Murad, M. Hassan

e19530 Background: Intensive chemotherapy (IC) regimens are rarely used in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) for many reasons including advanced age at diagnosis, the frailty of these patients, the presence of several comorbidities and potentially increased mortality when such regimens are used. Additionally, very little literature exists on its safety and long-term benefit in this population. Aim: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of IC regimens in patients with MDS. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane databases from each database's inception from 1990 to January 27th, 2020. Keywords include: “MDS”, “induction chemotherapy” and “remission induction”. Studies evaluating different IC regimens with MDS were included. IC studies for patients with relapsed/ refractory MDS were excluded. Studies that combined acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and MDS outcomes were excluded. The random-effects model was used to pool relative risks and incidence rates. Main endpoints were overall remission rates (ORR), 30- and 60-days mortality, 1-year, 2-year and 5-year overall survival (OS). Results: Characteristics: From 2001 records, we included 13 studies [1,164 patients, median age 60.1 years (range, 17-88), males 58.9%, 58.4% patients had abnormal cytogenetics, median bone marrow blasts 17.8% (range 4 -29%), 4 studies were randomized]. Induction outcome: IC regimes included “7+3, FLAG, s-HAM, and few other regimens. Response: ORR was 55%, including 52% CR rate. Safety: 30- and 60-days mortality were 7%, 15%, respectively. Survival outcome: median survival was 11.6 months, 1-year, 2-year and 5-year OS were 48%, 21% and 5%, respectively. Randomized studies comparison: adding growth factors to IC did not show statistically significant effects on outcomes regarding induction mortality, ORR and OS (p-value > .05). Conclusions: IC is rarely used in MDS patients and its use is associated with high mortality rates and low long-term survival. Limitations to our studies include the long span of this review over 3 decades and the difficulty of using published studies that combines MDS and AML patients’ outcome. More studies are needed in this population of interest in the future.

e17539 Background: Chemotherapy with Docetaxel (D) or androgen pathway inhibition (API) with Abiraterone Acetate plus prednisone (AAP), Aplautamide(APA) and Enzalutamide(E) are acceptable, FDA approved treatment options for mCSPC. It is not clear whether the magnitude of benefit varies by the choice of initial agent [chemotherapy vs API] or by volume of disease [High vs Low]. Data is now available from all registration trials by volume status and motivated this analysis to inform initial treatment choice in mCSPC. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE(Ovid), Embase, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials of chemotherapy(D) or APIs (AAP, APA, ENZ) that had available hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and Progression Free Survival (PFS) according to patient’s volume of disease. We also reviewed abstracts and presentations from all major conference proceedings. We calculated the pooled overall survival HR and 95% CI by chemotherapy and APIs and by high volume(HVD) and low volume(LVD) using a random effect model, and tested for heterogeneity to assess the null hypothesis that no difference in the survival advantage exists by choice of initial agent and volume of disease. Results: Of 4456 studies identified in our search, there were 8 eligible randomized controlled trials that were included in the analysis. Both D and APIs significantly improved PFS [HR 0.48; 0.45-0.51] and OS [0.72; 0.64-0.81] when added to ADT, however the latter was associated with significantly higher improvement in PFS( P < 0.01) and OS (P = 0.03). In patients treated with D, patients with HVD derive significantly more benefit as compared to LVD( P = 0.046) and patients treated with APIs both HVD and LVD patients derive similar benefit( P = 0.80) (Table). Conclusions: mCSPC patients derive higher magnitude of survival benefit when treated with APIs as compared to D; however, D may be preferred in HVD patients. [Table: see text]

5583 Background: FDA has approved three novel AAs [Apalutamide(A), Darolutamide(D) and Enzalutamide(E)] in combination with Androgen deprivation therapy ( ADT) for treatment of (nmCRPC) patients (pts). We report the cost-effectiveness of these drugs from the US perspective to help facilitate the choice of these agents for clinical practice. Methods: A life time Markov state-transition model was constructed with three health states (Metastasis-Free Survival[MFS], Metastatic disease, and Death) to compare cost-effectiveness of AA therapies for treatment of nmCRPC based on US healthcare payer perspective. A network meta-analysis of MFS and OS was conducted due to the lack of head to head trials. An approximation of the original individual-level patient time-to-event data were derived from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and MFS. Weibull distributions was selected as the best fitted model fitted and extrapolated as per the NICE decision support unit recommendations. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Adverse event (AE) grades 3/4 management costs were incorporated in the model. Discount rate of 3% per year was applied to costs and effects. Life years (LYs) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for each treatment as well as the incremental cost effectiveness (ICER) and cost utility (ICUR) ratios were estimated. Base case analyses (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were estimated. Results: The table summarizes the results form BCA analyses. A+ADT offers best gain in LYs (8.37yrs) and QALYs (5.30 yrs) but at higher cost. Conclusions: Apalutamide was associated with gains in LYs and QALYs traded off with higher lifetime cost relative to other AA alternatives. ADT was associated with lower gains in LYs and QALYs traded off with lower lifetime cost relative to other alternatives. Based on a $150,000/QALY threshold pay off, A+ADT is likely more cost effective compared to E+ADT or ADT alone; while E+ ADT may be more cost effective compared to D+ ADT. [Table: see text]

2054 Background: Systematic reviews that summarize the toxicity of Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) become outdated very soon after publication. Therefore, we reported results of a toxicity meta-analysis at 2019 ASCO meeting and informed the intent to create a living systematic review (LSR). LSRs combine human and machine effort and support rapid evidence synthesis and living clinical practice guidelines. Now, we report our experience maintaining a LSR on toxicity of ICIs. Methods: Steps include quarterly literature searches to identify new clinical trials reporting ICI-associated adverse events (AEs), AI-enabled screening of new citations which meet the inclusion criteria, automated cumulative meta-analysis and an online reporting platform. Standard data formats and protocols were designed for inputting text, tables and graphics. Software was written to interpret these data and output the information in the appropriate format, such as a forest plot and summary tables. Finally, a dynamic interface that enables user inputs and displays the associated output was designed. Results: The LSR is continuously updated incorporating toxicity data from new clinical trials as it becomes available. We have screened 8000 relevant citations and summarized the odds of Grade 3 or higher AEs and AEs of special interest in patient receiving ICIs. The results are updated on quarterly basis and are available online. The results are updated on quarterly basis and will be available on a website at the time of publication. Prototype with dummy data is available at this link . This interface can also be manipulated via user input to organize and sort data tables and forest plots by type of cancer, name or mechanism (PD-1 or PD-L1) of ICI agent, single agent or combination, type of control arm, line of treatment and several other clinically relevant filters. For example, a user can instantaneously generate a meta-analysis summarizing the risk of colitis or pneumonitis in metastatic lung cancer trials with pembrolizmuab. Conclusions: This LSR engine can prospectively synthesize toxicity data from ICI trials in an efficient manner providing accurate and timely information for advanced clinical decision support at point-of-care. Efforts are ongoing to improve efficiency of screening, improve AI-enabled processes for automated screening and data abstraction, and test across multiple clinical questions.

AbstractBackgroundNo consensus exists regarding optimal strategy for antifungal prophylaxis following lung transplant.ObjectiveTo review data regarding antifungal prophylaxis on the development of fungal infections.Study selection/AppraisalWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus for eligible articles through December 10, 2019. Observational or controlled trials published after January 1, 2001, that pertained to the prevention of fungal infections in adult lung recipients were reviewed independently by two reviewers for inclusion.MethodsOf 1702 articles screened, 24 were included. Data were pooled using random effects model to evaluate for the primary outcome of fungal infection. Studies were stratified by prophylactic strategy, medication, and duration (short term < 6 months and long term ≥ 6 months).ResultsWe found no difference in the odds of fungal infection with universal prophylaxis (49/101) compared to no prophylaxis (36/93) (OR 0.76, CI: 0.03‐17.98; I2 = 93%) and preemptive therapy (25/195) compared to universal prophylaxis (35/222) (OR 0.91, CI: 0.06‐13.80; I2 = 93%). The cumulative incidence of fungal infections within 12 months was not different with nebulized amphotericin (0.08, CI: 0.04‐0.13; I2 = 87%) compared to systemic triazoles (0.07, CI: 0.03‐0.11; I2 = 21%) (P = .65). Likewise, duration of prophylaxis did not impact the incidence of fungal infections (short term: 0.11, CI: 0.05‐0.17; I2 = 89%; long term: 0.06, CI: 0.03‐0.08; I2 = 51%; P = .39).ConclusionsWe have insufficient evidence to support or exclude a benefit of antifungal prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTVES Four direct‐acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Limited efficacy and safety data are available for their use in older adults (aged ≥75 years). METHODS Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched for trials comparing DOACs with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of VTE in older adults from inception through January 1, 2020. Meta‐analysis was performed to assess the combined endpoint of recurrent VTE and related deaths and bleeding events (composite of major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding). The Mantel‐Haenszel relative risk (RR) random effects model was used to pool results across studies. RESULTS Six randomized controlled trials at low risk of bias met criteria for inclusion with a total of 3,665 patients aged 75 years and older with follow‐up of 24 weeks or longer. Data for bleeding events were not available for dabigatran. Overall, DOACs had an improved efficacy over VKAs (RR = .56; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .38‐.82). There was no statistically significant difference in the safety outcomes (RR = .77; 95% CI = .56‐1.05). No significant heterogeneity was observed for efficacy outcome, and only moderate heterogeneity was observed for safety outcome. CONCLUSION In older adults with VTE, DOACs appear to improve rates of recurrent VTE and VTE‐related deaths compared with VKAs with similar bleeding outcomes.

To evaluate the effectiveness of an admixture of ketamine and propofol on peri-induction hemodynamics during airway manipulation, we searched electronic databases of randomized controlled trials from January 1, 2000, to October 17, 2018. Trial screening, selection, and data extraction were done independently by two reviewers with outcomes pooled across included trials using the random-effects model. We included 10 randomized trials (722 patients, mean age of 53.99 years, 39.96% female). American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status was reported in 9 trials with classes I and II representing the majority. Ketamine/propofol admixture was associated with a nonsignificant increase in heart rate (weighted mean difference, 3.36 beats per minute (95% CI, −0.88, 7.60), I2 = 88.6%), a statistically significant increase in systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference, 9.67 mmHg (95% CI, 1.48, 17.86), I2 = 87.2%), a nonsignificant increase in diastolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference, 2.18 mmHg (95% CI, −2.82, 7.19), I2 = 73.1%), and a nonsignificant increase in mean arterial pressure (weighted mean difference, 3.28 mmHg (95% CI, −0.94, 7.49), I2 = 69.9%) compared to other agents. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was low. In conclusion, among patients undergoing airway manipulation and needing sedation, the use of a ketamine/propofol admixture may be associated with better hemodynamics compared to nonketamine/propofol sedation. This trial is registered with CRD42019125725.

INTRODUCTION: We applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to evaluate the performance of fecal calprotectin (FC) as an alternative to endoscopy in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) treated with a biologic agent or tofacitinib. METHODS: Individual participant data from the trials of infliximab, golimumab, vedolizumab, and tofacitinib for UC were pooled to generate prevalence of endoscopic activity (Mayo endoscopy score) across different combinations of the rectal bleeding score (RBS) and stool frequency score (SFS). These estimates were then combined with the data from an updated systematic review of the operating properties of FC to generate clinical scenario–specific assessments of the performance of FC as a predictor of endoscopic disease activity. A prespecified threshold of acceptability for false-negative (FN) and false-positive (FP) test results was set at 5%. RESULTS: For patients with UC achieving RBS 0 + SFS 0/1, FC ≤ 50 μg/g may avoid endoscopy in 50% patients with a FN rate <5%. Similarly, for patients with RBS 2/3 + SFS 2/3, FC ≥ 250 μg/g potentially avoids endoscopy in approximately 50% patients with an FP rate <5%. The greatest uncertainty in the diagnostic performance for FC was observed in patients with UC achieving RBS 0 but having SFS 2/3, where FN and FP rates were consistently >10%, and endoscopic evaluation may be warranted. DISCUSSION: Two clinical scenarios were identified where FC can be used with confidence for monitoring treatment response to biologics or tofacitinib in patients with UC without the requirement for endoscopy.

Abstract Background There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). There is a need for frequently updated practice guidelines on their use, based on critical evaluation of rapidly emerging literature. The objective was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise. Process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 7 treatment recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other treatments undergoing evaluations. Conclusions The panel expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials, which would provide much-needed evidence on the efficacy and safety of various therapies for COVID-19, given that we could not make a determination whether the benefits outweigh harms for most treatments.