ArticleTherapeutic advances in chronic disease2021
Rituximab
Article in Therapeutic advances in chronic disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRituximab (RTX), a CD20 depleting agent, is a frequently used off-label treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS), while mitoxantrone (MTX) is approved, albeit rarely used for active relapsing MS (RMS). However, observational data comparing RTX and MTX effectiveness and safety are scarce.
objectiveWe aimed to compare effectiveness and safety of MTX and RTX in patients with active RMS.
methodsFrom combined retrospective clinical data of three MS centers, we selected patients who had received at least one infusion of RTX or MTX and had at least a 6-month clinical follow-up available. Treatment groups were compared by propensity score (PS)-adjusted regression and inverse PS-weighted generalized estimated equation models regarding disability progression, relapse activity, and adverse events (AEs).
resultsWe included 292 RMS patients (mean age 41.8 years, 71.6% female) who received RTX (119 patients, mean age 36.8 years, 74.8% female) or MTX (173 patients mean age 45.3 years, 69.4% female). Using both PS methods, we did not find a significant effect favoring RTX or MTX treatment regarding the probability of disability worsening or relapse occurrence. However, RTX treatment was associated with a significantly lower probability of severe AEs and AEs.
conclusionsRTX shows comparable effectiveness but a favorable safety profile compared with MTX in active RMS.
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.