Safety of Rituximab in Combination with Other Biologic Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: An Open-label Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the safety of rituximab (RTX) in combination with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We did an open-label study of the safety and efficacy of RTX in adult patients with active RA and an inadequate response to ≥ 1 biologic for ≥ 12 weeks (stable dose ≥ 4 weeks). RTX (2 × 500 mg) was added to patients' current biologic and nonbiologic DMARD treatment. After 24 weeks, patients with 28-joint Disease Activity Score ≥ 2.6 were eligible for RTX retreatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients developing a serious adverse event (SAE) within 24 weeks of initiating RTX. RESULTS: Patients (n = 176) received RTX with 18 different biologic/DMARD combinations. Adalimumab alone (n = 46; 26.1%) or etanercept alone (n = 37; 21.0%) plus RTX were the most common combinations. Overall, 90.9% and 76.1% of patients completed 24 and 48 weeks, respectively; 147 patients (83.5%) received a second course of RTX. Over 24 weeks, 9.1% of patients reported SAE (24.3 events/100 patient-yrs, 95% CI 15.5-38.1). The SAE rate was similar over 48 weeks (22.4 events/100 patient-yrs, 95% CI 15.9-31.5). Four serious infections were reported over 48 weeks (2.7 events/100 patient-yrs, 95% CI 1.0-7.2). No SAE occurred within 24 h of any RTX infusion. Efficacy responses improved numerically at Week 48 compared with Week 24. CONCLUSION: The overall safety profile of RTX in combination with 1 other biologic was consistent with that previously reported for RTX plus methotrexate or other nonbiologic DMARD. (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00443651).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".