Liu, Catherine

Abstract Disclosure: R.S. Douglas: Consulting Fee; Self; Horizon Therapeutics plc, Immunovant, Viridian. S. Couch: None. S.T. Wester: Advisory Board Member; Self; Horizon Therapeutics plc. Consulting Fee; Self; Immunovant, Sling. B. Fowler: Consulting Fee; Self; Horizon Therapeutics plc. C. Liu: Other; Self; Walter Kluwer Health. P. Subramanian: Consulting Fee; Self; Gensight, Horizon Therapeutics plc, Viridian. R. Tang: Consulting Fee; Self; Viridian, Alexion, Valenza. Research Investigator; Self; Viridian, Horizon Therapeutics plc, Novartis, Immunovant, Vasaragen. Speaker; Self; Serono Speaker Journal Club. Q.T. Nguyen: None. K. Hsu: Employee; Self; Horizon Therapeutics plc. Stock Owner; Self; Horizon Therapeutics plc. M. Karon: Employee; Self; Horizon Therapeutics plc. Stock Owner; Self; Horizon Therapeutics plc. M.N. Stan: Consulting Fee; Self; Immunovant, Horizon Therapeutics plc, Sling, Genentech, ArgenX. Background: Thyroid eye disease (TED) is characterized by expansion of peri- and retro-orbital fat and muscle, often resulting in disfiguring proptosis (eye-bulging) and diplopia (double vision) which may persist chronically. Teprotumumab, an inhibitor of the insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor, demonstrated improvements in proptosis, diplopia, inflammation and quality of life in clinical trials in patients with TED history of short duration (6-13 months), and active disease (clinical activity score [CAS] ≥4). In a published study of 31 patients with CAS≤3 and TED duration >2 years, teprotumumab reduced proptosis, diplopia and inflammation.1 We have undertaken the first randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled trial to evaluate teprotumumab in patients with chronic/inactive/low CAS TED. The trial has completed randomization with results available in May 2023. Here we report characteristics of the randomized patients. Methods: The trial (NCT04583735) is being conducted in 11 centers in the United States. Key inclusion criteria were age≥18 years, TED duration ≥2 years but <10 years and CAS≤1 in both eyes, ≥3mm proptosis from baseline and/normal for sex and race, or no progression in proptosis or diplopia or new inflammatory symptoms in the preceding year. Patients must have been euthyroid or mildly hypo/hyperthyroid, and not require surgical intervention through the trial. Patients could not have received teprotumumab previously, or steroids within 3 weeks before screening. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive 8 infusions of teprotumumab (10 mg/kg for the first infusion and 20 mg/kg for the remaining 7 infusions) or PBO once every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint is improvement in proptosis (mm) as compared with PBO from baseline at Week 24. Other endpoints include percentage of proptosis responders (improvement of ≥2mm), diplopia responders (improvement of ≥1 grade in diplopia on the Bahn-Gorman scale, 0-3), and improvement in Graves’ Ophthalmopathy- Quality of Life (GO-QoL), all at Week 24. Adverse events (AE) and AE of special interest will be reported. Results: 62 patients were randomized. 80.6% are female, mean (SD) age was 48.7 (14.94) years. 54.8% are White, 24.2 %, Black or African American, and 12.9%, Asian. Mean (SD) TED duration was 5.2 (1.77) years. 87.1% are never/former smokers. At baseline, mean (SD) proptosis in the study eye was 24.4 (2.94) mm, and mean (SD) CAS was 0.4 (0.49). 27.4% had binocular diplopia with a mean diplopia score of 2. The mean overall GO-QoL score was 63.9 indicating similar disutility as observed in the acute trial population (previously published). Results from this 24-week trial will be presented. Conclusions: Despite a long duration of TED and low “activity”, patients enrolled in this trial have high levels of proptosis and impaired quality of life at baseline. Presentation: Saturday, June 17, 2023

Abstract Background Contemporary information regarding fever and neutropenia (FN) management, including approaches to antibacterial prophylaxis, empiric therapy, and de-escalation across US cancer centers, is lacking. Methods This was a self-administered, electronic, cross-sectional survey of antimicrobial stewardship physicians and pharmacists at US cancer centers. The survey ascertained institutional practices and individual attitudes on FN management in high-risk cancer patients. A 5-point Likert scale assessed individual attitudes. Results Providers from 31 of 86 hospitals (36%) responded, and FN management guidelines existed in most (29/31, 94%) hospitals. Antibacterial prophylaxis was recommended in 27/31 (87%) hospitals, with levofloxacin as the preferred agent (23/27, 85%). Cefepime was the most recommended agent for empiric FN treatment (26/29, 90%). Most institutional guidelines (26/29, 90%) recommended against routine addition of empiric gram-positive agents except for specific scenarios. Eighteen of 29 (62%) hospitals explicitly provided guidance on de-escalation of empiric, systemic antibacterial therapy; however, timing of de-escalation was variable according to clinical scenario. Among 34 individual respondents, a majority agreed with use of antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk patients (25, 74%). Interestingly, only 10 (29%) respondents indicated agreement with the statement that benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis outweigh potential harms. Conclusion Most US cancer centers surveyed had institutional FN management guidelines. Antibiotic de-escalation guidance was lacking in nearly 40% of centers, with heterogeneity in approaches when recommendations existed. Further research is needed to inform FN guidelines on antibacterial prophylaxis and therapy de-escalation.

Abstract Background Fever and neutropenia (FN) is common in cancer patients after chemotherapy, and there are national guideline recommendations for FN prevention and treatment. We conducted a survey of practices across multiple US cancer centers to determine the extent to which these guidelines have been adapted. Methods US cancer centers performing 20 allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantations annually were identified from the National Marrow Donor Program’s “Be the Match” directory. Antimicrobial stewardship physicians and pharmacists at each institution were identified using institutional websites, residency or fellowship program directories, and personal contacts. A survey assessing institutional practices and individual attitudes on FN management in high-risk patients was distributed via email. Duplicate responses at the hospital level were removed. Complete surveys regarding individual attitudes were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.” Results Thirty-four (23%) responses from 148 individuals were received, representing 31 of 86 hospitals (36%). 29 (94%) hospitals reported having guidelines for the management of FN. Of these, cefepime was the most commonly recommended agent for empiric treatment (26, 90%) and 16 (55%) provide guidance based on presumed site of infection. Eighteen (62%) hospitals recommend de-escalation of Gram negative therapy in certain situations, most often after being afebrile 48 – 72 hours or after neutrophil recovery (7 each, 39%). Twenty-seven (93%) hospitals recommended antibiotic prophylaxis, most often with levofloxacin (21, 78%). Of 34 respondents, attitudes were split regarding the statement “The benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis outweighs the harms in high-risk patients” (10 strongly agree or agree, 10 strongly disagree or disagree; 29% each); most agreed with the statement “I would use antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk patients” (25, 78%). Conclusion Most cancer centers across the US have guidelines for the management of FN. While most recommend antibacterial prophylaxis, there were differences in individual perceptions regarding the risk / benefit. Significant variation exists in the approach to antibiotic de-escalation. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was first detected as a respiratory illness in December 2019 in Wuhan City, China. Since then, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has impacted every aspect of our lives worldwide. In a time when terms such as social distancing and flattening the curve have become a part of our vernacular, it is essential that we understand what measures can be implemented to protect our patients and healthcare workers. Undoubtedly, healthcare providers have had to rapidly alter care delivery models while simultaneously acknowledging the crucial unknowns of how these changes may affect clinical outcomes. This special feature reviews strategies on how to mitigate transmission of COVID-19 in an effort to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with the disease for patients with cancer without infection, for patients with cancer with COVID-19 infection, and for the healthcare workers caring for them, while continuing to provide the best possible cancer care. [Editor’s Note: This article includes the most current information available at time of publication; however, recommendations regarding public safety and practice may change rapidly in this situation. Individuals should get the most up to date information from the CDC website.]

Abstract Little is known about the clinical presentation and outcomes associated with spinal implant infections. Here, we describe a single center's experience in a retrospective cohort of 109 individuals with spinal implant infections, including clinical, microbiological, therapeutic, and outcome data.