Citations

Background. The short cosyntropin test is widely used for adrenal insufficiency screening and diagnosis. Lower cosyntropin doses may have greater sensitivity vs. the standard dose in detecting adrenal dysfunction. Obesity and overweight are increasing, impacting the clinical presentation of some diseases. Currently more than 50% of the subjects diagnosed with autoimmune adrenal insufficiency have a BMI greater than 25, and hence individuals living with overweight and obesity are more frequently requiring evaluation of the adrenal cortical function. Fixed-dose cosyntropin stimulation may not be appropriate for individuals with obesity. Objective. The primary objective was to compare cortisol response to a weight-adapted cosyntropin dose vs. a fixed low dose (1 µg) and a more physiologically fixed dose (10 µg). Methods. Twenty individuals with obesity and 20 age-matched healthy controls underwent in a randomized sequence at least one-week apart, to the The short cosyntropin test with three different doses, 0.2 µg/kg of body weight, 1 or 10 µg fixed dose stimuli. The assessment and data analysis were blinded to the individual and the investigator. Results. Cortisol response was reduced in the group with obesity with the 1 µg fixed dose stimuli at 30 minutes (median, IQR) 649.6 µg, 567.3–738.4 µg for the control group vs. 568.6 µg, 528.4–623.13 µg, p = 0.04 ; there was a lower cortisol peak at 60′ in all the three evaluated doses, with a dose-dependent trend. A weight-adapted cosyntropin dose of 0.2 µg in obesity produces a similar response to the one observed in individuals without obesity. The 1 µg ACTH test falls short on stimulating the cortisol adrenal response in individuals with obesity.

Importance In patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding supra-annular valve was noninferior to surgery for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 2 years. Comparisons of longer-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in these patients are limited. Objective To report prespecified secondary 5-year outcomes from the Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis in Intermediate Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement (SURTAVI) randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial. Randomization was stratified by investigational site and need for revascularization determined by the local heart teams. Patients with severe aortic valve stenosis deemed to be at intermediate risk of 30-day surgical mortality were enrolled at 87 centers from June 19, 2012, to June 30, 2016, in Europe and North America. Analysis took place between August and October 2021. Intervention Patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular transcatheter or a surgical bioprosthesis. Main Outcomes and Measures The prespecified secondary end points of death or disabling stroke and other adverse events and hemodynamic findings at 5 years. An independent clinical event committee adjudicated all serious adverse events and an independent echocardiographic core laboratory evaluated all echocardiograms at 5 years. Results A total of 1660 individuals underwent an attempted TAVR (n = 864) or surgical (n = 796) procedure. The mean (SD) age was 79.8 (6.2) years, 724 (43.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) Society of Thoracic Surgery Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 4.5% (1.6%). At 5 years, the rates of death or disabling stroke were similar (TAVR, 31.3% vs surgery, 30.8%; hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.85-1.22]; P = .85). Transprosthetic gradients remained lower (mean [SD], 8.6 [5.5] mm Hg vs 11.2 [6.0] mm Hg; P < .001) and aortic valve areas were higher (mean [SD], 2.2 [0.7] cm 2 vs 1.8 [0.6] cm 2 ; P < .001) with TAVR vs surgery. More patients had moderate/severe paravalvular leak with TAVR than surgery (11 [3.0%] vs 2 [0.7%]; risk difference, 2.37% [95% CI, 0.17%- 4.85%]; P = .05). New pacemaker implantation rates were higher for TAVR than surgery at 5 years (289 [39.1%] vs 94 [15.1%]; hazard ratio, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.61-4.17]; log-rank P < .001), as were valve reintervention rates (27 [3.5%] vs 11 [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 2.21 [95% CI, 1.10-4.45]; log-rank P = .02), although between 2 and 5 years only 6 patients who underwent TAVR and 7 who underwent surgery required a reintervention. Conclusions and Relevance Among intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, major clinical outcomes at 5 years were similar for TAVR and surgery. TAVR was associated with superior hemodynamic valve performance but also with more paravalvular leak and valve reinterventions.

Introduction: With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic causing the need for social distancing, telemedicine saw a significant increase in use to provide routine medical care. As a field, physiatry had already been implementing telemedicine prior to the pandemic. In this study, we characterized the use of telemedicine among physiatrists during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic to understand the barriers and facilitators to implementing telemedicine use in the field of physiatry in the future. Methods: Online survey of a cross-sectional sample of physiatrists. Analysis was conducted using logistic regression. Results: One hundred seventy one ( n = 171) participants completed the survey. Before the pandemic, only 17.5% of respondents used telemedicine. In the logistic regression, physicians who used a hospital-provided platform were more likely to use telemedicine in the future compared with those who used their own secure platform, conducted a phone visit, and used a non-secure platform or other platforms. The three most popular barriers identified were “inability to complete the physical examination,” “patients lack of access to technology,” and “patients lack of familiarity with the technology.” Discussion: Focus on education on telemedicine functional examination strategies and technology strategies for patients and providers (including addressing the digital divide and hospital-provided secure platforms) are potential targets of implementation strategies for greater telemedicine uptake for physiatrists in the future.

Abstract Somatic mutations in UBA1 cause vacuoles, E1 ubiquitin-activating enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory somatic (VEXAS) syndrome, an adult-onset inflammatory disease with an overlap of hematologic manifestations. VEXAS syndrome is characterized by a high mortality rate and significant clinical heterogeneity. We sought to determine independent predictors of survival in VEXAS and to understand the mechanistic basis for these factors. We analyzed 83 patients with somatic pathogenic variants in UBA1 at p.Met41 (p.Met41Leu/Thr/Val), the start codon for translation of the cytoplasmic isoform of UBA1 (UBA1b). Patients with the p.Met41Val genotype were most likely to have an undifferentiated inflammatory syndrome. Multivariate analysis showed ear chondritis was associated with increased survival, whereas transfusion dependence and the p.Met41Val variant were independently associated with decreased survival. Using in vitro models and patient-derived cells, we demonstrate that p.Met41Val variant supports less UBA1b translation than either p.Met41Leu or p.Met41Thr, providing a molecular rationale for decreased survival. In addition, we show that these 3 canonical VEXAS variants produce more UBA1b than any of the 6 other possible single-nucleotide variants within this codon. Finally, we report a patient, clinically diagnosed with VEXAS syndrome, with 2 novel mutations in UBA1 occurring in cis on the same allele. One mutation (c.121 A>T; p.Met41Leu) caused severely reduced translation of UBA1b in a reporter assay, but coexpression with the second mutation (c.119 G>C; p.Gly40Ala) rescued UBA1b levels to those of canonical mutations. We conclude that regulation of residual UBA1b translation is fundamental to the pathogenesis of VEXAS syndrome and contributes to disease prognosis.

Abstract Background Symptoms of burnout are highly prevalent among physiatrists, and prior studies have helped identify key contributors to this epidemic of burnout. Little is known about the physician stressors unique to those providing care in inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) and what strategies such facilities have used to help mitigate burnout among inpatient physiatrists. Objective To identify what IRF leaders perceive as stress points contributing to burnout among inpatient rehabilitation physicians and what, if any, interventions their programs have implemented to help mitigate physician burnout. Design 10 item cross‐sectional survey study of IRF physician and nonphysician leaders in the United States. Participants 104 physicians serving in the roles of IRF medical director, director of rehabilitation, and/or executive leadership and 19 nonphysician IRF leaders. Results Regulatory demands, late admissions, understaffing, and on‐call responsibilities were the major stress points most identified as contributing to physician burnout among both the physician and nonphysician respondents. The use of advanced practice providers and hospitalists were the most common system changes reportedly used to help mitigate physician burnout. Although 57.8% of physician leaders felt late admissions were a major stress point for physicians, only 18.2% of those responding reported having implemented admission cutoff times. Conclusions There are stressors unique to the practice of inpatient rehabilitation that are likely contributing to physiatrist burnout, including late admissions and on‐call responsibilities. Many IRFs have begun to implement system changes to help mitigate burnout among inpatient physiatrists. The use of nonphysiatrist providers is a commonly reported strategy. Future studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of such a strategy on reducing symptoms of burnout among IRF physicians as well as its effect on IRF patient outcomes.

11035 Background: In 2017, ASCO established the ASCO medical student and resident Abstract Forum. This study aimed to describe the characteristics of the ASCO medical student and resident abstract forum participants. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, observational study of Abstract Forum participants from 2017 to 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the participants' demographics by gender, stage of training, and institution location. We reported the publication rates and career paths of presenters. Results: The number of participants has more than tripled in the five years since the program's inception. Female participants are almost half of the total. In 2017, there was only one international participant. Over the subsequent five years, international members have steadily increased and represented nearly one-third of all participants in 2021. In the inaugural year, most forum participants were from institutions with ASCO Sponsored Oncology Student Interest Groups (OSIG), but in 2021 almost half were from institutions without OSIGs. The majority of participants were medical students, followed by internal medicine residents. Of a total of 179 abstracts presented between 2017 and 2021, 35 (19.55%) were subsequently published as full-text peer-reviewed manuscripts. Studies presented orally and studies presented by participants from the United States were significantly more frequently published as articles. 58.49% of medical student presenters that started residency chose Internal Medicine or Radiation Oncology. 50% of the student presenters that graduated internal medicine residency went to Hematology-Oncology fellowship. Most of the resident presenters that completed residency went to pursue careers in Hematology-Oncology (72.73%). Conclusions: The steady increase in participants since the program's creation demonstrates interest in the medical student and internal medicine resident community in these types of initiatives. The increase in international participants over the years highlights opportunities for ASCO to expand its global reach and efforts, particularly in low-income countries where trainees have the highest need for mentoring and organized support. Our study provides critical insights into the profile of participants of the Abstract Forum. Participation in this program should be encouraged, especially in countries with high cancer prevalence and mortality.

e21134 Background: Therapies with monoclonal antibodies targeting PD-1 and its ligands are associated with remarkable outcomes and have revolutionized cancer treatment (Honey 2017). However, patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade may develop “a primary or secondary resistance” to therapy (Sharma, Hu-Lieskovan et al. 2017). Contrary to monoclonal antibodies, chimeric B-cell cancer vaccines have the advantage of producing polyclonal B-cell antibodies that can potentially induce memory B- and T-cell responses, while reducing immune evasion and suppression. The hypothesis is that a polyclonal induced B-cell antibody response will be more effective or as effective with improved safety over current monoclonal antibody therapy. IMU-201 (PD1-Vaxx) is being developed using an active immunization approach to treat cancers that overexpress PD-L1 by inducing the production of anti-PD-1 antibodies with a peptide epitope designed to stimulate polyclonal antibodies against PD-1 (Kaumaya et al. 2020). Methods: The IMPRINTER study is an ongoing open-label dose escalation study of IMU-201 as monotherapy (Phase 1) or in combination with atezolizumab (Phase 1b) for patients with PD-L1 expressing non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). All patients enrolled in Phase 1 of the study must have previously received an immune checkpoint inhibitor and experienced disease progression. The primary objective is to evaluate the safety and tolerability of IMU-201 and identify the optimal biological dose (OBD). The secondary objective is to evaluate the efficacy of IMU-201 as monotherapy and in combination with atezolizumab. Humoral and cellular immunogenicity data will be evaluated, including IMU-201 and PD-1 specific antibodies (IgG, IgM), vaccine-specific cytokine levels, and regulatory and effector T and B cells. IMU-201 is administered by intramuscular (IM) injection on Day 1, Day 15, and Day 29. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) assessment is completed after 29 days on treatment. Tumor progression is evaluated according to RECIST 1.1 at Day 43 then every 42 days until progression or withdrawal. Results: In Phase 1, four patients were enrolled into each of the three cohorts at 10 μg/dose, 50 μg/dose and 100 μg/dose IMU-201 with no DLTs observed. In the 10 μg/dose cohort, one patient achieved CR and one patient SD; in the 50 μg/dose cohort, four patients achieved SD; and in the 100 μg/dose cohort, one patient achieved PR and two patients achieved SD. Within the 100 μg/dose cohort, one patient experienced an immune related pneumonitis after two IMU-201 administrations and discontinued from study treatment. Conclusions: IMU-201 had no observed DLT and demonstrated preliminary signs of efficacy. The study will therefore move into Phase 1b with IMU-201 being assessed in combination with atezolizumab. Clinical trial information: NCT04432207.