Characterization of bridging therapies in clinical trials leading to <scp>FDA</scp> approval of <scp>CAR</scp>‐T cell therapies

During the time of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) manufacturing, bridging therapy is often used to control disease. Because it often involves systemic treatment, the bridging therapies can induce responses and/or adverse events. We sought to assess bridging therapies used in CAR-T trials in a cross-sectional study. We reviewed FDA drug labels and peer-reviewed registration trial reports (including supplemental data) to evaluate the characteristics of bridging therapy used in trials testing CAR-T therapies. We looked at which bridging therapies were used, whether multiple therapies were combined, the response rates, and the reported adverse events associated with bridging therapy. Of the 11 studies testing CAR-T therapies, 10 reported the bridging therapies that were used in the study. Of those that reported the types of bridging therapies (n = 10), the most commonly used bridging therapy was dexamethasone (10/10, 100%), rituximab (6/10, 60%), gemcitabine (5/10, 50%), and etoposide (5/10, 50%). Of the trials, one of 11 (9%) clearly reported whether patients had responses to bridging therapy, six of 11 (55%) vaguely reported responses, and four of 11 (36%) trials did not report or mention any response information regarding bridging therapy. Although patients are often refractory to first-line therapies, which share considerable overlap with bridging therapies, these therapies may induce responses. Despite this possibility, the reporting of bridging therapy combinations and their subsequent response rates and adverse event rates are highly variable. These findings highlight the need for greater transparency in the reporting of bridging therapy to more reliably assess the efficacy of CAR-T therapies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Cancer
Published
2025-05-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.35473
Primary Topic
CAR-T cell therapy research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Characterization of bridging therapies in clinical trials leading to FDA approval of CAR‐T cell therapies

Vinay Prasad, Victoria Kaestner, Alyson Haslam
International Journal of Cancer
CAR-T cell therapy research
article

Characterization of bridging therapies in clinical trials leading to FDA approval of CAR‐T cell therapies

Vinay Prasad, Victoria Kaestner, Alyson Haslam
article en

Abstract

During the time of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) manufacturing, bridging therapy is often used to control disease. Because it often involves systemic treatment, the bridging therapies can induce responses and/or adverse events. We sought to assess bridging therapies used in CAR-T trials in a cross-sectional study. We reviewed FDA drug labels and peer-reviewed registration trial reports (including supplemental data) to evaluate the characteristics of bridging therapy used in trials testing CAR-T therapies. We looked at which bridging therapies were used, whether multiple therapies were combined, the response rates, and the reported adverse events associated with bridging therapy. Of the 11 studies testing CAR-T therapies, 10 reported the bridging therapies that were used in the study. Of those that reported the types of bridging therapies (n = 10), the most commonly used bridging therapy was dexamethasone (10/10, 100%), rituximab (6/10, 60%), gemcitabine (5/10, 50%), and etoposide (5/10, 50%). Of the trials, one of 11 (9%) clearly reported whether patients had responses to bridging therapy, six of 11 (55%) vaguely reported responses, and four of 11 (36%) trials did not report or mention any response information regarding bridging therapy. Although patients are often refractory to first-line therapies, which share considerable overlap with bridging therapies, these therapies may induce responses. Despite this possibility, the reporting of bridging therapy combinations and their subsequent response rates and adverse event rates are highly variable. These findings highlight the need for greater transparency in the reporting of bridging therapy to more reliably assess the efficacy of CAR-T therapies.

International Journal of CancerVol. 157(7)
University of California, San Francisco (US), Drexel University (US)
Arnold Ventures
Openalex Percentile: Top 83%
CAR-T cell therapy research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.