Comparison of Two Rituximab Induction Regimens for Antineutrophil Cytoplasm Antibody–Associated Vasculitis: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: intravenously weekly) versus the two-dose (1000 mg intravenously biweekly) regimen. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify studies using the four- and/or two-dose RTX regimens for induction of remission in severe AAV. Disease status 6 months after RTX infusion was required for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they received concomitant cyclophosphamide or plasma exchange. The primary end point was the proportion of patients in complete remission at 6 months. The pooled estimate was obtained by using meta-analysis methods for proportions with random effects. Secondary end points included antineutrophil cytoplasm antibody status, number of patients with B-cell depletion, mean prednisone dose, infections, and death. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies and 506 patients were included for analysis: 361 patients received the four-dose regimen, and 145 patients received the two-dose regimen. Most patients had relapsing disease at inclusion (83% and 92% of patients, respectively). There was no significant difference between the four- and two-dose regimens, with a complete remission achieved in 85% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 70-96) and 91% (95% CI: 79-99) of patients, respectively. At 6 months, both regimens were associated with a similar mean daily prednisone dose (8.1 mg), infections (12% in both), and death (1% vs 0%, respectively). CONCLUSION: No difference was found in terms of efficacy or safety between the four- and two-dose RTX regimens for induction of remission in severe AAV.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".