决定异体 CAR T 细胞排斥与扩增的细胞和分子机制
Cellular and molecular mechanisms determining allogeneic CAR T cell rejection and expansion.
我们评估了11例接受单一批次cemacabtagene ansegedleucel(cema-cel)治疗的大B细胞淋巴瘤患者,cemacabtagene ansegedleucel是一种异体抗CD19 CAR T产品。
英文原题:Real-world evidence on infection risk in multiple myeloma treated with BiTEs and CAR-T cells: a meta-analysis.
在真实世界实践中,接受 T 细胞重定向治疗的 RRMM 患者中约每 4 例就有 1 例发生严重感染。
背景:双特异性T细胞衔接器(BiTE)和CAR-T 细胞疗法等T细胞重定向治疗显著改善了复发或难治性多发性骨髓瘤(RRMM)患者的结局。然而,感染并发症仍是主要安全性问题,尤其是在患者异质性高于临床试验人群的真实世界环境中。 方法:我们对真实世界回顾性研究开展系统综述和荟萃分析,评估接受已批准BiTE或CAR-T疗法的成人RRMM患者重度(3–4级)感染。采用随机效应模型估计合并事件率,并通过亚组分析、荟萃回归及敏感性分析考察异质性。 结果:共纳入16项研究、2097例患者。总体而言,24.2%的患者发生3–4级感染(合并事件率0.24;95% CI:0.21–0.28)。BiTE治疗患者(n=1602)的重度感染合并发生率为0.26(95% CI:0.23–0.30);靶向BCMA的BiTE发生率较高(0.27),高于靶向GPRC5D的BiTE(0.25)。CAR-T疗法(n=495)的合并感染率较低,为0.19(95% CI:0.12–0.27)。 结论:真实世界中,约四分之一接受RRMM T细胞重定向疗法的患者会发生重度感染。不同治疗平台和靶点间感染率差异应谨慎解读,因为这些结果源自非随机、异质队列之间的间接比较。尽管如此,数据支持在治疗决策中纳入患者虚弱程度和既往感染史。对于感染风险较高的患者,CAR-T治疗,或在CAR-T不可行时使用靶向GPRC5D的BiTE,可能是合理选择,但应纳入个体化且依据具体情境制定的治疗策略。
BACKGROUND: T-cell-redirecting therapies, including bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs) and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies, have substantially improved outcomes in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, infectious complications remain a major safety concern, particularly in real-world settings, where patients are more heterogeneous than those enrolled in clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world retrospective studies evaluating severe (grade 3-4) infections in adult patients with RRMM treated with approved BiTEs or CAR-T cell therapies. Pooled event rates were estimated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was explored through subgroup analyses, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Sixteen studies encompassing 2,097 patients were included. Overall, 24.2% of patients developed grade 3-4 infections (pooled event rate 0.24; 95% CI, 0.21-0.28). Among BiTEs-treated patients (n = 1,602), the pooled severe infection rate was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.23-0.30), with higher rates observed for BCMA-directed BiTEs (0.27) compared with GPRC5D-directed BiTEs (0.25). CAR-T cell therapies (n = 495) were associated with a lower pooled infection rate (0.19; 95% CI, 0.12-0.27). CONCLUSIONS: In real-world practice, severe infections affect approximately one in four patients receiving T-cell-redirecting therapies for RRMM. Observed differences in infection rates across platforms and targets should be interpreted with caution, as they derive from indirect comparisons in non-randomized, heterogeneous cohorts. Nevertheless, these data support incorporating patient frailty and prior infection history into therapeutic decision-making. CAR-T therapy, or GPRC5D-directed BiTEs when CAR-T is not feasible, may represent reasonable options in patients at higher infectious risk, within an individualized and context-dependent treatment strategy.
MEMBER ACCOUNT
登录成功会直接打开下一页。