Citations

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

ObjectiveWe provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease.MethodsWe developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation.ResultsFifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs.ConclusionThis clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease. Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation. Results Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

Aim: AI research, development, and implementation are expanding at an exponential pace across healthcare. This paradigm shift in healthcare research has led to increased demands for clinical outcomes, all at the expense of a significant gap in AI literacy within the healthcare field. This has further translated to a lack of tools in creating a framework for literature in the AI in medicine domain. We propose HUMANE (Harmonious Understanding of Machine Learning Analytics Network), a checklist for establishing an international consensus for authors and reviewers involved in research focused on artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning (ML) in medicine. Methods: This study was conducted using the Delphi method by devising a survey using the Google Forms platform. The survey was developed as a checklist containing 8 sections and 56 questions with a 5-point Likert scale. Results: A total of 33 survey respondents were part of the initial Delphi process with the majority (45%) in the 36–45 years age group. The respondents were located across the USA (61%), UK (24%), and Australia (9%) as the top 3 countries, with a pre-dominant healthcare background (42%) as early-career professionals (3–10 years’ experience) (42%). Feedback showed an overall agreeable consensus (mean ranges 4.1–4.8, out of 5) as cumulative scores throughout all sections. The majority of the consensus was agreeable with the Discussion (Other) section of the checklist (median 4.8 (interquartile range (IQR) 4.8-4.8)), whereas the least agreed section was the Ground Truth (Expert(s) review) section (median 4.1 (IQR 3.9–4.2)) and the Methods (Outcomes) section (median 4.1 (IQR 4.1–4.1)) of the checklist. The final checklist after consensus and revision included a total of 8 sections and 50 questions. Conclusions: The HUMANE international consensus has reflected on further research on the potential of this checklist as an established consensus in improving the reliability and quality of research in this field.

TPS7100 Background: Despite the promising efficacy of CAR-T for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphomas (LBCL), more than 60% of patients will relapse, the majority of which occur in the first 6 months. Approximately 30% of patients with LBCL treated with CAR-T achieve a partial response (PR) on day 30 (D30) PET-CT assessment. Of patients in a D30 PR, 70% will eventually progress, yet the standard of care remains close observation. Early consolidative treatment strategies utilizing therapies with a different mechanism of action may improve outcomes, but there are currently no reliable biomarkers. Epcoritamab (Epco), a bispecific antibody directed against CD20 and CD3, has been approved by the FDA for LBCL patients who relapse after at least 2 lines of therapy. In the phase 2 study, Epco was associated with an overall response rate (ORR) of 63% and a complete response (CR) rate of 39%, including similar responses in a subset of patients who were relapsed 100 days post CAR-T. This study is a trial-in-progress that will evaluate the efficacy of epco compared to observation for patients with LBCLs achieving a PR on D30 post CAR-T PET-CT assessment. Methods: This is an investigator-initiated, randomized, phase II, multicenter, open-label study (NCT06238648) evaluating epco monotherapy for a fixed duration of 12 cycles compared to observation for LBCL patients with D30 PR after standard of care CAR-T. A maximum of 120 patients will be randomized 1:1 to epco or observation across 10 academic centers. Stratification factors include line of CAR-T (second vs third line) and costimulatory domain (CD28 vs 4-1BB). Key inclusion criteria include PET evidence of a D30 PR. non-bulky disease ( <7.5cm), ANC of >1000, hemoglobin >7 g/dL if asymptomatic or >8 if symptomatic, platelet count >50,000. G-CSF, pRBCs and platelet transfusions are allowed. Key exclusion criteria include prior anti CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody therapy, ongoing or uncontrolled CRS or ICANS, and active or symptomatic CNS disease. Epco is administered subcutaneously at a dose of 0.16mg on day 1, 0.8mg on day 8, prior to full dose of 48mg on day 15. Epco is administered weekly in 28 day cycles (C) for C1-3, on day 1 and 15 of C4-9 and on day 1 of C10-12. PET-CT response is assessed by the 2014 Lugano criteria after 2 cycles, and then every 3 months during active treatment. The primary objective is efficacy, measured as conversion from D30 PR to CR. The secondary endpoints include frequency and severity of treatment emergent adverse events, ORR, duration of response, duration of complete response, progression free survival, event free survival, and overall survival. Peripheral blood samples will be collected pre-treatment and during treatment to assess for biomarkers of response and resistance. The study was activated in January 2024 and recruitment is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT06238648 .

Abstract Rationale Ground-glass opacities (GGOs) in the absence of interstitial lung disease are understudied. Objectives To assess the association of GGOs with white blood cells (WBCs) and progression of quantified chest computed tomography emphysema. Methods We analyzed data of participants in the SPIROMICS study (Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study). Chest radiologists and pulmonologists labeled regions of the lung as GGOs, and the adaptive multiple feature method (AMFM) trained the computer to assign those labels to image voxels and quantify the volume of the lung with GGOs (%GGOAMFM). We used multivariable linear regression, zero-inflated negative binomial, and proportional hazards regression models to assess the association of %GGOAMFM with WBCs, changes in percentage emphysema, and clinical outcomes. Measurements and Main Results Among 2,714 participants, 1,680 had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and 1,034 had normal spirometry. Among participants with COPD, on the basis of multivariable analysis, current smoking and chronic productive cough were associated with higher %GGOAMFM. Higher %GGOAMFM was cross-sectionally associated with higher WBC and neutrophil concentrations. Higher %GGOAMFM per interquartile range at visit 1 (baseline) was associated with an increase in emphysema at 1-year follow-up visit by 11.7% (relative increase; 95% confidence interval, 7.5–16.1%; P &lt; 0.001). We found no association between %GGOAMFM and 1-year FEV1 decline, but %GGOAMFM was associated with exacerbations and all-cause mortality during a median follow-up of 1,544 days (interquartile interval, 1,118–2,059). Among normal spirometry participants, we found similar results, except that %GGOAMFM was associated with progression to COPD at 1-year follow-up. Conclusions Our findings suggest that GGOAMFM is associated with increased systemic inflammation and emphysema progression.

11030 Background: Drug regulators operate on their own timelines to assess the safety and efficacy of new drugs and/or extensions to existing indications, such that there are delays between regulators. During such a gap, patients in the “early” domain have access to the approved drug, while those in the “late” domain do not, outside of compassionate use. Our study aimed to quantify the “opportunity lost” for new therapies approved by FDA and EMA, assuming patients in the late domain receive standard-of-care (SOC) therapy – which is presumably inferior to the new drug – during the gap. Methods: Anticancer drugs approved by both FDA and EMA were identified through the HemOnc knowledgebase. Inclusion criteria included: 1) drugs approved in both domains based on the same randomized clinical trial (RCTs) for the same indication; 2) a primary time-to-event endpoint; and 3) a quantitated median time-to-event for the primary endpoint. For each included trial, the approval gap between FDA and EMA in days and the ratio of approval gap to median control arm time-to-event duration was calculated. A ratio ≥2 implies that, on average, no late domain patients starting treatment in the first half of the gap would be expected to have access to the new drug prior to an event. Results: Of 60 eligible RCTs, 59 had calculable median event durations. 25 (42%) had a primary overall survival endpoint; the most common surrogate endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; 29/59; 49%). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) approval gap was 186 (124-271) days, with FDA being the first approver in 56/59 (95%) cases. The median (IQR) ratio of approval gap to median control arm event duration was 0.63 (0.35-1.11). Drugs with ratio ≥2 (Table) were targeted or immunotherapies; 7/8 (88%) were approved with PFS endpoint; 5/8 (62.5%) were approved for second line or later. Conclusions: Our study shows that FDA approves most drugs prior to EMA and a nontrivial number of patients may experience progression or death events while awaiting access to anticancer therapies already approved in another domain. The analysis does not take into consideration scenarios in which the new therapy is inferior to SOC or delays in patient access (due to slow uptake; regulatory barriers [in Europe/UK]; or patient affordability [in US]). Further regulatory collaboration (e.g., Project Orbis) between FDA and EMA could help to reduce and potentially ameliorate this differential in access to new cancer drugs in the future. [Table: see text]

11023 Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in cancer typically compare experimental to control arm regimens. The choice of an appropriate control (ctrl) arm can have a major impact on the expected success of an RCT. The frequency with which cancer RCTs use control arms based on established dosing and scheduling protocols has not been described. Methods: The HemOnc knowledgebase (KB) was used to identify systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) regimen variants, defined as regimens with identical components that differ in dosing, scheduling, and/or route. Non-cancer, nonrandomized, and non-SACT studies were excluded. Study publication year was used to define standard variants as those evaluated in the experimental arm of a positive phase 3 RCT >1 year prior to publication as a control arm, regardless of cancer type or context of treatment. Study-variant dyads were evaluated to determine whether the variant was standard. Success rates of RCTs with standard vs non-standard control arms were evaluated with Fisher’s exact test. Results: 5221 studies were associated with ≥1 named variant in the HemOnc KB, as of 2024-02-06. After exclusions, there were 3511 study-variant dyads (2386 studies; 1714 variants). The 9 most common regimens are shown in the Table. The median (IQR) number of variants per regimen was 2 (1-3); carboplatin & paclitaxel (CP) had the most variants (n=33). Across all control arm study-variant dyads, 2228/3492 (64%) utilized non-standard variants. For example, 60/97 studies (62%) of docetaxel as control used the 75 mg/m2 q3wk variant after it was established in 2000, whereas n=27 others used 19 non-standard variants. Trials that used a standard control arm had a numerically higher success rate, 45% vs 42% (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.92-1.32). Conclusions: Non-standard regimen variants are frequently used in cancer RCTs. Reasons for this could include toxicity, patient convenience, or emerging data from smaller studies that establish comparable efficacy or improved toxicity to standard variants. However, the a priori efficacy of non-standard control arms is less rigorously established, and trials with standard control arms might be more successful. Future directions include quantifying the granular differences between standard and non-standard variants and investigating whether certain types of non-standard variation (e.g. fewer cycles, lower doses) associate with trial success rates. [Table: see text]

Abstract Although initial therapy of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is not standardized, bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) is commonly used in older patients. Rituximab (R) maintenance after induction is often used. Thus, the open-label, randomized phase 2 ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group E1411 trial was designed to test 2 questions: (1) does addition of bortezomib to BR induction (BVR) and/or (2) addition of lenalidomide to rituximab (LR) maintenance improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with treatment-naïve MCL? From 2012 to 2016, 373 previously untreated patients, 87% aged ≥60 years, were enrolled in this trial. At a median follow-up of 7.5 years, there is no difference in the median PFS of BR compared with BVR (5.5 vs 6.4 years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.16). There were no unexpected additional toxicities with BVR treatment compared with BR, with no impact on total dose/duration of treatment received. Independent of the induction treatment, addition of lenalidomide did not significantly improve PFS, with median PFS in R vs LR (5.9 vs 7.2 years; HR, 0.84; 90% CI, 0.62-1.15). Most patients completed the planned 24 cycles of LR at the scheduled dose. In summary, adding bortezomib to BR induction does not prolong PFS in treatment-naïve MCL, and LR maintenance was not associated with longer PFS compared with R alone after BR. Nonetheless, the &gt;5-year median PFS outcomes in this prospective cooperative group trial indicate the efficacy of BR followed by R maintenance as highly effective initial therapy for older patients with MCL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01415752.