Review on the influence of protocol design on clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis treated with rituximab

Abstract

Objective: To critically analyze the influence of protocol design on clinical outcome in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with rituximab.

Data sources: A PubMed and EMBASE search (January 2000-January 2012) using the key words rheumatoid arthritis and rituximab was performed.

Study selection and data extraction: A search of English-language studies from the data sources was conducted for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with 100 patients or more assessing the efficacy and safety of rituximab in the treatment of RA. From these studies, 2 authors independently extracted, compiled, and aggregated the data.

Data synthesis: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. In these studies, some patients had not been treated with tumor necrosis factor-alfa (TNF-α) inhibitors, while most did not respond to it. The variables compared included dose (500 vs 1000 mg), duration of study (24 vs 48 weeks), and number of cycles (1 vs 2). They were statistically analyzed using the χ(2) test. There was a statistically significant difference in the response to rituximab compared to the control (methotrexate) (p < 0.001). In patients who were studied for only 24 weeks, given 500 or 1000 mg for 1 or 2 cycles, a 90% or greater response rate was reported in those who achieved an ACR 20, but no statistically significant differences were observed (p = 0.75). In patients studied for 48 weeks who received 2 cycles of either 500 mg or 1000 mg of rituximab and achieved an ACR 20, a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) was observed in those who received a dose of 1000 mg for 2 cycles (42.77% vs 67.49%).

Conclusions: In patients who are nonresponsive to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and TNF-α inhibitors, rituximab may be a promising and well-tolerated biologic agent. The capacity of rituximab to produce long-term, sustained remissions could not be evaluated because the duration of the studies was limited to 24 weeks or 48 weeks. Studies with longer periods of observation are warranted.