Efficacy of ocrelizumab versus rituximab in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

IF 2 4区医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

Acta neurologica Belgica Pub Date : 2025-04-12 DOI:10.1007/s13760-025-02766-3

Nesma Mounir, Nevin Shalaby, Mohamed I Hegazy, Nirmeen Kishk, Hatem Shehata, Shaimaa Abdalaleem Abdalgeleel, Ahmed Mohammed Abdulrahman, Nahla Merghany

{"title":"Efficacy of ocrelizumab versus rituximab in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.","authors":"Nesma Mounir, Nevin Shalaby, Mohamed I Hegazy, Nirmeen Kishk, Hatem Shehata, Shaimaa Abdalaleem Abdalgeleel, Ahmed Mohammed Abdulrahman, Nahla Merghany","doi":"10.1007/s13760-025-02766-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Ocrelizumab (OCR) and rituximab (RTX) are monoclonal antibodies binding to CD20, inducing B-cell depletion. The randomized controlled trials that compare their effectiveness in people with Multiple sclerosis (pwMS) are still ongoing. This study aims at comparing the efficacy of ocrelizumab (OCR) and rituximab (RTX) in treating pwMS.Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) treated with either OCR or RTX. Patients were recruited from the Kasr Al-Ainy MS research unit (KAMSU) at Cairo University, Egypt. Data was collected at least one year of the first anti-CD20 infusion. The primary outcome was the time to 3-month confirmed disability worsening (3 month-CDW). Secondary outcomes were time to first relapse (TTFR), 3-month confirmed disability improvement (CDI), annualized relapse rate (ARR), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity.Results: 126 patients were included in the analysis: 64 (50.8%) received OCR, and 62 (49.2%) received RTX. There was no significant difference between patients receiving OCR and RTX in CDW (9.37% vs. 11.29%), CDI (21.87% vs. 30.64%), mean ARR (0.21 vs. 0.29). There was no significant difference in TTFR, cumulative hazard of relapses or time to 3 months-CDW between both groups.Conclusion: No difference in efficacy between ocrelizumab and rituximab in treating RRMS.","PeriodicalId":7042,"journal":{"name":"Acta neurologica Belgica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta neurologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13760-025-02766-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Ocrelizumab (OCR) and rituximab (RTX) are monoclonal antibodies binding to CD20, inducing B-cell depletion. The randomized controlled trials that compare their effectiveness in people with Multiple sclerosis (pwMS) are still ongoing. This study aims at comparing the efficacy of ocrelizumab (OCR) and rituximab (RTX) in treating pwMS.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) treated with either OCR or RTX. Patients were recruited from the Kasr Al-Ainy MS research unit (KAMSU) at Cairo University, Egypt. Data was collected at least one year of the first anti-CD20 infusion. The primary outcome was the time to 3-month confirmed disability worsening (3 month-CDW). Secondary outcomes were time to first relapse (TTFR), 3-month confirmed disability improvement (CDI), annualized relapse rate (ARR), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity.

Results: 126 patients were included in the analysis: 64 (50.8%) received OCR, and 62 (49.2%) received RTX. There was no significant difference between patients receiving OCR and RTX in CDW (9.37% vs. 11.29%), CDI (21.87% vs. 30.64%), mean ARR (0.21 vs. 0.29). There was no significant difference in TTFR, cumulative hazard of relapses or time to 3 months-CDW between both groups.

Conclusion: No difference in efficacy between ocrelizumab and rituximab in treating RRMS.

查看原文本刊更多论文

ocrelizumab与利妥昔单抗在复发-缓解型多发性硬化患者中的疗效。

背景：Ocrelizumab （OCR）和rituximab （RTX）是与CD20结合的单克隆抗体，可诱导b细胞衰竭。比较它们对多发性硬化症（pwMS）患者疗效的随机对照试验仍在进行中。本研究旨在比较ocrelizumab （OCR）和rituximab （RTX）治疗pwMS的疗效。方法：我们对接受OCR或RTX治疗的复发缓解型多发性硬化症（RRMS）患者进行了回顾性队列研究。患者从埃及开罗大学的Kasr Al-Ainy多发性硬化症研究中心（KAMSU）招募。数据收集至少一年的第一次抗cd20输注。主要终点是到3个月确认残疾恶化的时间（3个月cdw）。次要结果为首次复发时间（TTFR）、3个月确认残疾改善（CDI）、年复发率（ARR）和磁共振成像（MRI）活性。结果：126例患者纳入分析，其中64例（50.8%）接受了OCR， 62例（49.2%）接受了RTX。接受OCR和RTX的患者在CDW （9.37% vs. 11.29%）、CDI （21.87% vs. 30.64%）、平均ARR （0.21 vs. 0.29）方面无显著差异。两组患者在TTFR、复发累积风险和3个月cdw时间方面无显著差异。结论：奥克雷单抗与利妥昔单抗治疗RRMS的疗效无差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Acta neurologica Belgica 医学-临床神经学

CiteScore

4.20

自引率

3.70%

发文量

300

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Peer-reviewed and published quarterly, Acta Neurologica Belgicapresents original articles in the clinical and basic neurosciences, and also reports the proceedings and the abstracts of the scientific meetings of the different partner societies. The contents include commentaries, editorials, review articles, case reports, neuro-images of interest, book reviews and letters to the editor. Acta Neurologica Belgica is the official journal of the following national societies: Belgian Neurological Society Belgian Society for Neuroscience Belgian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology Belgian Pediatric Neurology Society Belgian Study Group of Multiple Sclerosis Belgian Stroke Council Belgian Headache Society Belgian Study Group of Neuropathology