ArticleActa neurologica Belgica2026
Comparative effectiveness and safety of rituximab versus ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a real-world experience from Iran.
Article in Acta neurologica Belgica, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAnti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies are regarded as high-efficacy disease-modifying therapy (DMT) for relapse-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Herein, we aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of OCR and RTX in patients with RRMS. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between 2020 and 2025, RRMS patients prescribed OCR or RTX at the Imam Hossein MS Center in Tehran, Iran, were identified. Clinician-reported data were retrospectively extracted from medical records using a standardized data-collection checklist. Treatment allocation was non-random and was influenced by insurance coverage and drug availability. Rituximab was commonly administered using an extended-interval dosing protocol. Comparative analyses used survival methods and regression analyses. A two-sided P value < 0.05 indicated statistical significance.
results150 patients (OCR = 90, RTX = 60) were followed for a mean of 42.1 ± 15.1 months (RTX: 46.2 ± 19.1 months; OCR: 39.5 ± 11.0 months; P = 0.12). Baseline demographic and MS-related characteristics were comparable. The annualized relapse rate (ARR) decreased from a pre-treatment mean of 1.23 to 0.70 in the OCR group and 0.76 in the RTX group (mean difference, - 0.06; P = 0.34), with corresponding absolute relapse counts of one in the OCR group and two in the RTX group. Confirmed disability worsening occurred in five patients (1 OCR, 4 RTX; P = 0.16). Among patients with follow-up MRI data (n = 115), new asymptomatic MRI activity was observed in 4.4% of OCR-treated and 5.0% RTX-treated (P = 0.99) patients. Secondary hypogammaglobulinemia (SHG) occurred in 17/90 (18.9%) of OCR-treated and 10/60 (16.7%) of RTX-treated patients, (P = 0.60), which was mainly asymptomatic. Treatment persistence was high in both groups (OCR 98.9%, RTX 93.3%).
conclusionOver a mean follow-up exceeding three years, no statistically significant differences in relapse, MRI, or disability outcomes were detected between OCR and RTX. Because treatment allocation was non-random and RTX was commonly administered using extended-interval dosing, these findings represent a comparison of real-world treatment strategies, not a causal comparison of the intrinsic effects of RTX versus OCR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42875665What 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.