Efficacy of Rituximab Versus Cyclophosphamide and Mycophenolate for the Treatment of Interstitial Lung Disease in Systemic Sclerosis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a common complication of systemic sclerosis (SSc), contributing to significant morbidity and mortality in affected individuals. The optimal treatment approach for SSc-associated ILD remains uncertain, with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and mycophenolate among potential therapeutic options. This systematic review aims to evaluate and synthesize the existing evidence on the efficacy of rituximab compared to cyclophosphamide and mycophenolate for the treatment of ILD in patients with systemic sclerosis. A comprehensive search of the following electronic databases, PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library, has been conducted to identify relevant studies, including randomized controlled trials, systematic review and meta-analysis, prospective cohort studies, and retrospective cohort studies. Data on study characteristics, participant demographics, interventions, outcomes, and key findings have been extracted and synthesized. The risk of bias in the included studies has been assessed using appropriate tools such as the Cochrane Bias assessment tool for randomized controlled trials, the New Castle Ottawa tool for cohort studies, and the AMSTAR checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The research team ultimately selected 15 high-quality studies for review. Rituximab demonstrated similar efficacy to cyclophosphamide and mycophenolate in improving lung function (forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO)), with fewer severe adverse events. Cyclophosphamide, while effective, had higher toxicity, leading to more frequent adverse events such as leukopenia and infections. Mycophenolate showed comparable efficacy to cyclophosphamide but with fewer side effects, making it a well-tolerated alternative. The findings of this systematic review will provide valuable insights into the comparative efficacy of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and mycophenolate in the management of ILD in systemic sclerosis, informing clinical decision-making and guiding future research in this area.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".