Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

This trial did not show that tocilizumab was more effective than rituximab in patients with a B-cell-poor pathotype in the primary analysis; however, superiority was shown in most supplementary and secondary analyses using a molecular classification.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Frances Humby 1, Patrick Durez 2, Maya H Buch 3, Myles J Lewis 1, Michele Bombardieri 1, Christopher John 1, Hasan Rizvi 4, Louise Warren 1, Joanna Peel 1, Liliane Fossati-Jimack 1, Rebecca E Hands 1, Giovanni Giorli 1, Felice Rivellese 1, Juan D Cañete 5, Peter C Taylor 6, Peter Sasieni 7, João E Fonseca 8, Ernest Choy 9, Costantino Pitzalis 1,*

1 Centre for Experimental Medicine and Rheumatology, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
2 Institute of Experimental and Clinical Research, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain, Belgium
3 Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
4 Blizard Institute, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
5 Arthritis Unit, L’Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques, Barcelona, Spain
6 Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
7 King’s Clinical Trial Unit, King’s College London, London, UK
8 Instituto de Medicina Molecular, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
9 Section of Rheumatology, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
* Corresponding author Email: c.pitzalis@qmul.ac.uk

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions