ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2021
Low-dose rituximab protocol in rheumatoid arthritis-outcome and economic impact.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Revisiting B-cell targeted therapies in rheumatoid arthritis: from paradoxical biology to deep immune reset.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Article
- Retrospective analysis of the long-term therapeutic effectiveness and safety profile of rituximab in the treatment of mucous membrane pemphigoid in a German university center between 2008 and 2019.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Six month assessment of low dose rituximab in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.The Egyptian rheumatologist · 2021Article
- (Ultra-)low dosing of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis: chances and challenges.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2021Article
- Factors Determining Retreatment Time Interval of Rituximab in Korean Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA significant proportion of RA patients, particularly those associated with poor prognostic factors, fail on conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs). Although rituximab (RTX) has been effective in these patients, the cost of therapy makes it unaffordable, particularly in poor and developing countries. Numerous, albeit small, studies using lower doses have shown contradictory results. We aimed to analyse the effectiveness of a low-dose RTX protocol based on clinical outcomes in RA patients.
methodsSeropositive RA patients with moderate to high disease activity (DAS28-ESR > 3.2) despite combination cDMARDs, treated with RTX, were included in retrospective analysis. All patients were treated according to a predefined protocol, using 500 mg RTX with ongoing cDMARDs at baseline and repeat dosing at 6 weeks or beyond, on lack of moderate to good EULAR response. The B cell count was assessed at baseline, 2 and 24 weeks.
resultsAt 12 weeks, 93% of 166 patients [mean (s.d.) age, 51.5 (11.96) years, 25 men and 141 women, with a disease duration of 10.4 (6.29) years] achieved moderate to good EULAR response. At 24 weeks, 90.8% of patients achieved moderate to good EULAR response, 19.8% achieved low disease activity and 29.5% achieved remission, with a mean change in DAS28-ESR from baseline of 2.9 (1.3). RTX failure and relapse were seen in 5.4% and 3.6%, respectively. The response was maintained for 12.3 (7.2) months with a mean RTX dose 521.1 (100.8) mg. Adverse events were seen in 9.6%. When compared with the standard dosing regimen with the originator molecule, a cost reduction of 90% was achieved.
conclusionA low-dose RTX regimen achieved reasonably good clinical outcomes at the end of 6 months, with a significantly lower cost.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.