Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2025
Incidence of acute kidney injury in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma treated with teclistamab versus CAR-T cells.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Charkviani Mariam, Brochero Maria Jose Vargas, Mohan Arjunmohan, Vaughan Lisa E, Sandahl Tyler B, Corraes Andre De Menezes Silva, Lin Yi, Leung Nelson, Herrmann Sandra M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Teclistamab, a novel bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting CD3 and B cell maturation antigen (BCMA), and chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy are promising options for treating relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). However, the rates of acute kidney injury (AKI) associated with teclistamab remain inadequately characterized. This study aims to compare the incidence, severity, and outcomes of AKI between patients receiving teclistamab and CAR-T therapy.
METHODS: This was a retrospective study involving 64 patients with relapsed/refractory MM treated with either teclistamab or CAR-T therapy. All patients had previously received at least four lines of chemotherapy before being treated with either teclistamab or CAR-T. The primary outcome was the incidence of AKI, and secondary outcomes included AKI severity, kidney recovery rates, and mortality. Kaplan-Meier estimates for AKI-free survival were calculated, and hazard ratios (HRs) for AKI risk were determined using Cox proportional hazards models.
RESULTS: Sixty-four patients met inclusion criteria for this study (30 received CAR-T and 34 received teclistamab therapy). Among these patients, 14 AKI events occurred in total (22%), with 10 events (29%) in the teclistamab group and four events (13%) in the CAR-T group. AKI-free survival estimates at 180 days after treatment initiation were 68% [95% confidence interval (CI): 53%-87%] for teclistamab patients and 90% (95% CI: 79%-100%) for CAR-T patients. While patients receiving teclistamab were found to have an increased risk of an AKI event compared to those receiving CAR-T therapy, the results were not statistically significant [HR (95% CI): 3.38 (0.93-12.31), P = .065].
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that patients treated with teclistamab may experience a higher incidence of AKI compared to those receiving CAR-T therapy. However, further research is required to determine whether this increased risk is attributable to disease progression or teclistamab itself. These results highlight the need for close kidney function monitoring in patients receiving teclistamab.
METHODS: This was a retrospective study involving 64 patients with relapsed/refractory MM treated with either teclistamab or CAR-T therapy. All patients had previously received at least four lines of chemotherapy before being treated with either teclistamab or CAR-T. The primary outcome was the incidence of AKI, and secondary outcomes included AKI severity, kidney recovery rates, and mortality. Kaplan-Meier estimates for AKI-free survival were calculated, and hazard ratios (HRs) for AKI risk were determined using Cox proportional hazards models.
RESULTS: Sixty-four patients met inclusion criteria for this study (30 received CAR-T and 34 received teclistamab therapy). Among these patients, 14 AKI events occurred in total (22%), with 10 events (29%) in the teclistamab group and four events (13%) in the CAR-T group. AKI-free survival estimates at 180 days after treatment initiation were 68% [95% confidence interval (CI): 53%-87%] for teclistamab patients and 90% (95% CI: 79%-100%) for CAR-T patients. While patients receiving teclistamab were found to have an increased risk of an AKI event compared to those receiving CAR-T therapy, the results were not statistically significant [HR (95% CI): 3.38 (0.93-12.31), P = .065].
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that patients treated with teclistamab may experience a higher incidence of AKI compared to those receiving CAR-T therapy. However, further research is required to determine whether this increased risk is attributable to disease progression or teclistamab itself. These results highlight the need for close kidney function monitoring in patients receiving teclistamab.