Citations

ObjectiveTo investigate the independent relationship of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to the type and severity of pulmonary patterns on spirometry compared to the pulmonary patterns in general population controls.MethodsIn this cross‐sectional study, we investigated the association of RA with pulmonary function measures on spirometry among subjects in the UK Biobank who underwent spirometry for research purposes. RA cases were identified based on self‐report and current disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug/glucocorticoid use. Controls were subjects without RA from the general population. Outcome measures included continuous forced expiratory volume in 1 second percent predicted (FEV1%) and forced vital capacity percent predicted (FVC%), type of spirometric pattern (restrictive or obstructive), and severity of the restrictive or obstructive pattern. We used multivariable regression to estimate the effects in RA cases compared to the effects in controls, adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and smoking status/pack‐years.ResultsAmong 350,776 analyzed subjects who underwent spirometry (mean age 56.3 years; 55.8% female; 45.5% ever smokers), we identified 2,008 cases of treated RA. In multivariable analyses, RA was associated with lower FEV1% (β = –2.93 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) –3.63, –2.24]), FVC% (β = –2.08 [95% CI –2.72, –1.45]), and FEV1/FVC (β = –0.008 [95% CI –0.010, –0.005]) compared to controls. RA was additionally associated with restrictive patterns (odds ratio [OR] 1.36 [95% CI 1.21, 1.52]) and obstructive patterns (OR 1.21 [95% CI 1.07, 1.37]) independent of confounders, and was most strongly associated with severe restrictive and obstructive patterns.ConclusionRA is associated with increased odds of restrictive and obstructive patterns, and this relationship is not explained by confounders, including smoking status. In addition to restrictive lung disease, clinicians should also be aware that airway obstruction may be a pulmonary manifestation of RA.

AbstractObjectiveTo develop and validate a model to predict seizure freedom in children undergoing cerebral hemispheric surgery for the treatment of drug‐resistant epilepsy.MethodsWe analyzed 1267 hemispheric surgeries performed in pediatric participants across 32 centers and 12 countries to identify predictors of seizure freedom at 3 months after surgery. A multivariate logistic regression model was developed based on 70% of the dataset (training set) and validated on 30% of the dataset (validation set). Missing data were handled using multiple imputation techniques.ResultsOverall, 817 of 1237 (66%) hemispheric surgeries led to seizure freedom (median follow‐up = 24 months), and 1050 of 1237 (85%) were seizure‐free at 12 months after surgery. A simple regression model containing age at seizure onset, presence of generalized seizure semiology, presence of contralateral 18‐fluoro‐2‐deoxyglucose–positron emission tomography hypometabolism, etiologic substrate, and previous nonhemispheric resective surgery is predictive of seizure freedom (area under the curve = .72). A Hemispheric Surgery Outcome Prediction Scale (HOPS) score was devised that can be used to predict seizure freedom.SignificanceChildren most likely to benefit from hemispheric surgery can be selected and counseled through the implementation of a scale derived from a multiple regression model. Importantly, children who are unlikely to experience seizure control can be spared from the complications and deficits associated with this surgery. The HOPS score is likely to help physicians in clinical decision‐making.

Background: Axi-cel is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for pts with R/R LBCL with ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies. With a median follow-up of 27.1 months in ZUMA-1, the objective response rate (ORR) with axi-cel was 83% (58% complete response rate) in pts with refractory LBCL. Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events (NEs) occurred in 11% and 32% of pts, respectively (Locke FL, et al. LancetOncol. 2019). Although CRS can be ameliorated with use of the anti-IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab, NEs may be unaffected or worsened by tocilizumab (Gust J, et al. Cancer Discov. 2017; Lee DW, et al. Blood. 2014; Santomasso BD, et al. Cancer Discov. 2018; Locke FL, et al. ASH 2017. #1547). Identification of mitigation strategies for NEs is complicated by a significant association between CAR T cell expansion and both ORR and Grade ≥ 3 NEs, suggesting a correlation between efficacy and adverse events (AEs; Neelapu SS, et al. N EnglJ Med. 2017). ZUMA-1 Cohort 4 suggested that earlier utilization of systemic corticosteroids for broad immune system suppression in pts with mild NEs and low-grade CRS may reduce the incidence of Grade ≥ 2 NEs without significant impact on efficacy (Topp MS, et al. ASH 2019. #243). However, this reactive approach has not fully abrogated NEs; as such, proactive strategies to further improve safety management with CAR T cell therapy without negatively impacting efficacy are needed. Upon tumor challenge, CAR T cells produce granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; Giavridis T, et al. Nat Med. 2018), which acts to promote myeloid activation, expansion, and cytokine production (Spath S, et al. Immunity. 2017). GM-CSF was among the cytokines significantly associated with Grade ≥ 3 NEs in ZUMA-1 (Neelapu SS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017). Notably, peak GM-CSF levels occurred before those of most other cytokines, and no direct association was observed between GMCSF levels and ORR (Rossi JM, et al. EMA Workshop, 2016). These findings suggest that GM-CSF may initiate inflammatory events that cause NEs and that GM-CSF inhibition has the potential to improve the safety of CAR T cells, without impacting efficacy. GM-CSF depletion with lenzilumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that neutralizes GM-CSF, prevented CRS and NEs in preclinical models of CAR T cell toxicity (Sterner RM, et al. Blood2019). The Phase 1/2 ZUMA19 study is evaluating sequenced therapy with lenzilumab and axi-cel to prevent axi-cel-related CRS and NEs in pts with R/R LBCL. Methods: Eligible pts are adults (≥ 18 y) with LBCL who relapsed after ≥ 2 systemic lines of therapy or are chemorefractory - defined as i) a best response of progressive disease (PD) or stable disease (SD) to ≥ 4 cycles of first-line systemic therapy (SD duration ≤ 6 months); or ii) a best response of PD or SD after ≥ 2 cycles of the most recent second-or-later line of systemic therapy. Prior therapy must have included an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and an anthracycline-containing regimen. Pts will undergo leukapheresis and may receive optional corticosteroid bridging therapy. Pts will then receive lymphodepleting chemotherapy on Days ‒3 to ‒5 followed by Day 0 administration of lenzilumab and, 6 hours later, a single infusion of axi-cel (target dose, 2 × 106 CAR T cells/kg). Phase 1 will initially enroll pts in 2 dose-escalation cohorts; each will receive a single infusion of lenzilumab. Safety data will be reviewed after 3 and 6 (if needed) pts in each cohort have been followed for 28 days. The recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) of lenzilumab will be based on the dose-limiting toxicity rate (phase 1 primary endpoint), and, if necessary, translational assessment of GM-CSF axis suppression. Phase 2 will assume a Simon 2-stage design. The primary endpoint for phase 2 is the incidence of Grade ≥ 2 NEs within 28 days of axi-cel administration. Efficacy, safety (including CRS and NEs), and blood levels of CAR T cells and cytokines (including GM-CSF) will be evaluated as secondary endpoints. An interim analysis will be performed when 14 subjects have received the RP2D in Phase 1 or 2 and are followed for ≥ 28 days after axi-cel infusion. If futility criteria are not met, enrollment will continue. Primary analysis will be performed after 30 pts are treated with RP2D of lenzilumab and have ≥ 6 months of follow up. ZUMA-19 is open and actively recruiting pts. Disclosures Kenderian: Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy. Oluwole:Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. McCarthy:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory Board; Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory Board , Research Funding is to Roswell Park, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory Board; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Magenta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory Board; Starton: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory Board. Reshef:Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Kiadis: Research Funding; Monsanto: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Immatics: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Magenta: Consultancy. Shiraz:Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; ORCA BioSystems: Research Funding. Ahmed:Humanigen, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Le Gall:Kite, a Gilead Company: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Nahas:Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Tang:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Neelapu:Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties; Cellectis: Research Funding; Calibr: Other; Precision Biosciences: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Merck: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Cell Medica/Kuur: Other: personal fees; Incyte: Other: personal fees; Unum Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; N/A: Other; Adicet Bio: Other; Legend Biotech: Other; Allogene Therapeutics: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: personal fees; Celgene: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: personal fees.

Background: B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) is widely expressed on normal plasma cells and malignant plasma cells in multiple myeloma (MM). MEDI2228 is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) that targets the extracellular domain of human BCMA with preferential binding to membrane-bound versus circulating soluble BCMA. The ADC is comprised of a fully human antibody to BCMA, site- specifically conjugated to a DNA cross-linking pyrrolobenzodiazepine (PBD) dimer via a protease-cleavable linker. After cell surface binding to BCMA, MEDI2228 is internalized and cleaved in the lysosomal compartment, releasing the active PBD, which cross-links DNA and leads to apoptotic cell death. We report the results from a phase 1, first-in-human, open-label, dose-escalation and expansion trial (NCT03489525) that evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and clinical activity of MEDI2228 in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory MM (R/R MM). Methods: Eligible pts were ≥18 years old with confirmed R/R MM as defined by International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria, had measurable disease, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Pts had to have progressed after treatment with three classes of standard-of-care anti-myeloma drugs, including proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Dose escalation was based on an accelerated titration design, with an mTPI-2 algorithm. During dose escalation, MEDI2228 was administered in sequentially ascending dose levels (0.0125, 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 mg/kg) intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W). Due to dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), the dose was de-escalated from 0.2 mg/kg to an intermediate dose level of 0.14 mg/kg. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included assessment of preliminary efficacy, PK, and immunogenicity. Results: As of May 15, 2020, 82 pts received MEDI2228 during dose escalation and expansion. All pts had received prior therapy with an IMiD, PI, and mAb: lenalidomide, 76 (94%); pomalidomide, 68 (84%); bortezomib, 77 (95%); carfilzomib, 64 (79%); and daratumumab, 71 (87%). Pts received between 2-11 lines of prior regimens. At 0.2 mg/kg, 2 pts experienced DLTs (grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia) without bleeding; no DLTs were reported for other dose levels. The maximum tolerated dose was 0.14 mg/kg Q3W. Treatment-related adverse events (TEAEs) occurring in ≥20% of pts in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort were photophobia (53.7%), thrombocytopenia (31.7%), rash (29.3%), increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (24.4%), dry eye (19.5%), and pleural effusion (19.5%). No reports of keratopathy or visual acuity loss were observed in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort. The TEAE profiles at lower-dose levels were similar but with lower incidences compared with the 0.14 mg/kg level. Efficacy was demonstrated at all dose levels (dose, objective response rate [ORR], [n]): 0.0125 mg/kg, 33.3% [1/3]; 0.025 mg/kg, 16.7% [1/6]; 0.05 mg/kg, 33.3% [3/9]; 0.10 mg/kg, 27.8% [5/18]; 0.14 mg/kg, 61.0% [25/41]; 0.2 mg/kg, 40.0%, [2/5]. In the 0.14 mg/kg cohort, ORR was 61.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 44.5%, 75.8%); there were 10 (24.4%) very good partial responses (VGPRs), 15 (36.6%) partial responses, and 3 (7.3%) minimal responses. Four of the VGPR pts were immunofixation negative. Most (90.2%) pts in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort had received prior daratumumab. Median duration of response (DOR) in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort was not reached. MEDI2228 exhibited linear PK at doses of ≥0.05 mg/kg Q3W that was minimally impacted by circulating levels of soluble BCMA at baseline. There was no difference in BCMA expression by IHC in the bone marrow of responders compared with nonresponders. Thirty-six pts in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort discontinued treatment due to adverse events (n=24), progressive disease (n=8), patient decision (n=2), investigator decision (n=1), or death (n=1). Conclusion: MEDI2228 is a BCMA-targeted ADC that demonstrated clinical efficacy at all dose levels explored. MEDI2228 0.14 mg/kg Q3W had a manageable safety profile and an ORR of 61% in a heavily pretreated population with myeloma that is R/R post PI, IMiD, and mAb therapies. Disclosures Kumar: Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Sanofi: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Bhutani:Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Clinical trial funding to institute, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Other: Clinical trial funding to institute, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; MedImmune: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; Prothena: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; Janssen: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute. Spencer:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Servier: Consultancy, Other: Grant/Research Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Speakers Bureau; Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; TheraMyc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Antegene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmamar: Other. Ailawadhi:Cellectar: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Phosplatin: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Kalff:Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; CSL: Honoraria. Pore:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gibson:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Other: Paid as a clinical scientist contractor. Wang:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Cheng:Astrazeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Williams:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kinneer:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Personal fees; BCMA Monoclonal Antibody-Drug Conjugate: Patents & Royalties: Pending. Zonder:Intellia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Oncopeptide: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees; Prothena: Consultancy; Caelum: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. Larsen:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yee:Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptide: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau.

Objective: To determine if Angelman syndrome patients with sleep complaints have an increased risk of iron deficiency, and if iron therapy improves their sleep difficulties. Background: About two-thirds of Angelman syndrome patients experience sleep difficulties, which are likely multifactorial. Because iron deficiency can contribute toward restlessness in sleep, we investigated whether it might be a contributing factor in this special population. Methods: This retrospective study involved medical record review of Angelman syndrome patients <18 years old who had attended our multidisciplinary Angelman syndrome clinic and had sleep complaints. Serum ferritin levels were compared to age- and sex-matched controls. Sleep history and nocturnal polysomnogram findings of the Angelman syndrome patients were also characterized. Results: Nineteen Angelman syndrome patients (9 female, mean age 6.2±4.4 years) were identified. All 19 reported sleep difficulties. The mean serum ferritin level was 19.9±8.5 μg/L, while that in controls was 27.8±17.8 μg/L ( P value .13). The odds ratio of iron deficiency in Angelman syndrome compared to controls was 4.17 (95% confidence interval 1.23-14.10), using normal serum ferritin level of 24 μg/L based on literature. Fifteen Angelman syndrome patients underwent nocturnal polysomnogram with 9/15 showing an elevated periodic limb movement index (overall mean 9.8±10.4). Seventeen of 19 received iron therapy. Twelve had follow-up after iron therapy, with parents reporting improved sleep quality. Eight had serum ferritin levels rechecked after iron therapy, showing a mean increase of 24±5.1 μg/L. Conclusions: Sleep difficulties in Angelman syndrome, though multifactorial, may in part be related to iron deficiency. Treatment with iron improved sleep to a modest degree in this population.

Objectives/HypothesisCreate a competency‐based assessment tool for pediatric tracheotomy.Study DesignBlinded, modified, Delphi consensus process.MethodsUsing the REDCap database, a list of 31 potential items was circulated to 65 expert surgeons who perform pediatric tracheotomy. In the first round, items were rated as “keep” or “remove,” and comments were incorporated. In the second round, experts were asked to rate the importance of each item on a seven‐point Likert scale. Consensus criteria were determined a priori with a goal of 7 to 25 final items.ResultsThe first round achieved a response rate of 39/65 (60.0%), and returned questionnaires were 99.5% complete. All items were rated as “keep,” and 137 comments were incorporated. In the second round, 30 task‐specific and seven previously validated global rating items were distributed, and the response rate was 44/65 (67.7%), with returned questionnaires being 99.3% complete. Of the Task‐Specific Items, 13 reached consensus, 10 were near consensus, and 7 did not achieve consensus. For the 7 previously validated global rating items, 5 reached consensus and two were near consensus.ConclusionsIt is feasible to reach consensus on the important steps involved in pediatric tracheotomy using a modified Delphi consensus process. These items can now be considered to create a competency‐based assessment tool for pediatric tracheotomy. Such a tool will hopefully allow trainees to focus on the important aspects of this procedure and help teaching programs standardize how they evaluate trainees during this procedure.Level of Evidence5 Laryngoscope, 130:2700–2707, 2020

Neurostimulation for epilepsy refers to the application of electricity to affect the central nervous system, with the goal of reducing seizure frequency and severity. We review the available evidence for the use of neurostimulation to treat pediatric epilepsy, including vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), responsive neurostimulation (RNS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), chronic subthreshold cortical stimulation (CSCS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). We consider possible mechanisms of action and safety concerns, and we propose a methodology for selecting between available options. In general, we find neurostimulation is safe and effective, although any high quality evidence applying neurostimulation to pediatrics is lacking. Further research is needed to understand neuromodulatory systems, and to identify biomarkers of response in order to establish optimal stimulation paradigms.

Objective The aim of the study was to determine the rate of return to baseline functional status 3 months after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in women 65 years or older. Methods This is a multicenter prospective cohort study of women older than 65 years undergoing POP surgery. Functional status was determined by the Activities Assessment Scale at the preoperative visit and 3 months after surgery. We compared a variety of clinical variables and preoperative functional status scores for women who worsened, improved, or returned to baseline functional status after surgery using univariable and multivariable analysis. Results A total of 192 women were enrolled in the study. Of 176 women who completed both sets of questionnaires, 59% improved, 35% returned, and 6% worsened from their baseline functional status. Variables significantly associated with postoperative functional status score were depression ( P < 0.002) and preoperative functional status score ( P < 0.001). The group that improved from baseline had the lowest (worst) preoperative functional status score (78.7 ± 16.4), whereas the group that worsened after surgery had the highest (best) preoperative functional status score (98.6 ± 2.2). After adjusting for age and depression, higher preoperative functional status score was predictive of failure to return to baseline functional status. Conclusions Most older women undergoing surgery for POP, including those with low preoperative functional status, return to or improve from their baseline functional status within 3 months of surgery. Women with higher functional status before surgery are less likely to report improvement in physical functioning after surgery.