European Guidelines (S3) on diagnosis and management of mucous membrane pemphigoid, initiated by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology - Part II

This guideline has been initiated by the task force Autoimmune Blistering Diseases of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, including physicians from all relevant disciplines and patient organizations. It is a S3 consensus-based guideline that systematically reviewed the literature on mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until June 2019, with no limitations on language. While the first part of this guideline addressed methodology, as well as epidemiology, terminology, aetiology, clinical presentation and outcome measures in MMP, the second part presents the diagnostics and management of MMP. MMP should be suspected in cases with predominant mucosal lesions. Direct immunofluorescence microscopy to detect tissue-bound IgG, IgA and/or complement C3, combined with serological testing for circulating autoantibodies are recommended. In most patients, serum autoantibodies are present only in low levels and in variable proportions, depending on the clinical sites involved. Circulating autoantibodies are determined by indirect IF assays using tissue substrates, or ELISA using different recombinant forms of the target antigens or immunoblotting using different substrates. The major target antigen in MMP is type XVII collagen (BP180), although in 10-25% of patients laminin 332 is recognized. In 25-30% of MMP patients with anti-laminin 332 reactivity, malignancies have been associated. As first-line treatment of mild/moderate MMP, dapsone, methotrexate or tetracyclines and/or topical corticosteroids are recommended. For severe MMP, dapsone and oral or intravenous cyclophosphamide and/or oral corticosteroids are recommended as first-line regimens. Additional recommendations are given, tailored to treatment of single-site MMP such as oral, ocular, laryngeal, oesophageal and genital MMP, as well as the diagnosis of ocular MMP. Treatment recommendations are limited by the complete lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials.

European guidelines (S3) on diagnosis and management of mucous membrane pemphigoid, initiated by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology - Part I

This guideline on mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMP) has been elaborated by the Task Force for Autoimmune Blistering Diseases of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) with a contribution of physicians from all relevant disciplines and patient organizations. It is a S3 consensus-based guideline encompassing a systematic review of the literature until June 2019 in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. This first part covers methodology, the clinical definition of MMP, epidemiology, MMP subtypes, immunopathological characteristics, disease assessment and outcome scores. MMP describes a group of autoimmune skin and mucous membrane blistering diseases, characterized by a chronic course and by predominant involvement of the mucous membranes, such as the oral, ocular, nasal, nasopharyngeal, anogenital, laryngeal and oesophageal mucosa. MMP patients may present with mono- or multisite involvement. Patients' autoantibodies have been shown to be predominantly directed against BP180 (also called BPAG2, type XVII collagen), BP230, laminin 332 and type VII collagen, components of junctional adhesion complexes promoting epithelial stromal attachment in stratified epithelia. Various disease assessment scores are available, including the Mucous Membrane Pemphigoid Disease Area Index (MMPDAI), the Autoimmune Bullous Skin disorder Intensity Score (ABSIS), the 'Cicatrising Conjunctivitis Assessment Tool' and the Oral Disease Severity Score (ODSS). Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs), including DLQI, ABQOL and TABQOL, can be used for assessment of quality of life to evaluate the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions and monitor disease course.

Oral manifestations of systemic disease

While the majority of disorders of the mouth are centred upon the direct action of plaque, the oral tissues can be subject to change or damage as a consequence of disease that predominantly affects other body systems. Such oral manifestations of systemic disease can be highly variable in both frequency and presentation. As lifespan increases and medical care becomes ever more complex and effective it is likely that the numbers of individuals with oral manifestations of systemic disease will continue to rise. The present article provides a succinct review of oral manifestations of systemic disease. In view of this article being part of a wider BDJ themed issue on the subject of oral medicine, this review focuses upon oral mucosal and salivary gland disorders that may arise as a consequence of systemic disease.

Patient-reported outcome measures in recurrent aphthous stomatitis: A critical assessment of quality properties

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the range of existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in studies of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS) and to evaluate their quality properties via the assessment of psychometric properties and interpretability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant publications related to PROMs used in RAS. Publications were selected based on predefined criteria. All identified PROMs were then classified by measuring concepts and assessed for instrument characteristics and evidence for quality properties for RAS patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight PROMs were used in studies of RAS patients. Instruments focused upon oral symptoms (n = 4), psychosocial status (n = 15) and quality of life (n = 9). Five PROMs (Oral Health-related Quality of Life-UK, Chronic Oral Mucosal Disease Questionnaire, Oral Health Impact Profile-14, Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 and Mumcu's composite index) were found to have some evidence of psychometric performance. No PROMs showed evidence for interpretability of their scores in RAS patients.

CONCLUSION

There was a wide range of PROMs used in clinical studies of RAS. The majority of these PROMs lack evidence of measurement properties and interpretability for RAS patients. Further studies are required to confirm whether these instruments are suitable and useful for this patient group.