supplements such as iron) which are currently (that is, within the last 5 years) evaluated for EPP from clinical trial registries and investigated whether the trial designs allow a comparison of their treatment effects with each other and with afamelanotide. Therefore, we analysed the clinical trial protocols with emphasis on their trial designs, efficacy outcome measures, inclusion and exclusion criteria, safety aspects and, if available, published results.
resultsOur search in the clinical trials registries retrieved 29 trials that included patients with EPP. From these, we identified 16 clinical trials evaluating afamelanotide and three new pharmacotherapies, i.e., dersimelagon, bitopertin and cimetidine. Safety and efficacy of all new pharmacotherapies are currently being investigated against placebo-control groups or against baseline. Because of differences in the outcome measures and included patient populations, the results of the trials cannot be directly compared. Moreover, methodically challenging aspects and ethical issues were identified in some of the trial protocols.
conclusionEfficacy and safety of currently investigated treatments for EPP are not directly comparable. We wrote this manuscript as a call to action to Principal Investigators, Ethical Review Boards, Regulatory Authorities and the sponsors of trials because we are convinced that trials directly assessing new pharmacotherapies against afamelanotide would be the more informative, and methodological and ethically sounder trial design. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.