Experience with rituximab therapy in a real-life sample of multiple sclerosis patients

A Real-World Experience of Rituximab: A Panacea in Therapy of Multiple Sclerosis in Low- and Middle-Income Setting

BACKGROUND

Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies have received increasing attention in the past few years in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS).

OBJECTIVES

This study describes the (i) efficacy and safety of rituximab in people living with MS and (ii) assesses clinical and imaging outcomes following rituximab in MS.

METHOD

This is a chart review from the MS registry maintained at the institute from a University Hospital in South India.

RESULT

Eighty-three (M:F, 26:57) people living with MS received rituximab as immunomodulation between 2007 and 2022 with a median follow-up duration of 18 months. Fifty-nine (71%) were classified as relapsing-remitting MS, 16 (19%) were secondary progressive MS, and 8 (10%) were primary progressive MS. Seventy-two (87%) MS patients did not experience any relapse after receiving rituximab. In relapsing-remitting MS patients, the mean annualized recurrence rate dropped from 1.24 ± 1.19 to 0.16 ± 0.37. Infusion-related reaction occurred in 5 (6% of adverse events), urinary infections in 7 (8.4%), systemic infections in 3 (3%), Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia occurred in 1 (1%), and herpes zoster infection in 1 (1%) patient. Mortality was observed in 3 (3.5%) patients. While being on rituximab, 18 (22%) patients had mild COVID-19 illness and they all made complete recovery without any sequalae.

CONCLUSIONS

Rituximab is a safe, well-tolerated, easily accessible, inexpensive, and effective therapeutic option for people with MS. Rituximab showed both clinical and radiological improvement after a median follow-up of 1.5 years. None of our patients showed any severe COVID infection nor side effects after receiving COVID vaccination.

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.

Nanoformulated Recombinant Human Myelin Basic Protein and Rituximab Modulate Neuronal Perturbations in Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis in Mice

Introduction

Rituximab (RTX) and recombinant human myelin basic protein (rhMBP) were proven to be effective in ameliorating the symptoms of multiple sclerosis (MS). In this study, a nanoformulation containing rhMBP with RTX on its surface (Nano-rhMBP-RTX) was prepared and investigated in comparison with other treatment groups to determine its potential neuro-protective effects on C57BL/6 mice after inducing experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE).

Methods

EAE was induced in the corresponding mice by injecting 100 μL of an emulsion containing complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA) and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG). The subjects were weighed, scored and subjected to behavioural tests. After reaching a clinical score of 3, various treatments were given to corresponding EAE-induced and non-induced groups including rhMBP, RTX, empty nanoparticle prepared by poly (lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) or the prepared nanoformulation (Nano-rhMBP-RTX). At the end of the study, biochemical parameters were also determined as interferon-γ (IFN-γ), myeloperoxidase (MPO), interleukin-10 (IL-10), interleukin-4 (IL-4), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), nuclear factor kappa B (NF-kB), brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), 2', 3' cyclic nucleotide 3' phosphodiesterase (CNP) and transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) along with some histopathological analyses.

Results

The results of the Nano-rhMBP-RTX group showed promising outcomes in terms of reducing the clinical scores, improving the behavioural responses associated with improved histopathological findings. Elevation in the levels of IL-4, CNP and TGF-β was also noticed along with marked decline in the levels of NF-kB and TNF-α.

Conclusion

Nano-rhMBP-RTX treated group ameliorated the adverse effects induced in the EAE model. The effectiveness of this formulation was demonstrated by the normalization of EAE-induced behavioral changes and aberrant levels of specific biochemical markers as well as reduced damage of hippocampal tissues and retaining higher levels of myelination.

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.

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.

The comparative efficacy and safety of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A network meta-analysis

With the recent successful targeting of B lymphocytes in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), treatment with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) may represent a promising managemental approach, particularly for those with relapsing/remitting MS (RRMS). A network meta-analysis was conducted based on a comprehensive search in Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of currently available anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), including rituximab, ocrelizumab, and ofatumumab, versus a common comparator (interferon beta-1a [INFβ-1a]) in RRMS patients recruited in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). In a frequentist network meta-analytical model, annualized relapse rates (ARRs) and safety outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RRs), whereas relapse-free events were expressed as odds ratios (ORs). Treatment ranking was performed using P-scores. The certainty of evidence was appraised using the GRADE approach. Five publications reported the outcomes of seven RCTs (3938 patients, 67.09% females). Compared to INFβ-1a, ocrelizumab reduced the risk of ARR (RR = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.50-0.64), serious adverse events (RR = 0.17, 95% CI, 0.09-0.30), and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (SAEs, RR = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.39-0.93), and it was associated with higher odds of no relapses (OR = 2.47, 95% CI, 2.00-3.05). Ocrelizumab ranked best among all other treatments in terms of reducing ARR and SAEs. The quality of evidence was low for ocrelizumab, low to moderate for rituximab, and high for ofatumumab. Further large-sized, well-designed RCTs are needed to corroborate the efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab and other anti-CD20 mAbs in RRMS.

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.