Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerosis
Conditions
Keywords
Multiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-remitting
Brief summary
The goal of this randomized clinical trial is to compare relapse remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients treated by ocrelizumab or by rituximab followed for 2 years. The main question it aims to answer is : • to demonstrate the non-inferiority of rituximab versus ocrelizumab in active relapsing MS patients on the % of patients without disease activity at 2 years. During the 2 years, the study includes 6 follow-up visits and the completion of various health and quality of life questionnaires. The protocol visits follow the usual schedule of treatment infusions for the disease (at initiation of treatment, 15 days after, and then every 6 months). Two comparison groups: Researchers will compare rituximab treated patients versus ocrelizumab treated patients to see the % of patients without disease activity at 2 years.
Detailed description
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune inflammatory disease of the central nervous system (CNS). This disease is the leading cause of non-traumatic disability in young adults and France is characterized by a high prevalence (currently 1/1000 inhabitants) of MS. Clinical trials with B cell depleting therapies have shown efficacy in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) and are increasingly perceived as an important addition to the existing panel of Disease-modifying treatments (DMTs). Rituximab, a mouse chimeric anti CD20, is approved for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, certain forms of vasculitis and Rheumatoid Arthritis with first marketing approval in 1998. Rituximab has undergone clinical testing in RRMS in 2008 in a phase II placebo-controlled trial, demonstrating the clinico-radiological efficacy in 104 patients. Despite these promising results and the absence of adverse events, its clinical development was interrupted by the manufacturer (Roche). However, for several years, rituximab has been increasingly prescribed (off-label) in Europe and USA in patients refractory to first-line therapies, with a very good safety and efficacy. Thus, rituximab is prescribed for 40% of RRMS patients treated in Sweden. Roche has then developed a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (Ocrelizumab). Two phase III clinical trials (OPERA I and II) have demonstrated its efficacy in active RRMS. Ocrelizumab has just been authorized in France in this indication: RRMS patients with active disease (clinical or radiological). So, it can be prescribed as a first line or second line therapy in active RRMS patients. According to literature, there are no biological arguments to think that ocrelizumab could be more effective in active RRMS compared to rituximab. Moreover, regarding safety, rituximab has been used for other indications for almost two decades and no serious concern has arisen. The high cost of this new antibody (x6 to 10) compared to rituximab) makes it wonder about its place inside the anti-CD20 therapeutic strategy compared to rituximab for treating relapsing MS patients. Hypothesis: Researchers hypothesize that rituximab and ocrelizumab have the same efficacy in active RRMS patients. Indeed, if the non-inferiority of rituximab on the % of patients without disease activity is confirmed by the trial, the potential medico-economic benefit from a societal perspective will be a strong argument to ask for authorization of rituximab in active RRMS.
Interventions
DRUGPerfusion of treatment Rituximab
Perfusion of treatment (Mabthera®, Truxima®, Rixathon®, Ruxience®)
DRUGPerfusion of treatment Ocrelizumab
Perfusion of treatment (Ocrevus®)
Sponsors
Rennes University Hospital
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
Randomisation code transmitted to the pharmacy preparing the treatment. Blind labelling of treatments
Intervention model description
multicenter, prospective, comparative (non inferiority), randomized, double blinded phase III/IV study
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 55 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Patients presenting a relapsing remitting MS according to Mac Donald 2017 criteria, with clinical or radiological criteria of activity (ie at least one relapse AND/OR one new T2 lesion in the last 12 months before inclusion); * Age between 18 and 55 years * EDSS ≤ 5 * Brain MRI within 6 months before inclusion * For women of childbearing potential\*: effective contraception (effective contraception include oral contraception, intrauterine devices and other forms of contraception with failure rate \<1%, for the duration of the study and until 12 months after last dose administered) \* A woman is considered of childbearing potential (WOCBP), i.e. fertile, following menarche and until becoming post-menopausal unless permanently sterile. Permanent sterilisation methods include hysterectomy, bilateral salpingectomy and bilateral oophorectomy. A postmenopausal state is defined as no menses for 12 months without an alternative medical cause. A high follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) level in the postmenopausal range may be used to confirm a post-menopausal state in women not using hormonal contraception or hormonal replacement therapy. However, in the absence of 12 months of amenorrhea, a single FSH measurement is insufficient. * Having signed an informed consent form * Patients covered with social insurance Non-Inclusion Criteria: * Secondary or primary progressive MS; * Previous treatment by mitoxantrone, cladribine, alemtuzumab and anti CD20 therapies in the last two years; * Previous treatment by fingolimod or natalizumab in the last 4 weeks; * Treatment with high dose corticosteroids during the 30 days preceding the inclusion; * Occurrence of a relapse less than 30 days before inclusion; * Pregnancy or breastfeeding; * Other neurologic or systemic disease; * Concomitant participation or Participation in another therapeutic trial in the last 6 months; * Incapacity to understand or sign the consent form; * Contraindication to MRI; * Contraindication to anti-CD20 therapies: * Receipt of a live or live-attenuated vaccine within 6 weeks prior to randomization * Active malignancy. * Any ongoing infection * Severe heart failure (New York Heart Association Class IV) or severe uncontrolled cardiac disease * Positive test for HIV, hepatitis B or C, or tuberculosis * Severe immune deficiency: * Lymphopenia grade 3 (0.2 to 0.5 × 10\^9/L) or higher grades * Neutropenia grade 3 (0.5 to 1.0 × 10\^9/L) or higher grades * Known hypersensitivity or other known side effects for any of the study medications, including co-medications such as high glucocorticosteroids * AST or ALT \>=3ULN * Platelet (thrombocyte) count \< 100 x 10\^9/L * Adults legally protected (under judicial protection, guardianship, or supervision), persons deprived of their liberty.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| To demonstrate the non-inferiority of rituximab versus ocrelizumab in active relapsing MS patients on the percentage of patients without disease activity at 2 years. | at 2 years | Percentage of patients without disease activity at 2 years (Disease activity is defined as: * At least one relapse between baseline and M24 * OR MRI activity defined as Gd enhancing lesions at M6 or as the appearance of at least one new T2 lesion between M6 and M24) |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| To compare the two groups (ocrelizumab vs rituximab) for Clinical Criteria : o Annualized relapse rate | at 2 years | Relapses: annualized relapse rate |
| To compare the two groups (ocrelizumab vs rituximab) for Clinical Criteria : o Time of onset of the first relapse | at 2 years | mean time of onset of the first relapse |
| To compare the two groups (ocrelizumab vs rituximab) for Clinical Criteria : o Percentage of patients without relapse | at 2 years | Percentage of patients without relapse |
| To compare the two groups (ocrelizumab vs rituximab) for Clinical Criteria : o Percentage of patients without disability progression | at 2 years | Percentage of patients without disability progression (Expanded Disability Status Scale-EDSS) (Disability progression will be defined as an increase of 1.5 pt if baseline EDSS=0, 1pt EDSS (if baseline 1 ≤ EDSS\<6), or an increase of 0.5pt if baseline EDSS is ≥ 6; confirmed at 6 months.) EDSS : Minimum Score 1, Maximum score 10, higher scores mean a worse outcome. |
| MRI parameters : gadolinium (Gd) enhancing lesions | at 6 month | \- Mean number of Gd enhancing lesions at M6 |
| MRI parameters : Mean Number of new T2 lesions | From Month 6 to Month 24 | \- Mean number of new brain T2 lesions |
| MRI parameters : Percentage of patients with one or more new T2 lesions | From Month 6 to Month 24 | \- Percentage of patients with one or more new brain T2 lesions |
| Patients quality of life : EQ-5D-5L | From baseline (Day 0) to every six month of follow up until Month 24 | Change in the EQ-5D-5L score The EQ-5D-5L essentially consists of 2 pages: the EQ-5D descriptive system and the EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS). The descriptive system comprises five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 levels: no problems, slight problems, moderate problems, severe problems and extreme problems. The patient is asked to indicate his/her health state by ticking the box next to the most appropriate statement in each of the five dimensions. The digits for the five dimensions can be combined into a 5-digit number that describes the patient's health state. The EQ VAS records the patient's self-rated health on a vertical visual analogue scale, where the endpoints are labelled 'The best health you can imagine' and 'The worst health you can imagine'. |
| Patients quality of life : MusiQOL (Multiple Sclerosis International Quality of Life questionnaire) | From baseline (Day 0) to Month 12 | Change in the MusiQOL score The MusiQoL is a specific questionnaire comprising 31 questions describing nine dimensions of quality of life (Appendix 1): activities of daily living (eight items); psychological well-being (four); relationships with friends (four); symptoms (three); relationships with family (three); relationships with the health care system (three); emotional and sexual life (two); coping (two); rejection (two). Each item is scored from 1 (never/not at all) to 5 (always/very much). Before calculating the score of the dimensions, the scores of negatively written items are reversed. The score of a dimension is obtained by averaging the scores of its constituent items. The dimension scores are then transformed linearly into scores ranging from 0 to 100 (100 being the maximum quality of life level). A global quality of life score is also available. |
| Patients quality of life : MusiQOL | From baseline (Day 0) to Month 24 | Change in the MusiQOL score The MusiQoL is a specific questionnaire comprising 31 questions describing nine dimensions of quality of life (Appendix 1): activities of daily living (eight items); psychological well-being (four); relationships with friends (four); symptoms (three); relationships with family (three); relationships with the health care system (three); emotional and sexual life (two); coping (two); rejection (two). Each item is scored from 1 (never/not at all) to 5 (always/very much). Before calculating the score of the dimensions, the scores of negatively written items are reversed. The score of a dimension is obtained by averaging the scores of its constituent items. The dimension scores are then transformed linearly into scores ranging from 0 to 100 (100 being the maximum quality of life level). A global quality of life score is also available. |
| Patients experience : Musicare | From baseline (Day 0) to Month 12 | Change in the Musicare score Musicare is a questionnaire to assess the experience of both patients and caregivers of quality of care in MS, in accordance with psychometric standards. It comprises 35 items encompassing 5 domains: Information about the disease (11), Information about the treatments/medical investigation (8), Relationships with health care teams (8) Health care access (5) Reception in care structures (3). Each item is scored from 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Don't know). |
| Medico-economic impact: cost-utility ratio, QALY | At 2 years | Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) defined as the cost for QALY gained in "ocrelizumab group" versus "rituximab group" at 24 months. |
| Safety: Number of each adverse event | At 2 years | Number of each adverse event will be compared between the two groups |
| Safety: Number of each severe adverse events | At 2 years | Number of each severe adverse events will be compared between the two groups |
Countries
France
Contacts
CONTACTLaure MICHEL, MD
CONTACTAgnès Gazzola
Outcome results
None listed