Rituximab in multiple sclerosis at general hospital level

Comparison of CSF biomarkers in multiple sclerosis patients treated with natalizumab and rituximab

BACKGROUND

Patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) treated with the high-efficacy drugs natalizumab (NTZ) or rituximab (RTX) generally show no evidence of disease activity. Currently, there is no head-to-head comparison between NTZ and RTX of neurodegenerative and neuroinflammatory biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).

OBJECTIVES

To compare CSF biomarkers in a stable RRMS cohort treated with NTZ or RTX. A secondary objective was to explore potential associations between CSF biomarkers, fatigue, and cognition.

METHODS

This Swedish multicentre cross-sectional study assessed kappa-free light chain (k-FLC) index, oligoclonal bands (OCBs), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neurofilament light (NfL) in CSF of 30 RRMS patients on NTZ or RTX for at least 24 months. A longitudinal comparison of biomarkers was performed for IgG Indices. Fatigue and cognition outcomes were explored in relation to CSF biomarkers.

RESULTS

GFAP level was significantly higher in the NTZ group compared to RTX (mean difference (CI): 2 716 (155; 5278) ng/L, p=0.047). NfL concentration did not differ between the groups. OCBs and k-FLC index were present and elevated in 97 % and 87 % of participants, respectively. IgG-index was significantly reduced only for NTZ. No significant associations were found between fatigue, cognition and the biomarkers.

CONCLUSION

Our results support that intrathecal inflammatory activity is still ongoing in patients with NTZ and RTX. Cross-sectional GFAP might indicate a lower risk for long-term disability in the RTX group. Our data should be interpreted with caution because of small sample size, making it difficult to control for multiple confounders.

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. This updates the 2021 version of the review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of rituximab as 'first choice' and 'switching' treatment for adults with any form of MS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and three trials registers on 31 December 2023, together with reference checking and contacting study authors to identify unpublished studies.

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 any form of MS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. We used RoB 1 to assess risk of bias in RCTs and ROBINS-I in NRSIs. We assessed the certainty of evidence for critical and important prioritised outcomes using GRADE: 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' treatment, relapsing or progressive MS, comparison with placebo or another DMT, and RCTs or NRSIs.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, the number of study participants increased from 16,429 (15 studies) to 37,443 (28 studies; 13 new studies: 1 RCT and 12 NRSIs). The studies were conducted worldwide; most originated from high-income countries (25 studies). Public institutions funded 22 (79%) of the studies. Most studies investigated the effects of rituximab on people with relapsing MS (19 studies; 27,500 (73%) participants). We identified 12 ongoing studies. Rituximab as 'first choice' for active relapsing MS None of the included studies compared rituximab to placebo. One RCT compared rituximab to dimethyl fumarate, with 24 months' follow-up. Rituximab may reduce the recurrence of relapse (odds ratio (OR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.57; 195 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain on disability worsening and SAEs. Rituximab may result in little to no difference in upper respiratory tract infections (rate ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.34; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain for urinary tract, skin, and viral infections. HRQoL, cancer, and mortality were not reported. One NRSI compared rituximab to other DMTs, with 24 months' follow-up. Disability worsening was not reported. Compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate, rituximab likely delays relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.39; 1 study, 335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with dimethyl fumarate and natalizumab, rituximab may delay relapse (dimethyl fumarate: HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.00; 1 study, 206 participants; low-certainty evidence; natalizumab: HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.00; 1 study, 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for relapse is very uncertain when comparing rituximab to fingolimod. The effect on SAEs is uncertain due to very few events in all the comparison groups. No deaths were reported. HRQoL, common infections, and cancer were not reported. Rituximab as 'first choice' for primary progressive MS One RCT compared rituximab to placebo, with 24 months' follow-up. Rituximab likely results in little or no difference in disability worsening (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.11; 439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain on relapse, SAEs, common infections, cancer, and mortality. HRQoL was not reported. None of the included studies compared rituximab as 'first choice' treatment to other DMTs for primary or secondary progressive MS. Rituximab as 'switching' treatment for relapsing MS One small RCT compared rituximab to placebo, with 12 months' follow-up. Disability worsening was not reported. Rituximab may reduce recurrence of relapses (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.93; 1 study, 104 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain regarding SAEs, common infections, cancer, and mortality. HRQoL was not reported. Twelve NRSIs compared rituximab to other DMTs, with 24 months' follow-up. The evidence on disability worsening is very uncertain in comparison with interferons or glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, and ocrelizumab. Rituximab likely delays time to relapse in comparison with interferons or glatiramer acetate (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, 1383 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fingolimod (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.32; 1 study, 256 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may result in little or no difference compared with natalizumab (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.10; 3 studies, 1922 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain on relapse in comparison with alemtuzumab. There is uncertainty regarding SAEs when comparing rituximab to natalizumab and fingolimod. Rituximab likely increases serious common infections when compared with interferon beta or glatiramer acetate (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.62; 1 study, 5477 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.32; 2 studies, 5001 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence for common infections is very uncertain when comparing rituximab to fingolimod and ocrelizumab. Rituximab may slightly reduce the risk of cancer compared with natalizumab (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.99; 2 studies, 6202 participants; low-certainty evidence), whereas the evidence is very uncertain in comparison with fingolimod. The effect of rituximab on mortality is very uncertain due to very few events in all the comparison groups. HRQoL was not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For preventing relapses in relapsing MS, rituximab as 'first choice' and 'switching' treatment compares favourably with a wide range of approved DMTs. The protective effect of rituximab against disability worsening is uncertain. There is limited information to determine the effect of rituximab on primary progressive MS. There is limited evidence for long-term adverse events of rituximab in people with MS. Evidence for serious adverse events, cancer, and mortality was of very low certainty due to few events. There is an increased risk of serious (hospital-treated) infections with rituximab compared with other DMTs, although the absolute risk is low. High-quality (prospectively registered) NRSIs should be conducted to draw more reliable conclusions about the potential benefits and harms of rituximab in people with MS.

The prevalence of cancer in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) who received rituximab: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the pooled prevalence of cancer in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) cases who were under treatment with rituximab.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and google scholar along with gray literature up to April 2021. The search strategy included the MeSH and text words as (("CD20 Antibody" AND Rituximab) OR "Rituximab CD20 Antibody" OR Mabthera OR "IDEC-C2B8 Antibody" OR "IDEC C2B8 Antibody" OR IDEC-C2B8 OR "IDEC C2B8" OR GP2013 OR Rituxan OR rituximab) AND ((Sclerosis AND multiple) OR (sclerosis AND disseminated) OR "disseminated sclerosis" OR "multiple sclerosis" OR "acute fulminating").

RESULTS

The literature search revealed 3577 articles, after deleting duplicates 2066 remained. For the meta-analysis, 22 studies were included. Totally, 15599 patients were enrolled while 133 cancers were detected. The pooled prevalence of cancer in MS patients under treatment with rituximab is 1in 100,000 (I2 = 99.9%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis show that the pooled prevalence of cancer in MS patients who received rituximab is 1 in 100,000 cases.

Systematic Literature Review on the Incidence of Herpes Zoster in Populations at Increased Risk of Disease in the EU/EEA, Switzerland, and the UK

INTRODUCTION

Older adults and patients with underlying conditions such as immunocompromised (IC) populations (e.g., due to medical conditions or immunosuppressive medication) are at increased risk for herpes zoster (HZ). The first HZ recombinant vaccine for IC patients was approved in 2020. Limited evidence exists to inform decision-makers on HZ incidence in high-risk patients in Europe. This systematic literature review (SLR) assessed HZ incidence across 14 high-risk populations in the European Union/European Economic Area, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

METHODS

An SLR (Embase, Medline, 2002-2022, observational studies) was performed to identify HZ incidence (i.e., primary outcomes: rate or cumulative; secondary: relative incidence) in type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus (DM); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma; depression; rheumatic disorders (RD); multiple sclerosis (MS); inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD); psoriasis; lupus; human immunodeficiency virus (HIV); solid organ transplantation (SOT); solid organ malignancy (SOM); hematologic malignancy (HM); and stem cell transplantation (SCT).

RESULTS

Of 776 unique records screened, 59 studies were included (24 reported incidence rate per 1000 person-years; two, cumulative incidence per 1000 persons; and 33, relative incidence). The highest incidence rates were reported for SOT (12.1-78.8) and SCT (37.2-56.1); HM (2.9-32.0); RD (0.41-21.5); lupus (11.0-16.5); IC mixed population (11.3-15.5); HIV/AIDS (11.8-13.0); chronic respiratory diseases (4.7-11.4); SOM (8.8-11.0); IBD (7.0-10.8); DM (4.3-9.4); depression (7.2-7.6); MS (5.7-6.3); and psoriasis (5.3-6.1). In many high-risk populations, HZ incidence was higher for older age groups, women, and some treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The HZ incidence rate in Europe increased with age and varied across high-risk populations, with high rates for solid organ and stem cell transplants, cancer, and rheumatoid arthritis. Most studies were retrospective with methodological differences affecting generalizability and comparability. Future studies should stratify data by IC population, age, sex, severity, medication, and study timeframe.

The landscape of real-world evidence of rituximab utilization and clinical outcomes in patients with cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and multiple sclerosis: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Rituximab (RTX) is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that is used to treat various conditions in cancer, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and multiple sclerosis (MS). Although RTX has been used in the United States for almost 3 decades, questions remain regarding its real-world utilization and effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the state of observational research and real-world evidence evaluating RTX in oncology, RA, and off-label use in MS.

METHODS

A broad search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL covering the period of January 2010 to June 2022. Two reviewers independently screened all identified records for each disease category (cancer, RA, MS) beginning with title review, followed by abstract, and full-text review to identify relevant publications to include in the final analysis. Data were extracted and summarized for each disease based on overall trends, similarities, and differences across included studies and stratified by disease state.

RESULTS

A total of 260 studies met eligibility criteria, with 79 studies for the RA cohort, 144 for cancer, and 37 for MS. Across all disease cohorts, most studies (n = 189; 72.7%) were retrospective. 171 (65.8%) studies used hospital or electronic health record data as their data source and 65 (23.2%) used registry databases. Most studies (n = 153; 58.8%) assessed the effectiveness of RTX measured by disease-specific endpoints, followed by safety (n = 60; 23.1%), treatment patterns (n = 32; 12.3%), and descriptive analyses assessing treatment adherence and economic burden of disease (n = 16; 6.2%). Although safety was not the primary outcome for most studies, the majority of studies across all disease states still reported some form of safety measure. Conclusive statements on RTX's benefit varied across disease states, with MS having the most (n = 30; 81.1%) studies suggesting the drug's positive benefit. There were limited studies assessing RTX use, associated economic burden, and biosimilar switching.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings underscore the need for health care providers to better understand the treatment landscape and utilization of RTX, particularly in terms of patient selection, timing of initiation, and long-term outcomes. Real-world evidence can help support health care decisions and treatment using rituximab.

A comparative study of fatigue and processing speed in patients with multiple sclerosis treated with natalizumab or rituximab

Background

Fatigue is the most debilitating symptom in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Natalizumab and rituximab are the most used MS disease modifying therapies in Sweden, but comparative data on the effect on fatigue is sparse.

Objective

Primary objective was to compare fatigue levels between patients on natalizumab and rituximab. As secondary objective, we assessed processing speed, an attention domain quality, between treatment groups.

Method

In this Swedish multicentre cross-sectional study, patients with relapsing-remitting MS and >24 months treatment duration were identified in the Swedish MS-registry. Fatigue was assessed using the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive functions (FSMC) and processing speed using Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT).

Results

128 patients were enrolled (natalizumab: 56, rituximab: 72). No significant differences in FSMC were found when adjusting for potential confounders (p = 0.936), with age having the biggest impact, correlating with increased fatigue. Individuals on natalizumab performed significantly better on SDMT at cross-section (natalizumab 64.7, rituximab 56.2; p = 0.003), with an improvement from treatment initiation, compared to rituximab (change: natalizumab 8.9, rituximab -1.0; p = 0.002).

Conclusion

We found no difference in fatigue levels between natalizumab and rituximab cohorts. Patients treated with natalizumab showed significantly better results on SDMT than patients on rituximab.

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.

Current evidence of rituximab in the treatment of multiple sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory demyelinating disorder of the central nervous system. The immunopathology of MS involves both T and B lymphocytes. Rituximab is one of the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody therapies which deplete B-cells. Although some anti-CD20 therapies have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of MS, rituximab is used off-label. Several studies have shown that rituximab has a good efficacy and safety in MS, including certain specific patient conditions such as treatment-naïve patients, treatment-switching patients, and the Asian population. However, there are still questions about the optimal dose and duration of rituximab in MS due to the different dosing regimens used in each study. Moreover, many biosimilars have become available at a lower cost with comparable physicochemical properties, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. Thus, rituximab may be considered as a potential therapeutic option for patients without access to standard treatment. This narrative review summarized the evidence of both original and biosimilars of rituximab in MS treatment including pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, clinical efficacy, safety, and dosing regimen.

Treatment Courses of Patients Newly Diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in 2012-2018

Treatment options for multiple sclerosis (MS) are now numerous, but it is unclear which Disease-Modifying Treatment (DMT) is the optimal choice for a given patient. Treatment switches are common, both because of side effects and because of lack of efficacy. There are few data available on the treatment courses of patients newly diagnosed with MS in the current DMT era. All patients newly diagnosed with MS in 2012-2018 at North Karelia Central Hospital were identified (N = 55), and those with complete follow-up data available (N = 43) were included. The minimum follow-up from diagnosis was 44 months with a maximum of 9 years. Seven patients (16%) had no DMT at any time during the follow-up. Treatment was most often initiated with interferon or glatiramer acetate (69%), but 72% of these treatments were discontinued. After cladribine, teriflunomide and fingolimod showed the best treatment persistence. Patients who experienced their first MS symptoms at ≥40 years of age all continued with their initial treatment category until the end of the follow-up. In a third of the patients who had received a DMT, at the end of the follow-up, the treatment had been escalated to fingolimod, cladribine or natalizumab. Only 13 patients (28%) continued with their initial DMT until the end of the follow-up.

Progress in Mechanism of Astragalus membranaceus and Its Chemical Constituents on Multiple Sclerosis

The primary chemical components of Astragalus membranaceus include polysaccharides, saponins, flavonoids, and amino acids. Recent studies have shown that Astragalus membranaceus has multiple functions, including improving immune function and exerting antioxidative, anti-radiation, anti-tumor, antibacterial, antiviral, and hormone-like effects. Astragalus membranaceus and its extracts are widely used in clinical practice because they have obvious therapeutic effects against various autoimmune diseases and relatively less adverse reaction. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune disease of central nervous system (CNS), which mainly caused by immune disorder that leads to inflammatory demyelination, inflammatory cell infiltration, and axonal degeneration in the CNS. In this review, the authors analyzed the clinical manifestations of MS and experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) and focused on the efficacy of Astragalus membranaceus and its chemical components in the treatment of MS/EAE.

Neutropenia complicating anti-CD20 treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis: A retrospective case series and a systematic review of reported cases

BACKGROUND

Neutropenia is an infrequent complication of treatment with CD20 depleting agents and may require the administration of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF), which have been associated with an increased relapse risk in patients with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). The management of this side effect is still matter of debate.

METHODS

Aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical features and the management of neutropenia occurring in anti-CD20 treated PwMS through a single-center case series and a systematic review of the literature, performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients were included (3 from our clinical experience, 16 from the systematic review). Median age was 38 years-old (25-69) and nearly 70% were female, most of these patients had already received a median of 3 (0-4) previous treatments. Neutropenia occurred in 11 patients treated with ocrelizumab and 8 with rituximab, after a median of 2 (1-7) infusions and 9.5 (1-42) months from the first infusion. Most of these patients had late-onset neutropenia, that occurred after a median time of 90 days (2-156). About 70% of patients were symptomatic and most were treated with G-CSF or antibiotics. No relapses after G-CSF were reported. In those who did not suspend anti-CD20 (68.8%), neutropenia reoccurred in 18.2% of cases. Finally, switching between rituximab and ocrelizumab seem not to affect the occurrence of neutropenia.

CONCLUSION

Our data provides practical evidence regarding the occurrence and the management of neutropenia during treatment with anti-CD20 in PwMS.

Immunological Subsets Characterization in Newly Diagnosed Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

Objectives

Using flow cytometry, we characterized myeloid, B, and T cells in patients recently diagnosed with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) naive to disease-modifying therapies (DMTs).

Methods

This prospective case–control study was conducted in the tertiary MS center of Catania, Italy. Demographic/clinical data and peripheral bloods were collected from 52 naive patients recently diagnosed with RRMS and sex/age-matched healthy controls (HCs) in a 2:1 ratio. We performed flow cytometry on isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells to assess immune cell subsets differences between RMMS patients and HCs. We explored the biomarker potential of cell subsets using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and relative area under the curve (AUC) analyses.

Results

Monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells (Mo-MDSCs CD14+/HLADR^−/low) and inflammatory monocytes (CD14+CD16+) displayed higher frequencies in RRMS patients when compared with HCs (p <.05). A lower percentage of B-unswitched memory cells was observed in RRMS patients when compared with HCs (p = .026). T cells had a higher frequency of T-helper CD4+ cells and their subset, CD4+CD161+, in RRMS patients when compared with HCs (p <.001). ROC analyses revealed an AUC >70% for Mo-MDSCs CD14+/HLADR^−/low and inflammatory CD14+CD16+, T-helper CD3+CD4+, and T-helper CD4+CD161+.

Conclusions

Patients with a recent RRMS diagnosis and naive to DMTs, showed peculiar myeloid, B-, and T-cell immunophenotypes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rituximab versus natalizumab in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis

Introduction

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory disease in which the myelin sheaths of the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord, which are responsible for communication, are destroyed and cause physical signs and symptoms. According to studies, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies have significant results in the treatment of this disease. Thus, the aim of the present study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of rituximab against natalizumab in the patients with RRMS in southern Iran in 2020.

Methods

This is an economic evaluation including cost-effectiveness analysis in which the Markov model with a lifetime horizon was used. The study sample consisted of 120 patients randomly selected from among those referred to the MS Association and the Special Diseases Unit of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. In this study, the costs were collected from a societal perspective, and the outcomes were obtained in the form of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) and the mean relapse rate. The TreeAge pro 2020 and Excel 2016 software were used for data analysis.

Results

The comparative study of rituximab and natalizumab showed that the patients receiving rituximab had lower costs ($ 58,307.93 vs. $ 354,174.85) and more QALYs (7.77 vs. 7.65). In addition, the incidence of relapse by rituximab was lower compared to natalizumab (1.15 vs. 2.57). The probabilistic one-way sensitivity analysis showed the robustness of the results. The scatter plots also showed that rituximab was more cost-effective for the patients in 100% of the simulations for the threshold of < $ 37,641.

Discussion and conclusion

According to the results of this study, rituximab had higher cost-effectiveness than natalizumab. Therefore, it could be a priority for RRMS patients compared to natalizumab because it reduced treatment costs and increased effectiveness.

Rituximab for the treatment of multiple sclerosis: a review

In the last decades, evidence suggesting the direct or indirect involvement of B cells on multiple sclerosis (MS) pathogenesis has accumulated. The increased amount of data on the efficacy and safety of B-cell-depleting therapies from several studies has suggested the addition of these drugs as treatment options to the current armamentarium of disease modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS. Particularly, rituximab (RTX), a chimeric monoclonal antibody directed at CD20 positive B lymphocytes resulting in cell-mediated apoptosis, has been demonstrated to reduce inflammatory activity, incidence of relapses and new brain lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS). Additional evidence also demonstrated that patients with progressive MS (PMS) may benefit from RTX, which also showed to be well tolerated, with acceptable safety risks and favorable cost-effectiveness profile.Despite these encouraging results, RTX is currently approved for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, several forms of vasculitis and rheumatoid arthritis, while it can only be administered off-label for MS treatment. Between Northern European countries exist different rules for using not licensed drug for treating MS. The Sweden MS register reports a high rate (53.5%) of off-label RTX prescriptions in relation to other annually started DMTs to treat MS patients, while Danish and Norwegian neurologists have to use other anti-CD20 drugs, as ocrelizumab, in most of the cases.In this paper, we review the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, clinical efficacy, safety profile and cost effectiveness aspects of RTX for the treatment of MS. Particularly, with the approval of new anti-CD20 DMTs, the recent worldwide COVID-19 emergency and the possible increased risk of infection with this class of drugs, this review sheds light on the use of RTX as an alternative treatment option for MS management, while commenting the gaps of knowledge regarding this drug.

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.

Rituximab in Multiple Sclerosis: Are We Ready for Regulatory Approval?

Despite the availability of a lot of effective disease-modifying drugs, multiple sclerosis (MS) (in particular the progressive forms) still represents an important unmet medical need, because of issues in terms of effectiveness, duration of response, safety, and patient compliance. An increasing body of evidence from randomized clinical trials and real-world data suggest that rituximab is a highly effective alternative in both relapsing and progressive MS, with a low discontinuation rate, related to a good benefit/risk profile, and a good compliance. To date, the use of rituximab in patients with multiple sclerosis is not in accordance with the authorized product information (off-label use). However, the use of this medicine is widespread in several countries, and in some cases, it is the most commonly used disease-modifying drug for MS subtypes. This use could be officially recognized by national regulatory authorities, according to specific procedures, to ensure equal access for patients to a safe and effective option.

Rituximab and risk of COVID-19 infection and its severity in patients with MS and NMOSD

BACKGROUND

Choosing a safe disease modifying therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic is challenging. This case series study was conducted to determine the incidence rate and the course of Covid-19 infection in MS/NMOSD patients treated with Rituximab.

METHODS

In this study, we designed a web-based questionnaire. Baseline information such as patient- reported walking disability, total number of Rituximab infusions received, delayed injections, occurrence of any relapse, and the use of corticosteroids during the pandemic were collected. Also, information regarding the Covid-19 pandemic such as adherence to self-isolation, any recent exposure to an infected individual and the presence of suggestive symptoms were collected. In case of positive test results, patients were grouped into 2 categories; mild to moderate and seriously ill and outcomes were evaluated as favorable (improved/ discharged) and unfavorable (expired).

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-eight patients with Multiple Sclerosis were enrolled in this study, 9 of the subjects (3.4%) were confirmed positive for Covid-19, five of which required hospitalizations (55.5%), two patients required ICU admission (22.2%) and 2 two patients died (22.2%). None of these patients ever mentioned using corticosteroids during the pandemic. In comparison to MS patients who were not receiving disease modifying therapy (DMT), our study indicated a higher incidence of Covid-19 infection, higher ratio of serious illness and a higher fatality ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

Rituximab seems not to be safe enough during the pandemic.

Safety and efficacy of rituximab as first- and second line treatment in multiple sclerosis - A cohort study

Background

Rituximab is increasingly used as off-label therapy in multiple sclerosis (MS). More data are needed on safety and efficacy of rituximab, particularly in cohorts of de novo patients and patients in early therapy escalation.

Objective

To investigate the safety and efficacy of off-label treatment with rituximab in an MS-cohort of predominantly de novo patients or as therapy escalation.

Methods

We retrieved safety and efficacy data from the Norwegian MS-registry and biobank for all MS-patients treated with rituximab at Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, during a four year period.

Results

In the 365 MS-patients (320 relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), 23 secondary progressive MS (SPMS), and 22 primary progressive MS (PPMS)), the overall annualized relapse rate (ARR) was 0.03 and annualized drug discontinuation rate (ADDR) was 0.05. NEDA-3 was achived in 79% of patients with available data (n=351). Sixty-one patients experienced infusion-related adverse events of which two were serious (CTCAE grade 3–4). Eighteen patients experienced serious non-infusion related adverse events, of which 16 were infections. Infections (n = 34; 9.3%, CTCAE grade 2-5), hypogammaglobulinemia (n = 19, 5.2%) and neutropenia (n = 16; 4.4%) were the most common non-infusion-related adverse events.

Conclusion

Rituximab was a safe and highly efficient disease modifying therapy in this cohort of MS-patients; however, infections and neutropenia need to be monitored.

Ocrelizumab in Multiple Sclerosis: A Real-World Study From Spain

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe the tolerability, safety, and effectiveness of ocrelizumab for primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS) and relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) in a clinical practice setting.

Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed clinical and MRI data in all patients with PPMS and RMS who had received at least one infusion of ocrelizumab in two health areas in south-eastern Spain. Patients involved in any ocrelizumab trial and those patients with a follow-up shorter than 6 months were excluded.

Results: The cohort included 70 patients (42 women) who had received ocrelizumab; 30% had PPMS and 70%, RMS. At baseline, patients' mean age was 47.1 years in the PPMS group and 39.2 years in the RMS group, while the median EDSS was 3.0 and 2.5, respectively. Median follow-up was 13.6 months. The median number of treatment cycles was three. Most patients remained free from clinical and MRI activity after ocrelizumab initiation. Baseline MRI showed T1 Gd-enhancing lesions in 57% of the patients; by the first MRI control at 4–6 months, all patients except one were free of T1 Gd-enhancing lesions (69/70, 98.6% P < 0.001). The proportion of patients with NEDA was 94% in the group of RMS patients who were followed for at least 1 year. Ocrelizumab was generally well-tolerated; the most common adverse events were infusion-related reactions and infections, none of which were serious.

Conclusions: Our real-world study supports the tolerability, safety, and effectiveness of ocrelizumab in clinical practice.