Letko Erik, Miserocchi Elisabetta, Daoud Yassine J, Christen William, Foster C Stephen, Ahmed A Razzaque
Immunology and Uveitis Service, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
Clin Immunol. 2004 Jun;111(3):303-10. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2003.11.002.
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) therapy to conventional immunosuppressive therapy in patients with mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP), also known as cicatricial pemphigoid (CP), whose disease progressed to involve the eye. Before ocular involvement, all the patients in this study were diagnosed and treated with immunosuppressive agents, for biopsy-proven MMP, affecting the skin and/or mucous membranes, other than the conjunctiva. Eight patients in group A were treated with IVIg after the diagnosis of ocular cicatricial pemphigoid (OCP) was established. The efficacy and safety of IVIg therapy were compared to a clinically similar group of eight patients treated with conventional immunosuppressive therapy (group B). The inclusion criteria for both groups were: (1). presence of MMP at extraocular sites confirmed by biopsy before entry into the study; (2). entry into the study occurred when ocular involvement was noted and confirmed by biopsy; (3). presence of conventional immunosuppressive therapy at the time of ocular involvement; (4). a minimum of 18 months of follow-up after diagnosis of ocular involvement. The mean length of the therapy, after the onset of ocular involvement, was 24 months (range 16-30) in group A and 45 months (range 21-90) in group B. The median time between initiation of therapy and clinical remission in group A and group B was 4 and 8.5 months, respectively. This difference was statistically significant (P < 0.01). No recurrence of ocular inflammation was recorded in any of the patients in group A. On the contrary, at least one recurrence (median 1) was recorded in five patients in group B (range 0-4). This difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). All eight patients in group A and group B presented to the ophthalmologist in stage 2 of OCP at the time of the initial visit. At the last follow-up visit, no progression to advanced stages of OCP was recorded in all eight patients in group A. On the contrary, only four patients in group B remained in stage 2 of OCP at the last follow-up exam. The conjunctival scaring progressed from stage 2 to stage 3 in the remaining four patients of group B. At the last follow-up visit, both eyes of each patient in group A were free of inflammation. Some level of conjunctival inflammation at the last follow-up visit was noted in five patients in group B (range 0-1.5, P < 0.05). Both groups of patients were studied during the same time period. The results of this study suggest that ocular involvement in patients with MMP may be considered an indication for initiating IVIg therapy, since it was more effective in arresting progression of OCP, when compared to conventional immunosuppressive therapy. These data indicate that IVIg produced a faster control of the acute inflammation and that no recurrences were observed during the follow-up. This clinical difference could be because of the reduced production of pathogenic antibody, and/or restoration of the immunoregulation, which may have been disturbed.
本研究的目的是比较静脉注射免疫球蛋白(IVIg)疗法与传统免疫抑制疗法对黏膜类天疱疮(MMP,又称瘢痕性类天疱疮,CP)且疾病进展累及眼部患者的临床疗效。在眼部受累之前,本研究中的所有患者均因活检证实的MMP(累及皮肤和/或除结膜外的黏膜)而接受免疫抑制剂诊断和治疗。A组8例患者在眼部瘢痕性类天疱疮(OCP)诊断确立后接受IVIg治疗。将IVIg疗法的疗效和安全性与临床上类似的8例接受传统免疫抑制疗法的患者(B组)进行比较。两组的纳入标准为:(1)入组研究前经活检证实眼外部位存在MMP;(2)眼部受累并经活检证实后进入研究;(3)眼部受累时采用传统免疫抑制疗法;(4)眼部受累诊断后至少随访18个月。眼部受累后,A组治疗的平均时长为24个月(范围16 - 30个月),B组为45个月(范围21 - 90个月)。A组和B组治疗开始至临床缓解的中位时间分别为4个月和8.5个月。这种差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.01)。A组患者均未记录到眼部炎症复发。相反,B组5例患者记录到至少一次复发(中位值1次)(范围0 - 4次)。这种差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。A组和B组的所有8例患者在初次就诊时均处于OCP的2期并就诊于眼科医生。在最后一次随访时,A组所有8例患者均未记录到进展至OCP晚期阶段。相反,在最后一次随访检查时,B组仅4例患者仍处于OCP的2期。B组其余4例患者结膜瘢痕从2期进展至3期。在最后一次随访时,A组每位患者的双眼均无炎症。B组5例患者在最后一次随访时存在一定程度的结膜炎症(范围0 - 1.5,P < 0.05)。两组患者在同一时间段进行研究。本研究结果表明,MMP患者的眼部受累可被视为启动IVIg治疗的指征,因为与传统免疫抑制疗法相比,IVIg在阻止OCP进展方面更有效。这些数据表明,IVIg能更快地控制急性炎症,且随访期间未观察到复发。这种临床差异可能是由于致病抗体产生减少和/或免疫调节恢复,而免疫调节可能已受到干扰。