Talk:Rituximab

message: While it is true that the FDA-approved use of rituximab is for relapsed or refractory lymphoma, its off label use in combination with CHOP is standard clinical practice in the U.S. for treating e.g. diffuse large B cell lymphoma upfront.  Andrew73 20:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The same is true in the UK. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of rituximab

message: I could not find one nice representative study to illustrate the SLE thing.  is a hodgepodge of diseases and not really useful. JFW | T@lk 22:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SLE 

message: - they've been looking for the bit of CD20 that rituximab binds to. JFW | T@lk 21:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epitope on CD20 

message: I'm not knowledgeable enough to be sure where (or if) this news should be mentioned, but it's currently the top story on the BBC News website's Health section. Loganberry (Talk) 00:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NICE TA137 is the NICE technology appraisal for rituximab in follicular lymphoma. JFW | T@lk 08:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NHS approval 

message: Internalization/degradation of the CD20 receptor has been observed and provides a basic means of resistance to the drug (will provide PMID citation).
Thebingaman (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanism of action 

message: I think a section describing the acquisition of Rituximab resistance or remission/relapse would be useful, and would elucidate the mechanism section that already needs to be expanded.  What does everyone think?
Thebingaman (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be difficult to produce a section that is complete, accurate, and properly sourced, but I'm perfectly willing to let you try.  We could surely do better than we have so far.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resistance 

message: :The value of a humanized molecule in oncology has not been demonstrated to this date. 
Um, don't we mean something like the unique value of a humanized mAb hasn't been demonstrated for oncology?  Surely no one thinks that a fully humanized Fc (and other bits) that uses the same Fab for binding will actually be ineffective?  And shouldn't it eliminate the concerns about murine-related allergies?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rituximab vs humanized 

message: I have some concerns about this edit, which has the overall effect of significantly minimizing the serious (deadly) adverse effects associated with this medication.  But -- perhaps it's okay.  Perhaps this is simply the effect of contextualizing the risks.  What do other people think?  And Lady Cairns, can you give me an idea of what your goal is, and whether or not you actually checked the listed sources to make sure that they explicitly make these statements?   WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Since this section could be repeated in any of the current and forthcoming anti-CD20 mab articles
are there any objections to moving it to CD20 or a new anti-CD20 ? Rod57 (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Rod57, I agree that the other section should be (re)moved. What caught my eye, however, was the (now deleted) Innexus reference which appears to be not-so-disguised promotion. The molecule in question is an autophilic mAb based on rituxan (prepared by Heinz Kohler).  It has not emerged from preclinical work. TyroneMiller (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Similar is now in CD20#Clinical_significance so could sync it and trim this section. - Rod57 (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest split out most of section : Other anti-CD20 monoclonals 

message: The table is here.  I'm a dermatomyositis patient, not a medical or pharmaceutical professional, so I hesitate to make the change myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologic
If not, then okay to just delete this suggestion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.37.239 (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should table in wikipedia on biologics include rituximab? 

message: I changed "thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy" to "Graves' disease ophthalmopathy" and then a later editor changed it back citing the wording in the abstract ref.
Here is my reasoning for my change:
The abstract ref wording is sloppy.  Graves attacks the thyroid, tissue in the area of the eyes, and skin.  The use of thyroid-associated carries the false implication of causality between the thyroid and eye problem. 
If you look at the definition of thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy at, for example, http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1218444-overview you will see "Thyroid-associated orbitopathy (TAO), frequently termed Graves ophthalmopathy, is part of an autoimmune process that can affect the orbital and periorbital tissue, the thyroid gland, and, rarely, the pretibial skin or digits (thyroid acropachy). Although the use of the term thyroid ophthalmopathy is pervasive, the disease process is actually an orbitopathy in which the orbital and periocular soft tissues are primarily affected with secondary effects on the eye."  
So this sloppy and misleading term exists, but the medical community recognizes that it is sloppy and misleading, and we should not propagate it and mislead readers when a better term is in use.
Trudyjh (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fair enough. I just wanted to make sure this wasn't some kind of advocacy for Graves disease or something...some medical articles see a lot of edits like that, so I tend to be wary of changes that could potentially imply a single cause when there might be others. I'll ask one of the doctors I know on the site to take a quick peek at it and see if he concurs, as I'm not qualified to make any kind of judgment here. – RobinHood70 talk 20:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

text: All thyroid diseases are associated with eye signs (e.g. lid lag), but Graves uniquely involves the retroorbital musculature and can cause significant eye pathology that can progress to blindness. I agree that "Graves' ophthalmopathy" is a reasonable choice of words. JFW | T@lk 20:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Jfdwolff! – RobinHood70 talk 21:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why undo, Graves vs thyroid 

message: How is rituximab ADMINISTERED?  "???"  Someone who knows the answer to this, please add it to the article (e.g., in the introductory paragraph, perhaps as well as in a new section ("Drug administration"?)...  Is it IV, a pill, or what?  (If this info is in the article, I must've missed it.)  Thanks.... philiptdotcom (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is provided at http://www.drugs.com/rituxan.html (but I'm not sure this is the best source; will leave the actual change to someone who really knows the online literature/can provide the best source/etc.).  Aloha... philiptdotcom (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is in the box at the top right of the page.  It says "Routes:  intravenous infusion only (never bolus or "push")".  There are several styles of equipment for intravenous infusions, but all of them involve putting a plastic line into a vein, and (slowly) pouring the drug through that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

text:  i get rituximab since 3 years now against my multiples sclerosis. i get 2 infusions every 6 months only 14 days apart with 500mg rituximab. as User WhatamIdoing already said i get it as an infusion very slowly together with 500ml of NaCl and it takes about 4 hours. If you get it to fast you will have adverse effects. Sometimes i get bored during the infusion so i make it a bit faster :p when i do that my ears are getting red and my throat swells and itches.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.179.216.156 (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is rituximab ADMINISTERED? 

message: Now the patent is expired (in 2015), are biosimilars available or in development ? - Rod57 (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some info on two recent biosimilars going through the approval process in Europe Afcone (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may have been removed (without discussion?) - I think we should have a section on biosimilars and list all the ones approved anywhere in the world - any objections ? Existing ref  has a nice list. - Rod57 (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now the patent is expired, are biosimilars available or in development  

message: Is it used off-label for MS, given how well it was doing in clinical trials before they were stopped in favour of Ocrelizumab ? - Rod57 (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently yes - says Ocrelizumab - Rod57 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Rod57 Yes still. Sweden is currently doing a cohort study on efficacy with Kaiser, CombatMS, extend release date again.. but the rituximab is no better no worse with supporters/detractors in both patients and doctors. Jennablurrs7575 (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it used off-label for MS

message: uned2calculatethat/YEAR62.235.177.130 (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  price 

message: "A new multi-centre double-blinded trial with 152 patients began in October 2014,[25] after a follow-up open study published in July 2015 suggested a longer acting effect...."
Confusing because Oct 2014 is not after July 2015. Was the double-blinded trial based on pre-publication information from the follow-up study?
Have put the second date in brackets. Perhaps the connection between the studies can be further clarified?
94.2.47.249 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFS trials - dates conflict 

message: 1. I was looking for info on Rixathon and found https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=830818238 removed the names of numerous rituximab biosimilars that redirect here - Blitzima, Tuxella, Ritemvia, Rixathon and Truxima.  Some of these are redirects to this page; removal is thus inappropriate.  However I do note that the biosimilar Rixathon was "Rejected by FDA in May 2018."  I wonder why! Others include Riabni, Ruxience, and Truxima...  Adding...
2. Also, "A biosimilar is not regarded as a generic of a biological medicine" is well known in the field, yet we incorrectly describe all the biosimilars as "a medication".  I'll be fixing this but want to highlight the problem before doing so.
3. It strikes me as nonsensical that a drug can be patented if the patent doesn't describe a way to manufacture the drug.  I (vaguely) recall that a valid patent must provide a complete description of how to replicate the innovation.  (To be continued...)
--50.201.195.170 (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic edit, content.  Biosimilar and Generic are far (how far?) from equivalent?