Why the study?
Anti-GPIHBP1 syndrome is a rare autoimmune cause of severe hypertriglyceridaemia that responds to immunosuppressive treatment, but it has a chronic relapsing course and the role of maintenance immunosuppression remains unclear.
Population
A 46-year-old woman with anti-GPIHBP1 syndrome and acute pancreatitis
Design
Case report and literature review
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support rituximab maintenance guided by CD19+ B-cell monitoring in relapsing anti-GPIHBP1 syndrome; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
Anti-GPIHBP1 syndrome is a rare, acquired cause of hypertriglyceridaemia, characterized by severe elevation of triglyceride that is refractory to standard lipid-lowering therapies. It is autoimmune in nature and demonstrates a significant response to immunosuppressive treatment. However, it has a chronic relapsing course and the role of maintenance immunosuppression in this syndrome remains unclear. We report a 46-year-old woman diagnosed with anti-GPIHBP1 syndrome following an initial presentation of acute pancreatitis. While her initial presentation and short-term induction response were previously reported, we would like to present her longitudinal follow-up, highlighting the long-term relapsing nature of the syndrome. She showed a good therapeutic response to intravenous rituximab infusions. Due to recurrent episodes of pancreatitis, maintenance immunosuppression with rituximab was commenced. Serial monitoring of CD19+ B-cell repopulation was used to guide the subsequent dosing timing as a hypothesis-generating strategy to aid in relapse prevention. During the latest follow-up, she remained in clinical and biochemical remission with proactive rituximab maintenance infusions. This single case observation suggests that patients with relapsing anti-GPIHBP1 syndrome might benefit from maintenance treatment with rituximab. Furthermore, regular monitoring of CD19+ B-cell repopulation may serve as a potential biomarker to guide retreatment, though it warrants further evaluation in more patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Em et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: