***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: We included one study with 211 participants (median age 13 years), in which etanercept (dosage ranged from 0.8 to 50 mg per kilogram of body weight) was compared to placebo. Follow-up was over a 48-week period. At week 12, 57% versus 11% who received etanercept or placebo, respectively, achieved the PASI 75 (risk ratio 4.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.83 to 8.65; high-quality evidence). Absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat to obtain a benefit with etanercept was 45% (95% CI 33.95 to 56.40) and 2 (95% CI 1.77 to 2.95), respectively. The percentage improvement from baseline of the CDLQI scores at week 12 was better in the etanercept group than the placebo group (52.3% versus 17.5%, respectively (P = 0.0001)). Analysis between the groups showed an effect size that was clinically important (mean difference 2.30, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.75; high-quality evidence). However, means, medians, and minimal important difference results and results of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, Stein Impact on Family Scale, and Harter Self-Perception Profile for Children scores must be interpreted with caution, as they were not prespecified outcomes. Three serious adverse events were reported, but they were resolved without sequelae. Deaths or other events such as malignant tumours, opportunistic infections, tuberculosis, or demyelination were not reported in the included study. Also, 13% of participants in the placebo group and 53% in the etanercept group had a PGA of clear or almost clear (risk ratio 3.96, 95% CI 2.36 to 6.66; high-quality evidence) at week 12. This review found only one RCT evaluating the use of this type of biological therapy. Although the risk of publication bias was high, as we included only one industry-sponsored RCT, the risk of allocation, selection, performance, attrition, and selective reporting biases for all outcomes (except for CDLQI) was low, and no short-term serious adverse events were found. We can conclude, based on this single included study, that etanercept seems to be efficacious and safe (at least in the short term) for the treatment of paediatric psoriasis. However, as the GRADE approach refers not to individual studies but to a body of evidence, we shall wait for the results of the ongoing studies in a future update of this review. In addition, future studies should evaluate quality-of-life endpoints established a priori and standardise primary outcome measures such as PASI 75, and should include the PGA as a secondary endpoint. Also, collating and reporting adverse events uniformly is required to better evaluate safety.
Output:

We searched for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy and safety of anti-TNF agents for the treatment of long-term plaque psoriasis in individuals younger than 18 years of age. We searched databases up to July 2015. Only one study (with three phases: a 12-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase; a 24-week open-label phase, and a 12-week phase of a randomised, double-blind, withdrawal–retreatment design) investigating one anti-TNF agent (etanercept) in 211 participants met the inclusion criteria. Evidence from this single included study suggests that by week 12 etanercept reduced the extent of the psoriasis in children when compared with placebo. Although a few adverse events were reported, they were resolved without subsequent problems. We did not find any evidence on long-term side effects of this drug from this included study. Although this one RCT provided high-quality evidence for the Physician's Global Assessment and all Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores (75, 90, and 50) and moderate-quality evidence for quality-of-life outcomes, we found no further randomised studies either evaluating etanercept or comparing other anti-TNF agents, highlighting the need for further well-designed randomised studies involving the use of biological therapies in children and young people with psoriasis. Several studies are ongoing that have not yet been completed or published. We plan to include the results of these in future updates of this review.