Axicabtagene Ciloleucel versus Tisagenlecleucel for Relapsed or Refractory Large B Cell Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) are CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR -T) therapies approved for relapsed/refractory aggressive large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Signi ficant costs and complex manufacturing underscore the importance of evidence -based counseling regarding the outcomes of these treatments. With the aim of examining the ef ficacy and safety of axi-cel versus tisa-cel in patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive LBCL, we performed a systematic literature search of comparative studies evaluating outcomes in relapsed/refractory aggressive LBCL after treatment with axi-cel or tisa-cel. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% con fidence intervals (CIs) for response, progression -free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell -associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), and hematotoxicity. Meta -analysis and meta -regression were used to generate summary statistics. A total of 2372 participants were included in the 8 studies in our analysis. The dropout rate between apheresis and infusion was 13% for axi-cel versus 18% for tisa-cel, and the median time from apheresis to infusion was 32 days versus 45 days. Axi-cel showed higher odds for a complete response (OR, 1.65; P < .001) and was associated with higher odds for PFS at 1 year after infusion (OR, .60; P < .001). OS appeared to be improved with axi-cel (OR, .84; 95% CI, .68 to 1.02; P = .08), whereas the cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was 11.5% for axi-cel versus 3.7% for tisa-cel ( P = .002). The main predictors for survival were lactate dehydrogenase level, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, and response to bridging, and axi-cel maintained superior ef ficacy even in elderly patients. In terms of safety, axi-cel was associated with significantly higher odds of any -grade CRS (OR, 3.23; P < .001), but not of grade >3 CRS ( P = .92). Axi-cel was associated with significantly higher odds of severe ICANS grade >3 (OR, 4.03; P < .001). In terms of hematotoxicity, axi-cel was significantly associated with higher odds of severe neutropenia at 1 month after infusion (OR, 2.06; P = .003). As a result, axi-cel was associated with significantly greater resource utilization, including prolonged hospital stay, more frequent intensive care admission, and use of agents such as tocilizumab for toxicity management. We provide strong evidence of the greater efficacy of axi-cel versus tisa-cel in relapsed/refractory aggressive LBCL. The higher toxicity and NRM seen with axi-cel might not counterbalance the overall results, highlighting the need for timely intervention and careful selection of patients, balancing resource utilization and clinical benefit.