Kirkup, Christian

PURPOSE Long-term outcomes of patients with stage I human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive breast cancer receiving adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) remain undefined, and prognostic predictors represent an unmet need. METHODS In the ATEMPT phase II trial, patients with stage I centrally confirmed HER2-positive breast cancer were randomly assigned 3:1 to adjuvant T-DM1 for 1 year or paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (TH). Coprimary objectives were to compare the incidence of clinically relevant toxicities between arms and to evaluate invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) with T-DM1. Correlative analyses included the HER2DX genomic tool, multiomic evaluations of HER2 heterogeneity, and predictors of thrombocytopenia. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 5.8 years, 11 iDFS events were observed in the T-DM1 arm, consistent with a 5-year iDFS of 97.0% (95% CI, 95.2 to 98.7). At 5 years, the recurrence-free interval (RFI) was 98.3% (95% CI, 97.0 to 99.7), the overall survival was 97.8% (95% CI, 96.3 to 99.3), and the breast cancer-specific survival was 99.4% (95% CI, 98.6 to 100). Comparable iDFS was observed with T-DM1 irrespective of tumor size, hormone receptor status, centrally determined HER2 immunohistochemical score, and receipt of T-DM1 for more or less than 6 months. Although ATEMPT was not powered for this end point, the 5-year iDFS in the TH arm was 91.1%. Among patients with sufficient tissue for HER2DX testing (n = 187), 5-year outcomes significantly differed according to HER2DX risk score, with better RFI (98.1% v 81.8%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.10, P = .01) and iDFS (96.3% v 81.8%, HR, 0.20, P = .047) among patients with HER2DX low-risk versus high-risk tumors, respectively. CONCLUSION Adjuvant T-DM1 for 1 year leads to outstanding long-term outcomes for patients with stage I HER2-positive breast cancer. A high HER2DX risk score predicted a higher risk of recurrence in ATEMPT.

PURPOSE: Median duration of daratumumab (DARA) administration for treatment of multiple myeloma is 3-7 hours for the intravenous formulation (DARA IV) and 3-5 minutes for the subcutaneous formulation (DARA SC). Here, we describe clinical administration characteristics of DARA using a novel method for data extraction from electronic health records. METHODS: Time-based measurements were extracted using a scheduling/pharmacy software program that tracked patient movement through appointments for patients initiating DARA in Mayo Clinic infusion centers from April 5, 2017, to October 14, 2021. Cohorts included patients who received DARA IV or DARA SC, or converted from DARA IV to DARA SC. The DARA SC cohort was further analyzed before (DARA SC initial) and after (DARA SC shortened) a reduction in the postadministration observation time mandated by the treatment plan. Events associated with administration-related reactions (ARRs) were also identified. RESULTS: Median total clinic times were 2.7-3.0 hours shorter for DARA SC versus DARA IV. Median clinic times were highest at dose 1 and decreased with subsequent doses. Median total chair times were 2.7-2.8 hours shorter for DARA SC versus DARA IV. Incidences of ARR-related events with DARA SC were low across doses. CONCLUSION: Reduced clinic times were observed with DARA SC, indicating that use of DARA SC as a treatment option results in time savings that may free clinic resources. Furthermore, novel methods of electronic health record data extraction can provide insights that may help inform clinic resource optimization.

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is approved across lines of therapy for multiple myeloma (MM) by subcutaneous administration (DARA SC) or by intravenous administration (DARA IV). In clinical studies, the administration time ranges from 3-5 minutes for DARA SC versus 3-7 hours for DARA IV, and DARA SC is associated with reduced rates of administration-related reactions (ARRs). These characteristics of DARA SC are associated with benefits for clinics in terms of safety and clinic time. We previously reported DARA administration characteristics at Mayo Clinic infusion centers: DARA SC had shorter total clinic and total chair times compared with DARA IV, and DARA SC was associated with very low rates of ARR-related events (Soefje S, et al. EHA Library. 2021). Based upon this analysis, the treatment plan was modified to reduce the mandated observation time for DARA SC to improve clinic efficiency. Here, we describe updated clinical administration characteristics for DARA SC at Mayo Clinic infusion centers before and after the reduction in procedure-mandated observation time, versus DARA IV, using a novel empirical data extraction approach from Electronic Health Records (EHR). Methods: Patients ≥18 years of age with an ICD-9/10 diagnosis code of MM and a first DARA treatment between April 5, 2017 and June 22, 2021 were identified in Mayo Clinic's EHR database. Data were extracted using a scheduling and pharmacy software that tracked patient movement through appointments at a Mayo Clinic infusion center. On May 3, 2021, the Mayo treatment plan was amended to shorten the mandated post-administration observation time for DARA SC from 4 to 2 hours for Dose 1 and from 1 hour to 30 minutes for Doses 2 and 3, with no mandated observation time for Doses 4+. In this analysis, data were captured for patients initiating DARA IV throughout the defined treatment window. For DARA SC, data were captured for patients starting DARA SC therapy on the initial treatment plan (before May 3, 2021; DARA SC initial) and after the change to shorten the mandated post-administration observation time for DARA SC (after May 3, 2021; DARA SC shortened). Time-based measures included: total clinic time (check-in time through patient check-out); total chair time (time from infusion room entry to infusion room exit or check-out time, including order review, pharmacy preparation time, and post-administration observation time); and observation time (time from the end of medication administration to infusion room exit or patient check-out). The medication administration time documented for DARA SC was 0 minutes due to the default duration for SC injections in the EHR. Results: In total, 755 (DARA IV, n=586; DARA SC initial, n=145; DARA SC shortened, n=24) patients received DARA treatment for MM. For all doses combined, the median total clinic time was 2.9 hours shorter for DARA SC compared with DARA IV (DARA IV, 4.9 hrs; DARA SC initial, 2.0 hrs). The median total clinic time for DARA SC and DARA IV was highest at Dose 1 (DARA IV, 9.5 hrs; DARA SC initial, 6.1 hrs; DARA SC shortened, 4.4 hrs) and lower for subsequent doses (Dose 4+: DARA IV, 4.6 hrs; DARA SC initial, 1.7 hrs; DARA SC shortened, 1.6 hrs; Figure). Similarly, the median total chair time was 2.7 hours shorter in the DARA SC group compared with the DARA IV group for all doses combined (DARA IV, 4.1 hrs; DARA SC initial, 1.4 hrs). The median total chair time for DARA SC and DARA IV was highest at Dose 1 (DARA IV, 8.8 hrs; DARA SC initial, 5.6 hrs; DARA SC shortened, 3.9) and lower for subsequent doses (Dose 4+: DARA IV, 3.7 hrs; DARA SC initial, 1.1 hrs; DARA SC shortened, 1.1 hrs). Conclusion: Marked reductions in the amount of time spent both in clinic and in chair were observed with DARA SC compared with DARA IV, with additional time savings observed following the Mayo procedure change to reduce the DARA SC mandated observation time. These favorable DARA SC administration characteristics may indicate a reduction in the burden on both clinical resources and patients in Mayo Clinic infusion centers. These results add to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of DARA SC as an efficient and convenient treatment administration option for patients with MM. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Soefje: Beigene: Consultancy; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Carpenter: nference Inc.: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy. Carlson: nference Inc.: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy. Awasthi: nference Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Janssen: Consultancy. Lin: Janssen: Current Employment. Kaila: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Current Employment. Kayal: nference Inc.: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy. Kirkup: nference Inc.: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Ended employment in the past 24 months; Path AI: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Wagner: nference Inc.: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy. Gray: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Kumar: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Abstract Here we analyze hospitalized andintensive care unit coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patient outcomes from the international VIRUS registry ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04323787 ). We find that COVID‐19 patients administered unfractionated heparin but not enoxaparin have a higher mortality‐rate (390 of 1012 = 39%) compared to patients administered enoxaparin but not unfractionated heparin (270 of 1939 = 14%), presenting a risk ratio of 2.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: [2.42, 3.16]; p = 4.45e−52). This difference persists even after balancing on a number of covariates including demographics, comorbidities, admission diagnoses, and method of oxygenation, with an increased mortality rate on discharge from the hospital of 37% (268 of 733) for unfractionated heparin versus 22% (154 of 711) for enoxaparin, presenting a risk ratio of 1.69 (95% CI: [1.42, 2.00]; p = 1.5e−8). In these balanced cohorts, a number of complications occurred at an elevated rate for patients administered unfractionated heparin compared to patients administered enoxaparin, including acute kidney injury, acute cardiac injury, septic shock, and anemia. Furthermore, a higher percentage of Black/African American COVID patients (414 of 1294 [32%]) were noted to receive unfractionated heparin compared to White/Caucasian COVID patients (671 of 2644 [25%]), risk ratio 1.26 (95% CI: [1.14, 1.40]; p = 7.5e−5). After balancing upon available clinical covariates, this difference in anticoagulant use remained statistically significant (311 of 1047 [30%] for Black/African American vs. 263 of 1047 [25%] for White/Caucasian, p = .02, risk ratio 1.18; 95% CI: [1.03, 1.36]). While retrospective studies cannot suggest any causality, these findings motivate the need for follow‐up prospective research into the observed racial disparity in anticoagulant use and outcomes for severe COVID‐19 patients.