Figure - available from: Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Pathology of skin biopsy from the lesions on the left thigh showed subepidermal blister formation with eosinophilic infiltrate, dermal vascular proliferation with lymphocytes, and eosinophil infiltration. (A) Magnification ×40, (B) magnification × 100, (C) magnification × 200, (D) magnification × 200.
Source publication
Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune blistering disease mainly affecting elderly individuals. Comorbidities are common in patients with BP and have been found to complicate the management and prognosis. We describe a patient with multiple comorbidities who was successfully treated with omalizumab and suggest omalizumab as a good alternative the...
Similar publications
Background:
Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune blistering skin disease, characterized by the development of auto-antibodies against hemidesmosomal components BP180 and BP230. The mainstay of therapy are topical and systemic corticosteroids (CS) and immunosuppressors. As this pathology mainly involves the elderly, subjects often...
Citations
Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune blistering disease associated with anti-BP180 and anti-BP230 antibodies. The pathogenic action mechanism of immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies in BP has been studied since the 1970s, and IgE antibodies have gradually been confirmed as being important in BP; therefore, anti-IgE therapy may be a new option for the treatment of BP. Omalizumab, as an IgE monoclonal antibody, has been increasingly used clinically to treat BP in recent years. Here, we collected 35 papers investigating omalizumab for BP treatment in a total of 83 patients, and the vast majority of patients showed varying degrees of improvement after treatment, except for a small number of patients with poor clinical outcomes. The patients were then divided into three groups according to dosing frequency and number of doses. Statistical analysis indicated that dosing frequency had little effect on clinical efficacy. While the groups with different numbers of doses were evaluated, the results concluded that clinical efficacy was affected by the number of doses, but there was no positive correlation between the number of doses and clinical efficacy.
