Advancing autoimmune Rheumatic disease treatment: CAR-T Cell Therapies - Evidence, Safety, and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite advancements in managing autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) with existing treatments, many patients still encounter challenges such as inadequate responses, difficulty in maintaining remission, and side effects. Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, originally developed for cancer, has now emerged as a promising option for cases of refractory ARDs. METHODS: A search of the literature was conducted to compose a narrative review exploring the current evidence, potential safety, limitations, potential modifications, and future directions of CAR-T cells in ARDs. RESULTS: CAR-T cell therapy has been administered to patients with refractory ARDs, including systemic lupus erythematosus, antisynthetase syndrome, and systemic sclerosis, demonstrating significant improvement. Notable responses include enhanced clinical symptoms, reduced serum autoantibody titers, and sustained remissions in disease activity. Preclinical and in vitro studies using both animal and human samples also support the efficacy and elaborate on potential mechanisms of CAR-T cells against antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis and rheumatoid arthritis. While cautious monitoring of adverse events, such as cytokine release syndrome, is crucial, the therapy appears to be highly tolerable. Nevertheless, challenges persist, including cost, durability due to potential CAR-T cell exhaustion, and manufacturing complexities, urging the development of innovative solutions to further enhance CAR-T cell therapy accessibility in ARDs. CONCLUSIONS: CAR-T cell therapy for refractory ARDs has demonstrated high effectiveness. While no significant warning signs are currently reported, achieving a balance between therapeutic efficacy and safety is vital in adapting CAR-T cell therapy for ARDs. Moreover, there is significant potential for technological advancements to enhance the delivery of this treatment to patients, thereby ensuring safer and more effective disease control for patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".