Skip to main content
Croatian Medical Journal logoLink to Croatian Medical Journal
. 2019 Apr;60(2):87–98. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2019.60.87

Therapies for multiple sclerosis targeting B cells

Ron Milo 1,2
PMCID: PMC6509632  PMID: 31044580

Abstract

Increasing evidence suggests that B cells contribute both to the regulation of normal autoimmunity and to the pathogenesis of immune mediated diseases, including multiple sclerosis (MS). B cells in MS are skewed toward a pro-inflammatory profile, and contribute to MS pathogenesis by antibody production, antigen presentation, T cells stimulation and activation, driving autoproliferation of brain-homing autoreactive CD4+ T cells, production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, and formation of ectopic meningeal germinal centers that drive cortical pathology and contribute to neurological disability. The recent interest in the key role of B cells in MS has been evoked by the profound anti-inflammatory effects of rituximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting the B cell surface marker CD20, observed in relapsing-remitting MS. This has been reaffirmed by clinical trials with less immunogenic and more potent B cell-depleting mAbs targeting CD20 – ocrelizumab, ofatumumab and ublituximab. Ocrelizumab is also the first disease-modifying drug that has shown efficacy in primary-progressive MS, and is currently approved for both indications. Another promising approach is the inhibition of Bruton's tyrosine kinase, a key enzyme that mediates B cell activation and survival, by agents such as evobrutinib. On the other hand, targeting B cell cytokines with the fusion protein atacicept increased MS activity, highlighting the complex and not fully understood role of B cells and humoral immunity in MS. Finally, all other approved therapies for MS, some of which have been designed to target T cells, have some effects on the frequency, phenotype, or homing of B cells, which may contribute to their therapeutic activity.


Traditionally, multiple sclerosis (MS) has been considered an autoimmune disease of the central nervous system (CNS) mediated by CD4+ T cells reactive to myelin antigens (1). This theory is supported by data from animal models (2), the association of MS with certain human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles that are critical for T cell activation (3), genome-wide association studies (4), and immune alterations in individuals with MS (5). The role of B cells in MS has long been ignored, despite evidence for the presence of elevated antibodies in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of MS patients (6), the discovery of oligoclonal bands (OCBs) in the CSF, which indicate local production of immunoglobulins by oligoclonal B cells in the CNS (7), and the presence of B cells and plasma cells expressing hypermutated immunoglobulins in MS lesions (8). The surprising anti-inflammatory effect exerted by rituximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting CD20 (a B cell marker) in patients with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) shed light on the key contribution of B cells to neuroinflammation (9). Recent advances in flow cytometry and DNA-sequencing methods have made it possible to analyze B cells in the CNS and to unveil their central role in the MS pathogenesis.

ROLE OF B CELLS IN MS

T cells are traditionally viewed as playing a key role in the immune pathogenesis of MS, where imbalance between CNS-reactive effector T cells of the helper-1 (Th1) and Th17 type and regulatory T cells (Treg) underlies autoimmunity directed at the CNS (10). According to this view, myeloid cells, either pro-inflammatory M1 macrophages (secreting interleukin [IL]-12, IL-23, IL-6, and IL-1β) or anti-inflammatory M2 macrophages (secreting IL-10), shape T cell response, while their own responses may be shaped by differentiated T cells. In this scenario, B cells were considered to be a relatively homogenous and passive population, awaiting the help of T cells to differentiate into plasmablasts and plasma cells that contribute to MS pathophysiology by producing CNS-autoreactive antibodies. Recent research, however, has led to an emerging view of a broader and more central role of B cells in MS, which is mainly antibody-independent. B cells can have several phenotypes according to their cytokine profile and manifest as either pro-inflammatory effector B cells (secreting TNF-α, lymphotoxin-β [LT-β], interferon γ [IFN-γ], IL-6, IL-15, and granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor [GM-CSF]) or anti-inflammatory regulatory B cells (Breg, secreting IL-10, transforming growth factor-β [TGF-β], and IL-35), which either activate or down-regulate the responses of both T-cells and myeloid cells. Thus, complex bidirectional interactions among functionally distinct populations of T cells, B cells, and myeloid cells, some of which may be over-active or hypo-functional in MS, underlie and shape CNS-directed autoimmunity (11).

Peripheral mature B cells can cross the blood-brain-barrier (BBB) into the CNS via parenchymal vessels into the perivascular space and via post-capillary venules into the subarachnoid and Virchow-Robin spaces. They can also cross the blood-cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) barrier via the choroid plexus into the CSF, and via the blood-leptomeningeal interphase (12). In the CNS, a restricted number of expanded clones of B cells and plasma cells produce immunoglobulins and form oligoclonal bands (OCBs) observed in most MS patients (13). These clones tend to persist within the CNS and can be shared among different CNS compartments and the periphery, suggesting bidirectional trafficking of distinct B cell clones between the CNS and the periphery (11). Thus, B cells can dynamically traffic into and out of the CNS via the recently-discovered functional lymphatic vessels that are lining the dural sinuses, can potentially carry, process, and present CNS antigens in the deep cervical lymph nodes, make their way back into the CNS via the thoracic duct, systemic circulation, and the various brain barriers, infiltrate the brain parenchyma, populate ectopic lymphoid follicles, and trigger another bout of CNS-targeted inflammation (12).

B cells can contribute to MS pathogenesis by several ways, including antibody production, antigen presentation and activation of T cells, cytokine production, and formation of ectopic germinal centers.

Antibody production

OCBs of the IgG type are present in most patients with MS, and OCBs of the IgM type are present in 30%-40% of patients. These OCBs are made up by plasma cells generated from a restricted numbers of B cell clones that persist within the CNS of the same individual and are shared by different CNS compartments and the periphery, but differ among individual patients (11,13). The antibodies that make up these OCBs primarily recognize ubiquitous intracellular proteins but not specific antigens that are shared across MS patients, suggesting a humoral response to debris from dead-cells rather than a primary pathogenic response (14). Antibodies to myelin antigens or to the potassium channel KIR4.1 found in MS patients do not seem to have any pathogenic role (15,16). Moreover, the rapid decrease in clinical and MRI disease activity after B cell depletion (9) is unlikely to result from the removal of any pathogenic antibodies, which have relatively long half-life. Taken together, these data suggest no major pathogenic role for antibodies produced by B cells and plasma cells in MS. On the other hand, anti-myelin/oligodendrocyte glycoprotein antibodies have been shown to contribute to demyelination in the experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE) model (17), and demyelinating MS lesions contain immunoglobulins and activated complement, which may suggest antibody-mediated damage at least in some patients (18).

Antigen presentation

B cells express high levels of major histocompatibility complex molecules on their surface, which present short linear epitopes to T cells. They also express membrane-bound antigen-specific immunoglobulins, which correspond to the soluble immunoglobulins they secrete after developing into plasma cells or plasmablasts. These B cell receptors (BCRs) can recognize and bind three-dimensional conformational epitopes. Cognate antigen presentation by resting B cells promotes T-cell tolerance, while B cells activated by antigen and T cells become antigen presenting cells (APC) capable of promoting immune responses (19). Thus, B cells are highly efficient APC, particularly when they recognize the same antigen as T cells, and appear to be the main source of APCs when antigen levels are low.

Another mechanism for B cells to create and maintain pathogenic T cell repertoire is autoproliferation (which refers to the activation and growth of myelin-specific T cells by APC in the absence of exogenous nominal antigen), which was found to be increased in MS patients. Autoproliferation in MS patients carrying the HLA-DR15 haplotype was found to be driven by memory B cells in a HLA-DR-dependent manner and reduced by B cell depletion with anti-CD20 (20). Furthermore, the autoproliferating T cells were enriched for brain-homing, probably pathogenic T cells, and a target autoantigen, RASGRP2, was found to be expressed in both the brain and B cells (20).

Cytokine production

Patients with MS show aberrant B cell cytokine response to stimuli and produce abnormally high amounts of pro-inflammatory cytokines (eg, IFN-γ, TNF-α, LT-α, IL-6, and GM-CSF), which may activate T cells and myeloid cells and contribute to the disease process (21). TNF-α secreted by B cells can also stimulate the secretion of the cytokine B cell activating factor (BAFF) by astrocytes, the expression of which is increased in MS lesions, thus enhancing B cell dependent autoimmunity. B cell depletion with anti CD20 mAbs abrogates B -cell inflammatory responses and decreases inflammatory responses of both T cells and myeloid cells, highlighting the close interactions between the three cell types and the contribution of cytokines secreted by pro-inflammatory B cells to MS pathogenesis, independent of their antibody-production function (11). B cells can also down-regulate immune responses and limit CNS inflammation through the secretion of anti-inflammatory cytokines (eg, IL-10, TGF-β, and IL-35) by Breg, which were found to be defective in MS (22). Overall, B cells in MS are skewed toward a pro-inflammatory cytokine profile, which can drive T cells and myeloid cells and enhance pathogenic immune responses.

Formation of ectopic germinal centers

B cells that have been attracted to the brain of MS patients under stimuli such as CXCl13, with the appropriate help from T cells, can proliferate, aggregate, and generate meningeal inflammation and eventually ectopic immunocompetent germinal center-like structures, called also tertiary lymphoid organs, which are associated with more severe cortical pathology and more aggressive disease course (23). These B cell-rich ectopic lymphoid structures, which were described in secondary-progressive (SP) MS (23), RRMS (24), and active primary-progressive MS (PPMS) (25), can serve as a reservoir of memory-B cells and autoreactive plasmablasts and plasma cells, perpetuating autoimmune disease. In addition, they can secrete soluble factors that were shown to be cytotoxic to both oligodendrocytes (26) and neurons (27).

MS THERAPIES TARGETING B CELLS

The most effective and studied therapies targeting B cells include mAbs that deplete B cells through mechanisms of antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC), and antibody-triggered apoptosis. Other strategies include the targeting of B cell cytokines or their receptors and inhibition of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (Table 1). In addition, all other MS therapies have been found to exert suppressive or immunomodulatory effects on B cells (Table 2).

Table 1.

Main clinical trials with B cell-directed therapies*

Trial Drug name, mode of action Route Phase Type of MS No. of patients Design Main clinical outcomes Main MRI outcomes Main adverse events
HERMES
 (36)
rituximab, anti-CD20 chimeric IgG mAb
IV
2
RR
104
DB, PC, 48- week
↓ARR
(week 24, 14.5% vs 34.3%, P = 0.02; week 48, 20.3% vs 40.0%, P = 0.04)
↓Total Gd + lesions (P < 0.001)
↓Total new gadolinium-enhancing lesions (P < 0.001)
↓Lesion volume on T2WI
IAR – 40% vs 20%
Infections – 70% in both groups
OLYMPUS
 (37)
rituximab
IV
2/3
PP
439
DB, PC, 96- week
No difference in 12 week CDP; Delayed time to CDP in patients aged <51, those with Gd + lesions at baseline, or both
↓Increase in T2 lesion burden
No difference in brain volume change
IAR (mild to moderate)
Infections
OPERA I+II
 (40)
ocrelizumab, anti-CD20 humanized IgG1 mAb
IV
3
RR
1656
DB, DD, comparator-controlled (SC IFNβ-1a), 96-week
↓ARR by 46% and 47% (P < 0.001)
↓40% in 12 week CDP (P < 0.001) and 24 week CDP (P = 0.003)
NEDA – 48% for OCR-treated patients over 2 years; 72% (weeks 24-96)
↓Mean number of Gd + lesions (94% and 95%).
↓Total mean number of new or newly enlarging T2 lesions (77.3% and 82.6%)
IAR – 34% vs 9.7 (mild to moderate);
Infections – 56.8% (OCR), 53.4% (IFNβ-1a);
Serious infections – 2.9% (IFNβ-1a), 1.3% (OCR);
Neoplasms – 0.5% (OCR) 0.2% (IFNβ-1a)
ORATORIO
 (44)
ocrelizumab
IV
3
PP
732
DB, PC (2:1), 120- week
↓12 week CDP (32.9% vs 39.3%, P = 0.03);
↓24 week CDP (29.6% vs 35.7%, P = 0.04);
NEPAD – 3 fold OCR vs placebo
↓Total volume of hyperintense T2 lesions (-3.4 vs 7.4, P < 0.001);
↓Adjusted mean number of new or enlarging hyperintense T2 lesions (0.31 vs 3.88, P < 0.001);
↓Mean percentage change in brain volume (-0.90 vs -1.09, P = 0.002)
IAR – 40% (mild to moderate);
Infections – 71.4% (OCR), 69.9% (placebo).
Serious infections – 6.2% (OCR), 5.9% (placebo);
Neoplasms – 2.3% (OCR), 0.8% (placebo).
MIRROR
 (49)
ofatumumab, anti-CD20 fully human IgG1 mAb
SC
2
RR
232
DB, PC, 48-week
↓ARR
No difference in disability outcomes
↓Mean rate of cumulative new Gd + lesions (65% for all doses between weeks 0-12, P < 0.01)
Injection-related reactions – 97% (mild to moderate)
(51)
ublituximab, anti-CD20 glycoengineered chimeric IgG1mAb
IV
2
RR
48
DB, PC, 48-week
ARR – 0.07;
Relapse-free – 93%
CDP at week 24 – 7%
CDI at week 24 – 17%
NEDA – 74%
↓100% of Gd + lesions
↓10% in mean T2 lesion volume
IAR (mild to moderate)
(68)
inebilizumab (MEDI-551), anti-CD19 glycoengineered humanized IgG1κ mAb
IV or SC
1
RR
28
PC, 24-week, dose-escalation

↓New Gd + and new or newly enlarging T2 MRI lesions
IAR – 40% of patients on inebilizumab or placebo; Injection site reactions – 17%;
Infections
ATAMS
 (58)
atacicept (TACI-Ig), fusion protein (TACI receptor and Fc domain of human IgG1)
SC
2
RR
255
DB, PC, 36-week
↑ARR in all 3 atacicept groups;
Trial prematurely terminated
Similar mean numbers of Gd+ T1 lesions per scan in all groups
Injection site reactions
More SAE in the atacicept groups
ATON
 (59)
atacicept
SC
2
ON
34
DB, PC, 36-week
More atacicept-treated patients converted to clinically-definite RRMS (35.2%) than placebo-treated patients (17.6%) despite having less retinal axonal loss
NA
Injection site reactions
No SAE
(64) evobrutinib, BTK inhibitor oral 2 RR 267 DB, PC, 36-week A trend toward a reduction in ARR ↓T1 Gd + lesions Liver enzymes (asymptomatic)

*ADCC – antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity; ARR – annualized relapse rate; BCR – B cell receptor; BTK – Bruton's tyrosine kinase; CDC – complement-dependent cytotoxicity; CDI – confirmed disability improvement; CDP – confirmed disability progression; DB – double-blind; DD – double dummy; Gd – gadolinium; IAR – infusion-associated reactions; IFN – interferon; IV – intravenous; mAb – monoclonal antibody; MS – multiple sclerosis; NA – not available; NEDA – no evidence of disease activity; NEPAD – no evidence of progression or active disease; OCR – ocrelizumab; ON – optic neuritis; PC – placebo-controlled; PP – primary-progressive; RR – relapsing-remitting; SAE – serious adverse events; SC – subcutaneous; T2WI – T2 weighted images; TACI – transmembrane activator and calcium modulator and cyclophilin ligand interactor.

Table 2.

Effects of other approved disease modifying therapies on B cells*

Drug name Target/mode of action Effect on B cells (11,32,57,65-67)
Interferon-β
Immunomodulatory effects on various immune cells and molecules
↓mB cells, nB cells expressing CD86 and CCR5
↑IL-10 producing Breg, TGF-β
Glatiramer acetate (GA)
Immunomodulation: generation of GA-specific Th2 cells, inhibition of myelin-specific Th1 cells, modulation of myeloid cells
↓mB cells, CXCR5and ICAM-3 in B cells; ↓IL-6, LT-α, and TNF-α
↑IL-10 producing Breg
Mitoxantrone
Topoisomerase II inhibitor,
suppression of immune cell proliferation
↓B cells, ↓mB cells, ↓TNF-α and LT-α, ↑IL-10
Natalizumab
Anti-VLA-4, prevention of leukocyte trans-migration into the CNS
Blood: ↓nB cells, ↑Breg cells, mB cells
CSF: ↓B cells, immunoglobulins, OCBs
Fingolimod
S1P-R modulator, prevention of lymphocyte egress from lymph nodes
Blood: ↓nB cells, mB cells
CSF: Minor decrease only in the number of B cells, ↑Breg
Abrogation of B cell aggregate formation in the CNS (EAE)
Teriflunomide
Inhibition of DHODH and de-novo pyrimidine synthesis
↓B cells proliferation and activation, ↓B cells in blood, ↓IL-6, IL-8
Dimethyl fumarate
Activation of NRF2 pathway, inhibition of NFκB pathway
↓mB cells, ↓GM-CSF, IL-6, TNFα, ↑Breg
Cladribine
Impairment of DNA synthesis, lymphocyte apoptosis.
Depletion phase: ↓B cells in blood
Reconstitution phase: ↓mB cells
Alemtuzumab Anti-CD52, lymphocyte depletion Depletion phase: ↓B cells
Reconstitution phase: ↑B cells (tB cells, nB cells, Breg)

*Breg – regulatory B cells; CCR5 – C-C chemokine receptor 5; CNS – central nervous system; CSF – cerebrospinal fluid; CXCR – CXC chemokine receptor; DHODH – dihydroorotate dehydrogenase; EAE – experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis; GM-CSF – granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor; ICAM-3 – intracellular adhesion molecule-3; IL – interleukin; mB cells – memory-B cells; nB cells – naive B cells; NRF2 – nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2; NF-κB – nuclear factor kappa light chain enhancer of activated B cells; OCB – oligoclonal bands; S1P-R – sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor; tB cells – transitional B cells; TGF-β – transforming growth factor beta; TNF-α –tumor necrosis factor alpha; VLA-4 – very late antigen 4.

Anti CD20 mAbs

CD20 is a transmembrane ion channel protein expressed on the surface of pre-, immature-, mature-, and memory-B cells, and to a lesser extent – on early plasmablasts, but not on stem cells, pro-B cells, late plasmablasts, or plasma cells (28). Anti-CD20 therapies rapidly and almost completely deplete circulating CD20+ B cells, but limitedly penetrate lymphoid organs. B cell reconstitution from stem cells and pro-B cells in the bone marrow, and preexisting humoral immunity and antibody production from late plasmablasts and plasma cells, are largely preserved. Although anti-CD20 mAbs almost do not cross the BBB, they eliminate B cells in the CSF without a detectable effect on the IgG index or oligoclonal bands (29). About 5%-7% of the total mature circulating T cells also express CD20 and can be depleted by anti-CD20 mAbs but do not appear to have a particular role in MS disease activity. Following depletion, mainly naive and immature B cells are reconstituted, while memory-B cells are suppressed and remain low for at least 1-2 years, pro-inflammatory cytokines (GM-CSF, TNF-α, LT- α) decrease, and B regulatory cells producing anti-inflammatory cytokines increase (30-32). Anti-CD20 treatment also alters T cell function and markedly reduces the proliferation and pro-inflammatory cytokine production of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells (33), while increasing regulatory T cells (34). These quantitative and qualitative changes in both cellular and humoral arms of the adaptive immune system clearly form the basis for the therapeutic efficacy of anti-CD20 mAbs in MS.

Four anti-CD20 mAbs have been studied in MS so far: rituximab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, and ublituximab, which differ from each other not only by their structure and immunogenicity (chimeric, humanized, fully human, or glycoengineered, respectively), but also by the relative degree of ADCC and CDC they exert and the CD20 epitope they recognize (Table 1).

Rituximab. Rituximab is a chimeric IgG1 mAb, depleting B cells primarily through CDC. It was first studied in a small open-label, phase-I, multicenter clinical trial of 26 RRMS patients treated with two courses of rituximab 24 weeks apart. After 18 months, relapses were reduced by more than 80%, and fewer new MRI gadolinium-enhancing (Gd+) or T2 lesions were observed (35).

In the phase-II HERMES trial, 104 patients with RRMS were randomized (2:1) to receive either a single course of intravenous (IV) rituximab or placebo on days 1 and 15. Rituximab reduced newly MRI Gd + lesions by more than 90%, which was sustained at 48 weeks, and reduced relapse rate by more than 50% (36).

In the OLYMPUS phase II/III study, 439 patients with PPMS were randomized 2:1 to receive either 4 courses of two 1000-mg intravenous rituximab or placebo infusions every 24 weeks. Although the primary endpoint, time to confirmed disability progression (CDP) sustained for 12 weeks was not met, patients treated with rituximab had less increase in T2 volume load on MRI (P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that time to 12 week CDP was delayed in patients aged <51 and/or patients with Gd + lesions in the rituximab group compared with placebo, suggesting a beneficial effect of B cell depletion in younger PPMS patients with inflammatory activity (37).

The lack of efficacy of rituximab in PPMS may be attributed to the very low concentrations in the CSF achieved after IV administration, insufficient to affect the compartmentalized CNS inflammation, which arguably drives progressive MS. Thus, the effect of double-blind combination of rituximab by IV and intra-thecal (IT) injection vs placebo was tested in the RIVITALISE study (38). Although IT rituximab nearly completely depleted B cells in the CSF, this effect lasted only 3 months, B cells in CNS tissue were inadequately depleted, T cells were not depleted, and neurofilament light chain (a marker for axonal damage) did not change. Lower CSF rituximab concentrations with insufficient saturation of CD20, partial ADCC killing, lack of lytic complement with poor CDC, and paucity of cytotoxic CD56(dim) natural-killer (NK) cells contributed to decreased efficacy of rituximab in the CNS (38). This trial was ultimately halted but provided more evidence for the difficulty of targeting the inflammatory process in the CNS and meninges.

The development of rituximab for MS has never been completed for a variety of reasons, and attention has been shifted to less immunogenic and potentially more potent, humanized and fully human anti CD20 mAbs. Nevertheless, rituximab is still used off-label (39).

Ocrelizumab. Ocrelizumab is a humanized IgG1 mAb that depletes B cells primarily through enhanced ADCC activity due to the higher affinity of its humanized Fc region for the FcγRIIIa receptors present on NK cells and macrophages. Ocrelizumab was tested in two identical phase III clinical trials (OPERA I and II) using a dosage of 600 mg (300 mg given twice over 2 weeks with subsequent re-dosing given as a single 600 mg dose every 6 months) (40). It reduced annualized relapse rate (ARR) by 46% and 47%, respectively, compared with IFN-β-1a 44 μg administered three times weekly. Pooled analyses showed a reduction of 40% in the percentage of patients with CDP at 12 weeks and 24 weeks. Moreover, more patients in the ocrelizumab group showed confirmed disability improvement (CDI) than in the IFNβ-1a group. Ocrelizumab reduced the total mean number of Gd + lesions by 94%-95%, the number of new or enlarging T2 lesions by 77%-83%, and significantly reduced the rate of brain volume loss. No evidence of disease activity (NEDA, defined as no clinical relapse, no 12-week confirmed disability progression, and no radiological activity) was achieved by 48% of ocrelizumab-treated patients over 2 years (40) and by 72% for weeks 24-96 (41).

In the open-label extension study of the OPERA trials, the beneficial effects of ocrelizumab on all outcome measures were sustained in patients continuing ocrelizumab, and patients who switched from IFNβ-1a to ocrelizumab had rapid and robust reductions in ARR and MRI disease activity. Fewer patients who initiated ocrelizumab treatment earlier than those who switched to ocrelizumab later had disease progression, highlighting the importance of early effective treatment in reducing disability progression (42,43).

In contrast to rituximab, the ORATORIO trial showed a significant reduction in disability progression in patients with PPMS treated with ocrelizumab (44). In this trial, 732 patients with PPMS were randomized 2:1 to receive either IV ocrelizumab 300 mg given 2 weeks apart or IV placebo every 24 weeks for at least 120 weeks. There were 24%, 25%, and 29.3% reductions in the 12 week CDP, 24 week CDP, and worsening in the timed 25-ft walk, respectively, in ocrelizumab-treated patients. Ocrelizumab also decreased the number and volume of MRI lesions and brain volume loss (44).

Although the effect of ocrelizumab in PPMS was only modest, it was sustained, and patients in the extension study initiating ocrelizumab between 3-5 years earlier had significant and sustained reductions in disability progression compared with patients switching from placebo after 144-240 weeks (45). In post-hoc analyses, ocrelizumab increased 3-fold the proportion of PPMS patients achieving a novel combined measure of NEPAD (no evidence of progression or active disease), defined by the absence of both progression and inflammatory disease activity, which may represent a measure of disease control that is sensitive and meaningful in patients with PPMS (46). Ocrelizumab also reduced the progression of upper limb disability in more disabled or older patients, a finding that set the stage for a larger ORATORIO-HAND study, which is intended to further investigate the efficacy of ocrelizumab in improving upper limb function (47).

Ofatumumab. Ofatumumab is a fully human IgG1 mAb that binds a completely distinct epitope from that of rituximab or ocrelizumab. It dissociates more slowly from the CD20 antigen, and exhibits pronounced CDC activity, relatively decreased ADCC, and a low immunogenic risk profile. An initial small trial in RRMS showed profound B cell depletion and suppression of inflammatory disease activity by all three doses of ofatumumab administrated intravenously (48). After the development of a subcutaneous formulation of ofatumumab, the MIRROR trial was conducted. In this phase-II trial, 232 patients with RRMS were randomized to subcutaneous ofatumumab 3, 30, or 60 mg every 12 weeks, ofatumumab 60 mg every 4 weeks for 24 weeks, or placebo followed by ofatumumab 3 mg at week 12 (49). New Gd + lesions were reduced by 65% at all doses, and dose-dependent B cell depletion and reconstitution were observed, indicating that complete depletion was not necessary for a robust treatment effect. The subcutaneous administration of ofatumumab may have the advantages of more convenient self-administration of the treatment at home, but compliance may not be well-controlled and monitored by the treating physician as with IV administration. Two identical phase-III clinical trials in RRMS (ASCLEPIOS I+II) are currently in progress.

Ublituximab. Ublituximab is a novel chimeric glycoengineered IgG1 that binds a unique epitope on CD20 and demonstrates increased binding capacity to CD20. It also demonstrates enhanced target cell killing due to defucosylation of its Fc region, which increases the affinity for FcγRIIIa, resulting in more efficient immune effector cell engagement and enhanced target cell killing through ADCC (50). Ublituximab was recently tested in a phase-II, 48-week, placebo-controlled study, which was designed to assess its optimal dose and infusion time in 48 patients with relapsing forms of MS (51). Median B cell depletion was >99% in all patient cohorts. Gd + lesions were reduced to zero; mean T2 lesion volume decreased by 7.3% and 10.6% at week 24 and 48, respectively; 7% of participants had 24-week CDP, 17% met the criteria for 24 week CDI, and 74% met the criteria for NEDA. A rapid one-hour infusion time of 450 mg ublituximab was well tolerated and produced high levels of B cell depletion (51). This regimen is now being studied in two identical phase-III ULTIMATE trials.

Adverse effects of B cell depletion

The most common side effects of infused anti-CD20 mAbs are infusion reactions, mostly of mild to moderate severity (36,37,40,44,51). These reactions, the result of B cell lysis with massive cytokine release, present most often with the initial dose, tend to decrease with subsequent doses, and can be mitigated by pretreatment with steroids, antihistamines, and acetaminophen.

The risk of infection is an important consideration with profound B cell depletion. Infections were reported in 57%-60% of ocrelizumab-treated RRMS patients compared with 53%-54% of IFNβ-1a patients, with no difference in serious infections (40), and in 71% of ocrelizumab-treated PPMS patients compared with 70% in the placebo group (44). Patients are recommended to be pre-screened for tuberculosis, hepatitis B and C, and HIV, which are of particular concern with B cell depletion, and should not receive live vaccines during B cell depletion therapies.

Several cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) have been described in MS patients treated with ocrelizumab, all carried-over from previous natalizumab or fingolimod treatment (52). In rheumatoid arthritis, where rituximab is administered as an add-on therapy, generally with steroids and other immunosuppressants, the risk of PML is estimated at 1:25 000 (53). However, no PML has been described in rituximab-treated MS patients (39) or ocrelizumab-treated patients in clinical trials (40,44).

In the ocrelizumab phase-III trials, an imbalance in the incidence of malignancies was observed. Neoplasms occurred in 0.5% and 2.3% of ocrelizumab-treated patients, compared with 0.2% and 0.8% of IFN and placebo patients, in the OPERA (40) and ORATORIO (44) trials, respectively, with the most frequent malignancy being breast cancer. On the other hand, the trend of increased malignancy, including breast cancer, has fallen in open-label extension studies, and ocrelizumab-treated patients showed no higher incidence of malignancies compared with large cohorts and registries of MS patients (54). Further long-term studies are needed to determine the risk of malignancy with B cell depletion.

Cytokine antagonists

The main regulatory cytokines of B cell survival, maturation, and activation are BAFF and APRIL (A ProlifeRation Inducing Ligand) (55), which are elevated in patients with MS (56). These molecules are capable of binding 3 separate receptors on B cells with different affinities: BAFF-R, transmembrane activator and calcium modulator and cyclophilin ligand interactor (TACI), and B cell maturation antigen (BCMA), the expression of which may vary depending on the context (55).

Several recombinant antibodies and fusion proteins targeting components of the BAFF/APRIL system have been developed, however, none have progressed past phase-II trials (57). Of particular interest is atacicept (TACI-Ig), a fusion protein comprised of the extracellular domain of the naturally occurring TACI receptor and the Fc domain of human IgG. Atacicept binds the cytokines BAFF and APRIL, thereby preventing their interaction with surface receptors on B cells. Two phase-II clinical trials with atacicept – the ATAMS study in 255 patients with relapsing MS (58) and the ATON study in 34 patients (initially planned for 80) with unilateral optic neuritis (59) have been prematurely terminated due to increased disease activity in the atacicept treatment group in ATAMS and twice as many atacicept-treated patients converting to clinically definite MS in ATON, compared with placebo. Relapse-rates normalized to those of placebo-treated patients, and B cells and immunoglobulin recovered to reference levels after atacicept cessation (58). The differential effects of anti-CD20 mAbs and atacicept in MS may be explained by the fact that anti-CD20 mAbs have a broader depleting pattern, while atacicept has a significant impact on Breg without sufficiently depleting pathogenic B cell sub-sets, or it reduces serum immunoglobulins and disrupts non-specific Fc receptor blockade, which could have a therapeutic benefit. In addition, receptors for BAFF and APRIL also expressed on some T cells and regulatory cells were found to have more pleiotropic roles, which may include protective pathways that may be disrupted by their blockade. There is also evidence that suggests that APRIL is a negative regulator of autoimmunity and that atacicept preferentially targets naive B cells, plasmablasts, and plasma cells but has a lesser effect on memory-B cells, which are the relevant disease-promoting subset, resulting in a relative increase in memory-B cells after depletion of soluble BAFF and APRIL (57,60). Overall, the experience with atacicept suggests that the roles of B cells and humoral immunity in MS are complex and not fully understood, therefore calling for caution when testing new agents.

Inhibition of Bruton's tyrosine kinase

Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) is a key cytoplasmic enzyme that mediates B cell signaling via a variety of cell surface molecules, including BCR, resulting in multiple downstream immune effects (61). Administration of BTK inhibitors leads to B cell inhibition, which is rapidly reversible upon treatment cessation, and to suppression of EAE disease activity (62). Evobrutinib is a highly specific, irreversible, oral BTK inhibitor, which was also shown to inhibit M1 macrophage and cytokine release, and promote M2 polarization of human monocytes in vitro (63). In a recently-completed phase-II trial, patients with RRMS or SPMS treated with evobrutinib showed reduced number of Gd + lesions on MRI scans and a clinically-relevant trend toward a reduction in ARR (64). Treatment was well-tolerated, and the main adverse events were asymptomatic, reversible transaminase and lipase elevations (64). The dual mechanism of action of evobrutinib, which targets pathogenic adaptive and innate immunity, and its favorable benefit-risk profile, support its further clinical development.

The effects of other approved MS therapies on B cells

The complex, multi-player immune pathogenesis of MS, which provides multiple sites for therapeutic intervention on one hand, and the various mechanisms by which B cells contribute to the pathogenesis of MS along with the success of anti-CD20 therapies in MS, on the other hand, propelled studies on the effects of other MS drugs on B cells. Indeed, essentially all other approved therapies for MS, some of which have been designed to target T cells, were found to have some effects on the frequency, phenotype, trafficking, function, or responses of B cells, which may contribute to their therapeutic activity (11,32,57,65-67) (Table 2).

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Despite the therapeutic success of B cell depletion in MS, several important questions and challenges still exist. It is not completely understood why some patients do not respond adequately to B cell depletion therapies, and which MS patients will benefit best from B cell-directed therapies. While anti-CD20 mAbs deplete mainly circulating B cells, it is unclear whether B cells should be depleted also from the CNS or other compartments (eg, bone marrow or lymphatic tissue). The long-term safety of prolonged B cell depletion and the duration of depletion of peripheral B cells are still unknown. Maintenance therapies that would prevent re-emergence of pathogenic B cells after cessation of anti-B cell therapies or divert them toward a regulatory profile should be developed. Some researchers believe that there is no need for using more than one anti-CD20 mAb in MS; however, the selection between several anti-CD20 mAbs with different ADCC or CDC activities (eg, for patients who may respond better to CDC-mediated depletion because of polymorphisms in the Fc receptor regions that may reduce the binding of the depleting Ab to its receptor on effector immune cells and decrease ADCC), routes, or speed of administration may be useful in personalizing treatment for a wider range of patients exhibiting different needs and disease characteristics. Using mAbs to CD19, such as inebilizumab (MEDI-551), which targets also pro-B cells, plasmablasts, and plasma cells may provide more complete and prolonged B cell depletion (68). However, it is still unclear whether depleting broader range of B cells entails greater clinical benefits or more potentially serious adverse events, which result from negatively affecting B cell reconstitution due to the elimination of earlier stages in the bone marrow or reducing humoral immunity by elimination of antibody-producing cells. Additional approaches with a potential to target B cells that have not yet been explored as MS treatments or have not progressed past phase-II clinical trials include the use of other B cell-targeting mAbs such as epratuzumab (anti-CD22, a negative regulator of BCR-derived activation signals), daratumumab (anti-CD38 that depletes plasmablasts and some plasma cells), LTbR-IgG (anti-lymphotoxin beta receptor that would reduce the formation of ectopic germinal centers), NNC114-0005 (anti-IL21, an important cytokine for Ab formation), otilimab (anti-GM-CSF that blocks pro-inflammatory myeloid cell response), belimumab and talabumab (anti-BAFF), VAY736 (anti-BAFF receptor), hBCMA-Fc (human BCMA fused to IgG1 Fc), and mAbs to co-stimulatory molecules that would prevent B cell activation (32,57). In addition, several small molecules that target B cell signaling (through BTK, PI3 kinase, or Janus kinases), proteasome that is involved with plasma cell differentiation, or Epstein-Barr virus, which infects B cells and is believed to be involved in MS etiology, may provide novel mechanisms of targeting B cells and possibly other cells involved in the immune pathogenesis of MS (67).

Despite recent major advances toward a better understanding of the role of B cells in MS, there is still much left to be explored and discovered. Development of more effective and safer therapies directed at B cells should focus on compounds that also target specific plasma cells or do not affect Breg, and depends on enhanced understanding and further research into B cell biology, as well as a better understanding of MS pathogenesis.

Acknowledgments

Funding None.

Ethical approval Not required.

Declaration of authorship RM conceived and designed the study; acquired the data; analyzed and interpreted the data; drafted the manuscript; critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content; gave approval of the version to be submitted; agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Competing interests All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

References

  • 1.Segal BM. The diversity of encephalitogenic CD4+ T cells in multiple sclerosis and its animal models. J Clin Med. 2019;8:E120. doi: 10.3390/jcm8010120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ben-Nun A, Wekerle H, Cohen IR. The rapid isolation of clonable antigen-specific T lymphocyte lines capable of mediating autoimmune encephalomyelitis. Eur J Immunol. 1981;11:195–9. doi: 10.1002/eji.1830110307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lincoln MR, Montpetit A, Cader MZ, Saarela J, Dyment DA, Tiislar M, et al. A predominant role for the HLA class II region in the association of the MHC region with multiple sclerosis. Nat Genet. 2005;37:1108–12. doi: 10.1038/ng1647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hussman JP, Beecham AH, Schmidt M, Martin ER, McCauley JL, Vance JM, et al. GWAS analysis implicates NF-κB-mediated induction of inflammatory T cells in multiple sclerosis. Genes Immun. 2016;17:305–12. doi: 10.1038/gene.2016.23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yadav SK, Mindur JE, Ito K, Dhib-Jalbut S. Advances in the immunopathogenesis of multiple sclerosis. Curr Opin Neurol. 2015;28:206–19. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kabat EA, Moore DH, Landow H. An electrophoretic study of the protein components in cerebrospinal fluid and their relationship to the serum proteins. J Clin Invest. 1942;21:571–7. doi: 10.1172/JCI101335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Link H. Immunoglobulin G and low molecular weight proteins in human cerebrospinal fluid. Chemical and immunological characterisation with special reference to multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand. 1967;43(Suppl. 28):28–136. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Colombo M, Dono M, Gazzola P, Roncella S, Valetto A, Chiorazzi N, et al. Accumulation of clonally related B lymphocytes in the cerebrospinal fluid of multiple sclerosis patients. J Immunol. 2000;164:2782–9. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.164.5.2782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hauser SL, Waubant E, Arnold DL, Vollmer T, Antel J, Fox RJ, et al. B-cell depletion with rituximab in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:676–88. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0706383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Dendrou CA, Fugger L, Friese MA. Immunopathology of multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Immunol. 2015;15:545–58. doi: 10.1038/nri3871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Li R, Patterson KR, Bar-Or A. Reassessing B cell contributions in multiple sclerosis. Nat Immunol. 2018;19:696–707. doi: 10.1038/s41590-018-0135-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Blauth K, Owens GP, Bennett JL. The Ins and Outs of B Cells in Multiple Sclerosis. Front Immunol. 2015;6:565. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.von Büdingen HC, Gulati M, Kuenzle S, Fischer K, Rupprecht TA, Goebels N. Clonally expanded plasma cells in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with central nervous system autoimmune demyelination produce “oligoclonal bands.”. J Neuroimmunol. 2010;218:134–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2009.10.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Brändle SM, Obermeier B, Senel M, Bruder J, Mentele R, Khademi M, et al. Distinct oligoclonal band antibodies in multiple sclerosis recognize ubiquitous self-proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:7864–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1522730113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kuhle J, Pohl C, Mehling M, Edan G, Freedman MS, Hartung HP, et al. Lack of association between antimyelin antibodies and progression to multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:371–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa063602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nerrant E, Salsac C, Charif M, Ayrignac X, Carra-Dalliere C, Castelnovo G, et al. Lack of confirmation of anti-inward rectifying potassium channel 4.1 antibodies as reliable markers of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2014;20:1699–703. doi: 10.1177/1352458514531086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Linington C, Bradl M, Lassmann H, Brunner C, Vass K. Augmentation of demyelination in rat acute allergic encephalomyelitis by circulating mouse monoclonal antibodies directed against a myelin/oligodendrocyte glycoprotein. Am J Pathol. 1988;130:443–54. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lucchinetti C, Brück W, Parisi J, Scheithauer B, Rodriguez M, Lassmann H. Heterogeneity of multiple sclerosis lesions: implications for the pathogenesis of demyelination. Ann Neurol. 2000;47:707–17. doi: 10.1002/1531-8249(200006)47:6&#x0003c;707::AID-ANA3&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-Q. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rodríguez-Pinto D. B cells as antigen presenting cells. Cell Immunol. 2005;238:67–75. doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2006.02.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jelcic I, Al Nimer F, Wang J, Lentsch V, Planas R, Jelcic I, et al. Memory B cells activate brain-homing, autoreactive CD4+ T cells in multiple sclerosis. Cell. 2018;175:85–100.e23. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.08.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bar-Or A, Fawaz L, Fan B, Darlington PJ, Rieger A, Ghorayeb C, et al. Abnormal B-cell cytokine responses a trigger of T-cell-mediated disease in MS? Ann Neurol. 2010;67:452–61. doi: 10.1002/ana.21939. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Staun-Ram E, Miller A. Effector and regulatory B cells in multiple sclerosis. Clin Immunol. 2017;184:11–25. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2017.04.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Magliozzi R, Howell O, Vora A, Serafini B, Nicholas R, Puopolo M, et al. Meningeal B cell follicles in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis associate with early onset of disease and severe cortical pathology. Brain. 2007;130:1089–104. doi: 10.1093/brain/awm038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lucchinetti CF, Popescu BF, Bunyan RF, Moll NM, Roemer SF, Lassmann H. Inflammatory cortical demyelination in early multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2188–97. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1100648. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Frischer JM, Bramow S, Dal-Bianco A, Lucchinetti CF, Rauschka H, Schmidbauer M, et al. The relation between inflammation and neurodegeneration in multiple sclerosis brains. Brain. 2009;132:1175–89. doi: 10.1093/brain/awp070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lisak RP, Benjamins JA, Nedelkoska L, Barger JL, Ragheb S, Fan B, et al. Secretory products of multiple sclerosis B cells are cytotoxic to oligodendroglia in vitro. J Neuroimmunol. 2012;246:85–95. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2012.02.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lisak RP, Nedelkoska L, Benjamins JA, Schalk D, Bealmear B, Touil H, et al. B cells from patients with multiple sclerosis induce cell death via apoptosis in neurons in vitro. J Neuroimmunol. 2017;309:88–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2017.05.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Riley JK, Sliwkowski MX. CD20: a gene in search of function. Semin Oncol. 2000;27(6) Suppl 12:17–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cross AH, Stark JL, Lauber J, Ramsbottom MJ, Lyons JA. Rituximab reduces B cells and T cells in cerebrospinal fluid of multiple sclerosis patients. J Neuroimmunol. 2006;180:63–70. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2006.06.029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Duddy M, Niino M, Adatia F, Hebert S, Freedman M, Atkins H, et al. Distinct effector cytokine profiles of memory and naive human B cell subsets and implication in multiple sclerosis. J Immunol. 2007;178:6092–9. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.178.10.6092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Roll P, Palanichamy A, Kneitz C, Dorner T, Tony HP. Regeneration of B cell subsets after transient B cell depletion using anti-CD20 antibodies in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:2377–86. doi: 10.1002/art.22019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sabatino JJ, Jr, Zamvil SS, Hauser SL. B-cell therapies in multiple sclerosis. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2019;9:a032037. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a032037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bar-Or A, Fawaz L, Fan B, Darlington PJ, Rieger A, Ghorayeb C, et al. Abnormal B-cell cytokine responses a trigger of T-cell-mediated disease in MS? Ann Neurol. 2010;67:452–61. doi: 10.1002/ana.21939. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Vallerskog T, Gunnarsson I, Widhe M, Risselada A, Klareskog L, van Vollenhoven R, et al. Treatment with rituximab affects both the cellular and the humoral arm of the immune system in patients with SLE. Clin Immunol. 2007;122:62–74. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2006.08.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bar-Or A, Calabresi PAJ, Arnold D, Markowitz C, Shafer S, Kasper LH, et al. Rituximab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A 72-week, open-label, phase I trial. Ann Neurol. 2008;63:395–400. doi: 10.1002/ana.21363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hauser S, Waubant E, Arnold DL, Vollmer T, Antel J, Fox RJ, et al. B-cell depletion with rituximab in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:676–88. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0706383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hawker K, O’Connor P, Freedman MS, Calabresi PA, Antel J, Simon J, et al. Rituximab in patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis: Results of a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter trial. Ann Neurol. 2009;66:460–71. doi: 10.1002/ana.21867. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Komori M, Lin YC, Cortese I, Blake A, Ohayon J, Cherup J, et al. Insufficient disease inhibition by intrathecal rituximab in progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2016;3:166–79. doi: 10.1002/acn3.293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Salzer J, Svenningsson R, Alping P, Novakova L, Björck A, Fink K, et al. Rituximab in multiple sclerosis: A retrospective observational study on safety and efficacy. Neurology. 2016;87:2074–81. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hauser SL, Bar-Or A, Comi G, Giovannoni G, Hartung H-P, Hemmer B, et al. Ocrelizumab versus interferon β-1a in relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:221–34. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1601277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Havrdová E, Arnold DL, Bar-Or A, Comi G, Hartung HP, Kappos L, et al. No evidence of disease activity (NEDA) analysis by epochs in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis treated with ocrelizumab vs interferon beta-1a. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2018;4:2055217318760642. doi: 10.1177/2055217318760642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Arnold DL, Kappos L, Hauser SL, Montalban X, Traboulsee A, Wolinsky JS, et al. Long-term reduction in brain MRI disease activity and atrophy after 5 years of ocrelizumab treatment in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2018;24:284–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hauser SL, Brochet B, Montalban X, Naismith RT, Wolinsky JS, Manfrini M, et al. Long-term reduction of relapse rate and confirmed disability progression after 5 years of ocrelizumab treatment in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2018;24:285–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Montalban X, Hauser SL, Kappos L, Arnold DL, Bar-Or A, Comi G, et al. Ocrelizumab versus placebo in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:209–20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Wolisnky JS, Brochet B, Montalban X, Naismith RT, Manfrini M, Garas M, et al. Sustained reduction in confirmed disability progression in patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis treated with ocrelizumab in the open-label extension period of the Phase III ORATORIO trial. Mult Scler. 2018;24:490–1. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Wolinsky JS, Montalban X, Hauser SL, Giovannoni G, Vermersch P, Bernasconi C, et al. Evaluation of no evidence of progression or active disease (NEPAD) in patients with primary progressive multiple sclerosis in the ORATORIO trial. Ann Neurol. 2018;84:527–36. doi: 10.1002/ana.25313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Giovannoni G, Airas L, Bove R, Boyko A, Cutter G, Hobart J, et al. Ocrelizumab treatment effect on upper limb function in PPMS patients with disability: subgroup results of the ORATORIO study to inform the ORATORIO-HAND study design. Mult Scler. 2018;24:306–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sorensen PS, Lisby S, Grove R, Derosier F, Shackelford S, Havrdova E, et al. Safety and efficacy of ofatumumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: A phase 2 study. Neurology. 2014;82:573–81. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bar-Or A, Grove RA, Austin DJ, Tolson JM, VanMeter SA, Lewis EW, et al. Subcutaneous ofatumumab in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: The MIRROR study. Neurology. 2018;90:e1805–14. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000005516. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Sharman JP, Farber CM, Mahadevan D, Schreeder MT, Brooks HD, Kolibaba KS, et al. Ublituximab (TG-1101), a novel glycoengineered anti-CD20 antibody, in combination with ibrutinib is safe and highly active in patients with relapsed and/or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: results of a phase 2 trial. Br J Haematol. 2017;176:412–20. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Fox E, Lovett-Racke A, Gormley M, Liu Y, Wray S, Shubin R, et al. Final results of a placebo controlled, Phase 2 multicenter study of ublituximab (UTX), a novel glycoengineered anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (mAb), in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (RMS). Mult Scler. 2018;24:87. doi: 10.1177/1352458520918375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Klotz L, Havla J, Schwab N, Hohlfeld R, Barnett M, Reddel S, et al. Risks and risk management in modern multiple sclerosis immunotherapeutic treatment. Ther Adv Neurol Disorder. 2019;12:1756286419836571. doi: 10.1177/1756286419836571. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Clifford DB, Ances B, Costello C, Rosen-Schmidt S, Andersson M, Parks D, et al. Rituximab-associated progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Neurol. 2011;68:1156–64. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2011.103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hauser SL, Kappos L, Montalban X, Hughes R, Koendgen H, McNamara J, et al. Safety of ocrelizumab in multiple sclerosis: updated analysis in patients with relapsing and primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2018;24:697–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Vincent FB, Saulep-Easton D, Figgett WA, Fairfax KA, Mackay F. The BAFF/APRIL system: emerging functions beyond B cell biology and autoimmunity. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2013;24:203–15. doi: 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2013.04.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Piazza F, DiFrancesco JC, Fusco ML, Corti D, Pirovano L, Frigeni B, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid levels of BAFF and APRIL in untreated multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimmunol. 2010;220:104–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2010.01.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Negron A, Robinson RR, Stüve O, Forsthuber TG. The role of B cells in multiple sclerosis: Current and future therapies. Cell Immunol. 2018;10:6. doi: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2018.10.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kappos L, Hartung HP, Freedman MS, Boyko A, Radü EW, Mikol DD, et al. Atacicept in multiple sclerosis (ATAMS): a randomised, placebo-controlled, doubleblind, Phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13:353–63. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70028-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Sergott RC, Bennett JL, Rieckmann P, Montalban X, Mikol D, Freudensprung U, et al. ATON: results from a Phase II randomized trial of the B-cell-targeting agent atacicept in patients with optic neuritis. J Neurol Sci. 2015;351:174–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2015.02.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Hartung HP, Kieseier BC. Atacicept: targeting B cells in multiple sclerosis. Ther Adv Neurol Disorder. 2010;3:205–16. doi: 10.1177/1756285610371146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Crofford LJ, Nyhoff LE, Sheehan JH, Kendall PL. The role of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase in autoimmunity and implications for therapy. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2016;12:763–73. doi: 10.1586/1744666X.2016.1152888. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Torke S, Grenningloh R, Boschert U, Weber MS. B cell-mediated experimental CNS autoimmunity is modulated by inhibition of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase. Mult Scler. 2017;23:42–3. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Alankus Y, Grenningloh R, Haselmayer P, Bender A, Bruttger J. BTK inhibition prevents inflammatory macrophage differentiation: a potential role in MS. Mult Scler. 2018;24:264. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Montalban X, Arnold DL, Weber MS, Staikov I, Piasecka-Stryczynska K, Willmer J, et al. Primary analysis of a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study of the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor evobrutinib (M2951) in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2018;24:984–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Longbrake EE, Cross AH. Effect of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies on B cells and humoral immunity. JAMA Neurol. 2016;73:219–25. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2015.3977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Lehmann-Horn K, Kinzel S, Weber MS. Deciphering the role of B cells in multiple sclerosis-towards specific targeting of pathogenic function. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18:pii: E2048. doi: 10.3390/ijms18102048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Gregson A, Thompson K, Tsirka SE, Selwood DL. Emerging small-molecule treatments for multiple sclerosis: focus on B cells. F1000Research. 2019;8(F1000 Faculty Rev):245. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.16495.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Agius MA, Klodowska-Duda G, Maciejowski M, Potemkowski A, Li J, Patra K, et al. Safety and tolerability of inebilizumab (MEDI-551), an anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody, in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis: Results from a phase 1 randomised, placebo-controlled, escalating intravenous and subcutaneous dose study. Mult Scler. 2019;25:235–45. doi: 10.1177/1352458517740641. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Croatian Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of Medicinska Naklada

RESOURCES