↓ Skip to main content

Biologic Therapies in the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Comprehensive Evidence-Based Basic Science and Clinical Review and a Practical Guide to Tuberculosis Monitoring

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
Title
Biologic Therapies in the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Comprehensive Evidence-Based Basic Science and Clinical Review and a Practical Guide to Tuberculosis Monitoring
Published in
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, February 2012
DOI 10.1007/s12016-012-8301-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raja K. Sivamani, Heidi Goodarzi, Miki Shirakawa Garcia, Siba P. Raychaudhuri, Lisa N. Wehrli, Yoko Ono, Emanual Maverakis

Abstract

The treatment of psoriasis has undergone a revolution with the advent of biologic therapies including infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, efalizumab, golimumab, certolizumab, alefacept, secukinumab, abatacept, and ustekinumab. These medications are designed to target specific components of the immune system and are a major technological advancement over traditional immunosuppressive medications. Herein, we present a comprehensive, unbiased comparison of these medications focusing on their differences. For example, TNF antagonists can differ in the way they are dissolved and administered, the effector molecules they can bind, serum peak and trough levels, the types of intracellular signals they can induce, the in vivo complexes that they can form, their protein structure, and their incidence and timing of rare adverse events, among other things. A critical review of the clinical studies that have tested the efficacy of these molecules is also presented including head-to-head comparison trials. The safety of biologics in terms of their long-term adverse events is discussed, as is their use in different types of psoriasis and in different patient populations. Finally, all anti-TNF agents have been associated with a variety of serious and "routine" opportunistic infections, particularly tuberculosis. For this reason, anti-tuberculosis testing both prior to the initiation of a biologic therapy and annually during treatment is pertinent. The uses and limitations of both the tuberculin skin test (TST) and QuantiFeron®-TB Gold (QFT) are discussed, as is the care of patients who present with latent tuberculosis infection prior to the initiation of biologic therapy. Recommendations for tuberculosis monitoring are provided.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 143 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 13%
Student > Master 18 12%
Student > Postgraduate 15 10%
Other 14 9%
Other 37 25%
Unknown 24 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 3%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 35 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2014.
All research outputs
#21,476,880
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#638
of 690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,687
of 254,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#11
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 254,134 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.