4.5 Article

Early rituximab treatment is associated with increased and sustained remission in pemphigus patients: A retrospective cohort of 99 patients

Journal

DERMATOLOGIC THERAPY
Volume 35, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dth.15397

Keywords

autoimmune blistering disease; pemphigus; rituximab

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rituximab is the first-line therapy for pemphigus disease, but relapse rates are high. Delayed use of rituximab is associated with decreased remission rates and early relapse. Early initiation of rituximab following diagnosis is recommended, and the effectiveness of maintenance therapy should be further investigated for severe patients.
Rituximab is the front-line therapy for pemphigus disease. Although very effective, relapse rates are high. We assessed factors associated with disease remission and early relapse following the first rituximab cycle. A single center, retrospective cohort study of patients with pemphigus treated with rituximab (1000 mg 0, 14 days) at the Autoimmune Bullous Disease Clinic of the Division of Dermatology in Rabin Medical Center, Israel, between January 1, 1995 and March 31, 2020. The cohort included 99 patients with a median follow-up of 37 months (range 12-155). After a single rituximab cycle, 74 patients (75%) achieved remission. Increased time to rituximab was associated with decreased remission rates (OR, 0.98 per month; 95% CI, 0.97-0.998). Of patients in remission with sufficient follow-up, 15/69 (22%) experienced an early relapse (<= 12 months from remission). Prolonged time to rituximab and increased baseline disease severity, were associated with early relapse (OR, 1.02 per month; 95% CI, 1.001-1.04; OR, 1.04 per point; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08, accordingly). Initiating rituximab early following diagnosis is recommended. Maintenance rituximab infusions, especially for patients with severe baseline disease, should be further investigated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available