Carmen Alcalá1, F Gascón2, Francisco Pérez-Miralles3, J A Domínguez2, S Gil-Perotín3, B Casanova3. 1. Department of Neurology, La Fe Hospital, 106 Avenue Fernando Abril Martorell, 46026, Valencia, Spain. mc.alcalavicente@gmail.com. 2. Department of Neurology, Clinic Hospital, Valencia, Spain. 3. Department of Neurology, La Fe Hospital, 106 Avenue Fernando Abril Martorell, 46026, Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been described that treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients with alemtuzumab following fingolimod could be less effective due to the different dynamics of lymphocyte repopulation. Effectiveness and safety of alemtuzumab compared to rituximab after fingolimod withdrawal were analyzed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A follow-up of a cohort of RRMS patients treated with alemtuzumab or rituximab after fingolimod withdrawal was accomplished. Effectiveness, measured by the percentage of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA), and the presence of side effects (SE) were registered. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients, 28 with alemtuzumab and 27 with rituximab, were analyzed. No differences in the washout period or in the baseline lymphocytes counts were observed. After a mean follow-up period of 28.8 months, the annualized relapsing rate was significantly reduced in the alemtuzumab group from 1.29 to 0.004 (p < 0.001) and in the rituximab group from 1.24 to 0.02 (p < 0.001), without differences. A significant reduction of the median EDSS from 2.8 to 2.0 in the alemtuzumab group and from 3.5 to 2.5 (p < 0.01) in the rituximab group was observed, without differences. Eighty-two per cent (n = 28) of patients in alemtuzumab group and 69.2% (n = 26) in rituximab group achieved NEDA criteria, without differences (p = 0.3). Symptoms related to the infusion were the most frequent SE in both groups. No serious SE were registered. CONCLUSION: Treating RRMS patients with alemtuzumab or rituximab after fingolimod withdrawal is effective and safe, without significant differences between both groups in our series.
BACKGROUND: It has been described that treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients with alemtuzumab following fingolimod could be less effective due to the different dynamics of lymphocyte repopulation. Effectiveness and safety of alemtuzumab compared to rituximab after fingolimod withdrawal were analyzed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A follow-up of a cohort of RRMS patients treated with alemtuzumab or rituximab after fingolimod withdrawal was accomplished. Effectiveness, measured by the percentage of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA), and the presence of side effects (SE) were registered. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients, 28 with alemtuzumab and 27 with rituximab, were analyzed. No differences in the washout period or in the baseline lymphocytes counts were observed. After a mean follow-up period of 28.8 months, the annualized relapsing rate was significantly reduced in the alemtuzumab group from 1.29 to 0.004 (p < 0.001) and in the rituximab group from 1.24 to 0.02 (p < 0.001), without differences. A significant reduction of the median EDSS from 2.8 to 2.0 in the alemtuzumab group and from 3.5 to 2.5 (p < 0.01) in the rituximab group was observed, without differences. Eighty-two per cent (n = 28) of patients in alemtuzumab group and 69.2% (n = 26) in rituximab group achieved NEDA criteria, without differences (p = 0.3). Symptoms related to the infusion were the most frequent SE in both groups. No serious SE were registered. CONCLUSION: Treating RRMS patients with alemtuzumab or rituximab after fingolimod withdrawal is effective and safe, without significant differences between both groups in our series.
Authors: Joachim Havla; Lisa Ann Gerdes; Ingrid Meinl; Markus Krumbholz; Hans Faber; Frank Weber; Hannah Luise Pellkofer; Reinhard Hohlfeld; Tania Kümpfel Journal: J Neurol Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Jeffrey A Cohen; Frederik Barkhof; Giancarlo Comi; Hans-Peter Hartung; Bhupendra O Khatri; Xavier Montalban; Jean Pelletier; Ruggero Capra; Paolo Gallo; Guillermo Izquierdo; Klaus Tiel-Wilck; Ana de Vera; James Jin; Tracy Stites; Stacy Wu; Shreeram Aradhye; Ludwig Kappos Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mark Willis; Owen Pearson; Zsolt Illes; Tobias Sejbaek; Christian Nielsen; Martin Duddy; Kate Petheram; Caspar van Munster; Joep Killestein; Clas Malmeström; Emma Tallantyre; Neil Robertson Journal: Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm Date: 2017-01-10
Authors: Eva Havrdova; Douglas L Arnold; Jeffrey A Cohen; Hans-Peter Hartung; Edward J Fox; Gavin Giovannoni; Sven Schippling; Krzysztof W Selmaj; Anthony Traboulsee; D Alastair S Compston; David H Margolin; Karthinathan Thangavelu; Claudio E Rodriguez; Darlene Jody; Richard J Hogan; Panos Xenopoulos; Michael A Panzara; Alasdair J Coles Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: D Ferraro; P Iaffaldano; T Guerra; M Inglese; M Capobianco; V Brescia Morra; M Zaffaroni; M Mirabella; G Lus; F Patti; P Cavalla; M Cellerino; S Malucchi; E Pisano; F Vitetta; D Paolicelli; P Sola; M Trojano Journal: J Neurol Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 4.849