Ocrelizumab and natalizumab are both high-efficacy monoclonal antibodies widely used in clinical practice. Dr Elena Barbuti (Sapienza University of Rome, Italy) set up a study which analysed data from patients with MS who started either therapy between 2010 and 2019, followed up in the university hospitals of Rome or Napoli, and had either relapsing or progressive MS.
The study population consisted of 308 patients, including 140 who used ocrelizumab and 168 who used natalizumab. In this original cohort, patients in the ocrelizumab group were older (mean age 49.9 vs 42 years; P<0.001), less often active (42.1% vs 87.5%; P<0.001), and less frequently treatment-naïve (22.9% vs 33.9%; P=0.03). Propensity score matching resulted in a cohort of 140 patients, comprising 70 pairs of patients, with one patient in each pair treated with ocrelizumab and the other with natalizumab. The mean follow-up in this cohort was 55.9 months. Dr Barbuti said that no significant differences were found between natalizumab and ocrelizumab in the following outcomes:
- No Evidence of Disease Activity 3 (NEDA-3): HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.34–1.24; P=0.19).
- Number of relapses: HR 0.41 (95% CI 0.11–1.57; P=0.19).
- MRI activity: HR 0.37 (95% CI 0.10–1.44; P=0.15).
- Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) progression: HR 1.43 (95% CI 0.60–3.40; P=0.42).
Of note, ocrelizumab was associated with a higher risk of adverse events (AEs): OR 4.50 (95% CI 1.53–16.50; P=0.01). Of the 140 patients, 19 developed one or more AEs; 15 of these patients were on ocrelizumab. However, most AEs were blood test abnormalities, and none were life-threatening. Treatment discontinuation rates were comparable for both drugs.
- Barbuti E, et al. Ocrelizumab versus natalizumab in multiple sclerosis: a propensity-score study. OPR-037, EAN Congress 2025, 21-24 June 2025, Helsinki, Finland.
Medical writing support was provided by Michiel Tent.
Copyright ©2025 Medicom Medical Publishers
Posted on
Previous Article
« Why a good result of migraine treatment may not be good enough Next Article
Virus-specific T cells show promise in treating PML »
« Why a good result of migraine treatment may not be good enough Next Article
Virus-specific T cells show promise in treating PML »
Table of Contents: EAN 2025
Featured articles
Lecanemab in AD: not a paradigm shift, but a small step forward
Why a good result of migraine treatment may not be good enough
Online First
Similar efficacy of anti-CGRP mAbs in short- and long-term migraine prevention
Occipital nerve stimulation is no more effective than placebo in cluster headache
Rituximab does not halt progression in non-active secondary progressive MS
Encouraging results for adaptive DBS for Parkinson’s disease
CAR T cell therapy shows promise in severe autoimmune neuropathies
GLP-1R agonists reduce migraine burden in obese patients
Is ChatGPT helpful in diagnosing polyneuropathies?
Lecanemab in AD: not a paradigm shift, but a small step forward
Dementia doubles mortality risk 1 year after hip fracture
Real-world data confirms effectiveness and safety of ofatumumab in MS
Virus-specific T cells show promise in treating PML
Comparable effectiveness and persistence of ocrelizumab, natalizumab
Why a good result of migraine treatment may not be good enough
Long-term benefits of cipa/mig in late-onset Pompe disease
Earlier add-on treatment in myasthenia gravis improves outcomes
Related Articles

November 1, 2021
ECTRIMS 2021 Highlights Podcast
© 2024 Medicom Medical Publishers. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy
HEAD OFFICE
Laarderhoogtweg 25
1101 EB Amsterdam
The Netherlands
T: +31 85 4012 560
E: publishers@medicom-publishers.com