Immunosuppressive therapy for ocular mucous membrane pemphigoid: strategies and outcomes

VPJ Saw, JKG Dart, S Rauz, A Ramsay, C Bunce… - Ophthalmology, 2008 - Elsevier
VPJ Saw, JKG Dart, S Rauz, A Ramsay, C Bunce, W Xing, PG Maddison, M Phillips
Ophthalmology, 2008Elsevier
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of a stepladder immunosuppression
strategy, including the use of mycophenolate mofetil and combination therapy, in the
treatment of ocular mucous membrane pemphigoid. DESIGN: Retrospective,
noncomparative, interventional case series. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twenty-three
eyes of 115 patients. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of ocular mucous membrane
pemphigoid commencing immunosuppression between January 1994 and July 2005 were …
PURPOSE
To evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of a stepladder immunosuppression strategy, including the use of mycophenolate mofetil and combination therapy, in the treatment of ocular mucous membrane pemphigoid.
DESIGN
Retrospective, noncomparative, interventional case series.
PARTICIPANTS
Two hundred twenty-three eyes of 115 patients.
METHODS
Patients with a diagnosis of ocular mucous membrane pemphigoid commencing immunosuppression between January 1994 and July 2005 were identified. A treatment episode was defined by the use of a particular therapy or combination of therapies.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
For each treatment episode, success of immunosuppressive therapy in controlling ocular inflammation was graded as a success (S), qualified success (QS), or failure (F). Initial and final visual acuities (VAs), stage of cicatrization (Foster, Mondino), grade of conjunctival inflammation, and side effects were recorded.
RESULTS
In 70% (80/115) of patients, inflammation was controlled by the end of the study. At least 6 months remission off treatment occurred in 16 patients (14%). Of the 388 treatment episodes, 50% were classified as S; 27%, QS; and 23%, F. The most successful therapies were based on cyclophosphamide (S, 69%; QS, 21%; F, 10%), followed by mycophenolate (S, 59%; QS, 22%; F, 19%), azathioprine (S, 47%; QS, 24%; F, 29%), dapsone (S, 47%; QS, 30%; F, 23%), and sulfapyridine (S, 38%; QS, 27%; F, 35%). Combination sulfa–steroid–myelosuppressive agent therapy increased the response from 73% with single-agent therapy to 87%. Side effects were the reason for 29% of changes in therapy. These were most prominent with azathioprine (40%) and least with mycophenolate (15%). Initial best-corrected VA (BCVA) was 6/60 or less in 17% (37/223) of eyes, pemphigoid being the cause in 13% (29/223). Final BCVA was 6/60 or less in 34% (76/223) of eyes, pemphigoid being the cause in 26% (57/223). By the end of the study, Mondino stage cicatrization had progressed in 41% (92/223) of eyes and 53% (61/115) of patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Mycophenolate mofetil seems to be an effective and well-tolerated immunosuppressant for moderately active ocular mucous membrane pemphigoid. Combination sulfa–steroid–myelosuppressive agent therapy in a stepladder regimen is a useful strategy to improve disease control. Cicatrization and VA may still progress and worsen despite adequate control of inflammation.
Elsevier