Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab in a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in primary progressive MS (PPMS). Background: B cells are central to MS pathogenesis, including PPMS. Currently, no disease-modifying therapies are approved for PPMS. Ocrelizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively targets CD20+ B cells. Methods: A total of 732 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive ocrelizumab 600mg as two 300mg intravenous infusions 14 days apart, or placebo every 24 weeks for ≥120 weeks until a pre-specified number of 12-week confirmed disability progression (CDP) events occurred. Key eligibility criteria included: age 18-55 years; diagnosis of PPMS (2005 revised McDonald criteria); Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 3.0-6.5; and documented history of elevated immunoglobulin index and/or presence of oligoclonal bands within the cerebrospinal fluid. The primary endpoint was time to onset of 12-week CDP. Secondary endpoints included time to onset of 24-week CDP; change in timed 25-foot walk (T25FW) and T2 lesion volume from baseline to week 120; change in whole brain volume from week 24-120; and overall safety. Results: Compared with placebo, ocrelizumab significantly reduced the relative risk of 12-week CDP by 24[percnt] (HR=0.76; p=0.0321) and 24-week CDP by 25[percnt] (HR= 0.75; p=0.0365); the T25FW progression rate by 29[percnt] (39[percnt] vs 55[percnt] increase for ocrelizumab vs placebo, respectively [ranked ANCOVA, p=0.0404]); T2 lesion volume (-3.4[percnt] with ocrelizumab vs +7.4[percnt] with placebo [p<0.0001]); and the rate of brain volume loss by 17.5[percnt] (-0.9[percnt] with ocrelizumab vs -1.1[percnt] with placebo [p=0.0206]). Overall, adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in both groups. Conclusions: Ocrelizumab is the first investigational treatment to meet primary and key secondary efficacy outcomes in a Phase III PPMS study. Supported by F.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Montalbán et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: