Trial reportScientific reports2025
Cutaneous and systemic improvements in psoriasis patients after different biologic treatments in a real-world longitudinal prospective study.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Completeness of Adverse Event Reporting in Clinical Trials of Psoriasis Treatments: A Registry-Publication Comparison Study.Clinical drug investigation · 2026Article
- Effects of Biologic Therapies and Narrowband UVB Phototherapy on Vascular Inflammation and Systemic Inflammatory Biomarkers in Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Prospective Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Exploratory Retrospective Assessment of Patients with Psoriasis Receiving Biological Therapy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- From skin clearance to psychological wellbeing: real-world outcomes of biologic therapy in psoriasis.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- A 76-week real-world multidimensional analysis of guselkumab in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: a retrospective cohort study based on Chinese clinical practice standards.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Psoriasis: microbiome dysbiosis and pathogenic mechanisms.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- The Age Factor in Ixekizumab Survival: Older Patients Show Higher Long-Term Treatment Survival.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Observational
- Effects of Adalimumab on Mitochondria of Psoriatic Mesenchymal Stem Cells.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many tools, such as the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), are commonly used to evaluate treatment efficacy in clinical settings, but an optimal measure of treatment response may overlook the systemic response in psoriasis patients receiving treatment. This study aimed to assess and compare the co-benefits of adalimumab (ADA), ustekinumab (USTE), ixekizumab (IXE), secukinumab (SECU), and guselkumab (GUSE) during a 24-week follow-up period for the treatment of psoriasis in the Chinese population. We performed a prospective, randomized cohort study including patients receiving systemic biologic treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis. We conducted a follow-up of psoriatic patients treated with five biologics from January 2023 to June 2024 at four time points: baseline, week 4, week 12, and week 24. From baseline through every time point, we used the PASI, BSA (Body Surface Area), DLQI (Dermatology Life Quality Index), and metabolic and inflammatory screening for assessment and comparison of the clinical and systemic efficacy of biologics.This study included 385 participants treated with 5 different biologics. There was a dramatic clinical improvement from baseline to week 24, with a statistically significant difference (p < .001). Overall, 35 patients (9.09%), 145 (37.14%) and 335 (86.75%) achieved PASI 100 at week 4, week 12, and week 24 of the follow-up. Compared with other biologics, IXE (PASI 100 = 12.12% at week 4 vs. 87.27% at week 24) and SECU (PASI 100 = 7.79% at week 4 vs. 89.92% at week 24) were superior. At week 12, a high percentage with PASI 100 was observed for GUSE (38.71%) and SECU (40.28%). ADA and USTE continuously maintained a low percentage of the PASI 100. We observed quicker systemic improvements due to GUSE at time point 2 (p = .041, with low values of total cholesterol (TC) and non-HDL-C, p = .046) and week 24 for TNF-α (p = .024) than other biologics did. SECU and ADA had greater metabolic efficacy for GLU (p = .037 at week 12) and UA (p = .033 at week 24), respectively. This study confirmed the clinical efficacy of biologics and their ability to achieve complete skin clearance and further demonstrated that all biologics can continuously reduce systemic inflammation. We found that biologics have different effects on metabolic dysfunctions, such as SECU on glucose and GUSE on non-HDL.
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.