Ocrelizumab versus Interferon Beta-1a in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: B cells influence the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis. Ocrelizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively depletes CD20+ B cells. METHODS: In two identical phase 3 trials, we randomly assigned 821 and 835 patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis to receive intravenous ocrelizumab at a dose of 600 mg every 24 weeks or subcutaneous interferon beta-1a at a dose of 44 µg three times weekly for 96 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized relapse rate. RESULTS: The annualized relapse rate was lower with ocrelizumab than with interferon beta-1a in trial 1 (0.16 vs. 0.29; 46% lower rate with ocrelizumab; P<0.001) and in trial 2 (0.16 vs. 0.29; 47% lower rate; P<0.001). In prespecified pooled analyses, the percentage of patients with disability progression confirmed at 12 weeks was significantly lower with ocrelizumab than with interferon beta-1a (9.1% vs. 13.6%; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.81; P<0.001), as was the percentage of patients with disability progression confirmed at 24 weeks (6.9% vs. 10.5%; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.84; P=0.003). The mean number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions per T1-weighted magnetic resonance scan was 0.02 with ocrelizumab versus 0.29 with interferon beta-1a in trial 1 (94% lower number of lesions with ocrelizumab, P<0.001) and 0.02 versus 0.42 in trial 2 (95% lower number of lesions, P<0.001). The change in the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite score (a composite measure of walking speed, upper-limb movements, and cognition; for this z score, negative values indicate worsening and positive values indicate improvement) significantly favored ocrelizumab over interferon beta-1a in trial 2 (0.28 vs. 0.17, P=0.004) but not in trial 1 (0.21 vs. 0.17, P=0.33). Infusion-related reactions occurred in 34.3% of the patients treated with ocrelizumab. Serious infection occurred in 1.3% of the patients treated with ocrelizumab and in 2.9% of those treated with interferon beta-1a. Neoplasms occurred in 0.5% of the patients treated with ocrelizumab and in 0.2% of those treated with interferon beta-1a. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis, ocrelizumab was associated with lower rates of disease activity and progression than interferon beta-1a over a period of 96 weeks. Larger and longer studies of the safety of ocrelizumab are required. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; OPERA I and II ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01247324 and NCT01412333 , respectively.).

Ocrelizumab versus Placebo in Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: An evolving understanding of the immunopathogenesis of multiple sclerosis suggests that depleting B cells could be useful for treatment. We studied ocrelizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively depletes CD20-expressing B cells, in the primary progressive form of the disease. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 732 patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis in a 2:1 ratio to receive intravenous ocrelizumab (600 mg) or placebo every 24 weeks for at least 120 weeks and until a prespecified number of confirmed disability progression events had occurred. The primary end point was the percentage of patients with disability progression confirmed at 12 weeks in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with 12-week confirmed disability progression was 32.9% with ocrelizumab versus 39.3% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.98; P=0.03). The percentage of patients with 24-week confirmed disability progression was 29.6% with ocrelizumab versus 35.7% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.98; P=0.04). By week 120, performance on the timed 25-foot walk worsened by 38.9% with ocrelizumab versus 55.1% with placebo (P=0.04); the total volume of brain lesions on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) decreased by 3.4% with ocrelizumab and increased by 7.4% with placebo (P<0.001); and the percentage of brain-volume loss was 0.90% with ocrelizumab versus 1.09% with placebo (P=0.02). There was no significant difference in the change in the Physical Component Summary score of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Infusion-related reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, and oral herpes infections were more frequent with ocrelizumab than with placebo. Neoplasms occurred in 2.3% of patients who received ocrelizumab and in 0.8% of patients who received placebo; there was no clinically significant difference between groups in the rates of serious adverse events and serious infections. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis, ocrelizumab was associated with lower rates of clinical and MRI progression than placebo. Extended observation is required to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of ocrelizumab. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ORATORIO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01194570 .).

Efficacy and tolerability of intravenous ibandronate injections in postmenopausal osteoporosis: 2-year results from the DIVA study.

OBJECTIVE: An effective and well tolerated intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate could provide a new treatment method for patients with osteoporosis. The Dosing IntraVenous Administration (DIVA) study was designed to identify the optimal ibandronate IV injection schedule for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis by comparing the efficacy and tolerability of 2- and 3-monthly injections with the previously evaluated daily oral ibandronate regimen. We report the effects on lumbar spine and proximal femur bone mineral density (BMD) and bone resorption markers over 2 years. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority study recruited 1395 women (aged 55-80 yrs; > or = 5 yrs since menopause) with osteoporosis [mean lumbar spine (L2-L4) BMD T-score < -2.5 and > or = -5.0]. Patients received IV ibandronate (2 mg every 2 mo or 3 mg every 3 mo) plus daily oral placebo, or 2.5 mg daily oral ibandronate plus 2- or 3-monthly IV placebo. Supplemental vitamin D (400 IU) and calcium (500 mg) were provided throughout the 2-year study. RESULTS: At 2 years, the 2- and 3-monthly IV regimens achieved statistically noninferior and also superior increases in lumbar spine BMD compared with the daily regimen (6.4% and 6.3% vs 4.8%, respectively; p < 0.001). Greater increases were also obtained with IV ibandronate versus daily in proximal femur BMD. Serum concentrations of the biochemical marker of bone resorption C-telopeptide of the alpha-chain of type I collagen were reduced to a similar extent in all treatment arms (53.4%-59.9%). The tolerability profile of the IV regimens was similar to that observed with daily oral therapy. CONCLUSION: Ibandronate IV injections are an effective and well tolerated treatment for postmenopausal osteoporosis and provide a useful alternative to oral dosing.

Monthly oral ibandronate therapy in postmenopausal osteoporosis: 1-year results from the MOBILE study.

UNLABELLED: Once-monthly (50/50, 100, and 150 mg) and daily (2.5 mg; 3-year vertebral fracture risk reduction: 52%) oral ibandronate regimens were compared in 1609 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. At least equivalent efficacy and similar safety and tolerability were shown after 1 year. INTRODUCTION: Suboptimal adherence to daily and weekly oral bisphosphonates can potentially compromise therapeutic outcomes in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Although yet to be prospectively shown in osteoporosis, evidence from randomized clinical trials in several other chronic conditions shows that reducing dosing frequency enhances therapeutic adherence. Ibandronate is a new and potent bisphosphonate with antifracture efficacy proven for daily administration and also intermittent administration with a dose-free interval of >2 months. This report presents comparative data on the efficacy and safety of monthly and daily oral ibandronate regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MOBILE is a 2-year, randomized, double-blind, phase III, noninferiority trial. A total of 1609 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis were assigned to one of four oral ibandronate regimens: 2.5 mg daily, 50 mg/50 mg monthly (single doses, consecutive days), 100 mg monthly, or 150 mg monthly. RESULTS: After 1 year, lumbar spine BMD increased by 3.9%, 4.3%, 4.1%, and 4.9% in the 2.5, 50 /50, 100, and 150 mg arms, respectively. All monthly regimens were proven noninferior, and the 150 mg regimen superior, to the daily regimen. All monthly regimens produced similar hip BMD gains, which were larger than those with the daily regimen. All regimens similarly decreased serum levels of C-telopeptide, a biochemical marker of bone resorption. Compared with the daily regimen, a significantly larger proportion of women receiving the 100 and 150 mg monthly regimens achieved predefined threshold levels for percent change from baseline in lumbar spine (6%) or total hip BMD (3%). All regimens were similarly well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Monthly ibandronate is at least as effective and well tolerated as the currently approved daily ibandronate regimen in postmenopausal osteoporosis.