While rituximab does not carry indications for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) or aquaporin-4-positive (AQP4) neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), the CD20-depleting therapy and its biosimilars are commonly used off-label, as the therapy has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing relapses in MS as well as in reducing the frequency and severity of attacks in NMOSD.
While rituximab does not carry indications for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) or aquaporin-4-positive (AQP4) neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD), the CD20-depleting therapy and its biosimilars are commonly used off-label, as the therapy has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing relapses in MS as well as in reducing the frequency and severity of attacks in NMOSD.
The availability of biosimilar rituximab—already a reality in Europe and soon to arrive in the United States—has the potential to increase patient access to anti-CD20 therapy, but despite the common use of the drug in neurology, there are few data that help guide individual patients’ treatment with rituximab. Important questions remain, such as how long a patient should ideally be treated with rituximab, on what schedule treatment should occur, or what therapies may be optimal after treatment with the product is discontinued.
During last week’s 35th Annual Congress of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis, which was held in Stockholm, Sweden, multiple teams presented findings on the use of rituximab in both of these challenging neurological disorders.
First, in a poster session, researchers from the Institute of Neuropathology and University Medical Center Göttingen, in Göttingen, Germany, presented findings on their study on the phenotype and function of B cells that reappear after treatment with rituximab.1
The researchers assessed peripheral blood mononuclear cells of 15 patients with relapsing MS prior to rituximab therapy and during B-cell repletion. They found that, while most B cells before rituximab treatment were mature memory B cells, the B cells that reappeared showed a naïve phenotype, and also manifested an accentuated activation profile and a more proinflammatory cytokine profile.
These findings suggest the need for further exploration of the phenotype of these repleting B cells to help guide therapeutic decisions, particularly with regard to maintenance therapies that may be initiated after treatment with anti-CD20 agents like rituximab.
Additionally, researchers from Marseille University Hospital, in Marseille, France, presented their findings from a study of 2 different individualized administration schedules for treating patients with aquaporin-4-positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) using rituximab.2
In the study, 15 patients with NMOSD were treated using a standard approach, under which rituximab is readministered only once memory B cells reached 0.05% of peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and 29 patients were treated with an optimized scheme under which patients were retreated at 6 months, or before 6 months if their B cells had repleted to the 0.05% threshold. The investigators then compared annual relapse rates for the 2 groups.
They found that, among patients treated with the standard approach, the mean annual relapse rate was 0.35 (range, 0-1.6). Among the patients who were treated with the optimized approach, the mean annual relapse rate was 0.04 (range, 0-0.7).
According to the study’s authors, the optimized treatment schedule reduces the risk of relapse after 6 months, a risk inherent to the standard treatment approach.
References
1. Nissimov N, Hajiyeva Z, Brück W, Häusser-Kinzel S, Weber MS. Phenotype of repleting B cells in multiple sclerosis patients treated with rituximab. Presented at: The 35th Congress of the European Society for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis; September 11-13, 2019; Stockholm, Sweden. Poster P1389.
2. Durozard P, Rico A, Boutiere C, et al. Comparison of two individualized administration schemes of rituximab based on memory B cells monitoring in AQP4 positive disorder. Presented at: The 35th Congress of the European Society for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis; September 11-13, 2019; Stockholm, Sweden. Abstract P1352.
What Clinicians Need to Know About Using Biosimilars to Treat IBD
April 13th 2024A review article, intended to act as a guide for clinicians, summarizes the available infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars for treating inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as well as others that are coming down the pipeline.
What AmerisourceBergen's Report Reveals About Payers, Biosimilar Pricing Trends
May 28th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Tasmina Hydery and Brian Biehn from AmerisourceBergen discussed results from a recent survey, that were also presented at Asembia 2023, diving into the payer perspective on biosimilars and current pricing trends across the US biosimilar industry.
Study: More Biosimilar Competition Is Not Lowering Patient OOP Costs
March 29th 2024Despite more biosimilars entering the market and generating significant savings for payers and health care systems, these savings are not resulting in lower out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for patients, according to a recent study.
Pipelines and Preparation: How the US Can Prepare for More RA Biosimilars
April 16th 2023What can practices do to prepare for all the biosimilars to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) coming down the pipeline? And how can they ensure that the lower-than-anticipated adoption rates for infliximab biosimilars are not repeated? Robert Zutaut, RPh, from McKesson Provider Solutions, tackles all this and more on this episode of Not So Different.
The Role of Biosimilars: Advancing Access, Financial Health, and System Sustainability
March 11th 2024Kashyap Patel, MD, CEO of Carolina Blood and Cancer Care, a member of the Community Oncology Alliance, and member of The Center for Biosimilars® Advisory Board, glances back at the development of the biosimilar industry and the last 5 years of progress.