The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Predictors of Clinical Improvement in Rituximab‐Treated Refractory Adult and Juvenile Dermatomyositis and Adult Polymyositis
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To identify the clinical and laboratory predictors of clinical improvement in a cohort of myositis patients treated with rituximab. Methods: We analyzed data for 195 patients with myositis (75 with adult polymyositis [PM], 72 with adult dermatomyositis [DM], and 48 with juvenile DM) in the Rituximab in Myositis trial. Clinical improvement was defined as 20% improvement in at least 3 of the following 6 core set measures of disease activity: physician's and patient's/parent's global assessment of disease activity, manual muscle testing, physical function, muscle enzymes, and extramuscular disease activity. We analyzed the association of the following baseline variables with improvement: myositis clinical subgroup, demographics, myositis damage, clinical and laboratory parameters, core set measures, rituximab treatment, and myositis autoantibodies (antisynthetase, anti–Mi‐2, anti–signal recognition particle, anti–transcription intermediary factor 1γ [TIF‐1γ], anti‐MJ, other autoantibodies, and no autoantibodies). All measures were univariately assessed for association with improvement using time‐to‐event analyses. A multivariable time‐dependent proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the association of individual predictive factors with improvement. Results: In the final multivariable model, the presence of an antisynthetase, primarily anti–Jo‐1 (hazard ratio [HR] 3.08, P < 0.01), anti–Mi‐2 (HR 2.5, P < 0.01), or other autoantibody (HR 1.4, P = 0.14) predicted a shorter time to improvement compared to the absence of autoantibodies. A lower physician's global assessment of damage (HR 2.32, P = 0.02) and juvenile DM (versus adult myositis) (HR 2.45, P = 0.01) also predicted improvement. Unlike autoantibody status, the predictive effect of physician's global assessment of damage and juvenile DM diminished by week 20. Rituximab treatment did not affect these associations. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that the presence of antisynthetase and anti–Mi‐2 autoantibodies, juvenile DM subset, and lower disease damage strongly predict clinical improvement in patients with refractory myositis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Doyle, T. J., Dhillon, N., Madan, R., Cabral, F., Fletcher, E. A., Koontz, D. C., Aggarwal, R., Osorio, J. C., Rosas, I. O., Oddis, C. V., et al. (2018) · The Journal of Rheumatology · doi:10.3899/jrheum.170541 · Cited by 102
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Aggarwal, R., Bandos, A., Reed, A. M., Ascherman, D. P., Barohn, R. J., Feldman, B. M., Miller, F. W., Rider, L. G., Harris‐Love, M. O., Levesque, M. C., the RIM Study Group, & Oddis, C. V.
- Venue
- Arthritis & Rheumatology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-02-25
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 740-749
- ISSN
- 2326-5191 (ISSN-L)
- 2326-5205
- OpenAlex
- W2125816072
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predictors of Clinical Improvement in Rituximab‐Treated Refractory Adult and Juvenile Dermatomyositis and Adult Polymyositis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/art.38270
- The paper
- Aggarwal, R., Bandos, A., Reed, A. M., Ascherman, D. P., Barohn, R. J., Feldman, B. M., Miller, F. W., Rider, L. G., Harris‐Love, M. O., Levesque, M. C., the RIM Study Group, & Oddis, C. V. (2014). Predictors of Clinical Improvement in Rituximab‐Treated Refractory Adult and Juvenile Dermatomyositis and Adult Polymyositis. Arthritis & Rheumatology. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.38270
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.