ArticleAnnals of neurology2025
Different Treatment Outcomes of Multiple Sclerosis Patients Receiving Ocrelizumab or Ofatumumab.
Article in Annals of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting and primary progressive multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Ocrelizumab versus ofatumumab efficacy and safety after natalizumab discontinuation in multiple sclerosis: a retrospective real-world comparison.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- The Art of Sequencing Disease-Modifying Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis.Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation · 2026Review
- Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of Ofatumumab: Analysis of B Cell Depletion, Comorbidities and Ethnicity in a Spanish Cohort.Neurology and therapy · 2026Article
- B Cells and B Cell Depletion in Autoimmunity and Atherosclerosis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Discontinuation of ocrelizumab in multiple sclerosis: reoccurrence of disease activity.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2026Observational
- Article
- Twenty-Four-Month Real-World Outcomes of Ofatumumab in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Real-world comparison of anti-CD20 therapies: efficacy, infections, and immune profiles in a German cohort.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Real-World 24-Month Outcomes of Ofatumumab in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: Efficacy, Safety, and the Impact of Frailty.Neurology and therapy · 2025Article
- Real-world effectiveness and safety of ofatumumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: Insights from naïve and switch patients.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025Article
- Ofatumumab treatment in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Disease outcomes following lateral switch among different CD20-antibodies in active multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2025Article
- Selective IgM Hypogammaglobulinemia and Multiple Sclerosis Treated with Natalizumab and Ofatumumab: A Case Report.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Early switching to ofatumumab avoids a rebound effect after natalizumab cessation in multiple sclerosis patients.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveB-cell-depletion via CD20 antibodies is a safe and effective treatment for active relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS). Both ocrelizumab (OCR) and ofatumumab (OFA) have demonstrated efficacy in randomized controlled trials and are approved for treatment of RMS, yet nothing is known on their comparative effectiveness, especially in the real-world setting.
methodsThis prospective cohort study includes patients that were started on either OCR or OFA between September 2021 and December 2023. Patients were followed until June 2024 and recruited at 3 large tertiary centers in Germany (Duesseldorf, Essen, and Giessen). Propensity-score-matching was used to address baseline imbalances among patients. Clinical relapses, presence of new or enlarging MRI lesions and 6-month confirmed disability worsening were evaluated. Non-inferiority of OFA compared to OCR was evaluated through comparison of Kaplan-Meier-estimates.
resultsA total of 1,138 patients were initially enrolled in the cohort. Following patient selection and propensity-score-matching, 544 OCR and 417 OFA patients were included in the final analysis. In our primary analysis, OFA was non-inferior to OCR in terms of relapses, disability progression, and accrual of MRI lesions. Subgroup analyses confirmed findings in previously naïve and platform-treated patients. Potential differences between OFA and OCR were seen in patients switching from S1P receptor modulators or natalizumab.
conclusionWe here provide comparative data on the effectiveness of OCR and OFA in patients with active RMS. OFA was non-inferior to OCR in the overall cohort. Potential differences observed in patients switching from S1P receptor modulators or natalizumab require further validation. ANN NEUROL 2025;97:583-595.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.