Citations

Background: Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare disease in which deposits of insoluble amyloid derived from immunoglobulin light chains accumulate and cause dysfunction of organs including the heart and kidneys. In order to reverse organ damage and improve overall survival, treatment must provide rapid, deep, and sustained hematologic responses. Although therapies approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma have demonstrated some efficacy, there are currently no health authority-approved treatments for AL amyloidosis. A retrospective observational study was undertaken to characterize patients and describe treatment patterns in patients with AL amyloidosis from real-world data in the US. Methods: Data were extracted from Optum Electronic Health Records (EHR) and Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (claims) databases. Eligible patients had (1) a diagnosis of AL amyloidosis (ICD-10 code E85.81) on or after January 1, 2008 or (2) a diagnosis of amyloidosis (ICD-9 codes 277.30, 277.39; ICD-10 codes E85.89, E85.9) on or after January 1, 2008 and at least one line of therapy (LOT) comprising one or more of the following treatments: bendamustine bortezomib, carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, daratumumab, dexamethasone, doxorubicin, elotuzumab, etoposide, interferon alfa-2a, interferon alfa-2b, ixazomib, lenalidomide, melphalan, panobinostat, pomalidomide, prednisone/prednisolone, thalidomide, vincristine, or autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were required to have continuous medical enrollment during the 365 days prior to the index amyloidosis diagnosis date (claims data) or have first active date at least 365 days prior to index amyloidosis date (EHR data), must not have had prior cancer in the 365-day period prior to the index amyloidosis diagnosis date, and must have been age ≥18 years at time of amyloidosis diagnosis. Patients treated with dexamethasone only or dexamethasone and prednisolone only for ≤90 days and those treated with prednisone/prednisolone only irrespective of duration were excluded. LOTs were defined by a start date, an end date, and a distinct regimen made up of ≥1 drugs. Patients may have multiple sequential LOTs during the available follow-up period. Comorbidities were scored according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). A score of 0 reflects no comorbidities; higher scores reflect increased mortality risk and the maximum score is 24. Descriptive statistics are provided for patient characteristics at index diagnosis date for patients who had ≥1 LOT, distribution of regimens in each LOT, treatment attrition, and duration of treatment in each line of therapy and by regimen. Results: Data from 1688 patients (Optum claims, n=624; Optum EHR, n=1064) were included in the analysis (Figure). Median age at diagnosis was 67 years and 55.7% of patients were male. Almost 70% of patients had an index diagnosis date between 2013 and 2019. The median CCI score at index diagnosis date (based on comorbidities in the 365-day pre-index diagnosis period) was 1 and 10.9% of patients had a stem cell transplant on or after the index diagnosis date. The three most common comorbidities were hypertension (50.8%), renal failure (26.2%), and congestive heart failure (24.6%). Median follow-up period was 28 months. Treatment information for regimens used by ≥5% of patients for LOT1 is summarized in the Table. The most common treatment regimen for LOT1 was a proteasome inhibitor (PI), an alkylating agent, and a steroid (n=392, 23.2%); this combination was used for an average of 111 days. Of patients treated with this combination, the most common regimen was bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd), used by 358 patients. Steroid only (dexamethasone for ≥90 days) regimens accounted for 16.4% and a PI ± steroid for 13.2% of LOT1. A limitation of the study is that assumptions were used to classify AL amyloidosis vs other types of amyloidosis. Conclusions: VCd is the most commonly used regimen in patients with newly-diagnosed AL amyloidosis. This is consistent with clinical guidelines and real world data from Europe (Palladini et al, EHA 2020), supporting this regimen as the current standard of care for treatment of patients with newly-diagnosed AL amyloidosis. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Zonder:Intellia, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, Regeneron, Alnylam, Caelum, Oncopeptides: Consultancy; BMS, Celgene: Research Funding. Hoffman:Loxo: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Wong:Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Liedtke:Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria. Abonour:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. D'Souza:Amgen, Merck, TenoBio: Research Funding; Akcea, Imbrium, Janssen, Pfizer: Consultancy. Lee:Janssen: Current Employment. Nair:Janssen: Current Employment. Potluri:SmartAnalyst Inc.: Current Employment. Weiss:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vermeulen:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lam:Janssen: Current Employment. Mehra:Janssen: Current Employment.

468 Background: The burden of gastrointestinal (GI) disease is high, costing over $97 billion annually in the United States (U.S.) alone. Yet the methodological rigor and characteristics of trials leading to guideline development are rarely explored. In 2007, the U.S. mandated that all interventional studies (Phase II-IV) register with ClinicalTrials.gov, the largest international clinical trial database. We characterized registered GI trials to identify features associated with early discontinuation, results reporting and increased methodological rigor. Methods: We employed a cross-sectional study design with descriptive, logistic regression, cox regression, time series and survival analyses. We downloaded data for 327 075 studies registered on the Aggregate Analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov database from October 1, 2007 to December 31, 2019. Trials were excluded if registered prior to 2007 (n=38 111) or for non-interventional study design (n=69 233). After applying GI specific Medical Subject Heading terms to the remaining 219 731 trials, 22 339 trials were identified for manual review. 20 548 trials were found to contain true GI content, representing over seven million patients. Primary exposure variables were trial focus (disease process, anatomical location) and funding (industry, U.S. government, academic). Results: Of the 20 548 GI trials, 6.1% were funded by the U.S. government, 35.6% by industry, and 58.3% by academic institutions. The most studied disease process was neoplasia (42.6% of trials), followed by viral hepatitis (10.8%). The majority of neoplasia trials were funded by academic institutions (60.3%) and studied colorectal neoplasms (31.5%), followed by hepatic (17.9%), pancreatic (15.5%), gastric (12.8%), esophageal (10.6%) and biliary tract (4.9%) neoplasms. U.S. government funded trials had the lowest risk of early discontinuation (adjusted Hazard Ratio 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48-0.83, p<0.001) and the highest rates of results reporting (25%, X2 p<0.001). Among all trials, the majority did not report Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) oversight (58.6%). Only 12% of phase III trials employed a rigorous methodology, which we defined as being randomized, double blinded, multi-site, overseen by a DMC, and having enrolled ≥50 patients. Government sponsored trials had the highest proportion of trials meeting this definition (19%). Academic sponsored trials, constituting the majority of trials overall, had the lowest proportion (5.3%), in part due to not meeting the multi-site criteria. Conclusions: Despite constituting the minority of trials overall, U.S. government funded trials displayed the highest methodological rigor. Stakeholders can look to U.S. government funded trials as a model of improvement, but nevertheless must commit to increasing methodological rigor and results dissemination to strengthen trial findings that guide GI clinical recommendations.

402 Background: Pancreas cancer is an aggressive malignancy with limited therapeutic options. Nanoliposomal irinotecan (Nal-IRI) is a preferred second-line treatment, and current guidelines recommend its use in the absence of prior irinotecan. This study aimed to assess whether patients who had received regular irinotecan derive benefit from Nal-IRI. Methods: Medical records of metastatic pancreas cancer patients who had received regular irinotecan and then Nal-IRI were reviewed. The following information was extracted from each medical record: patient demographics, confirmation of a diagnosis of exocrine pancreas cancer, initial cancer stage, dates of administration of the drugs of interest, adverse events that occurred with Nal-IRI treatment, reasons for stopping regular irinotecan, and reasons for starting and stopping Nal-IRI. The primary endpoint was overall survival after the initiation of Nal-IRI (an a priori threshold of > 4 months defined success). Survival data were censored based on date of last follow up. Direct quotes from the medical record were documented to provide insight on prescribing Nal-IRI when guidelines advised the contrary. Results: Sixty four patients met eligibility criteria with a median age of 65 years (range: 36, 80 years). Prior to Nal-IRI, 61 patients had received FOLFIRINOX, and 3 FOLFIRI. Of these, 32 patients manifested progressive disease on regular irinotecan-based therapy. Nal-IRI was prescribed with a fluoropyrimidine; only one patient received monotherapy. At time of analysis, 54 patients had died. Median overall survival from initiation of Nal-IRI was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 5.6, 4.3, months). An exploratory comparison, based on no cancer progression with regular irinotecan versus progression, showed improved survival with Nal-IRI in the former group: 6.1 months (95% CI: 9.3, 5.1 months) versus 4.3 months (95% CI: 4.8, 2.3 months); p=0.0006. Nal-IRI adverse events occurred as expected. Qualitative data illustrated several themes, including “limited treatment options,” which appeared to drive the decision to prescribe Nal-IRI. Conclusions: Nal-IRI might be considered in pancreas cancer patients who had received regular irinotecan, particularly in the absence of disease progression with the latter.

The importance of canonical versus noncanonical mechanisms for the generation of angiotensins remains a major challenge that, in part, is heavily swayed by the relative efficacy of therapies designed to inhibit renin, ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme), or the Ang II (Angiotensin II) receptor. Ang (1–12) (angiotensin [1-12]) is an Ang II forming substrate serving as a source for Ang II–mediated tissue actions. This study identifies for the first time the presence of Ang (1–12) in the blood of 52 normal (22 women) and 19 (13 women) patients with hypertension not receiving antihypertensive medication at the time of the study. Normal subjects of comparable ages and body habitus had similar circulating plasma Ang (1–12) concentrations (women: 2.02±0.62 [SD] ng/mL; men 2.05±0.55 [SD] ng/mL, P >0.05). The higher values of plasma Ang (1–12) concentrations in hypertensive men (2.51±0.49 ng/mL, n=6) and women (2.33±0.63 [SD] ng/mL, n=13) were statistically significant ( P <0.02) and correlated with elevated plasma renin activity, systolic and pulse pressure, and plasma concentrations of NT-proBNP (N-terminal prohormone BNP). The increased plasma Ang (1–12) in patients with hypertension was not mirrored by similar changes in plasma angiotensinogen and Ang II concentrations. The first identification of an age-independent presence of Ang (1–12) in the blood of normotensive subjects and patients with hypertension, irrespective of sex, implicates this non-renin dependent substrate as a source for Ang II production in the blood and its potential contribution to the hypertensive process.

Introduction: Optimal patient outcomes after orthopaedic surgery rely on cooperative efforts of patients as well as performance of the care team. The purpose of this project was to design and implement a preoperative education class for patients to meet patient expectations, reduce anxiety regarding surgery, and reduce postoperative phone calls. Methods: This study implemented cross-sectional questionnaires and chart reviews for patients in an orthopaedic group in Florida. Enrollment in a preoperative education class was optional for all patients undergoing partial or total primary or revision knee or hip arthroplasty. There were two groups of participants (n1=50, n2=50). The joint education group completed the class and provided feedback, while the comparison group elected not to take the class. Postoperative phone calls from both groups were compared. Variables included gender, diagnosis of depression and/or anxiety, and availability of a support group. Results: The average numbers of phone calls to the office were 2.84 and 5.67 between surgery and the first postoperative visit (x̄=25.18 days and x̄=20.12 days) in the joint education group and the comparison group, respectively. Statistical analysis revealed P=0.011. Ninety percent of participants reported reduction in anxiety regarding surgery regardless of diagnosis of anxiety or depression. Conclusions: The preoperative education class resulted in alleviation of surgery-related anxiety. The number of patient phone calls to the office were fewer in the joint education group compared with the comparison group, which suggested better understanding about anticipated postoperative experience. The class provided benefits for patients, healthcare providers, and the clinic. Level of Evidence: Level III.

Abstract BACKGROUND Low-grade intracranial dural arteriovenous fistulas (dAVF) have a benign natural history in the majority of cases. The benefit from treatment of these lesions is controversial. OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes of observation versus intervention for low-grade dAVFs. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed dAVF patients from institutions participating in the CONsortium for Dural arteriovenous fistula Outcomes Research (CONDOR). Patients with low-grade (Borden type I) dAVFs were included and categorized into intervention or observation cohorts. The intervention and observation cohorts were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. Primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at final follow-up. Secondary outcomes were excellent (mRS 0-1) and good (mRS 0-2) outcomes, symptomatic improvement, mortality, and obliteration at final follow-up. RESULTS The intervention and observation cohorts comprised 230 and 125 patients, respectively. We found no differences in primary or secondary outcomes between the 2 unmatched cohorts at last follow-up (mean duration 36 mo), except obliteration rate was higher in the intervention cohort (78.5% vs 24.1%, P < .001). The matched intervention and observation cohorts each comprised 78 patients. We also found no differences in primary or secondary outcomes between the matched cohorts except obliteration was also more likely in the matched intervention cohort ( P < .001). Procedural complication rates in the unmatched and matched intervention cohorts were 15.4% and 19.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION Intervention for low-grade intracranial dAVFs achieves superior obliteration rates compared to conservative management, but it fails to improve neurological or functional outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine treatment of low-grade dAVFs.

PURPOSE Impaired response to erythropoietin underlies ineffective erythropoiesis and anemia in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). We investigated whether treatment with lenalidomide (LEN), which augments erythropoietin receptor signaling in vitro, can restore and improve hemoglobin response to epoetin (EPO) alfa in patients with lower-risk, non-del(5q) MDS who have anemia that is refractory to or have low probability of benefit from treatment with recombinant erythropoietin. METHODS In a phase III, US intergroup trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive either LEN and EPO alfa or LEN alone following stratification by serum erythropoietin concentration and prior erythropoietin treatment. RESULTS A total of 195 evaluable patients were randomly assigned: 99 patients to the LEN-EPO alfa cohort and 96 to LEN alone. After four cycles of treatment, the primary end point of major erythroid response (MER) was significantly higher (28.3%) with the combination compared with LEN alone (11.5%) ( P = .004). Among 136 patients who completed 16 weeks of study treatment, 38.9% and 15.6% achieved MER, respectively ( P = .004). Additionally, minor erythroid response was achieved in 18.2% and 20.8% of patients, for an overall erythroid response rate of 46.5% versus 32.3%. Among LEN nonresponders, 38 crossed over to the addition of EPO alfa with 10 patients (26.3%) achieving a MER. Responses to the combined treatment were highly durable with a median MER duration of 23.8 months compared with 13 months with LEN alone. CONCLUSION LEN restores sensitivity to recombinant erythropoietin in growth factor–insensitive, lower-risk, non-del(5q) MDS, to yield a significantly higher rate and duration of MER compared with LEN alone (funded by the National Cancer Institute; E2905 ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02048813 ).

Patients with multiple chronic conditions, including more advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), are often excluded from clinical trials, creating challenges in deriving appropriate dosing information and labeling. This article summarizes the May 7, 2019, US Food and Drug Administration Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee Meeting, which solicited expert opinions on how to enroll patients with more advanced CKD into clinical trials as well as the assumptions behind and different approaches of exposure‐matching.