Smith, Matthew D.

Abstract Objective To assess the real‐world performance of a live (LCBA) versus a fixed (FCBA) cell‐based assay for the detection of serum antibodies directed against myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG‐IgG) and aquaporin‐4 (AQP4‐IgG). Methods This was a retrospective study of patients evaluated at a single tertiary academic referral center, with serum testing performed clinically for AQP4‐IgG and/or MOG‐IgG by FCBA and LCBA on the same day. Additionally, frozen banked sera from the same day for patients tested only by one assay were retrieved and tested by the other assay. FCBA was performed by the Johns Hopkins Immunology Laboratory using Euroimmun kits with detection by indirect immunofluorescence (FCBA‐IF), whereas LCBA was performed by the Mayo Clinic Neuroimmunology Laboratory with detection by flow cytometry (LCBA‐FACS). Results Of 594 specimens with paired MOG‐IgG testing, 500 were negative by both assays, 33 were positive by both assays, 56 were positive exclusively by LCBA‐FACS, and 5 were only positive by FCBA‐IF. Overall, MOG‐IgG LCBA‐FACS exhibited 95.1% sensitivity and 97.7% specificity, whereas MOG‐IgG FCBA‐IF had 45.7% sensitivity and 99.8% specificity. Of 577 specimens with paired AQP4‐IgG testing, 503 were negative by both assays, 51 were positive by both assays, 21 were positive exclusively by LCBA‐FACS, and 2 were only positive by FCBA‐IF. Overall, AQP4‐IgG LCBA‐FACS exhibited 97.3% sensitivity and 100% specificity, whereas AQP4‐IgG FCBA‐IF had 71.6% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Interpretation LCBA‐FACS for both MOG‐IgG and AQP4‐IgG had markedly better sensitivity than FCBA‐IF, with similar specificity. The use of FCBA‐IF may result in underrecognition of both MOG antibody‐associated disease (MOGAD) and AQP4‐IgG seropositive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD).

Abstract To study the impact of dose modification and temporary interruption of ibrutinib in routine clinical practice, we conducted a retrospective study of consecutive CLL patients treated with ibrutinib outside the context of a clinical trial at Mayo Clinic, (Rochester, MN) from 11/2013 to 12/2017. Of 209 patients, 131 (74%) had unmutated IGHV , 38 (20%) had TP53 disruption, and 47 (22%) were previously untreated. A total of 87/209 (42%) patients started reduced dose ibrutinib (<420 mg daily; n = 43, physician preference; n = 33, concomitant medications; and n = 11, other). During 281 person‐years of treatment, 91/209 patients had temporary dose interruption (54%, nonhematologic toxicity; 29%, surgical procedures; 10%, hematologic toxicity; and 7%, other). After a median follow‐up of 24 months, the estimated median event‐free survival (EFS) was 36 months, and median overall survival (OS) was not reached. On multivariable analyses, temporary ibrutinib interruption (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.37, P = .006) and TP53 disruption at ibrutinib initiation (HR: 1.81, P = .048) were associated with shorter EFS, whereas only TP53 disruption (HR: 2.38, P = .015) was associated with shorter OS. Initial ibrutinib dose and dose modification during therapy did not appear to impact EFS or OS. These findings illustrate the challenges associated with continuous oral therapy with ibrutinib in patients with CLL.

Abstract Background: Chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) is a BCR-ABL1 driven myeloid neoplasm, with excellent response rates to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). TKI such as imatinib (IM), dasatinib (DAS), nilotinib (NIL), bosutinib (BOS), and ponatinib (PON) currently US FDA approved, have dramatically changed survival outcomes. That being said, two main challenges exist; suboptimal responses and TKI intolerance. The reason why some patients tolerate/respond to TKI better than others is unknown, but is potentially explainable based on drug metabolism. The field of pharmacogenomics (PGX) is rapidly evolving, with commercial panel's rapidly assessing metabolic pathways such as cytochrome P450 (CYP), UGTA1A, p-glycoprotein/ABCB1. We carried out this study using a 22 gene-PGX panel to assess potential causes of TKI related intolerance and suboptimal responses in compliant patients. Methods: Twenty-nine Mayo Clinic patients with CML were prospectively recruited after informed consent. Buccal swabs were utilized for PGX testing to assess variations/polymorphisms involving CYP3A4/5, 1A2, 2C9, UGT1A1, amongst others (www.Oneome.com). Three groups of patients were recruited, those with i) TKI intolerance, ii) suboptimal responses by ELN criteria, iii) and newly diagnosed cases, to assess if PGX testing could explain TKI intolerance or resistance, or alter choice of therapy in newly diagnosed cases. A pharmacology review was obtained to interpret reports in all cases. Results: 29 patients with CML were prospectively enrolled, median age 64 years, 15 (52%) male. At last follow up (median 21 months), 3 (10%) deaths and no disease progressions were documented. 82% received first line IM, whereas 18% received first line DAS. Major metabolic pathways assessed for IM included, CYP3A4 and 5, while minor pathways included 2C19, 2C9 and 2D6. Majority (83%) of IM patients had normal major pathways with 17% being intermediate-normal. With regards to the minor pathways, 25% were rapid metabolizers for 2C19, whereas 29% were intermediate and 4% poor metabolizers for 2C9 and 50% and 16% were intermediate and poor metabolizers for 2D6. In all IM treated patients PGX testing did not completely explain intolerance or resistance and did not change clinical decision making. Front line DAS was used in 18% and the major pathway assessed was CYP 3A4, with 80% being normal and 20% being intermediate metabolizers. Once again PGX testing did not completely explain intolerance/resistance and no therapeutic changes were based on PGX analysis. Seventeen (59%) patients received second line TKI therapy (50% each for intolerance and resistance), with DAS (58%) and NIL (29%), being the two most common. Once again for DAS, 90% had normal 3A4 metabolism while 10% were intermediate and for NIL 80% were normal and 20% intermediate. Only one of 2 NIL treated patients with UGTA1A polymorphisms developed indirect hyperbilirubinemia (grade 1). In the second line setting, PGX testing did not completely explain or alter treatment decisions. BOS was used as a third line agent in 3 (>10%) patients, 2 who remained refractory and one with intolerance, and all three were normal CYP3A4 metabolizers. None of these patients developed diarrhea a common side effect of BOS. PON was used in one patient with intermediate CYP3A4 metabolism as a 5th line agent and the patient continues to have refractory disease with no thrombotic events. In all cases, no changes were made to concomitant medications based on PGX testing. Conclusion: In conclusion, while PGX testing has rapidly evolved and become commercially available, in the context of TKI therapy for CML, while it offers useful insights on minor metabolic derangements and side effects like NIL induced hyperbilirubinemia, in our study, currently limited by a small sample size, it did not completely explain TKI intolerance or resistance. Recruitment of additional patients (n=100) and correlations with plasma drug levels are currently ongoing. Table. Table. Disclosures Al-Kali: Novartis: Research Funding. Stewart:Amgen Inc., Celgene, Roche, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Amgen Inc., BMS, Celgene, Takeda, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Janssen, Ono: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction: Ibrutinib has shown remarkable safety and efficacy in CLL. Due to CYP3A4 (3A4) metabolism, the concurrent use of 3A4 inhibitors/inducers with ibrutinib should be avoided. Ibrutinib is also associated with bleeding complications, in part due to effects on collagen-mediated platelet aggregation, thus caution is advised with the simultaneous use of anticoagulant (AC) and antiplatelet agents. It is unknown what proportion of CLL patients starting ibrutinib therapy in routine practice are on these medications. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate these aspects in a large cohort of CLL pts treated with ibrutinib outside the context of clinical trials. Methods: Following IRB approval, consecutive CLL pts who initiated ibrutinib off-protocol at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN from November 2013 through July 2015 were evaluated. A medication review for drug-drug interactions was performed by a pharmacist on all pts. Baseline characteristics, concomitant medications, and toxicity were recorded. Time to toxicity and ibrutinib discontinuation were analyzed by Kaplan Meier and cumulative incidence methods accounting for competing risk of death, respectively. Results: Ninety-six CLL pts started ibrutinib. Median age was 66 years and 64 (67%) were male. Ibrutinib indications included: relapsed/refractory CLL (n=84), treatment-naïve CLL with del17p (n=8), and CLL with Richter's transformation (n=4). Approximately 80% had unmutated IGHV and 45% had del17p or del11q on FISH. Upon initial pharmacy consult prior to ibrutinib, the median number of concomitant medications was 9 (range, 1-31). Sixty (63%) pts were taking concurrent medications increasing their risk of ibrutinib toxicity and 4 (4%) pts were on drugs potentially reducing ibrutinib efficacy. At ibrutinib initiation, 16 (17%) pts were on concomitant 3A4 inhibitors. This included 9 (9%) on moderate 3A4 inhibitors (fluconazole, diltiazem, imatinib, cyclosporine) and 7 (7%) on strong 3A4 inhibitors (voriconazole, posaconazole, clarithromycin, itraconazole). In 4 pts, the 3A4 inhibitor was switched to another agent or discontinued to allow standard 420 mg daily dosing. Ibrutinib was initiated at 140 mg daily in 7 pts on moderate 3A4 inhibitors and at 140 mg every 48 hours in 5 pts on strong 3A4 inhibitors. Four (4%) pts were on strong 3A4 inducers (carbamazepine, rifampin, rifabutin) at the initiation of ibrutinib. The 3A4 inducer was discontinued prior to ibrutinib start in 3 pts, while the initial ibrutinib dose was decreased to 140 mg every 48 hours in the remaining patient (also on 2 strong 3A4 inhibitors). During the course of ibrutinib, an additional 8 (8%) pts were started on 3A4 inhibitors/inducers which necessitated dose modifications. Upon commencing ibrutinib, 9 (9%) pts were on concomitant AC (6 warfarin, 3 enoxaparin). Due to significant bleeding risk, warfarin was switched to enoxaparin in 2 pts, to aspirin (ASA) in 1 and warfarin was discontinued in 1. In 2 pts, an alternative AC could not be used so ibrutinib was begun at 140 mg daily and titrated upward. Twenty-nine (30%) pts were on ASA (3 [3%] also on clopidogrel) at ibrutinib initiation. Nineteen (20%) pts were on selective serotonin release inhibitors (SSRIs), and 9 (9%) were on NSAIDs. Thirteen (13%) pts were on fish oil and 24 (25%) were on herbal medications; all of which were discontinued prior to starting ibrutinib. Ten (10%) pts had clinically significant bleeding on ibrutinib including 4 (4%) requiring hospitalization (1 subdural hematoma). Of these 4 pts, 1 was on enoxaparin, 2 were on a SSRI and 1 a NSAID. Six pts had minor bleeding necessitating a dose reduction of ibrutinib to 140-280 mg daily. After 16 months follow-up, the risk of bleeding was 21% (95% CI: 1-37%, Figure). After a median follow-up of 7.6 months, 73 (76%) pts remain on ibrutinib. There was no difference in rates of discontinuation of ibrutinib between patients who were on 3A4 inhibitors/inducers versus those who were not. Conclusion: In the "real-world" setting, 2 out of 3 CLL patients commencing ibrutinib therapy is on a concomitant medication with a potentially clinically significant drug-drug interaction with ibrutinib. These findings have implications for the practicing hematologist who must maintain a high degree of vigilance when prescribing ibrutinib to CLL pts. We highly recommend a formal medication review by a clinical pharmacist in all patients initiating ibrutinib. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Ding: Merck: Research Funding. Kay:Hospira: Research Funding; Tolero Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Shanafelt:Glaxo-Smith_Kline: Research Funding; Pharmactckucs: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding; Polyphenon E Int'l: Research Funding.