Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
15th National Conference of the IAOMFP, Chennai, 2006
Abstract
Abstracts from current literature
Acne in India: Guidelines for management - IAA Consensus Document
Addendum
Announcement
Art & Psychiatry
Article
Articles
Association Activities
Association Notes
Award Article
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Analysis
Case Letter
Case Letters
Case Notes
Case Report
Case Reports
Clinical and Laboratory Investigations
Clinical Article
Clinical Studies
Clinical Study
Commentary
Conference Oration
Conference Summary
Continuing Medical Education
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Cosmetic Dermatology
Cosmetology
Current Best Evidence
Current View
Derma Quest
Dermato Surgery
Dermatopathology
Dermatosurgery Specials
Dispensing Pearl
Do you know?
Drug Dialogues
e-IJDVL
Editor Speaks
Editorial
Editorial Remarks
Editorial Report
Editorial Report - 2007
Editorial report for 2004-2005
Errata
Erratum
Focus
Fourth All India Conference Programme
From Our Book Shelf
From the Desk of Chief Editor
General
Get Set for Net
Get set for the net
Guest Article
Guest Editorial
History
How I Manage?
IADVL Announcement
IADVL Announcements
IJDVL Awards
IJDVL AWARDS 2015
IJDVL Awards 2018
IJDVL Awards 2019
IJDVL Awards 2020
IJDVL International Awards 2018
Images in Clinical Practice
In Memorium
Inaugural Address
Index
Knowledge From World Contemporaries
Leprosy Section
Letter in Response to Previous Publication
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor - Case Letter
Letter to the Editor - Letter in Response to Published Article
LETTER TO THE EDITOR - LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Letter to the Editor - Observation Letter
Letter to the Editor - Study Letter
Letter to the Editor - Therapy Letter
Letter to the Editor: Articles in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor - Letter in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters to the Editor: Case Letters
Letters to the Editor: Letters in Response to Previously Published Articles
Medicolegal Window
Messages
Miscellaneous Letter
Musings
Net Case
Net case report
Net Image
Net Letter
Net Quiz
Net Study
New Preparations
News
News & Views
Obervation Letter
Obituary
Observation Letter
Observation Letters
Oration
Original Article
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Original Contributions
Pattern of Skin Diseases
Pearls
Pediatric Dermatology
Pediatric Rounds
Perspective
Presedential Address
Presidential Address
Presidents Remarks
Quiz
Recommendations
Regret
Report
Report of chief editor
Report of Hon : Treasurer IADVL
Report of Hon. General Secretary IADVL
Research Methdology
Research Methodology
Resident page
Resident's Page
Resident’s Page
Residents' Corner
Residents' Corner
Residents' Page
Retraction
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revision Corner
Self Assessment Programme
SEMINAR
Seminar: Chronic Arsenicosis in India
Seminar: HIV Infection
Short Communication
Short Communications
Short Report
Special Article
Specialty Interface
Studies
Study Letter
Supplement-Photoprotection
Supplement-Psoriasis
Symposium - Contact Dermatitis
Symposium - Lasers
Symposium - Pediatric Dermatoses
Symposium - Psoriasis
Symposium - Vesicobullous Disorders
SYMPOSIUM - VITILIGO
Symposium Aesthetic Surgery
Symposium Dermatopathology
Symposium-Hair Disorders
Symposium-Nails Part I
Symposium-Nails-Part II
Tables
Technology
Therapeutic Guidelines
Therapeutic Guidelines - IADVL
Therapeutics
Therapy
Therapy Letter
View Point
Viewpoint
What’s new in Dermatology
View/Download PDF
Editorial
2011:77:4;407-412
doi: 10.4103/0378-6323.82385
PMID: 21727687

What is new in autoimmune vesicobullous disorders?

Rahul Mahajan, Dipankar De
 Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Correspondence Address:
Dipankar De
Department of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh
India
How to cite this article:
Mahajan R, De D. What is new in autoimmune vesicobullous disorders?. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2011;77:407-412
Copyright: (C)2011 Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology

The pathogenesis of autoimmune bullous diseases (ABD) is yet to be completely deciphered. Consequently, there has been enormous development in the fields of immunopathology, diagnostics and treatment of ABDs and there is still a long way to go. The last century saw the management of these disorders improve by leaps and bounds due to the demonstration of acantholysis as the primary pathology in a majority of intraepidermal bullous diseases, identification of various autoantibodies with their pathogenic significance and a great reduction in mortality with the discovery and widespread use of corticosteroids. However, these disorders are still associated with significant morbidity, considerable mortality and impaired quality of life. Mazotti et al.[1] found strong associations between psychological distress and excess expenditure in one′s appearance corresponding with a perceived high disease severity in pemphigus vulgaris (PV).

Newer Concepts in Pathogenesis of Autoimmune Bullous Diseases : Delving Deeper into the Process of Acantholysis

ABDs are broadly classified into intraepidermal and subepidermal bullous disorders. The most common intraepidermal ABD is pemphigus, with a worldwide prevalence of 0.1-0.5 per 100,000 population, which can be as high as 3.2 per 100,000 in certain races. [2] A genetic predisposition to develop pemphigus has been documented, which, in the presence of certain environmental triggers, results in acantholysis. Narbutt et al.[3] evaluated the polymorphisms in genes encoding co-stimulatory receptors - cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA4) and inducible T-cell co-stimulator (ICOS) - on T cells and concluded that the expression and function of these genes is significantly altered in PV and pemphigus foliaceus (PF). In PV, autoantibodies are primarily directed against desmosomal cadherins, desmoglein (Dsg) 3 and Dsg 1, whereas PF patients only have antibodies against Dsg 1. Mao et al.[4] identified autoantibodies to Desmocollin 3 as of pathologic importance in PV.

Although acantholysis as the basic pathomechanism in pemphigus is well accepted, the mechanism by which disruption of adhesion between keratinocytes occurs is not fully elucidated. Binding of autoantibodies to their antigens can disrupt adhesion of the bound antigens by steric hindrance. Secondly, the antigen-antibody complex induces production of plasminogen activator, which in turn leads to the production of active plasmin culminating in cell dissociation. Thirdly, the autoantibodies may lead to reorganization of the keratinocyte cytoskeleton, leading to cellular shrinkage and separation of keratinocytes. [5] Using atomic force microscopy, it is seen that PV-IgG directly interferes with homophilic Dsg 3 transinteraction. PV-IgG Fab reduces the binding activity of Dsg 3 by ∼60% through inhibition of Dsg transinteraction. [6] In contrast, neither PV-IgG nor PF-IgG directly interacts with homophilic Dsg 1. They reduce Dsg1 transinteraction indirectly via cellular mechanisms. Thus, the molecular mechanisms in PV and PF pathogenesis differ. However, electron microscopic findings reveal early widening of the intercellular space (ICS) and the absence of half desmosomes in acantholytic Nikolsky-positive skin, supporting the "basal cell shrinkage theory" and arguing against direct steric hindrance as a cause of acantholysis in pemphigus. [7] Few recent studies have also reported profound changes in actin organization to accompany acantholysis in PV. [8]

Approximately 85% of the pemphigus patients develop antibodies against keratinocyte acetylcholine receptors (AChR) - AChR α9 and Pemphaxin. [9] PV-IgG binding to AChR α9 may block Ca++ influx involved in desmosome assembly and in protein kinase C (PKC) activation that induces changes in gene expression through protein phosphorylation. PV-IgG weakens intercellular adhesions between keratinocytes via inactivation of the cholinergic receptor-mediated physiologic control of cadherin (Dsg) expression and/or function and causes acantholysis.

Although the autoantibodies have been shown to be pathogenic, the role of the cellular immune system is unclear. Toto et al.[10] found CD28-deficient mice (lacking a co-stimulatory signal for T-cell activation) to be five-fold more sensitive to the development of PV than wild-type mice when PV-IgG was passively transferred to them. Additionally, lower levels of IL-10 mRNA were found and passive transfer of patient′s sera in IL-10−/− mice increased blisters compared with controls, which was reversed on administering rIL-10. One of the earliest pathogenic events in PV is the activation of protein kinases, including the protein kinase R (PKR) -like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK). Decreased expression of PERK in vivo has been shown to reduce the effects of PV serum on the cell cycle and keratinocyte viability, two key events in PV pathophysiology. [11]

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a group of subepidermal bullous autoimmune diseases of the skin caused by autoantibodies against the epidermal basement membrane zone (BMZ). It is the most common autoimmune blistering disease in the Western world. Hemidesmosomal proteins are the targets of autoimmunity in many subepidermal blistering diseases. Autoantibodies against BP230 and BP180 are associated with BP as well as with pemphigoid gestationis (PG), lichen planus pemphigoides (LPP) and mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP), whereas autoantibodies against the linear IgA disease antigen (LAD-1), which is the soluble shed ectodomain of BP180, are found in linear IgA disease (LAD). Recently, plectin, involved in anchoring of intermediate filaments to the plasma membrane and nuclear membrane as well as the cross-linking of intermediate filaments and interlinking intermediate filaments with microtubules and microfilaments, has been shown to be a minor pemphigoid antigen with an immunodominant epitope located on the central rod domain. [12] In 1990, a new subepidermal blistering disease was described, distinct from previously known BP and epidermolysis bullosa acquisita (EBA), where the circulating autoantibodies did not react to any known autoantigen but to a 200-kDa molecule (p200) from dermal extracts. [13] Recently, the identity of p200 has been unmasked as laminin γ1, an extracellular matrix glycoprotein composed of several forms of laminin heterotrimers. Hence, it has been renamed as anti-laminin γ1 pemphigoid. [14]

Clinical Types of Autoimmune Bullous Diseases : The Newly Described Ones

Traditionally, pemphigus has been classified as PV and its variant pemphigus vegetans; PF and its variant pemphigus erythematosus; drug-induced pemphigus; and the newer variants, namely pemphigus herpetiformis, paraneoplastic pemphigus (PNP) and the intraepidermal IgA pemphigus. Gharami et al.[15] reported a newer morphologic variant of PV, dyshidosiform PV, presenting as a pompholyx-like eruption on the soles. In 1996, a new entity by the name of paraneoplastic autoimmune multiorgan syndrome (PAMS) was described where, in addition to skin and upper digestive and respiratory tract mucosa, deposits of autoantibodies are present in the kidney, urinary bladder and smooth as well as striated muscle. [16] PNP is now considered as an epithelial variant of PAMS. Clinically, PAMS may present with pemphigus-like, pemphigoid-like, graft versus host disease-like, erythema multiforme-like or lichen planus-like eruptions and may be associated with leukemias and lymphomas, Castleman′s disease, thymoma, retroperitoneal sarcoma and other malignancies.

The subepidermal disorders include BP, mucous membrane pemphigoid, LAD, EBA, bullous systemic lupus erythematosus, PG and dermatitis herpetiformis. Typical patients of the newly described anti-laminin γ1 pemphigoid are approximately 50-70 years old, often having pre-existing psoriasis. [14] The patients develop tense blisters and urticarial eruptions closely resembling BP. On indirect immunofluorescence microscopy on 1 mol/L NaCl-split skin, anti-laminin γ1 pemphigoid IgG reacts with the dermal side of the basement membrane, whereas BP IgG shows reactivity with its epidermal side. In addition, MMP IgG and EBA IgG show reactivity with the dermal side of the basement membrane in salt-split skin. However, MMP mainly affects the ocular and oral areas, and develops clearly demarcated bullae and blisters without surrounding urticarial eruptions. Typical EBA patients also develop non-inflamed mechanical bullae that heal with atrophic scarring. However, clinical presentation may be indistinguishable from anti-laminin γ1 pemphigoid or BP in many cases. Abrams et al.[17] reported the first case of congenital EBA due to transplacental passage of autoantibodies, which was self-limiting in nature. Among the drug-induced ABDs, biologic response modifiers like adalimumab have been reported to cause both BP and PV. [18]

Another area of interest is the association between BP and neurological disorders. Bastuji-Garin et al.[19] identified the risk factors for developing BP as presence of neurological disorders, particularly dementia and Parkinson′s disease, psychiatric disorders, bedridden condition and chronic use of several drugs. In a study by Taghipour et al.,[20] at least one neurologic diagnosis was present in 42/91 (46%) BP patients compared with 16 controls (11%). Four major neurologic diagnoses were observed (cerebrovascular disease, dementia, Parkinson disease and epilepsy), with a highly statistically significant association for cerebrovascular disease and dementia. [20]

Diagnosis of Autoimmune Bullous Diseases : From Immunoflourescence to Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay

Diagnosis of ABD is based on clinical grounds coupled with detection of tissue-bound and serum autoantibodies. Direct immunoflourescence (DIF) microscopy from perilesional skin remains the gold standard for diagnosing ABD. DIF on telogen hair root sheath has shown promising results in diagnosis and follow-up in cases of pemphigus. [21] Other methods include indirect immunoflourescence (IIF) and immunoblotting. Recently, several enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) using extracts of bovine skin and recombinant portions of Dsg 3 and 1 expressed in Escherichia coli have been developed to detect circulating autoantibody levels and have been found to be superior to IIF microscopy due to less interpreter dependency and greater standardization. [22] Schmidt et al.[23] analyzed the efficacy of a novel ELISA system using ectodomains of Dsg 3 and 1 expressed in human cell lines (HEK293) as target antigens and found it to be sensitive and specific in both the diagnosis and monitoring of PV and PF. Similarly, Powell et al.[24] found the BP180 NC16a ELISA to be highly sensitive and specific in differentiating PG from polymorphous eruptions of pregnancy. It has been proposed that measurement of B-cell activating factor (BAFF) belonging to the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) family may be a useful marker to detect early activation of an autoimmune diathesis as it is thought to play a critical role in triggering activation of self-antigen-driven autoreactive B cells in BP. [25] C3d immunohistochemistry has been devised as a valuable tool for the diagnosis of BP and PV. [26] Mueller et al.[27] used Collagen (COL) VII-NC1 ELISA in the diagnosis of EBA and found it to be a powerful tool in diagnosing EBA with COL VII-specific IgG correlating with disease activity, and IgG reactivity was found to be associated with T-cell recognition of identical subdomains of COL VII-NC1. Commercially available ELISA assays are now used to detect autoantibodies against p-200 antigen. [28]

Treatment of Autoimmune Bullous Diseases : Immunomodulation Rather than Immunosuppression

Treatment of autoimmune blistering diseases is based on the use of systemic glucocorticosteroids, either orally in conventional daily dosage or in intravenous pulse form, usually in combination with additional immunosuppressants. A recent systematic review included 11 studies with a total of 404 participants. Although it found some interventions to be superior for certain outcomes, it was unable to conclude which treatments are superior overall. [29] Strowd et al.[30] proposed a therapeutic ladder for treating pemphigus, where they treated patients initially with a combination of oral prednisolone and mycophenolate mofetil. Cyclophosphamide, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) or rituximab were used in cases of treatment failure. Fourteen of the 18 patients in this study were able to achieve complete disease control with a combination of prednisolone and mycophenolate mofetil, while another two required rituximab for disease control. The remaining two patients not responding to conventional therapy refused treatment with rituximab due to the high cost of therapy. Nearly 90% of the patients achieved complete clearance in an average of 4.5 months.

High-dose IVIg is a refreshing approach in treating recalcitrant pemphigus because it works by selectively and rapidly decreasing the circulating levels of pathogenic antibodies by more than half within 1-2 weeks of initiation of treatment. The decrease is selective because total concentrations of IgG increase rather than decrease. [31] Administered at a dose of 2 g/kg bodyweight over 3-5 days every 4 weeks, it results in clinical improvement within days of its initiation. [32] The effectiveness of IVIg improves with the concomitant administration of cyclophosphamide or azathioprine. [33] Ahmed and Dahl [34] recently published a consensus statement on its use in the treatment of autoimmune mucocutaneous blistering diseases. Another promising modality is rituximab, which is an anti-CD20 humanized monoclonal antibody, leading to transitory B-cell depletion and was originally developed for the treatment of non-Hodgkin′s lymphoma. In ABD, it has been used at a dose of 375 mg/m 2 weekly for 4 weeks. [35],[36] In most patients, resistant lesions cleared within 1-4 months. Response was associated with reduction in serum anti-epithelial antibodies. Patients on rituximab should be closely monitored for infectious complications and infusion-related symptoms. Rituximab may be a valuable treatment for refractory pemphigus but warrants further studies to evaluate the risk-benefit ratio of its use. Both IVIg and rituximab are expensive treatment options and should be applied to patients who are refractory to conventional treatment regimens or to those who have contraindications for the administration of steroids. Etanercept, a TNF-α antagonist, has also shown encouraging results in the treatment of pemphigus. [37] Iraji et al.[38] found pimecrolimus 1% cream to be an effective adjuvant to steroids and azathioprine in the treatment of PV. Businq et al.[39] found systemic tacrolimus to be effective in the treatment of recalcitrant PV in two patients. Daphentin, a novel antimalarial agent, has also shown promising initial results. [40] Successful treatment of severe refractory PV with allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation following non-ablative conditioning regimen has been reported. [41]

Other novel approaches to the treatment of pemphigus that are currently under investigation include the intravenous administration of high-dose Dsg 3 peptides in order to induce high-dose tolerance and the selective blockage of the acantholytic activity of pemphigus antibodies with cholinergic agonists such as pyridostigmine bromide. [42] Because apoptosis sensitizes the cells to the acantholytic effects of PV-IgG, the blockade of the caspase pathway could prevent the blistering in pemphigus. Pacheco-Tovar et al.[43] studied the effects of caspase inhibitor Ac-DEVD-CMK in BALB/c mice where pemphigus had been induced experimentally and found the caspase inhibitor to block apoptosis and prevent blistering. It has also been studied that hyperadhesion of desmosomes makes them more resistant to acantholysis in experimental PV. Cirillo et al.[44] pharmacologically induced the hyperadhesive state with the PKC inhibitor Go6976 and found it to reduce both the acantholysis rate and the processing of cell adhesion molecules induced by PV serum. This offers a promising new frontier to counter the effect of autoantibodies in PV.

Newer modalities of therapy in bullous pemphigoid and epidermolysis bullosa acquisita include IVIg, rituximab and daclizumab.

Conclusions

The effective management of ABD requires knowledge of the pathophysiology of the disease process, accurate diagnosis, knowledge of the pharmacologic effects of the agents used and understanding of patient expectations. Although the use of corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive agents has decreased the mortality risk in pemphigus to less than 5%, their use is associated with significant long-term adverse events and prolonged morbidity. With the advent of newer therapies like rituximab and IVIg, it is hoped that both mortality and morbidity due to ABD will fall further along with an improvement in patient′s quality of life. However, these are costly therapies and long-term studies are still awaited to observe their side-effect profile.

References
1.
Mazzotti E, Mozzetta A, Antinone V, Alfani S, Cianchini G, Abeni D. Psychological distress and investment in one's appearance in patients with pemphigus. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2011;25:285-9.
[Google Scholar]
2.
Ahmed AR, Yunis EJ, Kharti K, Waqner R, Notani G, Awdeh Z, et al. Major histocompatibility complex haplotype studies in Ashkenazi Jewish patients with pemphigus vulgaris. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990;87:7658-62.
[Google Scholar]
3.
Narbutt J, Lesiak A, Klich I, Torzecka JD, Sysa-Jedrzejowska A, M³ynarski W. ICOS gene polymorphism may be associated with pemphigus. J Cutan Med Surg 2010;14:291-7.
[Google Scholar]
4.
Mao X, Nagler AR, Farber SA, Choi EJ, Jackson LH, Leiferman KM, et al. Autoimmunity to desmocollin 3 in pemphigus vulgaris. Am J Pathol 2010;177:2724-30.
[Google Scholar]
5.
Ioannides D, Lazaridou E, Rigopoulos D. Pemphigus. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2008;22:1478-96.
[Google Scholar]
6.
Heupel WM, Zillikens D, Drenckhahn D, Waschke J. Pemphigus Vulgaris IgG directly inhibit desmoglein 3-mediated transinteraction. J Immunol 2008;181:1825-34.
[Google Scholar]
7.
Bystryn JC, Grando S. The cause of acantholysis in pemphigus: Further support for the 'basal cell shrinkage' hypothesis. Br J Dermatol 2009;161:702.
[Google Scholar]
8.
Gliem M, Heupel WM, Spindler V, Harms GS, Waschke J. Actin reorganization contributes to loss of cell adhesion in pemphigus vulgaris. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2010;299:C606-13.
[Google Scholar]
9.
Vu TN, Lee TX, Ndoye A, Shultz LD, Pittelkow MR, Dahl MV, et al. The pathophysiological significance of non-desmoglein targets of pemphigus autoimmunity: Pemphigus vulgaris and foliaceus patients develop antibodies against keratinocyte cholinergic receptors. Arch Dermatol 1998;134:971-80.
[Google Scholar]
10.
Toto P, Feliciani C, Amerio P, Suzuki H, Wang B, Shivji GM, et al. Immune modulation in pemphigus vulgaris: Role of CD28 and IL-10. J Immunol 2000;164:522-9.
[Google Scholar]
11.
Lanza A, Lanza M, Santoro R, Soro V, Prime SS, Cirillo N. Deregulation of PERK in the autoimmune disease pemphigus vulgaris occurs via IgG-independent mechanisms. Br J Dermatol 2011;164:336-43.
[Google Scholar]
12.
Buijsrogge JJ, De Jong MC, Kloosterhuis GJ, Vermeer MH, Koster J, Sonnenberg A, et al. Antiplectin autoantibodies in subepidermal blistering diseases. Br J Dermatol 2009;161:762-71.
[Google Scholar]
13.
Dilling A, Rose C, Hashimoto T, Zillikens D, Shimanovich I. Anti-p200 pemphigoid: A novel autoimmune subepidermal blistering disease. J Dermatol 2000;34:1-8.
[Google Scholar]
14.
Dainichi T, Koga H, Tsuji T, Ishii N, Ohyama B, Ueda A, et al. From anti-p200 pemphigoid to anti-laminin gamma1 pemphigoid. J Dermatol 2010;37:231-8.
[Google Scholar]
15.
Bekou V, Müller R, Goeppner D, Franke I, Hertl M, Gollnick H, et al. Pemphigus vulgaris of the pompholyx type. Eur J Dermatol 2010;20:516-7.
[Google Scholar]
16.
Billet SE, Grando SA, Pittelkow MR. Paraneoplastic autoimmune multiorgan syndrome: Review of the literature and support for a cytotoxic role in pathogenesis. Autoimmunity 2006;39:617-30.
[Google Scholar]
17.
Abrams ML, Smidt A, Benjamin L, Chen M, Woodley D, Mancini AJ. Congenital epidermolysis bullosa acquisita: Vertical transfer of maternal autoantibody from mother to infant. Arch Dermatol 2011;147:337-41.
[Google Scholar]
18.
Boussemart L, Jacobelli S, Batteux F, Goulvestre C, Grange P, Carlotti A, et al. Autoimmune bullous skin diseases occurring under anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy: Two case reports. Dermatology 2010;221:201-5.
[Google Scholar]
19.
Bastuji-Garin S, Joly P, Lemordant P, Sparsa A, Bedane C, Delaporte E, et al. Risk factors for BP in the elderly: A prospective case-control study. J Invest Dermatol 2011;131:637-43.
[Google Scholar]
20.
Taghipour K, Chi CC, Vincent A, Groves RW, Venning V, Wojnarowska F. The association of BP with cerebrovascular disease and dementia- a case control study. Arch Dermatol 2010;146:1251-4.
[Google Scholar]
21.
Kumaresan M, Rai R, Sandhya V. Immunofluorescence of the outer root sheath: An aid to diagnosis in pemphigus. Clin Exp Dermatol 2011;36:298-301.
[Google Scholar]
22.
Ng PP, Thng ST, Mohamed K, Tan SH. Comparison of desmoglein ELISA and indirect immunofluorescence using two substrates (monkey oesophagus and normal human skin) in the diagnosis of pemphigus. Australas J Dermatol 2005;46:239-41.
[Google Scholar]
23.
Schmidt E, Dahnrich C, Rosemann A, Probst C, Komorowski L. Novel ELISA systems for antibodies to desmoglein 1 and 3: Correlation of disease activity with serum autoantibody levels in individual pemphigus patients. Exp Dermatol 2010;19:458-63.
[Google Scholar]
24.
Powell AM, Sakuma-Oyama Y, Oyama N, Albert N, Bhogal B, Kaneko F, et al. Usefulness of BP180 NC16a enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in the serodiagnosis of PG and in differentiating between PG and pruritic urticarial papules and plaques of pregnancy. Arch Dermatol 2005;141:705-10.
[Google Scholar]
25.
Asashima N, Fujimoto M, Watanabe R, Nakashima H, Yazawa N, Okochi H, et al. Serum levels of BAFF are increased in BP but not in pemphigus vulgaris. Br J Dermatol 2006;155:330-6.
[Google Scholar]
26.
Pfaltz K, Mertz K, Rose C, Scheidegger P, Pfaltz M, Kempf W, et al. C3d immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed tissue is a valuable tool in the diagnosis of BP of the skin. J Cutan Pathol 2010;37:654-8.
[Google Scholar]
27.
Müller R, Dahler C, Möbs C, Wenzel E, Eming R, Messer G, et al. T and B cells target identical regions of the non-collagenous domain 1 of type VII collagen in EBA. Clin Immunol 2010;1351:99-107.
[Google Scholar]
28.
Groth S, Recke A, Vafia K, Ludwig RJ, Hashimoto T, Zillikens D, et al. Development of a simple enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of autoantibodies in anti-p200 pemphigoid. Br J Dermatol 2011;164:76-82.
[Google Scholar]
29.
Martin LK, Werth VP, Villaneuva EV, Murrell DF. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials for pemphigus vulgaris and pemphigus foliaceus. J Am Acad Dermatol 2011;64:903-8
[Google Scholar]
30.
Strowd LC, Taylor SL, Jorizzo JL, Namazi MR. Therapeutic ladder for pemphigus vulgaris: Emphasis on achieving complete remission. J Am Acad Dermatol 2011;64:490-4.
[Google Scholar]
31.
Bystryn JC, Jiao D, Natow S. Treatment of pemphigus with IVIg. J Am Acad Dermatol 2002;47:358-63.
[Google Scholar]
32.
Engineer L, Bohl KC, Ahmed AR. Analysis of current data on the use of intravenous immunoglobulins in the management of pemphigus vulgaris. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000;43:1049-57.
[Google Scholar]
33.
Bystryn JC, Rudolph JL. IVIg treatment of pemphigus: How it works and how to use it. J Invest Dermatol 2005;125(6):1093-8.
[Google Scholar]
34.
Ahmed AR, Dahl MV. Consensus statement on the use of intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in the treatment of autoimmune mucocutaneous blistering diseases. Arch Dermatol 2003;139:1051-9.
[Google Scholar]
35.
Dupuy A, Viquier M, Bedane C, Cordoliani F, Blaise S, Aucouturier F, et al. Treatment of refractory pemphigus vulgaris with rituximab (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody). Arch Dermatol 2004;140:91-6.
[Google Scholar]
36.
Espana A, Fernandez-Galar M, Lloret P, Sanchez-Ibarrola A, Pnizo C. Long-term complete remission of severe pemphigus vulgaris with monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody therapy and immunophenotype correlations. J Am Acad Dermatol 2004;50:974-6.
[Google Scholar]
37.
Shetty A, Marcum CB, Glass LF, Carter JD. Successful treatment of pemphigus vulgaris with etanercept in four patients. J Drugs Dermatol 2009;8:940-3.
[Google Scholar]
38.
Iraji F, Asilian A, Siadat AH. Pimecrolimus 1% cream in the treatment of cutaneous lesions of pemphigus vulgaris: A double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Drugs Dermatol 2010;9:684-6.
[Google Scholar]
39.
Büsing V, Kern JS, Bruckner-Tuderman L, Hofmann SC. Recalcitrant pemphigus vulgaris responding to systemic tacrolimus. Dermatology 2010;221:122-6.
[Google Scholar]
40.
Feily A, Reza Fallahi H. Potential utility of daphnetin as a novel treatment for pemphigus vulgaris. G Ital Dermatol Venereol 2010;145:557-8.
[Google Scholar]
41.
Suslova IM, Theodoropoulos DS, Cullen NA, Tetarnikova MK, Tetarnikov AS, Kolchak NA. Pemphigus vulgaris treated with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation following non-myeloablative conditioning. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2010;14:785-8.
[Google Scholar]
42.
Grando SA. New approaches to the treatment of pemphigus. J Invest Dermatol Symp Proc 2004;9:84-91.
[Google Scholar]
43.
Pacheco-Tovar D, López-Luna A, Herrera-Esparza R, Avalos-Díaz E. The caspase pathway as a possible therapeutic target in experimental pemphigus. Autoimmune Dis 2011;2011:563091.
[Google Scholar]
44.
Cirillo N, Lanza A, Prime SS. Induction of hyper-adhesion attenuates autoimmune-induced keratinocyte cell-cell detachment and processing of adhesion molecules via mechanisms that involve PKC. Exp Cell Res 2010;316:580-92.
[Google Scholar]

Fulltext Views
399

PDF downloads
124
Show Sections