Therapeutic strategies in NMOSD and MOGAD patients: A multicenter cohort study in Latin America.

Purpose: This study describes the therapeutic strategies in NMOSD and MOGAD adopted by neurologists to treat both conditions in Latin America (LATAM) with main focus on rituximab (RTX) and the disease outcome.
Methods: retrospective study in a cohort of NMOSD and MOGAD patients followed in specialized MS/NMOSD centers from eight countries and 14 LATAM reference centers. Demographics and clinical characteristics were collected. RTX strategies on naïve (for rituximab) patients were summarized as follows: scheme A: two 1000 mg infusions 15 days apart and repeated every 6 months; scheme B: four 375 mg/m2 infusions every week for 4 weeks and repeated every 6 months; scheme C: one 1000 mg infusions and repeated every 6 months; scheme D: other scheme used. Relapse rate and adverse events during follow-up were analyzed considering the different RTX schemes. Poisson and logistic regression analysis were used to assess baseline aspects and disease activity during follow-up.
Results: A total of 217 patients were included. 197 were NMOSD patients (164, 83.2% AQP4-IgG seropositive and 16.7% seronegative) and 20 were MOGAD patients. The most frequent long-term treatment was RTX in both groups (48.2% and 65% for NMOSD and MOGAD patients, respectively). The most common RTX regimen used in 79 (83.1%) patients was two 1000 mg infusions 15 days apart and repeat every 6 months. Relapses under RTX treatment were observed in 21 (22.1%) patients. Relapses after RTX treatment were associated with higher EDSS (OR 1.75, 95%CI 1.44-2.34, p = 0.03) and higher ARR pre-RTX (OR = 2.17, 95% CI 1.72-3.12, p = 0.002) but not with RTX regimen (OR = 1.10, 95% CI 0.89-1.21, p = 0.60).
Conclusion: the most strategy used in LATAM was RTX with two 1000 mg infusions 15 days apart. Relapses during follow up were not associated with RTX regimen used.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest JIR has received reimbursement for developing educational presentations, educational and research grants, consultations fees and travel stipends from Biogen, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis. TA has received consulting fees, lecture honoraria and Travel Support from Biogen, Merck, Roche and Teva. PAL has received reimbursement for developing educational presentations, educational and research grants, consultations fees and travel stipends from Biogen, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis and Roche. JF has received consulting fees from Biogen, Novartis and Genzyme, as a lecturer from Merck Serono, Novartis and Biogen, and collaboration for attendance to national and international congresses from Biogen, Novartis, Merck Serono, Bayer and Gador. FG has received reimbursement for developing educational presentations, educational and research grants, consultations fees and travel stipends from Biogen, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Bayer. CN has received reimbursement for developing educational presentations, educational and research grants, consultations fees and travel stipends from Stendhal, Roche, Biogen, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis, Biopas. LP has received reimbursement for developing educational presentations, educational and research grants, consultations fees and travel stipends from Biogen, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis. EC has received reimbursement for developing educational presentations, educational and research grants, consultations fees and travel stipends from Biogen, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis. ECC has received reimbursement for developing educational presentations, educational and research grants, consultations fees and travel stipends from Bayer, Biogen, Ipsen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Teva. The rest of the authors declares not conflict of interests.
(Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)