Comparison of Guidelines for Management of Pemphigus: a Review of Systemic Corticosteroids, Rituximab, and Other Immunosuppressive Therapies

Pemphigus is a severe autoimmune bullous dermatosis that affects the skin and/or mucosa, and it may be life-threatening without proper treatment. The guidelines and/or consensus statements for treatment vary widely between groups. We selected 6 guidelines and consensus statements established by diff...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inClinical reviews in allergy & immunology Vol. 61; no. 3; pp. 351 - 362
Main Authors Zhao, Wenzhe, Wang, Jingying, Zhu, Haiqin, Pan, Meng
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York Springer US 01.12.2021
Springer
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Pemphigus is a severe autoimmune bullous dermatosis that affects the skin and/or mucosa, and it may be life-threatening without proper treatment. The guidelines and/or consensus statements for treatment vary widely between groups. We selected 6 guidelines and consensus statements established by different associations about the management of pemphigus vulgaris (PV) and/or pemphigus foliaceus (PF) to review, compare, and contrast the similarities and differences of these recommendations and provide optimal management suggestions to physicians. Corticosteroids remain a first-line therapy for pemphigus, but there are many differences in initial dose, tapering schedule, and management of relapse between different guidelines. Rituximab is a monoclonal antibody targeting CD20-positive B lymphocytes that is approved as a first-line therapy in moderate-to-severe pemphigus. Immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine (AZA) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), are also widely used as corticosteroid-sparing drugs, but the adjuvant applications and dosage regimens of different recommendations are not standardized. We attribute these differences to the clinical scoring adopted, the standards for disease severity evaluation, the publication year of each guideline, and local and regional healthcare differences.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Review-1
ISSN:1080-0549
1559-0267
DOI:10.1007/s12016-021-08882-1