Briumvi vs Ocrevus: Quick‑Start Comparison for MS Patients

Hey there, friend. If you or a loved one has just been handed a diagnosis of relapsing‑form multiple sclerosis, you’re probably staring at a wall of drug names and wondering, “Which one is right for me?” Two of the biggest names floating around are Briumvi and Ocrevus. They’re both CD‑20 monoclonal antibodies—fancy talk for “they hunt down the B‑cells that spark your MS attacks.” Below is the friendly, no‑fluff guide that answers the questions you’re really asking, helps you weigh the pros and cons, and gives you enough confidence to talk to your neurologist with your head held high.

How They Work

Mechanism of Action – B‑cell depletion

Both Briumvi (ublituximab‑xiiy) and Ocrevus (ocrelizumab) zero in on a protein called CD‑20 that lives on the surface of B‑cells. By binding to this protein, the drugs signal your immune system to clear those cells out, which in turn quiets the inflammation that damages nerves in multiple sclerosis. According to Drugs.com, this is the core reason these two medicines are in the same drug class.

Regulatory approvals & indications

Drug	Approval Year	Relapsing‑Form MS	Primary‑Progressive MS	Notes
Briumvi (ublituximab)	2022	✔︎	–	Only for relapsing forms
Ocrevus (ocrelizumab)	2017	✔︎	✔︎	First drug approved for PPMS

What does that mean for you? If you have primary‑progressive MS, Ocrevus is currently the only anti‑CD‑20 option with FDA approval. Otherwise, both drugs are on the table.

Dosing & Administration

Briumvi schedule – simple and short

Briumvi is delivered as a one‑hour IV infusion every six months after an initial loading dose. The infusion itself is quick—most patients feel fine enough to drive home right after.

Ocrevus schedule – a bit more involved

Ocrevus starts with two separate infusions two weeks apart, each lasting three to four hours. After that, you get the same six‑month IV schedule, or you can opt for the sub‑cutaneous formulation (Ocrevus Zunovo) administered once a month under the skin. The longer initial phase can be a hassle, but the sub‑Q option gives you flexibility if clinic visits are tough.

Real‑world patient snapshot

One reviewer on Drugs.com wrote, “Briumvi let me run errands right after the first infusion, while Ocrevus left me stiff for two days.” It’s a tiny anecdote, but it illustrates how infusion time can affect day‑to‑day life.

Efficacy Snapshot

Clinical trial highlights

Briumvi was studied in two identical Phase 3 trials—ULTIMATE I and II. Both showed an annualized relapse rate (ARR) under 0.1, meaning less than one relapse for every 11‑13 patient‑years of treatment. In plain language, that’s a really low chance of flare‑ups.

Ocrevus, on the other hand, proved its worth in the OPERA I and II trials, cutting relapse rates by roughly 45 % compared with interferon β‑1a. While the numbers look a bit higher than Briumvi’s ARR, Ocrevus has a longer track record and larger patient pool.

Head‑to‑head: what we can compare

Metric (96 weeks)	Briumvi (ULTIMATE)	Ocrevus (OPERA)
Annualized Relapse Rate	0.09	0.18
% Patients with NEDA (no evidence of disease activity)	≈ 45 %	≈ 38 %
Lesion reduction	Near‑complete suppression	~70 % reduction

Remember: there are no direct head‑to‑head trials, so we’re looking at indirect data and real‑world registries. Still, the numbers give a useful snapshot of what each drug can achieve.

Safety & Side Effects

Common mild reactions

Both medications can cause infusion‑related symptoms—headache, chills, mild fever, or upper‑respiratory infections. Premedication (usually steroids and antihistamines) helps keep those in check.

Briumvi’s safety profile

• Infusion‑reaction rate ≈ 2 % (much lower than Ocrevus) – according to DVC Stem.
• Reported events: transient joint or muscle pain, mild rash, occasional tachycardia.
• Patient rating on Drugs.com: 8.2 / 10 from 13 reviews—most users feeling a positive impact.

Ocrevus’s safety profile

• Infusion‑reaction rate ≈ 34 %—often requires slower infusion speeds.
• Rare but serious risks include infections and, very rarely, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).
• Patient rating on Drugs.com: 5.2 / 10 from 176 reviews—mixed experiences.

What patients are saying

One Briumvi reviewer exclaimed, “This medication is AMAZING! I feel so much better than when I was on Ocrevus.” A contrasting Ocrevus review warned, “The infusion left me with a nasty rash and I’ve had to be careful about infections ever since.” These voices remind us that individual experiences can vary dramatically.

Cost & Access

List price (2025, without insurance)

Drug	Typical vial strength	List price per vial
Briumvi (150 mg/6 mL)	150 mg	$11,608
Ocrevus (300 mg/10 mL)	300 mg	$21,558

Both drugs are covered under Medicare Part B and most private plans, but out‑of‑pocket costs can still be high. TG Therapeutics offers a discount card for Briumvi (click here for details), and Genentech has a patient assistance program for Ocrevus.

Real‑world impact

One user shared, “I switched from Ocrevus to Briumvi because the infusion cost at my clinic was lower and the side‑effects were milder.” It’s a reminder that cost isn’t just about the sticker price; it’s also about how much you’ll actually pay after insurance and copays.

Decision Checklist

Factor	Briumvi Advantage	Ocrevus Advantage
Infusion time	1‑hour, once/6 months	3‑4 hours, first two doses 2 weeks apart
Side‑effect profile	Lower infusion‑reaction rate	Longer safety data set
PPMS coverage	—	Approved for PPMS
Cost (list)	≈ $12 k	≈ $22 k
Patient satisfaction	Higher rating (8.2)	Larger evidence base
Administration options	IV only	IV + sub‑Q (Zunovo)

Use this table as a quick cheat‑sheet when you chat with your neurologist. Which factors matter most to you—convenience, safety, cost, or the ability to treat primary‑progressive MS?

Bottom Line

Both Briumvi and Ocrevus are effective, FDA‑approved CD‑20 therapies that can dramatically slow the course of relapsing multiple sclerosis. Briumvi shines with a short, low‑reaction infusion and a newer, slightly lower price tag, while Ocrevus brings the advantage of a longer track record and the only approval for primary‑progressive disease.

Ultimately, the “right” choice is personal. Think about how often you’re willing to go to a clinic, how you react to infusions, your insurance landscape, and whether you need PPMS coverage. The best move is to sit down with your neurologist, bring this side‑by‑side snapshot, and ask the questions that matter most to you.

What’s your experience with these therapies? Have you tried one and are curious about the other? Drop a comment below, share your story, or download a printable version of this comparison (download PDF). Let’s keep the conversation going—because navigating MS together is always easier.