Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 25765

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2023 | Month : June | Volume : 17 | Issue : 6 | Page : WC05 - WC08 Full Version

Proportion of Co-morbidities in Patients with and without Bullous Pemphigoid: A Cross-sectional Study


Published: June 1, 2023 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2023/64111.18091
Sathyavath Sumitra, Reena Chandran, Anuja Elizabeth George

1. Senior Resident, Department of Dermatology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Trivandrum, Kerala, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Dermatology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Trivandrum, Kerala, India. 3. Professor, Department of Dermatology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.

Correspondence Address :
Sathyavath Sumitra,
Palakkal Shelters, Valiyattiparmba, Manjeri, Malappuram-676121, Kerala, India.
E-mail: artimus.unus.67@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Bullous Pemphigoid (BP) is the most common subepidermal immunobullous disorder. It has been found to be associated with various co-morbidities. Only a few studies have been done previously, to find out the association between BP and these co-morbidities. A better understanding of the various co-morbidities in BP patients, enables to implement better treatment strategies, which will be more efficacious and less toxic.

Aim: To compare the proportion of co-morbidities in patients with and without BP and to study the triggering factors associated with BP.

Materials and Methods: This was a hospital based cross-sectional study conducted in the Department of Dermatology and Venereology at Government Medical College and Hospital, Trivandrum, Kerala, India. The duration of the study was one year and six months, from January 2020 to June 2021. A total of 80 patients were included in the present study, out of which 40 patients with BP were included in case group and 40 patients without BP in control group. Clinical data such as age, gender, habits, co-morbidities and factors triggering BP were recorded. Categorical and quantitative variables were expressed as frequency (percentage) and mean±SD respectively. Chi-square test and Fisher’s-exact test were used to find association between categorical variables and (p-value <0.05) was considered as statistically significant.

Results: The mean age of the study participants was 60.8±10.5 years. A total of 23 (57.5%) patients and 20 (50%) normal subjects had a history of co-morbid illness. Diabetes, hypertension, neurological disorders, Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) and Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) were the co-morbidities reported by the patients. Diabetes was the most commonly observed co-morbidity among the patients. A statistically significant difference was noted between the case and control group in terms of diabetes (p-value=0.039) and neurological disorders (p-value=0.011). A total of 34 (85%) patients had atleast one factor which triggered the onset of the disease, and the most common triggering factor was drug intake in 22 (55%) patients.

Conclusion: The most commonly observed co-morbidity among patients with BP in the present study was diabetes. A prompt surveillance and adequate control of glycaemic status is needed in these patients in order to avoid further worsening of diabetes with corticosteroid therapy. Avoidance of various exogenous triggers such as disease worsening drugs, stress, excessive sun exposure etc., will help in achieving better control of the disease.

Keywords

Diabetes, Hypertension, Neurological, Triggering factor

The BP is the most common subepidermal immunobullous disorder and represents the most frequent autoimmune blistering disease (1). It mainly affects elderly people, although, younger patients may also be affected, and often starts with pruritus along with urticated and erythematous lesions. Later, tense blisters develop both, on erythematous and normal skin (2) along with mucosal involvement may be seen. The notable prevalence of BP in elderly patients with multiple co-morbidities has been stimulating research into their association with other diseases. The detection of co-morbidities in patients with Acute Behavioural Disturbances (ABDs) is therefore, important, both to favour optimal therapeutic management and to improve the patient’s final prognosis. The co-morbidities commonly associated with BP are neuropsychiatric diseases, diabetes, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, autoimmune diseases and the less common ones include thyroid disease, malignancies, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), infections etc., (3). BP patients are more prone to develop any neurological disorder, mainly multiple sclerosis, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy and stroke (4). Hypertension and neurological diseases are also, the most common co-morbidities noted in BP patients (5),(6).

Several trigger factors, such as drugs, thermal or electrical burns, surgical procedures, trauma, ultraviolet irradiation, radiotherapy, chemical preparations, transplants and infections may induce or exacerbate BP disease (7). The putative drugs are antibiotics, beta-blockers, Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), diuretics and, more recently, anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha (TNF-α), Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i). The pathogenesis of Drug Induced BP (DIBP) is controversial and often difficult to understand and to demonstrate. As, BP mostly affects elderly people, usually assuming several drugs, it is arduous to establish the triggering role of a specific medication. Systemic corticosteroids are effective in the treatment of BP. However, the use of systemic corticosteroids prolongs admission time for the patients and may worsen the pre-existing co-morbid illness. There is a paucity of studies, to find the association of BP with various co-morbidities and associated triggering factors. While, some studies are existing in the literature on the Indian population, to the best of the author’s knowledge, no such study has been done from Kerala.

A better understanding of the various co-morbidities in BP patients will enable to implement better treatment strategies that will be more efficacious and less toxic. Hence, the present study was conducted to compare the proportion of co-morbidities in patients with BP, with those without BP and thereby, to determine the association between BP and these co-morbidities. The present study has also tried to find out the various triggering factors associated with BP.

Material and Methods

A hospital based cross-sectional study was done in the Department of Dermatology and Venereology at Government Medical College and Hospital, Trivandrum, Kerala, India, for a period of one year and six months, from January 2020 to June 2021. The study was conducted after getting clearance from Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC No.12/05/2019/MCT.) The participants were given an information sheet explaining the details and purpose of the present study.

The study comprised 40 patients diagnosed with BP as the case group and 40 normal health subjects without BP, who accompanied the patients to Dermatology Department as the control group.

Inclusion criteria: All new cases of BP diagnosed clinically confirmed by skin biopsy and/or by a positive direct immunofluorescence test, and all consenting male and female patients without BP, belonging to the same age group, as cases and controls respectively, were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Patients not giving an informed consent and who were already on treatment were excluded from the study.

Sample size calculation: Sample size calculation was done by using a formula:

N=(Z1-α/2+Z1-β)2 (P1Q1+P2Q2)/(P1-P2)2,

where N is sample size, (Z1-α/2+Z1-β)2 value was 10.49, when α=5%, β=20%. P1=proportion of exposed among patients with BP, Q1=100-P1, P2=proportion of exposed among patients without BP, Q2=100-P2 (8), P1=(55.8%), P2=(20.5%) after applying in the formula, N=35. Therefore, 40 patients each, from both case and comparison groups were selected for the study.

Study Procedure

All the relevant clinical history including socio-demographic details, clinical symptoms, triggering factors such as, stress, food, physical trauma, chemical agents such as, pesticides and house cleaning products, sun exposure, radiotherapy, drugs, infections like, urinary tract infection, pulmonary infections etc., malignancies, vaccination, topical applications, habits such as, smoking and alcohol intake and relevant past history regarding the various self-reported co-morbidities and the medications used were recorded. A thorough cutaneous examination was carried out including nail, hair and mucosal surfaces and the relevant clinical signs of the disease such as Nikolsky’s sign (9) and Asboe-Hansen sign (9) were elicited and Autoimmune Bullous Skin Disorder Intensity Score (ABSIS) (10) was calculated.

Severity of the disease was categorised, based on percentage of Body Surface Area (BSA) involvement as (11): Mild=<10%, Moderate=10-30%, Severe=>30%. Systemic examination was done to rule out any associated disease. Complete blood count, Renal Function Test (RFT), Liver Function Test (LFT), Fasting Blood Sugar (FBS), Postprandial Blood Sugar (PPBS), Fasting Lipid Panel (FLP), Chest X-ray, Ultrasonography (USG) abdomen, skin biopsy, direct immunofluorescent and other relevant investigations required to diagnose the disease was done. Also, the expert opinion from the concerned specialist was obtained when found necessary, for evaluation of these co-morbidities, and appropriate treatment for the same was started, as per the expert opinion. The same set of investigations were done in the comparison group also. Comparison of co-morbidities among patients with BP and the control group was done to find out the association of these co-morbidities with BP. Various triggering factors in BP patients were also assessed and their prevalence was studied, to find out the most common triggering factor.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses was performed by using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 20.0. Categorical and quantitative variables were expressed as frequency (percentage) and mean±SD, respectively. Chi-square test and Fisher’s-exact test were used to find association between categorical variables. For all statistical interpretations (p-value <0.05) was considered the threshold for statistical significance.

Results

A total of 40 patients with BP and 40 age group matched normal subjects were studied. Majority of the patients i.e., 8 (20%) patients belonged to the age group 56-60 years. Mean age of the study subjects was 60.8±10.5 years (Table/Fig 1). A female preponderance was noted among the patients with BP in the present study, with M:F ratio of 1:1.35 (Table/Fig 2). Majority of the cases and those among the comparison group were non smokers and non alcoholics. 4 (10%) cases were active smokers and 4 (10%) were chronic alcoholics, but there was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of BP between the active smokers/chronic alcoholics and those without these habits. A total of 10 (25%) patients reported mucosal involvement. 25 (62.5%) patients had severe disease with more than 30% of BSA involvement. The mean ABSIS score was 51.72.

A total of 23 (57.5%) cases and 20 (50%) normal subjects had a history of co-morbid illness that showed no statistical significance (Table/Fig 3). Diabetes, hypertension, neurological disorders, CAD and CKD were the co-morbidities reported by the patients with BP (Table/Fig 4). Diabetes was the most commonly observed co-morbidity, noted in 20 (50%) patients and a statistically significant difference was found between the cases and comparison group (p-value=0.039). Hypertension was the second most common co-morbidity seen in 16 (40%) cases control group with no statistically significant difference. The overall reported prevalence of neurological disorders among BP cases was 6 (15%) and a statistically significant difference was noted between the cases and comparison group (p-value=0.011). The neurological disorders reported were Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA), Parkinsonism and dementia.

A total of 34 (85%) patients had atleast one factor which triggered the onset of the disease (Table/Fig 5). The most common triggering factor was drug intake 22 (55%) patients (Table/Fig 6). The most common group of drug used among cases was statins 15 (37.5%) patients, followed by Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARB) 14 (35%) patients and sulfonylureas 13 (32.5%) patients (Table/Fig 7). Statistically significant difference was noted among cases and comparison group in usage of statins and ACE inhibitors/ARBs (p-value-=0.045) and (p-value=0.039), respectively. Only 1 (2.5%) patient gave history of usage of gliptins which was reportedly the most implicated drug for BP.

Discussion

A total of 40 patients with BP and 40 subjects without BP were included in the present study. Among the 80 subjects studied, most of the patients with BP and those in the comparison group belonged to the age group 56-60 years (20%). The mean age among the cases was 60.8±10.5 years and among the comparison group was 60.75±10.3 years. The female to male ratio among the cases were found to be 1.35.

The primary objective of the present study was to compare the proportion of co-morbidities among patients with BP and the comparison group of normal subjects. When, 23 (57.5%) BP patients gave history of atleast one co-morbidity before the onset of BP, only 20 (50%) normal subjects gave history of any co-morbid illness. The co-morbidities reported by BP patients in the present study were diabetes, hypertension, neurological disorders, CAD and CKD. BP was significantly associated with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, CKD, end-stage renal disease, basal cell carcinoma of the skin, and obstructive sleep apnea in a study, done by Lee S et al., (5). In a case control study done from Germany, neurological diseases were overrepresented in BP patients compared to controls (6). Diabetes was the most commonly observed co-morbidity, which was noted in 20 (50%) patients and a statistically significant difference between the cases and comparison group was noted. This is discordant with the findings of Askin O et al., and Pankakoski A et al., who observed hypertension as the most common co-morbidity among their patients (2),(12). The increasing prevalence of diabetes in the patients in the present study could be a reflectance of that, seen in the general population. Hypertension was the second most common 16 (40%) patients, co-morbidity noted among the patients with BP.

In recent publications, it has been emphasised that, 36%-55.8% of BP patients exhibit an increased frequency of certain neuropsychiatric disorders such as cerebrovascular occlusion, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis and immobility (5). Teixeira V et al., and Pankakoski A et al., has reported the higher prevalence of neurological disorders among BP patients in their studies, which were 55.8% and 46%, respectively [8,12]. The cross-reaction between the common sequences of different isoforms of the 230-kDa BP antigen (BPAG1) in the skin and the neurological system plays a role in the association of BP and neurological diseases. Though, the overall reported prevalence of neurological disorders among the BP patients in the present study was only 6 (15%), patients, there was statistically significant difference between the cases and comparison group. The neurological disorders reported were CVA, parkinsoinsm and dementia. This difference from the existing literature, could be due to the difference in pattern of diseases seen in different geographical areas. The study by Jeon HW et al., also reported a lower prevalence of 11.7%, which is comparable to the findings in the present study (13). Exogenous triggering factors may play a role in the aetiology of autoimmune blistering diseases by regulating the immune response or by changing the antigenic properties of the epidermal basal membrane (14). The role of exogenous triggers in pemphigoid was found at a rate of 15%-66% in previous studies. The commonly reported triggers in literature include drugs, physical factors (such as, local trauma, ultraviolet rays and radiotherapy), infections, and vaccinations (15). In the present study, the onset of the disease was associated with a stimulating factor in 34 (85%) patients. These factors included drugs, stress, topical application, sun exposure, chemicals and trauma in the decreasing order of frequency.

A total of 10% among cases and 12.5% among comparison group were active smokers. Also, 10% of the cases and 20% of the comparison group were chronic alcoholic. However, these findings were not statistically significant. A similar study done by Akarsu S et al., has reported that, 12% of his patients with BP were both smokers and alcoholics (14). There is no proven data till date, that suggest any risk for BP that could be triggered by alcoholism or smoking. Drug intake was the most commonly reported trigger for the onset of BP among the patients in the present study. A total of 22 (55%) patients gave a history of drug intake, prior to the onset of their illness. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the patients with BP and the comparison group. The most commonly used group of drugs by the patients were statins 15 (37.5%) patients and a statistically significant difference was noted between the cases and comparison group (p-value=0.045). This finding is similar to that observed in the Finnish cohort (33%) (12). However, there are no documented evidence to suggest the role of statin as a trigger for BP.

The second common group of drugs noted were ACE inhibitors/ ARB 14 (35%) patients and there was statistically significant difference between cases and comparison group (p-value=0.039). This is lower than that reported by Teixeira V et al., who observed that, 40.3% of his patients were using ACE inhibitors/ARB (8). There is an impressive body of epidemiological evidence showing the association between the use of DPP-4i medication and BP. In fact, considering all drug classes, previous use of DPP-4i carries the highest risk of developing BP. The prospective study done by Lambadiari V et al., has observed that, 46% of their diabetic BP patients were using gliptins (16). However, there was only one patient using gliptin in the present study. The lower prevalence of gliptin usage among these patients could be due to the fact that, most of the diabetic patients in this area are treated with a standard antidiabetic treatment, which mainly incudes sulfonyl ureas, metformin with/without insulin. Though, gliptins have been extensively adopted in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in clinical practice since, the previous decade, they have been uncommonly used by the population in this area.

Limitation(s)

Major limitation of the present study was the relatively small sample size.

Conclusion

The BP patients are vulnerable to have many co-morbidities due to their advanced age. The most commonly observed co-morbidity among BP patients in the present study was diabetes mellitus. Since, corticosteroids, which constitute the mainstay of treatment in BP can worsen diabetes, a prompt surveillance and control of glycaemic status is needed in these patients. Various exogenous triggers have been reported by the patients, as stimulus for the initiation of the disease process and drug intake was found to be the most common trigger. Avoidance of these triggers will further help in achieving better control of the disease.

References

1.
Schmidt E, Groves R. Immunobullous Diseases. In: Rook’s Textbook of Dermatology. 9th ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2016. pp. 10-22.
2.
As¸ kin Ö, Özkoca D, Uzunçakmak TKÜ, Mat C, Kutlubay Z. Epidemiology and comorbidities of Bullous Pemphigoid: A retrospective study. J Turk Acad Dermatol. 2020;14(2):53-56. [crossref]
3.
Bech R, Kibsgaard L, Vestergaard C. Comorbidities and treatment strategies in bullous pemphigoid: An appraisal of the existing litrature. Front Med (Lausanne). 2018;5:238. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Miyamoto D, Santi CG, Aoki V, Maruta CW. Bullous pemphigoid. An Bras Dermatol. 2017;94(2):133-46. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Lee S, Rastogi S, Hsu DY, Nardone B, Silverberg JI. Association of bullous pemphigoid and comorbid health conditions: A case-control study. Arch Dermatol Res. 2021;313:327-32. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Martin E, Mauer I, Malzahn U, Heuschmann PU, Goebeler M, Benoit S. Comorbid diseases among bullous pemphigoid patients in Germany: New insights from a case-control study. JDDG: Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft. 2022;20(6):798-805. [crossref]
7.
Moro F, Fania L, Sinagra JLM, Salemme A, Di Zenzo G. Bullous Pemphigoid: TRIGGER AND PREDISPOSING FACTORs. Biomolecules. 2020;10(10):1432. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Teixeira V, Cabral A, Brites M, Vieira R, Figueiredo A. Bullous pemphigoid and comorbidities: A case-control study in Portuguese patients. Ann Bras Dermatol. 2014;89:274-78. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Bernard P, Antonicelli F. Bullous Pemphigoid: A review of its diagnosis, associations and treatment. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2017;18:513-28. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Vaillant L, Bernard P, Joly P, Prost C, Labeille B, Bedane C, et al. Evaluation of clinical criteria for diagnosis of bullous pemphigoid. French Bullous Study Group. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:1075-80. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Venning VA, Taghipour K, Mohd Mustapa MF, Highet AS, Kirtschig G. British Association of Dermatologists’ guidelines for the management of bullous pemphigoid 2012. Br J Dermatol. 2012;167(6):1200-14. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Pankakoski A, Sintonen H, Ranki A, Kluger N. Comorbidities of bullous pemphigoid in a Finnish cohort. Eur J Dermatol. 2018;28:157-61. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Jeon HW, Yun SJ, Lee SC, Won YH, Lee JB. Mortality and comorbidity profiles of patients with bullous pemphigoid in Korea. Ann Dermatol. 2018;30(1):13-19. [crossref][PubMed]
14.
Akarsu S, Özbag? çivan Ö, Dolas¸ N, Aktan S¸ . Possible triggering factors and comorbidities in newly diagnosed autoimmune bullous diseases. Turk J Med Sci. 2017;47:832-40. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Lo Schiavo A, Ruocco E, Brancaccio G, Caccavale S, Ruocco V, Wolf R. Bullous pemphigoid: Etiology, pathogenesis, and inducing factors: Facts and controversies. Clin Dermatol. 2013;31:391-99. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Lambadiari V, Kountouri A, Kousathana F, Korakas E, Kokkalis G, Theotokoglou S, et al. The association of bullous pemphigoid with dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors: A ten-year prospective observational study. BMC Endocr Disord. 2021;21:23.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/64111.18091

Date of Submission: Mar 15, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Apr 29, 2023
Date of Acceptance: May 07, 2023
Date of Publishing: Jun 01, 2023

Author declaration:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Mar 25, 2023
• Manual Googling: Apr 19, 2023
• iThenticate Software: May 03, 2023 (16%)

Etymology: Author Origin

Emendations: 6

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com