CAR-T(CAR-T)细胞疗法在非肿瘤性疾病中的应用
Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy in non-oncological diseases.
CAR-T(CAR-T)细胞在血液系统恶性肿瘤中的应用推动了这种免疫治疗形式的显著进展。
CELL INTELLIGENCE · 肿瘤细胞治疗研究
肿瘤细胞治疗研究
英文原题:Ethical Challenges with Multiple Myeloma BCMA Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Slot Allocation: A Multi-Institution Experience.
Ethical Challenges with Multiple Myeloma BCMA Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Slot Allocation: A Multi-Institution Experience.
分数与星级只用于站内排序 —— 不代表疗效、安全性或个人适用性。
美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)已批准CAR-T 细胞疗法用于三线难治性多发性骨髓瘤(MM)患者。由于供应链限制影响产品制造,现实中患者获得CAR-T 治疗仍面临挑战。
本研究旨在评估这一问题的程度,以及主要治疗中心如何应对CAR-T 生产名额分配难题。研究对美国各CAR-T 治疗中心负责MM CAR-T 治疗的医师进行调查;20个中心中有17个作出回应。每个中心每月分配名额的中位数为1个;自FDA批准idecabtagene vicleucel以来,每个中心等待治疗的患者中位数为20名(范围5–100名)。
因此,患者在接受白细胞单采前需等待中位6个月(范围2–8个月)。在患者遴选方面,所有中心均报告由资深CAR-T 医师组成委员会,以确保标准一致。为提高透明度,15个中心向CAR-T 医疗服务提供者公开遴选标准、遴选时间安排和优先级评分。各中心还报告依据伦理价值进行遴选:(1)平等对待:等待时间(n=12);(2)优先照顾处境最差者:治疗选择有限(n=14)、MM疾病负荷(n=11)、造血细胞移植合并症指数较高(n=5);(3)最大化获益:最可能完成单采(n=13)、接受输注(n=13)或达到缓解(n=8);(4)社会价值:年轻患者(n=3)。10个中心认为最大化获益是最重要的标准。
本研究首次尝试评估MM患者获得CAR-T 治疗所面临的现实问题,以及患者遴选中的差异和挑战。将类似本文所述的伦理资源分配策略纳入正式机构政策,有助于简化CAR-T 治疗的可及流程,并保障当前及未来患者和医师的需求。
Chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapies are Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for patients with triple refractory multiple myeloma (MM). Real-world access to CAR-T therapy remains challenging owing to supply chain limitations impacting manufacturing. The goal of this study was to evaluate the extent of this issue and how major centers are handling the challenges of CAR-T manufacturing slot allocation. MM CAR-T physician leaders at each CAR-T treatment center across the United States were surveyed.
We received responses from 17 of 20 centers. A median of 1 slot is allocated per month per center, and the median number of patients per center on the waitlist since the FDA's approval of idecabtagene vicleucel is 20 (range, 5 to 100). As a result, patients remain on the waitlist for a median of 6 months (range, 2 to 8 months) prior to leukapheresis. For patient selection, all centers reported using a committee of experienced CAR-T physicians to ensure consistency. To ensure transparency, 15 centers make selection criteria, selection timelines, and priority scores readily available for CAR-T providers.
Centers also reported using ethical values for selection: (1) equal treatment: time spent on waiting list (n = 12); (2) priority to the worst-off: limited therapeutic options (n = 14), MM burden (n = 11), high Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Comorbidity Index (n = 5); (3) maximize benefit: most likely to complete apheresis (n = 13) or infusion (n = 13) or to achieve response (n = 8); and (4) social value: younger patients (n = 3). Maximizing benefit was considered the most important criterion by 10 centers.
This study is the first attempt to evaluate existing issues with CAR-T access for patients with MM and the variability and challenges in patient selection. Integrating ethical resource allocation strategies, similar to those described here, into formal institutional policies would help streamline access to CAR-T therapy and protect the needs of both current and future patients and physicians.
在 PubMed 查看 → 出版商原文(DOI) 全文 PDF(PMC)· 可下载 治疗专题与资料阅读指南 资料来源与翻译说明 报告译文或资料问题 →
MEMBER ACCOUNT
登录成功会直接打开下一页。