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: 2480

Is there a Difference in the  Effectiveness in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis with Rituximab when Using a Dose of 1 or 2 Grams per Cycle? a Systematic Review

Ana M. Ortiz1, María Piedad Rosario2, Carmen Martínez2 and Isidoro González-Alvaro1, 1Rheumatology, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa. IIS La Princesa, Madrid, Spain, 2Research Unit, Spanish Society of Rheumatology, Madrid, Spain

Meeting: 2014 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: rheumatoid arthritis, treatment 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 - Small Molecules, Biologics and Gene Therapy: Therapeutic Strategies, Biomarkers and Predictors of Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Session Type: Abstract Submissions (ACR)

Background/Purpose: Since the description of the efficacy of rituximab (RTX) in treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the use of this drug has been extended. The recommendation in fact sheet is the administration of two infusions of 1 g in each cycle but some studies have used two infusions of 500 mg. Currently the most suitable pattern for its use is not established. The purpose of this work was to systematically review the published evidence to date regarding on the difference in efficacy in the treatment of RA with RTX when used at a dose of 2 x 500 mg (1 g) or 2 x 1000 mg (2 g) per cycle.

Methods: A sensitive search of all published studies on the difference in the efficacy of RTX in RA patients used at a dose of 1 and 2 g per cycle was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central databases since its inception until July 2013. We selected all studies involving adult patients with RA treated with RTX in which intervention was described as treatment with RTX at a dose of 1 g per cycle and comparator as the administration of RTX at a dose of 2 g per cycle. Any standardized measure of efficacy in RA was considered as outcome measure at two years of follow-up. Although meta analysis, systematic reviews, clinical trials and cohorts well designed were preferably selected, finally we also included open studies and all studies that showed a methodologically correct subanalysis related to the question even if it had not been his main objective. After removing duplicates, an initial selection by reading titles, a second selection after reading abstracts and, finally, full reading of selected studies, assessing the methodological quality by levels of the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine Evidence (2001 update) where applicable, was carried out. A manual search of the references of included studies was also performed.

Results: A total of 451 citations about the treatment of RA patients with RTX used at a dose of 1 and 2 g per cycle were identified, which were reduced to 46 after removing duplicates and selection by reading titles and abstracts. Of the 46 articles selected, finally 14 were included in the review, 3 reviews, 2 of them systematic and one not systematic, 5 corresponding to 4 clinical trials, 3 open studies and 3 abstracts, two of them about the same retrospective cohort and, the third one, an open study previously included as a publication. Although published outside the period included in this review, an article about a systematic review and meta-analysis was included because it provides valuable information for the same.

Conclusion: RTX shows an equivalent overall clinical efficacy administered at doses of 1 and 2 g per cycle in the treatment of RA patients (level of evidence 1a, grade of recommendation A). However, there may be differences in extreme efficacy parameters with trend, not statistically significant, to a more ACR70 response or EULAR good response at the dose of 2 g per cycle.

This work has been funded by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology.


Disclosure:

A. M. Ortiz,

Spanish Society of Rheumatology,

2;

M. P. Rosario,
None;

C. Martínez,
None;

I. González-Alvaro,

Spanish Society of Rheumatology,

2.

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

« Back to 2014 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/is-there-a-difference-in-the-effectiveness-in-the-treatment-of-rheumatoid-arthritis-with-rituximab-when-using-a-dose-of-1-or-2-grams-per-cycle-a-systematic-review/

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