ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Rituximab in Myasthenia Gravis: a real-world study using inverse probability of treatment weighting.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The role of rituximab in the treatment of myasthenia gravis (MG) remains uncertain due to limited randomized controlled evidence and heterogeneous observational data. While rituximab is often used in refractory MG, its comparative effectiveness against other non-steroidal immunosuppressive therapies (NSISTs) has yet to be fully clarified. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of rituximab compared to a second NSIST in achieving a composite clinical outcome in acetylcholine-receptor-antibody (AChR-Ab) positive MG patients using causal inference methods to adjust for confounding. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of AChR-Ab positive MG patients treated with rituximab or a second NSIST. The primary outcome was time to achieving a composite clinical endpoint representing a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): Myasthenia Gravis Composite (MGC) score ≤ 3, daily corticosteroid dose ≤ 5 mg prednisolone equivalent, and no rescue therapy use in the preceding month. To reduce confounding by indication and improve causal comparability between treatment groups, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity scores was used to balance baseline covariates. Cox proportional hazards models were applied to estimate the effect of treatment on time to outcome. Results: 169 patients entered into the time-to-event analysis, and after IPTW adjustment, baseline characteristics between treatment groups were balanced. There was no statistical difference in the hazard ratio between Rituximab compared to a second NSIST in achieving the composite clinical outcome (HR = 1.27, 95% CI 0.66-2.45, Conclusion: In this IPTW-adjusted analysis, rituximab did not improve the time-to-improvement compared to a second NSIST in AChR-Ab-positive MG.
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.