Noa Kremer1,2, Igor Snast3,4, Efrat Solomon Cohen3,4, Emmilia Hodak3,4, Daniel Mimouni3,4, Moshe Lapidoth3,4, Sigal Mazor5, Assi Levi3,4. 1. Department of Dermatology, Beilinson Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Petah-Tikva, 49100, Israel. kremeria@gmail.com. 2. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. kremeria@gmail.com. 3. Department of Dermatology, Beilinson Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Petah-Tikva, 49100, Israel. 4. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 5. Department of Community Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune blistering skin disease worldwide. Systemic corticosteroids are considered the mainstay of therapy; however, they may cause significant adverse effects and treatment failures, so additional therapeutic modalities with better safety profiles are required. Rituximab and omalizumab are novel biologic agents administered in recent years for the treatment of BP, yet data regarding their use in the disease are limited. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to systematically review the current literature regarding the use of rituximab and omalizumab for the treatment of BP to evaluate their safety and efficacy. METHODS: A systematic review of all publications evaluating patients with BP treated with rituximab or omalizumab was performed. The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were adverse events and recurrence rate. RESULTS: The systematic review included 35 publications (84 patients: 62 receiving rituximab and 22 receiving omalizumab). In total, 61 of 63 patients had not experienced disease control with systemic corticosteroids before receiving the biologic treatment. Complete response rates were 85% and 84% for rituximab and omalizumab, respectively. The recurrence rate was considerably lower with rituximab (29%) than with omalizumab (80%). Mean time to recurrence was 10.2 and 3.4 months, and adverse effects occurred in 24% and 20% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Available data, although potentially limited because of publication bias, suggest that rituximab and omalizumab have similar safety profiles and provide clinical benefit for patients with BP. The reviewed data indicated that rituximab resulted in lower recurrence rates and a longer time until recurrence than omalizumab.
BACKGROUND: Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune blistering skin disease worldwide. Systemic corticosteroids are considered the mainstay of therapy; however, they may cause significant adverse effects and treatment failures, so additional therapeutic modalities with better safety profiles are required. Rituximab and omalizumab are novel biologic agents administered in recent years for the treatment of BP, yet data regarding their use in the disease are limited. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to systematically review the current literature regarding the use of rituximab and omalizumab for the treatment of BP to evaluate their safety and efficacy. METHODS: A systematic review of all publications evaluating patients with BP treated with rituximab or omalizumab was performed. The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were adverse events and recurrence rate. RESULTS: The systematic review included 35 publications (84 patients: 62 receiving rituximab and 22 receiving omalizumab). In total, 61 of 63 patients had not experienced disease control with systemic corticosteroids before receiving the biologic treatment. Complete response rates were 85% and 84% for rituximab and omalizumab, respectively. The recurrence rate was considerably lower with rituximab (29%) than with omalizumab (80%). Mean time to recurrence was 10.2 and 3.4 months, and adverse effects occurred in 24% and 20% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Available data, although potentially limited because of publication bias, suggest that rituximab and omalizumab have similar safety profiles and provide clinical benefit for patients with BP. The reviewed data indicated that rituximab resulted in lower recurrence rates and a longer time until recurrence than omalizumab.
Authors: Evelyn Wang; Lukas Kraehenbuehl; Kwami Ketosugbo; Jeffrey A Kern; Mario E Lacouture; Donald Y M Leung Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 6.248