ReviewThe Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology2024
Rituximab in the Treatment of Epidermolysis Bullosa Acquisita: A Systematic Review.
Review in The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Epidermolysis bullosa acquisita (EBA) is a rare dermatosis of the mucous membrane and/or skin. Employing biologic treatment modalities, specifically rituximab (RTX), have become pivotal measure in treating patients with blistering diseases. This study aims to summarize the current evidence on the safety and efficacy of RTX in EBA. Methods: An extensive search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases until the end of August 19th, 2023. Two independent reviewers screened the papers, and collected data. Two hundred thirty-three studies were screened using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Results: Thirty-one studies were enrolled. The most common reason of RTX administration in patients with EBA was recalcitrant diseases. Clinical response and disease remission was recorded as 92.7 percent (63 patients) and 73.8 percent (45 patients) of the patients, respectively. A relapse rate of 39.5 percent (15 patients) in the mean follow-up of 23.0 months was reported in the studies. Of the patients, 28.2 percent (11 patients) experienced RTX-related side events, mostly mild and transient infusion reactions. Conclusion: The results of this systematic review demonstrated that RTX is safe and effective in patients with EBA. This biological treatment modality can be routinely used in managing EBA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39006807PMC11238708What 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.