These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Intravenous dexamethasone-cyclophosphamide pulse therapy in comparison with oral methylprednisolone-azathioprine therapy in patients with pemphigus: results of a multicenter prospectively randomized study.
    Author: Rose E, Wever S, Zilliken D, Linse R, Haustein UF, Bröcker EB.
    Journal: J Dtsch Dermatol Ges; 2005 Mar; 3(3):200-6. PubMed ID: 16372814.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Pemphigus is a potentially life-threatening autoimmune blistering skin disease usually treated with high-dose corticosteroids in combination with immunosuppressive drugs. In a multicenter, prospectively randomized study we compared efficacy and side effects of a dexamethasone-cyclophosphamide (D/C) pulse therapy with a methylprednisolone-azathioprine (M/A) therapy in 22 patients with newly diagnosed pemphigus vulgaris and pemphigus foliaceus. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The 11 patients of the M/A group were treated with daily doses of methylprednisolone (initially 2 mg/kg body weight) and azathioprine (2-2,5 mg/kg body weight) which were subsequently tapered. D/C pulse therapy in 11 patients consisted of intravenous administration of 100 mg dexamethasone/d on 3 consecutive days along with cyclophosphamide (500 mg) on day one. Pulses were initially repeated every 2-4 weeks and then at increasing intervals. In between the pulses, oral cyclophosphamide (50 mg) was given daily for 6 months. RESULTS: Within 24 months after treatment initiation, 5/11 patients of the D/C group had a remission (complete remissions after discontinuation of therapy in 3 patients) and 6/11 patients had a progression. In the M/A group, there were remissions in 9/11 patients (complete remissions after discontinuation of therapy in 3 patients) and progression in 1/11 patients. There were more relapses in M/A therapy after remission than in D/C therapy. Side effects were more common in the M/A group. These differences were not significant (p > 0,05). CONCLUSION: Because of the high number of progressions in patients treated with D/C therapy, we can not confirm the encouraging results of earlier reports about pulse D/C therapy. Nevertheless D/C therapy seemed to be better tolerated and, in case of primary efficacy, was associated with fewer recurrences than M/A therapy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]