Multiple sclerosis and related disorders · 2026
Optimizing rituximab dosing in multiple sclerosis: Real-world outcomes with interval extension.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pulukuri N, Alva S, Pandit L, Agasti N, Vegda M, Chinni L, Kadri Y, Alexander L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Rituximab is highly effective in multiple sclerosis (MS), but optimal dosing intervals are unclear; extended interval dosing (EID) may preserve disease control while reducing treatment burden and cost.
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate whether structured, progressive extension of rituximab infusion intervals after initial treatment could be implemented without an increase in disease activity, and to assess B-cell kinetics and infection risk.
METHODS: In this single- centre prospective study,126 patients received 655 rituximab infusions. Initial standard (SD) and non-standard (NSD) dosing patterns reflected real-world treatment exposure and were not assigned comparative treatment arms. After initial treatment phase, eligible patients transitioned to a common structured EID protocol with progressive interval extension. Relapses, EDSS, MRI activity and NEDA-3 were evaluated; CD19/CD27 counts and infections were recorded. The EID analysis used longitudinal within-patient comparisons before and during interval extension.
RESULTS: Disease activity remained low during initial treatment. Among those who transitioned, within-patient analysis showed no significant increase in clinical relapses (6.2%vs 8.3%), MRI lesions (20.0%vs 22.2%) or EDSS progression (4.2%vs 2.1%), and NEDA-3 was largely maintained. Peripheral B-cell repopulation showed substantial inter-individual variability and did not clearly predict clinical relapse. Higher baseline EDSS was independently associated with infection risk (OR 1.93).
CONCLUSION: Structured extension of rituximab dosing intervals after initial treatment was feasible and was not accompanied by an apparent increase in disease activity during follow-up. These findings support further evaluation of individualized EID strategies, particularly in resource-constrained settings, but do not establish equivalence or non-inferiority to continued fixed-interval dosing.
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate whether structured, progressive extension of rituximab infusion intervals after initial treatment could be implemented without an increase in disease activity, and to assess B-cell kinetics and infection risk.
METHODS: In this single- centre prospective study,126 patients received 655 rituximab infusions. Initial standard (SD) and non-standard (NSD) dosing patterns reflected real-world treatment exposure and were not assigned comparative treatment arms. After initial treatment phase, eligible patients transitioned to a common structured EID protocol with progressive interval extension. Relapses, EDSS, MRI activity and NEDA-3 were evaluated; CD19/CD27 counts and infections were recorded. The EID analysis used longitudinal within-patient comparisons before and during interval extension.
RESULTS: Disease activity remained low during initial treatment. Among those who transitioned, within-patient analysis showed no significant increase in clinical relapses (6.2%vs 8.3%), MRI lesions (20.0%vs 22.2%) or EDSS progression (4.2%vs 2.1%), and NEDA-3 was largely maintained. Peripheral B-cell repopulation showed substantial inter-individual variability and did not clearly predict clinical relapse. Higher baseline EDSS was independently associated with infection risk (OR 1.93).
CONCLUSION: Structured extension of rituximab dosing intervals after initial treatment was feasible and was not accompanied by an apparent increase in disease activity during follow-up. These findings support further evaluation of individualized EID strategies, particularly in resource-constrained settings, but do not establish equivalence or non-inferiority to continued fixed-interval dosing.