ArticleDermatology and therapy2020
A Comparison of Azathioprine and Mycophenolate Mofetil as Adjuvant Drugs in Patients with Pemphigus: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of autoimmune blistering disease, and specifically, pemphigus vulgaris, with cardiovascular disease and its risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of dermatological research · 2023Pooled it
- Dupilumab as Immunomodulatory Rescue for Severe Recalcitrant Pemphigus Vulgaris: A Case Report and Literature Review.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2025Article
- Pemphigus relapse: Mechanisms, risk factors, and agents associated with disease recurrence.The Journal of dermatology · 2024Review
- Oral Pemphigus Vulgaris Treatment with Corticosteroids and Azathioprine: A Long-Term Study in Shiraz, Iran.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Comparison of Guidelines for Management of Pemphigus: a Review of Systemic Corticosteroids, Rituximab, and Other Immunosuppressive Therapies.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2021Review
- Rituximab Therapy for Treatment of Pemphigus in Southeast Asians.Drug design, development and therapy · 2021Article
- Immunosuppressive agents for dermatological indications in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Rationalizing use and clinical applicability.Dermatologic therapy · 2020Review
- Consensus Based Indian Guidelines for the Management of Pemphigus Vulgaris and Pemphigus Foliaceous.Indian dermatology online journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAzathioprine (AZA) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) are both first-line steroid-sparing agents used for the treatment of pemphigus in combination with a corticosteroid, but few studies to date have directly compared these two combination treatment modalities. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of each of these agents as adjuvant therapy with the corticosteroid prednisolone for the treatment of pemphigus, using standardized outcome parameters.
methodsThis was a retrospective study of patients with pemphigus who received corticosteroid therapy in combination with either AZA or MMF at the Autoimmune Blistering Skin Diseases Clinic of Ramathibodi Hospital (Bangkok) between January 2007 and July 2017. The treatment response was evaluated using early [end of the consolidation phase (ECP)] and late endpoints [complete remission (CR) on therapy, CR off therapy and immunological remission]. Cumulative steroid use, relapse rate and adverse events in each treatment group were also compared.
resultsOf the 62 patients with pemphigus included in the study, 37 were treated with prednisolone plus AZA as adjuvant (AZA group) and 25 patients were treated with prednisolone plus MMF as adjuvant (MMF group). The majority of patients in both treatment groups reached the ECP (AZA group 88.2%; MMF group 71.4%; between-group difference not statistically significant at p = 0.156); the median time required to achieve this early endpoint was also comparable (p = 0.362). A high percentage of patients in both the AZA and MMF groups attained CR on therapy (AZA 73%; MMF 72%). The total number of patients who achieved CR on and off therapy were comparable in the two groups (p = 0.933 and p = 0.690, respectively). However, the median time for patients to achieve CR on therapy was significantly shorter for those on MMF than for those on AZA (7.3 vs. 12.5 months; p = 0.019), and the cumulative steroid dose required for patients to achieve CR both on and off therapy was significantly lower in the MMF group than in the AZA group (p = 0.007 and p = 0.043, respectively).
conclusionWhile corticosteroid in combination with either AZA or MMF is an effective therapeutic regimen for the treatment of pemphigus, MMF demonstrates a shorter time to achieve CR on therapy and has a significantly higher steroid-sparing effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.