A Follow-Up Study of a European IgG4-Related Disease Cohort Treated with Rituximab
, Christian Neumann 1, Lukas Perkhofer 1, Lucas A Schulte 1, Benjamin Mayer 2, Thomas Seufferlein 1, Martin Müller 1,* and Alexander Kleger 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is excellent. Methods are clearly described, conclusions are reasonable. The only question I have is the ethical concern to use patient data without asking their permission. Of course one could ask for more details on the duration of rituximab therapy etc. But in a retrospective analysis this would not improve the quality. The paper is concise in the present form.
The authors state: "Participant informed consent was not required."
Question: Do the authors not work at an academic institution asking for a "general informed consent" for data use in retrospective analyses such as this one?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a study of patients with a single center series of patients with IgG4-related disease (IgG-RD) who are examined retrospectively for their disease behavior. The study emphasizes drug therapy and responsiveness and newer criteria for classification. Though the study population is quite small it does provide some of the longest-term follow-up on this cohort. The manuscript is clearly written and there is a discussion of the limitations of the study.
Comments:
The authors should provide a summary of the Responder Index they used (reference 15). There may have been an update for this index-the authors should mention any modification of the index they used (see Wallace ZS, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;79:77–87. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216561).
Risk factors for relapse had been identified by others -how do the findings of this study compare to the studies of others?
The authors should cite and discuss the publication by Majumder in Clin Gastro Hepatol 2018; is the responder index the same? Are there differences in the two studies findings and conclusions?
Do the authors have any follow-up on development of pancreatic insufficiency in this cohort? If so, it would be useful to include.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
