From the Departments of Radiology (J.M.H.) and Clinical Pharmacy (K.V.N.), University of Colorado Hospital, Aurora; Department of Neurology (K.V.N., S.S., B.V., E.A., T.S., J.R.C., T.L.V.), University of Colorado, and Rocky Mountain Multiple Sclerosis Center at the University of Colorado, Aurora; and Department of Neurology (A.M.), University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Miravalle is currently at Advanced Neurology of Colorado, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Neurology. 2019 Feb 12;92(7):e723-e732. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006916. Epub 2019 Jan 11.
To examine whether rituximab induction followed by glatiramer acetate (GA) monotherapy is more effective than GA alone for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis with active disease.
This was a single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Fifty-five participants were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to either rituximab (R-GA) or placebo (P-GA) induction, followed by GA therapy initiated in all participants. Participants were followed up to 3 years. The primary endpoint was the number of participants with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA): those without relapse, new MRI lesions, and sustained change in disability.
Twenty-eight and 27 participants received rituximab and placebo induction, respectively, with one participant in each arm withdrawing before 6-month MRI. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. At end of study, 44.44% of R-GA participants demonstrated NEDA vs 19.23% of P-GA participants ( = 0.049). Treatment failed for a smaller proportion of R-GA participants (37.04% R-GA vs 69.23% P-GA, = 0.019), and time to treatment failure was longer (23.32 months R-GA vs 11.29 months P-GA, = 0.027). Fewer participants in the R-GA arm had new lesions (25.93% R-GA vs 61.54% P-GA, = 0.009), and there were fewer new T2 lesions (0.48 R-GA vs 1.96 P-GA, = 0.027). Probability of demonstrating NEDA in the R-GA arm returned to baseline within the study period. There were no differences in adverse events.
Induction therapy with rituximab followed by GA may provide superior efficacy in the short term than GA alone in relapsing multiple sclerosis, but this benefit appears to wane within the study period. Larger studies are needed to assess sustainability of results.
NCT01569451.
探究利妥昔单抗诱导后序贯格拉替雷单药治疗与单纯格拉替雷治疗对活动期复发型多发性硬化的疗效。
这是一项单中心、双盲、安慰剂对照研究。55 名参与者按照 1:1 的比例随机分配至利妥昔单抗(R-GA)或安慰剂(P-GA)诱导组,所有参与者均起始格拉替雷治疗。随访时间 3 年。主要终点为无疾病活动证据(NEDA)的参与者人数:即无复发、新发 MRI 病变和残疾持续改善的患者。
分别有 28 名和 27 名参与者接受了利妥昔单抗和安慰剂诱导,各有 1 名参与者在 6 个月 MRI 检查前退出。两组基线特征无显著差异。研究结束时,R-GA 组有 44.44%的患者达到 NEDA,而 P-GA 组为 19.23%( = 0.049)。R-GA 组治疗失败的比例较小(37.04% R-GA 比 69.23% P-GA, = 0.019),且治疗失败时间更长(23.32 个月 R-GA 比 11.29 个月 P-GA, = 0.027)。R-GA 组的新病变患者较少(25.93% R-GA 比 61.54% P-GA, = 0.009),且新发 T2 病变较少(0.48 R-GA 比 1.96 P-GA, = 0.027)。R-GA 组在研究期间 NEDA 概率恢复至基线水平。两组不良事件无差异。
与单纯格拉替雷治疗相比,利妥昔单抗诱导后序贯格拉替雷治疗可能在短期内对复发型多发性硬化具有更优疗效,但该获益在研究期间似乎逐渐减弱。需要更大规模的研究来评估结果的可持续性。
NCT01569451。