ArticleJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV2026
Towards the development of upgrade criteria for the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa with biologics.
Article in Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Towards the development of upgrade criteria for the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa with biologics.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
42 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized primarily by dysregulated innate immunity and abnormal keratinocyte differentiation. Over the past two decades, the treatment paradigm has evolved from antibiotics to targeted biologics, such as anti-TNF-α and anti-IL-17A/A-F inhibitors. However, antibiotic therapy remains a prerequisite for biologic initiation despite a lack of comparative studies evaluating their efficacy.
objectivesThis study aimed to assess current prescription patterns for systemic HS therapies among European HS specialists, evaluate unmet needs in antibiotic and biologic use and explore expert opinions on criteria for biologic upgrade as a first-line therapy.
methodsA structured questionnaire was distributed to 55 HS specialists, the majority of whom were members of the European Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation (EHSF), comprising HS experts and future opinion leaders. Responses underwent statistical analysis to assess trends in antibiotic versus biologic prescription, treatment efficacy and potential improvements in therapeutic decision-making.
resultsA total of 43 participants (76.6% of invited experts, 80% of invited opinion leaders) responded. While 95% adhered to licensing regulations mandating 10-12 weeks of antibiotics before biologics, 81% acknowledged prescribing antibiotics despite anticipating inadequate responses. More than half reported patient-reported flares during antibiotic treatment. The majority (77%) supported earlier biologic initiation in cases of persistent flares, and 79% favoured short-term biologic therapy over antibiotics for early-stage HS. Participants identified specific phenotypic attributes such as rapidly progressing disease, extensive involvement and comorbidities as factors warranting earlier biologic intervention.
conclusionsCurrent treatment practice may delay optimal intervention, potentially leading to missed therapeutic windows. A significant proportion of respondents expressed a preference for earlier biologic intervention, especially in cases of severe disease or frequent flares. The findings underscore the need for a consensus statement defining upgrade criteria for biologics as a first-line therapy, potentially improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare burdens.
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.