ArticleInnovations in pharmacy2021
Efficacy and Safety of Innovative Experimental Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cells versus Axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) for the Treatment of Relapsed/Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LBCL): Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparisons (MAICs) and Systematic Review.
Article in Innovations in pharmacy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Covariate selection and adjustment for efficacy and safety endpoints in indirect comparative effectiveness analyses of CAR-T-cell therapies for large B-cell lymphoma: a systematic review.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Pooled it
- Translational potential of γδ T cells in hematologic diseases: from immunobiology to therapeutic innovation.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Review
- Prostate cancer immunotherapy-based strategies: an updated review emphasizing immune checkpoint inhibitors.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite favorable results of CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL), several challenges remain, including incomplete response, immune-mediated toxicity, and antigen-loss relapse. We delineated the relative clinical benefit of the novel approaches compared to the currently approved CAR T-cell therapies. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons and randomized controlled trials, we performed Matching Adjusted Indirect Comparisons to quantify the relative efficacy and safety of experimental CARs against Axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta), the first FDA-approved CAR. A total of 182 R/R LBCL patients from 15 clinical trials with individual patient data (IPD) were pooled into eight populations by their CAR T-cell constructs and +/- ASCT status. The study endpoints were Progression-Free Survival (PFS), grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and grade ≥ 3 neurotoxicity (NT). Tandem CD19.CD20.4-1BBζ CARs indicated favorable efficacy and safety, whereas the co-infusion of CD19 & CD20 with 4-1BBζ showed no clinical benefit compared to Yescarta. Third generation CD19. CD28. 4-1BBζ, and sequential administration of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) and CD19. CARs presented statistically insignificant yet improved PFS and safety except for ASCT combined intervention which had suggestively higher NT risk than Yescarta. CARs with modified co-stimulatory domains to reduce toxicity (Hu19. CD8.28Zζ and CD19. BBz.86ζ) presented remarkable safety with no severe adverse events; however, both presented worse PFS than Yescarta. Third-generation CARs demonstrated statistically significantly lower NT than Yescarta. CD20. 4-1BBζ data suggested targeting CD20 antigen alone lacks clinical or safety benefit compared to Yescarta. Further comparisons with other FDA-approved CARs are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.