Observational studyRheumatology international2026
Comparable effectiveness of intensive intravenous and less intensive immunosuppressive treatment in retroperitoneal fibrosis: a retrospective real-world cohort study.
Observational study in Rheumatology international, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retroperitoneal fibrosis (RPF) is a rare fibro-inflammatory disease frequently complicated by ureteral obstruction and renal impairment. Due to its rarity, heterogeneous clinical course, and the absence of standardized treatment guidelines, optimal immunosuppressive management of RPF remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the real-world effectiveness and safety of different immunosuppressive treatment strategies in patients with RPF. A retrospective, single-center observational study was conducted including patients with idiopathic or immune-mediated RPF treated between 2010 and 2025. Patients were grouped according to treatment strategy: intensive intravenous therapy with cyclophosphamide or rituximab, or less intensive oral immunosuppressive therapy including methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine. Treatment effectiveness was assessed using a composite endpoint incorporating clinical, laboratory and radiological response. Secondary outcomes included renal function, relapse, treatment safety, and glucocorticoid exposure. Twenty-nine patients were included in the analysis, of whom 11 received intensive therapy and 18 were treated with less intensive oral immunosuppressive regimens. Overall treatment effectiveness was achieved in 68% of evaluable patients and did not differ significantly between groups (OR 2.67, 95% CI 0.41-17.17). Clinical, laboratory, and radiological responses did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Hydronephrosis resolved in 75% of affected patients. Median serum creatinine levels improved during follow-up in both treatment groups, without significant intergroup differences at last observation (1.20 mg/dL [1.10-1.30] vs. 1.20 mg/dL [0.80-1.40]). The median relative reduction in periaortic mass thickness was 41.2% (24.45-53.95). No significant differences in overall safety outcomes were observed. In this real-world cohort of patients with RPF, intensive intravenous immunosuppressive regimens were not associated with superior treatment effectiveness compared with less intensive oral therapies. These findings support an individualized approach to treatment selection in RPF, taking disease severity, renal involvement and patient-specific factors into account. Prospective studies in larger cohorts are needed to further define optimal long-term management strategies for this rare disease.
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.