Comparative effectiveness of natalizumab versus ocrelizumab in multiple sclerosis: a real-world propensity score-matched study

Katrin Pape; Leoni Rolfes; Falk Steffen; Muthuraman Muthuraman; Melanie Korsen; Sven G Meuth; Frauke Zipp; Stefan Bittner

doi:10.1177/17562864221142924

Comparative effectiveness of natalizumab versus ocrelizumab in multiple sclerosis: a real-world propensity score-matched study

Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2022 Dec 19:15:17562864221142924. doi: 10.1177/17562864221142924. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Katrin Pape¹, Leoni Rolfes², Falk Steffen¹, Muthuraman Muthuraman¹, Melanie Korsen², Sven G Meuth², Frauke Zipp¹, Stefan Bittner³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Neurology, Focus Program Translational Neuroscience (FTN), and Immunotherapy (FZI), Rhine-Main Neuroscience Network (rmn2), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
² Department of Neurology, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
³ Department of Neurology, Focus Program Translational Neuroscience (FTN), and Immunotherapy (FZI), Rhine-Main Neuroscience Network (rmn2), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Langenbeckstr 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany.

Abstract

Background: For treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), a broad range of disease-modifying therapies (DMT) is available. However, few comparative effectiveness studies between different drugs have been performed.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and treatment continuation of natalizumab and ocrelizumab in a real-world cohort of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) from two German university hospitals.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of RRMS patients who initiated treatment with natalizumab or ocrelizumab between January 2016 and April 2019 at the German university hospitals of Mainz and Düsseldorf. Bayesian propensity score matching was conducted to correct for differences in baseline characteristics. Our primary outcome was no evidence of disease activity [NEDA-3: no relapses, no confirmed disability progression, and no magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity] and its subcomponents. Secondary outcomes included measurement of neurofilament light chain (NfL) in serum, analysis of premature discontinuation, and evidence of rebound activity in patients switching from natalizumab to ocrelizumab.

Results: We identified 63 patients starting treatment with natalizumab and 76 patients starting with ocrelizumab. Binary logistic regression showed that treatment with natalizumab or a higher number of relapses in the previous year were independently associated with a higher risk for relapses. Patients receiving natalizumab had a higher probability of premature discontinuation of therapy (p = 0.002). After propensity score matching of the two treatment arms, 55 patients remained per group. NEDA-3 after 30 months of follow-up was reached by 53.1% in the ocrelizumab group and 36.1% in the natalizumab group (p = 0.177). Ocrelizumab was superior to natalizumab concerning the occurrence of relapses in log-rank test (p = 0.019). NfL levels in serum were low under both treatments. Patients who switched from natalizumab to ocrelizumab showed no increased rebound activity.

Discussion: This study provides class IV evidence that treatment of RRMS patients with ocrelizumab and natalizumab show comparable effectiveness in combined endpoints, while ocrelizumab might be more effective in preventing the occurrence of relapses.

Keywords: comparative effectiveness; disease-modifying treatment; multiple sclerosis; natalizumab; ocrelizumab.