ReviewClinical rheumatology2024
Biologic drugs in the treatment of juvenile dermatomyositis: a literature review.
Review in Clinical rheumatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor-related autoimmune disorders in pediatric rheumatology practice: a multicenter nationwide study.Pediatric rheumatology online journal · 2026Article
- Advances in Juvenile Dermatomyositis: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, Treatment and Interstitial Lung Diseases-A Narrative Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is no clear consensus in the literature regarding the choice of biologic therapies and efficacy in juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM). In this review, we aimed to examine previous studies regarding biologic drug use in JDM patients. We screened MEDLINE and Scopus for articles involving JDM patients treated with biologic drugs. We identified 74 articles describing 495 JDM patients treated with biologic drugs (538 biologic treatments) during our literature search. The median (min-max) age of these patients was 9.8 (1-17) years (F/M:1.8). The most frequently used biologic drugs were rituximab (RTX, 50%) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (34.8%). In a few cases, abatacept (4.3%), anti-interleukin-1 agents (0.9%), tocilizumab (0.9%), bortezomib (0.4%), ustekinumab (0.2%), eculizumab (0.2%), and golimumab (0.2%) were used. RTX was most frequently preferred in patients with severe skin involvement (46.3%). Improvement with RTX was obtained in 60.1% of RTX treatments. Infliximab was most frequently preferred in calcinosis (43.3%), while adalimumab in skin involvement (50%) and etanercept in resistant/recurrent diseases (80%). Improvement was achieved in 44.4% of anti-TNF treatments. Adverse events were observed in 46.8% (58/124) of all treatments. Our results suggest that biologic agents may be a promising alternative for the treatment of particularly resistant JDM cases. Controlled studies are required to provide higher level of evidence for the timing of biologic use in JDM treatment. Key Points • There is no consensus on the choice and efficacy of biologic therapies in JDM. • RTX and TNF inhibitors are the most commonly used biologic drugs. • Biologics were especially preferred in severe skin involvement, calcinosis, and resistant diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.