Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36033121›Full record

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.

Bayarmagnai Weinstein, Bogdan Muresan, Sara Solano, Antonio Vaz de Macedo, YoonJung Lee, Yu-Chen Su, Yeseul Ahn, Gabriela Henriquez, Cristina Camargo, Gwang-Jin Kim and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Bayarmagnai WeinsteinPrinciples and Practice of Clinical Research (PPCR) Program, ECPE, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, USA.
Bogdan MuresanCo-first authors.
Sara SolanoPrinciples and Practice of Clinical Research (PPCR) Program, ECPE, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, USA.
Antonio Vaz de MacedoPrinciples and Practice of Clinical Research (PPCR) Program, ECPE, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, USA.
YoonJung LeeDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, USA.
Yu-Chen SuInari Medical, Biostatistics and Programming Dept, USA.
Yeseul AhnDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, USA.
Gabriela HenriquezThese authors contributed equally to this work.
Cristina CamargoSchool of Medicine, Univesida de São Paulo, Brazil.
Gwang-Jin KimInstitute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany.
David O CarpenterDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University at Albany, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta)Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR)Comparative Effectiveness StudyDiffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL)LymphomaMatching Adjusted Indirect ComparisonSystematic Literature Review

Identifiers

PMID36033121
PMCPMC9401376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.