B‑cell Treatments Cut Relapses in Double‑Negative NMOSD

Credibility

Interest

Key Takeaway

In people with double seronegative NMOSD, treatments that reduce B-cells (anti-CD20 therapies) were linked to far fewer relapses than older, non-specific immunosuppressant drugs.

What They Found

Researchers looked back at medical records from six countries for 103 people with double seronegative NMOSD, meaning they tested negative for two common antibodies linked to the disease. They compared two treatment approaches: anti-CD20 drugs (which lower certain immune cells called B-cells) and nonspecific immunosuppressants (older drugs that broadly quiet the immune system). People on anti-CD20 drugs had a much lower rate of relapses — for example, their yearly relapse rate was about 0.17 versus about 0.76 for the other group. The time until the next relapse was also longer for those on anti-CD20 drugs, meaning more months or years without flare-ups. Overall, the study suggests anti-CD20 (B-cell–reducing) treatments may work better at preventing relapses in this specific NMOSD group than older, less targeted medicines.

Who Should Care and Why

People with double seronegative NMOSD and their caregivers should care because fewer relapses usually means less sudden loss of vision, weakness, or other sudden worsening — similar to having fewer storms that damage a house. Neurologists and MS/NMOSD specialists should care because this points toward choosing a more targeted therapy (anti-CD20) rather than older broad immunosuppressants to reduce relapses. Caregivers will notice practical benefits: fewer hospital visits, less need for urgent steroid treatment, and more predictable daily life. Patients thinking about treatment options can use this information to discuss B-cell–targeting drugs with their doctor and weigh benefits versus risks and logistics. This finding most helps patients who are deciding on long-term relapse prevention and want treatments that may keep them stable longer.

Important Considerations

This study looked back at medical records (retrospective), so it can show associations but not prove cause-and-effect like a randomized clinical trial would. The group studied was relatively small (103 people) and came from many centers, so results might be influenced by differences in care or testing between hospitals. Also, the study focused only on relapse rates and not on other things patients care about, like side effects, infections, or quality of life, so talk with your doctor about the full risks and benefits.

Categories:

Treatment Updates Clinical Trials MS Progression

Whether you’ve recently been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) or are seeking to broaden your understanding of this complex, neurodegenerative disease, navigating the latest research can feel overwhelming. Studies published in respected medical journals like Neurology(R) neuroimmunology & neuroinflammation often range from early-stage, exploratory work to advanced clinical trials. These evidence-based findings help shape new disease-modifying therapies, guide symptom management techniques, and deepen our knowledge of MS progression.

However, not all research is created equal. Some clinical research studies may have smaller sample sizes, evolving methodologies, or limitations that warrant careful interpretation. For a more comprehensive, accurate understanding, we recommend reviewing the original source material—accessible via the More Details section above—and consulting with healthcare professionals who specialize in MS care.

By presenting a wide range of MS-focused studies—spanning cutting-edge treatments, emerging therapies, and established best practices—we aim to empower patients, caregivers, and clinicians to stay informed and make well-informed decisions when managing Multiple Sclerosis.

Back to News