ReviewClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2025
Pyoderma Gangrenosum with Biological Agents Therapy: A Systematic Review.
Review in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 2025. 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.
- Demographic and Clinical Insights Into Pyoderma Gangrenosum: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study From a Tertiary Care Hospital.Health science reports · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare disease causing painful skin ulcers, typically starting with tender pustules that quickly develop into painful ulcers. Traditional treatments like glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants often have adverse effects and limited efficacy, making them unsuitable for all patients. Recent evidence shows that biological agents are more effective and safer, leading to increased acceptance. However, selecting the most suitable biological agent from the many available options remains a significant challenge for both physicians and patients. Objective: To systematically review the treatment outcomes of two biologics: TNF (tumour necrosis factors)-α inhibitors and IL (interleukin) inhibitors in pyoderma gangrenosum. Methods: A search of Pubmed was conducted on September 7, 2024. A total of 107 studies were included using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Results: A total of 139 patients were included. Ninety-two were treated with TNF-α inhibitors and 47 with IL inhibitors. The number of included cases and the efficacy are Infliximab (n=52, 88.4%), Adalimumab (n=23, 91.3%), Etanercept (n=13, 84.6%), Certolizumab (n=3, 66.6%), Golimumab (n=1, 100.0%), Anakinra (n=11, 100.0%), Canakinumab (n=7, 100.0%), Secukinumab (n=5, 40.0%), Brodalumab (n=3, 100.0%), Ixekizumab (n=1, 100.0%), Ustekinumab (n=12, 100.0%), Spesolimab (n=3, 100.0%), Guselkumab (n=2, 100.0%), Tildrakizumab (n=2, 100.0%), Risankizuma (n=1, 100.0%). Among them, 46.0% (n=64) achieved complete remission, including 47 (33.8%) who used TNF-α inhibitors and 17 (12.2%) with IL inhibitors. And the total effective rate of IL- inhibitors (93.6%) was higher than that of TNF-α inhibitors (88.0%), but had no statistical significance (p>0.05). However, it takes less time for IL inhibitors to reach partial remission or complete remission. Additionally, in infliximab group, the number of adverse events that occurred was large and varied. Conclusion: Difference in effective rate shows no statistical significance between two kinds of agents. However, IL inhibitors demonstrate an advantage with shorter treatment cycles. Additionally, Infliximab has a wider range of side effects and should be used with caution.PROSPERO number: CRD42024608039.
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.