This page provides an independent statistical analysis and educational interpretation of publicly reported results. ClinicalTrials.gov provides the official trial registry record. Numerical trial results on this page are restricted to the results posted in the ClinicalTrials.gov record; calculations added by Clinical Biostats are labelled as such.
1. Trial at a Glance
This page covers the registry results for A Study of Intravenous MK-8226 in Participants With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis (MK-8226-003) (NCT01732510), a randomized phase 1 study. The primary outcome is Number of Participants Who Experienced at Least One Adverse Event.
| Feature | Registry value |
|---|---|
| ClinicalTrials.gov identifier | NCT01732510 |
| Phase | Phase 1 |
| Condition | Atopic Dermatitis |
| Allocation | Randomized |
| Design model | Parallel |
| Masking | Quadruple |
| Enrollment | 65 |
| Arms in the primary outcome | 7 |
| Lead sponsor | Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC |
| Results posted | Yes |
2. Clinical Question
Population
Participants with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. The primary analysis used the All Subjects as Treated population, defined as participants who received at least one dose of investigational drug.
Intervention
Intravenous MK-8226, given at weight-based doses in four Part 1 groups and one Part 2 group. Doses were administered every 2 weeks for 12 weeks.
Comparator
Intravenous placebo. Part 1 used pooled placebo; Part 2 had a separate placebo group. The record describes the study as randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, and quadruple-masked.
Primary question
How many participants in each reported group experienced at least one adverse event during follow-up of up to 32 weeks? This is a safety-focused endpoint. The posted primary outcome does not measure improvement in atopic dermatitis.
The study also had broader objectives across its three parts: assessing safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and preliminary efficacy, with Part 1 seeking the maximum tolerated dose and Part 3 intended to explore dose ranges for future studies. However, the final results described in the registry record cover Part 1 efficacy, pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity, and Part 2 safety and immunogenicity. The study was terminated early for business reasons, so the record does not describe completed results for all planned objectives.
The primary outcome counts people with at least one adverse event, rather than the total number of events. That distinction is important: a participant with several events still contributes once to this measure. The record gives group-specific counts, but does not report an estimable two-arm comparison for this binary endpoint. The counts therefore describe what was recorded in the separate groups, rather than establishing a comparative treatment effect.
3. Trial Design
This was a randomized, quadruple-masked, parallel-group Phase Ib trial with placebo control. The official title describes a multiple rising dose study of intravenous MK-8226 in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. The registry records enrollment of 65. The allocation ratio, randomization procedure, and details of who was included in the quadruple masking are not reported in the registry record.
The study had three parts. Part 1 included MK-8226 groups receiving 0.3 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, or 10 mg/kg, as well as a pooled placebo group. Part 2 included an MK-8226 3 mg/kg group and a separate placebo group. The listed active-treatment regimens were intravenous and weight-based, every 2 weeks for 12 weeks; the placebo regimens were also intravenous and administered every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. The registry record does not give further details about how participants were assigned to parts or doses.
Part 1 was intended to assess safety and pharmacokinetics and to find the maximum tolerated dose. Part 2 was intended to assess safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy. Part 3 was intended to further define safety and pharmacokinetics and explore pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships to model a dose range for future studies. The record states that the study was terminated early due to business reasons on 08 May 2014. The final results are described as covering Part 1 efficacy, pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity and Part 2 safety and immunogenicity. Results for Part 3 are not reported in the registry record.
The primary outcome timeframe was up to 32 weeks. The primary analysis population was All Subjects as Treated, defined as participants who received at least one dose of investigational drug. The record does not report a planned sample-size justification, a formal statistical analysis plan, or whether any interim analyses were conducted.
4. Participant Flow and Accounting
The registry reports how participants moved through each stage of the study. All counts below are exactly as posted; missing counts are not inferred from other stages.
Before assignment: Participants were screened for study eligibility over 4 weeks prior to first dosing. Additional inclusion and exclusion criteria applied.
Only the first 6 of 7 groups are shown.
Overall Study
| Stage | Part 1: MK-8226 0.3 mg/kg | Part 1: MK-8226 1 mg/kg | Part 1: MK-8226 3 mg/kg | Part 1: MK-8226 10 mg/kg | Part 1: Placebo (Pooled) | Part 2: MK-8226 3 mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STARTED | 9 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 13 |
| COMPLETED | 8 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 0 |
| NOT COMPLETED | 1 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 13 |
Reasons for not completing this period:
| Reason | Part 1: MK-8226 0.3 mg/kg | Part 1: MK-8226 1 mg/kg | Part 1: MK-8226 3 mg/kg | Part 1: MK-8226 10 mg/kg | Part 1: Placebo (Pooled) | Part 2: MK-8226 3 mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse Event | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Protocol Violation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Withdrawal by Subject | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 0 |
| Lost to Follow-up | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Physician Decision | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pregnancy | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Study Terminated By Sponsor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 12 |
Analysis population for the primary outcome, as defined in the registry: The All Subjects as Treated (ASaT) population defined as all participants who received at least one dose of investigational drug was used for analysis.
5. Baseline Characteristics
The table reproduces the baseline characteristics posted in the registry, which describe the participants analysed at baseline and help show whether the randomized groups were comparable.
Only the first 6 of 8 groups are shown.
| Characteristic | Unit | Part 1: MK-8226 0.3 mg/kg | Part 1: MK-8226 1 mg/kg | Part 1: MK-8226 3 mg/kg | Part 1: MK-8226 10 mg/kg | Part 1: Placebo (Pooled) | Part 2: MK-8226 3 mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants analysed | 9 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 13 | |
| Age, Categorical: <=18 years | Participants | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Age, Categorical: Between 18 and 65 years | Participants | 8 | 9 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 13 |
| Age, Categorical: >=65 years | Participants | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Age, Continuous | years | 49.0 (SD 11.8) | 30.8 (SD 13.4) | 41.6 (SD 12.6) | 34.7 (SD 10.2) | 37.8 (SD 14.2) | 38.3 (SD 11.5) |
| Sex: Female, Male: Female | Participants | 4 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 8 |
| Sex: Female, Male: Male | Participants | 5 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 |
6. Primary Endpoint
The registry lists the primary outcome as Number of Participants Who Experienced at Least One Adverse Event, measured over Up to 32 Weeks.
| Element | Registry entry |
|---|---|
| Result type | Number |
| Measure of spread | not applicable |
| Unit | participants |
| Endpoint classification | Binary Endpoint |
The primary endpoint is the number of participants who experienced at least one adverse event during follow-up of up to 32 weeks. The registry defines an adverse event as an untoward medical occurrence after administration of a pharmaceutical product, whether or not it is considered related to the product or a protocol-specified procedure. The definition includes unfavourable or unintended signs, symptoms, or diseases, including abnormal laboratory findings. Worsening of a pre-existing condition can also qualify when temporally associated with the sponsor’s product.
This endpoint is used to describe safety experience in the study. Counting participants with an event answers how many people experienced at least one such occurrence; it does not count repeated events per person, measure event severity, or establish that the investigational drug caused an event. Causality is not required by the registry definition.
The posted group results are counts of participants with an event, accompanied by the number analyzed in each group. The counts are not an estimate of a treatment effect on atopic dermatitis, and the primary endpoint is not an efficacy measure. Serious adverse events are reported separately from the primary all-adverse-event outcome. The registry record does not provide an estimable two-arm comparison for the primary binary endpoint, so the group counts should be read descriptively rather than as a formal comparative result.
7. Why No Re-analysis Is Shown
8. Statistical Interpretation
The primary outcome counts were 8 of 9 participants in Part 1 MK-8226 0.3 mg/kg, 6 of 9 in Part 1 MK-8226 1 mg/kg, 6 of 8 in Part 1 MK-8226 3 mg/kg, and 7 of 10 in Part 1 MK-8226 10 mg/kg. In the Part 1 pooled placebo group, 7 of 8 participants experienced at least one adverse event. In Part 2, the count was 10 of 13 for MK-8226 3 mg/kg and 7 of 8 for placebo. These are group-specific descriptions of participants with at least one event during the stated follow-up timeframe.
The counts alone do not indicate whether events were caused by treatment. The endpoint definition includes events whether or not they were considered related to the medicinal product or a protocol-specified procedure. Nor do these counts show how many total events occurred, how long events lasted, or how severe all events were. Those details are not reported in the registry record for this primary outcome.
The record does not provide an estimable two-arm comparison for the binary endpoint. No comparative effect estimate, confidence interval, or p-value for this primary outcome is reported in the posted results. Consequently, the raw group counts should not be treated as evidence of a statistically established difference or similarity between treatment and placebo. The small group sizes also mean that the observed counts describe only the participants analyzed in these groups; the record does not establish how precisely they represent a broader population.
The study was terminated early for business reasons. The registry describes final results for some objectives in Part 1 and Part 2, but does not report completed results for every planned part or objective. This limits how fully the record can address the original study aims, including the planned Part 3 dose exploration.
The results include serious adverse event counts distinct from the primary endpoint. In Part 1, the reported counts were 0 of 9, 0 of 9, 0 of 8, and 1 of 10 across the four MK-8226 dose groups, and 0 of 8 in pooled placebo. In Part 2, the count was 0 of 13 for MK-8226 3 mg/kg and 1 of 8 for placebo. These counts are descriptive; they do not by themselves resolve causality or permit broad conclusions about comparative safety.
The registry lists the serious adverse event terms “Erysipelas” at 12.5% and “Abortion induced” at 10.0%. The denominator and detailed context for these percentages are not reported in the registry record, so they cannot be interpreted as group-specific risks from the information available. Death counts are not reported in the registry record.
9. Statistical Methods Explained
What does a binary endpoint count?
The primary outcome is binary at the participant level: a participant either experienced at least one adverse event during the specified follow-up or did not. The posted result is the number of participants with an event in each group, alongside the group’s analyzed count. It is not a count of every adverse event, because multiple events in one participant do not increase the number of participants counted for this endpoint.
General statistical explanation: binary outcomes are often summarized using counts and proportions. A proportion describes the frequency of participants meeting the endpoint within the group being analyzed. Comparing proportions can summarize a difference between groups, but a comparative estimate and its uncertainty require a defined analysis. The registry record posts group counts but states that values were missing or not estimable for a two-arm comparison of this binary endpoint. The group counts therefore remain descriptive in the absence of a posted comparative estimate.
What does the analysis population mean?
The primary analysis used the All Subjects as Treated population: participants who received at least one dose of investigational drug. This definition is based on treatment received, rather than simply on randomization. The group counts and analyzed denominators are reported for the primary outcome. The record does not report how participants who received no dose were handled in other analyses, or whether any additional analysis populations were used.
General statistical explanation: the choice of analysis population affects what question an estimate addresses. An analysis based on treatment received can describe outcomes among participants exposed to study treatment. A randomized-group analysis can instead preserve the comparison defined by assignment. These approaches have different interpretations. The registry record does not report a separate randomized-group analysis for this outcome, so no such result should be inferred.
How should uncertainty be understood?
General statistical explanation: a confidence interval expresses the range of effect estimates compatible with the data under a specified method and assumptions. It reflects uncertainty from sampling variability; it does not guarantee that the true effect lies in the interval, and it does not address every possible source of bias. The registry record does not report a confidence interval or a comparative effect estimate for the primary endpoint. The counts alone therefore do not quantify the precision of a treatment-versus-placebo contrast.
For binary outcomes, small group counts can make estimates sensitive to the experience of individual participants. This is a general feature of sparse data, not a claim that a particular model was fitted in this study. The record does not describe a statistical model, continuity correction, exact test, or other method for analyzing the primary outcome. It would be inappropriate to attribute any particular method to the investigators without such information.
What do the planning illustrations represent?
General statistical explanation: a sample-size calculation is a planning exercise that describes how many participants might be needed under specified assumptions to detect a chosen effect with a chosen error rate. It is not evidence that a study had that probability of finding an effect after it was conducted. The posted planning illustrations are based on the observed effect, with two-sided significance level 0.05, equal allocation, a normal approximation, and effects expressed as fractions of the observed effect. They are illustrations rather than the trial’s own design justification. They should not be read as observed power or as evidence that a particular effect is clinically important.
The registry record does not report the trial’s original sample-size justification or its planned statistical assumptions. The planning assumptions in the posted illustrations therefore do not establish what guided trial design. The record also does not report that the original sample size was selected to test the primary adverse-event endpoint.
What can be inferred from the analysis reporting?
The registry lists one analysis and reports that a two-arm comparison of the binary endpoint was not estimable because values were missing or not estimable. It does not report a p-value or a comparative estimate for the primary endpoint. Without a reported estimate and its uncertainty, the separate group counts cannot establish a treatment difference, equivalence, or absence of a difference.
General statistical explanation: failure to estimate a comparison is not the same as evidence that two groups are equal. It means the posted record does not support a numerical comparative conclusion using that analysis. Likewise, not reporting a p-value does not establish that the result was non-significant; the result may simply not have been estimable or reported.
The record lists secondary outcomes involving plasma CCL17 and CCL22 levels and several pharmacokinetic measures, including AUC, maximum serum concentration, clearance, volume of distribution, and terminal half-life. It also indicates 16 posted secondary outcomes. The specific numerical results for those secondary measures are not included in the registry record for this explanation, so no conclusions about them can be made.
10. Exact Estimates for Each Arm
No two-arm comparison is shown for this trial, but each arm's result can still be summarized with exact interval estimates computed from the posted counts. The Clopper-Pearson interval is exact and conservative; the Wilson interval is a common closer-to-nominal alternative; the Bayesian credible interval uses a uniform Beta(1, 1) prior. For small groups the three can differ noticeably.
| Arm | Participants | Events | Observed % | Clopper-Pearson 95% CI | Wilson 95% CI | Bayesian 95% credible interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part 1: MK-8226 0.3 mg/kg | 9 | 8 | 88.9% | 51.8% to 99.7% | 56.5% to 98.0% | 55.5% to 97.5% |
| Part 1: MK-8226 1 mg/kg | 9 | 6 | 66.7% | 29.9% to 92.5% | 35.4% to 87.9% | 34.8% to 87.8% |
| Part 1: MK-8226 3 mg/kg | 8 | 6 | 75.0% | 34.9% to 96.8% | 40.9% to 92.9% | 40.0% to 92.5% |
| Part 1: MK-8226 10 mg/kg | 10 | 7 | 70.0% | 34.8% to 93.3% | 39.7% to 89.2% | 39.0% to 89.1% |
| Part 1: Placebo (Pooled) | 8 | 7 | 87.5% | 47.3% to 99.7% | 52.9% to 97.8% | 51.8% to 97.2% |
| Part 2: MK-8226 3 mg/kg | 13 | 10 | 76.9% | 46.2% to 95.0% | 49.7% to 91.8% | 49.2% to 91.6% |
R code and output
arm <- c("Part 1: MK-8226 0.3 mg/kg", "Part 1: MK-8226 1 mg/kg", "Part 1: MK-8226 3 mg/kg", "Part 1: MK-8226 10 mg/kg", "Part 1: Placebo (Pooled)", "Part 2: MK-8226 3 mg/kg")
n <- c(9, 9, 8, 10, 8, 13)
events <- c(8, 6, 6, 7, 7, 10)
for (i in seq_along(n)) {
ci <- binom.test(events[i], n[i])$conf.int # Clopper-Pearson exact interval
cr <- qbeta(c(0.025, 0.975), 1 + events[i], 1 + n[i] - events[i]) # Bayesian, uniform Beta(1,1) prior
wi <- (function(x, n) { p <- x / n; z <- qnorm(0.975); d <- 1 + z^2 / n
c((p + z^2 / (2 * n) - z * sqrt(p * (1 - p) / n + z^2 / (4 * n^2))) / d, (p + z^2 / (2 * n) + z * sqrt(p * (1 - p) / n + z^2 / (4 * n^2))) / d) })(events[i], n[i])
cat(sprintf("ARM|%s|%d|%d|%.1f|%.1f|%.1f|%.1f|%.1f|%.1f|%.1f\n", arm[i], n[i], events[i], 100 * events[i] / n[i],
100 * ci[1], 100 * ci[2], 100 * wi[1], 100 * wi[2], 100 * cr[1], 100 * cr[2]))
}
ARM Part 1: MK-8226 0.3 mg/kg 9 8 88.9 51.8 99.7 56.5 98.0 55.5 97.5
ARM Part 1: MK-8226 1 mg/kg 9 6 66.7 29.9 92.5 35.4 87.9 34.8 87.8
ARM Part 1: MK-8226 3 mg/kg 8 6 75.0 34.9 96.8 40.9 92.9 40.0 92.5
ARM Part 1: MK-8226 10 mg/kg 10 7 70.0 34.8 93.3 39.7 89.2 39.0 89.1
ARM Part 1: Placebo (Pooled) 8 7 87.5 47.3 99.7 52.9 97.8 51.8 97.2
ARM Part 2: MK-8226 3 mg/kg 13 10 76.9 46.2 95.0 49.7 91.8 49.2 91.611. Multiplicity, Missing Data and Analysis Populations
The study had a broad set of objectives and outcome measures. The registry lists 20 outcome measures and 16 posted secondary outcomes, including biomarkers and pharmacokinetic measures, alongside the primary adverse-event endpoint. When many outcomes or comparisons are examined, the chance of at least one apparently unusual result can increase. General statistical explanation: multiplicity procedures can address this issue by controlling an error rate across a defined family of tests. The registry record does not report whether any multiplicity adjustment or testing hierarchy was planned or used.
Missing-data methods are also not reported in the registry record. The primary analysis population is defined as participants who received at least one dose, and the posted outcome counts have group-specific analyzed denominators. The record does not explain why analyzed counts differ between groups or from the overall enrollment, whether any endpoint observations were missing, or how missing outcome data were handled. No assumption about missingness or imputation should be inferred.
The early termination is stated to have been for business reasons. The record does not report whether it affected follow-up completeness, which planned analyses were changed, or whether a prespecified statistical plan was amended. It describes final results for Part 1 and Part 2 objectives, but not completed results for all planned study parts. The record also does not report interim analyses or a sample-size justification.
Because the posted primary result does not include an estimable two-arm comparison, there is no reported primary comparative test to interpret alongside the multiple secondary measures. This does not establish that multiplicity was or was not addressed in analyses beyond those described in the registry record.
12. Safety Results
The registry reports serious adverse events as affected participants divided by participants at risk.
| Arm | Participants with serious adverse events | Participants at risk | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Part 1: MK-8226 0.3 mg/kg | 0 | 9 | 0.0% |
| Part 1: MK-8226 1 mg/kg | 0 | 9 | 0.0% |
| Part 1: MK-8226 3 mg/kg | 0 | 8 | 0.0% |
| Part 1: MK-8226 10 mg/kg | 1 | 10 | 10.0% |
| Part 1: Placebo (Pooled) | 0 | 8 | 0.0% |
| Part 2: MK-8226 3 mg/kg | 0 | 13 | 0.0% |
| Part 2: Placebo | 1 | 8 | 12.5% |
Other (non-serious) adverse events
Participants with at least one non-serious event at or above the registry's 5% reporting threshold.
| Arm | Participants affected of at risk |
|---|---|
| Part 1: MK-8226 0.3 mg/kg | 8 of 9 |
| Part 1: MK-8226 1 mg/kg | 6 of 9 |
| Part 1: MK-8226 3 mg/kg | 6 of 8 |
| Part 1: MK-8226 10 mg/kg | 7 of 10 |
| Part 1: Placebo (Pooled) | 7 of 8 |
| Part 2: MK-8226 3 mg/kg | 10 of 13 |
Most frequent serious adverse event terms
| Event term | Organ system | Part 1: MK-8226 0.3 mg/kg | Part 1: MK-8226 1 mg/kg | Part 1: MK-8226 3 mg/kg | Part 1: MK-8226 10 mg/kg | Part 1: Placebo (Pooled) | Part 2: MK-8226 3 mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abortion induced | Surgical and medical procedures | 0 of 9 | 0 of 9 | 0 of 8 | 1 of 10 | 0 of 8 | 0 of 13 |
| Erysipelas | Infections and infestations | 0 of 9 | 0 of 9 | 0 of 8 | 0 of 10 | 0 of 8 | 0 of 13 |
Most frequent non-serious adverse event terms
| Event term | Organ system | Part 1: MK-8226 0.3 mg/kg | Part 1: MK-8226 1 mg/kg | Part 1: MK-8226 3 mg/kg | Part 1: MK-8226 10 mg/kg | Part 1: Placebo (Pooled) | Part 2: MK-8226 3 mg/kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nasopharyngitis | Infections and infestations | 4 of 9 | 1 of 9 | 1 of 8 | 3 of 10 | 2 of 8 | 4 of 13 |
| Headache | Nervous system disorders | 2 of 9 | 0 of 9 | 1 of 8 | 1 of 10 | 1 of 8 | 3 of 13 |
| Dermatitis atopic | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | 0 of 9 | 1 of 9 | 1 of 8 | 1 of 10 | 0 of 8 | 3 of 13 |
| Arthralgia | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | 1 of 9 | 0 of 9 | 1 of 8 | 0 of 10 | 1 of 8 | 1 of 13 |
| Nausea | Gastrointestinal disorders | 0 of 9 | 1 of 9 | 0 of 8 | 1 of 10 | 0 of 8 | 1 of 13 |
| Fatigue | General disorders | 1 of 9 | 1 of 9 | 1 of 8 | 0 of 10 | 0 of 8 | 0 of 13 |
| Cellulitis | Infections and infestations | 1 of 9 | 0 of 9 | 1 of 8 | 0 of 10 | 1 of 8 | 0 of 13 |
| Insomnia | Psychiatric disorders | 0 of 9 | 1 of 9 | 1 of 8 | 0 of 10 | 1 of 8 | 0 of 13 |
| Pruritus | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | 1 of 9 | 0 of 9 | 1 of 8 | 1 of 10 | 0 of 8 | 0 of 13 |
| Bronchitis | Infections and infestations | 1 of 9 | 1 of 9 | 0 of 8 | 0 of 10 | 0 of 8 | 0 of 13 |
Serious events with the highest arm-level rate: erysipelas (12.5%), abortion induced (10.0%).
Serious adverse events are reported as participant counts by group. In Part 1, the counts were 0 of 9 in the 0.3 mg/kg group, 0 of 9 in the 1 mg/kg group, 0 of 8 in the 3 mg/kg group, and 1 of 10 in the 10 mg/kg group; pooled placebo had 0 of 8. In Part 2, the MK-8226 3 mg/kg group had 0 of 13 and placebo had 1 of 8. These counts are separate from the primary outcome, which counts participants with at least one adverse event of any seriousness.
A serious adverse event count indicates how many participants in the group had at least one event classified as serious. It does not show whether the event was caused by treatment, and the registry definition of an adverse event does not require a causal relationship. The record does not provide event-level details or a causal assessment for these serious events. Death counts are not reported in the registry record; that should not be interpreted as a report of zero deaths.
The registry lists “Erysipelas” at 12.5% and “Abortion induced” at 10.0% among serious adverse event terms. The denominator and context for those percentages are not reported in the registry record. They should not be treated as rates for an individual treatment group or as comparative risks without that information.
13. What the Result Does, and Does Not, Mean
The posted results describe adverse-event experience among participants in the reported study groups. For the primary endpoint, the record provides the number of participants with at least one adverse event and the analyzed group counts. It also reports serious adverse event counts separately. This information is useful for understanding what the registry records for the study’s safety outcomes.
The primary outcome is not a measure of atopic dermatitis response. Although the study had efficacy objectives, the figures do not show whether skin symptoms improved, whether any change was clinically meaningful, or how efficacy compared between MK-8226 and placebo. Efficacy results for the outcomes are not reported in the registry record available for this summary.
The counts do not establish whether an adverse event was caused by MK-8226, because the endpoint definition includes events regardless of whether they were considered related to study treatment or a protocol procedure. They also do not show the total number of events, their duration, or the full severity profile. The serious-event counts likewise do not establish causality or comparative safety.
No estimable two-arm comparison, confidence interval, or p-value is reported for the primary binary endpoint. Therefore, these results do not establish that MK-8226 differs from placebo, that the groups are equivalent, or that there is no difference. The relatively small group counts and the early termination further constrain the scope of conclusions that can be drawn from the registry record.
The record describes a study that ended early for business reasons and reports final results for selected objectives in Parts 1 and 2. It does not report completed results for every planned part and objective. The findings should thus be understood as the posted results for the reported analyses, not as a complete account of all intended study questions or as a basis for medical advice.
14. Why This Trial Matters Statistically
This trial illustrates how a safety-focused primary outcome can be reported in a complex early-phase study. The design involved multiple dose groups, two study parts with separate placebo groups, and a wider set of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, immunogenicity, and efficacy objectives. Yet the primary endpoint is a straightforward participant-level count: whether a participant experienced at least one adverse event during follow-up of up to 32 weeks.
For statistical interpretation, the distinction between group description and comparative inference is central. The registry gives counts in each group, but the binary two-arm comparison was not estimable. Without a comparative estimate and information about its uncertainty, a reader should not treat visual differences between counts as a formal treatment effect. This is particularly important when the group sizes are limited and the trial was not reported as a definitive efficacy study.
The record also illustrates the importance of separating an adverse event from an event caused by treatment. The registry’s adverse-event definition does not require a causal relationship. The endpoint is therefore a broad safety description, while attribution and detailed clinical context require information not reported in the registry record.
Finally, early termination and incomplete reporting of the study’s intended parts affect the reach of any interpretation. The record states that the termination was for business reasons, but does not report whether this altered the statistical plan or data completeness. These limitations make precise, restrained interpretation more appropriate than extrapolating from the posted counts to broader conclusions.
15. Limitations
- The posted summary statistics are the only data these results rest on; patient-level data, full protocols and statistical analysis plans are not available.
- Recalculated results are simple, unadjusted calculations from posted summaries. They do not replace the sponsor's prespecified analysis.
This was a small, multi-part Phase Ib study with several dose groups and separate placebo groups for Part 1 and Part 2. The registry record does not report an estimable two-arm comparison for the primary binary endpoint, so the posted counts do not support a formal comparative conclusion. The record also does not report a confidence interval or p-value for that endpoint.
The trial was terminated early for business reasons on 08 May 2014. Although the record describes final results for specified Part 1 and Part 2 objectives, it does not report completed results for Part 3 or every planned objective. The registry record does not explain how early termination affected follow-up, outcome completeness, or the analyses reported.
The primary outcome counts any adverse event, whether or not it was considered related to treatment. The posted counts do not supply a full account of event severity, duration, recurrence, or causal attribution. Serious adverse event terms are listed with percentages, but the denominator and context for those percentages are not reported in the registry record. Death counts are also not reported.
The record does not report the original sample-size justification, a statistical analysis plan, missing-data handling, multiplicity procedures, or interim analyses. It defines the primary analysis population as participants who received at least one dose, but does not explain differences among analyzed group counts or their relationship to overall enrollment. These gaps limit assessment of precision, potential bias, and the completeness of the planned analyses.
16. Related Tutorials
17. Related Statistical Calculators
18. Sources
- ClinicalTrials.gov: A Study of Intravenous MK-8226 in Participants With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis (MK-8226-003) — NCT01732510.
- Registry record last updated 2019-03-15; status last verified 2019-02.
- Results first posted 2016-06-09.
- Data retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov on 2026-11-09.
- Group sizes, means, event counts and sponsor-reported p-values are reproduced as posted. Effect estimates, confidence intervals and p-values not attributed to the sponsor are independently calculated from the posted summary statistics.
Continue through the Clinical Biostats statistical pathway
Use this trial's endpoint as a starting point for deeper study of effect measures, confidence intervals, and sample-size planning.
19. Record Summary
NCT01732510 was a randomized, quadruple-masked, parallel-group Phase Ib study of intravenous MK-8226 and placebo in participants with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. The study included multiple rising-dose groups across three planned parts and recorded enrollment of 65. Listed active regimens were weight-based and administered every 2 weeks for 12 weeks.
The primary outcome was the number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event up to 32 weeks, analyzed in the All Subjects as Treated population. The registry posts group counts but no estimable two-arm comparison for this binary endpoint. The study was terminated early for business reasons on 08 May 2014. The record describes final results for Part 1 and Part 2 objectives, but does not report completed results for all planned parts or objectives.