ArticleBMC rheumatology2025
Rituximab vs. Cyclophosphamide induction therapy for patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis.
Article in BMC rheumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rituximab (RTX) compared to cyclophosphamide (CYC) in inducing remission with ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV).
methodsThis retrospective study included patients admitted to Renji Hospital from January 2017 to December 2023 who received induction treatment with either RTX or CYC. Effectiveness was evaluated by remission rate at month 6 (± 2 months), with additional subgroup analyses. Safety was assessed based on the occurrence of infections within 6 (± 2) months post-immunosuppression. Comparative analyses and logistic regression were performed using the Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) method to bolster the reliability of the findings.
resultsA total of 293 patients were enrolled, with 124 treated with RTX and 169 with CYC for remission induction. The IPTW-weighted analysis indicated that patients administered RTX achieved a higher complete remission (CR) rate (41.4% versus 31.3%, Relative Risk [RR] 1.36). Additionally, there was a significant increase in the odds of urinary tract infections (Odds Ratio [OR] 10.20, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.88 to 2.41, p = 0.05) among RTX recipients.
conclusionsRTX demonstrates comparable effectiveness to intravenous CYC in inducing remission, with a particularly marked benefit in PR3-ANCA positive patients. However, this treatment is also associated with a higher risk of urinary infection. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable. This is not a clinical trial but a retrospective analysis.
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.