Citations

Abstract Aims Conotruncal anomalies share common embryogenic defects of the outflow tracts and great arteries, which result in a predisposition to aortic aneurysms. The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence and risk of progressive aortic aneurysms in adults with conotruncal anomalies. Methods and results Retrospective study of adults with conotruncal anomalies that underwent cross-sectional imaging 2003–20. Aneurysm was defined as aortic root/mid-ascending aorta >2.1 mm/m2/>1.9 mm/m2, progressive aneurysm as increase by >2 mm, and severe aneurysm as dimension >50 mm. Of 2261 patients (38 ± 12 years; male 58%), 1167 (52%) had an aortic aneurysm, and 205 (14%) had a severe aortic aneurysm. Mean annual increase in aortic root/mid-ascending aorta was 0.3 ± 0.1 mm/0.2 ± 0.1 mm. The 3-, 5-, and 7-year cumulative incidence of the progressive aortic aneurysm was 4%, 7%, and 9%, respectively. The rate of aneurysm growth decreased with age, with no significant growth after age 40 years. There was an excellent correlation between aortic indices from cross-sectional imaging and echocardiography. Of 950 females, 184 had ≥1 pregnancy, and 81 (44%) of the 184 patients had aortic aneurysm prior to pregnancy. There was no aortic dissection or progression of the aortic aneurysm during pregnancy. Overall, there was no aortic dissection during 7984 patient-years of follow-up. Conclusions Aortic aneurysm was common in patients with conotruncal anomalies. However, the risk of progressive aneurysm or dissection was low. Collectively, these data suggest a benign natural history and perhaps a less frequent need for cross-sectional imaging. Further studies are required to determine the optimal timing for surgical intervention in this population.

BackgroundThe objective of this randomized trial was to evaluate the short‐term effect of bilingual written and interpersonal education regarding mammographic breast density (MBD).MethodsLatinas aged 40 to 74 years who were presenting for screening mammography were recruited and randomized 1:1:1 to receive a letter with their mammogram and MBD results (usual care [UC]), a letter plus a brochure (enhanced care [ENH]), or a letter plus a brochure and telephonic promotora education (interpersonal care [INT]). Surveys were administered at enrollment (T0) and 2 weeks to 6 months after intervention delivery (T1). Differences were assessed with χ2, Kruskal‐Wallis, and McNemar tests and pairwise comparisons as appropriate. INT metrics and audio recordings were analyzed with descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.ResultsBetween October 2016 and October 2019, 943 of 1108 Latina participants (85%) completed both surveys. At T1, INT participants were more likely (P < .001) to report seeing their MBD results in the letter (70.2%) than UC (53.1%) or ENH participants (55.1%). The percentage of INT women who reported speaking with a provider about MBD (29.0%) was significantly greater (P < .001) than the percentage of UC (14.7%) or ENH participants (15.6%). All groups saw significant (P < .001) but nondifferential improvements in their knowledge of MBD as a masking and risk factor. In the INT group, the promotora delivered education to 77.1% of the 446 participants randomized to INT and answered questions at 28.3% of the encounters for an average of $4.70 per participant.ConclusionsAmong Latinas in a low‐resource setting, MBD knowledge may increase with written or interpersonal education, but with modest investment, interpersonal education may better improve MBD awareness and prompt patient‐provider discussions.

AbstractInternational Statistical Classification of Disease and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision codes (ICD‐10) are used to characterize cohort comorbidities. Recent literature does not demonstrate standardized extraction methods. Objective: Compare COVID‐19 cohort manual‐chart‐review and ICD‐10‐based comorbidity data; characterize the accuracy of different methods of extracting ICD‐10‐code‐based comorbidity, including the temporal accuracy with respect to critical time points such as day of admission. Design: Retrospective cross‐sectional study. Measurements: ICD‐10‐based‐data performance characteristics relative to manual‐chart‐review. Results: Discharge billing diagnoses had a sensitivity of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79–0.85; comorbidity range: 0.35–0.96). The past medical history table had a sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69–0.76; range: 0.44–0.87). The active problem list had a sensitivity of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.63–0.71; range: 0.47–0.71). On day of admission, the active problem list had a sensitivity of 0.58 (95% CI: 0.54–0.63; range: 0.30–0.68)and past medical history table had a sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CI: 0.43–0.53; range: 0.30–0.56). Conclusions and Relevance: ICD‐10‐based comorbidity data performance varies depending on comorbidity, data source, and time of retrieval; there are notable opportunities for improvement. Future researchers should clearly outline comorbidity data source and validate against manual‐chart‐review.

Background Cardiovascular surgical outcomes reports are few for vascular type IV of Ehlers- Danlos Syndrome (vEDS) compared to non-vascular types I-III (nEDS). Methods To define cardiovascular surgical outcomes among adult patients (≥18 years) with EDS types, a review of our institution's in-house STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database-compliant software and electronic medical records from Mayo Clinic (1993–2019) was performed. Outcomes were compared for vEDS patients and nEDS patients. Demographics, baseline characteristics, operative, in-hospital complications and follow-up vital status were analyzed. Results Over the study time frame, 48 EDS patients underwent surgery (mean age 52.6 ± 14.6 years; 48% females). Of these, 17 patients had vEDS and 31 patients had nEDS. Six patients (12.5%) underwent prior sternotomy. Urgent or emergent surgery was performed in 10 patients (20.8%). Aortic (vEDS 76.5% vs. nEDS 16.1%) and mitral procedures (vEDS 11.8% vs. nEDS 48.4%) were the two most common cardiovascular surgeries performed (p < .01 and p = .007, respectively). Cardiopulmonary bypass time (CPB) (165 ± 18 vs. 90 ± 13 min; p = .015) and aortic cross clamp times (140 ± 14 vs. 62 ± 10 min; p < .001) were longer for vEDS patients. There was 1 (2.1%) early and 7 (14.6%) late deaths; 6 among vEDS and 2 among nEDS patients. Survival at 5 (80% vs. 93%), 10 (45% vs. 84%) and 15 years (45% vs. 84%) was lower in patients with vEDS (p = .015 for each comparison). Conclusion Cardiovascular surgeries are significantly more complex with longer bypass and cross clamp times for type IV vEDS compared to nEDS patients. Reduced overall survival underscores the complexity and fragility of vEDS patients.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals working with cancer survivors to ensure that each survivor’s complex and varied needs are addressed. The Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote healthful lifestyle behaviors, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes the recommendations regarding employment and return to work for cancer survivors that were added in the 2021 version of the NCCN Guidelines.

Background: Osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) occurs most commonly in the knees of young individuals. This condition is known to cause pain and discomfort in the knee and can lead to disability and early knee osteoarthritis. The cause is not well understood, and treatment plans are not well delineated. The Research in Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee (ROCK) group established a multicenter, prospective cohort to better understand this disease. Purpose: To provide a baseline report of the ROCK multicenter prospective cohort and present a descriptive analysis of baseline data for patient characteristics, lesion characteristics, and clinical findings of the first 1000 cases enrolled into the prospective cohort. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients were recruited from centers throughout the United States. Baseline data were obtained for patient characteristics, sports participation, patient-reported measures of functional capabilities and limitations, physical examination, diagnostic imaging results, and initial treatment plan. Descriptive statistics were completed for all outcomes of interest. Results: As of November 2020, a total of 27 orthopaedic surgeons from 17 institutions had enrolled 1004 knees with OCD, representing 903 patients (68.9% males; median age, 13.1 years; range, 6.3-25.4 years), into the prospective cohort. Lesions were located on the medial femoral condyle (66.2%), lateral femoral condyle (18.1%), trochlea (9.5%), patella (6.0%), and tibial plateau (0.2%). Most cases involved multisport athletes (68.1%), with the most common primary sport being basketball for males (27.3% of cases) and soccer for females (27.6% of cases). The median Pediatric International Knee Documentation Committee (Pedi-IKCD) score was 59.9 (IQR, 45.6-73.9), and the median Pediatric Functional Activity Brief Scale (Pedi-FABS) score was 21.0 (IQR, 5.0-28.0). Initial treatments were surgical intervention (55.4%) and activity restriction (44.0%). When surgery was performed, surgeons deemed the lesion to be stable at intraoperative assessment in 48.1% of cases. Conclusion: The multicenter ROCK group has been able to enroll the largest knee OCD cohort to date. This information is being used to further understand the pathology of OCD, including its cause, associated comorbidities, and initial presentation and symptoms. The cohort having been established is now being followed longitudinally to better define and elucidate the best treatment algorithms based on these presenting signs and symptoms.

Abstract Background: Despite many treatment options, multiple myeloma (MM) remains largely incurable with poor outcomes among patients who progress after treatment with a protease inhibitor, immunomodulatory imide drugs (IMiDs), and/or an anti-CD38 antibody. Multiple targeted therapies have been developed for different subtypes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL); however, these therapies are typically not curative for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease. IMiDs are a standard of care for treatment of MM and have shown activity in some NHL subtypes. However, given that many patients treated with these agents frequently develop disease progression, an unmet need remains. CFT7455 is a next-generation IKZF1/3 degrader, which is more potent and catalytically active than other approved agents targeting the cereblon E3 ligase complex that degrade IKZF1/3. CFT7455 is orally bioavailable and selective for IKZF1 (Ikaros) and IKZF3 (Aiolos). Depletion of these targets from malignant B cells result in tumor cell death, and depletion from the tumor microenvironment results in T-cell activation. In i n vitro and in vivo models of MM and NHL, including anaplastic large cell lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), CFT7455 demonstrated greater activity than other agents in similar classes. These results provided rationale for a first-in-human, phase 1 study to evaluate CFT7455. Study Design: This is an open-label, multicenter, phase 1 clinical trial with dose escalation and dose expansion phases. The dose escalation phase, beginning with a starting dose of 50 mcg daily, may include single-participant cohorts at initial dose levels, after which 3-6 patients are enrolled per cohort using a Bayesian logistic regression model. After initial exploration of single-agent CFT7455 in a mixed cohort of patients with R/R MM or select NHLs, dose escalation is split to perform dose determination in R/R MM separate NHL. Once a safe dose of CFT7455 in R/R MM is determined, the combination of CFT7455 with dexamethasone will be explored in R/R MM. CFT7455 is dosed orally in 28-day cycles, on a 21-day on, 7-day off schedule, until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Expansion cohorts of single-agent CFT7455 and CFT7455 plus dexamethasone in R/R MM, and single-agent CFT7455 for peripheral T-cell lymphoma and MCL are planned. Primary objectives include: safety and tolerability, randomized phase 2 dose (RP2D)/maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of CFT7455, and estimation of antitumor activity of CFT7455. Secondary objectives include assessment of pharmacokinetics. Exploratory objectives include characterization of target engagement and IKZF1/3 degradation and assessing the immunomodulatory effects of CFT7455. For MM patients, key inclusion criteria include histologically/cytologically-confirmed MM that is R/R. Patients must not be candidates for regimens known to provide clinical benefit, defined as having received ≥3 prior anti-myeloma regimens including ≥2 consecutive cycles of lenalidomide, pomalidomide, a proteasome inhibitor, a glucocorticoid, and an anti-CD38 antibody. Key exclusion criteria include the presence of central nervous system malignancy, recent venous thromboembolism or inability to undergo its prophylaxis. Plasma cell leukemia is excluded. For NHL patients, key inclusion criteria include histologically/cytologically-confirmed NHL that is R/R. Patients mustn't be candidates for regimens known to provide clinical benefit, defined as the requisite prior lines of therapy according to an indication-specific basis. Key exclusion criteria include the presence of central nervous system malignancy, recent venous thromboembolism or inability to undergo its prophylaxis. Several lymphoma subtypes less likely to benefit are excluded (eg, Richter transformation, Burkitt lymphoma, Sezary syndrome, and lymphoblastic lymphoma). Approximately 164 patients at approximately 13 US sites will be enrolled. This trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04756726, enrollment is ongoing. Disclosures Berdeja: Legend Biotech: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; SecuraBio: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celularity: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Ailawadhi: GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Medimmune: Research Funding. Horwitz: Millennium /Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Tubulis: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; ONO Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Acrotech Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Forty Seven, Inc.: Research Funding; Trillium Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding. Matous: Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mehta-Shah: C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kiowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Ono Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Innate Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding. Martin: GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Richardson: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Protocol Intelligence: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Richard: Karyopharm, Janssen: Honoraria. Bhutani: Sanofi: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Janssen, MedImmune, Takeda, Celgene, BMS, Cerecor, Celularity: Research Funding. Yee: Takeda: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Palmer: C4 Therapeutics: Current Employment. Gorman: C4 Therapeutics: Current Employment. Schoenborn-Kellenberger: C4 Therapeutics: Current Employment. Bilic: C4 Therapeutics: Current Employment. Crystal: C4 Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mahler: C4 Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lonial: Merck: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD), the unexpected death due to acquired or genetic cardiovascular disease, follows distinct 24-hour patterns in occurrence. These 24-hour patterns likely reflect daily changes in arrhythmogenic triggers and the myocardial substrate caused by day/night rhythms in behavior, the environment, and endogenous circadian mechanisms. To better address fundamental questions regarding the circadian mechanisms, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a workshop, Understanding Circadian Mechanisms of Sudden Cardiac Death. We present a 2-part report of findings from this workshop. Part 1 summarizes the workshop and serves to identify research gaps and opportunities in the areas of basic and translational research. Among the gaps was the lack of standardization in animal studies for reporting environmental conditions (eg, timing of experiments relative to the light dark cycle or animal housing temperatures) that can impair rigor and reproducibility. Workshop participants also pointed to uncertainty regarding the importance of maintaining normal circadian rhythmic synchrony and the potential pathological impact of desynchrony on SCD risk. One related question raised was whether circadian mechanisms can be targeted to reduce SCD risk. Finally, the experts underscored the need for studies aimed at determining the physiological importance of circadian clocks in the many different cell types important to normal heart function and SCD. Addressing these gaps could lead to new therapeutic approaches/molecular targets that can mitigate the risk of SCD not only at certain times but over the entire 24-hour period.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the sudden, unexpected death due to abrupt loss of heart function secondary to cardiovascular disease. In certain populations living with cardiovascular disease, SCD follows a distinct 24-hour pattern in occurrence, suggesting day/night rhythms in behavior, the environment, and endogenous circadian rhythms result in daily spans of increased vulnerability. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a workshop, Understanding Circadian Mechanisms of Sudden Cardiac Death to identify fundamental questions regarding the role of the circadian rhythms in SCD. Part 2 summarizes research gaps and opportunities in the areas of population and clinical research identified in the workshop. Established research supports a complex interaction between circadian rhythms and physiological responses that increase the risk for SCD. Moreover, these physiological responses themselves are influenced by several biological variables, including the type of cardiovascular disease, sex, age, and genetics, as well as environmental factors. The emergence of new noninvasive biotechnological tools that continuously measure key cardiovascular variables, as well as the identification of biomarkers to assess circadian rhythms, hold promise for generating large-scale human data sets that will delineate which subsets of individuals are most vulnerable to SCD. Additionally, these data will improve our understanding of how people who suffer from circadian disruptions develop cardiovascular diseases that increase the risk for SCD. Emerging strategies to identify new biomarkers that can quantify circadian health (eg, environmental, behavioral, and internal misalignment) may lead to new interventions and therapeutic targets to prevent the progression of cardiovascular diseases that cause SCD.

AbstractCOVID‐19 has disproportionately affected low‐income communities and people of color. Previous studies demonstrated that race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) are not independently correlated with COVID‐19 mortality. The purpose of our study is to determine the effect of race/ethnicity and SES on COVID‐19 30‐day mortality in a diverse, Philadelphian population. This is a retrospective cohort study in a single‐center tertiary care hospital in Philadelphia, PA. The study includes adult patients hospitalized with polymerase‐chain‐reaction‐confirmed COVID‐19 between March 1, 2020 and June 6, 2020. The primary outcome was a composite of COVID‐19 death or hospice discharge within 30 days of discharge. The secondary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The study included 426 patients: 16.7% died, 3.3% were discharged to hospice, and 20.0% were admitted to the ICU. Using multivariable analysis, race/ethnicity was not associated with the primary nor secondary outcome. In Model 4, age greater than 75 (odds ratio [OR]: 11.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.96–61.97) and renal disease (OR: 2.78; 95% CI: 1.31–5.90) were associated with higher odds of the composite primary outcome. Living in a “very‐low‐income area” (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12–0.71) and body mass index (BMI) 30–35 (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08–0.69) were associated with lower odds of the primary outcome. When controlling for demographics, SES, and comorbidities, race/ethnicity was not independently associated with the composite primary outcome. Very‐low SES, as extrapolated from census‐tract‐level income data, was associated with lower odds of the composite primary outcome.