Download the Free Prime PubMed App to your smartphone or tablet.

Available for iPhone or iPad:

Unbound PubMed app for iOS iPhone iPadAlso Available:
Unbound MEDLINE
Unbound PubMed app for Android

Available for Mac and Windows Desktops and laptops:

Unbound PubMed app for Windows
(alefacept)
456 results
  • Systemic treatments for alopecia areata: A systematic review. [Journal Article]
    Australas J Dermatol 2019; 60(1):e1-e13Lai VWY, Chen G, … Sinclair R
  • A range of systemic treatments are used for alopecia areata with variable evidence supporting efficacy. In this systematic review, we evaluated the evidence surrounding systemic treatments for alopecia areata, alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis. A systematic search was conducted of the peer-reviewed literature published between 1946 and March 2018 via Medline, Embase, Amed, the Cochrane Ce…
  • Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. [Review]
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 12:CD011535Sbidian E, Chaimani A, … Le Cleach L
  • CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab are the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate to severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. At class level, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents, too. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured between 12 to 16 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficiently relevant for a chronic disease. Moreover, low numbers of studies were found for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 44 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice.Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs. Methotrexate appeared to have the best safety profile, but as the evidence was of very low to moderate quality, we cannot be sure of the ranking. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies as well.In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve patients, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents.
  • Old and New Biological Therapies for Psoriasis. [Review]
    Int J Mol Sci 2017; 18(11)Rønholt K, Iversen L
  • Biological therapy became available for psoriasis with the introduction of alefacept at the beginning of this century. Up to then, systemic treatment options comprised small molecule drugs, targeting the immune system in a non-specific manner. The first biologics targeted T-cell activation and migration and served as an alternative to small molecules. However, significant improvement in outcome w…
New Search Next