Treatment of Pemphigus Vulgaris and Foliaceus with Adjuvant Rituximab Compared to Immunosuppression Alone: Real-Life Experience.
Adult
Azathioprine
/ therapeutic use
Drug Therapy, Combination
Female
Humans
Immunosuppressive Agents
/ administration & dosage
Male
Middle Aged
Mycophenolic Acid
/ therapeutic use
Pemphigus
/ drug therapy
Prednisone
/ administration & dosage
Recurrence
Remission Induction
Retrospective Studies
Rituximab
/ therapeutic use
Severity of Illness Index
Time Factors
Immunosuppression
Pemphigus
Real-life experience
Rituximab
Journal
Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1421-9832
Titre abrégé: Dermatology
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9203244
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
24
04
2020
accepted:
16
05
2020
pubmed:
7
8
2020
medline:
3
11
2021
entrez:
7
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In a randomized prospective trial, adjuvant rituximab was more efficacious than corticosteroids alone in the treatment of pemphigus; however, real-life data are limited. Rituximab treatment for pemphigus has only recently been introduced to the Israeli health basket. Previously, patients received rituximab if they paid out of pocket or through private insurance, separating patients into 2 treatment groups, mostly based on economic capability. A retrospective cohort study of the 12-month clinical response of pemphigus vulgaris/foliaceus patients. We compared patients after a single cycle (1,000 mg on days 0 and 15 or weekly 375 mg/m2 for 4 weeks) of adjuvant rituximab with systemic corticosteroids ± steroid-sparing agents, to patients who were prescribed rituximab, could not obtain it, and received systemic corticosteroids ± steroid-sparing agents. Forty-five patients were included (adjuvant rituximab, n = 29; immunosuppression alone, n = 16). At baseline, rituximab patients had a higher mean pemphigus disease area index (PDAI) (p = 0.07) and higher mean daily dosages of prednisone (1.51 vs. 1.16 mg/kg, p = 0.39). All patients but 1 in the rituximab group continued systemic steroids, and 31% in the rituximab group versus 50% in the immunosuppression-alone group received systemic adjuvants. At 12 months, partial or complete remission rates (on or off maximum 40 mg/day prednisone equivalent) were nonsignificantly higher in the rituximab group (62 vs. 50%, p = 0.53); however, patients on rituximab showed faster remissions (3.4 ± 1.9 vs. 5.9 ± 3.6 months; p = 0.03) with a trend for a greater PDAI reduction (p = 0.051). Adverse events were comparable. In this real-life study, a single cycle of rituximab achieved more remissions and sooner compared to conventional immunosuppression, but the differences were not significant, probably due to a small sample size and severe baseline disease in the rituximab group. Future real-life studies on larger groups are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32756069
pii: 000508788
doi: 10.1159/000508788
doi:
Substances chimiques
Immunosuppressive Agents
0
Rituximab
4F4X42SYQ6
Mycophenolic Acid
HU9DX48N0T
Azathioprine
MRK240IY2L
Prednisone
VB0R961HZT
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
179-184Informations de copyright
© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.