Skip to content
Chimera readability score 72 out of 100, Expert reading level.

Published July 1, 2026
N Engl J Med 2026;395:44-53
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2600993
Abstract
Background
Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies are effective for relapsing multiple sclerosis. However, data from head-to-head trials are lacking.
Methods
In this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned adults with newly diagnosed relapsing multiple sclerosis and recent disease activity in a 3:2 ratio to receive rituximab or ocrelizumab every 6 months for 24 months. The primary end point was the absence of new or enlarging lesions on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from month 6 to month 24. Noninferiority was defined as a lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the risk difference (rituximab minus ocrelizumab) of greater than or equal to −10 percentage points. Secondary end points included efficacy and safety.
Results
A total of 218 participants underwent randomization; 216 received treatment (132 assigned to the rituximab group and 84 assigned to the ocrelizumab group). Between months 6 and 24, the estimated probability of having no new or enlarging lesions detected on T2-weighted MRI was 92.2% with rituximab and 94.8% with ocrelizumab, corresponding to a risk difference of –2.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval, –9.4 to 4.3), which met the prespecified noninferiority criterion. Relapse rates, disability outcomes, and cognitive-performance profiles appeared to be similar in the two groups. Infections were more common in the rituximab group than in the ocrelizumab group (in 82% vs. 69% of participants), although the percentage of participants with serious adverse events was similar in the two groups (8% and 7%, respectively).
Conclusions
In participants with newly diagnosed relapsing multiple sclerosis and recent disease activity, rituximab was noninferior to ocrelizumab in suppressing disease activity as detected by MRI from 6 to 24 months, with a similar incidence of serious adverse events. (Funded by the Research Council of Norway and others; OVERLORD-MS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04578639; EudraCT number, 2020-001205-23; EU Clinical Trials Register number, 2024-510716-71-00.)
Are you a member of an institution such as a university or hospital?Learn more about Institutional Access
Notes
A data sharing statement provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
Supported by a grant (288164) from the Research Council of Norway and a grant (201902) from KLINBEFORSK. Additional funding was provided by a grant (2023-02639) from the Swedish Research Council, a grant (FoUI-987565) from Region Stockholm, a grant (FO2023-0336) from the Swedish Brain Fund, the Erling Perssons Foundation, and the Horizon Europe Framework Program (project number 101136991).
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
We thank the trial nurses, the members of the data and safety monitoring board, and all the patients who provided informed consent and participated in the trial.
Supplementary Material
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © 2026 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
For personal use only. Any commercial reuse of NEJM Group content requires permission.
History
Published online: July 1, 2026
Published in issue: July 2, 2026
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Altmetrics
Citations
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.
Cited by
- Advances in Multiple Sclerosis, New England Journal of Medicine, 395, 1, (54-68), (2026)./doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra2501195
Loading...

Sentinel — Human

Confidence

The text displays the highly structured, precise language of expert medical writing, exhibiting formal coherence but lacking distinct idiosyncratic human stylistic markers.

Signals Detected
low severity: High lexical sophistication and precise statistical framing consistent with formal medical reporting; low variance in sentence structure.
low severity: Perfect logical flow adhering strictly to the scientific narrative (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion); absence of personal voice or emotional hedging.
low severity: Adherence to a rigid argumentative skeleton matching standard clinical trial reporting templates; highly specific statistics presented without external contextual variance.
low severity: Text is a summary of a published medical abstract, suggesting high veracity. No immediate internal conflicts or egregious confabulations detected based on the provided text structure.
Human Indicators
The explicit reference to specific trial IDs (NCT, EudraCT) and complex statistical reporting strongly suggests input from a structured research context.