A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety of Monotherapy and Combination Therapy With Biologic for Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biologic drugs have the potential to halt the progression of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) by decreasing concentrations of tumor necrosis factor-α, a cytokine implicated in epithelial cell death. The objective of this systematic review is to investigate the efficacy and safety of biologic monotherapy and combination therapy for SJS/TEN. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE in OVID were searched on October 28, 2020. Inclusion criteria were original studies containing human participants diagnosed with SJS/TEN and treated with biologics. Studies were excluded if they were literature reviews, systematic reviews, letters to the editor, or conference abstracts. RESULTS: The 38 articles reviewed included 27 (71.1%) case reports, 6 (15.8%) case series, 3 (7.9%) retrospective reviews, and 2 (5.3%) RCTs. The age range of the included studies was 2 to 85 years, the mean age was 46.4 years. The mean body surface (BSA) across the 38 included articles was 31.0%. The average actual mortality reported within the 38 included articles was 9.2%. Both biologic monotherapy and combination therapy were associated with improved outcomes in SJS/TEN. Furthermore, anti TNF-alpha therapy, specifically etanercept, showed improved outcomes as monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, reviewed studies presented a strong case for biologic treatment, both monotherapy and combination use, in SJS/TEN treatment. Based on the number of fatal adverse events observed, biologic monotherapy may be safer compared to combination therapy. Further research with a larger sample size and a randomized control trial design is required.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".