Autologous polyclonal Treg therapy (T-Rex program)
Lisata Therapeutics (formerly Caladrius Biosciences)
What it is
This approach takes a person's own regulatory T cells (Tregs) — the immune cells that normally keep autoimmunity in check — grows them into the billions in a lab, and infuses them back to re-balance the immune attack on insulin-producing cells. A phase 1 trial in adults showed it was safe, with a fraction of the cells detectable up to a year. But the randomized phase 2 T-Rex trial in 110 children and adolescents found a single dose did not preserve C-peptide versus placebo. The idea remains scientifically alive, with Treg quality, dosing, and picking the right people to treat emerging as the focus.
Editorial review: .
Most recent recorded citation date: 2026-07-11. Only explicit date metadata is included; an undated citation may be newer. This does not mean every claim was reviewed on that date.
Trial status, labels and access can change between reviews. How we review the evidence · How to read the evidence
Evidence behind this assessment
Key evidence notes. Study results, product eligibility and access answer different questions.
- Who was studied?
- Study populations and analysis groups vary. Product age limits alone do not describe who was studied.See the linked studies and their populations →
- Benefit or performance
- Beta-cell preservation: In the randomized phase 2 T-Rex trial, a single dose of expanded Tregs did not slow the decline in residual C-peptide over one year versus placebo (P=0.94 low dose, P=0.21 high dose). Work published in July 2026 pooled pre-treatment samples from 560 participants across six immunotherapy trials and found two age-independent immune subtypes that decline at different rates and respond differently to immunotherapy — one subgroup responding better to anti-CD20, the other to CTLA4-Ig. It did not test Treg infusion, but it shows how averaging across a mixed population can hide a real effect in a subgroup.[1]
- Important harms and treatment burden
- Safety: Across phase 1 and phase 2, autologous Treg infusions were safe with no infusion reactions or cell-therapy-related high-grade adverse events — a clean safety profile for a cell therapy.[2]
- Approval and country access
- Country-specific approval and access are not summarized in this record.Approval, trial recruitment, local supply and funding are separate. Check the cited label or access source.
- Follow-up and remaining uncertainty
- Durability: Phase 1 showed transferred Tregs persisted up to a year and C-peptide held in some individuals past two years, but the controlled phase 2 showed no durable disease-modifying effect.[2]
Research status alone does not establish approval, clinical benefit or local availability.
Editorial score: calculation and evidence
A weighted editorial judgment on a 0–100 scale, not a probability of success or a measured treatment effect. Higher criterion scores mean more favorable assessments.
Default calculation: 18 × 30 + 25 × 20 + 75 × 20 + 25 × 10 + 25 × 20 = 3290; divide by total weight 100. Unrounded weighted result: 32.9.
In the randomized phase 2 T-Rex trial, a single dose of expanded Tregs did not slow the decline in residual C-peptide over one year versus placebo (P=0.94 low dose, P=0.21 high dose). Work published in July 2026 pooled pre-treatment samples from 560 participants across six immunotherapy trials and found two age-independent immune subtypes that decline at different rates and respond differently to immunotherapy — one subgroup responding better to anti-CD20, the other to CTLA4-Ig. It did not test Treg infusion, but it shows how averaging across a mixed population can hide a real effect in a subgroup.[1]
Phase 1 showed transferred Tregs persisted up to a year and C-peptide held in some individuals past two years, but the controlled phase 2 showed no durable disease-modifying effect.[2]
Across phase 1 and phase 2, autologous Treg infusions were safe with no infusion reactions or cell-therapy-related high-grade adverse events — a clean safety profile for a cell therapy.[2]
Tested in recent-onset (stage 3) adults (phase 1) and children/adolescents aged 8-17 (phase 2); the personalized manufacturing makes broad eligibility hard, and there is no approved use.[1]
Completed a randomized phase 2 that missed its efficacy endpoint; remains a research-stage platform being refined around Treg quality and antigen-specificity rather than an advancing product. The field's response has been to hunt for who responds rather than to abandon the mechanism.[1]
The full picture
Regulatory T cells, or Tregs, are the immune system's brakes: they suppress overactive immune responses and help prevent autoimmunity. In type 1 diabetes these brakes appear to fail, letting other T cells destroy insulin-producing cells. Treg therapy aims to fix that directly — isolating a person's own Tregs, expanding them into the billions in a laboratory, and infusing them back to restore immune balance and protect the remaining cells. A phase 1 trial in 14 adults, run by investigators at UCSF and Benaroya, established the approach was feasible and safe: the expanded cells kept their suppressive function, a fraction survived in the bloodstream up to a year, there were no serious infusion reactions, and C-peptide persisted past two years in several participants. That promise led to the randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 T-Rex trial of CLBS03 in 110 children and adolescents with recent-onset disease. The cells were again safe, and a transient rise in activated Tregs confirmed the infusion engrafted — but a single dose did not preserve the body's own insulin production over one year at either dose tested. Intriguingly, batches that expanded less in the lab were linked to better C-peptide preservation, hinting that Treg quality, not just quantity, matters. The polyclonal one-shot approach has not advanced to a product, but the negative result is reshaping the field toward antigen-specific and engineered Tregs, repeat dosing, and combination strategies. In July 2026 that reframing got a boost from an unexpected direction: researchers pooled pre-treatment samples from 560 people across six immunotherapy trials and found two immune subtypes — unrelated to age — that lose insulin production at different speeds and respond differently to treatment, one subgroup doing better on anti-CD20 and the other on CTLA4-Ig. That study did not test Treg infusions, so whether the same logic explains T-Rex is untested. But it is concrete evidence that the question in immunotherapy may be who you give a treatment to, not simply whether the mechanism works — and a trial that averages across a mixed population can bury a real effect in a subgroup.
Coming soon
ETA · Research-stage; no near-term product. Next-generation antigen-specific and engineered Treg approaches have no established timeline to clinical proof.
Sources
- [1]A phase 2 randomized trial with autologous polyclonal expanded regulatory T cells in children with new-onset type 1 diabetes (T-Rex) · Peer-reviewed study · 2024-05-08
- [2]Type 1 diabetes immunotherapy using polyclonal regulatory T cells · Peer-reviewed study · 2015-11-25
- [3]
- [4]Age-independent immune subtypes in type 1 diabetes exhibit distinct post-onset progression rates and immunotherapeutic responses · Peer-reviewed study · 2026-07-11 — Diabetologia 2026. Pre-intervention samples from 560 participants across six immunotherapy trials; unsupervised clustering found two immune subgroups with different rates of post-onset decline and different responses to immunotherapy (one responding better to anti-CD20, the other to CTLA4-Ig). Treg infusion was not among the therapies tested.