Review article: dermatological complications of immunosuppressive and anti-TNF therapy in inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the expanding list of medications available to treat patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), it is important to recognise adverse events, including those involving the skin. Dermatological adverse events may be confused with extra-intestinal manifestations of IBD. AIM: To review drug-related dermatological manifestations associated with immunosuppressive and anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy. METHODS: The literature was searched on PubMed for dermatological adverse events in IBD. RESULTS: Present thiopurine exposure was associated with a 5.9-fold [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.1-16.4] increased risk of developing non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC). The peak incidence is highest in Caucasians over the age of 65 years with crude incidence rates of 4.0 and 5.7/1000 patient-years for present and previous use. In anti-TNF-exposed subjects, drug-induced lupus was reported in 1% of the cases and a psoriatic rash in up to 3% of the cases. Anti-TNF monotherapy increases the risk of NMSC ~2-fold to a rate of 0.5 cases per 1000 person-years. Cutaneous lymphomas have been rarely reported in subjects on thiopurine or anti-TNF drug monotherapy. Combination therapy seems to have an additive effect on the risk of developing NMSC and lymphoma. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians need to be aware of the wide spectrum of dermatological complications of immunosuppressive and anti-TNF therapy in IBD, especially psoriasis and non-melanoma skin cancer. Vigilance and regular screening for non-melanoma skin cancer is recommended. Case discussions between gastroenterologists and dermatologists should be undertaken to best manage dermatological adverse events.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".