Skip to main content
Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders logoLink to Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders
. 2025 Apr 12;18:17562864251328276. doi: 10.1177/17562864251328276

Advances in the treatment of neuromyelitis optic spectrum disorder

Xiaolin Yang 1, Shaoru Zhang 2, Jinzhou Feng 3, Xinyue Qin 4,
PMCID: PMC12033445  PMID: 40291752

Abstract

Neuromyelitis optic spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a rare autoimmune disease characterized by recurrent episodes and severe debilitation. It primarily involves the central nervous system and is associated with the presence of aquaporin-4 antibodies. Effective management of NMOSD necessitates long-term therapeutic strategies that focus on alleviating symptoms during acute episodes and preventing relapse. In recent years, the approval of emerging biologics targeting B cells, interleukin-6 receptors, and the complement pathway has marked a transformative development in NMOSD treatment. This article provides a comprehensive review of therapeutic advances in NMOSD, integrating the current literature to serve as a theoretical basis for clinical decision-making of NMOSD patients.

Keywords: AQP4-IgG, biotherapy, immunosuppressant, neuromyelitis optic spectrum disease

Introduction

Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a rare autoimmune disease that primarily affects the central nervous system (CNS), particularly targeting the optic nerve and spinal cord, which often results in vision loss and paralysis. 1 This disease, characterized by its severity and high recurrence rate, requires a thorough diagnostic approach involving clinical assessment, imaging, and antibody testing. NMOSD can occur at any age but is most common between 35 and 42 years,2,3 with a significantly higher prevalence among females. Its incidence varies across ethnic groups, with reported rates ranging from 1 per 100,000 in Caucasians to 10 per 100,000 in African Americans. 4 Such differences in prevalence are due to genetic predisposition, environmental influences, and regional variations in diagnostic practices.

In 2004, the discovery of pathogenic aquaporin-4 antibodies (AQP4-immunoglobulin G (IgG)) constituted a major breakthrough in NMOSD. Studies indicate that over 80% of NMOSD cases test positive for AQP4-IgG. 5 In 2015, the International Panel for NMO Diagnosis revised the diagnostic criteria for NMOSD, emphasizing changes in AQP4-IgG serostatus. 6 Advances in detection methods, particularly the Cell-Based Assay, recognized for its superior specificity and sensitivity, have greatly improved diagnostic rate. 7 Importantly, earlier data on AQP4-IgG-seronegative NMOSD often included patients with myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein-IgG. Therefore, the incidence and prevalence of double-negative NMOSD (DN NMOSD) remain underexplored, with approximately 15%–27.9% of patients categorized as double-negative.811 Currently, there is no cure for NMOSD, and treatment primarily aims to manage symptoms during acute episodes and prevent relapses during remission. 12 Therapeutic agents such as eculizumab, inebilizumab, satralizumab, and ravulizumab, approved between 2019 and 2024, are used to treat AQP4-IgG-seropositive NMOSD. Additionally, rituximab (RTX) and other traditional immunosuppressive therapies (ISTs) are also employed, although they are not formally approved for NMOSD treatment. 13

This article provides a detailed review of the pathogenesis, therapeutic advances in NMOSD. The aim is to contribute to the optimization of medication use and the development of effective treatment strategies.

Pathogenesis

The identification of AQP4-IgG has solidified that NMOSD is primarily driven by humoral immunity. 14 AQP4-IgG primarily exerts its pathogenic effects by selectively targeting AQP4 in the CNS. 15 In patients with NMOSD, peripheral AQP4-IgG levels are significantly higher than those within the CNS. Although the exact origin of AQP4-IgG remains unclear, it is thought to involve immune tolerance defects and molecular mimicry.16,17 Pathogenic AQP4-IgG, derived from plasma cells in peripheral tissues, breaches the weakened BBB to bind to AQP4 on astrocyte surfaces. AQP4 exists in two forms, M1 and M23, and AQP4-IgG binding to either form induces antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, leading to astrocyte destruction through the release of cytotoxic substances. 18 Furthermore, AQP4-IgG binding triggers the activation of the classical complement pathway, resulting in C5 protein cleavage and the formation of the membrane attack complex, which inflicts additional damage on astrocytes. This cascade, involving complement activation and inflammatory cell recruitment, releases inflammatory mediators such as cytokines and oxygen-free radicals, causing demyelination and glial cell damage. AQP4-IgG also reduces EAAT2 expression on astrocyte surfaces, which lead to increased extracellular glutamate levels and heightens glutaminergic toxicity, further damaging neurons and glial cells.19,20 Interleukin-6 (IL-6) promotes glial cell damage by stimulating B cells to differentiate into plasma cells, which produce pathogenic AQP4-IgG. This activity enhances BBB permeability and supports the differentiation and activation of pro-inflammatory T lymphocytes. 21 We illustrate the biological treatment targets for NMOSD in Figure 1 (by Figdraw).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The biological treatment targets in NMOSD. Triggering factors activate peripheral immunity, leading to the production of pathogenic AQP4-IgG, and the recruitment of inflammatory cells and cytokines. These elements cross the impaired blood–brain barrier, entering the central nervous system to target neurons and astrocytes. The resulting neuroinflammation and demyelination drive disease pathology. Various biologics, acting through distinct mechanisms, are highlighted at their respective targets.

AQP4, aquaporin-4; IgG, immunoglobulin G; IL-6, interleukin-6; MAC, membrane attack complex; NMOSD, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders.

Treatment

Symptom management of acute episodes

Therapies for acute NMOSD are mainly based on approaches used in managing multiple sclerosis (MS). Intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) is often the first-line treatment, with a complete remission rate ranging from 17% to 72%.2224 However, some patients do not respond to IVMP. In such cases, apheresis therapies, including plasma exchange (PE) and immunoadsorption (IA), are often employed as second-line treatments. 25 Despite the fact that their efficacy has not been proven by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The choice of apheresis therapy is guided by existing evidence, clinicians’ expertise, availability, and cost considerations. The optimal timing for initiating PE or IA remains uncertain, but the interval between attack onset and therapy initiation is critical. While therapeutic responses may occur up to 3 months following a relapse, data indicate that the proportion of patients in complete remission decreased stepwise with the later initiation of apheresis therapy. Early intervention, particularly within the first 2 days, is critical to achieving optimal recovery. 26 Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is another second-line therapies for NMOSD attacks, although it is less frequently used than apheresis. The efficacy of IVIG as salvage therapy following IVMP has been debated, with mixed results from small-sample studies.27,28 We summarized the existing evidence on second-line therapies for acute NMOSD (Table 1). Additionally, we compiled information on ongoing clinical trials of new therapies for acute NMOSD and optic neuritis, registered up to November 2024 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/; Table 2).

Table 1.

Summary of published studies on second-line therapies for acute NMOSD.

PMID Author Country Therapies Median time, d Patients (N) Evaluation index
38850074 Siwach et al. India PE; IVIG PE: 2; IVIG: 5 43 EDSS; ADL; levels of AQP4-IgG
33523317 Lin et al. China IVIG NA 59 ΔEDSS
32653803 Li et al. China IVIG 9 (IVIG alone)
14 (IVIG + IVMP)
191 EDSS
38790106 Xu et al. China PE/IA 17.5 90 EDSS; VA
29030418 Bonnan et al. France PE 7 60 EDSS; VA
25921047 Abboud et al. America PE NA 83 EDSS
27366234 Faissner et al. Germany IA NA 10 VEPs; VA
33992860 Li et al. China PE; IVIG NA 61 3M-SI
30825049 Song et al. China PE NA 31 VF
30345331 Kleiter et al. Germany PE; IA PE: 1; IA: 1.5 (First line)
PE: 13; IA: 6 (second line)
105 Complete remission
36993936 Zhang et al. China PE NA 76 EDSS; VOS
34034213 Figueroa et al. Mexico PE 20.9 89 EDSS
33948520 Restrepo-Aristizábal et al. Colombia PE 7 78 EDSS
29414283 Srisupa-Olan et al. Thailand PE 13; 12 52 EDSS; mRS
28427710 Aungsumart et al. Thailand PE 11 24 EDSS
38280268 de Almeida et al. Brazil PE 25 68 Improvement scale
35353437 Gonzalez et al. Colombia PE 7 83 VOS

3M-SI, significant improvement evaluated 3 months after acute attack treatment; ΔEDSS, EDSS (treated) – EDSS (attacked); ADL, activities of daily living; AQP4-IgG, aquaporin-4 antibodies; EDSS, expanded disability status scale; IA, immunoadsorption; IgG, immunoglobulin G; IVIG, intravenous immunoglobulin; IVMP, intravenous methylprednisolone; mRS, modified Rankin Scale; NA, not applicable; NMOSD, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders; PE, plasma exchanges; VA, visual acuity; VEP, visual-evoked potentials; VF, visual function; VOS, visual outcome scale.

Table 2.

Summary of studies on new therapies for acute NMOSD.

Diagnosis Therapies Country ID Status
NMOSD Inebilizumab China NCT05891379 Uncompleted
NMOSD Efgartigimod China NCT06497374 Uncompleted
NMOSD Efgartigimod China NCT06118398 Uncompleted
ON Efgartigimod America NCT06453694 Uncompleted
NMOSD Eculizumab China NCT06673394 Uncompleted
ON OCS-05 France NCT04762017 Uncompleted
NMOSD Bevacizumab America NCT01777412 Completed
NMOSD Ublituximab America NCT02276963 Completed
NMOSD HBM9161 China NCT04227470 Completed

NMOSD, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders; ON, optic neuritis.

Preventative therapy: monoclonal antibodies

B cell depletion: inebilizumab

Inebilizumab, approved by the FDA in June 2020 for NMOSD, is a humanized anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody. 29 CD19 is expressed on a broad range of cells, including pre-B cells, plasmablasts, plasma cells, and other B cell subtypes. This broad target range enables inebilizumab to more effective B cells depletion. 30 The N-MOmentum study evaluated the efficacy and safety of inebilizumab in NMOSD. 31 This trail included 230 NMOSD patients aged 18 years or older, of whom 213 were positive for serum AQP4-IgG. Participants were randomized in 3:1 to either inebilizumab or placebo. Ultimately, it represents a 73% reduction in relapse risk for inebilizumab-treated patients compared to those receiving placebo (11% vs 42%). A post hoc analysis also indicated the long-term efficacy of inebilizumab. 32

Safety analyses from the N-MOmentum trial and its open-label extension (OLE) demonstrated that inebilizumab was well tolerated by adult NMOSD patients.31,33 No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study. While B cell depletion therapies have been associated with an increased risk of cancer and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), no cases of cancer or confirmed PML have been reported in patients treated with inebilizumab to date. Further real-world data are essential to better assess and confirm the long-term safety profile of inebilizumab.

B cell depletion: RTX

RTX is a chimeric monoclonal antibody targeting CD20 positive B-cells, initially developed for B-cell lymphomas. 34 RTX has been approved for NMOSD in Japan but used off-label elsewhere. Several retrospective studies demonstrated its effectiveness in reducing relapse risk in NMOSD.35,36 The RIN-1 study, conducted in Japan between 2014 and 2017, was a trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RTX in NMOSD. 37 Thirty-eight AQP4-IgG-seropositive NMOSD patients aged 16–80 years were randomly assigned in 1:1 to the RTX group or placebo group. Results revealed that at the primary endpoint, no patients in the RTX group relapsed, while 37% (7/19) in the placebo group did. Adverse events include infusion reactions, nasopharyngitis, headaches, and so on, with most being mild to moderate. Besides, the response of patients to RTX can vary due to factors such as the production of antidrug antibodies and polymorphisms in the FCGR3A gene encoding the Fc receptor. Consequently, there is no standard RTX dosage or timing regimen for NMOSD. The manufacturer recommends dosing every 6 months or adjusting based on monthly CD19/20 B cell counts. 38

Complement inhibitor: eculizumab

Eculizumab is the first biologic approved for AQP4-IgG-seropositive NMOSD. It inhibits the cleavage of complement protein C5 into pro-inflammatory components C5a and C5b. 39 The PREVENT study investigated the efficacy and safety of eculizumab in NMOSD. 40 Between 2014 and 2017, 143 adult AQP4-IgG-seropositive NMOSD patients were randomized in 2:1 to receive either eculizumab or placebo. The study was terminated early due to the pronounced efficacy of eculizumab. At week 91, eculizumab reduced the risk of relapse by 94% compared to placebo. The OLE study showed that 94.4% of patients with eculizumab remained relapse-free. 41 Eculizumab was well tolerated, with headache and upper respiratory tract infections as the most common side effects. No meningococcal infection was reported, as all participants received vaccinated against meningococcal disease prior to initiating eculizumab. Recently, Ringelstein et al. 42 has again highlighted the ongoing safety concerns of eculizumab treatment. They reported that 7 of 52 eculizumab-treated patients, experienced postvaccination attacks prior to start of eculizumab. One patient died of meningococcal sepsis despite vaccination. This highlights that vaccination may not fully mitigate the risk of infections, and there is also a risk of postvaccination relapses. Therefore, it is important to increase infection surveillance during treatment and to remain vigilant for the risk of relapse following vaccination. Additional testing of vaccine response, such as the Serum Bactericidal Assay, may be also helpful in minimizing the risk of meningococcal infection in selected patients. 43

Complement inhibitor: ravulizumab

Ravulizumab, a long-acting complement C5 inhibitor, has been approved for AQP4-IgG-seropositive NMOSD by the FDA. Using recycling antibody technology, ravulizumab extends its half-life, allowing for an 8-week maintenance dosing schedule compared to eculizumab. 44 The CHAMPION-NMOSD study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ravulizumab in NMOSD. 45 The study enrolled 58 patients who received weight-based doses of ravulizumab. At the primary endpoint, no participants experienced relapse, representing a 98.6% reduction in relapse risk compared to the placebo group. Safety analysis indicated that adverse events associated with ravulizumab were comparable to those observed with eculizumab. No deaths occurred and most adverse events were mild to moderate. Despite being vaccinated against meningococcal disease at least 2 weeks before the trial, two participants contracted meningococcal infections during the study. This suggests a potential high risk of infection despite vaccination. Future studies, evaluating the effectiveness of meningococcal vaccines given during or after immunotherapy, are needed to minimize this risk. 43 In addition, given the lower dosing frequency, ravulizumab may become the preferred choice over eculizumab if future studies support its long-term efficacy and safety.

IL-6R inhibitor: satralizumab

Satralizumab, a humanized IgG2 monoclonal antibody, inhibits the IL-6 inflammatory pathway by targeting membrane-bound and soluble IL-6R. 46 Two key phase III RCTs, SAkura-Sky and SAkura-Star, evaluated the efficacy and safety of satralizumab.47,48 The SAkura-Sky trail included 83 NMOSD patients aged 12–74, randomly assigned in 1:1 to the satralizumab or placebo group. At the primary endpoint, satralizumab demonstrated a 79% reduction in relapse risk compared to placebo (11% vs 43%). The SAkura-Star trail enrolled 95 NMOSD patients aged 18–74. Participants were randomly assigned in 2:1 to receive satralizumab or placebo. At the primary endpoint, 22% (9/41) in the satralizumab group relapsed, compared to 57% (13/23) in the placebo group. A recent Japanese study involving 131 NMOSD patients treated with satralizumab for an average of 197 days reported that 95.4% of participants remained relapse-free. 49 Long-term efficacy data from the OLE phases of these trials have been published. 50 A total of 111 AQP4-IgG-seropositive NMOSD patients received extended satralizumab treatment, including 49 from SAkura-Sky and 62 from SAkura-Star. During follow-up, 24% (12 patients) in SAkura-Sky and 27% (17 patients) in SAkura-Star experienced relapses. Additionally, 90% participants in SAkura-Sky and 86% in SAkura-Star maintained stable Expanded Disability Status Scale scores. No serious adverse events or deaths were reported, with the most frequent adverse events being urinary and upper respiratory tract infections. Long-term safety data confirm that satralizumab is well tolerated in NMOSD.

IL-6R inhibitor: tocilizumab

Tocilizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting IL-6R, is commonly used for rheumatoid arthritis and has shown efficacy in treating refractory NMOSD.51,52 The TANGO study provides evidence supporting tocilizumab’s efficacy and safety in NMOSD. 53 The study enrolled 118 adult NMOSD patients, randomly assigned in 1:1 to tocilizumab or azathioprine (AZA). At the primary endpoint, the tocilizumab group showed a 76% reduction in relapse risk compared to AZA group (14% vs 47%). Adverse events were similar in both groups and were generally mild. Although both satralizumab and tocilizumab are IL-6R inhibitors, satralizumab has a longer half-life due to pH-dependent antibody recycling technology.

Preventative therapy: oral immunosuppressants

Oral immunosuppressants such as mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), AZA, and tacrolimus are used off-label for NMOSD, particularly in regions with limited economic resources or unavailable biologics. Retrospective data showed that ISTs reduce the relapse risk in NMOSD, with MMF demonstrating greater efficacy compared to other oral drugs.36,54,55 However, tolerability and safety concerns main key factors limiting the frequency of oral immunosuppressants.

Comparison of therapies in NMOSD

Currently, no head-to-head RCTs directly compare the efficacy and safety of biologics for NMOSD, particularly among those with similar mechanisms of action. Nevertheless, indirect comparisons and network meta-analyses provide useful insights. A network meta-analysis found that inebilizumab and satralizumab were less effective than eculizumab in reducing relapse risk. 56 A model-based meta-analysis compared the long-term efficacy of five monoclonal antibodies (eculizumab, inebilizumab, satralizumab, RTX, and tocilizumab) with two ISTs (AZA and MMF). The findings showed that monoclonal antibodies, particularly eculizumab, were more effective than ISTs in delaying recurrence. 57 While literature-based comparative studies lack the robustness of direct RCT evidence, they remain valuable in guiding clinicians to tailor treatment plans based on individual needs. Table 3 summarizes RCTs conducted on six biologics for NMOSD.

Table 3.

Summary of RCTs on six biologics in NMOSD.

Drug Inebilizumab Rituximab Eculizumab Ravulizumab Satralizumab Tocilizumab
Target CD19 CD20 C5 C5 IL-6R IL-6R
Study name N-MOmentum RIN-1 PREVENT CHAMPION-NMOSD SAkuraSky; SAkuraStar TANGO
Number of patients (treatment:control) 230 (174:56) 38 (19:19) 143 (94:47) 105 (58:47) 83 (41:42); 95 (63:32) 118 (59:59)
Patient age (y) ⩾18 18–80 ⩾18 ⩾18 12–74; 18–74 ⩾18
AQP4-IgG-seropositive (n) 213 38 143 105 55; 64 115
AQP4-IgG-seronegative (n) 17 0 0 0 28; 31 3
Primary outcome Time to first relapse Time to first relapse Time to first relapse Time to first relapse Time to first relapse Time to first relapse
Double-blind period in RCT 28 weeks 72 weeks 103 weeks 52 weeks 48 weeks; 1.5 y after random assignment of the last patient enrolled 60 weeks
Control arm Placebo Placebo + prednisolone Placebo ± IST Placebo ± IST Placebo ± IST; Placebo Azathioprine
Concomitant IST No Low-dose steroid allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed; no Allowed
Application IV; Initially 300 mg at day 1 and day 14, followed by 300 mg every 6 months IV; 375 mg/m² weekly for 4 weeks, then at 6-month intervals (1000 mg every 2 weeks) IV; 900 mg weekly for the first four doses, followed by 1200 mg every 2 weeks IV; Weight-based, loading dose of 2400–3000 mg at day 1, then maintenance doses of 3000–3600 mg at day 15 and once every 8 weeks thereafter SC; 120 mg 0, 2, 4, and every 4 weeks thereafter IV; 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks
Common side effects Arthralgias, back pain Nausea, exanthema, headache Headaches, upper respiratory tract infections Headaches, upper respiratory tract infections Injection-related reactions, headache, arthralgia Injection-related reactions, headache
Risk of infections Upper respiratory tract and urinary tract infections, opportunistic infections (including PML) Upper respiratory tract and urinary tract infections, hepatitis B reactivation, opportunistic infections (including PML), no PML in NMOSD reported so far Meningococcal infection and infections with other encapsulated bacteria Meningococcal infection and infections with other encapsulated bacteria Mild to moderate infections, no opportunistic infections so far reported Upper respiratory tract and urinary tract infections
Suggested monitoring Differential WBCC, serum immunoglobulins, CD19/20-positive B-cells count Differential WBCC, serum immunoglobulins, CD19/20-positive B-cell count BCC and differential WBCC; Meningococcal infection (exclusion before each infusion) BCC and differential WBCC; Meningococcal infection (exclusion before each infusion) BCC and differential WBCC, liver enzymes, lipids BCC and differential WBCC, liver enzymes, lipids

AQP4, aquaporin-4; BCC, blood cell count; IL6-R, interleukin-6 receptor; IST, immunosuppressive therapy; IV, intravenous; NMOSD, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders; PML, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SC, subcutaneous; WBCC, white blood cell count.

Drug selection, conversion, and discontinuation in AQP4-IgG-seropositive NMOSD

In 2023, the Neuromyelitis Optica Study Group updated management guidelines for NMOSD. 13 Biologics are recommended as the first choice for AQP4-IgG-positive NMOSD patients, preferred over ISTs. Patients may start eculizumab, inebilizumab, ravulizumab, or satralizumab at diagnosis, after the first attack, or following failure of prior treatments. Satralizumab is the preferred option for adolescents aged 12 and older. 58 Current evidence does not indicate any benefit of combination therapies over biologic monotherapy for NMOSD. The dosage of ISTs should be tapered gradually based on the response to biologics, although standardized protocols for tapering remain unavailable. A study demonstrated that reducing steroids from 11.7 to 4.6 mg/day is feasible for patients receiving satralizumab combination therapies. 49 While this finding highlights the potential for minimizing steroid exposure in NMOSD patients treated with biologics, it is important to note that steroid tapering must be individualized and guided by careful monitoring of disease activity and treatment response.

Drug conversion is a common challenge in NMOSD, particularly for patients who respond poorly to previous maintenance therapy. For those with treatment failures, new biologics with distinct mechanisms of action can be started immediately after discontinuing prior therapies. However, patients who remain relapse-free and tolerate off-label medications such as AZA, MMF, RTX, or tocilizumab, may not require a transition to new therapies.13,58

An additional critical issue is determining whether and when to discontinue maintenance therapy. Unlike MS, disease activity in NMOSD does not decline with age, 25% of patients over the age of 50 continue to exhibit disease activity. 59 Several studies emphasize that even during prolonged periods of inactivity, discontinuing ISTs carries a substantial risk of relapse or antibody reactivation. 60 Based on current evidence, discontinuing therapy is generally not recommended, even for patients who have achieved AQP4-IgG-seronegative, due to the persistent risk of relapse.

Preventative therapy: AQP4-IgG-seronegative NMOSD

Currently, no drugs are approved for DN NMOSD, which differs immunologically and pathologically from seropositive cases. For DN NMOSD patients, maintenance therapy may be initiated following the first severe attack or after a second relapse. 13 Recommended therapies include traditional immunosuppressants such as AZA, MMF, or RTX. For patients who continue to experience relapses despite maintenance therapy, combination therapy, or switching to tocilizumab may be considered. Previous evidence indicates that RTX and tocilizumab may be effective against DN NMOSD, though this is still debated.61,62

Other potential therapies

New potential therapies including efgartigimod, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, zanubrutinib, BAT4406F, and stem cell therapy are currently under ongoing (https://clinicaltrials.gov/; Tables 2 and 4).

Table 4.

Summary of ongoing studies on new or potential therapies in NMOSD remission.

Therapies ClinicalTrials.gov ID Target Mechanism of action
Inebilizumab NCT06212245 CD19 B-cell depletion
Inebilizumab NCT06180278 CD19 B-cell depletion
Inebilizumab NCT06068829 CD19 B-cell depletion
Ofatumumab NCT05504694 CD20 B-cell depletion
Daratumumab NCT05403138 CD38 Reduction of IgG production
CAR-T NCT06249438 CD20 Genetically engineered T cells to recognize and kill cells expressing specific target antigens
CAR-T NCT06279923 CD19
CAR-T NCT04561557 BCMA
CAR-T NCT05828212 CD19
CAR-T NCT06633042 CD19
Telitacicept NCT03330418 BLyS, APRIL Inhibition of BLyS and APRIL
Zanubrutinib NCT05356858 BTK B-cell and microglia inactivation
IMC-002 NCT06557174 CD20, CD47 B-cell depletion
B001 NCT06413654 CD20 B-cell inactivation/depletion
B001 NCT05145361 CD20 B-cell inactivation/depletion
BAT4406F NCT06044350 CD20 B-cell depletion
MIL62 NCT05314010 CD20 B-cell depletion

APRIL, a proliferation-inducing ligand; BCMA, B-cell maturation antigen; BLyS, B lymphocyte stimulator; BTK, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase; CAR-T, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell; NMOSD, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders.

Efgartigimod is a novel human IgG1 antibody Fc fragment that binds to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), reducing pathogenic IgG antibodies and blocking their recycling. Two cases suggest that efgartigimod is effective as a rescue therapy for AQP4-IgG-seropositive NMOSD attacks.63,64 Currently, three clinical studies are recruiting participants to explore its efficacy.

CAR-T therapy is a transformative cell-based treatment. By genetically modifying the surface receptors of T cells, CAR-T cells can provide long-term B cell depletion. Qin et al. 65 were the first to report the successful use of CAR-T therapy in NMOSD. Currently, several preliminary studies are evaluating the safety and feasibility of CAR-T therapy for NMOSD.

Telitacicept is a novel fusion protein targeting B lymphocyte stimulator (BLyS) and a proliferation-inducing ligand (APRIL), thereby preventing their interaction with B cell ligands. 66 Ding et al. 67 reported the experience of successful treatment of NMOSD with telitacicept, despite their study included only eight NMOSD patients. A phase III trial investigating the efficacy and safety of telitacicept in NMOSD is ongoing.

Daratumumab, a CD38-directed monoclonal antibody, has demonstrated the ability to reduce autoantibody levels in conditions such as lupus, MG, and autoimmune encephalitis. 68 A study evaluating the efficacy of daratumumab in NMOSD is ongoing.

Zanubrutinib, a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, has shown potential in NMOSD treatment. Liu et al. 69 reported that upregulated BTK expression in the blood and CSF of NMOSD patients, and that zanubrutinib improved demyelination, edema, and axonal injury in mouse models of NMO. A study evaluating the efficacy and safety of zanubrutinib in NMOSD patients is currently recruiting participants.

BAT4406F is a glycosylated, optimized IgG1 subclass recombinant anti-CD20 fully human monoclonal antibody. 70 A phase I trial of BAT4406F for NMOSD has been completed, 71 and a phase II/III clinical trial is underway.

Stem cell therapy, traditionally employed to treat hematological malignancies, is gaining recognition for its potential in neuroimmune diseases. Burt et al. 72 reported that among 12 NMOSD patients who underwent stem cell transplantation, only 2 experienced relapses within 5 years. Stem cell therapy is emerging as a promising treatment, with several clinical studies currently in progress.

Ofatumumab, approved for relapsing-remitting MS in adults, has not been validated for NMOSD through RCTs, with evidence limited to case reports.73,74 Similarly, ocrelizumab, another CD20-targeting biologic, achieves B cell depletion levels comparable to RTX. Although not specifically tested in NMOSD, its theoretical potential warrants further investigation. 75

In addition to the therapies mentioned above, studies investigating novel anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, including B001, MIL62, and IMC-002, are also recruiting participants with AQP4-IgG-seropositive NMOSD (https://clinicaltrials.gov/; Table 4).

Summary and future directions

In recent years, advancements in understanding NMOSD pathogenesis have led to the development of emerging therapies that significantly improve patient outcomes. Despite these advances, several challenges remain. Long-term real-world data on the efficacy and safety of newly approved biologics are still lacking. Additionally, some refractory NMOSD patients continue to experience relapses even after switching to biologics with different mechanisms of action. The optimal therapeutic approaches for DN NMOSD patients remain unclear. Furthermore, the role of serum AQP4-IgG titers in predicting disease prognosis and recurrence is still debated. Future research may benefit from international, multicenter, and prospective study designs to provide more comprehensive evidence. We anticipate new therapies targeting other immune pathways, offering additional options to minimize permanent disability caused by NMOSD relapses.

Acknowledgments

None.

Footnotes

Contributor Information

Xiaolin Yang, Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.

Shaoru Zhang, Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.

Jinzhou Feng, Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No. 1 Youyi Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing 400016, China.

Xinyue Qin, Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, No. 1 Youyi Road, Yuzhong District, Chongqing 400016, China.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable.

Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Author contributions: Xiaolin Yang: Writing – original draft.

Shaoru Zhang: Conceptualization; Writing – original draft.

Jinzhou Feng: Conceptualization; Writing – review & editing.

Xinyue Qin: Conceptualization; Writing – review & editing.

Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Availability of data and materials: Not applicable.

References

  • 1. Wingerchuk DM, Lucchinetti CF. Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. N Engl J Med 2022; 387(7): 631–639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Asgari N, Lillevang ST, Skejoe HP, et al. A population-based study of neuromyelitis optica in Caucasians. Neurology 2011; 76: 1589–1595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Kashipazha D, Mohammadianinejad SE, Majdinasab N, et al. A descriptive study of prevalence, clinical features and other findings of neuromyelitis optica and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder in Khuzestan Province, Iran. Iran J Neurol 2015; 14: 204–210. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Jarius S, Paul F, Weinshenker BG, et al. Neuromyelitis optica. Nat Rev Dis Primer 2020; 6: 85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Jarius S, Wildemann B. Aquaporin-4 antibodies (NMO-IgG) as a serological marker of neuromyelitis optica: a critical review of the literature. Brain Pathol 2013; 23: 661–683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Wingerchuk DM, Banwell B, Bennett JL, et al. International consensus diagnostic criteria for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Neurology 2015; 85: 177–189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Höftberger R, Sabater L, Marignier R, et al. An optimized immunohistochemistry technique improves NMO-IgG detection: study comparison with cell-based assays. PLoS One 2013; 8: e79083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Hamid SHM, Whittam D, Mutch K, et al. What proportion of AQP4-IgG-negative NMO spectrum disorder patients are MOG-IgG positive? A cross sectional study of 132 patients. J Neurol 2017; 264(10): 2088–2094. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Mao Z, Lu Z, Hu X, et al. Distinction between MOG antibody-positive and AQP4 antibody-positive NMO spectrum disorders. Neurology 2014; 83(12): 1122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Sepúlveda M, Aldea M, Escudero D, et al. Epidemiology of NMOSD in Catalonia: influence of the new 2015 criteria in incidence and prevalence estimates. Mult Scler 2018; 24(14): 1843–1851. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Demuth S, Guillaume M, Bourre B, et al. Treatment regimens for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder attacks: a retrospective cohort study. J Neuroinflammation 2022; 19(1): 62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Lotan I, Levy M. New Treatment perspectives for acute relapses in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Transfus Med Rev 2022; 36: 230–232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Kümpfel T, Giglhuber K, Aktas O, et al. Update on the diagnosis and treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD)—revised recommendations of the Neuromyelitis Optica Study Group (NEMOS). Part II: Attack therapy and long-term management. J Neurol 2024; 271(1): 141–176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Zhao C, Li HZ, Zhao DD, et al. Increased circulating T follicular helper cells are inhibited by rituximab in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Front Neurol 2017; 8: 104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Saadoun S, Papadopoulos MC. Role of membrane complement regulators in neuromyelitis optica. Mult Scler 2015; 21(13): 1644–1654. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Vaishnav RA, Liu R, Chapman J, et al. Aquaporin 4 molecular mimicry and implications for neuromyelitis optica. J Neuroimmunol 2013; 260: 92–98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Cotzomi E, Stathopoulos P, Lee CS, et al. Early B cell tolerance defects in neuromyelitis optica favour anti-AQP4 autoantibody production. Brain 2019; 142(6): 1598–1615. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Wu Y, Zhong L, Geng J. Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: pathogenesis, treatment, and experimental models. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2019; 27: 412–418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Hinson SR, Roemer SF, Lucchinetti CF, et al. Aquaporin-4-binding autoantibodies in patients with neuromyelitis optica impair glutamate transport by down-regulating EAAT2. J Exp Med 2008; 205(11): 2473–2481. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. da Silva APB, Souza DG, Souza DO, et al. Role of glutamatergic excitotoxicity in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Front Cell Neurosci 2019; 13: 142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Fujihara K, Bennett JL, de Seze J, et al. Interleukin-6 in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder pathophysiology. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm 2020; 7(5): e841. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Contentti EC, Lopez PA, Pettinicchi JP, et al. Assessing attacks and treatment response rates among adult patients with NMOSD and MOGAD: data from a nationwide registry in Argentina. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin 2021; 7(3): 20552173211032334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Kleiter I, Gahlen A, Borisow N, et al. Neuromyelitis optica: evaluation of 871 attacks and 1,153 treatment courses. Ann Neurol 2016; 79: 206–216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Abboud H, Petrak A, Mealy M, et al. Treatment of acute relapses in neuromyelitis optica: steroids alone versus steroids plus plasma exchange. Mult Scler 2016; 22(2): 185–192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Kleiter I, Gold R. Present and future therapies in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Neurotherapeutics 2016; 13(1): 70–83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Kleiter I, Gahlen A, Borisow N, et al. Apheresis therapies for NMOSD attacks: a retrospective study of 207 therapeutic interventions. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm 2018; 5(6): e504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Lin J, Xue B, Zhu R, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin as the rescue treatment in NMOSD patients. Neurol Sci 2021; 42(9): 3857–3863. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Li X, Tian DC, Fan M, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin for acute attacks in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD). Mult Scler Relat Disord 2020; 44: 102325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Frampton JE. Inebilizumab: first approval. Drugs 2020; 80(12): 1259–1264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Tullman MJ, Zabeti A, Vuocolo S, et al. Inebilizumab for treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Neurodegener Dis Manag 2021; 11(5): 341–352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Cree BAC, Bennett JL, Kim HJ, et al. Inebilizumab for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (N-MOmentum): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled phase 2/3 trial. Lancet 2019; 394: 1352–1363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Rensel M, Zabeti A, Mealy MA, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of inebilizumab in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: analysis of aquaporin-4-immunoglobulin G-seropositive participants taking inebilizumab for ⩾4 years in the N-MOmentum trial. Mult Scler J 2022; 28: 925–932. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Cree BAC, Kim HJ, Weinshenker BG, et al. Safety and efficacy of inebilizumab for the treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: end-of-study results from the open-label period of the N-MOmentum trial. Lancet Neurol 2024; 23: 588–602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Plosker GL, Figgitt DP. Rituximab: a review of its use in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Drugs 2003; 63: 803–843. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Poupart J, Giovannelli J, Deschamps R, et al. Evaluation of efficacy and tolerability of first-line therapies in NMOSD. Neurology 2020; 94(15): e1645–e1656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Huang W, Wang L, Xia J, et al. Efficacy and safety of azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and reduced dose of rituximab in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Eur J Neurol 2022; 29: 2343–2354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Tahara M, Oeda T, Okada K, et al. Safety and efficacy of rituximab in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (RIN-1 study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 2020; 19: 298–306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Kessler RA, Mealy MA, Levy M. Treatment of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: acute, preventive, and symptomatic. Curr Treat Options Neurol 2016; 18(1): 2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Nelke C, Schroeter CB, Stascheit F, et al. Eculizumab treatment alters the proteometabolome beyond the inhibition of complement. JCI Insight 2023; 8: e169135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Pittock SJ, Berthele A, Fujihara K, et al. Eculizumab in aquaporin-4-positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. N Engl J Med 2019; 381(7): 614–625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Wingerchuk DM, Fujihara K, Palace J, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of eculizumab in aquaporin-4 IgG-positive NMOSD. Ann Neurol 2021; 89(6): 1088–1098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Ringelstein M, Asseyer S, Lindenblatt G, et al. Eculizumab use in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders: eculizumab use in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Neurology 2024; 103(9): e209888. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Baker CJ. Prevention of meningococcal infection in the United States: current recommendations and future considerations. J Adolesc Health 2016; 59: S29–S37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Rondeau E, Scully M, Ariceta G, et al. The long-acting C5 inhibitor, Ravulizumab, is effective and safe in adult patients with atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome naïve to complement inhibitor treatment. Kidney Int 2020; 97(6): 1287–1296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Pittock SJ, Barnett M, Bennett JL, et al. Ravulizumab in aquaporin-4-positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Ann Neurol 2023; 93: 1053–1068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Schett G. Physiological effects of modulating the interleukin-6 axis. Rheumatology 2018; 57: ii43–ii50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Yamamura T, Kleiter I, Fujihara K, et al. Trial of satralizumab in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. N Engl J Med 2019; 381(22): 2114–2124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Traboulsee A, Greenberg BM, Bennett JL, et al. Safety and efficacy of satralizumab monotherapy in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol 2020; 19: 402–412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Nakashima I, Nakahara J, Yasunaga H, et al. Real-world management of patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder using satralizumab: results from a Japanese claims database. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2024; 84: 105502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Kleiter I, Traboulsee A, Palace J, et al. Long-term efficacy of satralizumab in AQP4-IgG-seropositive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder from SAkuraSky and SAkuraStar. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm 2022; 10(1): e200071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Uzawa A, Mori M, Masuda H, et al. Interleukin-6 analysis of 572 consecutive CSF samples from neurological disorders: a special focus on neuromyelitis optica. Clin Chim Acta 2017; 469: 144–149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Yang S, Zhang C, Zhang TX, et al. A real-world study of interleukin-6 receptor blockade in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. J Neurol 2024; 270(1): 348–356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Zhang C, Zhang M, Qiu W, et al. Safety and efficacy of tocilizumab versus azathioprine in highly relapsing neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (TANGO): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol 2020; 19: 391–401. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Songwisit S, Kosiyakul P, Jitprapaikulsan J, et al. Efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil therapy in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2020; 10(1): 16727. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Wang L, Tan H, Huang W, et al. Low-dose tacrolimus in treating neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2021; 48: 102707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Wingerchuk DM, Zhang I, Kielhorn A, et al. Network meta-analysis of food and drug administration-approved treatment options for adults with aquaporin-4 immunoglobulin G-positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Neurol Ther 2022; 11(1): 123–135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Xue T, Yang Y, Lu Q, et al. Efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibody therapy in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders: evidence from randomized controlled trials. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2020; 43: 102166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Paul F, Marignier R, Palace J, et al. International Delphi consensus on the management of AQP4-IgG+ NMOSD: recommendations for eculizumab, inebilizumab, and satralizumab. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm 2023; 10(4): e200124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Papp V, Magyari M, Aktas O, et al. Worldwide incidence and prevalence of neuromyelitis optica. Neurology 2021; 96(2): 59–77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Kim KH, Chung YH, Min JH, et al. Immunosuppressive therapy in elderly patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: a retrospective multicentre study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2024; 95(12): 1168–1175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Mealy MA, Kim SH, Schmidt F, et al. Aquaporin-4 serostatus does not predict response to immunotherapy in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Mult Scler 2018; 24(13): 1737–1742. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Broome CM, McDonald V, Miyakawa Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of the neonatal Fc receptor inhibitor efgartigimod in adults with primary immune thrombocytopenia (ADVANCE IV): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2023; 402:1648–1659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Li Z, Xu Q, Huang J, et al. Efgartigimod as rescue treatment in acute phase of neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: a case report. Heliyon 2024; 10(9): e30421. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Huang SQ, Yuan ZH, Hong Y, et al. Successful treatment with efgartigimod as an add-on therapy in acute attack of anti-AQP4 antibody-positive NMOSD: a case report. Neurol Sci 2024; 45(11): 5511–5515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Qin C, Tian DS, Zhou LQ, et al. Anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy CT103A in relapsed or refractory AQP4-IgG seropositive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders: phase 1 trial interim results. Signal Transduct Target Ther 2023; 8(1): 5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Wu D, Li J, Xu D, et al. Telitacicept in patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus: results of a phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2024; 83(4): 475–487. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Ding J, Jiang X, Cai Y, et al. Telitacicept following plasma exchange in the treatment of subjects with recurrent neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders: a single-center, single-arm, open-label study. CNS Neurosci Ther 2022; 28(10): 1613–1623. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Holzer MT, Ruffer N, Huber TB, et al. Daratumumab for autoimmune diseases: a systematic review. RMD Open 2023; 9(4): e003604. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Liu Y, Huang Z, Zhang TX, et al. Bruton’s tyrosine kinase-bearing B cells and microglia in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. J Neuroinflammation 2023; 20(1): 309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Carnero Contentti E, Correale J. Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders: from pathophysiology to therapeutic strategies. J Neuroinflammation 2021; 18(1): 208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Yu H, Chen Y, Qi Y, et al. First-in-human study of BAT4406F, an ADCC-enhanced fully humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. CNS Neurosci Ther 2024; 30(11): e70126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Burt RK, Balabanov R, Han X, et al. Autologous nonmyeloablative hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for neuromyelitis optica. Neurology 2019; 93(18): e1732–e1741. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Zhang W, Jiao Y, Jiao J, et al. Successful treatment of rituximab-unresponsive elderly-onset neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and hypogammaglobulinemia with ofatumumab plus intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in a patient with mutant FCGR3A genotype: a case report. Front Immunol 2022; 13: 1047992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Maillart E, Renaldo F, Papeix C, et al. Dramatic efficacy of ofatumumab in refractory pediatric-onset AQP4-IgG neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm 2020; 7(3): e683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. AbdelRazek MA, Casasola M, Mollashahi R, et al. Extended B-cell depletion beyond 6-months in patients receiving ocrelizumab or rituximab for CNS demyelinating disease. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2022; 59: 103505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Therapeutic Advances in Neurological Disorders are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES