IADVL
Indexed with PubMed and Science Citation Index (E) 
 
Users online: 1752 
     Home | Feedback | Login 
About Current Issue Archive Ahead of print Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe What's New Contact  
  NAVIGATE Here 
    Next article
    Previous article
    Table of Contents

 RESOURCE Links
    Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3662    
    Printed121    
    Emailed5    
    PDF Downloaded345    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal

 

 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 79  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 70--76

Assessment of the therapeutic benefit of dexamethasone cyclophosphamide pulse versus only oral cyclophosphamide in phase II of the dexamethasone cyclophosphamide pulse therapy: A preliminary prospective randomized controlled study


1 Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
2 Department of Immunopathology, Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
3 Department of Dermatology, Kurume University School of Medicine, and Kurume University Institute of Cutaneous Cell Biology, Fukuoka, Japan

Correspondence Address:
Amrinder J Kanwar
Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh - 160 012
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0378-6323.104672

Rights and Permissions

Background: Dexamethasone cyclophosphamide pulse (DCP) therapy is an established mode of treatment for pemphigus in India. Aims: To assess the therapeutic benefit of additional DCPs (phase II, consolidation phase) versus immediate oral cyclophosphamide, usually used in phase III (maintenance phase), after initial DCP therapy (phase I) and to assess which laboratory test (DIF or ELISA) will reflect the clinical relapse best. Methods: Nineteen newly recruited patients of pemphigus vulgaris (PV) received monthly DCPs in phase I and were then randomized into two groups. Group A (10 patients) received monthly DCPs for nine months and Group B (nine patients) received only oral cyclophosphamide for nine months. Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) were tested before starting DCP regimen, and at 0,3,6,9 months after randomization. Results: Clinical relapse by the end of follow-up period occurred in only one patient in each group. In these cases, DIF became (again) positive before the relapse. No statistically significant difference between the two groups was found at three, six and nine months by ELISA indices and DIF grading. Conclusion: Although the DCP regimen is the standard therapy for pemphigus in India, we found no difference in the clinical outcome between patients receiving nine DCPs in phase II and patients shifted directly from phase I to III. Periodic testing using DIF and Dsg ELISA were found to be useful to monitor disease activity and predict a relapse. Further large scale studies are required to assess if patients can be shifted directly from phase I to III and maintained only on oral cyclophosphamide.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article

Online since 15th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow