Citations

Background Opioid analgesics are among the most commonly prescribed medications in the United States. Opioids are useful in the management of pain, but their use can also adversely affect patients. However, studies reporting patterns of adverse events due to use of opioid analgesics in men and women are still scarce. Understanding the individual characteristics affecting response to opioids may allow clinicians to better individualize treatments. In this study, we investigated sex differences in the patterns of adverse events as a result of opioid use. Methods We used data from 8,457 patients participating in the Mayo Clinic Biobank “Right Drug, Right Dose, Right Time (RIGHT protocol)” study of pre‐emptive genotyping who were prescribed at least one of four opioid medications (codeine, tramadol, hydrocodone, or oxycodone) between 01/01/2004 and 12/31/2017. Adverse events due to use of these medications were collected from the allergy section in each patient’s electronical medical record, and were organized into four Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) categories: gastrointestinal (e.g. nausea, vomiting), skin and subcutaneous tissue (e.g. rash, itching), psychiatric (e.g. anxiety, hallucinations), and nervous system (e.g. headache, dizziness). We modeled sex differences in the risk of adverse events by each opioid, and sex differences in the risk of each adverse event due to any opioid using logistic regression adjusted for age, race, ethnicity, and body mass index (BMI). Results Participants with at least one opioid prescription were 60.8% female, mostly white (94.2%) and non‐Hispanic (98.9%). Women (relative to men) were younger (median = 61.6 vs. 69.1, respectively), had lower BMI (median = 27.4 vs. 28.9), and were prescribed more codeine (18.8% vs. 15.5%). Overall, 456 (5.4%) persons had a note in the allergy section of their medical record indicating a problem with an opioid medication. Women were more likely than men to have a note in the allergy section referring to at least one opioid (6.6% and 3.5%, respectively; p < 0.001). In addition, among participants who had at least one note related to opioid use in their allergy section, women were more likely to have notes regarding gastrointestinal complications (OR [95% CI] = 2.07 [1.3 – 3.2], p = 0.002), but less likely to have notes regarding psychiatric issues (OR [95% CI] = 0.30 [0.2 – 0.5], p < 0.001). Conclusion Women were more likely than men to experience adverse events due to use of codeine, tramadol, hydrocodone, and oxycodone. In addition, the types of adverse reactions differed between men and women. These data suggest that further studies are needed to ensure that both men and women have optimal responses to opioid medications. Support or Funding Information This work was supported by the Mayo Clinic Specialized Center of Research Excellent on Sex Differences, the Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine, the Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, and the National Institutes of Health grants [U19 GM61388 (The Pharmacogenomics Research Network), R01 GM28157, U01 HG005137, R01 GM125633, R01 AG034676 (The Rochester Epidemiology Project)], and [U01 HG06379 and U01 HG06379 Supplement (The Electronic Medical Record and Genomics (eMERGE) Network)].

e20605 Background: Intravenous (IV) fosaprepitant is a potent antiemetic, commonly used in patients receiving chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of IV fosaprepitant-associated infusion site adverse events (ISAEs) among a cohort of breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) chemotherapy at Mayo Rochester. Methods: A retrospective review of electronic medical record (EMR) data was performed for all patients who were initiated on AC chemotherapy from January 2011 to April 2012. Data collected from the EMR included baseline demographics, antiemetic regimen, documentation of ISAEs and type of IV access (peripheral vs. central). Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation or percentages) were summarized overall and by type of IV access and initially administered antiemetic. Results: 148 patients were included, with a median age of 54 years (range 28-76). 98 patients initially received IV fosaprepitant; 44 oral aprepitant; 6 neither. 132 (89%) initially had peripheral IV access and 16 (11%) had central venous access. Overall, 33 patients (34%) experienced an IV fosaprepitant associated ISAE including: erythema (n=22), pain (n=26), swelling (n=12), infusion site hives (n=5), extravasation (n=4), deep venous thrombosis (n=3), superficial thrombosis (n=7), phlebitis/thrombophlebitis (n=5), venous discoloration (n=1), venous engorgement (n=1), venous hardening/induration (n=4) and local scarring (n=1). Only 1 patient (2%) experienced an oral aprepitant associated ISAE, which was infusion site pain. This patient had previously had a fosaprepitant associated ISAE at the same site. All experienced ISAEs occurred in patients with peripheral IV access. Conclusions: The incidence and severity of ISAEs associated with IV fosaprepitant administration among a group of patients receiving doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide chemotherapy is significant and is appreciably higher than what has been noted in other reports. The higher incidence observed is likely related to the predominance of peripheral venous access used in the studied cohort.

HLA‐DQ8 is associated with certain autoimmune diseases including celiac disease, juvenile diabetes mellitus, and rheumatoid arthritis. These diseases have significantly high morbidity and mortality rates and often require chronic, life‐long immunosuppressive therapy, especially in the case of rheumatoid arthritis. Recent studies have determined that commensal microorganisms from the gut flora can modulate the development of autoimmune diseases although the mechanism of action remains elusive. We examined the systemic immunological effects following oral exposure to live commensal bacteria within naive AEoDQ8 mice. Specifically, Prevotella species was isolated and cultured from the small intestine of celiac patients and administered by oral gavages every 48 hours for 2 weeks to AEo DQ8 mice. Significant decreases in serum IL‐17 expressed in pg/ml (2406 to 1662, □33%) and GM‐CSF (15.5 to 9.7, □40%) were detected in the sera of the group administered live bacteria as compared to the group administered sham gavages. The decrease in serum IL‐6, G‐CSF, MIP1a, and MIP1b levels did not reach statistical significance. Also, no difference in serum TGFbeta levels was observed between the two groups. However, FACS analysis revealed an increase in splenic CD4+CD25+FoxP3+ regulatory T‐cells in the group administered live bacteria as compared to the control group, 11.4% vs. 8.0%, respectively. These findings suggest that gram negative, commensal bacteria can suppress the expression of pro‐inflammatory IL‐17 at a systemic level.

Background: In the SCHOLAR-1 study, the largest published retrospective analysis of outcomes in patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), the objective response rate (ORR) was 26% and complete response (CR) rate was 7% with available salvage therapies in the pre-chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy era (Crump et al. Blood. 2017). These results served as a benchmark for assessing novel therapies. ZUMA-1 (NCT02348216) is the pivotal, multicenter, single-arm Phase 1/2 study evaluating axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), an autologous anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapy, in patients with refractory LBCL that supported the approval of axi-cel in the United States and Europe. At a median follow-up of 27.1 months, the ORR in ZUMA-1 was 83% and the CR rate was 58% (Locke et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019). Here, we describe comparative analyses of outcomes in ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 after adjusting for potential imbalances in refractory status between the 2 studies. Methods: Patients in both studies had refractory LBCL defined as stable disease of ≤ 6 months with ≥ 4 cycles of frontline or ≥ 2 cycles of later-line therapy, progressive disease as best response, or relapse ≤ 12 months post autologous stem cell transplant (SCT). To address potential imbalances between studies in refractory status which could affect response and survival outcomes, standardized analyses were performed which equally weighted the proportions of patients by refractory categorization (primary refractory, refractory to ≥ second-line therapy, or relapse after SCT) and presence of post-refractory SCT in each study. Stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests and Cox models were used to compare the odds ratio for response and hazard ratio (HR) for survival between ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1. P values were descriptive and were not adjusted for multiplicity. Results: Axi-cel was administered to 101 patients in the pivotal Phase 2 portion of ZUMA-1. In the SCHOLAR-1 analysis, 508 patients were evaluable for response and 497 were evaluable for survival. The median follow-up in ZUMA-1 was 2.3 years, and the median follow-up from the overall SCHOLAR-1 study ranged from 7.6 to 14.8 years across different cohorts. In general, ZUMA-1 patients were more heavily pretreated with more patients receiving ≥ 3 lines of therapy as compared with SCHOLAR-1 (69% vs 23%). ZUMA-1 also had more patients who were refractory to second- or later-line therapy compared with SCHOLAR-1 (76% vs 62%). Fewer patients in ZUMA-1, however, were classified as primary refractory vs those in SCHOLAR-1 (26% vs 45%), and a similar proportion of patients between studies relapsed within 1 year of SCT (21% vs 18%). After standardization, the ORR and CR rate in ZUMA-1 vs SCHOLAR-1 were 72% and 54% vs 22% and 7%, respectively. The odds ratios for ORR and CR rate were 7.2-fold and 11.5-fold higher, respectively in ZUMA-1 vs SCHOLAR-1 (CMH test; P < .0001 for both ORR and CR rate). The 2-year survival rate after standardization was 50% (95% CI, 40% - 59%) in ZUMA-1 and 12% (95% CI, 9% - 15%) in SCHOLAR-1, which translated to a 73% reduction in the risk of death in ZUMA-1 relative to SCHOLAR-1 (HR, 0.27; P < .0001). Conclusions: This standardized analysis of the ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 studies indicates that treatment with axi-cel in this selected population results in 11.5-fold higher odds of CR and a 73% reduction in the risk of death compared with standard salvage regimens in an unselected population. Although limited by retrospective evaluation and cross-study comparisons, these results support the previous literature indicating that axi-cel is a highly effective treatment option for patients with refractory LBCL. Disclosures Neelapu: Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Allogene: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Poseida: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding. Locke:Novartis: Other: Scientific Advisor; Kite: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy. Bartlett:Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Reagan:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Miklos:Celgene-Juno: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Research Funding; AlloGene: Consultancy; Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Becton Dickinson: Consultancy; Precision Bioscience: Consultancy. Jacobson:Pfizer: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Humanigen: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support. Oluwole:Pfizer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Siddiqi:BeiGene: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kite, A Gilead Company: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: travel support, Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Crump:Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy. Kuruvilla:Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding. Van Den Neste:Gilead: Other: travel support. Farooq:Celgene: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Research Funding. Navale:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment, Equity Ownership; Gilead: Equity Ownership; Allogene: Equity Ownership; Cellectis: Equity Ownership; Bluebird Bio: Equity Ownership; Amgen: Equity Ownership; Organesis: Equity Ownership; Jounce: Equity Ownership; Editas: Equity Ownership; Intellia: Equity Ownership. DePuy:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: travel support. Kim:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment.

Background: Relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B cell lymphoma (LBCL) is associated with poor outcomes to standard salvage therapy (Crump M, et al. Blood. 2017). In SCHOLAR-1, a large multicenter, patient-level, retrospective study, patients with R/R diffuse LBCL had a 26% objective response rate (ORR) to the next line of therapy, a 7% complete response (CR) rate, and a median overall survival of 6.3 months (Crump M, et al. Blood 2017). Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for patients with R/R LBCL with ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies. With a median follow-up of 27.1 months in ZUMA-1, the ORR with axi-cel was 83% (58% CR rate) in patients with refractory LBCL (Locke FL, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019). Activation of the costimulatory receptor 4-1BB (CD137) on CAR T cells may enhance axi-cel antitumor activity by enhancing T cell proliferation, function, and survival. Utomilumab (uto), an investigational monoclonal antibody agonist of the 4-1BB pathway, enhanced T cell function and survival in preclinical studies (Fisher TS, et al. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2012) and had favorable single-agent safety in patients (Segal NH, et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2018). Possible mechanisms of resistance to axi-cel are thought to be suboptimal CAR T cell expansion an exclusionary tumor microenvironment and CD19 target antigen loss (Neelapu SS, et al. Blood 2017, Rossi JM, et al J Immunother Cancer. 2018). Combination strategies that increase proliferation, expansion, and persistence of CAR T cells or prevent activation-induced cell death of CAR T cells may improve clinical outcomes observed with axi-cel. ZUMA-11 is a Phase 1/2 study investigating the efficacy and safety of axi-cel + uto in patients with refractory LBCL. Methods: The primary objectives of this study are to determine the safety, recommended Phase 2 dosing and timing (Phase 1), and efficacy (Phase 2) of axi-cel + uto in adult patients with refractory LBCL. Patients with progressive or stable disease as the best response to second-line chemotherapy or relapse ≤ 12 months after autologous stem cell transplantation, a prior anti-CD20 antibody and anthracycline-containing regimen, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 are eligible. Patients with histologically proven primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma, history of Richter's transformation or chronic lymphocytic lymphoma, prior CAR T cell therapy, or central nervous system involvement of lymphoma are ineligible. In Phase 1, ≈24 patients in ≤ 3 cohorts will receive a single dose of axi-cel and escalating doses of uto (10, 30, or 100 mg) using a 3 + 3 design in up to 4 of 6 cohorts. The recommended uto dose will be based on dose-limiting toxicities and other factors. Patients will be leukapheresed and may receive optional, nonchemotherapy bridging therapy per investigator decision. After conditioning chemotherapy, patients will receive a single infusion of axi-cel (target dose, 2 × 106 CAR T cells/kg) on Day 0 followed by uto on Day 1 and every 4 weeks for 6 months or until progressive disease. Patients will be treated one at a time during Phase 1, and patients treated with axi-cel will be staggered by ≥ 2 weeks. Day 21 uto administration will be explored if toxicity is unacceptable with Day 1 administration. The primary endpoints are incidence of dose-limiting toxicities in Phase 1 and CR rate in Phase 2. Secondary endpoints include ORR, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, and levels of CAR T cells and cytokines in blood. This study uses a single-arm design to estimate the true CR rate; with a sample size of 27 patients, of which ≤ 3 patients will have been treated in the Phase 1 portion, the maximum half-width of the 95% confidence interval about response will be ≥ 21%. ZUMA-11 is open and accruing patients. Disclosures Reshef: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy, Research Funding; Magenta: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Miklos:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Precision Bioscience: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Becton Dickinson: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AlloGene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene-Juno: Consultancy. Timmerman:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; ImmunGene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Jacobson:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Bayer: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Humanigen: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: travel support; Pfizer: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support. Bennani:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Rossi:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment. Sherman:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment. Sun:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment. Palluconi:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment. Kim:Kite, A Gilead Company: Employment. Jain:Kite/Gilead: Consultancy.

Background Single-stage direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction can offer several potential benefits. Subpectoral DTI reconstruction can present with animation deformity and pectoralis muscle spasm. To potentially avoid these complications, surgeons have attempted prepectoral placement for DTI; however, the benefits of this approach are mostly unknown. We evaluated the outcomes of DTI between prepectoral and subpectoral placement. Methods This was a retrospective review of patients who underwent immediate DTI breast reconstruction (prepectoral vs subpectoral) between 2011 and 2018. Demographics, clinical characteristics, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (BREAST-Q) were compared. Results Thirty-three patients (55 breasts) underwent prepectoral DTI, and 42 patients (69 breasts) underwent subpectoral DTI. Demographics were similar among groups. The number of breasts with preoperative ptosis lower than grade 2 was not significantly different between groups (29.1% vs 26.1%; P = 0.699). Median follow-up was 20.3 and 21 months in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively. Average mastectomy weight was 300 g (180–425 g) and 355 g (203–500 g). Average implant size was 410 cc (330–465 cc) and 425 cc (315–534 cc) in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively. Alloderm was used in all reconstructions. Total numbers of complications were 4 (7.2%) and 8 (11.6%) in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively (P = 0.227). BREAST-Q demonstrated mean patient satisfaction was high and similar among groups (75 and 73.9, P = 0.211). Conclusions Based on these results, we believe prepectoral DTI is safe, reliable, and a promising reconstructive option for selected patients, with equivalent results to other reconstructive options. Our present treatment recommendations are for patients who wish to maintain the same breast size and have minimal or no breast ptosis.