Safety of Systemic Medications Among Older Adults With Psoriasis and Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psoriasis and atopic dermatitis are common among older adults (≥65 years old), but clinical trials often exclude that population. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize evidence from observational studies on the safety of systemic therapies (conventional or biologic) for psoriasis and atopic dermatitis among older adults in a systematic review. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (inception to October 31, 2019) and included observational studies reporting adverse events among older people treated with systemic therapy for psoriasis or atopic dermatitis. Outcomes were death, hospitalization, emergency department visits, infections, major cardiovascular events, renal toxicity, hepatotoxicity, and cytopenias. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: We included 22 studies on treatment for psoriasis and 2 for atopic dermatitis. Most studies were small and non-comparative and 20 of 24 were low quality. Studies comparing safety between medications or medication classes or between older and younger adults did not show apparent differences but had wide confidence intervals around relative effect estimates. Heterogeneity of study design and reporting precluded quantitative synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: There is scant evidence on the safety of conventional systemic and biologic medications for older adults with psoriasis or atopic dermatitis; older adults and their clinicians should be aware of this evidence gap.
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 | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".