Rituximab for people with multiple sclerosis

Efficacy and safety of rituximab in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to synthesize all available observational studies and clinical trials of rituximab to estimate the safety and efficacy of this monoclonal antibody in people with multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS

The four databases including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched in April 2022. We defined PICO as follows. Problem or study population (P): patients with MS; intervention (I): Rituximab; comparison (C): none; outcome (O): efficacy and safety.

RESULTS

After two-step screening, a total of 27 studies entered into our qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Our analysis showed a significant decrease in EDSS score in all patients with MS after treatment (SMD: - 0.44, 95% CI - 0.85, - 0.03). In addition, the ARR was reduced after using rituximab compared to the pre-treatment period (SMD: - 0.65, 95% CI - 1.55, 0.24) but it was not significant. The most common side effect after rituximab with a pooled prevalence of 28.63% (95% CI 16.61%, 42.33%). Furthermore, the pooled prevalence of infection was 24% in patients with MS (95% CI 13%, 36%). In the end, the pooled prevalence of malignancies after rituximab treatment was 0.39% (95% CI 0.02%, 1.03%).

CONCLUSION

Our findings illustrated an acceptable safety for this treatment. However, further studies with randomized design, long follow-up, and large sample sizes are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of rituximab in patients with MS.

Rituximab for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Thailand: an economic evaluation and budget impact analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis is an inflammatory demyelination process in the central nervous system (CNS) causing neurological disability and poor quality of life. Currently, Thai Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved disease-modifying therapy is costly, and most patients with multiple sclerosis are ineligible for treatment in Thailand as previous studies have challenged its cost-effectiveness. Off-label use of rituximab is inexpensive and highly effective in treating multiple sclerosis, but evidence of its cost-effectiveness in Thailand is yet to be collected.

METHODS

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility and budget impact of rituximab for multiple sclerosis treatment compared with best supportive care, the standard practice in Thailand to treat the disease. A Markov model with a one-month cycle length and lifetime horizon was applied to compare the costs and outcomes of rituximab and best supportive care based on a societal perspective. Accordingly, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate parameter uncertainty. In addition, the Markov model was used to assess the 5-year budget impact from the government perspective.

RESULTS

A rituximab biosimilar demonstrated higher effectiveness and lower associated costs, compared to best supportive care, with the highest probability of being cost-effective (96%). The probability of relapse was the most sensitive parameter according to the one-way sensitivity analysis. The calculated budget impact of treating patients with multiple sclerosis in Thailand was 26,360,000 Thai baht (THB) or 844,255 United States dollars (USD) in the first fiscal year, and approximately 20,810,000-23,080,000 THB (666,608-739,388 USD) in the next four fiscal years.

CONCLUSION

In Thailand, a rituximab biosimilar would reduce the overall costs of multiple sclerosis treatment and should, therefore, be included in the National List of Essential Medicines.

Antibody-mediated cell depletion therapies in multiple sclerosis

Development of disease-modifying therapies including monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based therapeutics for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) has been extremely successful over the past decades. Most of the mAb-based therapies approved for MS deplete immune cell subsets and act through activation of cellular Fc-gamma receptors expressed by cytotoxic lymphocytes and phagocytes, resulting in antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity or by initiation of complement-mediated cytotoxicity. The therapeutic goal is to eliminate pathogenic immune cell components and to potentially foster the reconstitution of a new and healthy immune system. Ab-mediated immune cell depletion therapies include the CD52-targeting mAb alemtuzumab, CD20-specific therapeutics, and new Ab-based treatments which are currently being developed and tested in clinical trials. Here, we review recent developments in effector mechanisms and clinical applications of Ab-based cell depletion therapies, compare their immunological and clinical effects with the prototypic immune reconstitution treatment strategy, autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, and discuss their potential to restore immunological tolerance and to achieve durable remission in people with MS.

What Have Failed, Interrupted, and Withdrawn Antibody Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis Taught Us?

In the past two decades, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have revolutionized the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). However, a remarkable number of mAbs failed due to negative study results were withdrawn because of unexpected serious adverse events (SAEs) or due to studies being halted for other reasons. While trials with positive outcomes are usually published in prestigious journals, negative trials are merely published as abstracts or not at all. This review summarizes MS mAbs that have either failed in phase II-III trials, have been interrupted for various reasons, or withdrawn from the market since 2015. The main conclusions that can be drawn from these 'negative' experiences are as follows. mAbs that have been proven to be safe in other autoimmune conditions, will not have the same safety profile in MS due to immunopathogenetic differences in these diseases (e.g., daclizumab). Identification of SAEs in clinical trials is difficult highlighting the importance of phase IV studies. Memory B cells are central players in MS immunopathogenesis (e.g., tabalumab). The pathophysiological mechanisms of disease progression are independent of leukocyte 'outside-in' traffic which drives relapses in MS. Therefore, therapies for progressive MS must be able to sufficiently cross the blood-brain barrier. Sufficiently long trial duration and multicomponent outcome measures are important for clinical studies in progressive MS. The success of trials on remyelination-promoting therapies mainly depends on the sufficient high dose of mAb, the optimal readout for 'proof of concept', time of treatment initiation, and appropriate selection of patients. Failed strategies are highly important to better understand assumed immunopathophysiological mechanisms and optimizing future trial designs.

Emerging Biomarkers of Multiple Sclerosis in the Blood and the CSF: A Focus on Neurofilaments and Therapeutic Considerations

INTRODUCTION

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is the most common immune-mediated chronic neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system (CNS) affecting young people. This is due to the permanent disability, cognitive impairment, and the enormous detrimental impact MS can exert on a patient's health-related quality of life. It is of great importance to recognise it in time and commence adequate treatment at an early stage. The currently used disease-modifying therapies (DMT) aim to reduce disease activity and thus halt disability development, which in current clinical practice are monitored by clinical and imaging parameters but not by biomarkers found in blood and/or the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Both clinical and radiological measures routinely used to monitor disease activity lack information on the fundamental pathophysiological features and mechanisms of MS. Furthermore, they lag behind the disease process itself. By the time a clinical relapse becomes evident or a new lesion appears on the MRI scan, potentially irreversible damage has already occurred in the CNS. In recent years, several biomarkers that previously have been linked to other neurological and immunological diseases have received increased attention in MS. Additionally, other novel, potential biomarkers with prognostic and diagnostic properties have been detected in the CSF and blood of MS patients.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we summarise the most up-to-date knowledge and research conducted on the already known and most promising new biomarker candidates found in the CSF and blood of MS patients.

DISCUSSION

the current diagnostic criteria of MS relies on three pillars: MRI imaging, clinical events, and the presence of oligoclonal bands in the CSF (which was reinstated into the diagnostic criteria by the most recent revision). Even though the most recent McDonald criteria made the diagnosis of MS faster than the prior iteration, it is still not an infallible diagnostic toolset, especially at the very early stage of the clinically isolated syndrome. Together with the gold standard MRI and clinical measures, ancillary blood and CSF biomarkers may not just improve diagnostic accuracy and speed but very well may become agents to monitor therapeutic efficacy and make even more personalised treatment in MS a reality in the near future. The major disadvantage of these biomarkers in the past has been the need to obtain CSF to measure them. However, the recent advances in extremely sensitive immunoassays made their measurement possible from peripheral blood even when present only in minuscule concentrations. This should mark the beginning of a new biomarker research and utilisation era in MS.

Rituximab for people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common neurological cause of disability in young adults. Off-label rituximab for MS is used in most countries surveyed by the International Federation of MS, including high-income countries where on-label disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) are available.  OBJECTIVES: To assess beneficial and adverse effects of rituximab as 'first choice' and as 'switching' for adults with MS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and trial registers for completed and ongoing studies on 31 January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) comparing rituximab with placebo or another DMT for adults with MS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE for: disability worsening, relapse, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), common infections, cancer, and mortality. We conducted separate analyses for rituximab as 'first choice' or as 'switching', relapsing or progressive MS, comparison versus placebo or another DMT, and RCTs or NRSIs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies (5 RCTs, 10 NRSIs) with 16,429 participants of whom 13,143 were relapsing MS and 3286 progressive MS. The studies were one to two years long and compared rituximab as 'first choice' with placebo (1 RCT) or other DMTs (1 NRSI), rituximab as 'switching' against placebo (2 RCTs) or other DMTs (2 RCTs, 9 NRSIs). The studies were conducted worldwide; most originated from high-income countries, six from the Swedish MS register. Pharmaceutical companies funded two studies. We identified 14 ongoing studies. Rituximab as 'first choice' for relapsing MS Rituximab versus placebo: no studies met eligibility criteria for this comparison. Rituximab versus other DMTs: one NRSI compared rituximab with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate, natalizumab, or fingolimod in active relapsing MS at 24 months' follow-up. Rituximab likely results in a large reduction in relapses compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (hazard ratio (HR) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.39; 335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab may reduce relapses compared with dimethyl fumarate (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.00; 206 participants; low-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.00; 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may make little or no difference on relapse compared with fingolimod (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.69; 137 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported no deaths over 24 months. The study did not measure disability worsening, SAEs, HRQoL, and common infections. Rituximab as 'first choice' for progressive MS One RCT compared rituximab with placebo in primary progressive MS at 24 months' follow-up. Rituximab likely results in little to no difference in the number of participants who have disability worsening compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.11; 439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab may result in little to no difference in recurrence of relapses (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.99; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), SAEs (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), common infections (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.73; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), cancer (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.59; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence), and mortality (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.77; 439 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure HRQoL. Rituximab versus other DMTs: no studies met eligibility criteria for this comparison. Rituximab as 'switching' for relapsing MS  One RCT compared rituximab with placebo in relapsing MS at 12 months' follow-up. Rituximab may decrease recurrence of relapses compared with placebo (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.93; 104 participants; low-certainty evidence). The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab relative to placebo on SAEs (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.92; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence), common infections (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.24; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence), cancer (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 39.15; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and mortality (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 39.15; 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure disability worsening and HRQoL.  Five NRSIs compared rituximab with other DMTs in relapsing MS at 24 months' follow-up. The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab relative to interferon beta or glatiramer acetate on disability worsening (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.42; 1 NRSI, 853 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Rituximab likely results in a large reduction in relapses compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 NRSI, 1383 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and fingolimod (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.32; 1 NRSI, 256 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab relative to natalizumab on relapses (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.0; 1 NRSI, 153 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Rituximab likely increases slightly common infections compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.62; 1 NRSI, 5477 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and compared with natalizumab (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.32; 2 NRSIs, 5001 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Rituximab may increase slightly common infections compared with fingolimod (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.77; 3 NRSIs, 5187 participants; low-certainty evidence). It may make little or no difference compared with ocrelizumab (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.40; 1 NRSI, 472 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The data did not confirm or exclude a beneficial or detrimental effect of rituximab on mortality compared with fingolimod (OR 5.59, 95% CI 0.22 to 139.89; 1 NRSI, 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (OR 6.66, 95% CI 0.27 to 166.58; 1 NRSI, 153 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The included studies did not measure SAEs, HRQoL, and cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For preventing relapses in relapsing MS, rituximab as 'first choice' and as 'switching' may compare favourably with a wide range of approved DMTs. A protective effect of rituximab against disability worsening is uncertain. There is limited information to determine the effect of rituximab for progressive MS.  The evidence is uncertain about the effect of rituximab on SAEs. They are relatively rare in people with MS, thus difficult to study, and they were not well reported in studies. There is an increased risk of common infections with rituximab, but absolute risk is small.  Rituximab is widely used as off-label treatment in people with MS; however, randomised evidence is weak. In the absence of randomised evidence, remaining uncertainties on beneficial and adverse effects of rituximab for MS might be clarified by making real-world data available.