Lu, Ying

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

Abstract Background: MGTA-145, a CXCR2 agonist, has shown promising activity for hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) mobilization with plerixafor in pre-clinical models and healthy volunteers. It has the potential to become the first GCSF free regimen for HSC mobilization/apheresis in preparation for transplant, with fewer side effects, better patient experience and optimal resource utilization. Methods: We conducted a single center phase 2 trial of MGTA-145 + plerixafor for HSC mobilization in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), NCT04552743. Primary endpoint was collection of ≥2 x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in up to 2 days of mobilization/apheresis. Secondary endpoints were collection of 4 and 6 x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg, safety and engraftment. Patients with MM, 18-70 years of age, within 1 year of starting treatment & CrCl > 30 ml/min were eligible. Patients received plerixafor 0.24 mg/kg (0.16 mg/kg if renal dysfunction) SQ, followed 2 hours later by MGTA-145 (0.03 mg/kg) IV over 3-10 minutes and apheresis within 30 minutes. Mobilization and collection were repeated for a second consecutive day if day 1 yield was < 6 x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg. The study was open-label single arm trial of 15 patients. If 13 or more patients met primary endpoint, an expansion cohort of 10 patients was planned. The trial has 85% power at a 5% one-sided type I error rate. Our analysis is based on aggregated results from total cohort of 25 patients. Results: Median age was 62 years, 52% were female, 24% had ISS stage 3, 57% had high-risk FISH (primarily gain1q). Induction therapy was VRD in 68% (17), daratumumab VRD in 24% (6), CyBorD in 8% (2) patients. Median duration of induction was 4 months (3-6) and median lenalidomide exposure was 5 cycles (1-8), with > VGPR in 88% of patients. (Table 1) Plerixafor 0.24 mg/kg was given in 24 (96%) patients. Median pre-apheresis CD34 count was day 1, 24/uL (3-99) & day 2, 15/uL (5-46). Median total HSC cell yield (CD34+ cells/kg x 10 6) was 5.0 (1.1-16.2), day 1 yield was 3.4 (0.3-16.2) and day 2 yield was 1.9 (0.5-4.6) (Fig1). 88% (n=22) of patients met the primary endpoint of collecting sufficient HSCs in < 2 days of mobilization + apheresis to proceed to transplant, 68% (17) in 1 day (2 x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg). 3 patients who did not meet primary endpoint successfully collected HSCs with standard GCSF + plerixafor dosing & 2-3 apheresis sessions. Secondary endpoints of 4 and 6 x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in < 2 days were met in 68% (17) and 40% (10) patients. MGTA-145+plerixafor was well tolerated. At least 1 treatment emergent AE (TEAE) with MGTA-145 was seen in 60% of patients (grade 1, n= 14, grade 2, n=1). Pain (all grade 1) was most common, seen in 44% (11), with 38% (9) patients experiencing acute onset transient bone pain with MGTA-145 (duration: 7 minutes, range: 3-28). Using the validated Brief Pain Inventory, 56% (14) patients self-reported pain with mobilization vs 40% (10) at baseline. 7/15 patients without baseline pain reported pain with mobilization. An increase for worst pain was seen on mobilization day 1, that returned to the baseline, but no difference for aggregate score of pain severity/interference (linear mixed effects model). At last follow-up, 18 patients have completed transplant with MGTA-145 mobilized graft, with melphalan 200 mg/m 2 in 15 (83%) patients. Median of 3.5 (2.2-8.1) x 10 6 CD34+ cells/kg were infused. All patients have engrafted. Median time to neutrophil engraftment of 12 days (range: 11-15) & platelet engraftment (platelets > 20,000, no transfusion in 7 days) of 17.5 days (15-33) are comparable to historical data (DiPersio et al. 2009). RBC transfusion was needed in 3 (17%) patients. 14 patients have day 100 follow-up, all with durable engraftment. MGTA-145 + plerixafor mobilized grafts had a favorable graft composition. We observed high enrichment for CD90+CD45RA- among CD34+ cells, a CD34 subset of long term engrafting HSCs (median: 36% of CD34+ cells, range 10-66%, N=25). 74% (17 of 23) grafts were minimal residual disease negative with next generation flow cytometry. Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate the novel G-CSF-free regimen of MGTA-145 + plerixafor for HSC cell mobilization & collection for hematologic malignancies. The study cohort was representative of transplant eligible patients with MM, with 88% patients meeting the primary endpoint. The regimen was well tolerated. Patients achieved timely & durable engraftment. Our data support further development of this regimen for rapid HSC mobilization. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Sidana: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Allogene: Research Funding; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Kumar: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Muffly: Pfizer, Amgen, Jazz, Medexus, Pfizer: Consultancy; Astellas, Jasper, Adaptive, Baxalta: Research Funding; Adaptive: Honoraria, Other: fees for non-CME/CE services: , Research Funding. Arai: Magenta Therapeutics: Research Funding. Meyer: Indee, Jura: Consultancy; Orca Biosystems: Research Funding; GigaImmune: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Triursus Therapeutics: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Rezvani: US Department of Justice: Consultancy; Kaleido: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Nohla Therapeutics: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Pharmacyclics-Abbvie: Research Funding. Weng: Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Frank: Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Allogene Therapeutics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding. Shiraz: Kite Pharma-Gilead: Research Funding. Girgenti: Magenta Therapeutics: Current Employment. Goncalves: Magenta Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties. Schmelmer: Magenta Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties. Davis: Magenta Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months. Shizuru: Jasper Therapeutics, Inc.: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Chair of scientific advisory board; Forty seven Inc: Other: Inventor on a patent licenses by Forty Seven. Forty seven was acquired by Gilead in 2020. Miklos: Pharmacyclics: Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company, Amgen, Atara, Wugen, Celgene, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Precision Bioscience, Adicet, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Takeda, Adaptive Biotechnologies and Miltenyi Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, Amgen, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Becton Dickinson, Isoplexis, Miltenyi, Juno-Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Precision Biosciences, Adicet, Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Novartis, Juno/Celgene-BMS, Kite, a Gilead Company, Pharmacyclics-AbbVie, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AlloGene, Precision Bioscience, Miltenyi Biotech, Adicet, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

VA Cooperative Studies Program #571 (DIVA) was designed to evaluate the efficacy of drug‐eluting stents (DES) for reducing aortocoronary saphenous vein bypass graft (SVG) failure when compared with bare‐metal stents (BMS) in participants undergoing stenting of de novo SVG lesions. Participants undergoing clinically indicated stenting of de novo SVG lesions were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to DES or BMS. Randomization was stratified by presence/absence of diabetes mellitus and the number of target SVG lesions (1 vs ≥2) within each participating site. At sites that did not routinely administer 12‐months of dual antiplatelet therapy after SVG stenting participants without acute coronary syndromes received 1 month of open‐label clopidogrel, followed by 11 months of clopidogrel for those assigned to DES and 11 months of placebo for those assigned to BMS. The primary endpoint was the 12‐month incidence of target‐vessel failure (defined as the composite of cardiac death, target‐vessel myocardial infarction, or target‐vessel revascularization). Secondary endpoints included the incidence of other clinical endpoints and the incremental cost‐effectiveness of DES relative to BMS. Due to lower‐than‐anticipated target‐vessel failure rates, target enrollment was increased from 519 to 762. The study had randomized 599 participants when recruitment ended in December 2015. The DIVA trial will provide clarity on the appropriate stent type for de novo SVG lesions.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) has increasingly recognized the need for more personalized probabilistic predictions than those delivered by ordinal staging systems, particularly through the use of accurate risk models or calculators. However, judging the quality and acceptability of a risk model is complex. The AJCC Precision Medicine Core conducted a 2‐day meeting to discuss characteristics necessary for a quality risk model in cancer patients. More specifically, the committee established inclusion and exclusion criteria necessary for a risk model to potentially be endorsed by the AJCC. This committee reviewed and discussed relevant literature before creating a checklist unique to this need of AJCC risk model endorsement. The committee identified 13 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria for AJCC risk model endorsement in cancer. The emphasis centered on performance metrics, implementation clarity, and clinical relevance. The facilitation of personalized probabilistic predictions for cancer patients holds tremendous promise, and these criteria will hopefully greatly accelerate this process. Moreover, these criteria might be useful for a general audience when trying to judge the potential applicability of a published risk model in any clinical domain. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:370–374. © 2016 American Cancer Society.