-
Transfusion and Apheresis Science :... Jun 2022Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CovCP) infusions have been widely used for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The aims of... (Review)
Review
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CovCP) infusions have been widely used for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The aims of this narrative review were to analyze the safety and efficacy of CovCP infusions in the overall population and in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19 and to identify the lessons learned concerning the use of convalescent plasma (CP) to fill treatment gaps for emerging viruses. Systematic searches (PubMed, Scopus, and COVID-19 Research) were conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles and pre-prints published between March 1, 2020 and May 1, 2021 on the use of CovCP for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. From 261 retrieved articles, 37 articles reporting robust controlled studies in the overall population of patients with COVID-19 and 9 articles in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19 were selected. While CovCP infusions are well tolerated in both populations, they do not seem to improve clinical outcomes in critically-ill patients with COVID-19 and no conclusion could be drawn concerning their potential benefits in immunocompromised patients with COVID-19. To be better prepared for future epidemics/pandemics and to evaluate potential benefits of CP treatment, only CP units with high neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) titers should be infused in patients with low NAb titers, patient eligibility criteria should be based on the disease pathophysiology, and measured clinical outcomes and methods should be comparable across studies. Even if CovCP infusions did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, NAb-containing CP infusions remain a safe, widely available and potentially beneficial treatment option for future epidemics/pandemics.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Immunocompromised Host; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 35063360
DOI: 10.1016/j.transci.2022.103355 -
International Journal of Molecular... Dec 2021The accelerated SARS-CoV-2 evolution under selective pressure by massive deployment of neutralizing antibody-based therapeutics is a concern with potentially severe...
The accelerated SARS-CoV-2 evolution under selective pressure by massive deployment of neutralizing antibody-based therapeutics is a concern with potentially severe implications for public health. We review here reports of documented immune escape after treatment with monoclonal antibodies and COVID-19-convalescent plasma (CCP). While the former is mainly associated with specific single amino acid mutations at residues within the receptor-binding domain (e.g., E484K/Q, Q493R, and S494P), a few cases of immune evasion after CCP were associated with recurrent deletions within the N-terminal domain of the spike protein (e.g., ΔHV69-70, ΔLGVY141-144 and ΔAL243-244). The continuous genomic monitoring of non-responders is needed to better understand immune escape frequencies and the fitness of emerging variants.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; COVID-19; Humans; Immune Evasion; Immunization, Passive; SARS-CoV-2; Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 35008446
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23010029 -
Frontiers in Neuroscience 2021Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is a mid-life onset neurodegenerative disease that manifests its symptomatology with motor impairments and cognitive deficits...
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) is a mid-life onset neurodegenerative disease that manifests its symptomatology with motor impairments and cognitive deficits overlapping with Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD). The etiology of ALS remains elusive, with various mechanisms and cellular targets implicated, and no treatment can reverse or stop the progression of the pathology. Therapeutic interventions based on passive immunization are gaining attention for neurodegenerative diseases, and FDA recently approved the first antibody-based approach for Alzheimer's disease. The present systematic review of the literature aims to highlight the efforts made over the past years at developing antibody-based strategies to cure ALS. Thirty-one original research papers have been selected where the therapeutic efficacy of antibodies were investigated and described in patients and animal models of ALS. Antibody-based interventions analyzed, target both extracellular molecules implicated in the pathology and intracellular pathogenic proteins known to drive the disease, such as SOD1, TDP-43 or C9ORF72 repeats expansions. The potentials and limitations of these therapeutic interventions have been described and discussed in the present review.
PubMed: 34912191
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.790114 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... Feb 2022Although tremendous advancements in cancer therapy over the last several years, cancer still is a complex illness to cure. Traditional cancer treatments, including...
Although tremendous advancements in cancer therapy over the last several years, cancer still is a complex illness to cure. Traditional cancer treatments, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery, have a poor therapeutic effect, emphasizing the significance of employing innovative treatments like activated cell therapy. Chimeric antigen receptor T cell is one of the most prevalent types of activated cell therapy have been developed to direct T lymphocytes toward cancers (CAR-T cells). CAR-T cells therapy has illustrated poor impact versus solid tumors despite the remarkable success in patients suffering from hematological malignancies. CAR-T cells must overcome various hurdles to obtain full responses to solid tumors, including growth, stability, trafficking, and destiny inside tumors. As a result, novel treatment methods will entail overcoming the challenges that CAR-T cells face in solid tumors. The use of CAR-T cells in combination with other therapeutic approaches such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immuno-checkpoint inhibitors, and oncolytic viruses can promote the effectiveness of CAR-T cell therapy for the treatment of solid tumors. However, more research is needed to determine the safety and effectiveness of these therapies. CAR-T cell treatment success rates vary by type of disease, but are predicted to reach up to 90% in patients with leukemia. However, since this kind of immunotherapy is still in its infancy, there is much to learn about its efficacy. This review provided an in-depth examination of CAR-T cell therapy and its success and failure as a cancer treatment approach. We also discuss combination therapies with CAR-T Cell.
Topics: Antigenic Drift and Shift; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Combined Modality Therapy; Hematologic Neoplasms; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Neoplasms; Oncolytic Virotherapy; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Tumor Microenvironment
PubMed: 34894519
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2021.112512 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Nov 2021Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ).
METHODS
In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence.
RESULTS
A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 34800996
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06829-7 -
RMD Open Oct 2021To update the EULAR 2020 systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents in SARS-CoV-2 infection.
OBJECTIVE
To update the EULAR 2020 systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents in SARS-CoV-2 infection.
METHODS
As part of a EULAR taskforce, a systematic literature search update was conducted from 11 December 2020 to 14 July 2021. Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies and extracted data on efficacy and safety of immunomodulatory agents used therapeutically in SARS-CoV-2 infection at any stage of disease. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with validated tools.
RESULTS
Of the 26 959 records, 520 articles were eligible for inclusion. Studies were mainly at high or unclear RoB. New randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on tocilizumab clarified its benefit in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, mainly if associated with glucocorticoids. There are emergent data on the usefulness of baricitinib and tofacitinib in severe COVID-19. Other therapeutic strategies such as the use of convalescent plasma and anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies showed efficacy in subjects not mounting normal anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses.
CONCLUSION
This new SLR confirms that some immunomodulators (tocilizumab and JAK inhibitors) have a role for treating severe and critical COVID-19. Although better evidence is available compared with the previous SLR, the need of RCT with combination therapy (glucocorticoids+anti-cytokines) versus monotherapy with glucocorticoids still remains alongside the need for standardisation of inclusion criteria and outcomes to ultimately improve the care and prognosis of affected people. This SLR informed the 2021 update of the EULAR points to consider on the use of immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Immunotherapy; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 34725262
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2021-001899 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2021We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We provided a comprehensive evaluation of efficacy of available treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We searched for candidate COVID-19 studies in WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database up to August 19, 2021. Randomized controlled trials for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients published on peer-reviewed journals were included, regardless of demographic characteristics. Outcome measures included mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Bayesian network meta-analysis with fixed effects was conducted to estimate the effect sizes using posterior means and 95% equal-tailed credible intervals (CrIs). Odds ratio (OR) was used as the summary measure for treatment effect. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate effect sizes of treatments grouped by the treatment classifications. We identified 222 eligible studies with a total of 102,950 patients. Compared with the standard of care, imatinib, intravenous immunoglobulin and tocilizumab led to lower risk of death; baricitinib plus remdesivir, colchicine, dexamethasone, recombinant human granulocyte colony stimulating factor and tocilizumab indicated lower occurrence of mechanical ventilation; tofacitinib, sarilumab, remdesivir, tocilizumab and baricitinib plus remdesivir increased the hospital discharge rate; convalescent plasma, ivermectin, ivermectin plus doxycycline, hydroxychloroquine, nitazoxanide and proxalutamide resulted in better viral clearance. From the treatment class level, we found that the use of antineoplastic agents was associated with fewer mortality cases, immunostimulants could reduce the risk of mechanical ventilation and immunosuppressants led to higher discharge rates. This network meta-analysis identified superiority of several COVID-19 treatments over the standard of care in terms of mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital discharge and viral clearance. Tocilizumab showed its superiority compared with SOC on preventing severe outcomes such as death and mechanical ventilation as well as increasing the discharge rate, which might be an appropriate treatment for patients with severe or mild/moderate illness. We also found the clinical efficacy of antineoplastic agents, immunostimulants and immunosuppressants with respect to the endpoints of mortality, mechanical ventilation and discharge, which provides valuable information for the discovery of potential COVID-19 treatments.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; COVID-19; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 34650951
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.729559 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Dec 2021Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibodies, particularly those preventing interaction between the viral spike receptor-binding... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibodies, particularly those preventing interaction between the viral spike receptor-binding domain and the host angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor, may prevent viral entry into host cells and disease progression.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis (TSA), and meta-regression of RCTs to evaluate the benefit of convalescent plasma for COVID-19. The primary outcome was 28-30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes included need for mechanical ventilation and ICU admission. Data sources were PubMed, Embase, MedRxiv, and the Cochrane library on July 2, 2021.
RESULTS
We identified 17 RCTs that recruited 15 587 patients with 8027 (51.5%) allocated to receive convalescent plasma. Convalescent plasma use was not associated with a mortality benefit (24.7% vs 25.5%; odds ratio [OR]=0.94 [0.85-1.04]; P=0.23; I=4%; TSA adjusted confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.05), or reduction in need for mechanical ventilation (15.7% vs 15.4%; OR=1.01 [0.92-1.11]; P=0.82; I=0%; TSA adjusted CI, 0.91-1.13), or ICU admission (22.4% vs 16.7%; OR=0.80 [0.21-3.09]; P=0.75; I=63%; TSA adjusted CI, 0.0-196.05). Meta-regression did not reveal association with titre of convalescent plasma, timing of administration, or risk of death and treatment effect (P>0.05). Risk of bias was high in most studies.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with COVID-19, there was no clear mortality benefit associated with convalescent plasma treatment. In patients with mild disease, convalescent plasma did not prevent either the need for mechanical ventilation or ICU admission.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42021234201 (PROSPERO).
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Regression Analysis; Respiration, Artificial; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 34579942
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2021.07.033 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2021To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).
DESIGN
Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data.
DATA SOURCES
WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021).
STUDY SELECTION
Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate.
METHODS
After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm.
RESULTS
As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative.
CONCLUSION
In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement.
FUNDING
This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321).
READERS' NOTE
This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Viral; Antiviral Agents; Bayes Theorem; COVID-19; Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Immunization, Passive; Network Meta-Analysis; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; COVID-19 Serotherapy
PubMed: 34556486
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n2231 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2021Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive cancer of the lymphatic system. About 30% to 40% of people with DLBCL experience relapse and 10% are refractory to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive cancer of the lymphatic system. About 30% to 40% of people with DLBCL experience relapse and 10% are refractory to first-line treatment usually consisting of R-CHOP chemotherapy. Of those eligible for second-line treatment, commonly consisting of salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT), around 50% experience relapse. With a median overall survival of less than six to 12 months, the prognosis of individuals who relapse or are refractory (r/r) to advanced lines of treatment or of those who are ineligible for ASCT, is very poor. With the introduction of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, a novel treatment option for these people is available.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for people with relapsed or refractory (r/r) DLBCL.
SEARCH METHODS
An experienced information specialist performed a systematic database search for relevant articles on CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase until September 11th, 2020. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of identified studies up to this date. All search results were screened by two authors independently and a third author was involved in case of discrepancies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospectively planned trials evaluating CAR T-cell therapy for people with r/r DLBCL. We had planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and we flexibly adapted eligibility criteria to the most reliable study designs available. We excluded studies involving fewer than 10 participants with r/r DLBCL and studies with a proportion of participants with r/r DLBCL below 70%, unless data were reported separately for this subgroup.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data and performed risk of bias ratings independently. A third author was involved in case of disagreements. As our search did not yield any completed RCTs, prospective controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) or prospective observational studies with a control group, we did not meta-analyse data and reported all results narratively. We adopted the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for prioritised outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 13 eligible uncontrolled studies evaluating a single or multiple arms of CAR T-cell therapies. We also identified 38 ongoing studies, including three RCTs. Ten studies are awaiting classification due to completion with no retrievable results data or insufficient data to justify inclusion. The mean number of participants enrolled, treated with CAR T-cell therapy and evaluated in the included studies were 79 (range 12 to 344; data unavailable for two studies), 61 (range 12 to 294; data unavailable for one study) and 52 (range 11 to 256), respectively. Most studies included people with r/r DLBCL among people with other haematological B-cell malignancies. Participants had received at least a median of three prior treatment lines (data unavailable for four studies), 5% to 50% had undergone ASCT (data unavailable for five studies) and, except for two studies, 3% to 18% had undergone allogenic stem-cell transplantation (data unavailable for eight studies). The overall risk of bias was high for all studies, in particular, due to incomplete follow-up and the absence of blinding. None of the included studies had a control group so that no adequate comparative effect measures could be calculated. The duration of follow-up varied substantially between studies, in particular, for harms. Our certainty in the evidence is very low for all outcomes. Overall survival was reported by eight studies (567 participants). Four studies reported survival rates at 12 months which ranged between 48% and 59%, and one study reported an overall survival rate of 50.5% at 24 months. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CAR T-cell therapy on overall survival. Two studies including 294 participants at baseline and 59 participants at the longest follow-up (12 months or 18 months) described improvements of quality of life measured with the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level visual analogue scale (EQ-5D-5L VAS) or Function Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma (FACT-Lym). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CAR T-cell therapy on quality of life. None of the studies reported treatment-related mortality. Five studies (550 participants) reported the occurrence of adverse events among participants, ranging between 99% and 100% for any grade adverse events and 68% to 98% for adverse events grade ≥ 3. In three studies (253 participants), 56% to 68% of participants experienced serious adverse events, while in one study (28 participants), no serious adverse events occurred. CAR T-cell therapy may increase the risk of adverse events and serious adverse events but the evidence is very uncertain about the exact risk. The occurrence of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was reported in 11 studies (675 participants) under use of various grading criteria. Five studies reported between 42% and 100% of participants experiencing CRS according to criteria described in Lee 2014. CAR T-cell therapy may increase the risk of CRS but the evidence is very uncertain about the exact risk. Nine studies (575 participants) reported results on progression-free survival, disease-free survival or relapse-free survival. Twelve-month progression-free survival rates were reported by four studies and ranged between 44% and 75%. In one study, relapse-free survival remained at a rate of 64% at both 12 and 18 months. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CAR T-cell therapy on progression-free survival. Thirteen studies (620 participants) provided data on complete response rates. At six months, three studies reported complete response rates between 40% and 45%. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CAR T-cell therapy on complete response rates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence on the benefits and harms of CAR T-cell therapy for people with r/r DLBCL is limited, mainly because of the absence of comparative clinical trials. The results we present should be regarded in light of this limitation and conclusions should be drawn very carefully. Due to the uncertainty in the current evidence, a large number of ongoing investigations and a risk of substantial and potentially life-threatening complications requiring supplementary treatment, it is critical to continue evaluating the evidence on this new therapy.
Topics: Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy; Humans; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Observational Studies as Topic; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen
PubMed: 34515338
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013365.pub2