The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Randomized, controlled trial of TNF-α antagonist in CTL-mediated severe cutaneous adverse reactions
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Cytotoxic T lymphocyte-mediated (CTL-mediated) severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs), including Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), are rare but life-threatening adverse reactions commonly induced by drugs. Although high levels of CTL-associated cytokines, chemokines, or cytotoxic proteins, including TNF-α and granulysin, were observed in SJS-TEN patients in recent studies, the optimal treatment for these diseases remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and therapeutic mechanism of a TNF-α antagonist in CTL-mediated SCARs. METHODS: We enrolled 96 patients with SJS-TEN in a randomized trial to compare the effects of the TNF-α antagonist etanercept versus traditional corticosteroids. RESULTS: Etanercept improved clinical outcomes in patients with SJS-TEN. Etanercept decreased the SCORTEN-based predicted mortality rate (predicted and observed rates, 17.7% and 8.3%, respectively). Compared with corticosteroids, etanercept further reduced the skin-healing time in moderate-to-severe SJS-TEN patients (median time for skin healing was 14 and 19 days for etanercept and corticosteroids, respectively; P = 0.010), with a lower incidence of gastrointestinal hemorrhage in all SJS-TEN patients (2.6% for etanercept and 18.2% for corticosteroids; P = 0.03). In the therapeutic mechanism study, etanercept decreased the TNF-α and granulysin secretions in blister fluids and plasma (45.7%-62.5% decrease after treatment; all P < 0.05) and increased the Treg population (2-fold percentage increase after treatment; P = 0.002), which was related to mortality in severe SJS-TEN. CONCLUSIONS: The anti-TNF-α biologic agent etanercept serves as an effective alternative for the treatment of CTL-mediated SCARs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01276314. FUNDING: Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions
Naranjo, C. A., Busto, U., Sellers, E. M., Sandor, P., Ruiz, I., Roberts, E. A., Janecek, E., Domecq, C., & Greenblatt, D. J. (1981) · Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics · doi:10.1038/clpt.1981.154 · Cited by 11,914
Corticosteroids and risk of gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Narum, S., Westergren, T., & Klemp, M. (2014) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004587 · Cited by 327 · cited 1×
“However, systemic corticosteroids have been known to be associated with an increased risk of GI hemorrhage (37, 44).”
Background
Cited by
Current perspectives on severe drug eruption
Zhang, J., Lei, Z., Xu, C., Zhao, J., & Kang, X. (2021) · Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology · doi:10.1007/s12016-021-08859-0 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, C.-W., Yang, L.-Y., Chen, C.-B., Ho, H.-C., Hung, S.-I., Yang, C.-H., Chang, C.-J., Su, S.-C., Hui, R. C.-Y., Chin, S.-W., Huang, L.-F., Lin, Y. Y.-W., Chang, W.-Y., Fan, W.-L., Yang, C.-Y., Ho, J.-C., Chang, Y.-C., Lu, C.-W., & Chung, W.-H.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Investigation
- Published
- 2018-02-05
- Volume
- 128
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 985-996
- ISSN
- 0021-9738 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-8238
- OpenAlex
- W2787407277
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 16.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.