Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32506208›Full record

ReviewCurrent allergy and asthma reports2020

Biologics for Allergic Dermatologic Diseases.

Sara N Bilimoria, Peter A Lio

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Sara N BilimoriaNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 363 W. Erie Street, Suite 350, Chicago, IL, 60616, USA.
Peter A LioNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 363 W. Erie Street, Suite 350, Chicago, IL, 60616, USA. peterlio@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewAtopic dermatitis (AD), chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) represent three important allergic dermatoses with many unmet therapeutic needs. The development of biologic agents has opened the door to both new treatment options and improved understanding of the underlying pathophysiology, both shared and unique for these entities. With several FDA-approved medications available and many more in development, the biologic revolution has begun for allergic dermatoses. RECENT

findingsThis is a narrative review on the current state of pathomechanisms and appropriately targeted biologic agents for these three common allergic skin conditions. The importance of Th2 inflammation and the effect of inflammatory cytokines on the skin barrier may help explain the impressive efficacy of biologic agents, while maintaining relative safety. While some of the biologic agents show efficacy across multiple allergic dermatoses, more often it seems these more targeted pathways show accordingly precise efficacy. However, in each disease, multiple agents hold promise, and may be differentiated by safety and adverse effect profile rather than simply by efficacy. New understanding of the pathogenesis of the allergic dermatoses has ushered in a new era of biologic therapies. Competing mechanisms and molecules will continue to be developed and vetted in trials with hopes of continuously refined precision therapies with optimized safety and efficacy profiles.

Indexed as

CytokinesDermatitis, AtopicHumansCytokinesAllergic contact dermatitisAtopic dermatitisBiologicsTreatmentUrticaria

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.