4.2 Review

Efficacy of Rituximab in the Setting of Steroid-Refractory Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

BIOLOGY OF BLOOD AND MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 15, 期 9, 页码 1005-1013

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.04.003

关键词

Rituximab; Chronic graft-versus-host disease; Systematic review; Meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increased insight into the role of B lymphocytes in the pathophysiology of graft-versus-host disease has led to a number of studies assessing the efficacy of the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (mAb) rituximab in treating steroid-refractory chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD). Findings vary greatly among these studies, however. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the totality of evidence on the efficacy of rituximab in steroid-refractory cGVHD. We performed a PubMed search and contacted experts in the field to identify relevant studies. Endpoints included overall response rate (including organ-specific) and ability of rituximab to allow dosage reduction of immunosuppressive therapies. Data were pooled under a random-effects model. Seven studies (3 prospective and 4 retrospective, with a total of I I I patients) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled proportion of overall response was 0.66 (95% confidence interval = 0.57 to 0.74). There was no heterogeneity among the pooled studies. Response rates were 13% to 100% for cGVHD of the skin, 0 to 83% for cGVHD of the oral mucosa, 0 to 66% for cGVHD of the liver, and 0 to 38% for cGVHD of the lung. Common adverse events were related to infusion reactions or infectious complications. The relatively small number of patients and the varying criteria for reporting organ response and dosage reduction of steroids, among other limitations, hinders our ability to reach definitive conclusions on the overall efficacy of rituximab for cGVHD involving other organs. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 15: 1005-1013 (2009) (C) 2009 American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据