A systematic review of randomized controlled trials for pemphigus vulgaris and pemphigus foliaceus.

BACKGROUND: A range of interventions has been described for the treatment of pemphigus; however, the optimal therapeutic strategy has not been established. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of interventions for pemphigus vulgaris and pemphigus foliaceus. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration. We selected randomized controlled trials including participants with the diagnosis of pemphigus vulgaris or pemphigus foliaceus confirmed with clinical, histopathological, and immunofluorescence criteria. All interventions were considered. Primary outcomes studied were remission and mortality. Secondary outcomes included disease control, relapse, pemphigus severity score, time to disease control, cumulative glucocorticoid dose, serum antibody titers, adverse events, and quality of life. RESULTS: Eleven studies with a total of 404 participants were identified. Interventions assessed included prednisolone dose regimen, pulsed dexamethasone, azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, dapsone, mycophenolate, plasma exchange, topical epidermal growth factor, and traditional Chinese medicine. We found some interventions to be superior for certain outcomes, although we were unable to conclude which treatments are superior overall. LIMITATIONS: Many interventions for pemphigus have not been evaluated in controlled trials. All studies were insufficiently powered to establish definitive results. CONCLUSIONS: There is inadequate evidence available at present to ascertain the optimal therapy for pemphigus vulgaris and pemphigus foliaceus. Further randomized controlled trials are required.

Implementation of a guideline for computed tomography head imaging in head injury: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To improve appropriate ordering of head computed tomography (CT) in patients presenting with a head injury by applying an evidence-based head injury guideline. METHODS: This was a comparison observational study of CT head ordering in the setting of head trauma between two groups of patients. There was a pre-guideline implementation group and a post-guideline implementation group. Our Southernhealth Head Injury Guideline was largely based on the Canadian CT Head Rule by Steill et al. 2001.We also applied the Canadian CT Head Rule to our post-guideline implementation group. RESULTS: CT ordering rate in the pre-guideline group was 31.6% compared with 59% in the post-guideline group with a relative risk of 1.88 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.56-2.27). Abnormal head CT were reported in 6.8% in the pre-guideline group and 5% in the post-guideline group (relative risk 0.88, 95% CI 0.44-1.51). When we applied the Canadian CT Head Rule to the prospective group, four patients with clinically significant abnormal head CT would not have been scanned. The sensitivity of the guideline was 100% (95% CI 79-100%), with a specificity of 43.22% (95% CI 37-48%) in diagnosing a significant head injury on CT. CONCLUSION: The Southernhealth Head Injury Guideline is safe and easy to apply to minor and major head injuries.