Biologic Use in Pediatric Patients With Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There is currently at least 1 biologic (adalimumab) approved in North America for treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa in the pediatric population. However, no reviews or clinical trials have specifically analyzed the effectiveness and safety data of biologic use in this population. The objective of this systematic review is to identify and summarize the outcomes of biologic therapy in pediatric patients with HS. Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were used to conduct the search on Sept 18, 2020. Results The 15 included studies consisted of 26 patients, with the mean age of 15 ± 2.3 years. Females accounted for 53.8% ( n = 14/26) of cases. The mean duration of HS prior to biologic initiation was 3.5 ± 2.9 years, with the majority having Hurley Stage II. The 26 patients received 34 biologics in total: 85.3% treated with TNF alpha inhibitors (adalimumab n = 17, infliximab n = 10, etanercept n = 1, unspecified n = 1), 5.9% with IL-12/23 inhibitors (ustekinumab n = 2), 5.9% with IL-1 inhibitors (i.e., anakinra n = 2) and 2.9% received IL-23 inhibitors (i.e., guselkumab n = 1) biologics. Of the 26 patients, 23.1% ( n = 6/26) experienced complete resolution (CR), 73.1% ( n = 19/26) experienced partial resolution (PR), and 3.8% ( n = 1/26) had no resolution outcomes reported. The time to resolution of HS lesions after biologic initiation ranged from 10 days to 11.5 months (mean: 5.1 months). No adverse events were reported in the studies. Conclusion Although anti-TNF alpha were the most common biologics used for HS in pediatric cases, large-scale trials specific to pediatric patients with HS are needed to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".