4.7 Article

Continued inhibition of structural damage over 2 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with rituximab in combination with methotrexate

Journal

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Volume 69, Issue 6, Pages 1158-1161

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2009.119222

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd
  2. Genentech, Inc
  3. Biogen Idec, Inc
  4. National Institutes of Health National Center for Research Resources [5 M01 RR000070]
  5. Cancer Research UK
  6. Versus Arthritis [18475] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0508-10299] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Rituximab inhibited structural damage at 1 year in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had had a previous inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. Objective To assess structural damage progression through 2 years. Methods Intention-to-treat patients with one post-baseline radiograph (rituximab n = 281; placebo n = 187) received background methotrexate (MTX) and were randomised to rituximab (2 x 1000 mg infusions, 2 weeks apart) or placebo; patients were eligible for rituximab re-treatment every 6 months. By week 104, 82% of the placebo population had received >= 1 dose of rituximab. Radiographic end points included the change in total Sharp score (TSS), erosion and joint space narrowing scores at week 104. Results At week 104, significantly lower changes in TSS (1.14 vs 2.81; p < 0.0001), erosion score (0.72 vs 1.80; p < 0.0001) and joint space narrowing scores (0.42 vs 1.00; p < 0.0009) were observed with rituximab plus MTX vs placebo plus MTX. Within the rituximab group, 87% who had no progression of joint damage at 1 year remained non-progressive at 2 years. Conclusions Rituximab plus MTX demonstrated significant and sustained effects on joint damage progression in patients with RA and a previously inadequate response to TNF inhibitors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available