Rituximab vs Ocrelizumab in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

Importance: Ocrelizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeted against CD20+ B cells, reduces the frequency of relapses by 46% and disability worsening by 40% compared with interferon beta 1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Rituximab, a chimeric monoclonal anti-CD20 agent, is often prescribed as an off-label alternative to ocrelizumab. Objective: To evaluate whether the effectiveness of rituximab is noninferior to ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting MS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was an observational cohort study conducted between January 2015 and March 2021. Patients were included in the treatment group for the duration of study therapy and were recruited from the MSBase registry and Danish MS Registry (DMSR). Included patients had a history of relapsing-remitting MS treated with ocrelizumab or rituximab, a minimum 6 months of follow-up, and sufficient data to calculate the propensity score. Patients with comparable baseline characteristics were 1:6 matched with propensity score on age, sex, MS duration, disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale), prior relapse rate, prior therapy, disease activity (relapses, disability accumulation, or both), magnetic resonance imaging lesion burden (missing values imputed), and country. Exposure: Treatment with ocrelizumab or rituximab after 2015. Main outcomes and Measures: Noninferiority comparison of annualized rate of relapses (ARRs), with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.63 rate ratio. Secondary end points were relapse and 6-month confirmed disability accumulation in pairwise-censored groups. Results: Of the 6027 patients with MS who were treated with ocrelizumab or rituximab, a total of 1613 (mean [SD] age; 42.0 [10.8] years; 1089 female [68%]) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (898 MSBase, 715 DMSR). A total of 710 patients treated with ocrelizumab (414 MSBase, 296 DMSR) were matched with 186 patients treated with rituximab (110 MSBase, 76 DMSR). Over a pairwise censored mean (SD) follow-up of 1.4 (0.7) years, the ARR ratio was higher in patients treated with rituximab than in those treated with ocrelizumab (rate ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.4; ARR, 0.20 vs 0.09; P <.001). The cumulative hazard of relapses was higher among patients treated with rituximab than those treated with ocrelizumab (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.5-3.0). No difference in the risk of disability accumulation was observed between groups. Results were confirmed in sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: In this noninferiority comparative effectiveness observational cohort study, results did not show noninferiority of treatment with rituximab compared with ocrelizumab. As administered in everyday practice, rituximab was associated with a higher risk of relapses than ocrelizumab. The efficacy of rituximab and ocrelizumab administered at uniform doses and intervals is being further evaluated in randomized noninferiority clinical trials.

Rituximab vs ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

IMPORTANCE Ocrelizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeted against CD20+ B cells, reduces the frequency of relapses by 46% and disability worsening by 40% compared with interferon beta 1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Rituximab, a chimeric monoclonal anti-CD20 agent, is often prescribed as an off-label alternative to ocrelizumab. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether the effectiveness of rituximab is noninferior to ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting MS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This was an observational cohort study conducted between January 2015 and March 2021. Patients were included in the treatment group for the duration of study therapy and were recruited from the MSBase registry and Danish MS Registry (DMSR). Included patients had a history of relapsing-remitting MS treated with ocrelizumab or rituximab, a minimum 6 months of follow-up, and sufficient data to calculate the propensity score. Patients with comparable baseline characteristics were 1:6 matched with propensity score on age, sex, MS duration, disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale), prior relapse rate, prior therapy, disease activity (relapses, disability accumulation, or both), magnetic resonance imaging lesion burden (missing values imputed), and country. EXPOSURE Treatment with ocrelizumab or rituximab after 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Noninferiority comparison of annualized rate of relapses (ARRs), with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.63 rate ratio. Secondary end points were relapse and 6-month confirmed disability accumulation in pairwise-censored groups. RESULTS Of the 6027 patients with MS who were treated with ocrelizumab or rituximab, a total of 1613 (mean [SD] age; 42.0 [10.8] years; 1089 female [68%]) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (898 MSBase, 715 DMSR). A total of 710 patients treated with ocrelizumab (414 MSBase, 296 DMSR) were matched with 186 patients treated with rituximab (110 MSBase, 76 DMSR). Over a pairwise censored mean (SD) follow-up of 1.4 (0.7) years, the ARR ratio was higher in patients treated with rituximab than in those treated with ocrelizumab (rate ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4-2.4; ARR, 0.20 vs 0.09; P < .001). The cumulative hazard of relapses was higher among patients treated with rituximab than those treated with ocrelizumab (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.5-3.0). No difference in the risk of disability accumulation was observed between groups. Results were confirmed in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION In this noninferiority comparative effectiveness observational cohort study, results did not show noninferiority of treatment with rituximab compared with ocrelizumab. As administered in everyday practice, rituximab was associated with a higher risk of relapses than ocrelizumab. The efficacy of rituximab and ocrelizumab administered at uniform doses and intervals is being further evaluated in randomized noninferiority clinical trials

Comparative risk of major congenital malformations with eight different antiepileptic drugs: a prospective cohort study of the EURAP registry

Background: Evidence for the comparative teratogenic risk of antiepileptic drugs is insufficient, particularly in relation to the dosage used. Therefore, we aimed to compare the occurrence of major congenital malformations following prenatal exposure to the eight most commonly used antiepileptic drugs in monotherapy. Methods: We did a longitudinal, prospective cohort study based on the EURAP international registry. We included data from pregnancies in women who were exposed to antiepileptic drug monotherapy at conception, prospectively identified from 42 countries contributing to EURAP. Follow-up data were obtained after each trimester, at birth, and 1 year after birth. The primary objective was to compare the risk of major congenital malformations assessed at 1 year after birth in offspring exposed prenatally to one of eight commonly used antiepileptic drugs (carbamazepine, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, topiramate, and valproate) and, whenever a dose dependency was identified, to compare the risks at different dose ranges. Logistic regression was used to make direct comparisons between treatments after adjustment for potential confounders and prognostic factors. Findings: Between June 20, 1999, and May 20, 2016, 7555 prospective pregnancies met the eligibility criteria. Of those eligible, 7355 pregnancies were exposed to one of the eight antiepileptic drugs for which the prevalence of major congenital malformations was 142 (10·3%) of 1381 pregnancies for valproate, 19 (6·5%) of 294 for phenobarbital, eight (6·4%) of 125 for phenytoin, 107 (5·5%) of 1957 for carbamazepine, six (3·9%) of 152 for topiramate, ten (3·0%) of 333 for oxcarbazepine, 74 (2·9%) of 2514 for lamotrigine, and 17 (2·8%) of 599 for levetiracetam. The prevalence of major congenital malformations increased with the dose at time of conception for carbamazepine (p=0·0140), lamotrigine (p=0·0145), phenobarbital (p=0·0390), and valproate (