ReviewDermatology and therapy2026
Serious Infection Risk with Systemic Treatments for Psoriasis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis Combining Randomised and Non-randomised Evidence.
Review in Dermatology and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSystemic treatments including standard and targeted drugs for psoriasis could increase the risk of serious infections. In this study we assessed the serious infection risk associated with systemic treatments in patients with psoriasis.
methodsA systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) comparing systemic treatments with placebo or each other was performed. Studies included in Medline, Embase, Cochrane register, CINAHL and ClinicalTrials.gov until September 2024 were eligible if at least 50 adults or children with plaque psoriasis were studied. The primary outcome was serious infection defined as any infection resulting in hospitalization, administration of intravenous antibiotics, death or classified as serious by study authors. Two authors independently performed screening for study eligibility. A frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using random effects model. RCT, NRSI and combined (RCT and NRSI) networks were created.
resultsFrom 119 eligible RCTs, 76 with at least one serious infection event (n = 39,044) and out of 33 eligible NRSIs, 6 without critical risk of bias (n = 306,762) were included in the NMA. Patients were predominantly male (up to 85%) with a mean age ranging from 13 to 52 years. The RCT network showed no increase in serious infection risk with any drug or drug class when compared with each other. The NRSI network showed higher risk with infliximab and adalimumab compared to several other drugs, especially infliximab vs methotrexate (IRR 2.85; 95% CI 1.48, 5.46), and adalimumab vs ustekinumab (IRR 1.51; 95% CI 1.25, 1.83). In the combined NMA, infliximab and adalimumab were additionally shown to have significantly higher risk than acitretin, bimekizumab, methotrexate, placebo, risankizumab, and secukinumab.
conclusionsThe tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) inhibitors adalimumab and infliximab had higher risk of serious infections in the combined NMA. Our findings may inform clinicians and patients concerned about the risk of emergent serious infection on therapy.
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.