ReviewBlood neoplasia2025
Safety landscape of bispecific antibody therapy in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a meta-analysis.
Review in Blood neoplasia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Critical complications in cancer patients admitted to the ICU in the era of immunotherapy: recognition, differential diagnosis, and management.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Exploring the depths of hypogammaglobulinemia in lymphoid malignancies: Pathophysiology, clinical implications, management options, and future directions.Blood reviews · 2025Review
- Single-Agent and Associated Therapies with Monoclonal Antibodies: What About Follicular Lymphoma?Cancers · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) have emerged as a novel immunotherapy option for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma; however; their safety profiles remain underexplored. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to better delineate the safety profiles of BsAbs, focusing on the prevalence and rates of infection, neutropenia, cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). A comprehensive literature search led to the inclusion of 32 trials, with a total of 2192 patients. Median age of participants was 66 years (range, 55-84) with a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range, 0-5). At a median follow-up of 9.4 months (range, 2.8-32 , the pooled prevalence of all-grade and grade ≥3 neutropenia was 38% and 26%, respectively, with all-grade and grade ≥3 infections occurring at a rate of 38% and 12%, respectively. The prevalence of all grade CRS was 48% but only 2% was grade ≥3, whereas ICANS was infrequent (5% all grade). Stratification revealed both increased all-grade neutropenia and infection rates with combination therapy in comparison to BsAbs monotherapy. Despite these variations, BsAbs demonstrated an overall manageable safety profile, suggesting their viability as a treatment option in the relapsed/refractory setting. Standardized safety reporting and vigilant monitoring are essential to optimize their clinical use and improve patient outcomes.
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.