Clinical efficacy and safety of rituximab in lupus nephritis

Abstract

Background

Long-term treatment programs with low toxicity represent a therapeutic challenge in lupus nephritis (LN). Although a therapeutic benefit of rituximab (RTX) has been reported in LN patients who have failed conventional treatment, the results are controversial. We aimed to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of RTX as a new immunosuppressive medicine in the treatment of LN with a meta-analysis.

Methods

Based on predetermined criteria, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were used to identify the eligible studies. Cochrane Review Manager version 5.3 was applied to pool the data extracted from individual investigations and provide summary effect estimates.

Results

Twenty-four studies with 940 patients were analyzed. In case series trials with specific LN assessment, the complete remission (CR) rate at 12 months was 35.9% (95% CI: 24.2%–49.5%), and total remission (TR: CR plus partial remission) was 73.4% (95% CI: 66.0%–79.7%). In controlled trials, RTX was associated with a higher probability of TR (OR =2.02, 95% CI: 1.23–3.32, P<0.01). The CR in the RTX group was higher than that in the control group, although there was no significant difference between the two groups (OR =1.98, 95% CI: 0.90–4.39, P>0.05). Additionally, RTX treatment significantly decreased proteinuria (mean difference: −2.79, 95% CI: −3.95 to −1.62, P<0.01) as well as the renal activity index in patients with LN (mean difference: −3.46, 95% CI: −4.43 to −2.50, P<0.01). In controlled trials, the relative risks of the adverse events of infection and infusion reaction were not notably different between the two groups.

Conclusion

RTX is a promising therapy for the treatment of LN due to significant clinical efficacy and a favorable safety profile. In future studies, larger study populations and longer-term time points may identify additional important patient-centered outcomes.

Keywords:

• systemic lupus erythematosus
• lupus nephritis
• rituximab
• efficacy
• safety
• meta-analysis

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Guangzhou Medical Key Discipline Construction Project, the Natural Science Foundation of the Guangdong Province (no. 2015A030310386) and Guangdong Medical Science and Technology Research Fund Project (no. A2018336).

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.