| Title |
Paradoxical skin lesions induced by anti-TNF-α agents in SAPHO syndrome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-018-4083-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chen Li, Xia Wu, Yihan Cao, Yueping Zeng, Weihong Zhang, Shuo Zhang, Yuehua Liu, Hongzhong Jin, Wen Zhang, Li Li |
| Abstract |
The objectives of the study were to characterize the clinical picture of paradoxical skin lesions in SAPHO patients treated with anti-TNF-α agents and to explore its pathogenesis. Patients treated with anti-TNF-α therapy were identified from a cohort of 164 SAPHO patients. The clinical data and skin biopsies were collected. The usage, efficacy, and side effects of anti-TNF-α therapy were recorded. Forty-one (25.0%) patients received anti-TNF-α therapy, of which seven (17.1%) developed paradoxical skin lesions after 1 to 14 infusions. Patients with such lesions were older at onset of skin lesions than those without (p = 0.034). Expression of TNF-α in palmoplantar pustulosis increased after anti-TNF-α therapy in the two examined patients with exacerbated skin lesions. Anti-TNF-α therapy induces paradoxical skin lesions in 17.1% SAPHO patients. Late onset of skin manifestations is associated with an increased risk of such lesions. The paradoxical elevation of TNF-α expression in lesions may contribute to this phenomenon. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 2 | 8% |
| Ukraine | 2 | 8% |
| United States | 2 | 8% |
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Dominican Republic | 1 | 4% |
| Russia | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 12 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 65% |
| Scientists | 4 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 12% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 20% |
| Researcher | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 48% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 31 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,006,994
of 23,036,991 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#238
of 3,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,847
of 329,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#5
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,036,991 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
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 329,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.