Acta neurologica Belgica · 2025
Efficacy of ocrelizumab versus rituximab in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mounir Nesma, Shalaby Nevin, Hegazy Mohamed I, Kishk Nirmeen, Shehata Hatem, Abdalgeleel Shaimaa Abdalaleem, Abdulrahman Ahmed Mohammed, Merghany Nahla
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Ocrelizumab (OCR) and rituximab (RTX) are monoclonal antibodies binding to CD20, inducing B-cell depletion. The randomized controlled trials that compare their effectiveness in people with Multiple sclerosis (pwMS) are still ongoing. This study aims at comparing the efficacy of ocrelizumab (OCR) and rituximab (RTX) in treating pwMS.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) treated with either OCR or RTX. Patients were recruited from the Kasr Al-Ainy MS research unit (KAMSU) at Cairo University, Egypt. Data was collected at least one year of the first anti-CD20 infusion. The primary outcome was the time to 3-month confirmed disability worsening (3 month-CDW). Secondary outcomes were time to first relapse (TTFR), 3-month confirmed disability improvement (CDI), annualized relapse rate (ARR), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity.
RESULTS: 126 patients were included in the analysis: 64 (50.8%) received OCR, and 62 (49.2%) received RTX. There was no significant difference between patients receiving OCR and RTX in CDW (9.37% vs. 11.29%), CDI (21.87% vs. 30.64%), mean ARR (0.21 vs. 0.29). There was no significant difference in TTFR, cumulative hazard of relapses or time to 3 months-CDW between both groups.
CONCLUSION: No difference in efficacy between ocrelizumab and rituximab in treating RRMS.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) treated with either OCR or RTX. Patients were recruited from the Kasr Al-Ainy MS research unit (KAMSU) at Cairo University, Egypt. Data was collected at least one year of the first anti-CD20 infusion. The primary outcome was the time to 3-month confirmed disability worsening (3 month-CDW). Secondary outcomes were time to first relapse (TTFR), 3-month confirmed disability improvement (CDI), annualized relapse rate (ARR), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity.
RESULTS: 126 patients were included in the analysis: 64 (50.8%) received OCR, and 62 (49.2%) received RTX. There was no significant difference between patients receiving OCR and RTX in CDW (9.37% vs. 11.29%), CDI (21.87% vs. 30.64%), mean ARR (0.21 vs. 0.29). There was no significant difference in TTFR, cumulative hazard of relapses or time to 3 months-CDW between both groups.
CONCLUSION: No difference in efficacy between ocrelizumab and rituximab in treating RRMS.