Literature DB >> 15183151

A nonrandomized comparison of the clinical outcome of ocular involvement in patients with mucous membrane (cicatricial) pemphigoid between conventional immunosuppressive and intravenous immunoglobulin therapies.

Erik Letko1, Elisabetta Miserocchi, Yassine J Daoud, William Christen, C Stephen Foster, A Razzaque Ahmed.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) therapy to conventional immunosuppressive therapy in patients with mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP), also known as cicatricial pemphigoid (CP), whose disease progressed to involve the eye. Before ocular involvement, all the patients in this study were diagnosed and treated with immunosuppressive agents, for biopsy-proven MMP, affecting the skin and/or mucous membranes, other than the conjunctiva. Eight patients in group A were treated with IVIg after the diagnosis of ocular cicatricial pemphigoid (OCP) was established. The efficacy and safety of IVIg therapy were compared to a clinically similar group of eight patients treated with conventional immunosuppressive therapy (group B). The inclusion criteria for both groups were: (1). presence of MMP at extraocular sites confirmed by biopsy before entry into the study; (2). entry into the study occurred when ocular involvement was noted and confirmed by biopsy; (3). presence of conventional immunosuppressive therapy at the time of ocular involvement; (4). a minimum of 18 months of follow-up after diagnosis of ocular involvement. The mean length of the therapy, after the onset of ocular involvement, was 24 months (range 16-30) in group A and 45 months (range 21-90) in group B. The median time between initiation of therapy and clinical remission in group A and group B was 4 and 8.5 months, respectively. This difference was statistically significant (P < 0.01). No recurrence of ocular inflammation was recorded in any of the patients in group A. On the contrary, at least one recurrence (median 1) was recorded in five patients in group B (range 0-4). This difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). All eight patients in group A and group B presented to the ophthalmologist in stage 2 of OCP at the time of the initial visit. At the last follow-up visit, no progression to advanced stages of OCP was recorded in all eight patients in group A. On the contrary, only four patients in group B remained in stage 2 of OCP at the last follow-up exam. The conjunctival scaring progressed from stage 2 to stage 3 in the remaining four patients of group B. At the last follow-up visit, both eyes of each patient in group A were free of inflammation. Some level of conjunctival inflammation at the last follow-up visit was noted in five patients in group B (range 0-1.5, P < 0.05). Both groups of patients were studied during the same time period. The results of this study suggest that ocular involvement in patients with MMP may be considered an indication for initiating IVIg therapy, since it was more effective in arresting progression of OCP, when compared to conventional immunosuppressive therapy. These data indicate that IVIg produced a faster control of the acute inflammation and that no recurrences were observed during the follow-up. This clinical difference could be because of the reduced production of pathogenic antibody, and/or restoration of the immunoregulation, which may have been disturbed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15183151     DOI: 10.1016/j.clim.2003.11.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Immunol        ISSN: 1521-6616            Impact factor:   3.969


  15 in total

Review 1.  Intravenous immunoglobulin in eye involvement.

Authors:  Zera Tellier
Journal:  Clin Rev Allergy Immunol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 8.667

Review 2.  Clinical uses of intravenous immunoglobulin.

Authors:  S Jolles; W A C Sewell; S A Misbah
Journal:  Clin Exp Immunol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.330

Review 3.  Intravenous immunoglobulin: an update on the clinical use and mechanisms of action.

Authors:  Vir-Singh Negi; Sriramulu Elluru; Sophie Sibéril; Stéphanie Graff-Dubois; Luc Mouthon; Michel D Kazatchkine; Sébastien Lacroix-Desmazes; Jagadeesh Bayry; Srini V Kaveri
Journal:  J Clin Immunol       Date:  2007-03-11       Impact factor: 8.317

Review 4.  Autoimmune Blistering Diseases in the Elderly: Clinical Presentations and Management.

Authors:  Minhee Kim; Luca Borradori; Dédée F Murrell
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.923

Review 5.  The 2016 Bowman Lecture Conjunctival curses: scarring conjunctivitis 30 years on.

Authors:  J K Dart
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2017-01-20       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 6.  Evidence for the use of intravenous immunoglobulins--a review of the literature.

Authors:  Shaye Kivity; Uriel Katz; Natalie Daniel; Udi Nussinovitch; Neophytos Papageorgiou; Yehuda Shoenfeld
Journal:  Clin Rev Allergy Immunol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 8.667

Review 7.  [Mucous membrane pemphigoid].

Authors:  M M Holtsche; D Zillikens; E Schmidt
Journal:  Hautarzt       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 0.751

Review 8.  [Mucous membrane pemphigoid with ocular involvement. Part II: therapy].

Authors:  T Meyer-ter-Vehn; E Schmidt; D Zillikens; G Geerling
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.059

Review 9.  High-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy in autoimmune skin blistering diseases.

Authors:  Norito Ishii; Takashi Hashimoto; Detlef Zillikens; Ralf J Ludwig
Journal:  Clin Rev Allergy Immunol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 8.667

Review 10.  Ocular cicatricial pemphigoid: manifestations and management.

Authors:  John H Chang; Peter J McCluskey
Journal:  Curr Allergy Asthma Rep       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.919

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.