ReviewThe Journal of dermatology2026
Apremilast for Acrodermatitis Continua of Hallopeau: Report of Two Cases and Review of the Literature.
Review in The Journal of dermatology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acrodermatitis continua of Hallopeau (ACH) is a rare, localized variant of pustular psoriasis characterized by painful paronychia. It primarily affects the distal phalanges and is frequently refractory to standard topical treatments. Establishing an optimal systemic therapy is clinically challenging, particularly for women of childbearing age, given the teratogenicity of retinoids and methotrexate, as well as the adverse effect profiles associated with cyclosporine. Herein, we present two cases of Japanese women in their 30s with recalcitrant ACH who were treated with apremilast. In Case 1, erythema and pain resolved within two months. In Case 2, while skin lesions responded favorably, persistent joint symptoms and headaches necessitated a switch to risankizumab. To evaluate broader utility, we analyzed 10 ACH cases (our two and eight from literature). Clinical efficacy for skin lesions was observed in 90% (9/10), and the response rate for joint pain reached 80% (4/5), with a median response time of 2 months. Notably, apremilast also demonstrated a favorable safety profile even with comorbidities like viral hepatitis. Although 30% of patients experienced mild adverse events (e.g., nausea, headache), the medication was generally well-tolerated. While this review is limited by potential publication bias inherent to case reports, and treatment responses vary, with one study showing limited efficacy, apremilast may be considered among systemic treatment options. Given its non-teratogenic nature and cost-effectiveness compared to biologics, we recommend apremilast as one of the first-line systemic treatment options for ACH patients resistant to topical regimens, especially those of childbearing potential.
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.