ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2026
Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Rituximab Versus Ocrelizumab in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Finnish Population-Based Matched Cohort Study.
Article in European journal of neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundB-cell-depleting anti-CD20 therapies are among the most effective disease-modifying treatments for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Rituximab (RTX) is widely used off-label, while ocrelizumab (OCR) is approved for RRMS; yet comparative real-world evidence between the two remains limited.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective registry-based cohort study using the Finnish MS Registry, including adult RRMS patients treated with RTX or OCR between 2018 and 2024 at two university hospitals. Propensity score matching (1:1) was applied to balance baseline characteristics. Primary outcomes were annualized relapse rate (ARR) during follow-up and relapse-free survival. Secondary outcomes included MRI activity, disability progression, adverse events, and longitudinal plasma immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels.
resultsOf 636 screened patients, 191 met inclusion criteria and 112 patients (56 RTX, 56 OCR) were included after matching. Median follow-up was 3.1 years for RTX and 2.6 years for OCR. ARR was low and similar in both groups (mean 0.03), and relapse-free survival did not differ (log-rank p = 0.95; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.21-4.33). MRI activity remained largely stable, with no significant differences in T2 lesion changes. Adverse events were infrequent and mild. IgG declined modestly in both groups (mean-13%), with values below the reference range in 4.5% of patients and no association with infections. No disease reactivation was observed among patients switching from OCR to RTX.
conclusionsIn this population-based Finnish real-world study, RTX and OCR demonstrated comparable effectiveness and safety in RRMS, supporting RTX as a rational alternative to OCR in routine clinical practice.
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.