COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BELIMUMAB, ANIFROLUMAB, AND RITUXIMAB IN SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF CLINICAL AND ANALYTICAL OUTCOMES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PV258 / #502 Poster Topic: AS24 - SLE-Treatment Background/Purpose Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a complex autoimmune disorder with multisystem involvement, often presenting with high disease activity and diverse clinical manifestations. The advent of biological therapies has marked a significant advance in disease control for SLE patients. The latest ACR/EULAR 2023 guidelines recommend Belimumab and Anifrolumab as first-line options for moderate to high disease activity, with Rituximab reserved for refractory cases. Despite these guidelines, clinical responses vary considerably, necessitating close monitoring of laboratory parameters to assess and optimize disease management. Objectives : This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and analytical outcomes in SLE patients treated with Belimumab, Anifrolumab, and Rituximab over a 1-year period. Specifically, we sought to determine which treatment best controls disease activity through analysis of hemoglobin (Hb), leukocyte, lymphocyte, and platelet counts, complement levels (C3 and C4), and double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibody levels. Methods We conducted a retrospective study at a tertiary hospital, examining the use of Belimumab, Anifrolumab, and Rituximab in patients diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) between 2010 and 2024. Diagnosis of SLE was established using the 2019 ACR/EULAR criteria. Data were collected on demographic variables, clinical manifestations of SLE, and laboratory parameters (hemoglobin, leukocytes, lymphocytes, platelets, C3, C4, and dsDNA) over 1 year of treatment for each biological therapy. Results A total of 45 patients were included in the study, with 25 receiving Belimumab, 14 receiving Anifrolumab, and 6 receiving Rituximab. The median age at diagnosis of 34.33 years (IQR: 16–60) and 93.33% being female. Of these, 95.56% received concomitant hydroxychloroquine therapy (mean dose: 355.81 mg/day). Clinical manifestations observed included articular involvement (95.56%), cutaneous involvement (71.11%), hematologic symptoms (84.44%), neurological symptoms (46.67%), and renal involvement (33.33%). The median treatment duration varied by therapy, with 18 months for Belimumab, 6 months for Anifrolumab, and 14 months for Rituximab. Discontinuation rates were higher in patients treated with Belimumab (10 patients) and Anifrolumab (5 patients) compared to Rituximab (3 patients), with causes including infections, lack of efficacy, and adverse events. Concomitant corticosteroids were used by 88% of Belimumab patients (median prednisone dose: 7.5 mg/day), 78% of Anifrolumab patients (5 mg/day), and 83.33% of Rituximab patients (10 mg/day). Anifrolumab provided the most consistent control over Hb levels, rare leukocyte drops below 4,000/µL, and stable lymphocyte and platelet counts, staying above 1,500/µL and 150,000/µL, respectively, with complement levels (C3 and C4) remaining mostly stable; however, dsDNA levels significantly increased by the end of the treatment period, suggesting ongoing disease activity. Belimumab showed moderate efficacy with generally stable Hb and leukocyte counts above threshold, along with lymphocyte and platelet counts; nevertheless, periodic drops in complement levels indicated some consumption, and dsDNA fluctuations pointed to intermittent disease activity. Rituximab, showed less consistent control, with Hb levels varying and occasional anemia, frequent drops in leukocyte and lymphocyte counts below thresholds and fluctuating platelet and complement levels, with notable complement consumption and persistently elevated dsDNA levels reflecting ongoing disease activity (Figure 1). Figure 1. Progression of dsDNA levels over 12 months Conclusions Anifrolumab demonstrated strong control over hematologic parameters and complement levels but did not achieve lower dsDNA levels, leaving the clinical significance of this finding unclear. In contrast, Belimumab and Rituximab, despite greater variability in hematologic control, maintained better stability in dsDNA and complement levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".