A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal
Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Rituximab Versus Ocrelizumab in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Finnish Population-Based Matched Cohort Study; 
Authors: Savolainen, Maiju; Soilu-Hänninen, Merja; Nurmi, Henriikka; Viitala, Matias; Tienari, Pentti; Atula, Sari; Laakso, Sini M.
Publisher: Wiley
Publication year: 2026
Journal: European Journal of Neurology
Article number: e70625
Volume: 33
Issue: 5
ISSN: 1351-5101
eISSN: 1468-1331
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.70625
Publication's open availability at the time of reporting: Open Access
Publication channel's open availability : Open Access publication channel
Web address : https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.70625
Self-archived copy’s web address: https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/526513929
Self-archived copy's licence: CC BY NC
Self-archived copy's version: Publisher`s PDF
Background
B-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.
Keywords:
anti-CD20, ocrelizumab, real-world evidence, rituximab
Downloadable publication This is an electronic reprint of the original article. |
Funding information in the publication:
This work was supported by Finnish government research funding governed by Helsinki University Hospital (to S.M.L) and by Turku University Hospital (to M.S-H).