Indian journal of dermatology · 2016
A Comparative Effectiveness Research of Azathioprine and Cyclophosphamide on the Clinical and Serological Response in Pemphigus Vulgaris.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sardana Kabir, Agarwal Pooja, Bansal Shivani, Uppal Beena, Garg Vijay K
Аннотация
CONTEXT: A prospective study was carried out to examine the efficacy of cyclophosphamide and azathioprine in pemphigus vulgaris.
AIMS: To compare the clinical and serological effect of azathioprine and cyclophosphamide in pemphigus patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, institutional based study was conducted twenty-one patients of pemphigus vulgaris were initiated on either azathioprine (n = 9) or cyclophosphamide (n = 7) in addition to prednisolone and were evaluated clinically (mucosal and cutaneous severity) and serologically enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) at 0, 3 and 6 months.
RESULTS: Azathioprine had a slower onset of action with a statistically significant improvement seen by 6 months (P = 0.016). Cyclophosphamide had a faster onset of action (3 months) though there was no statistical difference in the efficacy between the two at the end of 6 months. The (RonT) was 33.3-44.4% for azathioprine and 28.8-42.9% for cyclophosphamide at 6 months. Though ELISA had a high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis, as a tool for assessing therapeutic response a significant decrease was seen only till 3 months. This was restricted to Dsg1 for the azathioprine group and both Dsg3 and Dsg1 levels for the cyclophosphamide group. There were two deaths, both in the cyclophosphamide group.
CONCLUSIONS: Azathiorpine and cyclophosphamide are equally effective for mucosal and cutaneous disease in pemphigus after 6 months of therapy. Dsg ELISA is useful for diagnosis of pemphigus but is not a useful tool for monitoring response to therapy.
AIMS: To compare the clinical and serological effect of azathioprine and cyclophosphamide in pemphigus patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, institutional based study was conducted twenty-one patients of pemphigus vulgaris were initiated on either azathioprine (n = 9) or cyclophosphamide (n = 7) in addition to prednisolone and were evaluated clinically (mucosal and cutaneous severity) and serologically enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) at 0, 3 and 6 months.
RESULTS: Azathioprine had a slower onset of action with a statistically significant improvement seen by 6 months (P = 0.016). Cyclophosphamide had a faster onset of action (3 months) though there was no statistical difference in the efficacy between the two at the end of 6 months. The (RonT) was 33.3-44.4% for azathioprine and 28.8-42.9% for cyclophosphamide at 6 months. Though ELISA had a high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis, as a tool for assessing therapeutic response a significant decrease was seen only till 3 months. This was restricted to Dsg1 for the azathioprine group and both Dsg3 and Dsg1 levels for the cyclophosphamide group. There were two deaths, both in the cyclophosphamide group.
CONCLUSIONS: Azathiorpine and cyclophosphamide are equally effective for mucosal and cutaneous disease in pemphigus after 6 months of therapy. Dsg ELISA is useful for diagnosis of pemphigus but is not a useful tool for monitoring response to therapy.