Effectiveness of rituximab vs. ocrelizumab for the treatment of primary progressive multiple sclerosis: a real-world observational study

• Published in: Journal of neurology Vol. 269; no. 7; pp. 3676 - 3681
• Main Authors: Alcalá, Carmen, Quintanilla-Bordás, Carlos, Gascón, Francisco, Sempere, Ángel Perez, Navarro, Laura, Carcelén-Gadea, María, Landete, Lamberto, Mallada, Javier, Cañizares, Emmanuel, Belenguer, Antonio, Carratalá, Sara, Domínguez, José Andrés, Pérez-Miralles, Francisco Carlos, Gil-Perotín, Sara, Gasqué, Raquel, Cubas, Laura, Castillo, Jéssica, Casanova, Bonaventura
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.07.2022; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Immunotherapy; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Monoclonal antibodies; Multiple sclerosis; Neurology; Neuroradiology; Neurosciences; Observational studies; Original Communication; Patients; Rituximab; Survival analysis; PPMS treatment ocrelizumab rituximab real-world effectiveness
• ISSN: 0340-5354; 1432-1459
• DOI: 10.1007/s00415-022-10989-0

Introduction Ocrelizumab, an antiCD-20 antibody, is the only drug approved to treat patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (pwPPMS). Not all candidates receive this treatment due to prescription limitations. Rituximab, another antiCD-20 antibody, has been used off-label in pwPPMS before and after ocrelizumab approval. However, studies comparing effectiveness of both drugs are lacking. Objective To evaluate effectiveness of rituximab and ocrelizumab in pwPPMS under real-life conditions. Methods We conducted a multicentric observational study of pwPPMS that started ocrelizumab or rituximab according to clinical practice, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Data was collected prospectively and retrospectively. Primary outcome was time to confirmed disability progression at 3 months (CDW). Secondary outcome was serum neurofilament light chain levels (sNFL) at the end of follow-up. Results 95 out 111 pwPPMS fulfilled inclusion criteria and follow-up data availability: 49 (51.6%) received rituximab and 46 (48.4%) ocrelizumab. Rituximab-treated patients had significantly higher baseline EDSS, disease duration and history of previous disease-modifying treatment (DMT) than ocrelizumab-treated patients. After a mean follow-up of 18.3 months (SD 5.9), 26 patients experienced CDW (21.4%); 15 (30.6%) in the rituximab group; and 11 (23.9%) in the ocrelizumab group. Survival analysis revealed no differences in time to CDW . sNFL were measured in 60 patients and no differences between groups were found. Interpretation We provide real-world evidence of effectiveness of ocrelizumab and rituximab in pwPPMS. No differences in time to CDW were found between treatments. However, this study cannot establish equivalence of treatments and warrant clinical trial to confirm our findings.