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.

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.

IMPORTANCEBullous pemphigoid is a difficult-to-treat autoimmune blistering skin disease that predominantly affects older adults and is associated with an increased mortality rate.OBJECTIVE To examine the safety and therapeutic potential of nomacopan, an inhibitor of leukotriene B 4 and complement C5, in patients with bullous pemphigoid. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis multicenter, single-group, phase 2a nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted in the dermatology departments of universities in the Netherlands and Germany. Participants were enrolled between September 2018 and April 2020. Older adult patients (aged Ն55 years) with mild to moderate, new-onset or relapsing bullous pemphigoid were recruited into the study.INTERVENTIONS Patients received nomacopan, 90 mg, subcutaneously on day 1 and 30 mg subcutaneously daily until day 42. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was the proportion of patients with grade 3 to 5 (severe) adverse events associated or possibly associated with nomacopan. Secondary end points included mean absolute and percentage changes in the Bullous Pemphigoid Disease Area Index (BPDAI) activity score, the BPDAI pruritus score, and the patient-reported outcome measures Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Disease Quality of Life (TABQOL).RESULTS A total of 9 patients (median [range] age, 75 [55-85] years) with bullous pemphigoid were included in the trial, of whom 5 were women (55.6%). No serious adverse events associated with nomacopan were found. The mean (90% CI) BPDAI activity score decreased from 32.0 (8.7) points on day 1 to 19.6 (9.0) points on day 42. Seven of 9 patients (77.8%) responded to nomacopan with a reduction in the BPDAI activity score of at least 8 points between days 1 and 42; in 3 responders, the reduction was 80% or greater. On day 42, the mean (90% CI) BPDAI pruritus score had decreased by 6.8 (4.6) points from 17.6 (4.0) points on day 1. The mean (90% CI) DLQI score decreased from 11.3 (4.2) points at baseline to 6.4 (3.8) points by day 42, and the mean (90% CI) TABQOL score decreased from 14.6 (5.4) points at baseline to 10.3 (5.0) points on day 42. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEResults of this nonrandomized controlled trial suggest that nomacopan can be well tolerated in older patients with bullous pemphigoid and may have therapeutic benefits for suppressing acute flares of this disease. A larger, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial is warranted to confirm this safety profile and to establish nomacopan as a new therapeutic option for bullous pemphigoid.

No abstract

No abstract

IMPORTANCE An accurate diagnosis of mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) is essential to reduce diagnostic and therapeutic delay.OBJECTIVE To assess the diagnostic accuracy of direct immunofluorescence microscopy on mucosal biopsy specimens and immunoserology in a large cohort of patients with suspected MMP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis retrospective cohort study was carried out in a single tertiary care center for blistering diseases between January 2002 and March 2019. Eligible participants were patients with suspected MMP and paired data on at least a mucosal biopsy specimen for direct immunofluorescence microscopy (DIF) and indirect immunofluorescence microscopy (IIF) on a human salt-split skin substrate (SSS). In addition, an optional DIF test on a skin biopsy specimen and one or more performed routine immunoserologic tests were analyzed. Data analysis was conducted from April 2019, to June 2020.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Diagnostic accuracy of DIF, IIF SSS, and immunoblot for BP180 and BP230. RESULTSOf the 787 participants, 121 (15.4%) received the diagnosis of MMP (50 men [41.3%], 71 women [58.7%]; mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 60.1 [17.7] years). Sixty-seven of the patients with MMP (55.4%) had monosite involvement, of which oral site was the most frequently affected (51 [42.1%]). No significant difference was found between the sensitivity of DIF on a perilesional buccal biopsy and a normal buccal biopsy (89.3% vs 76.7%). Three patients with solitary ocular involvement showed a positive DIF of only the oral mucosa. In 6 patients with a negative mucosal DIF, a skin biopsy confirmed diagnosis of MMP. Overall, IIF SSS was less sensitive (44.6%), but highly specific (98.9%). The sensitivity of immunoblot (66.1%) was higher compared to SSS, but with lower specificity (91.3%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThis comparative diagnostic accuracy study of a cohort of 787 patients found a high sensitivity of a mucosal DIF biopsy for diagnosis of MMP, and lower sensitivity of serologic analysis. A biopsy can be taken from either perilesional or normal buccal mucosa. An additional DIF biopsy of another mucosal site or of affected or unaffected skin may increase the diagnostic yield and is recommended in patients with negative DIF results and high clinical suspicion.

No abstract