4.7 Article

Rituximab exhibits a better safety profile when used as a first line of treatment for pemphigus vulgaris: A retrospective study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 96, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2021.107755

关键词

Pemphigus vulgaris; Rituximab; Autoimmune bullous disease; First line treatment; Adverse effects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study compared the side effect profiles of rituximab in two treatment strategies for pemphigus patients, and found that early use of rituximab is beneficial for certain patients, especially those with mucocutaneous phenotype, pulmonary comorbidity, or smoking history.
Background: Pemphigus is an autoimmune disease that is challenging to treat and has few available therapeutic options. Recently, several studies have demonstrated that rituximab may be an efficacious first-line treatment in newest guidelines. Aim: To compare the side effect profiles of rituximab administered after a course of immunosuppressant agents versus as a first-line therapy and evaluate the impact of patient characteristics and disease severity indices on occurrence of adverse effects. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on 999 patients with pemphigus vulgaris who received rituximab either as a first-line treatment or after conventional adjuvant therapies. The occurrence of partial or complete remission as well as the incidence of drug-related adverse effects were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Results: Smoking, pulmonary comorbidity, and mucocutaneous phenotype were associated with an increased risk of developing infectious complications by 12.49, 5.79, and 2.37 fold, respectively. These associations were more prominent among those who received rituximab after immunosuppressant agents. Conclusions: Early use of rituximab benefits pemphigus patients, especially those with a mucocutaneous phenotype, pulmonary comorbidity, or history of smoking, and reduces their risk of infectious adverse events.

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

4.7
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