Clinical Characteristics of Ocular Mucous Membrane Pemphigoid: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: To synthesize the evidence and generate a combined weighted measure on the frequency of ocular manifestations of mucous membrane pemphigoid (OMMP). METHODS: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis, searching PubMed, Embase, VHL, and Google Scholar. Articles reporting patients with mucous membrane pemphigoid and ocular involvement were included. At least, two reviewers independently and in parallel participated in all the following phases; preliminary screening, full-text review, risk of bias assessment by validated tools, and data extraction. Qualitative analysis and meta-analysis were conducted. This study was previously registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023451844). RESULTS: Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 1,439 patients and 1,040 eyes summarized in qualitative analysis. Twenty-eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. Ages included ranged from 60.4 to 75 years. Women were reported with more frequency. The mean time for diagnosis was 55.1 months, usually with bilateral ocular disease in 90% (95% CI 78%; 96%). Trichiasis and entropion were the most frequent manifestations in up to 92%, followed by symblepharon and punctate keratitis. Ankyloblepharon, persistent epithelial defects, and visual impairment were less frequent complications. Direct immunofluorescence positivity in conjunctival biopsies was 54% (95% CI 43%; 64%). Extraocular involvement was highly frequent, being oral and skin involvement the most frequently reported. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis evidenced that patients around 60 years of age are the most affected population with a female preponderance, usually with bilateral ocular involvement. Trichiasis and entropion were the most frequent findings; although visual impairment and persistent epithelial defects were less reported, they should not be overlooked in suspected OMMP.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.