Citations

AbstractAxicabtagene ciloleucel (axi‐cel) in trials has demonstrated favorable efficacy compared with historical controls after ≥2 lines of therapy for the treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Herein, we compared the real‐world effectiveness of axi‐cel with efficacy and effectiveness of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in patients aged ≥65 years and patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 2. A total of 1146 patients treated with commercial axi‐cel for R/R LBCL with ≥2 lines of prior therapy were included from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation Research prospective observational study, and 469 patients treated with CIT for R/R LBCL after ≥2 lines of prior therapy were included from SCHOLAR‐1 (an international, multicohort, retrospective study). After propensity score matching, at a median follow‐up of 24 months for patients receiving axi‐cel and 60 months for patients receiving CIT, 12‐month overall survival rates were 62% and 28%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.24–0.37]). Objective response rate (ORR) was 76% (complete response [CR] rate 58%) in patients receiving axi‐cel versus 28% (CR rate 16%) for those receiving CIT. A 57% difference in ORR (55% difference in CR rate) favoring axi‐cel over CIT was observed among patients aged ≥65 years. Increased magnitude of benefit in response rates for axi‐cel versus CIT was also observed among patients with ECOG PS = 2. These findings further support the broader use of axi‐cel in older patients and patients with ECOG PS = 2 with R/R LBCL.

Background: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is defined as a non-traumatic separation of the epicardial coronary artery walls that creates a false lumen. SCAD poses a difficult challenge in management, as decisions regarding revascularization and medical management seem to be tailored to the individual patient. We evaluated and compared outcomes based on cardiogenic shock in patients with SCAD utilizing Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) between January 1, 2016, to December 30, 2020. Methods: We utilized the NRD 2016–2019 to carry out this study. We evaluated demographics (e.g., age, gender), conventional risk factors, comorbidities present on the index admission, and in-hospital outcomes using their specific ICD-10-CM codes. The primary outcomes were In-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission, and the secondary outcome was to compare the complications in SCAD patient with cardiogenic shock (CS) compared to those without CS. Results: We analyzed 2473 individuals with SCAD, 2199 of these individuals did not have cardiogenic shock whereas 274 of these individuals did have cardiogenic shock. When comparing SCAD with cardiogenic shock to SCAD without cardiogenic shock, there was a statistically significant increased odds ratio (OR) for death (propensity matched OR 24.93 (7.49–83.05), use of mechanical circulatory support (propensity matched OR 15.30 (6.87–34.04), ventricular tachycardia (propensity matched OR 4.45 (1.92–10.34), utilization of blood transfusions (propensity matched OR 3.82 (1.86–7.87), acute kidney injury (propensity matched OR 4.02 (1.45–11.13), need for mechanical ventilation (propensity matched OR 8.87 (3.53–22.31), and respiratory failure (propensity matched OR 4.95 (1.83–13.41)))))))). There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day readmission rates between the two groups. Conclusions: SCAD is a unique condition that can lead to many complications. In our analysis, we showed that SCAD associated with cardiogenic shock compared to SCAD not associated with cardiogenic shock results in greater odds of complications including death, use of mechanical circulatory support, need for blood transfusions, ventricular tachycardia, acute kidney injury, use of mechanical ventilation, and respiratory failure. SCAD with cardiogenic shock represents a significantly critical clinical scenario that requires a multi-disciplinary approach to prevent the many potential complications associated with this disease process.

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of three anti-S and one anti-N assays that were available to the project in detecting antibody levels after three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson). It also aimed to assess the association of age, sex, race, ethnicity, vaccine timing, and vaccine side effects on antibody levels in a cohort of 827 individuals. In September 2021, 698 vaccinated individuals donated blood samples as part of the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM) COVID-19 Immunity Study. These individuals also participated in a comprehensive survey covering demographic information, vaccination status, and associated side effects. Additionally, 305 age- and gender-matched samples were obtained from the ADLM 2015 sample bank as pre-COVID-19-negative samples. All these samples underwent antibody level analysis using three anti-S assays, namely Beckman Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Beckman assay), Ortho Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Ortho assay), Siemens ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Siemens assay), and one anti-N antibody assay: Bio-Rad Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Ab assay (BioRad assay). A total of 827 samples (580 COVID-19 samples and 247 pre-COVID-19 samples) received results for all four assays and underwent further analysis. Beckman, Ortho, and Siemens anti-S assays showed an overall sensitivity of 99.5%, 97.6%, and 96.9%, and specificity of 90%, 100%, and 99.6%, respectively. All three assays indicated 100% sensitivity for individuals who received the Moderna vaccine and boosters, and over 99% sensitivity for the Pfizer vaccine. Sensitivities varied from 70.4% (Siemens), 81.5% (Ortho), and 96.3% (Beckman) for individuals who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. BioRad anti-N assays demonstrated 46.2% sensitivity and 99.25% specificity based on results from individuals with self-reported infection. The highest median anti-S antibody levels were measured in individuals who received the Moderna vaccine, followed by Pfizer and then Johnson & Johnson vaccines. Higher anti-S antibody levels were significantly associated with younger age and closer proximity to the last vaccine dose but were not associated with gender, race, or ethnicity. Participants with higher anti-S levels experienced significantly more side effects as well as more severe side effects (e.g., muscle pain, chills, fever, and moderate limitations) (p < 0.05). Anti-N antibody levels only indicated a significant correlation with headache. This study indicated performance variations among different anti-S assays, both among themselves and when analyzing individuals with different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Caution should be exercised when conducting large-scale studies to ensure that the same platform and/or assays are used for the most effective interpretation of the data.

Artificial intelligence, specifically advanced language models such as ChatGPT, have the potential to revolutionize various aspects of healthcare, medical education, and research. In this review, we evaluate the myriad applications of artificial intelligence in diverse healthcare domains. We discuss its potential role in clinical decision-making, exploring how it can assist physicians by providing rapid, data-driven insights for diagnosis and treatment. We review the benefits of artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT in personalized patient care, particularly in geriatric care, medication management, weight loss and nutrition, and physical activity guidance. We further delve into its potential to enhance medical research, through the analysis of large datasets, and the development of novel methodologies. In the realm of medical education, we investigate the utility of artificial intelligence as an information retrieval tool and personalized learning resource for medical students and professionals.

Abstract Extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA) drives the evolution of cancer cells by conferring survival advantages over normal cells. However, the functional importance of ecDNA replication and maintenance is yet to be evaluated, and the molecular components that contributed to these processes remain largely unknown. Here, using CRISPR-C (circularization of genes and chromosomes by CRISPR) technology and synthetic circular DNA mimicking ecDNA identified in tumors, we generated ecDNA-positive (ecDNA+) cell models. Using these models, we identified the proteins involved in ecDNA replication and maintenance and found DNA damage response (DDR)-related pathways were significantly enriched. We further demonstrated that ecDNA replication led to increased DDR and genome instability and DDR was also essential for ecDNA maintenance, consistent with observations that ecDNA+ tumors exhibited higher DDR scores than ecDNA-negative (ecDNA–) tumors in patients. ATM, MDC1, and CHK2, but not ATR, were activated in ecDNA+ cells compared to ecDNA– cells. Moreover, ecDNA+ cells were more sensitive to ATM and CHK2 inhibition. We further found that type II topoisomerase TOP2B and DNA ligase III (LIG3) were critical regulators for ecDNA replication and maintenance and related DDR. In summary, our findings of the reciprocal interactions between ecDNA and DDR provide new insights into detection and therapy for ecDNA+ tumors.

100 Background: HER2 is overexpressed in various GI tumors. Tucatinib (TUC), which is approved in combination with trastuzumab (Tras) in the US for previously treated RAS WT HER2+ metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor highly selective for HER2. Preliminary safety and antitumor activity results of TUC + trastuzumab + FOLFOX in patients (pts) with HER2+ GI cancers are presented. Methods: The phase 1b/2 SGNTUC-024 (NCT04430738) study evaluated TUC + Tras + FOLFOX in pts with HER2+ metastatic GI cancers in Cohorts 1A, 1B, 1D (pts in Japan), and 2B. For Cohorts 1A, 1B, and 1D (enrolled sequentially), eligible pts had unresectable or metastatic HER2+ GI malignancies, including mCRC. Cohort 2B is still enrolling, and pts with HER2+ mCRC are eligible. Pts received a combination of TUC 150 mg orally twice a day (PO BID; Cohort 1A) or TUC 300 mg PO BID (Cohorts 1B, 1D, and 2B) + Tras + FOLFOX. Pts in Cohort 2B were enrolled to further assess the study regimen. Antidiarrheal prophylaxis was required for Cohort 1D. Results: As of July 10, 2023, 25 pts were treated (5, 11, 7, and 2 in Cohorts 1A, 1B, 1D, and 2B, respectively). In Cohort 1A (TUC 150 mg PO BID), the most common TEAEs were diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and proteinuria (each in 60.0% [3/5]). For pts receiving TUC 300 mg PO BID, the most common TEAEs were diarrhea (90.0% [18/20]) and fatigue (65.0% [13/20]). Table 1 presents the overall summary of adverse events. In Cohort 1A, Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to any treatment discontinuation were reported in 40.0% (2/5) pts, with 20.0% (1/5) discontinuing tucatinib. For pts treated with TUC 300 mg, TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation were reported in 35.0% (7/20), with 15.0% (3/20) discontinuing tucatinib. One TEAE leading to death (aspiration) in Cohort 1A was unrelated to study treatment. Grade ≥3 diarrhea was observed in 45.5% (5/11) pts in Cohort 1B; most were observed in elderly pts or pts with gastric, gastroesophageal, or esophageal cancer or pts who were generally noncompliant with antidiarrheal treatment. No grade ≥3 diarrhea was observed in Cohort 1D. Among pts receiving TUC 300 mg, confirmed objective response rate was 83.3% (5/6) for mCRC, 40.0% (4/10) for gastroesophageal cancers, and 0% (0/4) for biliary tract cancer. Conclusions: TUC + Tras + FOLFOX showed manageable safety in the enrolled pt population and preliminary antitumor activity in pts with HER2+ mCRC and gastroesophageal cancer. This regimen will be compared with the standard of care (FOLFOX with or without bevacizumab/cetuximab) in the ongoing randomized, phase 3 study (MOUNTAINEER-03; NCT05253651) for pts with HER2+ RAS WT mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT04430738 . [Table: see text]

Abstract In 2021, the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM) (formerly the American Association for Clinical Chemistry [AACC]) developed a scientific study that aimed to contribute to the understanding of SARS-CoV-2 immunity during the evolving course of the pandemic. This study was led by a group of expert member volunteers and resulted in survey data from 975 individuals and blood collection from 698 of those participants. This paper describes the formulation and execution of this large-scale scientific study, encompassing best practices and insights gained throughout the endeavor.

Background: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), an autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 94% and a complete response (CR) rate of 79% in patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma (FL) after two or more prior lines of therapy in the ZUMA-5 trial ( Jacobson et al. Lancet Oncol. 2022). Since its FDA approval in March 2021, there has been little evidence on comparative effectiveness (CE) studies of axi-cel vs standard-of-care (SoC), except ones using ZUMA-5 and historical SCHOLAR-5 data (eg, Ghione et al. Blood. 2022). This study was aimed to address this evidence gap in CE of axi-cel vs SoC used to treat r/r FL in real-world settings. Methods: The two data sources in this study were patients who received commercial axi-cel between March 2021 and May 2023 from the CIBMTR and patients who received historical SoC (eg, chemotherapy, anti-CD20 mAb + chemotherapy, immunomodulatory imide drugs) between July 2014 and December 2020 from SCHOLAR-5, which served as an external control of ZUMA-5 trial. The index date was defined as the initiation date of either the infusion for axi-cel patients or the last eligible systemic therapy for SoC patients. Patients were included if they were age ≥ 18, had documented r/r FL with histological grade 1, 2 or 3a, and received at least 2 prior lines of therapy at the index. Patients were excluded if they had transformed diffused large B-cell lymphoma, central nervous system involvement, prior receipt of CAR T or other non-CAR T cellular therapies or allogeneic stem cell transplant, or no post-index information on outcomes. Four effectiveness outcomes were ORR, CR rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Imbalance in observed prognostic risk factors between the two was adjusted via a propensity score analysis using the standard mortality ratio weighting (SMRW). The primary analyses included weighted univariable analysis and multivariable logistic (ORR and CR rate) or Cox (PFS and OS) regressions that were adjusted for the covariates after the SMRW. A sub-analysis of patients age ≥ 65 was conducted using the same methods as the primary analyses. Results: The unweighted study cohort included 376 patients, in which 256 (68%) received axi-cel . Thepatients who received axi-cel were more likely to be younger (median age 61 for axi-cel vs 67 for SoC), have grade 3a FL (37% vs 12%), received 3 or more prior lines of therapy (83% vs 58%), or remained refractory to the last prior therapy (79% vs 73%) vs those who received SoC. The imbalance in the observed prognostic risk factors was mitigated via the SMRW. The weighted univariable analysis, in which the sample size by treatment reflected the SMRW, is shown in Table 1. In patients of all ages, ORR was 92% in axi-cel vs 67% in SoC, and CR rate was 84% vs 37%. Because of varying follow-up lengths by treatment (median 7 months for axi-cel and 37 months for SoC), survival outcomes were reported at month 6, at which time PFS rate was 88% in axi-cel vs 64% in SoC and OS rate was 97% vs 85%. The corresponding proportions for patients age ≥ 65 were similar to those reported for patients of all ages. In the weighted multivariable regressions, axi-cel was associated with statistically significantly better outcomes by all 4 effectiveness measures vs SoC (Table 1). Specifically, in patients of all ages, the odds ratios for axi-cel were 4.93 (95% CI, 2.35−10.34) for ORR and 16.72 (95% CI, 7.03−39.73) for CR rate, and the hazard ratios for axi-cel were 0.41 (95% CI, 0.22−0.77) for PFS and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.06−0.34) for OS. Similar to the patients of all ages in the primary analyses, patients age ≥ 65 in the sub-analysis also demonstrated improved outcomes associated with axi-cel (Figure 1). Conclusions: This study showed that patients with r/r FL after two or more prior lines of therapy treated with axi-cel experienced better outcomes compared with patients treated with SoC, and that older patients also benefited significantly from axi-cel. These findings suggest that axi-cel addresses an important unmet medical need in patients with r/r FL. Future research should include longer follow-up data on outcomes of axi-cel and CE of axi-cel vs other contemporary SoC therapies.

Introduction: Axi-cel utilization expanded after demonstration of superior event-free survival in patients (pts) with early relapsed or primary refractory LBCL (Locke, et al. NEJM. 2022) and was reinforced by improved overall survival (OS) among these pts (Westin, et al. NEJM. 2023). Despite increased demand, limited data exist on the impact of bridging therapies (BT) on pt outcomes. Thus, BT use between leukapheresis and lymphodepletion (LD) is largely at the discretion of treating physicians. Here, we assessed the impact of BT on effectiveness and safety outcomes after axi-cel. Methods: Pts receiving axi-cel for 3L+ LBCL in the US between 2017-2020 were prospectively collected through the CIBMTR registry in a post-authorization safety study; data up to May 2023 were included. Effectiveness outcomes were overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and OS. Safety outcomes were cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) per ASTCT grading, non-relapse mortality (NRM), and other key adverse events. Propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used in logistic and Cox regressions to account for potential confounding in BT use. For pts who had BT, effects of BT types and responses on outcomes were evaluated using conventional logistic and Cox regressions. Results: Of 1497 pts registered, 1307 had BT data available and were included (median follow-up, 36 mo). Overall, 430 pts (33%) received BT (median time from leukapheresis to LD, 23 days [IQR, 21-28]). Systemic therapy was used in 403 pts (31%), including 305 (23%) with chemotherapy (CT)-based BT (19% treated with CT + anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody [mAb; mainly rituximab] and 4% with CT only), and 98 (7%) with non-CT systemic therapy (Table). Radiotherapy (± systemic therapy) was used in 44 pts (3%). Pts with ≥3 lines of prior therapy (odds ratio [OR], 10.67 [95% CI, 7.17−15.87]) or mild hepatic impairment prior to infusion (OR, 1.64 [1.06−2.55]) were more likely to receive BT, while those with histologic transformation (OR, 0.69 [0.51−0.92]) or longer time from diagnosis to leukapheresis were less likely to receive BT. ORRs to axi-cel were 70% and 79% (CR rates 51% and 64%) for pts with or without BT, respectively. Unadjusted DOR, PFS, and OS at 3 years were 40%, 28%, and 37%, respectively, in pts with BT vs 49%, 39%, and 49%, respectively, in those without BT. After multivariate adjustment, no statistical significance was found between BT and any effectiveness outcome. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for BT were 1.13 (95% CI, 0.94-1.36) for PFS and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.92-1.34) for OS, respectively (Figure). Most safety endpoints were consistent regardless of BT. Grade ≥3 CRS and ICANS occurred in 12% and 30% of pts, respectively, who received BT vs 10% and 24% of pts who did not. Use of BT was associated with more frequent prolonged neutropenia (OR, 2.24 [1.44-3.50]) and thrombocytopenia (OR, 2.33 [1.67-3.24]), but not associated with a higher rate of infections or NRM (Table). Among pts receiving BT, 74 (17%) had a CR or partial response to BT. Of them, median PFS and median OS post infusion were 12.7 mo (3.8-not estimable [NE]) and 48.7 mo (18.6-NE), respectively. Response to BT was associated with increased CR rate (OR, 2.00 [1.07-3.75]), PFS (HR, 0.69 [0.49-0.99]), and OS (HR, 0.59 [0.40-0.88]) and decreased any-grade ICANS (OR, 0.51 [0.29-0.92]). When different BT strategies were considered, effectiveness and most safety outcomes for CT + anti-CD20 mAb vs non-CT treatment were comparable without significant difference. CT + anti-CD20 mAb was associated with improved ORR (OR, 1.90 [1.00-3.60]), PFS (HR, 0.69 [0.49-0.98]), and OS (HR, 0.66 [0.46-0.95]) but increased any-grade CRS (OR, 2.16 [1.02-4.57]) vs CT only. CT use was associated with an increased risk of prolonged thrombocytopenia (41% vs 24% for pts receiving non-CT treatment; OR, 2.37 [1.39-4.02]). No significant association was found between use of radiotherapy as BT and any outcome. Conclusion: These US real-world findings suggest that the addition of BT prior to axi-cel is associated with more frequent prolonged cytopenias but does not impact effectiveness or other critical safety outcomes. Response to BT may prognosticate more favorable outcomes after axi-cel infusion. Further study is warranted to identify the optimal bridging regimen.

A growing body of research has begun to link exposure to environmental contaminants, such as heavy metals, with a variety of negative health outcomes. In this paper, we sought to review the current research describing the impact of certain common contaminant metals on cardiovascular (CV) health. We reviewed ten metals: lead, barium, nickel, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, selenium, zinc, and copper. After a literature review, we briefly summarized the routes of environmental exposure, pathophysiological mechanisms, CV health impacts, and exposure prevention and/or mitigation strategies for each metal. The resulting article discloses a broad spectrum of pathological significance, from relatively benign substances with little to no described effects on CV health, such as chromium and selenium, to substances with a wide-ranging and relatively severe spectrum of CV pathologies, such as arsenic, cadmium, and lead. It is our hope that this article will provide clinicians with a practical overview of the impact of these common environmental contaminants on CV health as well as highlight areas that require further investigation to better understand how these metals impact the incidence and progression of CV diseases.