Rituximab or Cyclophosphamide in the Treatment of Membranous Nephropathy: The RI-CYCLO Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significance Statement A cyclic regimen of corticosteroid and cyclophosphamide is the first-line therapy for membranous nephropathy. Rituximab is superior to conservative treatment and noninferior to cyclosporine in inducing remission; it also may have a more favorable safety profile compared with cyclic therapy, but a head-to-head comparison of rituximab versus cyclic therapy is lacking. Using a multisite design, the authors designed a pilot randomized trial to obtain estimates of the effects of the two therapies and to assess the recruitment potential of a noninferiority trial. They found rituximab and cyclophosphamide may have comparable effects on disease remission and a similar short-term safety profile. These data suggest that, although rituximab may be a valid alternative to cyclic therapy for patients with membranous nephropathy, a head-to-head pragmatic comparison would require a large, global, noninferiority trial. Background A cyclic corticosteroid-cyclophosphamide regimen is the first-line therapy for membranous nephropathy. Compared with this regimen, rituximab therapy might have a more favorable safety profile, but a head-to-head comparison is lacking. Methods We randomly assigned 74 adults with membranous nephropathy and proteinuria >3.5 g/d to rituximab (1 g) on days 1 and 15, or a 6-month cyclic regimen with corticosteroids alternated with cyclophosphamide every other month. The primary outcome was complete remission of proteinuria at 12 months. Other outcomes included determination of complete or partial remission at 24 months and occurrence of adverse events. Results At 12 months, six of 37 patients (16%) randomized to rituximab and 12 of 37 patients (32%) randomized to the cyclic regimen experienced complete remission (odds ratio [OR], 0.4; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.23); 23 of 37 (62%) receiving rituximab and 27 of 37 (73%) receiving the cyclic regimen had complete or partial remission (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.23 to 1.63). At 24 months, the probabilities of complete and of complete or partial remission with rituximab were 0.42 (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.62) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.95), respectively, and 0.43 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.61) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.93), respectively, with the cyclic regimen. Serious adverse events occurred in 19% of patients receiving rituximab and in 14% receiving the cyclic regimen. Conclusions This pilot trial found no signal of more benefit or less harm associated with rituximab versus a cyclic corticosteroid-cyclophosphamide regimen in the treatment of membranous nephropathy. A head-to-head, pragmatic comparison of the cyclic regimen versus rituximab may require a global noninferiority trial. Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: Rituximab versus Steroids and Cyclophosphamide in the Treatment of Idiopathic Membranous Nephropathy (RI-CYCLO), NCT03018535
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 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".