Treatments for acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A comparison between Tisagenlecleucel and Clofarabine

• Autores: Carmona, Rocío Guadalupe; Montivero, Malena; Quattrocchi, Georgina; Zarelli, Valeria; Giai, Constanza; Quintero, Cristián Andrés
• Año de publicación: 2025
• Idioma: inglés
• Tipo de recurso: artículo
• Materia: tisagenlecleucel; clofarabina; leucemia linfoblástica aguda
• Institución: Universidad Maza

Fil: Carmona, Rocío Guadalupe. Universidad Juan Agustín Maza. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina
Fil: Montivero, Malena. Universidad Juan Agustín Maza. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina
Fil: Quattrocchi, Georgina. Universidad Juan Agustín Maza. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina
Fil: Zarelli, Valeria. Universidad Juan Agustín Maza. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina
Fil: Zarelli, Valeria. Universidad Juan Agustín Maza. Laboratorio de Genética, Ambiente y Reproducción; Argentina
Fil: Giai, Constanza. Universidad Juan Agustín Maza. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina
Fil: Giai, Constanza. Universidad Juan Agustín Maza. Laboratorio de Biología Molecular y Celular; Argentina
Fil: Quintero, Cristián Andrés. Universidad Juan Agustín Maza. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina
Fil: Quintero, Cristián Andrés. Universidad Juan Agustín Maza. Laboratorio de Biología Molecular y Celular; Argentina
Background: Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is a heterogeneous hematological malignancy predominantly affecting individuals under 20 years of age. Traditional chemotherapy, such as clofarabine, has shown efficacy; however, novel immunotherapeutic strategies like tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah®) have significantly altered the treatment paradigm. Aim: This study aimed to perform a comparative analysis of tisagenlecleucel, a CAR-T cell therapy, and clofarabine, a second-generation purine nucleoside analog, evaluating their mechanisms of action, therapeutic benefits, limitations, and clinical applicability across diverse patient populations. Methods: A systematic comparative evaluation was conducted, encompassing pharmacological characteristics, mechanisms of action, treatment protocols, efficacy, safety profiles, and clinical indications of both agents. The análisis considered pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data and included patient demographic variables. Results: Tisagenlecleucel demonstrated high efficacy in refractory B-cell ALL, with durable responses and a blood half-life of 128 days, but with notable immune-related adverse effects such as cytokine release syndrome. Clofarabine, effective across a broader patient population, acts via multiple antitumor mechanisms but carries significant toxicity risks, including infection and sepsis. Discussion: The therapies present distinct clinical profiles: tisagenlecleucel offers targeted immunotherapy with high specificity but requires specialized infrastructure and management of immune toxicities. Clofarabine is more widely accessible and applicable, but is associated with conventional chemotherapy-related side effects. Treatment accessibility and cost differ markedly between the two. Conclusions: Therapy selection should be personalized based on patient-specific factors and institutional resources. Tisagenlecleucel is ideal for pediatric and young adult patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell ALL in CAR-T-capable centers, while clofarabine remains a viable option for broader ALL populations, particularly when genetic therapies are not feasible. Further research is needed to optimize therapeutic strategies and improve access to advanced treatments.