Citations

PURPOSE Calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) are standard components of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Prior data suggested that CNI-free approaches using donor T-cell depletion, either by ex vivo CD34 selection or in vivo post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) as a single agent, are associated with lower rates of chronic GVHD (cGVHD). METHODS This multicenter phase III trial randomly assigned patients with acute leukemia or myelodysplasia and an HLA-matched donor to receive CD34-selected peripheral blood stem cell, PTCy after a bone marrow (BM) graft, or tacrolimus and methotrexate after BM graft (control). The primary end point was cGVHD (moderate or severe) or relapse-free survival (CRFS). RESULTS Among 346 patients enrolled, 327 received HCT, 300 per protocol. Intent-to-treat rates of 2-year CRFS were 50.6% for CD34 selection (hazard ratio [HR] compared with control, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.15; P = .24), 48.1% for PTCy (HR, 0.86; 0.61 to 1.23; P = .41), and 41.0% for control. Corresponding rates of overall survival were 60.1% (HR, 1.74; 1.09 to 2.80; P = .02), 76.2% (HR, 1.02; 0.60 to 1.72; P = .95), and 76.1%. CD34 selection was associated with lower moderate to severe cGVHD (HR, 0.25; 0.12 to 0.52; P = .02) but higher transplant-related mortality (HR, 2.76; 1.26 to 6.06; P = .01). PTCy was associated with comparable cGVHD and survival outcomes to control, and a trend toward lower disease relapse (HR, 0.52; 0.28 to 0.96; P = .037). CONCLUSION CNI-free interventions as performed herein did not result in superior CRFS compared with tacrolimus and methotrexate with BM. Lower rates of moderate and severe cGVHD did not translate into improved survival.

Abstract Introduction: The gut microbiome is a potentially modifiable factor in treatment related outcomes in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). Prior studies have linked pre- or mid-treatment gut microbiome diversity with risk for treatment related morbidity and mortality. However, these studies have been limited by the inclusion of one or only a few institutions and the lack of longitudinal sampling with high quality metadata. These limitations complicate the interpretation of microbiome alterations over the course of HCT. Methods: To overcome these, we devised and implemented a large-scale biospecimen collection protocol in conjunction with BMT CTN 1703, a randomized, multicenter, Phase III trial of tacrolimus/methotrexate vs. post-transplant cyclophosphamide/tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil in reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT (NCT03959241). Patients enrolled on 1703 were optionally co-enrolled in the companion immune and microbiome profiling study, 1801 (MI-IMMUNE). This involved blood, urine and stool sampling before conditioning (PCON), then weekly starting on day 0 through day 77 (through day 84 for blood), and on days 98, 180, 270, 365 and 730. For all enrolled participants where the donor consented, residual donor cells were saved from the empty hematopoietic stem cell product bag for later analysis. Additionally, the protocol included one-time blood, urine and stool sample collection from consented matched related donors (MRDs) prior to stem cell collection. Starting with protocol version 4.0 on February 1, 2021, participation in 1801 stool collection was required for the first six out of eighteen sample collection timepoints. Participation in later stool and urine timepoint collections remained optional. Here we review the feasibility of creating a multi-institutional biobank. Additionally, we assess the success of our strategies by calculating sample collection compliance and standard deviation in compliance across centers for each timepoint. Results: On June 18, 2021, BMT CTN 1703/1801 closed to accrual with 431 patients enrolled on 1703; 323 patients from 36 centers were co-enrolled on 1801. 304 (94%) provided study samples, making this the largest prospective microbiome and immune profiling study in HCT patients to date. As of July 6, 2021, 3,683 blood, 2,668 urine, and 2,098 stool samples had been collected. Across the first 6 timepoints for all participating centers, blood, urine and stool sample collection averaged 93%, 82%, and 74% compliance, respectively. Of the 99 (30%) patients enrolled on 1801 with a MRD, 34 (34%) donors consented to sample collection. Sample collection compliance was lower for MRDs than for patients on the study with 76%, 74%, and 62% of expected blood, urine and stool samples collected, respectively, from this group. For stool collection exclusively, a median of 5 samples were collected per patient across the first 6 timepoints (median of 6 across all timepoints) with 93 (31%) of patients completing a full sample set through Day 28. 139 (46%) patients provided at least one sample after day 28; these represented 37% of the total samples collected to date. The PCON sample, which provides an important measure of pre-treatment gut microbiome diversity, had the third highest compliance with 74% of patients providing a sample. Surprisingly, Day 28 had the lowest compliance (66%) and highest standard deviation (37%) possibly because this timepoint often falls around the time of hospital discharge. Between PCON and day 28, the standard deviation between sites in the average collection compliance (24%) and number of samples collected per patient (1.1) was small indicating the successful adoption of stool collection across institutions. Table 1 summarizes sample collection statistics. Conclusion: Overall this study has resulted in a large, novel biobank of blood, urine and stool samples from patients undergoing RIC allogeneic HCT at 36 centers across the US. This will serve as a valuable resource for investigating the role of the gut microbiome in long term health outcomes following HCT. Although the results of 1801 are forthcoming given ongoing sample collection, the size and composition of the biobank to date clearly demonstrate the feasibility of implementing multi-institutional stool collection. This study represents a critical step towards the large-scale adoption of microbiome sampling as a diagnostic tool. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chhabra: GSK: Honoraria. Clark: Kadmon: Consultancy. Horowitz: Mesoblast: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Vertex: Research Funding; Stemcyte: Research Funding; Vor Biopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Miltenyi Biotech: Research Funding; Kiadis: Research Funding; Sobi: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Medac: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Daiicho Sankyo: Research Funding; Xenikos: Research Funding; Omeros: Research Funding; Orca Biosystems: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Tscan: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Chimerix: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; bluebird bio: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy; Actinium: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Jenq: Microbiome DX: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Prolacta: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kaleido: Consultancy, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seres: Consultancy, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; LisCure: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MaaT Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karius: Consultancy. Levine: Equillium Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kamada: Research Funding; Biogen: Research Funding; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Symbio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Talaris Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent with royalties from Viracor; Mesoblast: Consultancy, Research Funding; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Riches: ATARA Biotherapeutics: Other: Payment; BioIntelect: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Payment. Sung: Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Enterome: Research Funding; Seres: Research Funding; AVROBIO: Consultancy; Abbott Nutrition: Honoraria; Clasado: Other: Research Product; DSM: Other: Research Product. Al Malki: Neximmune: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy; Rigel Pharma: Consultancy; Hansa Biopharma: Consultancy; CareDx: Consultancy. Rezvani: Kaleido: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Nohla Therapeutics: Other: One-time scientific advisory board; Pharmacyclics-Abbvie: Research Funding; US Department of Justice: Consultancy. Bolaños-Meade: Incyte Corp: Consultancy. Holtan: Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Generon: Consultancy. Saber: Govt. COI: Other. Hamadani: Sanofi, Genzyme, AstraZeneca, BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Janssen, Incyte, ADC Therapeutics, Omeros, Morphosys, Kite: Consultancy; Takeda, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals and Astellas Pharma: Research Funding. Kean: Bluebird Bio: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Patents & Royalties: From clinical trial data, Research Funding; Vertex: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; EMD Serono: Consultancy. Perales: Cidara: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Equilium: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; NexImmune: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Omeros: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; Medigene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Celgene: Honoraria.

Abstract Background and Rationale: Axi-cel is a standard-of-care treatment for relapsed or refractory LBCL after 2 or more lines of systemic therapy. Some patients who would have been ineligible for ZUMA-1 criteria due to comorbidities have been treated with axi-cel in the real-world setting. We interrogated a large registry of patients treated with standard-of-care axi-cel for a definitive report on the impact of age or certain comorbidities on safety and efficacy outcomes after axi-cel infusion. Methods: From October 2017 to August 2020, 1500 patients were enrolled in the postapproval safety observational study of axi-cel treated at 79 centers. Patients eligible for the protocol and followed up for at least 6 months with complete data entry by the time of analyses were included. One patient rescinded consent and 1 was deemed ineligible. Patients previously treated with immune effector cell therapy (n=31), with incomplete follow-up reporting (n=92), or alive but last contacted <180 days postinfusion (n=32) were excluded from analysis. Main efficacy outcomes included complete and objective response rates (CR and ORR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS). Safety endpoints of interest included cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). Outcomes were assessed and compared by age and preselected coexisting disease or organ impairment within 3 months prior to the infusion included in the hematopoietic cell transplantation comorbidity index. Multivariate logistic and Cox regression models were used to assess the impact of age or coexistent organ dysfunction on outcomes via odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) and their 95% CIs. Results A total of 1343 patients were included in the analysis with a median 25.1 months (range, 10.3-42.7 months) for potential follow-up, defined from infusion to data cutoff date, and a median 11.8 months (range, 0.1-38.8 months) for actual follow-up time, defined from infusion to date of death or last contact. Of these, 38% were 65 years or older (median 62 years), 4% had a performance score ≥2, 13% had cardiac comorbidities, 16% had a prior cancer, 9% were obese, 2% had moderate to severe hepatic comorbidities, and 2% had renal comorbidities. Transformed lymphoma, double or triple-hit by fluorescence in situ hybridization, prior autologous transplant and refractory disease were present in 28%, 15%, 27% and 66%, respectively. Bridging therapy was administered in 21% of patients. Overall, ORR was 74%, (CR 56%), and probabilities of DOR, PFS, and OS at 18 months were 61% (95% CI, 57-65%), 42% (95% CI, 39-45%) and 52% (95% CI, 49-55%), respectively. Overall rates of CRS and ICANS were 83% and 55%, respectively. ORR was 78% (CR 62%, median OS 17.5 [95% CI, 16.0-not evaluated (NE)] months) for patients ≥65 years, ORR 57% (CR 29%; median OS 4.3 [95% CI, 2.5-8.3] months) for patients with hepatic dysfunction, ORR 70% (CR 43%; median OS 8.9 [95% CI, 3.8-NE] months) for patients with renal dysfunction; and ORR 47% (CR 20%, median OS 4 [95% CI, 2.6-6.9] months) for patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 2 or 3. Multivariate analyses indicated that advanced age (≥65 years vs <65 years; OR 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.83), moderate to severe pulmonary disease (yes vs no; OR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.98), and ECOG (2-3 vs 0-1; OR 0.31, 95% CI, 0.18-0.53) impacted ORR (Table). Age ≥65 years did not have an impact on survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI, 0.88-1.26), although it was associated with CRS (OR 1.42, 95% CI, 1.03-1.96) and ICANS (OR 1.78, 95% CI, 1.39-2.28). Coexistent cardiac disease (HR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), renal disease (HR 2.13, 95% CI, 1.32-3.46) and hepatic dysfunction (HR 2.65, 95% CI, 1.69-4.14) had an impact on OS, but not on response, CRS, and ICANS. ECOG significantly impacted all efficacy outcomes. None of the other comorbidities tested significantly impacted outcomes. Conclusion: Advanced age (≥65 years) was not associated with worse efficacy outcomes after axi-cel, despite higher rates of CRS and ICANS, which require closer monitoring. Performance status rather than age should be accounted for in patient selection and treatment decisions with axi-cel. Most coexistent organ dysfunctions have no clinically significant impact on axi-cel objective response and safety outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Locke: Moffitt Cancer Center: Patents & Royalties: field of cellular immunotherapy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; EcoR1: Consultancy; Emerging Therapy Solutions: Consultancy; Gerson Lehrman Group: Consultancy; Iovance Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Takeda: Consultancy, Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Wugen: Consultancy, Other; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Umoja: Consultancy, Other; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Calibr: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Cowen: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Other; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role. Jacobson: Axis: Speakers Bureau; Nkarta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Lonza: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Clinical Care Options: Speakers Bureau. Ma: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Dong: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Hu: Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Siddiqi: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Oncternal: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ahmed: Seagen: Research Funding; Tessa Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Ghobadi: Atara: Consultancy; Wugen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Miklos: Pharmacyclics: Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company, Amgen, Atara, Wugen, Celgene, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Precision Bioscience, Adicet, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Takeda, Adaptive Biotechnologies and Miltenyi Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, Amgen, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Becton Dickinson, Isoplexis, Miltenyi, Juno-Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Precision Biosciences, Adicet, Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Novartis, Juno/Celgene-BMS, Kite, a Gilead Company, Pharmacyclics-AbbVie, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AlloGene, Precision Bioscience, Miltenyi Biotech, Adicet, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lin: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Perales: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; MorphoSys: Honoraria; NexImmune: Honoraria; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Cidara: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Omeros: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Medigene: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Equilium: Honoraria. Lunning: Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Acrotech: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Hill: Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Nikiforow: Kite/Gilead: Other: ad HOC Advisory Boards; Novartis: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Iovance: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK): Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards. Xu: Gilead Sciences: Other: stock or other ownership ; Kite, A Gilead Company: Current Employment. Pasquini: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: CD19 CAR T cell therapies have demonstrated high initial complete remission (CR) rates of 70-80% in relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) with durable remissions observed in a subset of patients. Despite the remarkable initial CR rate, relapses occur in 20-45% of patients and with increasing use of CD19 CAR T cell therapies in ALL, a key remaining clinical question is the role of post-CAR HCT. Methods: Patients up to 26 years treated with the commercial (i.e., tisagenlecleucel) or investigational CD19 CAR T cell products from 2014 to 2019 in the United States were included. The objectives were to examine the impact of post-CAR HCT on mortality, disease-free survival (DFS), leukemia relapse, GVHD and transplant related mortality among HCT recipients. The intent of HCT was analyzed as consolidation when there was no evidence of post-CAR T cell relapse prior to HCT. Cox regression multivariable analysis used HCT as time-dependent variable along with age, performance status and time from diagnosis to CAR-T cell infusion to evaluate its impact on outcomes. Results: We identified 347 patients who received CD19 CAR T cells from 86 centers. Median age was 13 (range, 0.4-26 years) with 39% of patients from Hispanic or Latino ethnic origin. Patients were high risk and heavily pretreated; 56% had poor cytogenetics, 51% had ≥3 line of prior therapies and 34% had prior HCT. Most of the patients (74%) received tisagenlecleucel. Disease burden at the time of CAR T cell infusion included morphologic disease (≥5% bone marrow blasts) (65%), measurable residual disease (MRD) positive (16%) and negative CR (18%). CRS of all grades was observed in 57.6% and grade 3-4 CRS in 13%; neurotoxicity of all grades was observed in 25% and grade 3-4 in 8%. With a median follow-up of 12.7 months (range, 2.2-60.3), DFS at 3, 6 and 12 months following CAR T cell infusion was 80.9% % (95% CI: 76.6%-84.9%), 71.2% (95% CI: 66.1%-76.0%) and 57.6% (95% CI: 51.8%-63.3%), respectively. OS at 3, 6 and 12 months was 93.6% (95% CI: 90.8%-96.0%), 89.8% (95% CI: 86.4%-92.8%) and 79.4% (95% CI: 74.7%-83.6%), respectively. Incidences of relapse without censoring at subsequent HCT at month 3, 6 and 12 were 18.5% (95% CI: 14.5%-22.8%), 28.2% (95% CI: 23.5%-33.3%), and 40.6% (95% CI: 35.0%-46.3%), respectively. Of the 347 patients who received CD19 CAR therapy, 62 patients (18%) had subsequent HCT in CR as a consolidation post-CAR with a median time from CAR T to HCT of 4.7 months (range, 1.1-18.6). 36% had a prior HCT (i.e., pre-CAR), 87% received myeloablative regimen and among the 57 patients with MRD evaluation 56 were negative (98%). Frequencies of post-CAR HCT did not change during the 5-year study period. Overall, transplant related mortality (TRM) at month 6 was 8.9% (95% CI: 3.6-16.1), and grade 2-4 acute GvHD was observed in 38.0% (95% CI: 28.4-48.2) of patients at month 6. Post-CAR HCT used as a consolidation was associated with lower relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 0.37; p=0.037) but no significant impact on mortality (HR 0.75, p=0.51) or DFS (HR=0.46, p=0.057). When accounting for any HCT performed after CAR T cell, HCT was associated with higher mortality (Figure). Conclusions: This is the largest clinical series to date examining the impact of post-CAR HCT on clinical outcome of R/R B-ALL patients. We found that 18% of the patients had post-CAR HCT as a consolidation therapy with a favorable safety profile of 8.9% TRM rate despite a prior transplant rate of 36%. Consolidation HCT after CAR T cell resulted in significant reduction in leukemia relapse with a trend towards better DFS. Consolidation HCT seem safe and incurred a benefit by reducing disease relapse. Further studies in understanding the role of consolidation HCT as planned, or post-CAR T cell response-based strategy or treatment for early B-cell recovery are needed to further define the best candidates for HCT after tisagenlecleucel . Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Park: BMS: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy. Nikiforow: Kite/Gilead: Other: ad HOC Advisory Boards; Novartis: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Iovance: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK): Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards. Hu: Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Ahmed: Merck: Research Funding; Tessa Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seagen: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cairo: Servier: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Speakers Bureau; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nektar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dholaria: Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; MEI: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Grover: Kite: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Research Funding; ADC: Other: Advisory Board; Tessa: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Locke: Gerson Lehrman Group: Consultancy; Emerging Therapy Solutions: Consultancy; Moffitt Cancer Center: Patents & Royalties: field of cellular immunotherapy; Calibr: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Wugen: Consultancy, Other; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Other; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Iovance Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Takeda: Consultancy, Other; EcoR1: Consultancy; Cowen: Consultancy; Umoja: Consultancy, Other; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Mussetti: GILEAD: Other: Clinical trials participation, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Other: Clinical trials participation. Pulsipher: Jasper Therapeutics: Honoraria; Adaptive: Research Funding; Equillium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qayed: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medexus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mesoblast: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Other. Reshef: Gilead, BMS, Precision, Immatics, Atara, Takeda, Shire, Pharmacyclics, Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead and Novartis: Honoraria; Bayer, BMS, Regeneron, TScan, Synthekine, Atara, Jasper: Consultancy. Rizzieri: Kite: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Acrotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AROG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mustang: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Sharma: Vertex Pharmaceuticals/CRISPR Therapeutics: Other: Salary support paid to institution; Medexus Inc: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Vindico Medical Education: Honoraria; Spotlight Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Salary support paid to institution. Schultz: BMS DSMB: Other: payment; Sobi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Turtle: Century Therapeutics Ad hoc advisory boards (last 12 months): Nektar Therapeutics, Allogene, PACT Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eureka Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caribou Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; T-CURX: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Myeloid Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ArsenalBio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Minerva: Other; Nektar Therapeutics: Other; Juno Therapeutics/BMS: Other: Payments, Patents & Royalties: Patent licensed to Juno Therapeutics.; Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Myeloid Therapeutics, ArsenalBio: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Pasquini: Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Perales: MorphoSys: Honoraria; Cidara: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Omeros: Honoraria; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; Equilium: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; NexImmune: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Medigene: Honoraria.

Background The randomized DOREMI (Dobutamine Compared to Milrinone) clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of milrinone and dobutamine in patients with cardiogenic shock. Whether the results remain consistent when stratified by acute myocardial infarction remains unknown. In this substudy, we sought to evaluate differences in clinical management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) versus non‐AMICS. Methods and Results Patients in cardiogenic shock (n=192) were randomized 1:1 to dobutamine or milrinone. The primary composite end point in this subgroup analysis was all‐cause in‐hospital mortality, cardiac arrest, non‐fatal myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, the need for mechanical circulatory support, or initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) at 30‐days. Outcomes were evaluated in patients with (n=65) and without (n=127) AMICS. The primary composite end point was significantly higher in AMICS versus non‐AMICS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.21; 95% CI, 1.47–3.30; P =0.0001). The primary end point was driven by increased rates of all‐cause mortality, mechanical circulatory support, and RRT. No differences in other secondary outcomes including cardiac arrest or cerebrovascular accident were observed. AMICS remained associated with the primary composite outcome, 30‐day mortality, and RRT after adjustment for age, sex, procedural contrast use, multivessel disease, and inotrope type. Conclusions AMI was associated with increased rates of adverse clinical outcomes in cardiogenic shock along with increased rates of mortality and initiation of mechanical circulatory support and RRT. Contrast administration during revascularization likely contributes to increased rates of RRT. Heterogeneity of outcomes in AMICS versus non‐AMICS highlights the need to study interventions in specific subgroups of cardiogenic shock. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03207165.

Abstract Background While cardiovascular complications, including arrhythmias are now a recognized manifestation of Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), there are no reports of primary bradycardia preceding the clinical presentation. We sought to describe a case series of sinus bradycardia as an initial manifestation of MIS-C. Methods We included a series of 10 consecutive patients with confirmed COVID-19 who met WHO and CDC criteria for MIS-C, who developed sinus bradycardia with a heart rate measured in the awake state that was below the normal range for age for children, as an initial manifestation of the disease, in a prospective observational multicenter study. Patients underwent clinical, laboratory evaluation, ECG, Holter, telemetry, echocardiogram, chest X Ray, and a chest CT scan. Results Of the 10 patients included, 6 were male, with a mean age of 6.52±5.35 years, range 4 months to 14 years. All cases were Hispanic. Bradycardia was transient and did not merit treatment. Coronary abnormalities were noted in 6 cases; 4 patients had mild coronary ectasia; 9 patients had pericardial effusion with no evidence of tamponade. All patients had a mild clinical course; none had shock, heart failure, the need for mechanical ventilation, or died. All blood markers (Troponin, BNP, Platelet count, C-reactive protein, D-dimer, Ferritin) returned to normal levels by discharge/follow-up with a favorable outcome including resolution of coronary dilatation in all but 2 in which aneurysm persisted. Treatment All patients received steroids and low-weight-molecular heparin 10 patients, 8 aspirin and 8 intravenous immunoglobulins. Conclusion Sinus bradycardia may be the initial manifestation of MIS-C, usually transient and mild. Physicians should be aware of this presentation. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Kid, MIS-C. Bradycardia/Atrial Rhythm

Abstract Purpose Compare agreements between polysomnography-based (PSG) diagnosis of isolated REM-sleep-behavior-disorder (iRBD) and Non-REM-Hypertonia (NRH), a novel biomarker independently associated with synucleinopathy-related neurodegenerative diseases. Methods Sixteen patients with histories of dream-enactment-behavior (DEB)(women=38%; age:64.6±13.0) underwent PSG with simultaneously-recorded Sleep Profiler (SP). Two boarded sleep neurologists independently characterized iRBD. Physician1 combined abnormal qualitative REM-sleep-without-atonia (RSWA) by submental electromyography, with video-confirmation of probably DEB. Physician2 relied solely on qualitative RSWA. SP was auto-staged, technically reviewed, and reprocessed for automated abnormal NRH detection. Kappa scores measured physician and NRH agreements. Results In the 14 records with REM sleep, iRBD was characterized in: Physician1=64%, Physician2=79%, NRH=71% of the records. Across the three methods, unanimous iRBD agreement occurred in 57% of the records (positive=7, negative=1). The between-physician agreement in iRBD classifications was fair (kappa=0.32). The agreement between NRH and Physician1 was moderate (kappa=0.52) versus slight with Physician2 (kappa=0.05). NRH comparisons to consensus physician agreement yielded one false-positive and one false-negative iRBD finding. Physician2 classified: a) iRBD in two cases that were negative by Physician1 and NRH, and b) one negative case that Physician1 and NRH characterized as iRBD. Physician1 identified one negative case that was classified iRBD by Physician2 and NRH. Additionally, NRH was abnormal in one of the two records with no REM sleep. Discussion NRH may assist in iRBD risk assessment, given it agreed with at least one physician in 86% of the cases and the between-physician iRBD agreement was only fair. NRH also characterized iRBD-risk in patients with insufficient REM sleep for RSWA assessment.

Abstract Purpose Evaluate the sleep staging agreement between polysomnography (PSG) and Sleep Profiler (SP) in patients with suspected isolated REM-sleep-behavior-disorder. Methods Twenty-six patients with reported dream-enactment-behavior (Site1=16, Site2=10; 27% women; age 64±13 years) underwent a diagnostic PSG with simultaneously recorded SP. A registered sleep-technologist at each site performed PSG-staging, while SP was auto-staged and technically reviewed/edited. Across technicians, the initial staging was blinded. Site1 then performed unblinded restaging of PSG=N3(N2) vs. SP=N2(N3) epochs, while Site2 conducted a blinded, carefully-targeted restaging of N3. Statistics included Cohen’s kappa and Chi-square analyses. Results Agreement between SP and Site1 vs. Site2 were significantly different for Wake (kappa:Site1=0.816;Site2=0.650;combined=0.736), stage N1 (kappa:Site1=0.149;Site2=0.228;combined=0.188), stage N2 (kappa:Site1=0.632;Site2=0.718;combined=0.659), stage N3 (kappa:Site1=0.715;Site2=0.368;combined=0.525) and REM (kappa:Site1=0.827;Site2=0.719;combined=0.766)(all P<0.001). After restaging of N3, the kappa values improved at Site1 (unblinded:N2=0.659/N3=0.883) and Site2 (blinded:N2=0.775/N3=0.736)(combined:N2=0.735/N3=0.851). The proportion of PSG-epochs restaged from N3 to N2 was 17% at Sites1 and 38% at Site2 (P<0.001), while Site1 had fewer remaining PSG=N3 vs. SP=N2 conflicts (5.6% vs. 20.8%, P<0.001). Compared to Site2, Site1 had a superior: REM kappa due to fewer SP=N2 disagreements (8.5% vs. 16.8%, P<0.001), and Wake kappa resulting from fewer SP=N1 (6.6 vs. 15.6%, P<0.001) and SP=N2 conflicts (5.9 vs. 12.0%, P<0.001). Conversely, the Site1 N1 kappa was inferior due to greater SP=wake disagreement (41.6% vs. 19.8%, P<0.001). Discussion N3 was excessively stage by both PSG technicians before restaging. At Site1, Wake, N3, and REM had almost-perfect-agreement with SP, while N2 had substantial-agreement. At Site2 and across-site, substantial-agreement was observed for Wake, N2, N3, and REM.

Abstract The role of haploidentical hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) using posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is being defined. We performed a retrospective, multivariable analysis comparing outcomes of HCT approaches by donor for adults with ALL in remission. The primary objective was to compare overall survival (OS) among haploidentical HCTs using PTCy and HLA-matched sibling donor (MSD), 8/8 HLA-matched unrelated donor (MUD), 7 /8 HLA-MUD, or umbilical cord blood (UCB) HCT. Comparing haploidentical HCT to MSD HCT, we found that OS, leukemia-free survival (LFS), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse, and acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) were not different but chronic GVHD (cGVHD) was higher in MSD HCT. Compared with MUD HCT, OS, LFS, and relapse were not different, but MUD HCT had increased NRM (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; P = .02), grade 3 to 4 aGVHD (HR, 1.59; P = .005), and cGVHD. Compared with 7/8 UD HCT, LFS and relapse were not different, but 7/8 UD HCT had worse OS (HR, 1.38; P = .01) and increased NRM (HR, 2.13; P ≤ .001), grade 3 to 4 aGVHD (HR, 1.86; P = .003), and cGVHD (HR, 1.72; P ≤ .001). Compared with UCB HCT, late OS, late LFS, relapse, and cGVHD were not different but UCB HCT had worse early OS (≤18 months; HR, 1.93; P < .001), worse early LFS (HR, 1.40; P = .007) and increased incidences of NRM (HR, 2.08; P < .001) and grade 3 to 4 aGVHD (HR, 1.97; P < .001). Haploidentical HCT using PTCy showed no difference in survival but less GVHD compared with traditional MSD and MUD HCT and is the preferred alternative donor HCT option for adults with ALL in complete remission.