Biologic therapies associated with development of palmoplantar pustulosis and palmoplantar pustular psoriasis: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) and palmoplantar pustular psoriasis (PPPP) are chronic inflammatory skin conditions characterized by eruptions of sterile pustules on the palms and/or soles. Biologic use has been associated with PPP and PPPP development in the literature. OBJECTIVES: To identify PPP and PPPP associated with biologics and summarize reported treatments and outcomes. METHODS: We systematically searched in MEDLINE and Embase for articles that reported PPP or PPPP during biologic treatment. After a full-text review, 53 studies were included for analysis. RESULTS: We identified 155 patients with PPP/PPPP onset during biologic treatment, with a mean age of 44.1 years and a female preponderance (71.6%). The most frequently reported biologics were adalimumab (43.9%) and infliximab (33.3%). IL-17 inhibitors, secukinumab (7.6%) and brodalumab (1.5%), were reported only in association with PPPP. Overall, 58.8% of patients had complete remission (CR) in 3.6 months and 23.5% had partial remission (PR) in 3.7 months. The most common treatments that led to CR were topical corticosteroids (n = 16) and biologic switching (n = 8). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should anticipate PPP or PPPP as potential drug reactions to biologics such as adalimumab and infliximab. Large-scale studies are required to confirm our findings and further explore the pathogenesis for biologic-associated PPP and PPPP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".