Ocrelizumab?

jaybee00

Senior Member
Messages
138
Likes
167
Hello,

Is there any reson to expect that ocrelizumab would be more effective (or have fewer side effects) than rituximab for CFS? They both do the same thing by the same mechanism, correct?

Thanks
 

jaybee00

Senior Member
Messages
138
Likes
167
Thanks, my bad. So to summarize....

Ocrelizumab is humanized, and rituximab is not, but this might not make any difference; ocrelizumab may be slightly more potent in depleting B cells.
 

Marky90

Science breeds knowledge, opinion breeds ignorance
Messages
1,244
Likes
4,595
I'm pretty sure Dr Edwards said he doesn't see ocrelizumab in the future of ME/CFS and that there are better b cell depleting agents in the pipeline.
Yeah true, but which agents? I see few reasons not to do a trial, if there are no other obvious choices about.
Supposedly we need agents who reach lymph nodes, bone marrow?, spleen.
Why does rtx not work here very well? I have no ida, but iv`e read that to be the case, and i lack understanding of why.
 
Messages
5,256
Likes
31,973
Yeah true, but which agents? I see few reasons not to do a trial, if there are no other obvious choices about.
Supposedly we need agents who reach lymph nodes, bone marrow?, spleen.
Why does rtx not work here very well? I have no ida, but iv`e read that to be the case, and i lack understanding of why.
Ocrelizumab was mark 2, even the same company is on about mark 4 or mark 5 now. There is one particular antibody in development that has a more powerful B cell killing effector mechanism. I suspect they are all humanised (or human) now. Which would be the next one to be tried out will be a matter of practicalities and politics.
 

Marky90

Science breeds knowledge, opinion breeds ignorance
Messages
1,244
Likes
4,595
Ocrelizumab was mark 2, even the same company is on about mark 4 or mark 5 now. There is one particular antibody in development that has a more powerful B cell killing effector mechanism. I suspect they are all humanised (or human) now. Which would be the next one to be tried out will be a matter of practicalities and politics.
Thanks prof:)

Interesting insight!

I guess it makes sense to wait until the phase 3-trials are done before another b-cell depletion study is carried out. Another one than rtx, that is
 

BurnA

Senior Member
Messages
2,087
Likes
9,784
Thanks prof:)

Interesting insight!

I guess it makes sense to wait until the phase 3-trials are done before another b-cell depletion study is carried out. Another one than rtx, that is
I'm assuming the new ones being referred to are not on the market yet and maybe not even in phase 3 trials - would that be correct ?
If so it could be many years yet before an ME trial with these drugs.

I'd like to know the rationale or politics behind releasing a new drug. Do they wait until a sufficient improvement over an existing drug is achieved, but even at that there is no incentive for the patent owner to release a new drug. They would just be taking market share from themselves, although they may be able to extend patent lifetime.
 

Wonkmonk

Senior Member
Messages
821
Likes
1,121
Location
Germany
I know it's an old thread, but if I may ask: Why is it important how potent the MAB is, given that Rituximab at doses used in the Norwegian trials usually destroys all B cells and they are 0 in the blood after just a few days?

Couldn't a more potent antibody just destroy them a few days faster? Given the timeframe for response to treatment (2-6 months minimum), this shouldn't matter much, right?
 
Messages
5,256
Likes
31,973
I know it's an old thread, but if I may ask: Why is it important how potent the MAB is, given that Rituximab at doses used in the Norwegian trials usually destroys all B cells and they are 0 in the blood after just a few days?

Couldn't a more potent antibody just destroy them a few days faster? Given the timeframe for response to treatment (2-6 months minimum), this shouldn't matter much, right?
B cells in the blood are not the only ones and probably not the important ones. They may be 1% of the total. Most B cells are in lymph nodes and spleen where they hide in clusters protected by nurse cells carrying complement inhibitors. That makes them harder to kill. We do not know how many B cells in lymph nodes are killed by any of these drugs but it is almost certainly not all, at least in many cases. So there is room for more powerful versions.
 

greeneagledown

Senior Member
Messages
213
Likes
712
B cells in the blood are not the only ones and probably not the important ones. They may be 1% of the total. Most B cells are in lymph nodes and spleen where they hide in clusters protected by nurse cells carrying complement inhibitors. That makes them harder to kill. We do not know how many B cells in lymph nodes are killed by any of these drugs but it is almost certainly not all, at least in many cases. So there is room for more powerful versions.
Is it safe to assume, however, that drugs that are better at killing B-cells in lymph nodes and the spleen would be significantly more dangerous than Rituximab?
 
Messages
5,256
Likes
31,973
Is it safe to assume, however, that drugs that are better at killing B-cells in lymph nodes and the spleen would be significantly more dangerous than Rituximab?
I suspect not. The idea is to clear out clones involved in a vicious cycle. Not quite completing the job may just teach the disease to box clever without significantly less danger. From what we know it seems that in some people rituximab does pretty much clear out all B cells. If that was in itself dangerous we would probably know by now. The main danger with rituximab comes from allergic reactions. The very rare risk of leucoencephalopathy has mostly been seen in lupus where if anything B cell killing tends to be less complete. So for the time being I do not think we have theoretical or practical evidence for more potent B cell agents being more dangerous.
 

greeneagledown

Senior Member
Messages
213
Likes
712
B cells in the blood are not the only ones and probably not the important ones. They may be 1% of the total. Most B cells are in lymph nodes and spleen where they hide in clusters protected by nurse cells carrying complement inhibitors. That makes them harder to kill. We do not know how many B cells in lymph nodes are killed by any of these drugs but it is almost certainly not all, at least in many cases. So there is room for more powerful versions.
Also, if it's impossible to tell how many of these "hidden" B-cells are being destroyed, how are drug companies going to know if the drugs they're developing are actually going to be better at targeting them?
 
Messages
5,256
Likes
31,973
Also, if it's impossible to tell how many of these "hidden" B-cells are being destroyed, how are drug companies going to know if the drugs they're developing are actually going to be better at targeting them?
You can assay for B cell killing potential in tissue culture. You can also do experiments on macaques, which have almost identical B cell surface target molecules. More directly you can do dose response studies. For instance there is an antibody produced by another company that gives the same results as rituximab at half the dose, as part of a systematic dose response study. One of the problems with rituximab is that nobody did proper dose response studies for the sorts of b cells that are involved in autoimmunity (non-malignant ones).