ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 498

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Low- Versus High-Dose Rituximab For Rheumatoid Arthritis

Markus Bredemeier, Fernando K. de Oliveira and Claúdia M. Rocha, Rheumatology, Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição - Grupo Hospitalar Conceição, Porto Alegre, Brazil

Meeting: 2013 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: meta-analysis, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and rituximab

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Title: Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment - Small Molecules, Biologics and Gene Therapy I

Session Type: Abstract Submissions (ACR)

Background/Purpose: The approved dose of rituximab (RTX) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is 2×1000 mg infusions given 2 weeks apart. There is contradictory evidence regarding the effectiveness of a lower dose regimen (2×500 mg) of RTX. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of low- and high-dose RTX and to test the non-inferiority of the low-dose scheme.

Methods: A systematic literature review searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using Embase, PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science databases. Additional studies were hand searched in ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinicaltrialsregister.eu, and Roche-trials.com websites. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. The primary endpoints were ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses and DAS28 score at 24 and 48 weeks. Secondary endpoints were patient reported outcomes (PRO; HAQ, SF-36, and FACIT-F scores) and adverse events. For the primary dichotomous efficacy outcomes, non-inferiority of low-dose RTX was confirmed present when the lower boundary of the 95% CI of the risk ratio (RR) was ≥ 0.80. For DAS28 and PRO, non-inferiority was confirmed when the upper boundary of the 95% CI of the standardized mean difference between low- and high-dose RTX  was  ≤0.25 (i.e., within the margin of a small effect size).

Results: Six RCTs were identified (1-6). Four RCTs (1-4) were included in the meta-analysis of efficacy outcomes, which showed no significant differences in the primary outcomes between low- and high-dose RXT (Table). Non-inferiority criteria of low-dose RTX were met for ACR20, ACR50, DAS28, and PRO (at weeks 24 and 48) (Table). The results of the efficacy outcomes of the Score trial (5), a double-blind RCT,   were not extractable, but there were similar improvements in ACR20 and ACR50 responses in both RTX groups at week 52. The DAS28 and the HAQ scores at 24 and 52 weeks showed statistically significant improvements (comparing to placebo) only in the low-dose RTX group. The Results of the Smart study (6), an open-label RCT that included only anti-TNF experienced patients, demonstrated non-inferiority of low-dose RTX for DAS28-CRP in patients that initially responded to standard-dose RTX. Serious adverse events did not differ significantly, but first infusion reactions were less frequent with low-dose RTX (Table).

Conclusion: Low-dose RTX has similar effectiveness and met non-inferiority criteria for most primary outcomes. Considering the lower cost, it should be the standard RTX regimen for rheumatoid arthritis.

REFERENCES

1. Tak et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:39-46. 2. Emery et al. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:1390-1400. 3. Emery et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1629-1635. 4. Rubbert-Roth et al. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2010;49:1683-93. 5. Roche pharmaceuticals. Protocol Number: MA21056. Clinical Trial Result Information. 6. Dougados et al. Arthritis Rheum 2011;63:S173.

Table. Comparison of the efficacy and safety outcomes between low- and high-dose rituximab (RTX).

CATEGORICAL OUTCOMES

24 weeks

48 weeks

Risk ratio of low- versus high-dose RTX (95% CI), I2 statistic, statistical model,  P value

Risk ratio of low- versus high-dose RTX (95% CI), I2 statistic, statistical model,  P value

ACR20*

0.99 (0.92 , 1.08), I2=36%, FE, P=0.90

0.95 (0.87, 1.02), I2=0%, FE, P= 0.17

ACR50*

0.94 (0.82, 1.09), I2=0%, FE, P=0.40

0.90 (0.80, 1.02), I2=0%, FE, P=0.10

ACR70*

0.81 (0.64, 1.01), I2=0%, FE, P=0.06

0.90 (0.76, 1.08), I2=0%, FE, P=0.26

At 24 or 48 weeks (depending on study duration)

Serious adverse events †

0.84 (0.61, 1.16), I2=0%, FE, P=0.29

Serious infections †

0.77 (0.37, 1.58), I2=0%, FE, P=0.47

Early withdrawal (all causes) †

0.98 (0.70, 1.37), I2=33%, FE, P=0.92

First infusion reactions †

0.83 (0.69, 1.00), I2=0%, FE, P=0.05

CONTINUOUS OUTCOMES

24 weeks

48 weeks

Mean difference (95% CI),  I2 statistic, statistical model,  P value

Standardized mean difference (95% CI)

Mean difference (95% CI),  I2 statistic, statistical model,  P value

Standardized mean difference (95% CI)

Mean change in DAS28‡

0.08 (-0.08, 0.23), I2=17%, FE, P=0.33

0.06 (-0.05, 0.16)

0.17 (-0.01, 0.35), I2=0%, FE, P=0.06

0.11 (-0.01, 0.23)

Mean change in HAQ‡

0.02 (-0.06, 0.10), I2=0%, FE, P=0.65

0.03 (-0.09, 0.15)

0.03 (-0.05, 0.12), I2=0%,  FE, P=0.45

0.04 (-0.08, 0.16)

Mean change in physical component summary (SF-36)₤

-0.03 (-1.47, 1.42), I2=0%, FE, P=0.97

-0.00 (-0.17, 0.17)

-0.84 (-1.94, 0.26), I2=0%, FE, P=0.14

-0.10 (-0.22, 0.03)

Mean change in mental  component summary (SF-36) ₤

-0.12 (-2.22, 1.97), I2=37%, FE, P=0.91

-0.01 (-0.18, 0.16)

0.19 (-1.33, 1.70), I2=0%, FE, P=0.81

0.01 (-0.11, 0.14)

Mean change in FACIT-F ₤

-0.84 (-2.53, 0.85), I2=0%, FE, P=0.33

-0.08 (-0.25, 0.08)

-0.78 (-2.02, 0.46), I2=0%,  FE, P=0.22

-0.08 (-0.20, 0.05)

* Values lower than 1.0 favor high-dose RTX. †Values lower than 1.0 favor low-dose RTX. ‡ Positive values favor high-dose RTX. ₤ Positive values favor low-dose RTX. CI: confidence interval, FE: fixed effects model.

     


Disclosure:

M. Bredemeier,
None;

F. K. de Oliveira,
None;

C. M. Rocha,
None.

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2013 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-comparing-low-versus-high-dose-rituximab-for-rheumatoid-arthritis/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology