Extended interval dosing with ocrelizumab in multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: This study investigates clinical and biomarker differences between standard interval dosing (SID) and extended interval dosing (EID) of ocrelizumab therapy in multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: This is a prospective, double-arm, open-label, multi-center study in Denmark. Participants diagnosed with MS on ocrelizumab therapy >12 months were included (n = 184). Clinical, radiological, and blood-based biomarker outcomes were evaluated. MRI disease activity, relapses, worsening of neurostatus, and No Evidence of Disease Activity-3 (NEDA-3) were used as a combined endpoint. RESULTS: Out of 184 participants, 107 participants received EID (58.2%), whereas 77 participants received SID (41.8%). The average extension was 9 weeks with a maximum of 78 weeks. When comparing EID to SID, we found higher levels of B-cells, lower serum concentrations of ocrelizumab, and similar levels of age-adjusted NFL and GFAP in the two groups. No difference in NEDA-3 between EID and SID was demonstrated (hazard ratio: 1.174, p = 0.69). Higher levels of NFL were identified in participants with disease activity. Body mass index correlated with levels of ocrelizumab and B-cells. CONCLUSION: Extending one treatment interval of ocrelizumab on average 9 weeks and up to 78 weeks did not result in clinical, radiological, or biomarker evidence of worsening compared with SID.

Prognostic factors for disease activity in newly diagnosed teriflunomide-treated patients with multiple sclerosis: a nationwide Danish study.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians frequently rely on relapse counts, T2 MRI lesion load (T2L) and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores to guide treatment decisions for individuals diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS). This study evaluates how these factors, along with age and sex, influence prognosis during treatment with teriflunomide (TFL). METHODS: We conducted a nationwide cohort study using data from the Danish Multiple Sclerosis Registry.Eligible participants had relapsing-remitting MS or clinically isolated syndrome and initiated TFL as their first treatment between 2013 and 2019. The effect of age, pretreatment relapses, T2L and EDSS scores on the risk of disease activity on TFL were stratified by sex. RESULTS: In total, 784 individuals were included (57.4% females). A high number of pretreatment relapses (≥2) was associated with an increased risk of disease activity in females only (OR and (95% CI): 1.76 (1.11 to 2.81)). Age group 50+ was associated with a lower risk of disease activity in both sexes (OR females=0.28 (0.14 to 0.56); OR males=0.22 (0.09 to 0.55)), while age 35-49 showed a different impact in males and females (OR females=0.79 (0.50 to 1.23); OR males=0.42 (0.24 to 0.72)). EDSS scores and T2L did not show any consistent associations. CONCLUSION: A high number of pretreatment relapses was only associated with an increased risk of disease activity in females, while age had a differential impact on the risk of disease activity according to sex. Clinicians may consider age, sex and relapses when deciding on TFL treatment.

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.