← 返回

Axicabtagene Ciloleucel 对比 Tisagenlecleucel 治疗复发/难治性大 B 细胞淋巴瘤:系统评价与 Meta 分析

英文原题:Axicabtagene Ciloleucel versus Tisagenlecleucel for Relapsed or Refractory Large B Cell Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

查看英文原题

Axicabtagene Ciloleucel versus Tisagenlecleucel for Relapsed or Refractory Large B Cell Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PubMed 2024/01/26(内容时间) Transplant Cell Ther Q1 · IF 4.7(JCR 2025)

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。

中文摘要

Axicabtagene ciloleucel(axi-cel)和 tisagenlecleucel(tisa-cel)是获批用于复发/难治性侵袭性大 B 细胞淋巴瘤(LBCL)的 CD19 靶向CAR-T 细胞疗法。高昂的费用和复杂的生产流程凸显了就这些治疗结局进行循证咨询的重要性。为了考察 axi-cel 与 tisa-cel 在复发/难治性侵袭性 LBCL 患者中的疗效和安全性,我们进行了系统性文献检索,纳入评估复发/难治性侵袭性 LBCL 患者接受 axi-cel 或 tisa-cel 治疗后结局的对比研究。

我们计算了缓解、无进展生存期(PFS)、总生存期(OS)、细胞因子释放综合征(CRS)、免疫效应细胞相关神经毒性综合征(ICANS)和血液毒性的比值比(OR)及 95% 置信区间(CI)。采用荟萃分析和荟萃回归生成汇总统计量。

我们的分析共纳入 8 项研究,2372 名受试者。axi-cel 从单采到输注的脱落率为 13%,tisa-cel 为 18%,从单采到输注的中位时间为 32 天对 45 天。axi-cel 显示完全缓解的比值更高(OR,1.65;P < .001),并与输注后 1 年 PFS 的比值更高相关(OR,.60;P < .001)。OS 似乎随 axi-cel 改善(OR,.84;95% CI,.68 至 1.02;P = .08),而 axi-cel 的非复发死亡率(NRM)累积发生率为 11.5%,tisa-cel 为 3.7%(P = .002)。生存的主要预测因素为乳酸脱氢酶水平、美国东部肿瘤协作组 Performance Status以及对桥接治疗的反应,且axi-cel即使在老年患者中也保持更优疗效。在安全性方面,axi-cel与任何级别CRS的几率显著更高相关(OR,3.23;P < .001),但与3级CRS无关(P = .92)。Axi-cel与严重ICANS 3级的几率显著更高相关(OR,4.03;P < .001)。在血液毒性方面,axi-cel与输注后1个月严重中性粒细胞减少的几率显著更高相关(OR,2.06;P = .003)。

因此,axi-cel与显著更高的资源利用相关,包括住院时间延长、更频繁入住重症监护室,以及使用托珠单抗等药物进行毒性管理。

我们提供了强有力的证据,表明axi-cel在复发/难治性侵袭性LBCL中较tisa-cel具有更高疗效。axi-cel所见到的更高毒性和NRM可能并未抵消总体结果,这突出表明需要及时干预并谨慎选择患者,在资源利用与临床获益之间取得平衡。

展开英文摘要原文

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) are CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapies approved for relapsed/refractory aggressive large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Significant costs and complex manufacturing underscore the importance of evidence-based counseling regarding the outcomes of these treatments.

With the aim of examining the efficacy and safety of axi-cel versus tisa-cel in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive LBCL, we performed a systematic literature search of comparative studies evaluating outcomes in relapsed/refractory aggressive LBCL after treatment with axi-cel or tisa-cel.

We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), and hematotoxicity. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were used to generate summary statistics. A total of 2372 participants were included in the 8 studies in our analysis. The dropout rate between apheresis and infusion was 13% for axi-cel versus 18% for tisa-cel, and the median time from apheresis to infusion was 32 days versus 45 days. Axi-cel showed higher odds for a complete response (OR, 1. 65; P < . 001) and was associated with higher odds for PFS at 1 year after infusion (OR, . 60; P < . 001). OS appeared to be improved with axi-cel (OR, . 84; 95% CI, . 68 to 1. 02; P = . 08), whereas the cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was 11.

5% for axi-cel versus 3. 7% for tisa-cel (P = . 002). The main predictors for survival were lactate dehydrogenase level, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, and response to bridging, and axi-cel maintained superior efficacy even in elderly patients. In terms of safety, axi-cel was associated with significantly higher odds of any-grade CRS (OR, 3. 23; P < . 001), but not of grade 3 CRS (P = . 92).

Axi-cel was associated with significantly higher odds of severe ICANS grade 3 (OR, 4. 03; P < . 001). In terms of hematotoxicity, axi-cel was significantly associated with higher odds of severe neutropenia at 1 month after infusion (OR, 2. 06; P = . 003). As a result, axi-cel was associated with significantly greater resource utilization, including prolonged hospital stay, more frequent intensive care admission, and use of agents such as tocilizumab for toxicity management.

We provide strong evidence of the greater efficacy of axi-cel versus tisa-cel in relapsed/refractory aggressive LBCL. The higher toxicity and NRM seen with axi-cel might not counterbalance the overall results, highlighting the need for timely intervention and careful selection of patients, balancing resource utilization and clinical benefit.

论文信息

作者
Gagelmann N、Bishop M、Ayuk F、Bethge W、Glass B、Sureda A、Pasquini MC、Kröger N
单位
Department of Stem Cell Transplantation, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: nico.gagelmann@posteo.de.Germany
文献类型
系统综述 · 荟萃分析 · 对照研究
期刊
Transplantation and cellular therapy2024 Jun
原文标识
PubMed 38281590 · DOI 10.1016/j.jtct.2024.01.074