Fabry’s disease, an X-linked disorder of lysosomal α-galactosidase deficiency, leads to substrate accumulation in multiple organs. Migalastat, an oral pharmacologic chaperone, stabilizes specific mutant forms of α-galactosidase, increasing enzyme trafficking to lysosomes. The initial assay of mutant α-galactosidase forms that we used to categorize 67 patients with Fabry’s disease for randomization to 6 months of double-blind migalastat or placebo (stage 1), followed by open-label migalastat from 6 to 12 months (stage 2) plus an additional year, had certain limitations. Before unblinding, a new, validated assay showed that 50 of the 67 participants had mutant α-galactosidase forms suitable for targeting by migalastat. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who had a response (≥50% reduction in the number of globotriaosylceramide inclusions per kidney interstitial capillary) at 6 months. We assessed safety along with disease substrates and renal, cardiovascular, and patient-reported outcomes. The primary end-point analysis, involving patients with mutant α-galactosidase forms that were suitable or not suitable for migalastat therapy, did not show a significant treatment effect: 13 of 32 patients (41%) who received migalastat and 9 of 32 patients (28%) who received placebo had a response at 6 months (P=0.30). Among patients with suitable mutant α-galactosidase who received migalastat for up to 24 months, the annualized changes from baseline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and measured GFR were –0.30±0.66 and −1.51±1.33 ml per minute per 1.73 m² of body-surface area, respectively. The left-ventricular-mass index decreased significantly from baseline (−7.7 g per square meter; 95% confidence interval [CI], −15.4 to –0.01), particularly when left ventricular hypertrophy was present (−18.6 g per square meter; 95% CI, −38.2 to 1.0). The severity of diarrhea, reflux, and indigestion decreased. Among all randomly assigned patients (with mutant α-galactosidase forms that were suitable or not suitable for migalastat therapy), the percentage of patients who had a response at 6 months did not differ significantly between the migalastat group and the placebo group. (Funded by Amicus Therapeutics; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00925301 [study AT1001-011] and NCT01458119 [study AT1001-041].)

Background: Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune subepidermal blistering disease of the skin and mucous membranes. This disease typically affects the elderly and presents with itch and localized or, most frequently, generalized bullous lesions. A subset of patients only develops excoriations, prurigo‐like lesions, and eczematous and/or urticarial erythematous lesions. The disease, which is significantly associated with neurological disorders, has high morbidity and severely impacts the quality of life.Objectives and methodology: The Autoimmune blistering diseases Task Force of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology sought to update the guidelines for the management of BP based on new clinical information, and new evidence on diagnostic tools and interventions. The recommendations are either evidence‐based or rely on expert opinion. The degree of consent among all task force members was included.Results: Treatment depends on the severity of BP and patients' comorbidities. High‐potency topical corticosteroids are recommended as the mainstay of treatment whenever possible. Oral prednisone at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg/day is a recommended alternative. In case of contraindications or resistance to corticosteroids, immunosuppressive therapies, such as methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil or mycophenolate acid, may be recommended. The use of doxycycline and dapsone is controversial. They may be recommended, in particular, in patients with contraindications to oral corticosteroids. B‐cell‐depleting therapy and intravenous immunoglobulins may be considered in treatment‐resistant cases. Omalizumab and dupilumab have recently shown promising results. The final version of the guideline was consented to by several patient organizations.Conclusions: The guidelines for the management of BP were updated. They summarize evidence‐ and expert‐based recommendations useful in clinical practice.

Background: Pemphigus encompasses a group of life‐threatening autoimmune bullous diseases characterized by blisters and erosions of the mucous membranes and skin. Before the era of immunosuppressive treatment, the prognosis of pemphigus was almost fatal. Due to its rarity, only few prospective controlled therapeutic trials are available.Objectives: For this reason, a group of European dermatologists with a long‐standing interest and expertise in basic and clinical pemphigus research has sought to define diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for the management of patients with pemphigus.Results: This group identified the statements of major agreement or disagreement regarding the diagnostic and therapeutic management of pemphigus. The revised final version of the pemphigus guideline was finally passed on to the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) for a final consensus with the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) and the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS).

This guideline has been initiated by the task forceAutoimmune Blistering Diseasesof 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.