ArticleAnais brasileiros de dermatologia
Dexamethasone-cyclophosphamide pulse therapy outcomes comparing pemphigus vulgaris and pemphigus foliaceus groups in a Brazilian cohort study.
Article in Anais brasileiros de dermatologia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDexamethasone-cyclophosphamide pulse (DCP) and dexamethasone pulse (DP) have been successfully used to treat pemphigus, but DCP/DP outcomes comparing pemphigus vulgaris (PV) and pemphigus foliaceus (PF) are scarce.
objectiveTo compare DCP/DP outcomes in a Brazilian cohort of PV and PF patients according to demographic and clinical data.
methodsRetrospective analytical cohort study, reviewing medical charts of PV and PF patients (for DCP/DP Phases I‒IV consult Pasricha et al.16‒18).
results37 PV and 41 PF patients non responsive to usual treatments were included similarly for DCP or DP therapy. Disease duration was longer among PF before DCP/DP prescription (p < 0.001); PF required a higher number of monthly pulses to acquire remission in Phase I (median 10 and 6 pulses, respectively; p = 0.005). DCP/DP outcomes were similar in both groups: remission in 37.8% of PV and 34.1% of PF after completed DCP/DP cycles following a median of 13 months (1-56 months follow-up); failure occurred in 13.5% of PV and 14.6% of PF in Phase I; relapse in 13.5% of PV and 12.2% of PF, and dropout in 27% of PV and 24.4% of PF in Phases II to IV. Mild side effects were documented. STUDY LIMITATIONS: The severity of PV and PF disease was not assessed by score indexes.
conclusionsPV and PF patients presented similar DCP/DP outcomes. DCP/DP should be initiated earlier in PF patients due to the longer duration of their disease in order to decrease the number of pulses and the duration of Phase I to acquire remission.
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.