Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
181,716 studies31 sourcesUpdated 7 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)

A comparative analysis of semiannual versus annual rituximab maintenance in patients with refractory idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: a retrospective longitudinal real-world study.

  1. 1Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Division of Rheumatology - São Paulo (SP), Brazil.

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore the real-world effectiveness of semiannual versus annual rituximab maintenance administration in patients with refractory idiopathic inflammatory myopathies.Methods

In this single-center, retrospective longitudinal study (2010-2025), 45 adults with refractory idiopathic inflammatory myopathies received two initial rituximab infusions (1 g on days 0 and 15). Maintenance rituximab was administered every 6 months (semiannual group, n=14) or every 12 months (annual group, n=31). Baseline immunosuppressive therapy was maintained, and glucocorticoid tapering was guided by clinical and laboratory parameters. Outcomes at months 6-12 and 18-24 included the need for rescue therapies: intravenous methylprednisolone (3 g total) and immunoglobulin (2 g/kg), or prednisone dose escalation.Results

Baseline demographics, refractory idiopathic inflammatory myopathies subtypes, rituximab indications (cutaneous, muscular, articular, and/or pulmonary activity), and peri- rituximab medications (within 2 months before/after infusion) did not differ significantly between groups (p>0.05). No statistically significant differences in the frequency of rescue therapy use at 6-12 and 18-24 months were detected between the two regimens. Intragroup analysis demonstrated significant reductions in relapse rates and rescue therapy requirements over time (p<0.05), suggesting improvement in both cohorts.Conclusion

In this exploratory cohort, no statistically significant differences were detected between semiannual and annual rituximab maintenance regimens with respect to clinical outcomes, although numerically higher relapse rates were observed in the annual group. These findings suggest that extended rituximab intervals may be feasible in resource-limited settings, but further prospective studies are needed to confirm these observations.

Related

  1. Systemic inflammatory response index as an independent predictor of all-cause mortality in patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis: a retrospective cohort study
    Emel Tatlı, Betül Çavuşoğlu Türker, Süleyman Tuna Yolcu +5
    Frontiers in MedicinePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textGeneral medicinePMC
  2. Cost-effectiveness of anti-inflammatory reliever (AIR) or maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) for mild to moderate asthma: a systematic review.
    Nqobile Ndimande, Kevin Mortimer, Marie Stolbrink +3
    BMJ open respiratory researchPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textPhysiologyEurope PMC
  3. Maintenance of bone health by osteoblasts in the absence of osteocytes: comparative analysis of gene expression in medaka and zebrafish vertebrae
    S.N. Jayash, D.R. Dunbar, S. Guizard +7
    Bone reportsPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  4. Hyaluronidase-Facilitated Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin 10% as Maintenance Therapy for Japanese Patients with Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyradiculoneuropathy and Multifocal Motor Neuropathy: A Phase 3, Open-label Clinical Trial
    Satoshi Kuwabara, Kazumoto Shibuya, Yuji Tomizawa +9
    Internal MedicinePeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textNeurologyJ-STAGE
  5. Order of resolution and recurrence of inflammatory symptoms in lipedema: a longitudinal study of 1,300 patients Ordem de resolução e recorrência de sintomas inflamatórios no lipedema: um estudo longitudinal com 1.300 pacientes
    Alexandre Campos Moraes Amato, Juliana Lelis Spirandeli Amato, Daniel Augusto Benitti
    Jornal vascular brasileiroPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
BibTeX
@article{serrano2026comparative,
  title = {{A comparative analysis of semiannual versus annual rituximab maintenance in patients with refractory idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: a retrospective longitudinal real-world study.}},
  author = {Rodrigo Lorenzetti Serrano and Fernando Henrique Carlos de Souza and Renata Miossi and Marlise Sítima Mendes Simões Faria and Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo},
  journal = {Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1590/1806-9282.20260564},
  url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42879583},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - A comparative analysis of semiannual versus annual rituximab maintenance in patients with refractory idiopathic inflammatory myopathies: a retrospective longitudinal real-world study.
AU  - Rodrigo Lorenzetti Serrano
AU  - Fernando Henrique Carlos de Souza
AU  - Renata Miossi
AU  - Marlise Sítima Mendes Simões Faria
AU  - Samuel Katsuyuki Shinjo
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/12
JO  - Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)
DO  - 10.1590/1806-9282.20260564
UR  - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42879583
AB  - Objective  The aim of this study was to explore the real-world effectiveness of semiannual versus annual rituximab maintenance administration in patients with refractory idiopathic inflammatory myopathies.Methods  In this single-center, retrospective longitudinal study (2010-2025), 45 adults with refractory idiopathic inflammatory myopathies received two initial rituximab infusions (1 g on days 0 and 15). Maintenance rituximab was administered every 6 months (semiannual group, n=14) or every 12 months (annual group, n=31). Baseline immunosuppressive therapy was maintained, and glucocorticoid tapering was guided by clinical and laboratory parameters. Outcomes at months 6-12 and 18-24 included the need for rescue therapies: intravenous methylprednisolone (3 g total) and immunoglobulin (2 g/kg), or prednisone dose escalation.Results  Baseline demographics, refractory idiopathic inflammatory myopathies subtypes, rituximab indications (cutaneous, muscular, articular, and/or pulmonary activity), and peri- rituximab medications (within 2 months before/after infusion) did not differ significantly between groups (p>0.05). No statistically significant differences in the frequency of rescue therapy use at 6-12 and 18-24 months were detected between the two regimens. Intragroup analysis demonstrated significant reductions in relapse rates and rescue therapy requirements over time (p<0.05), suggesting improvement in both cohorts.Conclusion  In this exploratory cohort, no statistically significant differences were detected between semiannual and annual rituximab maintenance regimens with respect to clinical outcomes, although numerically higher relapse rates were observed in the annual group. These findings suggest that extended rituximab intervals may be feasible in resource-limited settings, but further prospective studies are needed to confirm these observations.
SN  - 0104-4230
SN  - 1806-9282
ER  -