4.6 Article

Defining dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors-related bullous pemphigoid: A single-centre retrospective study

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL DERMATOLOGY
卷 30, 期 9, 页码 1345-1351

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/exd.14387

关键词

anti‐ BP180; anti‐ IgG; bullous pemphigoid; dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors; eosinophils

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A retrospective study found that DPP4i-induced BP cases are characterized by generalized lesions and scalp involvement, while gliptin-related BP cases are associated with a decrease in eosinophilic infiltrate and lower concentrations of anti-BP180 IgG.
Background Many studies have corroborated the association of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) use with bullous pemphigoid (BP). It has been speculated that this drug-induced variant presents with a different clinical spectrum than conventional BP. Objective To determine the prevalence of DPP4i-induced cases of BP and to evaluate whether gliptin-related BP has specific clinicopathological and immunological features. Methods We conducted a retrospective, observational study of BP cases attended at our centre between January 2000 and June 2020. Epidemiological, clinical, histopathological and laboratory data were collected. Results A total of 257 cases of BP were collected; 51 (24.3%) were on treatment with DPP4i. When analysing DPP4i-induced BP cases, generalized BP was the predominant pattern and scalp/mucosal involvement was found in 13 patients. Gliptin-related BP cases were associated to a decrease in the eosinophilic infiltrate (p = 0.000) and both the detection rate and concentration of anti-BP180 IgG were lower (p = 0.004, p = 0.001, respectively) than non-DPP4i cases. Limitations Retrospective, single-centre study. Conclusion Our large DPP4i-induced BP case series has highlighted that DPP4i-induced BP is characterized by generalized lesions and scalp involvement. Lower titres of anti-BP180 antibodies and a decrease in eosinophils infiltrating into the skin may be distinct features of DPP4i-related BP.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据