Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Difficult case: rituximab in anti-SRP antibody myositis in pregnancy
  1. Puja Mehta1,
  2. Rachel Dorsey-Campbell1,
  3. Pooja Dassan1,2,
  4. Catherine Nelson-Piercy1,3,
  5. Stuart Viegas1
  1. 1Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
  2. 2London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, Southall, UK
  3. 3Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Stuart Viegas,Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK; stuart.viegas{at}


A 30-year-old nulliparous woman presented at 15-week gestation with severe skeletal and respiratory muscle weakness, having been diagnosed with anti-signal recognition particle antibody myositis 3 years before. Remission had previously been induced with rituximab (after failure of standard therapies). She had continued oral prednisolone and rituximab every 6 months but had stopped this when planning pregnancy. At 16-weeks gestation, she restarted corticosteroids and rituximab, with clinical and biochemical recovery and no complications. Rituximab should ideally be given in the first trimester; treatment later in pregnancy increases the risk of neonatal B-cell depletion and cytopenias. The fetal risk from drug therapy must be weighed against the risk to mother and fetus from untreated disease. This report highlights the importance of preconception counselling for disease control and patient education regarding medication safety and early referral to obstetric medicine clinics, to facilitate complex clinical decision-making.

  • rituximab
  • anti-SRP antibody
  • myositis
  • pregnancy

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors All authors were involved in the patient's clinical care. SV remains reponsible for her ongoing care. PM wrote the first draft with all other authors involved in the revision process.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed by Jon Sussman, Manchester, UK