Data-informed optimization of CAR T-cell therapy long-term follow-up
Rattachement africain : us, ca. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Following administration of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, extensive long-term follow-up (LTFU) requirements and complex data collection processes have posed significant challenges for patients and providers. To reassess whether a 15-year LTFU period remains scientifically justified, we convened a multistakeholder working group that included representatives from patient advocacy groups, academia, industry, and government. This analysis incorporates newly aggregated primary data on composite percentages of adverse events (AEs) reported by year for five Food and Drug Administration-approved CAR T-cell therapies. Combined with previously published research, the findings indicate that AEs are infrequently reported after 3 years post-infusion, and secondary T-cell malignancy-the AE of primary concern based on the mechanism of action of CAR T-cell therapy-has predominantly been reported within the first 2 years. Based on current cumulative safety data, a 5-year follow-up period may be scientifically sufficient in both clinical trial and commercial settings. Additionally, we propose a streamlined process that leverages technological advancements to automate the transfer of focused safety data from electronic health records into a third-party database. To facilitate implementation, we recommend feasibility testing of this updated data collection approach using an established platform. We also outline regulatory policy considerations to most effectively enable adoption of these recommendations.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Data-informed optimization of CAR T-cell therapy long-term follow-up
- Date Crossref
- 01/04/2026
- Éditeur
- BMJ
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.