ArticleThe Australasian journal of dermatology2025
Rituximab for the Management of an Australian Cohort of Treatment Refractory Mucous Membrane Pemphigoid.
Article in The Australasian journal of dermatology, 2025. 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.
- Rituximab in Mucous Membrane Pemphigoid: Current Evidence and Clinical Perspectives.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) has a broad range of clinical manifestations, from relatively benign self-limiting oral lesions to significant scarring (cicatrizing) of the oral, nasal and ocular tissues with severe functional impairment and morbidity. European Guidelines recommend rituximab as only second- or third-line therapy, based on the extent/severity of the disease; however, there are no established clinical or serological markers that are predictive of severe disease warranting the use of agents such as rituximab.
methodsRetrospective cross-sectional cohort study of patients who met the following criteria: (1) biopsy confirmed MMP; (2) required a steroid-sparing immunosuppressant therapy, that is, mycophenolate and/or rituximab and (3) at least 6 months of clinical monitoring. The primary end point was complete or partial remission.
resultsOf the 45 patients who met the criteria, 12 (27%) had sustained remission with mycophenolate. Thirty-three (73%) patients had either relapsed or were refractory to mycophenolate and, therefore, were treated with rituximab. Of those who received rituximab, 97% achieved a complete remission after a single course (1 g given intravenously on Days 1 and 14), but 24% needed repeat treatment. The detection rates of key circulating antibodies, namely skin basement membrane antibodies (SBMA), BP180/230, collagen VII and laminin 332, were low and did not identify those patients refractory to mycophenolate. Adverse reactions, including infectious complications, were minimal in both patient groups.
conclusionIn our study of mostly localised mucosal MMP patients, there was an excellent response to a single course of treatment with rituximab, with durable remission and no major adverse complications.
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.