INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by systemic joint inflammation that often leads to significant disability. Several effective anti-TNF agents have been used, but some patients have shown an inadequate response. Rituximab is a therapeutic monoclonal antibody indicated in such cases. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to access efficacy and safety of rituximab in patients with active RA which have or have not been treated with anti-TNF agents before, and to relate outcome with RF and anti-CCP serology. We searched major electronics databases, grey literature and searched for references manually. We used Review Manager(r)5.1 for meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included six RCTs comparing rituximab 1000 mg with placebo. Methotrexate was used by both groups. Treatment with rituximab was more effective in naïve and in anti-TNF treatment failure patients - ACR20/50/70 and EULAR response. We observed lower changes in Total Genant-modified Sharp score, erosion score and joint narrowing scores in the rituximab group, and SF-36, FACIT-T and HAQ-DI scores were also better in this group. There were no differences between groups regarding safety outcomes, with exception of acute injection reactions, which were more common on rituximab group. More RF/anti-CCP seropositive patients achieved ACR20 than RF/anti-CP negative patients in rituximab group. CONCLUSION: Available data support the use of rituximab for the treatment of RA, as it is an effective and safe option for naïve and anti-TNF treatment failure patients. RF and anti-CCP seam to influence treatment results, but this inference needs further research.
INTRODUCTION:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by systemic joint inflammation that often leads to significant disability. Several effective anti-TNF agents have been used, but some patients have shown an inadequate response. Rituximab is a therapeutic monoclonal antibody indicated in such cases. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to access efficacy and safety of rituximab in patients with active RA which have or have not been treated with anti-TNF agents before, and to relate outcome with RF and anti-CCP serology. We searched major electronics databases, grey literature and searched for references manually. We used Review Manager(r)5.1 for meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included six RCTs comparing rituximab 1000 mg with placebo. Methotrexate was used by both groups. Treatment with rituximab was more effective in naïve and in anti-TNFtreatment failurepatients - ACR20/50/70 and EULAR response. We observed lower changes in Total Genant-modified Sharp score, erosion score and joint narrowing scores in the rituximab group, and SF-36, FACIT-T and HAQ-DI scores were also better in this group. There were no differences between groups regarding safety outcomes, with exception of acute injection reactions, which were more common on rituximab group. More RF/anti-CCP seropositive patients achieved ACR20 than RF/anti-CP negative patients in rituximab group. CONCLUSION: Available data support the use of rituximab for the treatment of RA, as it is an effective and safe option for naïve and anti-TNFtreatment failurepatients. RF and anti-CCP seam to influence treatment results, but this inference needs further research.