Review article: paradoxical psoriasis as a consequence of tumour necrosis factor antagonists in patients with inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists are an efficacious therapy used in the management of several immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and psoriasis. However, since being prescribed more widely, reports of new-onset psoriatic lesions have began to emerge in the literature and are known as paradoxical psoriasis. AIM: To review the evidence available in both the dermatology and gastroenterology literature pertaining to the entity known as paradoxical psoriasis as it relates to IBD and to create a comprehensive guide to assist clinicians who treat this challenging patient population. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed to identify manuscripts that presented, discussed or summarised data pertaining to paradoxical psoriasis presenting in individuals with IBD. RESULTS: Paradoxical psoriasis is now thought to be a contradictory effect of TNF antagonist therapy leading to psoriatic lesions often within the first year of treatment. The underlying pathogenesis, although not completely understood, is likely related to an imbalance of inflammatory cytokines. The histological appearance, while similar to classical psoriasis, does have unique features. The clinical presentation can vary among patients but often presents during maintenance therapy for inflammatory bowel disease. Treatment options should be determined based upon the severity of the skin lesion, activity of the underlying inflammatory bowel disease and the patient's unique clinical history. CONCLUSIONS: The approach to paradoxical psoriasis in IBD should be discussed with a multidisciplinary team to optimise and preserve intestinal disease remission and to ensure the resolution of debilitating skin lesions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".