Background Chronic spontaneous urticaria/chronic idiopathic urticaria (CSU/CIU) trials increasingly evaluate biologics and targeted mast-cell therapies. Whether ClinicalTrials.gov-registered trials consistently capture patient-centred outcomes and disseminate results in a timely and linkable manner remains uncertain. Objectives To map registered outcome domains, patient-centred outcome breadth and reporting transparency among interventional CSU/CIU trials in ClinicalTrials.gov. Methods ClinicalTrials.gov was searched using three CSU/CIU-related queries, yielding 486 records and 168 unique NCT registrations after deduplication. Eligible interventional trials were coded for intervention category, trial purpose and nine registered outcome domains. A descriptive 0–8 patient-centred outcome score excluded safety. A stratified sample was independently recoded by a second author. Completed or terminated trials underwent manual registry–publication linkage, with primary and secondary publications distinguished and reporting assessed at 12, 24 and 36 months after primary completion using a fixed data lock of 1 June 2026. Results We included 128 eligible trials; 83 were completed or terminated. Disease activity/UAS7 (78.1%), itch/pruritus (65.6%) and wheals/hives (59.4%) were commonly registered, whereas urticaria control/UCT (28.1%), angioedema (30.5%), relapse/remission/rescue medication (24.2%) and explicit sleep/daily activity (7.8%) were less frequent. The mean patient-centred score was 3.37 (SD 1.98), and 20 trials (15.6%) scored at least 6. Independent second coding showed 90.4% agreement across 270 domain-level decisions. Among 83 completed/terminated trials, 32 (38.6%) had both posted results and a confirmed primary publication, whereas 15 (18.1%) had no qualifying public result identified. Any qualifying public result was available within 12, 24 and 36 months for 18.8%, 53.5% and 66.7% of trials with sufficient follow-up, respectively. Conclusions ClinicalTrials.gov-registered CSU/CIU trials show substantial heterogeneity in patient-centred outcome coverage. Distinguishing trial purpose, primary from secondary publications and reporting opportunity over time provides a more cautious assessment of the registered evidence base and highlights opportunities for more harmonised outcome selection and clearer result dissemination.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: