This guideline has been initiated by the task force Autoimmune Blistering Diseases of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, including physicians from all relevant disciplines and patient organizations. It is a S3 consensus‐based guideline that systematically reviewed the literature on mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until June 2019, with no limitations on language. While the first part of this guideline addressed methodology, as well as epidemiology, terminology, aetiology, clinical presentation and outcome measures in MMP, the second part presents the diagnostics and management of MMP. MMP should be suspected in cases with predominant mucosal lesions. Direct immunofluorescence microscopy to detect tissue‐bound IgG, IgA and/or complement C3, combined with serological testing for circulating autoantibodies are recommended. In most patients, serum autoantibodies are present only in low levels and in variable proportions, depending on the clinical sites involved. Circulating autoantibodies are determined by indirect IF assays using tissue substrates, or ELISA using different recombinant forms of the target antigens or immunoblotting using different substrates. The major target antigen in MMP is type XVII collagen (BP180), although in 10–25% of patients laminin 332 is recognized. In 25–30% of MMP patients with anti‐laminin 332 reactivity, malignancies have been associated. As first‐line treatment of mild/moderate MMP, dapsone, methotrexate or tetracyclines and/or topical corticosteroids are recommended. For severe MMP, dapsone and oral or intravenous cyclophosphamide and/or oral corticosteroids are recommended as first‐line regimens. Additional recommendations are given, tailored to treatment of single‐site MMP such as oral, ocular, laryngeal, oesophageal and genital MMP, as well as the diagnosis of ocular MMP. Treatment recommendations are limited by the complete lack of high‐quality randomized controlled trials.

This guideline on mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) has been elaborated by the Task Force for Autoimmune Blistering Diseases of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) with a contribution of physicians from all relevant disciplines and patient organizations. It is a S3 consensus-based guideline encompassing a systematic review of the literature until June 2019 in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. This first part covers methodology, the clinical definition of MMP, epidemiology, MMP subtypes, immunopathological characteristics, disease assessment and outcome scores. MMP describes a group of autoimmune skin and mucous membrane blistering diseases, characterized † Both authors contributed equally.

IntroductionRituximab (RTX) is a monoclonal antibody targeting CD20, a transmembrane protein expressed on B cells, causing B cell depletion. RTX has shown great efficacy in studies of pemphigus vulgaris, but data of pemphigoid diseases are limited.ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness and safety of RTX in pemphigoid diseases.MethodsThe medical records of 28 patients with pemphigoid diseases that were treated with RTX were reviewed retrospectively. Early and late endpoints, defined according to international consensus, were disease control (DC), partial remission (PR), complete remission (CR), and relapses. Safety was measured by reported adverse events.ResultsPatients with bullous pemphigoid (n = 8), mucous membrane pemphigoid (n = 14), epidermolysis bullosa acquisita (n = 5), and linear IgA disease (n = 1) were included. Treatment with 500 mg RTX (n = 6) or 1,000 mg RTX (n = 22) was administered on days 1 and 15. Eight patients received additional 500 mg RTX at months 6 and 12. Overall, DC was achieved in 67.9%, PR in 57.1%, and CR in 21.4% of the cases. During follow-up, 66.7% patients relapsed. Repeated treatment with RTX led to remission (PR or CR) in 85.7% of the retreated cases. No significant difference in response between pemphigoid subtypes was found. IgA-dominant cases (n = 5) achieved less DC (20 vs. 81.3%; p = 0.007), less PR (20 vs. 62.5%; p = 0.149), and less CR (0 vs. 18.8%; p = 0.549) compared to IgG-dominant cases (n = 16). Five severe adverse events and three deaths were reported. One death was possibly related to RTX and one death was disease related.ConclusionRTX can be effective in recalcitrant IgG-dominant pemphigoid diseases, however not in those where IgA is dominant.

Nonbullous pemphigoid is an underdiagnosed variant of pemphigoid that most often does not evolve to bullous lesions and mimics other pruritic skin diseases. Greater awareness among physicians is needed to avoid delay in diagnosis.

Autoimmune bullous diseases are a group of chronic inflammatory disorders caused by autoantibodies targeted against structural proteins of the desmosomal and hemidesmosomal plaques in the skin and mucosa, leading to intra-epithelial or subepithelial blistering. The oral mucosa is frequently affected in these diseases, in particular, in mucous membrane pemphigoid, pemphigus vulgaris, and paraneoplastic pemphigus. The clinical symptoms are heterogeneous and may present with erythema, blisters, erosions, and ulcers localized anywhere on the oral mucosa, and lead to severe complaints for the patients including pain, dysphagia, and foetor. Therefore, a quick and proper diagnosis with adequate treatment is needed. Clinical presentations of autoimmune bullous diseases often overlap and diagnosis cannot be made based on clinical features alone. Immunodiagnostic tests are of great importance in differentiating between the different diseases. Direct immunofluorescence microscopy shows depositions of autoantibodies along the epithelial basement membrane zone in mucous membrane pemphigoid subtypes, or depositions on the epithelial cell surface in pemphigus variants. Additional immunoserological tests are useful to discriminate between the different subtypes of pemphigoid, and are essential to differentiate between pemphigus and paraneoplastic pemphigus. This review gives an overview of the clinical characteristics of oral lesions and the diagnostic procedures in autoimmune blistering diseases, and provides a diagnostic algorithm for daily practice.

Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Background Non‐bullous pemphigoid (NBP) is a pemphigoid variant which frequently resembles other pruritic skin diseases. In contrast with bullous pemphigoid (BP), blisters are absent. In BP, previous studies showed that IgE autoantibodies may be involved in its pathogenesis. IgE‐activated mast cells, basophils and eosinophils may participate in BP by inducing pruritus and possibly blister formation, although the differential role of IgE in NBP compared with BP has not yet been described. Objective To assess IgE in serum and skin of NBP and BP patients. Methods We examined total IgE and pemphigoid‐specific IgE in the serum of 68 NBP and 50 BP patients by enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Sera of 25 pemphigus patients and 25 elderly patients with pruritus were included as controls. Skin biopsies of 14 NBP and 14 BP patients with the highest IgE titres to NC16A were stained for IgE by immunofluorescence techniques. Results Total IgE was elevated in 63% of NBP and 60% of BP patients, and in 20% of pemphigus controls, as well as 60% of elderly controls. IgE ELISAs were more frequently positive in BP than in NBP (NC16A 18% vs. 9%, P = 0.139; BP230 34% vs. 22%, P = 0.149). IgE ELISAs for NC16A and BP230 were positive in 8% and 20% of elderly controls, respectively, while all pemphigus controls were negative. Two of 28 biopsies (7%; one NBP, one BP) showed linear IgE along the basement membrane zone, while in most biopsies (71% NBP; 86% BP) IgE was bound to dermal cells. Conclusion Since IgE was present in the serum and skin of both NBP and BP patients, this supports IgE‐dependent mechanisms common to both diseases, such as pruritus. However, it remains to be elucidated whether IgE contributes to blister formation in BP.