Lyden, Elizabeth

Abstract Optimal dosing of prophylactic enoxaparin for individuals ≥150 kg is unknown due to limited inclusion in previous studies. Estimate an optimal weight-based prophylactic enoxaparin dose for individuals ≥150 kg. This multicenter, retrospective study included ≥150 kg adult patients admitted to the hospital between January 2014 and April 2024, who received twice daily prophylactic enoxaparin (goal peak anti-Xa 0.2–0.4 IU/mL). At least one peak anti-Xa was required, obtained 3 to 5 hours after the 3rd consecutive dose. The primary outcome was the range of dosing that produced goal prophylactic peak anti-Xa following linear regression modeling. Secondary outcomes were hospital and intensive care unit (ICU)/progressive care unit (PCU) length of stay (LOS), in-hospital mortality, and VTE/bleed events within 72 hours after an eligible peak anti-Xa. A total of 311 encounters and 388 peak anti-Xa levels were assessed. Patients were 46 (37–55) years old, 53.1% were male, and weighed 183.3 kg (166.1–204.1) with a BMI of 61.3 kg/m2 (54.8–69.4). Creatinine clearance was 179.6 mL/min (126.5–228.2) and patients received 4 doses (4–6) before peak anti-Xa, with a time between of 249 minutes (227–271). Linear regression modeling revealed a statistically significant correlation (r2 = 0.27) between weight-based dose and peak anti-Xa (p < 0.0001). Enoxaparin 0.34 mg/kg (95% CI 0.33–0.36) twice daily was predicted to achieve a peak anti-Xa of 0.3 IU/mL. Hospital LOS was 8 days (4–15), ICU/PCU LOS was 8 days (4–14, n = 158), and only two patients (0.6%) died during hospitalization. One VTE event was observed. Our results suggest an appropriate empiric weight-based prophylactic enoxaparin dose for hospitalized patients ≥150 kg is 0.34 mg/kg twice daily.

Abstract Background Specialty societies, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America, strive to address gender and racial inequities in professional advancement. Microaggressions remain a persistent and pervasive barrier to these goals. Nonprofessional speaker introductions are a manifestation of race- and gender-based microaggressions, which have not been previously assessed at IDWeek. We assessed disparities in speaker introductions at IDWeek over a 7-year period that included formal gender equity initiatives introduced in 2016. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study of video-recorded IDWeek speaker introductions from 2013 to 2019. Trained coders reviewed presentation video archives to assess a primary outcome of nonprofessional introductions: when a speaker's professional title was not used as the first introduction. We used descriptive statistics, Fisher exact tests, Cochrane-Armitage trend tests, and multivariable logistic regression to characterize relationships between speaker introductions and presentation year, speaker demographics, and speaker-moderator demographic concordance. Results Of 1940 videos reviewed, 48.9% of IDWeek speakers received nonprofessional introductions during and before 2016 vs 41.5% of speakers after 2016 (P = .0013). There was an increasing linear trend in the frequency of professional introductions by speaker age group from 47.1% for age &lt;40 years to 65.3% for age &gt;60 years (P &lt; .0001). White moderators more frequently used nonprofessional introductions than moderators from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine (47.7% vs 29.1%, P = .0014). Women-men speaker-moderator pairs had more nonprofessional introductions (54.6%, P &lt; .001). Conclusions In the largest assessment of microaggressions in speaker introductions at a national medical specialty conference, we highlighted some progress over time and ample opportunity to further standardize equitable speaker introductions, especially for women and junior speakers

AbstractBackgroundIn 2016, the IDWeek program committee was charged with ensuring gender equity in speaker sessions. Whether this charge also resulted in more opportunities for historically underrepresented speakers is unknown.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of trends in the demographic composition of IDWeek speakers and program committee members between 2013 and 2021. We used descriptive statistics to summarize data, χ2 tests to compare speaker demographics between 2013–2016 (before 2016) and 2017–2021 (after 2016), and Cochran–Armitage tests for trend. Each speaker slot was considered an independent event.ResultsA total of 5482 speaker slots were filled by 3389 individuals from 2013 to 2021. There was a linear increase in female speakers from 38.6% in 2013 to 58.4% in 2021 (P &lt; .001). The proportion of white speakers decreased overall from 84.9% in 2013 to 63.5% in 2021. Compared with white speakers, more slots were filled by Asian speakers after 2016 versus before 2016 (20.1% vs 14.8%, respectively; P &lt; .001). Program committee members from 2013–2021 were &gt;80% non-Hispanic white; &lt;5% of committee members identified as black, American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, or Hispanic. More program committee slots were filled by women after 2016 than before 2016 (52.7% vs 33.9%; P = .004).ConclusionsIntentional consideration of gender equity by the program committee was associated with equitable gender representation of invited speakers at IDWeek after 2016. Gradually, the proportions of IDWeek speakers from historically excluded racial/ethnic approached their respective proportions in the IDSA membership. White speakers remained overrepresented relative to membership proportions until 2021, and gaps in program committee racial/ethnic demographic representation highlights opportunities for continued inclusion, diversity, access, and equity at IDWeek.

Abstract Background Over the last decade, there have been sustained efforts to diversify the healthcare workforce. In 2016, the IDWeek Program Committee was charged to ensure gender equity in speaker sessions. Whether this intervention also resulted in more opportunities for underrepresented speakers has not been determined. Methods This project was supported by IDSA, who provided demographic information on IDWeek speakers (excluding poster sessions) from 2013-2019. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics, and chi-square analysis evaluated changes over time. Each speaker slot was considered an independent event. Data was combined for 2013-2016 (≤2016) and 2017-2019 (&gt;2016). IDSA membership demographics were available from 2014 for gender, race/ethnicity, from 2016 for age, and from 2018 for professional degree. Results A total of 3640 speaker slots were filled by 2504 individuals from 2013-2019. A larger proportion of speaker slots were filled by women &gt;2016 (51%) vs ≤ 2016 (43%), with a linear increase from 38.6% in 2013 to 52.1% in 2019 (p&lt; 0.001). Averaged across 2013-2019, IDSA membership was 67.5% White, 20.6% Asian, 7.7% Latinx, 3.9% Black, and 0.4% Other. IDWeek Speakers during that timeframe were 77.7% White, 13.9% Asian, 4.7% Latinx, 2.7% Black, and 1.0% Other; a larger proportion of slots were filled by Asian speakers &gt;2016 (16.3%) vs ≤ 2016 (12.8%) (p=0.005). The proportion of pharmacist speakers increased over time; 5.1% of speakers in 2019 reflected IDSA pharmacist membership (5.4%). The proportion of individuals invited to speak more than once differed by age (19% in &lt; 40yo, 28% 40-49yo, 32% 50-59yo, and 22% &gt;60yo; p&lt; 0.001), and professional degree (28% physicians, 18% pharmacists, 9% other doctorates, and 7% non-doctorate speakers; p&lt; 0.001). Figure 1: Trends in Gender Distribution of IDWeek Speakers and IDSA Members, 2013-2019 Figure 2: Trends in Race/Ethnicity Distribution of IDWeek Speakers and IDSA Members, 2013-2019 Conclusion Intentional consideration of gender equity by the Program Committee significantly improved equitable gender representation of invited speakers at IDWeek. This effort has not resulted in increased diversity of invited speakers from groups underrepresented in IDSA membership. To ensure that invited speakers represent the membership of IDSA/IDWeek partner organizations and more importantly, the communities we serve, we call for continued application of the principles of Inclusion, Diversity, Access, and Equity at IDWeek. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

e19063 Background: Constitutive activation of the JAK-STAT pathway has been reported in lymphomas, suggesting that targeting this pathway could show clinical benefit. Ruxolitinib phosphate, an oral JAK inhibitor represents a potential therapeutic agent for high grade lymphomas. This study is designed to investigate benefits of ruxolitinib in patients with relapsed or refractory PTCL and DLBCL Methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL and aggressive T cell lymphomas who were ineligible for, or relapsed after, stem cell transplantation were eligible. Patients received ruxolitinib, at a dose of 10mg or 5mg BID, with gradual escalation to 25mg BID. Weekly hematological assessments were done during the first cycle, CT scans were done after every two cycles. Descriptive statistics for response to therapy were collected. Progression free survival (PFS), Overall survival (OS) curves were plotted using Kaplan-Meier method, comparisons between groups were made using the log rank test. Primary outcome of the study was to assess the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives were to determine PFS, OS, duration of response and safety. Relationship between responses to oral ruxolitnib and gene expression profiling was explored. Results: Of the 60 patients enrolled, 25 patients had PTCL, 32 DLBCL, 3 pending path review. Median age was 62 yrs., 56.6% had stage IV disease. Median number of cycles received was 2 (min 1, max 60). At the time of evaluation, 76% patients had progressed on therapy. The median follow-up of patients was 3.7 months (min 0.9; max 61.4). Data for 41 patients was available for evaluation of response. Complete response (CR) was noted in 1 patient with PTCL. Partial response (PR) was noted in 1, stable disease (SD) in 4 patients. Among the responders, a PTCL patient with SD had a sustained response for 60 months, a patient with PR had a response duration of 31 months. The median OS and PFS were 5.9 and 1.8 months. PFS was 2.2 months in patients with PTCL and 1.8 months in DLBCL. Median OS was 5 months in patients with DLBCL, 6.9 months in PTCL. The estimated 6 month PFS and OS were 17% (95%CI: 9%, 28%) , 49% (95%CI: 35%, 62%). There was no difference in PFS or OS between PTCL and DLBCL (p = 0.42, p = 0.94). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were seen in 62%. Anemia was seen in 20%, thrombocytopenia in 8%, infections in 6%. Conclusions: Ruxolitinib can produce responses in some patients with relapsed/refractory NHL, particularly in patients with PTCL. It may play a role in combination therapies in future. Clinical trial information: NCT01431209.

10012 Background: The prognostic significance of response to induction therapy for rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) by anatomic imaging (computerized tomographic [CT] or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] scan) is controversial. We previously reported no relationship between early response and failure-free survival (FFS) for patients on IRS-IV. We repeated the same analysis using an independent cohort of patients with non-metastatic, initially unresected RMS treated on a more recent clinical trial. Methods: A total of 338 patients enrolled in Children’s Oncology Group study D9803 met the following inclusion criteria for this analysis: 1) non-metastatic, initially unresected (Group III); 2) embryonal (ERMS) or alveolar (ARMS) histology; 3) documented response to induction chemotherapy (excluding progressive disease) based on anatomic imaging; and 4) documented therapy beyond week 12. Response at week 12 was determined by the treating institution as complete response (CR, complete resolution), partial response (PR, decrease of >= 50% of the sum of the products of maximum perpendicular diameters), or no response (NR, between 50% reduction and 25% increase in the sum of the products of maximum perpendicular diameters). FFS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and comparisons between groups were made using the log-rank test. Results: Overall objective response rate (CR+PR) at week 12 of therapy was 85%, with similar responses for ERMS and ARMS. FFS was similar among all patients with CR, PR, or NR (p=0.49). Restricting the analysis to either ERMS or ARMS, there was no difference in FFS by histology (p=0.20 and p=0.45, respectively). Conclusions: These findings provide additional evidence that anatomic imaging assessment of early response to therapy among RMS patients does not predict outcome and should not be used to tailor subsequent therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT00003958. [Table: see text]

10554 Background: Age at diagnosis is a prognostic factor in patients with RMS. We sought to determine whether AYA with metastatic alveolar (ARMS) or embryonal (ERMS) RMS had a different failure-free survival (FFS) compared to younger patients, and to identify treatment related factors that may be associated with outcome. Methods: COG ARST0431 patients were reviewed. The incidence of toxicities (AE, grade3/4 using CTCAEv3) by age was determined in 4 reporting periods (RP: wks 1-6; RP2:7-19; RP3: 20-34; RP4: 35-54). The AEs in younger patients (<=13 years) were compared with those in AYA. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare differences between the groups. Results: Of 109 patients, 60 (55%) were AYA. In RP1, they were more likely to have nausea/vomiting (4.1 vs. 16.9%, p=0.06), pain (6.1 vs. 20.3%, p=0.05), and metabolic disturbances (4.1 vs. 20.3%, p=0.02) compared to younger patients. In RP4, older patients trended to have less infection (15.8 vs. 30.1, p=0.07). All other toxicities were similar between the two age cohorts in the other RPs. AYA were less likely to complete therapy (52 vs. 73%, p=0.03) and more likely (in RP 4) to have unplanned dose modifications (outside of protocol guidelines) (23 vs. 2.7%). Of patients that completed therapy, there was no age-related difference in the time to completion. As shown in the table, younger patients had better 3-yr FFS, driven by a lower FFS for AYA with ARMS. Conclusions: This evaluation suggests that AYA with RMS were less likely to complete therapy and experienced a higher prevalence of pain and nausea compared to younger patients; the role of reporting bias and reasons for treatment discontinuation need further study. Children were more likely than AYA to have infection. Inferior FFS was only seen in AYA with ARMS suggesting a clear need for novel therapies for these patients. This study may be underpowered to demonstrate significant differences in other toxicities or in FFS among ERMS patients. [Table: see text]

Abstract Introduction: Lenalidomide (len) is an immunomodulatory agent with single agent activity in relapsed and refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). CHOEP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisone) is a common initial regimen. Herein, we report the completed phase II results of the combination of len-CHOEP. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had newly diagnosed PTCL, ANC ≥1000 cells/mm3, platelets ≥100 K/mm3, and adequate organ function. Based on phase I results [Lunning et al. T-cell Forum 2018] 10 mg of len was chosen for phase II. CHOEP was administered at standard doses with len given on days 1-10 of 21-day cycle for six planned cycles. Mandatory prophylaxis included aspirin (ASA) or alternative thromboprophylaxis and growth factor support per institutional guidelines with each cycle. A PET/CT after two cycles (PET-2) for interim response assessment was required per protocol. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) by PET/CT after 6 cycles (PET-6) of len-CHOEP utilizing the revised Cheson 2007 criteria with secondary endpoints to include toxicity, overall response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), 2-year PFS, and overall survival (OS). Pts who had CR or partial response (PR) at the end of therapy had the option of len maintenance (10 mg/day for 21 out of 28 days) for 1-year or consolidative autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) without len maintenance. Per protocol pts dosed at 10 mg in phase I (N=8) were included in the phase II analysis. Results: Forty pts with PTCL-NOS (23), ALK negative ALCL (5) and AITL (12) enrolled into the phase II portion. Median age was 62 years (range 24-79) and 21 were male. Thirty (75%) pts completed all 6 cycles. Reasons for discontinuing len-CHOEP early were toxicity (n=6) and progressive disease (PD; n=4). PET-2 was not done in 4/40 pts (n=2 each either not performed or PD). In an intent to treat (ITT) analysis the CR rate at the end of treatment was 48% (19/40; 95CI-32-64%) with an ORR of 68%. In pts who completed 6 cycles (n=30) the CR/ORR rate was 63%/87% respectively. Seven pts (18%) experienced primary treatment failure. Of the 19 pts in CR at end of initial therapy, 14 were in a CR at PET-2 assessment. Two pts in a PET-2 CR discontinued prior to cycle 6 due to toxicity and have not progressed. Five pts converted from a PR to CR after PET-2, but 7 of 13 PRs remained PRs. Responding pts (CR/PR; n=30) proceeded either to an ASCT (n=18), len maintenance (n=10) or neither (investigator/pts preference; n=2). At a median follow up of 13 months (range: 4-23 months), the 1-year estimated PFS and OS is 68% [95% CI--50-80%] and 89% [95%CI--73-96%] respectively. There were five grade (G) 5 events including PD (n=1), secondary malignancy (n=1; AML), sepsis (n=2), and cardiac arrest (n=1). Serious or recurrent adverse events (SAEs or AEs) of interest occurring during any cycle included 38% G 3-4 febrile neutropenia despite mandated GCSF use, 43% G 3-4 anemia, 43% G 3-4 thrombocytopenia (without report of G 3-4 bleeding or bruising despite ASA use), 3% G3-4 rash (all G 23%), and 8% G 3-4 diarrhea (all G 43%). Conclusions: The phase II portion of the study in an ITT population noted an unexpectedly modest 48% CR rate and a high discontinuation rate (15%) due to AEs or SAE. The utility of response at PET-2 and post initial therapy strategy (len maintenance vs ASCT) continue to be monitored for PFS and OS in this limited cohort. Improving frontline outcomes for pts with PTCL remains an unmet need. Disclosures Lunning: Celgene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Horwitz:Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Kyowa-Hakka-Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy; Aileron Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Advani:Janssen Pharmaceutical: Other: Institutional Research Support; Cell Medica: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Merck: Other: Institutional Research Support; Forty Seven, Inc: Other: Institutional Research Support; Millenium: Other: Institutional Research Support; Roche/Genentech: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role, Institutional Research Support; Pharmacyclics: Other: Institutional Research Support; Celgene: Other: Institutional Research Support; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Institutional Research Support; Kura: Other: Institutional Research Support; Infinity: Other: Institutional Research Support; Autolus: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Kyowa: Other: Consulting/Advisory Role; Takeda: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Consultancy/Advisory role and Institutional Research Support; Agensys: Other: Institutional Research Support; Gilead/Kite: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Seattle Genetics: Other: Consultancy/Advisory role, Institutional Research Support; AstraZeneca: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role. Vose:Epizyme: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corp.: Research Funding; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding. Mehta-Shah:Verastem: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy. Haverkos:Viracta Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moskowitz:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell:Merck & Co: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding.

AbstractBackgroundWe sought to determine whether adolescents with metastatic alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma (ARMS) or embryonal RMS (ERMS) had a different event‐free survival (EFS) compared with younger patients, and to identify treatment‐related factors (adverse events, AEs) that may be associated with differences in outcome.MethodsThe prevalence of AEs in adolescents older than 13 years was compared with that in patients less than or equal to 13 years of age (Fisher exact test) in patients enrolled onto ARST0431. EFS by age and histology was compared by log–rank test.ResultsOf 109 patients, 60 (55%) were older than 13 years; they were more likely to have nausea (17 vs. 4%, P = 0.06) and pain (20 vs. 6%, P = 0.05) compared with younger patients. Adolescents were less likely to complete therapy (63 vs. 76%) and more likely to have unplanned dose modifications outside of protocol guidelines (23 vs. 2.7%). The 3‐year EFS was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15–38) for adolescents compared with 46% (95% CI: 32–60) for those less than or equal to 13 years (P = 0.011). Forty‐two (59%) adolescents with ARMS had a 3‐year EFS of 13% (95% CI: 2–23) compared with 30% (95% CI: 10–51) for those less than or equal to 13 years (P = 0.032). EFS was comparable between older and younger patients with ERMS (64 vs. 55%, P = 0.53).ConclusionsAlthough there was a significant difference in EFS and protocol compliance by age, the differences in age‐related toxicity are unlikely to account for this. Observed differences in pain and nausea by age could be real or be dependent on patient reporting of symptoms. Future studies in RMS should include patient‐reported outcomes to better evaluate health‐related quality of life.

Purpose Patients with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS), except those younger than 10 years with embryonal RMS, have an estimated long-term event-free survival (EFS) of less than 20%. The main goal of this study was to improve outcome of patients with metastatic RMS by dose intensification with interval compression, use of the most active agents determined in phase II window studies, and use of irinotecan as a radiation sensitizer. Patients and Methods Patients with metastatic RMS received 54 weeks of therapy: blocks of therapy with vincristine/irinotecan (weeks 1 to 6, 20 to 25, and 47 to 52), interval compression with vincristine/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide alternating with etoposide/ifosfamide (weeks 7 to 19 and 26 to 34), and vincristine/dactinomycin/cyclophosphamide (weeks 38 to 46). Radiation therapy occurred at weeks 20 to 25 (primary) but was also permitted at weeks 1 to 6 (for intracranial or paraspinal extension) and weeks 47 to 52 (for extensive metastatic sites). Results One hundred nine eligible patients were enrolled, with a median follow-up of surviving patients of 3.8 years (3-year EFS for all patients, 38% [95% CI, 29% to 48%]; survival, 56% [95% CI, 46% to 66%]). Patients with one or no Oberlin risk factor (age > 10 years or < 1 year, unfavorable primary site of disease, ≥ three metastatic sites, and bone or bone marrow involvement) had a 3-year EFS of 69% (95% CI, 52% to 82%); high-risk patients with two or more risk factors had a 3-year EFS of 20% (95% CI, 11% to 30%). Toxicity was similar to that on prior RMS studies. Conclusion Patients with metastatic RMS with one or no Oberlin risk factor had an improved 3-year EFS of 69% on ARST0431 compared with an historical cohort from pooled European and US studies; those with two or more risk factors have a dismal prognosis, and new approaches are needed for this very-high-risk group.