Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30879179›Full record

ArticleDermatology and therapy2019

The Potential Benefits of Certolizumab Pegol in Patients with Concurrent Psoriatic Arthritis and Chronic Plaque Psoriasis: A Case Series and Review of the Literature.

David Rutkowski, Hector Chinoy, Richard B Warren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David RutkowskiThe Dermatology Centre, Salford Royal NHS Foundations Trust, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK. david.rutkowski@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2860-1636
Hector ChinoyRheumatology Department, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Richard B WarrenThe Dermatology Centre, Salford Royal NHS Foundations Trust, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe review the literature evaluating certolizumab in psoriasis and report our experience of treatment outcomes in a joint dermatology and rheumatology clinic.

methodsPatients with concomitant psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and psoriasis who had been commenced on certolizumab were included within our retrospective review. Data was collected for patient demographics, Patient Area and Severity Index (PASI), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and previous treatments. The literature was systematically searched using Pubmed and Scopus.

resultsVery recent results from the CIMPASI-1 and CIMPASI-2 studies have demonstrated the high efficacy of certolizumab in the treatment of psoriasis at both week 16 and 48. Pooled results from these studies showed a PASI75 at week 16 and week 48 of 82% and 83.6% respectively, in the certolizumab 400 mg group. In our cohort of eight patients (two female; six male; median age 49 and mean PASI of 20.8) all had failed at least two systemic non-biologic agents. Objective improvements were observed in seven patients, with five achieving PASI90 and two demonstrating either PASI75 or PASI50.

conclusionCertolizumab is efficacious in both psoriasis and PsA, including in patients who are biologic failures, and could be considered as an alternative treatment modality.

Indexed as

CertolizumabChronic plaque psoriasisPsoriasisTNF inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID30879179
PMCPMC6522617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.