Skip to content
type1.science

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

Full sources ↓Full discussion ↓Report an issue →

Years awayModerate evidenceimmunotherapyregulatory-t-cellstregcell-therapyautologousnew-onsetc-peptidenegative-trial

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.

Beta-cell preservation18

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]

Durability25

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]

Safety75

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]

Eligibility breadth25

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]

Maturity25

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. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [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.