ArticleTherapeutic advances in medical oncology2025
Efficacy and safety of rituximab biosimilar (DRL_RI) versus MabThera
Article in Therapeutic advances in medical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03976102 (A Double-blind, Parallel-group, Phase III Study to Compare the Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Proposed Rituximab Biosimilar), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
A Double-blind, Parallel-group, Phase III Study to Compare the Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Proposed Rituximab Biosimilar (DRL_RI) With MabThera® in Subjects With Previously Untreated (CD)20-Positive LTB Follicular Lymphoma
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Population Pharmacokinetics of Rituximab in Treatment-Naïve Chinese Patients With Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma During Induction Therapy: Clinical Implications.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: This phase III study (RI-01-006; FLINTER) was conducted to demonstrate equivalent efficacy of DRL_RI to EU-approved rituximab (MabThera Design and methods: Previously untreated, stage II-IV, CD20-positive LTB-FL patients ( Results: The BORR up to Week 28 was 80.2% versus 79.4% for DRL_RI versus MabThera group; with a difference of 0.89% (90% CI: -6.67 to 8.48; 95% CI: -8.05 to 9.93 within the prespecified margin). Both treatment groups were comparable for all secondary efficacy end points. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 68.6% of patients; safety, immunogenicity, and mean serum concentrations were similar between groups. Peripheral B-cell counts declined below quantifiable limits in most patients, with a median time to B-cell depletion of 6.9 versus 7.0 days for DRL_RI versus MabThera. Conclusion: The study demonstrated efficacy equivalence of DRL_RI to MabThera; with comparable safety, immunogenicity, serum concentrations, and PD between groups. Trial registration: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03976102 and EudraCT (2018-004223-36).
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.