Citations

Abstract Background Using synthetic antibiotic‐eluting envelope (ABE) is an effective intervention for prevention of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. The biologic extracellular‐matrix envelope (ECME), may offer potential advantages over the synthetic ABE. To further minimize the risk of infection, the ECME can be hydrated in gentamicin prior to CIED implantation. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and pharmacokinetics (PK) of gentamicin containing ECME in an animal model. Methods For all experiments, the ECME was hydrated in gentamicin (40 mg/Ml) (treatment) for 2 min. In vitro antimicrobial efficacy against six different bacterial species was assessed. In vivo experiments were conducted using a rabbit model of CIED pocket infection. Serum and ECM gentamicin concentrations were measured. Five different organisms were inoculated into the device pocket of control (ECME hydrated in 0.9% saline) and treatment groups. Macroscopic appearance and colony forming units from CIED, ECME, and tissue were determined. Results No bacteria were recovered from any culture after 12 h of exposure to the gentamicin containing ECME. Serum gentamicin levels dropped below the limit of quantification at 15 h after implant. Gentamicin concentration in the ECME remained relatively stable for up to 7 days. Signs of clinical infection were observed in the control but not in the treatment group. In the presence of gentamicin, statistically significant reduction was demonstrated across all tested bacterial species. Conclusions In this preclinical animal infection model, gentamicin containing ECME was highly effective in reducing bacterial burden in the implant pocket, while systemic exposure after implantation remained low.

Two lysine acyltransferases govern histone H3 propionylation at lysine 23 in normal and pathological conditions.

Background: Vascular and bleeding complications were commonly reported in transcatheter aortic valve replacement clinical trials. Little is known about complication rates in contemporary US clinical practice or clinical outcomes associated with these complications. Methods: In the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry, we evaluated patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement from November 1, 2011 to June 30, 2016. The primary outcomes were in-hospital vascular complications and bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, stroke, and rehospitalization at 1 year. P values for trends were calculated for rates over time, and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between vascular/bleeding complications and in-hospital clinical outcomes. Results: Overall, 34 893 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement at 445 hospitals were analyzed. Of these, 9.3% (n=3257) experienced a vascular complication while 7.6% (n=2651) had an in-hospital bleeding event. Rates of both vascular complications and bleeding events decreased over time ( P value for trend test <0.0001); however, there was significant variation in rates across hospital sites (adjusted median rate, 11.4%; IQR, 8.9–14.5). Vascular complications were independently associated with 30-day death (adjusted HR, 2.23 [95% CI, 1.80–2.77]) and death (adjusted HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.05–1.30]) and rehospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.07–1.22]) at 1 year. Bleeding events were also associated with 30-day death (adjusted HR, 3.71 [95% CI, 2.94–4.69]), and with death (adjusted HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.23–1.56]) and hospital readmission (adjusted HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.11–1.27]) at 1 year. Conclusions: In patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the US, vascular complications and in-hospital bleeding events were common, but rates have declined over time with significant variation in complication rates across hospital sites. Vascular and bleeding complications are both associated with worse short- and long-term clinical outcomes including all-cause mortality. Further innovation to reduce sheath sizes and optimize antithrombotic therapy is necessary to reduce the incidence of these detrimental complications.

Drug safety is a severe clinical pharmacology and toxicology problem that has caused immense medical and social burdens every year. Regretfully, a reproducible method to assess drug safety systematically and quantitatively is still missing. In this study, we developed an advanced machine learning model for de novo drug safety assessment by solving the multilayer drug‐gene‐adverse drug reaction (ADR) interaction network. For the first time, the drug safety was assessed in a broad landscape of 1,156 distinct ADRs. We also designed a parameter ToxicityScore to quantify the overall drug safety. Moreover, we determined association strength for every 3,807,631 gene‐ADR interactions, which clues mechanistic exploration of ADRs. For convenience, we deployed the model as a web service ADRAlert‐gene at http://www.bio-add.org/ADRAlert/. In summary, this study offers insights into prioritizing safe drug therapy. It helps reduce the attrition rate of new drug discovery by providing a reliable ADR profile in the early preclinical stage.

Background: Guadecitabine is a next generation subcutaneous (SC) hypomethylating agent (HMA) resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase which results in prolonged in vivo exposure to the active metabolite decitabine. We conducted a phase 2 study of guadecitabine in 102 Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS), and Chronic Myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) patients. International guidelines recommend a minimum of 4 to 6 cycles of HMA treatment to gain maximum benefit, but some suggest that treatment may not be beneficial if no response was observed after 4 cycles. No prospective studies have confirmed the correlation between an HMA number of cycles with response and survival using landmark methodology. We present here the results of landmark response and survival analyses based on number of cycles and whether patients had an objective response or not. M ethods: Landmark response based on 2006 IWG criteria, and overall survival (OS) analyses for patients alive at or beyond month 3 and month 5 (time of planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 respectively) were conducted. Objective response (OR) was defined as patients who had Complete Response (CR), Partial Response (PR), marrow (m)CR, or Hematological Improvement (HI). Landmark OS was compared between patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. The landmark methodology avoids the bias of early deaths before cycles 4 and 6 attributing a survival benefit in those who did not die early and were able to get more cycles. We also compared the result in responding and non-responding patients to see if survival benefit was restricted to responding patients only. Results: The study completed enrolment with 102 patients: 53 patients after HMA failure (relapsed/refractory or r/r), and 49 HMA-naive patients (Treatment Naïve or TN) with a median follow up for the entire study of 3.2 years (IQR 2.9-3.5 years). Median age was 71 and 72 years for TN MDS/CMML and r/r MDS/CMML patients respectively. Median OS was 23.4 months (m) for TN MDS/CMML patients and 11.7 m for r/r MDS/CMML patients. Of the 102 patients treated, 37 patients (36.3%) and 58 (56.9%) received less than 4 and 6 cycles respectively. The landmark analysis population was 91 patients for the 4-cycle analysis and 87 patients for the 6-cycle analysis. In those patients, the primary reasons for treatment discontinuation before cycle 4 or 6 respectively were patient decision (9.8% and 11.8%), and investigator decision (5.9% and 9.8%) while early progression accounted for 3.9% and 10.8% of those patients. There were no major baseline characteristics difference between patients who received at least 4 and 6 cycles and those who did not in the patients included in the landmark analyses. In the landmark analysis, patients who received at least 4 cycles (65 patients) had an OR rate of 68% compared to 15% in 26 patients who received <4 cycles (p <0.0001) and median OS of 20.4 m compared to 15.2 m respectively (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45-1.3, p 0.36). Those who received at least 6 cycles (44 patients) had an OR rate of 82% compared to 26% in 43 patients who received < 6 cycles (p<0.0001), and median OS of 23.8 m vs 13.6 m respectively (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.3-0.85, p 0.009). Results were consistent when r/r MDS/CMML and HMA-naïve MDS/CMML were analyzed separately. Landmark OS analysis also favored those who received guadecitabine for at least 4 or 6 cycles compared to those who received <4 and < 6 cycles even in the absence of objective response (OS HR of 0.82 and 0.42 respectively) but the sample size was small to show statistical significance (p 0.58 and 0.10 respectively) Summary/Conclusions: In a prospective phase 2 study of 102 MDS/CMML patients treated with the HMA guadecitabine, patients who were alive at the planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 did not continue treatment primarily because of patient or investigator decision in addition to early progression. Those who were alive and continued treatment for at least 4 or 6 cycles achieved highly significant objective response benefit compared to those who did not. Survival benefit was highly significant for those who received at least 6 cycles and was not restricted to patients who had an objective response. It is important to weigh reasons for treatment discontinuation carefully before discontinuing guadecitabine HMA treatment in MDS/CMML patients before 6 cycles to maximize response and survival benefit. Disclosures Savona: Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Takeda: Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding. Roboz:Trovagene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Otsuka: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eisai: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amphivena: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. O'Connell:Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yee:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Stock:Research to Practice: Honoraria; UpToDate: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffiths:Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy, PI on a clinical trial; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy. Jabbour:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Grant funding, Research Funding; Arog Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding. Su:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Garcia-Manero:AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding.

Background: Guadecitabine is a next generation subcutaneous (SC) hypomethylating agent (HMA) resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase which results in prolonged in vivo exposure to the active metabolite decitabine. We conducted a phase 2 study of guadecitabine in 206 AML patients. International guidelines recommend a minimum of 4 to 6 cycles of HMA treatment to gain maximum benefit, but some suggest that treatment may not be beneficial if no response was observed after 4 cycles. No prospective studies have confirmed the correlation between an HMA number of cycles with response and survival using landmark methodology. We present here the results of landmark response and survival analyses based on number of cycles and whether patients had an objective response or not. M ethods: Landmark response (CR, CRi, or CRp based on 2003 IWG criteria, grouped together as composite CR or CRc), and overall survival (OS) analyses for patients alive at or beyond month 3 and month 5 (time of planned start of cycle 4 and cycle 6 respectively) were conducted. Landmark OS was compared between patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. The landmark methodology avoids the bias of early deaths before cycles 4 and 6 attributing a survival benefit in those who did not die early and were able to get more cycles. We also compared the result in responding and non-responding patients to see if survival benefit was restricted to responding patients only. Results: The study completed enrolment with 206 AML patients: 103 patients (50%) for each of Treatment Naïve (TN) unfit for intensive chemotherapy, and relapsed/refractory (r/r) AML. Median age was 68.5y (range 22-92y), ECOG PS ≥2 in 26%, poor risk cytogenetics in 41%, secondary AML in 26%, and median baseline BM blasts % was 40% in the total AML population. 108 patients (52.4%), and 155 patients (75%) received <4 and <6 cycles respectively. The primary reasons for treatment discontinuation before 4 and 6 cycles respectively (% from the total population of 206 patients) were early progression (20.4, and 30.6%), and early death (12.6%, and 17%). However, 9.7% and 14% discontinued treatment before 4 or 6 cycles respectively as a result other less objective reasons such as patient decision, investigator decision, or adverse events which might have been manageable without treatment discontinuation. The landmark analysis population included 161 patients for 4-cycle analysis, and 133 for the 6-cycle analysis. In those patients, there were no major differences in baseline characteristics between those who received at least 4 or 6 cycles and those who did not. In the landmark analysis comparing those who received at least 4 cycles (97 patients) and those who did not (64 patients), CRc rate was 62% vs 25% (p < 0.0001) and median OS was 13.7 m vs 6.1 respectively (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.75, p 0.0003). In the landmark analysis comparing those who received at least 6 cycles (51 patients) and those who did not (82 patients) the CRc rate was 82.4% vs 35.4% (p < 0.0001), and median OS of 19.9 m vs 8.8 m respectively (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27-0.64, p <0.0001). The results were consistent when TN and r/r AML patients were analyzed separately. More interestingly the landmark OS benefit in patients who received at least 4 or 6 cycles was also evident in patients who did not have an objective CRc. Patients with no CRc who received at least 4 cycles had a median OS of 8 m vs 5.4 m in those who did not (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-0.98,p 0.04). Patients with no CRc who received at least 6 cycles had a median OS of 12.9 vs 8 m in those who did not (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.94, p 0.03). Summary/Conclusions: In a prospective phase 2 study of 206 TN and r/r AML patients treated with the HMA guadecitabine, patients who were alive at or beyond 3 and 5 months who continued treatment for at least 4 or 6 cycles respectively achieved a highly significant response and survival benefit compared to those who discontinued treatment before cycle 4 or 6. The survival benefit was evident even in patients who did not have an objective response. Reasons for treatment discontinuation should be weighed carefully before stopping HMA treatment with guadecitabine before 4 or 6 cycles in AML patients to maximize response and survival benefit. Failure to achieve an objective response after 4 cycles should not be a reason for treatment discontinuation as long as patient can still benefit. Disclosures Yee: MedImmune: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Roboz:AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amphivena: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Argenx: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eisai: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Orsenix: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Otsuka: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Trovagene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. O'Connell:BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Griffiths:Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Boston Scientific: Consultancy; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy; Persimmune: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis Inc.: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Appelis Pharmaceuticals: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Abbvie, Inc.: Consultancy, PI on a clinical trial; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova Therapeutics: Other: PI on a clinical trial; Partner Therapeutics: Consultancy; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Persimmune: Consultancy; Celgene, Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex Phramaceuticals/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding. Stock:Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Research to Practice: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UpToDate: Honoraria. Garcia-Manero:Amphivena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Helsinn: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Savona:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ravandi:Macrogenix: Consultancy, Research Funding; Selvita: Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Menarini Ricerche: Research Funding; Xencor: Consultancy, Research Funding. Daver:Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; NOHLA: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; NOHLA: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Hanmi Pharm Co., Ltd.: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Hanmi Pharm Co., Ltd.: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immunogen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jabbour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cyclacel LTD: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Su:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Kantarjian:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Immunogen: Research Funding; Jazz Pharma: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background LGH447 is a novel, specific pan-Pim kinase inhibitor in development for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) and other hematologic malignancies. The PIM kinase gene family encodes 3 serine/threonine protein kinases that have roles in cell cycle progression and survival. In human disease, elevated levels of Pim1 and Pim2 are associated with hematologic malignancies, with MM showing the highest level of Pim2 expression. In preclinical studies, a majority of MM cell lines proved sensitive in vitro to LGH447-mediated Pim inhibition, exhibiting a dose-dependent decrease in cell proliferation. Furthermore, LGH447 was well tolerated and demonstrated significant inhibition of tumor growth in xenograft mouse models of MM as compared with control animals, supporting the clinical development of LGH447 in MM patients. Methods Patients with relapsed/refractory MM for whom no effective treatment options exist were enrolled on this first-in-human, multicenter, open-label phase 1 dose-escalation study (CLGH447X2101). Escalating doses of single-agent LGH447 were administered orally on a continuous daily dosing schedule. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, consent withdrawal, or death. The primary objective was to estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of LGH447 administered as a single agent, orally, once daily. Secondary objectives included assessing the safety, tolerability, preliminary antimyeloma activity, and pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of LGH447. Dose escalation followed a Bayesian logistic regression model based on dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurring in cycle 1. Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03. Efficacy assessments were made by investigators according to International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) uniform response criteria with modifications. Following determination of the MTD for LGH447, additional patients will be enrolled in an expansion cohort to further characterize the safety and tolerability profile of LGH447. Results At the data cutoff, 19 patients have been treated at the following doses: 70 mg (n = 5), 150 mg (n = 6), 200 mg (n = 4), 250 mg (n = 4), with enrollment ongoing in dose escalation. Median age was 66 years (range, 41-75 years). Most patients (94.7%) presented with baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Most patients (73.7%) had received ≥ 2 prior regimens (median 4; range, 1-11), 89.5% had received prior bortezomib, and 84.2% had received prior lenalidomide and/or thalidomide (68.4% and 47.4%, respectively). Ten patients are ongoing at doses between 150-250 mg, with a median duration of exposure of 6 weeks (range, 1-26.6 weeks), and 9 patients discontinued (disease progression [n = 6], AEs [n = 2], withdrawal of consent [n = 1]). There was 1 DLT consisting of grade 3 thrombocytopenia at the 200 mg dose level and no reported suspected unexpected serious AEs. The majority of AEs regardless of study drug relationship were grade 1/2. Most common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (31.6%), anemia (21.1%), and neutropenia (15.8%). No deaths have occurred on study. LGH447 displayed time-dependent PK with a 3- to 6-fold accumulation from day 1 to steady state (day 14). After a single oral dose, area under the curve and maximum concentration increased somewhat more than in proportion to the dose from 70 to 250 mg. Evidence of single-agent activity, as determined by investigators using IMWG criteria, has been seen in multiple patients, with best response to date being a very good partial response (VGPR). Conclusion In heavily treated patients with relapsed/refractory MM, LGH447 was generally well tolerated and exhibited evidence of single-agent efficacy in multiple patients, validating Pim kinase inhibition as a promising therapeutic rationale and supporting its further clinical development in patients with MM and other hematologic malignancies. Dose escalation is ongoing and updated results will be presented. Disclosures: Ocio: BMS: Consultancy; Arry-520: Consultancy; Pharmamar: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria. Thomas:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Immunomedics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Research Funding. Günther:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lebovic:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Allos/Spectrum: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Jakubowiak:Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria. Song:Novartis: Employment. Xiang:Novartis: Employment. Hynds:Novartis: Employment. Vanasse:Novartis: Employment. Goh:Jannsen: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hospira: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Background: Scattered tubular-like cells (STCs) proliferate and differentiate to support neighboring injured renal tubular cells during recovery from insults. Renal artery stenosis (RAS) induces renal ischemia and hypertension and leads to loss of kidney function, but whether RAS alters renal endogenous repair mechanisms, such as STCs, remains unknown. We hypothesize that RAS in swine modifies the messenger RNA (mRNA) profile of STCs, blunting their in vitro reparative capacity. Methods: CD24+/CD133+ STCs were isolated from pig kidneys after 10-weeks of RAS or sham (n = 3 each) and their gene cargo analyzed using high-throughput mRNAseq. Expression profiles for upregulated and downregulated mRNAs in RAS-STCs were functionally interpreted by gene ontology analysis. STC activation was assessed by counting the total number of STCs in pig kidney sections using flow cytometry, whereas cell proliferation was assessed in vitro. Results: Of all expressed genes, 1430 genes were upregulated and 315 downregulated in RAS- versus Normal-STCs. Expression of selected candidate genes followed the same fold change directions as the mRNAseq findings. Genes upregulated in RAS-STCs were involved in cell adhesion, extracellular matrix remodeling, and kidney development, whereas those downregulated in RAS-STCs are related to cell cycle and cytoskeleton. The percentage of STCs from dissociated kidney cells was higher in RAS versus Normal pigs, but their proliferation rate was blunted. Conclusions: Renal ischemia and hypertension in swine induce changes in the mRNA profile of STCs, associated with increased STC activation and impaired proliferation. These observations suggest that RAS may alter the reparative capacity of STCs.

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is a human CD38 IgGκ monoclonal antibody that demonstrated significant activity and a manageable safety profile in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. In a randomized phase 3 study, daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (DVd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus bortezomib and dexamethasone alone (Vd) in a pre-specified interim analysis of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; Palumbo A. N Engl J Med 2016; in press). Herein, we examine subgroups from this study to compare the efficacy of DVd vs Vd in bortezomib-naive and bortezomib-experienced pt populations. In addition, the efficacy of DVd vs Vd in pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at last prior line of therapy was also evaluated. Methods: Pts who received ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to 8 cycles (q3w) of Vd (bortezomib: 1.3 mg/m2 SC on Days 1, 4, 8, 11; dexamethasone: 20 mg PO on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV qw in Cycles 1-3, Day 1 of Cycles 4-8, then q4w until progression). Pts who were refractory to bortezomib were not eligible. The primary endpoint was PFS. Bone marrow aspirate samples that had been prepared with Ficoll were evaluated for minimal residual disease (MRD) using three different thresholds (10-4, 10-5, and 10-6) based on the ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA, USA). Results: Median follow-up was 7.4 months. Among bortezomib-naive pts (DVd, n=89; Vd, n=83), PFS was significantly improved with DVd vs Vd (median: not reached [NR] vs 7.5 months; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P&lt;0.0001); estimated 12-month PFS rates were 72% vs 28%, respectively. ORR was 88% with DVd vs 70% with Vd (P=0.0040), with ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rates of 72% vs 42% (P&lt;0.0001), and ≥complete response (CR) rates of 30% vs 20% (P=0.1199), respectively. For pts who previously received a bortezomib-containing regimen (DVd, n=162; Vd, n=164), PFS was also significantly longer with DVd vs Vd (median: 12.3 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66; P&lt;0.0001). Estimated 12-month PFS rates were 55% vs 27%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with DVd vs Vd (80% vs 60%; P=0.0001), along with significantly higher rates of ≥VGPR (52% vs 22%; P&lt;0.0001) and ≥CR (13% vs 3%; P=0.0019). Among pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at the last prior line of therapy (DVd, n=45; Vd, n=60), PFS was significantly longer in DVd vs Vd (median: 10.3 vs 4.4 mo; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.65; P=0.0004; Figure). Within this subgroup, ORR was significantly higher for DVd vs Vd (81% vs 50%; P=0.0021), and the same trends were observed for rates of ≥VGPR (54% vs 12%; P&lt;0.0001) and ≥CR (20% vs 5%; P=0.0261). Updated efficacy and safety data, including MRD analyses across different sensitivity thresholds (10-4, 10-5, and 10-6), will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: These analyses confirm that addition of daratumumab to Vd significantly improves outcomes for RRMM pts regardless of prior treatment with bortezomib. Importantly, this treatment benefit of DVd vs Vd was maintained in pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at the last prior line of therapy. These data lend further support to adding daratumumab to a standard-of-care regimen in RRMM. Figure Progression-free Survival in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide at the Last Prior Line of Therapy Figure. Progression-free Survival in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide at the Last Prior Line of Therapy Disclosures Lentzsch: BMS: Consultancy; Foundation One: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Quach:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ovilla:Janssen: Consultancy. Qi:Janssen: Employment. Deraedt:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schecter:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Amin:Janssen: Employment. Qin:Janssen: Employment. Casneuf:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen R&D, Beerse, Belgium: Employment. Chiu:Janssen: Employment. Sasser:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen Pharmaceuticals R&D: Employment. Sonneveld:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Integrins play fundamental roles in many biological processes such as development, immunity, cancer, wound healing, hemostasis, and thrombosis. Integrin activation is essential for cell adhesion, spreading, survival, proliferation, and migration. Integrins are heterodimeric transmembrane glycoproteins composed of a and b subunits. The function of integrins is modulated by bi-directional transmembrane signaling: inside-out and outside-in signaling, which are mediated through the interactions between integrin a or b subunit cytoplasmic tails and intracellular proteins and can be regulated by many different biochemical signaling pathways. αIIbβ3 is a major integrin expressed in megakaryocytes and platelets. Antagonists of αIIbβ3 are potent anti-thrombotic drugs and new inhibitors targeting αIIbβ3 are under preclinical testing or large patient trials to treat acute coronary syndromes. Integrin αIIbβ3 activation involves binding of proteins, including talin, kindlins, Src kinase, and Gα13 to the cytoplasmic domain of its β subunit. To gain insight into αIIbβ3signaling and to identify new proteins that regulate αIIbβ3 activation, agarose beads conjugated with glutathione S-transferase (GST)-β3 integrin cytoplasmic domain fusion protein (GST-β3CD) or GST-αIIb integrin cytoplasmic domain fusion protein (GST-αIIbCD) were incubated with human platelet lysates. Proteins pulled down by the GST-β3CD or GST-αIIbCD beads were subjected to mass spectrometric analysis. We found that the GST-β3CD but not the GST-αIIbCD beads specifically pulled down a previously unreported protein, the vacuolar protein sorting-associated protein 33B (VPS33B), encoded by the VPS33B gene. To verify that VPS33B is in a complex with αIIbβ3, we infected Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells stably expressing αIIbβ3 (A5 cells) with an adenovirus containing FLAG epitope-tagged human VPS33B cDNA. Cells were allowed to adhere and spread on fibrinogen. FLAG-VPS33B exhibited a significant intracellular colocalization with aIIbb3. Immunoblotting analysis revealed a specific association of b3 with precipitated FLAG-VPS33B. The specific interaction was also confirmed by reciprocal immunoprecipitation using a specific β3antibody. Furthermore, in an in vitro binding assay, we were able to pull down VPS33B from the lysates of CHO cells overexpressing VPS33B by the GST-β3CD beads. The interaction appears to be direct, since we were also able to pull down purified FLAG-VPS33B with GST-β3CD and GST-β1CD proteins. The pulldown assay showed that the β3 fragment spanning residues 716~730 bound efficiently to FLAG-VPS33B. In contrast, the fragments containing either residues 729~762 or residues 744~762 fragments failed to do the same. More importantly, using the rabbit polyclonal antibody against VPS33B, we were able to coimmunoprecipitate endogenous b3 subunit with VPS33B from human platelet lysate. Thus, we identified a novel binding protein of integrin β3. Next, we investigated the role of VPS33B in integrin activation using a recombinant integrin activation model of CHO cells. Overexpression of VPS33B in CHO cells expressing αIIbβ3 (A5 cells) markedly potentiated cell spreading on fibrinogen and F-actin formation. To establish a role of VPS33B in integrin activation in platelets, we created a mouse model with megakaryocyte- and platelet-specific deletion of VPS33B. Platelets lacking VPS33B were defective in spreading on fibrinogen. VPS33B-/- platelets failed to support clot retraction. On the other hand, thrombin-induced fibrinogen binding to platelets and platelet aggregation were not affected by the loss of VPS33B. Collectively, these results demonstrate an essential role of VPS33B in αIIbβ3 outside-in signaling but is not requried for integrin inside-out signaling. We further demonstrate that VPS33B promotes αIIbβ3 outside-in signaling through RhoA and Rac1 activation, leading to clot retraction and cell spreading, respectively. Therefore, our results for the first time establish vesicle trafficking proteins as an important novel class of modifiers of integrin function in platelets and cells. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.