In Vivo CAR-T by the Numbers 2026: $17.9B in Deals vs 23 Phase 1 Trials

In vivo chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy represents one of the most heavily funded technology shifts in biopharma pipeline development. Between March 2025 and July 2026, major pharmaceutical corporations committed up to 17.86 billion dollars in headline deal value: $14.35 billion across six outright platform acquisitions, plus up to a further $3.51 billion through Johnson & Johnson's July 29, 2026 collaboration-and-option structure with Sail Biomedicines. These transactions were driven by the prospective advantage of in vivo delivery: generating therapeutic CAR T-cells directly inside the patient's body via targeted viral or non-viral vectors, eliminating apheresis, ex vivo cell engineering, centralized manufacturing, and lymphodepleting chemotherapy.

However, a comprehensive census of the global trial registry demonstrates a substantial gap between capital deployment and clinical progression. As of our July 25, 2026 ClinicalTrials.gov snapshot, only 23 registered clinical trials evaluate true in vivo CAR therapies, compared to 2,078 trials matching conventional ex vivo CAR terms—representing just 1.1 percent of registered CAR activity worldwide.

Every registered in vivo trial remains in early development: 12 are Phase 1, 10 are Early Phase 1, and 1 is unclassified. Zero studies have reached Phase 2, Phase 3, or commercial registration. Combined planned enrollment across all 23 trials totals 835 patients. Sponsoring geography is also distinct from deal activity: while every one of the seven acquirers or partners is a US or European corporation, 19 of the 23 registered trials (82.6 percent) are led by Chinese medical centers or domestic biotechs, leaving only four US or European industry lead sponsors on the clinical registry.

Below is a detailed analysis of the registered in vivo CAR-T trial landscape, examining clinical trial registries, target selection dynamics, platform delivery mechanisms, manufacturing constraints, therapeutic indication splits, regulatory oversight, and corporate deal transactions.

---

How Many In Vivo CAR-T Clinical Trials Actually Exist in 2026?

Identifying in vivo CAR-T trials requires specific query filters within trial registries. Standard search queries for "CAR-T" return over 2,000 ex vivo cell processing studies. Isolating true in vivo delivery requires screening for explicit in vivo CAR phrasing, targeted vector delivery constructs (such as targeted lentiviral vectors or antibody-guided lipid nanoparticles), and specific development codes (e.g., CPTX2309, KLN-1010, UB-VV111, ESO-T01, Arnovie101, JCXH-213).

Our screening identified 23 active or planned in vivo CAR clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov.

---

Has Any In Vivo CAR-T Programme Reached Phase 2?

The data confirms that the in vivo CAR field is at an early stage of clinical evaluation. Zero in vivo CAR programmes have advanced to Phase 2, Phase 3, or pivotal registration trials.

                       In Vivo CAR-T Phase Distribution
  Phase 1:              [==================== 12 Trials (52.2%) ====================]
  Early Phase 1:        [================= 10 Trials (43.5%) =================]
  Not Applicable:       [= 1 Trial (4.3%)]
  Phase 2 / Phase 3:    [ 0 Trials (0.0%) ]

Key Trial Parameters and Enrollment Metrics

1. Total Planned Patient Enrollment: Across all 23 trials, the total planned enrollment is 835 patients. Individual trial cohort sizes remain modest, ranging from 4 to 106 patients per study. The largest individual trial is Umoja Biopharma’s Phase 1 evaluation of UB-VV111 (NCT06528301), which targets 106 patients with relapsed or refractory CD19+ B-cell malignancies across US sites.
2. Trial Initiation Timeline: Clinical trial registration for in vivo CAR constructs has accelerated recently. Of the 23 trials:
   • 2023: 1 trial initiated (Myeloid Therapeutics’ MT-302, NCT05969041)
   • 2024: 1 trial initiated (ESO-T01 at Union Hospital Tongji, NCT06691685)
   • 2025: 9 trials initiated
   • 2026: 12 trials initiated (through July 2026 snapshot)
3. Recruitment Status: Currently, 14 trials are actively recruiting patients, 8 are listed as not yet recruiting, and 1 trial evaluating ESO-T01 (NCT06691685) is suspended.

---

Which Antigens Are In Vivo CAR Programmes Actually Targeting?

Target selection is where in vivo developers reveal what they think the technology can do. It is also where most published landscape summaries quietly overstate what the registry says.

Methodology note, because it changes the answer. ClinicalTrials.gov has no structured target-antigen field. Re-parsing the 23 records in our July 25, 2026 snapshot, an antigen is named in the record's own structured text in only 10 of 23 trials. The other 13 describe the intervention generically ("In Vivo CAR-T Therapy," "in vivo CAR-T vector") and can be assigned a target only from sponsor disclosures outside the registry. We report both tiers separately rather than merging them into a single tidy percentage.

Tier 1 — antigen named in the registry record (10 of 23):

Tier 2 — antigen disclosed by the sponsor for a named development asset: KLN-1010 (NCT07075185) is anti-BCMA per Lilly's April 2026 acquisition release; CPTX2309 (NCT06917742) is a CD19-directed targeted LNP per AbbVie's Capstan disclosures; UB-VV111 (NCT06528301) is CD19-directed, which the trial title also states; ESO-T01 (NCT06791681, NCT06691685) is anti-BCMA per EsoBiotec/AstraZeneca disclosures; MT-302 (NCT05969041) is TROP2-directed per Myeloid Therapeutics.

Combining both tiers, the honest counts are:

              In Vivo CAR-T Target Antigens (registry + sponsor disclosure, N=23)
  CD19 (alone or in combination):  [================ 8 trials ================]
  BCMA (alone or in combination):  [============ 6 trials ============]
  CD20 (alone or in combination):  [==== 2 trials ====]
  GPRC5D (in combination):         [==== 2 trials ====]
  BAFF-R (in combination):         [== 1 trial ==]
  TROP2 (solid tumour):            [== 1 trial ==]
  No target identifiable:          [================ 8 trials ================]

A target is identifiable for 15 of 23 trials; five of those 15 carry dual-antigen constructs, so antigen mentions (20) exceed trials. For the remaining 8 trials — NCT07715630, NCT07657585, NCT07622329, NCT07485504, NCT07629596, NCT07333677, NCT07239323 and NCT06618313 — no target antigen is disclosed in either the registry record or public sponsor materials. Any landscape table that assigns all 23 trials a clean antigen is filling in blanks the primary sources do not contain.

1. CD19 Is the Proof-of-Concept Target, Not the Commercial Target

CD19 appears in 8 of 23 trials, more than any other antigen. It is chosen for first-in-human in vivo work for a specific operational reason: B-cell aplasia in peripheral blood is a cheap, fast, unambiguous pharmacodynamic readout of whether the vector transduced T-cells at all. A CD19 trial is, in effect, a platform-validation experiment with a therapeutic indication attached. That is why CD19 dominates the registry while the acquisition theses (Kelonia in myeloma, Sail in autoimmune disease) point elsewhere.

2. BCMA and Plasma Cell Neoplasms

B-cell maturation antigen appears in 6 trials focused on relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, led by Kelonia Therapeutics' KLN-1010 (NCT07075185) and EsoBiotec's ESO-T01 (NCT06791681, NCT06691685). Because myeloma patients are often heavily pretreated with anti-CD38 antibodies and proteasome inhibitors, generating anti-BCMA CAR T-cells in vivo sidesteps the poor ex vivo T-cell harvest yields frequently encountered in this population — the single clearest clinical rationale in the whole field.

3. Multi-Specific and Dual-Targeting Constructs

Five trials deploy dual-antigen constructs to pre-empt antigen-loss relapse, the dominant failure mode of single-target CAR therapy: NCT07002112 (CD19/CD20 lentiviral), NCT07383233 (CD19/BAFF-R), NCT07388212 (CD19/BCMA LNP-mRNA), and NCT07395479 and NCT07586709 (BCMA/GPRC5D). Notably, all five are Chinese-sponsored. Western industry programmes in the registry are all single-antigen — an early divergence in risk appetite worth tracking.

4. Solid Tumour Targets Are Almost Absent

Exactly one trial in the cohort names a solid-tumour antigen: Myeloid Therapeutics' MT-302 (NCT05969041), an in vivo mRNA-LNP targeting TROP2 in advanced epithelial carcinomas. Two further trials enrol solid-tumour populations (NCT07657585, NCT07395479) without naming a solid-tumour-restricted antigen in the record. Solid tumour in vivo delivery faces compounding hurdles: selective vector tropism to immune effector cells, plus an immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment, without systemic toxicity. Anyone modelling in vivo CAR as a solid-tumour opportunity should note that the registry currently contains one such asset.

---

Who Is Running In Vivo CAR-T Trials, and Why Is Most of the Registry Chinese?

A notable geographic disparity exists between corporate platform acquisitions and active trial registrations. While major multi-billion-dollar acquisition announcements originate from US and European pharmaceutical companies, 19 of the 23 registered clinical trials (82.6 percent) are sponsored by medical institutions in China.

                   Sponsor Geography: Trial Registry vs. M&A
  Clinical Trial Registry (N=23):  [======= China: 19 (82.6%) =======][ US/EU: 4 (17.4%) ]
  Platform M&A Capital ($14.35B):  [================ US/EU Acquirers: 100% ================]

Regulatory Environment: US FDA IND vs. China NMPA IIT Pathways

The dominance of Chinese sponsors on the trial registry stems directly from structural differences in clinical trial authorization frameworks:

1. China’s Investigator-Initiated Trial (IIT) Framework: Chinese academic medical centers operate under institutional IIT regulatory pathways governed by hospital ethics committees and provincial health commissions. Under this system, clinicians can translate novel cell constructs into early Phase 1 human exploratory studies within 2 to 4 months of preclinical validation, provided the study is conducted within an accredited tertiary hospital.
2. US FDA 21 CFR Part 312 IND Requirements: In the United States, initiating an in vivo CAR human trial requires a formal Investigational New Drug (IND) application under 21 CFR Part 312. FDA regulatory review for in vivo gene therapy vectors demands extensive preclinical toxicology, cell-type specific biodistribution assays across animal models, vector shedding data, and rigorous Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) packages. Consequently, US biotech sponsors typically require 18 to 36 months of IND-enabling studies before enrolling their first patient.
3. Western Industry Sponsors on the Registry: Only four US/EU biotechnology firms have registered clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov:
   • Capstan Therapeutics: CPTX2309 (NCT06917742), a targeted LNP-mRNA targeting CD19 for autoimmune diseases.
   • Kelonia Therapeutics: KLN-1010 (NCT07075185), an iGPS lentiviral vector targeting BCMA for multiple myeloma.
   • Umoja Biopharma: UB-VV111 (NCT06528301), a VivoVec lentiviral vector targeting CD19.
   • Myeloid Therapeutics: MT-302 (NCT05969041), a targeted mRNA-LNP targeting TROP2.

Registry Coverage Note: The four-sponsor count is a ClinicalTrials.gov artefact, not a count of Western clinical activity. Interius BioTherapeutics (acquired by Gilead's Kite in August 2025) dosed the first participant in INVISE, its first-in-human Phase 1 of INT2104, in Australia in October 2024; that study is registered on the ANZCTR rather than ClinicalTrials.gov, and Germany's Paul-Ehrlich-Institut cleared a European expansion in January 2025. It therefore does not appear in this cut. The reverse distortion also applies: ESO-T01 (NCT06791681, NCT06691685) is EsoBiotec's asset, now owned by AstraZeneca, but both trials are registered by Chinese hospitals and score as "China" on lead sponsor. Read the geography split as where trials are run and registered, not as who owns the science.

---

What Have Pharma Companies Actually Paid for In Vivo CAR-T Platforms?

Between March 2025 and July 2026, big pharma committed up to $17.86 billion in upfront cash, equity investments, milestone commitments, and option payments to control in vivo platform companies. Six of these were outright acquisitions totalling $14.35 billion; the seventh, announced three days before this analysis, is a collaboration with an exclusive buyout option attached.

                    In Vivo CAR-T Deal Values (headline, $B)
  Eli Lilly / Kelonia:     [=================== 7.00 ===================]
  J&J / Sail (option):     [========= 3.51 =========]
  Eli Lilly / Orna:        [======= 2.40 =======]
  AbbVie / Capstan:        [====== 2.10 ======]
  BMS / Orbital:           [==== 1.50 ====]
  AstraZeneca / EsoBiotec: [=== 1.00 ===]
  Gilead / Interius:       [= 0.35 =]

Two structural points matter for anyone reading these as comparables. First, headline value is not cash paid. Only Orbital ($1.50B) and Interius ($350M) are clean all-cash figures; Kelonia, Orna, EsoBiotec and Sail are all "up to" numbers in which milestones or an unexercised option carry most of the value. Adding only the disclosed at-signing components — Kelonia $3.25B, Capstan $2.10B, Orbital $1.50B, Sail $0.785B, EsoBiotec $0.425B, Interius $0.35B — gives roughly $8.4 billion of capital committed at signing, against a $17.86 billion headline. (Orna's upfront/milestone split was never disclosed, so it is excluded from that subtotal.) Second, the J&J–Sail structure is the tell that the modality has moved past land-grab pricing: rather than buy a preclinical platform outright at Kelonia-style multiples, J&J bought optionality — $785 million to fund and watch, with the $2.58 billion decision deferred until data exists.

Capital Deployed vs. Registered Clinical Progress

Comparing deal pricing against clinical trial registrations highlights how early these strategic investments are:

• Total Headline Deal Value: $17.86 Billion across 7 transactions ($14.35B across the six outright acquisitions).
• Disclosed Consideration Committed at Signing: ~$8.4 Billion (excludes Orna, split undisclosed).
• Registered Clinical Trials: 23 trials worldwide (only 4 with US/EU industry lead sponsors).
• Phase 2+ Trials: 0.
• Total Planned Patients Across All Trials: 835.
• Implied Valuation Ratio: On acquisitions alone, acquirers have committed roughly $17.2 million of headline value per planned patient across the entire global in vivo trial registry ($21.4 million including the J&J–Sail option). Measured on disclosed consideration at signing, the ratio is still about $10.1 million per planned patient.

Every one of those ratios is a snapshot of a field buying a manufacturing thesis, not a clinical result. None of the 23 trials has read out a registrational endpoint, and none is designed to.

---

How Do Lentiviral and LNP-mRNA In Vivo Platforms Differ, and Why Does That Matter Commercially?

In vivo CAR technology is divided into two distinct delivery platforms: viral vectors (modified lentiviruses) and non-viral vectors (targeted lipid nanoparticles carrying mRNA or circular RNA).

                      In Vivo CAR-T Platform Comparison
  +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |  Lentiviral In Vivo Platforms (Kelonia, Umoja, EsoBiotec)               |
  |  - Genomic integration -> Permanent CAR expression                      |
  |  - Single-infusion therapy, similar to ex vivo kinetics                 |
  |  - Requires viral manufacturing & insertional mutagenesis risk monitoring|
  +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  |  Targeted LNP-mRNA / Circular RNA (Capstan, Orna, Orbital, Myeloid)     |
  |  - Non-integrating -> Transient CAR expression                          |
  |  - Repeat dosing potential, controllable kinetics                       |
  |  - Lower manufacturing cost, no viral vector constraints                |
  +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

1. Lentiviral In Vivo Delivery Platforms

• Pioneering Companies: Kelonia Therapeutics (iGPS), Umoja Biopharma (VivoVec), EsoBiotec (ENaBL).
• Biological Mechanism: Surface-engineered lentiviral vectors display targeting moieties (such as single-chain variable fragments or scFvs) that bind specifically to T-cell surface markers (CD3, CD4, or CD8). Upon binding, the virus transduces T-cells in circulation, integrating the CAR gene into the host cell genome.
• Clinical & Commercial Characteristics:
  • Expression: Permanent genomic integration leads to persistent CAR T-cell expansion, mimicking ex vivo cell therapy kinetics from a single infusion.
  • Risk Profile: Requires long-term monitoring for potential insertional mutagenesis and off-target transduction of non-T cells.

2. Targeted LNP-mRNA and Circular RNA Platforms

• Pioneering Companies: Capstan Therapeutics (tLNP), Orna Therapeutics (oRNA), Orbital Therapeutics, Myeloid Therapeutics.
• Biological Mechanism: Lipid nanoparticles conjugated with targeting antibodies or ligands encapsulate mRNA or engineered circular RNA encoding the CAR construct. Once infused, LNPs fuse selectively with circulating T-cells or NK cells, delivering mRNA for transient cytoplasmic translation.
• Clinical & Commercial Characteristics:
  • Expression: Non-integrating. CAR expression is transient, decaying as mRNA degrades over several days to weeks.
  • Dosing Flexibility: Enables redosing and dose titration. If toxicity occurs (such as severe cytokine release syndrome), dosing can be paused until CAR expression clears.
  • Manufacturing Scale: Utilizes scalable cell-free mRNA and LNP production, avoiding viral vector supply constraints.

---

Manufacturing Operations & Vector Scaling: Lentiviral Quality Control vs. LNP Yields

A critical determinant of whether in vivo CAR therapies can deliver on their economic promise is manufacturing scalability. While ex vivo CAR-T manufacturing is constrained by individual patient cell processing slots, in vivo products require large-scale batch manufacturing under strict Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) conditions.

1. Lentiviral Vector Yields and In Vivo Dosing Demands

Lentiviral-based in vivo systems (such as Kelonia's iGPS or Umoja's VivoVec) require substantially higher viral titers per patient than ex vivo systems. In ex vivo manufacturing, a vector batch transduces millions of isolated cells in a bioreactor bag. In vivo administration requires infusing trillions of viral particles directly into human systemic circulation, where hepatic clearance, neutralizing antibodies, and serum complement systems rapidly degrade vector concentration.

• Manufacturing Bottlenecks: Producing systemic-dose lentiviral batches demands high-capacity suspension HEK293T bioreactors (500L to 2,000L scale), complex tangential flow filtration (TFF), and ultra-centrifugation.
• Off-Target Tropism Control: Vectors must incorporate pseudotyping modifications (such as mutated envelope proteins) to prevent non-specific uptake by hepatocytes, splenocytes, and endothelial cells.

2. Targeted LNP Processing and Encapsulation Yields

Non-viral targeted LNPs (used by Capstan, Orna, and Orbital) leverage microfluidic mixing technology to encapsulate mRNA or circular RNA.

• Targeting Conjugation: Conjugating anti-CD19 or anti-CD4 targeting antibodies or Fab fragments to lipid nanoparticle surfaces requires precise stoichiometry to ensure vector stability without triggering aggregation.
• Cold-Chain Infrastructure: Unlike lyophilisable small molecules, targeted LNP-mRNA formulations require ultra-cold storage (-80°C to -20°C), maintaining distribution requirements similar to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

---

Why Is the First Big In Vivo Indication Autoimmune Disease Rather Than Cancer?

While conventional ex vivo CAR-T therapies were developed primarily for refractory hematologic malignancies, in vivo CAR development is expanding rapidly into autoimmune disease indications.

Our keyword screen of registered conditions flags 5 trials as autoimmune; adding primary immune thrombocytopenia, which the registry codes as "Thrombocytopenic Purpura, Immune" rather than under an autoimmune heading, brings the total to 6 of 23 trials (26 percent) in non-oncology immune-mediated disease:

1. NCT06917742 (Capstan Therapeutics): Phase 1 evaluating CPTX2309 (tLNP-mRNA, CD19) in healthy volunteers and patients with moderate-to-severe RA or SLE.
2. NCT07629596 (Circunited BioPharma): Early Phase 1 evaluating Arnovie101 (mRNA-LNP) in SLE and autoimmune hemolytic anemia.
3. NCT07388212 (West China Hospital): Early Phase 1 evaluating LNP-mRNA CD19/BCMA constructs in refractory autoimmune diseases.
4. NCT07362758 (Xinqiao Hospital): Early Phase 1 evaluating mRNA CD19 in refractory autoimmune diseases.
5. NCT07333677 (Shanghai Zhongshan Hospital): Early Phase 1 evaluating in vivo CAR-T in refractory Graves' disease.
6. NCT07622329 (Western Theater General Hospital): Phase 1 evaluating JCXH-213 in primary immune thrombocytopenia (keyword-coded outside the autoimmune bucket).

The deal ledger is more autoimmune-weighted than the registry is. Capstan (AbbVie), Orna (Lilly) and Sail (J&J) are all autoimmune-first platforms, and J&J framed the Sail collaboration explicitly around "immune reset." So of the seven platform deals, three were bought for an indication represented by six early Phase 1 trials and 152 planned patients worldwide.

Strategic Rationale for Autoimmune Expansion

• Transient Depletion Profile: In autoimmune disorders like SLE or RA, permanent B-cell aplasia is undesirable due to long-term infection risks. Transient CAR expression delivered via LNP-mRNA can induce temporary B-cell depletion, resetting the immune system without causing permanent immunosuppression.
• Safety Margin: Administering transient mRNA CAR constructs to non-oncology patients reduces risks associated with lymphodepleting chemotherapy and viral integration.

---

What Would In Vivo Delivery Change About CAR-T Cost and Site of Care?

If in vivo CAR therapies successfully navigate Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials, they could address several key economic and operational constraints associated with conventional ex vivo cell therapy.

                  CAR-T Delivery Paradigm Shift
  Conventional Ex Vivo CAR-T:
  [ Patient Apheresis ] -> [ Centralized Lab (3-6 Wks) ] -> [ Lymphodepletion ] -> [ Inpatient Infusion ]
  US list price: $373,000 - $503,580 per dose, plus hospital overhead

  In Vivo CAR-T (Target State):
  [ Outpatient Order ] -> [ Off-the-Shelf Infusion ] -> [ Outpatient Monitoring ]
  Target Cost: Scalable Biologic Pricing

For reference, the approved autologous products carry US list prices from $373,000 (Kymriah, DLBCL) to $503,580 (Yescarta), with Breyanzi at $410,300, Abecma at $419,500 and Carvykti at $465,000 — the same figures we track in our CAR-T access landscape. Episode cost including apheresis, inpatient stay, and CRS/ICANS management routinely runs well past $1 million.

1. Elimination of Manufacturing Turnaround Time: Current autologous CAR-T therapies (such as Kymriah, Yescarta, Breyanzi, and Carvykti) require a 3-to-6-week manufacturing window. In vivo formulations would function as off-the-shelf biologics available for immediate administration.
2. Removal of Lymphodepleting Conditioning: Ex vivo CAR-T administration requires pre-conditioning chemotherapy (fludarabine and cyclophosphamide) to create an immunological niche for cell expansion. In vivo targeted LNPs or viral vectors aim to transduce endogenous T-cells directly without lymphodepletion.
3. Shift in Site of Care: Eliminating apheresis and lymphodepletion allows treatment to transition from specialized academic transplant centers to outpatient specialty clinics and community oncology networks.

---

Related Pipeline and Modality Analyses

Our analysis of in vivo CAR-T trials connects to broader coverage of cell therapy access, oncology trial registries, and biopharma transaction trends:

• Sponsoring organizations evaluating broader cell therapy trials can review our analysis of cell and gene therapy clinical trials by the numbers.
• For an assessment of commercial ex vivo CAR-T access and reimbursement, see our study of the CAR-T access landscape.
• Comparative platform acquisition trends are detailed in our analysis of Gilead's Tubulis acquisition.
• Overall biopharma transaction activity across modalities is summarized in our overview of 2026 biopharma M&A by the numbers.
• For parallel registry analyses in novel genetic modalities, see our report on genome editing therapy clinical trials by the numbers.
• Autoimmune market access context can be reviewed in our analysis of the lupus and SLE access landscape.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

How many in vivo CAR-T clinical trials are currently registered on ClinicalTrials.gov?

Our July 25, 2026 registry snapshot identified 23 registered clinical trials evaluating true in vivo CAR constructs, representing 1.1 percent of the 2,078 total trials matching CAR terms.

Has any in vivo CAR-T therapy received FDA approval or reached Phase 2 trials?

No. Every registered in vivo CAR trial is currently in Phase 1 (12 trials) or Early Phase 1 (10 trials). Zero programmes have reached Phase 2, Phase 3, or commercial licensing.

Why are most in vivo CAR-T trials sponsored by institutions in China?

Nineteen of the 23 registered trials (82.6 percent) are sponsored by medical centers and biotechs in China. This is driven by China's institutional Investigator-Initiated Trial (IIT) regulatory framework, which enables clinical translation of early-stage cell therapy constructs within hospital settings.

What is the total transaction value committed to in vivo CAR-T platforms?

Between March 2025 and July 2026, pharmaceutical corporations announced seven major platform transactions totaling up to $17.86 billion in headline value: six outright acquisitions worth up to $14.35 billion — led by Eli Lilly's purchases of Kelonia Therapeutics (up to $7.00 billion) and Orna Therapeutics (up to $2.40 billion), AbbVie's buyout of Capstan Therapeutics (up to $2.10 billion) and BMS's acquisition of Orbital Therapeutics ($1.50 billion) — plus Johnson & Johnson's July 29, 2026 Sail Biomedicines collaboration, worth $785 million initially with an exclusive $2.58 billion option to acquire. Disclosed consideration committed at signing across all seven is closer to $8.4 billion.

Which antigens do in vivo CAR-T trials target?

Only 10 of the 23 registered trials name a target antigen in their ClinicalTrials.gov record. Adding sponsor disclosures for named assets brings that to 15. CD19 appears in 8 trials, BCMA in 6, CD20 and GPRC5D in 2 each, and BAFF-R and TROP2 in 1 each; five trials use dual-antigen constructs. For 8 of the 23 trials, no target antigen is publicly disclosed at all.

---

Sources

1. U.S. National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov Database (Snapshot July 25, 2026). clinicaltrials.gov
2. Eli Lilly and Company. Lilly to acquire Kelonia Therapeutics to advance in vivo CAR-T cell therapies (20 April 2026 Press Release). prnewswire.com
3. BioPharma Dive. Lilly boosts in vivo cell therapy capabilities with Kelonia buyout. biopharmadive.com
4. Fierce Biotech. BMS inks $1.5B in vivo CAR-T buyout to pull Orbital into its sphere of influence. fiercebiotech.com
5. American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy (ASGCT) & Citeline. Gene, Cell & RNA Therapy Landscape Report (Q1 2026). asgct.org
6. Alacrita Life Sciences. Cell Therapy Financing Beyond CAR-T: Modality Diversification and M&A Analysis. alacrita.com
7. Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN). In Vivo CAR T Therapy: Will the Bets Pay Off?. genengnews.com
8. Capstan Therapeutics. CPTX2309 Phase 1 Clinical Study in Autoimmune Diseases (NCT06917742). clinicaltrials.gov
9. Kelonia Therapeutics. KLN-1010 Phase 1 Clinical Study in Multiple Myeloma (NCT07075185). clinicaltrials.gov
10. Umoja Biopharma. UB-VV111 Phase 1 Clinical Study in B-cell Malignancies (NCT06528301). clinicaltrials.gov
11. Johnson & Johnson. Johnson & Johnson Announces Collaboration with Sail Biomedicines to Advance in vivo CAR-T Programs and Transform Autoimmune Disease Through Immune Reset (July 29, 2026). investor.jnj.com
12. AstraZeneca plc. AstraZeneca to acquire EsoBiotec to advance cell therapy ambition (17 March 2025) and Acquisition of EsoBiotec completed (20 May 2025). astrazeneca.com
13. Gilead Sciences / Kite. Kite to Acquire Interius BioTherapeutics to Advance In Vivo Platform (August 21, 2025). gilead.com
14. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). INVISE: A Two-Part Open Label Phase 1 Multicentre Study Evaluating the Safety of INT2104 Infusion. anzctr.org.au