Abstract
Introduction
Seizures may occur in up to 30% of non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients who received anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, yet the optimal anti-seizure medication (ASM) prevention strategy has not been thoroughly investigated.
Methods
Consecutive patients affected by refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received anti-CD19 CAR T-cells were included. Patients were selected and assessed using similar internal protocols. ASM was started either as a primary prophylaxis (PP-group) before CAR T-cells infusion or as a pre-emptive therapy (PET-group) only upon the onset of neurotoxicity development.
Results
One hundred fifty-six patients were included (PP-group = 88, PET-group = 66). Overall, neurotoxicity and severe neurotoxicity occurred in 45 (29%) and 20 (13%) patients, respectively, equally distributed between the two groups. Five patients experienced epileptic events (PET-group = 3 [4%]; PP-group = 2 [2%]). For all the PET-group patients, seizure/status epilepticus occurred in the absence of overt CAR-T-related neurotoxicity, whereas patients in the PP-group experienced brief seizures only in the context of critical neurotoxicity with progressive severe encephalopathy. ASMs were well-tolerated by all patients, even without titration. No patients developed epilepsy or required long-term ASMs.
Conclusion
Our data suggest that both primary and pre-emptive anti-seizure prophylaxis are safe and effective in anti-CD19 CAR T-cell recipients. Clinical rationale suggests a possible more favourable profile of primary prophylaxis, yet no definitive conclusion of superiority between the two ASM strategies can be drawn from our study.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy represents a novel and highly effective treatment for refractory haematological cancers [1, 2]. Yet, it is often complicated by systemic and neurological toxicities, namely cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) [3, 4]. Neurotoxicity usually develops concomitantly or a few days after CRS and arguably results from cytokine-mediated neuroinflammation [3, 5,6,7].
ICANS may present in up to 77% of the patients and has a monophasic, fluctuating, or progressive, acute course [8]. Neurological manifestations are heterogeneous and include dysgraphia, non-fluent aphasia, tremors, headache, frontal lobe dysfunction, altered mental status, seizures, and status epilepticus [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. Notably, the incidence of seizures among patients undergoing CAR T-cell therapy, despite being highly heterogeneous, is reported in up to 30% [8, 9, 17]. Additionally, electroencephalographic abnormalities are almost ubiquitously observed during neurotoxicity [18, 19]. Therefore, anti-seizure medications (ASMs) have been employed in preventive regimens in clinical trials and real-world studies on CAR T-cell recipients, yet it is not clear which is the best strategy to adopt in terms of efficacy and risk of adverse effects [9]. This study aims to explore the efficacy and safety of ASMs implementation in two real-world cohorts adopting different (primary and pre-emptive) seizures prophylaxis strategies in non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with anti-CD19 CAR T-cells.
Methods
Standard protocol approval, registrations, and patient consent
The study was approved by the local institutional review boards (protocol number: CE: 319/2021/Sper/AOUBo and ONC/OSS-02/2022). Written informed consent was obtained from all enrolled patients for study participation and data publication. All procedures were conducted according to the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Study design
This was a multicentric, real-life cohort study. Patients affected by large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL], primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma [PMBCL], mantle cell lymphoma [MCL], and follicular lymphoma [FL]) who received anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy were prospectively enrolled from August 2019 to March 2023. Two patients presenting with fulminant cerebral oedema were excluded from the study due to the exceptionally severe nature of this condition and its high likelihood of rapidly progressing to a fatal outcome despite aggressive treatment interventions. Patients were recruited from two haematological centres in Italy: IRCCS Policlinico Sant’Orsola-Malpighi in Bologna and IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital in Milan. Patients were selected and assessed with similar internal protocols, except for ASMs initiation. Indeed, at the former centre, all patients received primary prophylaxis (PP-group)—ASM introduced before CAR T-cell infusion. In contrast, at the latter centre, ASM was administered as either primary prophylaxis (PP-group) or as pre-emptive therapy (PET-group) at the discretion of the treating haematologist. In the pre-emptive regimen, ASMs were administered only upon evidence of neurotoxicity development (ICANS ≥ 1). The standard ASM employed was Levetiracetam 750 mg twice daily in both groups with dosage adjustment based on drug plasmatic levels. Levetiracetam was chosen for seizure prophylaxis due to its favourable drug-drug interaction profile and reduced risk of cardiotoxicity in comparison to other anti-seizure medications [20]. Additionally, it can be safely administered to patients with hepatic dysfunction, although dosage adjustments might be necessary for individuals with renal dysfunction [20]. Moreover, it is noteworthy that levetiracetam treatment does not impact cytokine levels, further underscoring its safety in CAR T-cell recipients [21].
The ASM was slowly tapered and discontinued after one month from CAR T-cell infusion for patients who did not experience any seizures or at the discretion of the treating neurologist for the patients who had seizures.
The same inclusion criteria, defined by the Italian Medicine Agency (AIFA) reimbursement criteria, were applied in both centres. These included the following: (i) > 18 years old, (ii) diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma refractory or relapsed after at least two specific anti-tumour therapies, (iii) absence of a poor performance status (defined by an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status [ECOG PS] > 1), (iv) absence of central nervous system involvement, and (v) absence of severe organ dysfunction. A brain MRI with contrast was performed on every patient to exclude central nervous system involvement. Additionally, on a case-by-case basis, a neurological examination and diagnostic lumbar puncture were also performed in the presence of red flags.
The haematological protocol adopted by the two centres was equivalent. Following leukapheresis, the patients received variable bridging therapies at the discretion of the treating haematologist to restrain the cancer burden while waiting for CAR T-cell manufactory and infusion. The bridging therapies adopted included chemotherapy, radiotherapy, corticosteroids, or immunotherapy. As a lymphodepleting chemotherapy regimen, all patients received cyclophosphamide (250–500 mg/m2) and fludarabine (25–30 mg/m2) for three days. All patients received an anti-CD19 CAR t-cell product: axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cell), tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), or brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel).
Toxicity assessment and management
CRS and ICANS were diagnosed and graded according to the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT) Consensus Grading [3]. The neurological assessment protocol was slightly different in the two centres. In the PP-group, EEG and neurologist consultations were performed every other day since CAR T-cell infusion, whereas in the PET-group, neurologist consultations and EEG were performed only after neurotoxicity onset. Detailed information on the neurological assessment and management at the IRCCS Malpighi-Sant’Orsola Hospital has been previously published [11]. In both groups, every 6 h since CAR T-cell infusion, examinations to detect neurotoxicity signs were performed by health personnel (haematologists or nurses) who received specific training in the assessment of ICANS and always included the ICE (immune effector cell-associate encephalopathy) score. Upon evidence of neurotoxicity development, neurological diagnostic tests were performed at the discretion of the treating neurologist, including brain MRI, standard or continuous EEG, diagnostic lumbar puncture, and brain FDG-PET. Conversely, neurotoxicity management was homogenous between centres. Intravenous dexamethasone 10 mg three or four times a day was started in the case of grade 2 ICANS. Whenever a severe (grade ≥ 3) neurotoxicity was diagnosed, intravenous high-dose methylprednisolone (1000 mg daily for 3–5 days) was promptly started, and the patient was transferred to an intensive care unit. Finally, in the case of steroid-refractory neurotoxicity, defined as the clinical progression or absence of amelioration following 48 h of high-dose steroids, monoclonal anti-cytokines antibodies were administered (anakinra or siltuximab). In summary, the neurotoxicity surveillance was more scrupulous before ICANS onset in the PP-group, whereas neurotoxicity follow-up and management overlaid.
Outcomes
The primary outcome of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the two ASM protocols, defined by drug tolerance, and the seizure and status epilepticus incidence. The secondary outcomes were to characterize the clinical and EEG features of the epileptic manifestations and describe their management and long-term follow-up.
Statistics
The statistical analysis was performed with IBM SPSS Statistics Version 29. Continuous variables were reported as mean and standard deviation and assessed for distribution with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov normality test. Normally distributed variables were reported with the paired sample t-test, whereas not normally distributed variables with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Categorical variables were expressed as counts and percentages and compared with the Pearson Chi-square test. All calculated p values were two-tailed. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
Results
Patient disposition, baseline characteristics, and neurotoxicity features
Comprehensively, 156 patients were enrolled in the study: 88 patients in the PP-group (75 from IRCCS Malpighi Sant’Orsola Hospital and 13 from IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital) and 68 patients in the PET-group (all from IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital). The epidemiological and clinical characteristics of the two groups are summarized in Table 1. The average age was 60, and 54 (35%) patients were females. Most patients were affected by DLBCL (72%) and had an advanced disease stage at the time of CAR T-cell infusion (74%). Different CAR T-cell products have been administered: tisa-cel (51%), axi-cel (37%), and brexu-cel (12%). Most of the patients (83%) experienced CRS, yet severe systemic toxicity was rare (6%). Overall, ICANS and severe ICANS occurred in 45 (29%) and 20 (13%) patients, respectively, equally distributed between the two groups. Yet, the time of neurotoxicity onset was slightly delayed in the PET-group (8.2 days vs 5.2 days; p = 0.081). The PP-group presented a higher mean number of failed therapies for haematological disease (2.83 vs. 2.26; p = 0.003) and a longer cancer history (47 vs. 30 months; p = 0.031). No other statistically significant difference in baseline epidemiological or clinical features was observed between the two groups.
Seizure and status epilepticus incidence, clinical characteristics, timing, and management
Five patients (3%) experienced seizures, three from the PET-group (4%) and two from the PP-group (2%). Three patients progressed to a status epilepticus. Detailed clinical characteristics of the five patients are reported in Table 2 and Supplementary information. No statistical comparison to assess for prognostic factors associated with seizure development was possible due to the small sample size. Three patients were young women (31–32 years old) affected by PMBCL, received pembrolizumab as a bridge therapy, and received Axi-cel as the CAR T-cell product. Notably, the three patients in the PET-group exhibited seizure/status epilepticus as their primary and sole neurotoxicity manifestations, even though all patients had already experienced CRS. Conversely, the two patients in the PP-group encountered epileptic events following the onset of extremely severe neurotoxicity (ICANS grade 4): one patient experienced a single seizure, while the other encountered three clustered brief seizures.
Safety and long-term follow-up
No patient experienced ASM intolerance in the PP-group where treatment was slowly titrated. In the PET-group, no apparent drug intolerance was observed, yet the neurotoxicity manifestations presented concomitantly, hampering an accurate evaluation of possible iatrogenic symptoms. In all the PP-group patients, levetiracetam plasma concentrations were in the normal range at neurotoxicity onset. No patients experienced any further seizures at follow-up or required the maintenance of ASM.
Discussion
Seizures and status epilepticus were relatively rare in our study compared to historical cohorts, with a prevalence of 4% and 2%, respectively, suggesting the effectiveness of both prophylaxis strategies. Two patients had isolated tonic–clonic seizures, whereas three patients developed a status epilepticus. Notably, these three patients were young women affected by PMBCL and received pembrolizumab as the bridge therapy. Axi-cel products and immune checkpoint inhibitors before infusion are well-known risk factors for developing CAR T-cell toxicities [22]. Conversely, the potential role of PMBCL and the female sex as potential risk factors for seizure and neurotoxicity at large remains unexplored. Future more extensive studies to investigate which of the abovementioned features is the main driver risk factor are warranted for definitive conclusions. Yet, in the meanwhile, considering that these epidemiological features and therapeutic options are likely to present combined—PBMCLs usually present in young females treated with Axi-cel [23]—they should be considered at a high risk of epileptic events.
Even though the incidence of seizure in the primary prophylactic group was only minimally inferior compared to the pre-emptive group, some critical clinical differences were observed. Notably, the patients from the primary prophylaxis group experienced seizure only after developing severe neurotoxicity. Conversely, all three patients from the PET group displayed seizure and status epilepticus in the absence of signs of broader neurotoxicity. Taken together, these data suggest that the use of prophylactic ASMs might have the potential to effectively mitigate seizures when they are the exclusive neurotoxicity presentation, while also potentially attenuating the severity of epileptic manifestations in fully developed ICANS. Moreover, a gradual titration of ASM could serve as a protective measure against the risk of neurological side effects associated with rapid intravenous bolus titration, which is essential in the PET group to promptly achieve the therapeutic range.
Additionally, while an epileptic event might not have an immediate bearing on the prognosis, even an isolated seizure can increase the duration of hospitalization in the intensive care unit and/or the haematology ward. Consequently, this prolonged hospital stay heightens the susceptibility of immunocompromised patients to infections and may amplify the economic burden associated with their care [24].
Interestingly, patients in the PET group who experienced seizures showed a delayed onset of neurotoxicity compared to those in the PP group. Considering that these patients did not present any other neurotoxicity manifestations, this observation might reflect a heightened brain susceptibility to seizures in the days or weeks following CAR T-cell infusion, even in the absence of overt neurotoxicity in patients not receiving anti-seizure medications. Conversely, seizure patients in the PP group were observed in the context of severe neurotoxicity, that usually occur in the first days following CAR T-cells infusion. However, the limited number of cases prevent to draw any definitive conclusion.
Notably, no patients developed further seizures during the follow-up, supporting the transient nature of the seizure risk factors without persistent sequelae. This is in line with mounting recent evidence that supports the reversibility of neurotoxicity and long-term neurologic safety following CAR T-cell therapies [11, 25, 26]. Additionally, no patient experienced any drug intolerance with both ASM regimens. Yet, we cannot exclude that patients in the PET group may have developed some drug-related side effects that were not detected due to the progression of neurotoxicity symptoms [27]. Indeed, the ASM was started only after the onset of neurological manifestations, mainly encephalopathy, and with no drug titration.
Several limitations of the present study require an in-depth discussion. The patients were treated in two different hospitals; therefore, several selection and management biases may have been present. Yet, the same inclusion criteria and management protocols were adopted. The study sample was small and with few incident seizure cases, preventing any statistical analysis. Nonetheless, considering the modest number of patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy currently, our study has one of the largest cohorts of ICANS. The PP-group had a significantly longer disease history, a higher number of failed oncological therapies, and more frequently received Axi-cel as CAR T-cell product. Most patients who received primary prophylaxis were more frequently evaluated with EEG. Finally, a few patients from the hospital with pre-emptive ASM internal protocol were deliberately treated with primary prophylaxis by the treating physicians because they were considered at higher risk of developing neurotoxicity. Collectively, these latter limitations reflected a higher risk of developing seizures and a higher diagnostic sensitivity in the PP group. Currently, there is no evidence to support ASM primary prophylaxis in medicine except in patients with severe traumatic brain injury during the early post-traumatic period [28]. Therefore, ASMs are usually started only as a secondary prevention measure in patients with epilepsy [29]. The International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) defines epilepsy as a disease with a tendency toward developing a seizure of at least 60% over the next ten years [30].
In this context, the risk of developing a seizure following CAR T-cell therapy is extremely high—up to 30% in the subsequent 7–10 days [9]. Therefore, advocating for short-term primary prophylaxis in CAR T-cell therapy in this population might be reasonable, especially in patients with identifiable risk factors for developing ICANS. Additionally, the initiation of anti-seizure medication before CAR T-cell infusion enables a gradual titration and dosage adjustment based on plasma levels, thereby mitigating potential side effects.
Conclusions
Haematological patients undergoing anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy experience a temporary heightened susceptibility to seizures and status epilepticus. Administration of anti-seizure medications as either a primary or pre-emptive prophylactic measure is safe and effective in this population. Given the potential implications for patient care, a comprehensive randomized clinical trial would be necessary to determine the optimal anti-seizure medication strategy for this specific patient population. Yet, the optimal safety and efficacy profile of the short-term primary prophylaxis regimen might be sufficient to advocate for its widespread use, especially in the absence of reliable seizure-risk stratification scores. It is noteworthy that young females affected by PMBCL might present a higher predisposition to develop epileptic events.
Data availability
Data associated with this scientific article have been deposited in the open repository Zenodo, and they will be available upon appropriate request.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Change history
04 April 2024
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-024-07510-y
References
Farkona S, Diamandis EP, Blasutig IM (2016) Cancer immunotherapy: the beginning of the end of cancer? BMC Med 14:73
Singh AK, McGuirk JP (2020) CAR T cells: continuation in a revolution of immunotherapy. Lancet Oncol 21:e168–e178
Lee DW, Santomasso BD, Locke FL et al (2019) ASTCT consensus grading for cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicity associated with immune effector cells. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 25:625–638
Gust J, Ponce R, Liles WC, Garden GA, Turtle CJ (2020) Cytokines in CAR T cell-associated neurotoxicity. Front Immunol 11:577027
Pensato U, Muccioli L, Cani I et al (2021) Brain dysfunction in COVID-19 and CAR-T therapy: cytokine storm-associated encephalopathy. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 8:968–979
Gust J, Taraseviciute A, Turtle CJ (2018) Neurotoxicity associated with CD19-targeted CAR-T cell therapies. CNS Drugs 32:1091–1101
Pensato U, Guarino M, Muccioli L (2022) The role of neurologists in the era of cancer immunotherapy: focus on CAR T-cell therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Front Neurol 13:936141
Rubin DB, Danish HH, Ali AB et al (2019) Neurological toxicities associated with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Brain 142:1334–1348
Santomasso BD, Park JH, Salloum D et al (2018) Clinical and biological correlates of neurotoxicity associated with CAR T-cell therapy in patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer Discov 8:958–971
Pensato U, Amore G, D’Angelo R et al (2022) Frontal predominant encephalopathy with early paligraphia as a distinctive signature of CAR T-cell therapy-related neurotoxicity. J Neurol 269:609–615
Pensato U, Amore G, Muccioli L et al (2023) CAR T-cell therapy in bologna-neurotoxicity treatment and assessment in lymphoma (CARBON-NEUTRAL): proposed protocol and results from an Italian study. J Neurol 270:2659–2673
Strati P, Nastoupil LJ, Westin J et al (2020) Clinical and radiologic correlates of neurotoxicity after axicabtagene ciloleucel in large B-cell lymphoma. Blood Adv 4:3943–3951
Rice J, Nagle S, Randall J, Hinson HE (2019) Chimeric antigen receptor T cell-related neurotoxicity: mechanisms, clinical presentation, and approach to treatment. Curr Treat Options Neurol 21:40
Gust J, Hay KA, Hanafi LA et al (2017) Endothelial activation and blood-brain barrier disruption in neurotoxicity after adoptive immunotherapy with CD19 CAR-T cells. Cancer Discov 7:1404–1419
Pensato U, Muccioli L, Zinzani P, D’Angelo R, Pierucci E, Casadei B, Dicataldo M, De Matteis S, Cortelli P, Bonifazi F, Guarino M (2022) Correction to: Fulminant cerebral edema following CAR T-cell therapy: case report and pathophysiological insights from literature review. J Neurol 269(8):4564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-022-11156-1. Erratum for: J Neurol 2022;269(8):4560–4563
Pensato U, de Philippis C, Mannina D, Taurino D, Sarina B, Mariotti J, Villa F, Costantini E, Marcheselli S, Bramanti S (2024) Frontal lobe status epilepticus related to CAR T-cell therapy responsive to Anakinra. Can J Neurol Sci 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2024.7
Gust J, Finney OC, Li D et al (2019) Glial injury in neurotoxicity after pediatric CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy. Ann Neurol 86:42–54
Huby S, Gelisse P, Tudesq JJ, Labauge P, Duflos C, Cartron G, Gallerand MA, Platon L, Badiou S, Lamure S, Menjot de Champfleur N, Ayrignac X, Taieb G (2023) Frontal intermittent rhythmic delta activity is a useful diagnostic tool of neurotoxicity after CAR T-cell infusion. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm 10(4):e200111. https://doi.org/10.1212/NXI.0000000000200111
Herlopian A, Dietrich J, Abramson JS, Cole AJ, Westover MB (2018) EEG findings in CAR T-cell therapy-related encephalopathy. Neurology 91:227–229
Hovinga CA (2001) Levetiracetam: a novel antiepileptic drug. Pharmacotherapy 21:1375–1388
Guenther S, Bauer S, Hagge M et al (2014) Chronic valproate or levetiracetam treatment does not influence cytokine levels in humans. Seizure 23:666–669
Crombie JL, Nastoupil LJ, Redd R et al (2021) Real-world outcomes of axicabtagene ciloleucel in adult patients with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma. Blood Adv 5:3563–3567
Zhou H, Liu Q, Lu S, Zou L (2023) Primary mediastinal/thymic diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a population-based study on incidence and survival. Ann Hematol 102:1879–1886
Maziarz RT, Yang H, Liu Q et al (2022) Real-world healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel among patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: an analysis of hospital data in the United States. Leuk Lymphoma 63:2052–2062
Maillet D, Belin C, Moroni C et al (2021) Evaluation of mid-term (6–12 months) neurotoxicity in B-cell lymphoma patients treated with CAR T cells: a prospective cohort study. Neuro Oncol 23:1569–1575
Ursu R, Maillet D, Belin C et al (2022) Long-term neurologic safety in patients with B-cell lymphoma treated with anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Neurology 99:511–515
Abou-Khalil BW (2022) Update on Antiseizure Medications 2022. Continuum (Minneap Minn) 28:500–535
Temkin NR, Dikmen SS, Wilensky AJ, Keihm J, Chabal S, Winn HR (1990) A randomized, double-blind study of phenytoin for the prevention of post-traumatic seizures. N Engl J Med 323:497–502
Bergey GK (2016) Management of a first seizure. Continuum (Minneap Minn) 22:38–50
Fisher RS, Acevedo C, Arzimanoglou A et al (2014) ILAE official report: a practical clinical definition of epilepsy. Epilepsia 55:475–482
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by “Ricerca Corrente” funding from Italian Ministry of Health to IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital.
Funding
The paper was funded to FB by the Italian Ministry of Health, RC-2022- 2773291 Project: Identificazione di biomarcatori di risposta clinica e di insorgenza di complicanze in pazienti ematologici sottoposti a terapia CAR-T and Italian Ministry of University: Heal Italia health extended alliance for innovative therapies, advanced lab-research, and integrated approaches of precision medicine (code PE0000019).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
UP, CdP, FP, GMA, MG, and SB conceived the study. UP drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to the acquisition of data. All authors critically review the content of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Boards (protocol number: CE: 319/2021/Sper/AOUBo and ONC/OSS-02/2022).
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Consent for publication
All authors agreed with this final version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Maria Guarino and Stefania Bramanti contributed equally.
The original online version of this article was revised: The original article contains an error in author affiliations. The corrections needed for the article are the following: 1. Alessandra Crespi and Alessandro Buizza require double affiliations (Affiliations 1 and 2, instead of Affiliation 1 only).
2. Stefania Bramanti requires a single affiliation (only Affiliation 5, and not Affiliation 2 and 5).
Affiliations are now updated here.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Pensato, U., Pondrelli, F., de Philippis, C. et al. Primary vs. pre-emptive anti-seizure medication prophylaxis in anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. Neurol Sci 45, 4007–4014 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-024-07481-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-024-07481-0