Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40216701›Full record

ArticleActa neurologica Belgica2025

Efficacy of ocrelizumab versus rituximab in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Nesma Mounir, Nevin Shalaby, Mohamed I Hegazy, Nirmeen Kishk, Hatem Shehata, Shaimaa Abdalaleem Abdalgeleel, Ahmed Mohammed Abdulrahman, Nahla Merghany

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Nesma MounirDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. nesma.mounir@kasralainy.edu.eg.
Nevin ShalabyDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamed I HegazyDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Nirmeen KishkDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Hatem ShehataDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Shaimaa Abdalaleem AbdalgeleelDepartment of Public Health, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, Al-Baha University, Al- Baha, Saudi Arabia.
Ahmed Mohammed AbdulrahmanDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Aden University, Aden, Yemen.
Nahla MerghanyDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOcrelizumab (OCR) and rituximab (RTX) are monoclonal antibodies binding to CD20, inducing B-cell depletion. The randomized controlled trials that compare their effectiveness in people with Multiple sclerosis (pwMS) are still ongoing. This study aims at comparing the efficacy of ocrelizumab (OCR) and rituximab (RTX) in treating pwMS.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) treated with either OCR or RTX. Patients were recruited from the Kasr Al-Ainy MS research unit (KAMSU) at Cairo University, Egypt. Data was collected at least one year of the first anti-CD20 infusion. The primary outcome was the time to 3-month confirmed disability worsening (3 month-CDW). Secondary outcomes were time to first relapse (TTFR), 3-month confirmed disability improvement (CDI), annualized relapse rate (ARR), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity.

results126 patients were included in the analysis: 64 (50.8%) received OCR, and 62 (49.2%) received RTX. There was no significant difference between patients receiving OCR and RTX in CDW (9.37% vs. 11.29%), CDI (21.87% vs. 30.64%), mean ARR (0.21 vs. 0.29). There was no significant difference in TTFR, cumulative hazard of relapses or time to 3 months-CDW between both groups.

conclusionNo difference in efficacy between ocrelizumab and rituximab in treating RRMS.

Indexed as

Antibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedImmunologic FactorsMultiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-RemittingRituximabAdultCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedImmunologic FactorsocrelizumabRituximabEfficacyMultiple sclerosisOcrelizumabRituximab

Identifiers

PMID40216701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.