No abstract

No abstract

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.

Summary Background Reoperation rates are high after surgery for hip fractures. We investigated the effect of a sliding hip screw versus cancellous screws on the risk of reoperation and other key outcomes. Methods For this international, multicentre, allocation concealed randomised controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 50 years or older with a low-energy hip fracture requiring fracture fixation from 81 clinical centres in eight countries. Patients were assigned by minimisation with a centralised computer system to receive a single large-diameter screw with a side-plate (sliding hip screw) or the present standard of care, multiple small-diameter cancellous screws. Surgeons and patients were not blinded but the data analyst, while doing the analyses, remained blinded to treatment groups. The primary outcome was hip reoperation within 24 months after initial surgery to promote fracture healing, relieve pain, treat infection, or improve function. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00761813. Findings Between March 3, 2008, and March 31, 2014, we randomly assigned 1108 patients to receive a sliding hip screw (n=557) or cancellous screws (n=551). Reoperations within 24 months did not differ by type of surgical fixation in those included in the primary analysis: 107 (20%) of 542 patients in the sliding hip screw group versus 117 (22%) of 537 patients in the cancellous screws group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.63–1.09; p=0.18). Avascular necrosis was more common in the sliding hip screw group than in the cancellous screws group (50 patients [9%] vs 28 patients [5%]; HR 1.91, 1.06–3.44; p=0.0319). However, no significant difference was found between the number of medically related adverse events between groups (p=0.82; appendix); these events included pulmonary embolism (two patients [<1%] vs four [1%] patients; p=0.41) and sepsis (seven [1%] vs six [1%]; p=0.79). Interpretation In terms of reoperation rates the sliding hip screw shows no advantage, but some groups of patients (smokers and those with displaced or base of neck fractures) might do better with a sliding hip screw than with cancellous screws. Funding National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Stichting NutsOhra, Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Physicians’ Services Incorporated.

Background Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune subepidermal blistering disease of the skin and mucous membranes. This disease typically affects the elderly and presents with itch and localized or, most frequently, generalized bullous lesions. A subset of patients only develops excoriations, prurigo-like lesions, and eczematous and/or urticarial erythematous lesions. The disease, which is significantly associated with neurological disorders, has high morbidity and severely impacts the quality of life. Objectives and methodologyThe Autoimmune blistering diseases Task Force of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology sought to update the guidelines for the management of BP based on new clinical information, and new evidence on diagnostic tools and interventions. The recommendations are either evidence-based or rely on expert opinion. The degree of consent among all task force members was included.Results Treatment depends on the severity of BP and patients' comorbidities. High-potency topical corticosteroids are recommended as the mainstay of treatment whenever possible. Oral prednisone at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg/day is a recommended alternative. In case of contraindications or resistance to corticosteroids, immunosuppressive therapies, such as methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil or mycophenolate acid, may be recommended. The use of doxycycline and dapsone is controversial. They may be recommended, in particular, in patients with contraindications to oral corticosteroids. B-cell-depleting therapy and intravenous immunoglobulins may be considered in treatment-resistant cases. Omalizumab and dupilumab have recently shown promising results. The final version of the guideline was consented to by several patient organizations. ConclusionsThe guidelines for the management of BP were updated. They summarize evidence-and expert-based recommendations useful in clinical practice.

IMPORTANCE A substantial number of patients with bullous pemphigoid do not develop skin blisters and may not have received the correct diagnosis. Diagnostic criteria and an optimal diagnostic strategy are needed for early recognition and trials.OBJECTIVES To assess the minimal requirements for diagnosis of bullous and nonbullous forms of pemphigoid and to evaluate the optimal diagnostic strategy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis paired, multivariable, diagnostic accuracy study analyzed data from 1125 consecutive patients with suspected pemphigoid who were referred to the Groningen Center for Blistering Diseases from secondary and tertiary care hospitals throughout the Netherlands. Eligible participants were patients with paired data on at least (1) a skin biopsy specimen for the direct immunofluorescence (DIF) microscopy test;(2) indirect immunofluorescence on a human salt-split skin substrate (IIF SSS) test; and(3) 1 or more routine immunoserologic tests administered between January 1, 2002, and May 1, 2015. Samples were taken from patients at the time of first diagnosis, before introduction of immunosuppressive therapy, and within an inclusion window of a maximum of 4 weeks. Data analysis was conducted from October 1, 2015, to December 1, 2017. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESPairwise DIF, IIF SSS, IIF on monkey esophagus, BP180 and BP230 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, and immunoblot for BP180 and BP230 tests were performed. The results were reported in accordance with 2015 version of the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy. RESULTSOf the 1125 patients analyzed, 653 (58.0%) were women and 472 (42.0%) were men, with a mean (SD) age of 63.2 (19.9) years. In total, 343 participants received a pemphigoid diagnosis, with 782 controls. Of the 343 patients, 74 (21.6%, or 1 in 5) presented with nonbullous pemphigoid. The DIF microscopy was the most sensitive diagnostic test (88.3% [n = 303]; 95% CI, 84.5%-91.3%), whereas IIF SSS was less sensitive (77.0% [n = 263]; 95% CI, 72.2%-81.1%) but was highly specific (99.9%; 95% CI, 99.3%-100%) and complemented most cases with negative DIF findings. Results of the BP180 NC16A enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay did not add diagnostic value for initial diagnosis in multivariable logistic regression analysis of combined tests. These findings lead to the proposed minimal criteria for diagnosing pemphigoid: (1) pruritus and/or predominant cutaneous blisters, (2) linear IgG and/or C3c deposits (in an n-serrated pattern) by DIF on a skin biopsy specimen, and (3) positive epidermal side staining of IgG by IIF SSS on a serum sample; this proposal extends bullous pemphigoid with the unrecognized nonbullous form.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Both DIF and IIF SSS tests should be performed for diagnosis of the bullous and nonbullous variants of pemphigoid, and the BP180 NC16A enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay is recommended as an add-on test for disease activity monitoring.

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.

IMPORTANCE Anti-p200 pemphigoid is a rare subepidermal autoimmune blistering disease characterized by autoantibodies against a 200-kDa protein in the basement membrane zone. Anti-p200 pemphigoid is probably often misdiagnosed because of low availability of diagnostic assays and expertise and classified as bullous pemphigoid or epidermolysis bullosa acquisita. OBJECTIVE To clinically characterize patients with anti-p200 pemphigoid, identified by using indirect immunofluorescence microscopy on skin substrates deficient in type VII collagen and laminin-332 (knockout analysis), to validate this technique by immunoblot with dermal extract, and to incorporate direct immunofluorescence serration pattern analysis in the diagnostic algorithm. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This was a retrospective study performed from January 2014 to June 2015 with biobank patient materials and clinical data for the period 1998 to 2015 from the single national referral center on autoimmune bullous diseases. Patients were selected based on a dermal side binding on 1-mol/L salt (sodium chloride)-split human skin substrate by indirect immunofluorescence microscopy, not diagnosed epidermolysis bullosa acquisita or anti-laminin-332 mucous membrane pemphigoid. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Indirect immunofluorescence microscopy knockout analysis was performed and diagnosis of anti-p200 confirmed by immunoblot with dermal extract. Clinical, histological, and immunological findings were registered. Autoantibodies against laminin γ1 were determined by immunoblot. RESULTS Twelve patients with anti-p200 pemphigoid (7 male and 5 female; mean age, 66.6 years) were identified using the indirect immunofluorescence microscopy knockout analysis. Direct immunofluorescence microscopy showed a linear n-serrated IgG deposition pattern along the basement membrane zone in 9 of 11 patients. The diagnosis was confirmed by immunoblot showing autoantibodies against 200-kDa protein in dermal extract in 12 of 12 patients. Autoantibodies against recombinant laminin γ1 were detected by immunoblot in 8 of 12 patients. Remarkable similarities were seen in clinical features with predominantly tense blisters on hands and feet, resembling dyshidrosiform pemphigoid. Mucosal involvement was seen in 6 (50%) of the patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Predominance of blisters on hands and feet may be a clinical clue to the diagnosis of anti-p200 pemphigoid. Direct immunofluorescence microscopy serration pattern analysis and indirect immunofluorescence microscopy knockout analysis are valuable additional techniques to facilitate the diagnosis of anti-p200 pemphigoid.