Systematic review of rituximab for autoimmune diseases: a potential alternative to intravenous immune globulin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab has immune-modulatory effects similar to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of rituximab in autoimmune diseases that are also treated with IVIG. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The most common indications for immune modulation with IVIG, as identified from a 2012 regional audit in Canada, were chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), myasthenia gravis, multifocal motor neuropathy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Sjogren's syndrome, and pemphigus vulgaris. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library until July 2016 for studies evaluating rituximab in each of these conditions. The primary outcome in our meta-analysis was clinical response at 6 months as defined by disease-specific criteria in randomized trials. We also calculated pooled proportions of responders within disease types from observational studies. RESULTS: Ninety-five rituximab studies were identified: 86 were observational studies in patients with ITP (n = 1746), SLE (n = 1047), pemphigus vulgaris (n = 564), Sjogren's syndrome (n = 138), myasthenia gravis (n = 66), and CIDP (n = 31) and nine were randomized controlled trials (n = 992) in patients with ITP, SLE, and Sjogren's syndrome that compared rituximab with placebo plus standard of care. Among randomized trials, response rates were higher with rituximab (relative risk, 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.83). The pooled proportion of rituximab responses ranged from 94% (95% CI, 88%-98%) for pemphigus vulgaris to 48% (95% CI, 30%-66%) for CIDP. Rituximab was generally well tolerated in observational studies although in the randomized trials, adverse events were more common in the rituximab group. CONCLUSION: Rituximab is an immune-modulating agent with biologic activity across many autoimmune conditions. Our data support the use of comparative trials with broad eligibility criteria to evaluate rituximab as an alternative to IVIG in autoimmune diseases.
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 | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".