ArticleIndian dermatology online journal
Low Dose Vs Conventional Rituximab Regimen in Pemphigus Vulgaris - A Retrospective Single Centre Comparative Analysis to Assess the Clinical Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness.
Article in Indian dermatology online journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging Treatments in Pemphigus: Is Healing an Achievable Goal?American journal of clinical dermatology · 2026Review
- Staged multi-target therapy forRespiratory medicine case reports · 2026Article
- Rituximab in Pemphigus - Exploring the Less Frequently Travelled Terrains.Indian dermatology online journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rituximab (RTX) is considered the first-line treatment for pemphigus vulgaris (PV), a B-cell-mediated autoimmune bullous disease. However, no clear consensus on the optimum dosage has been achieved yet. Objectives: To compare the clinical efficiency and cost-effectiveness of a low-dose (RTX 2×500mg) vs conventional (RTX 2×1g) RTX regimen. Materials and Methods: It is a retrospective study of PV patients who received two doses of RTX during the study period of January 2021 to December 2022 at a tertiary care hospital in South India. The study population was divided into Group A (low-dose RTX 2×500 mg) and Group B (conventional dose RTX 2×1g). Clinical response was assessed according to Murrell Results: A total of 57 patients with PV were enrolled in this study (43 in Group A and 14 in Group B). At the end of 6 months, 97.5% achieved remission in Group A and 100% of patients in Group B. At the end of 9 months, 91.66% of patients remained in remission in Group A, whereas all patients maintained remission in Group B. At the end of the 6 months and 9 months, one (2.5%) and three (8.3%) patients had relapse in Group A, whereas in Group B there were no relapses till the completion of 9 months follow-up period. The difference in clinical outcome and relapse rate at the end of the 6 and 9 months was not statistically significant in the two groups of patients. Limitations: Retrospective study with limited sample size; serological assay and immunological assay were not performed. Conclusion: This study indicated that low-dose RTX is equally efficacious, safe, and cost-effective compared to conventional regimens, over a 9-month study period.
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.