Citations

Abstract Purpose The high-value pharmacy enterprise (HVPE) framework and constituent best practice consensus statements are presented, and the methods used to develop the framework’s 8 domains are described. Summary A panel of pharmacy leaders used an evidence- and expert opinion–based approach to define core and aspirational elements of practice that should be established within contemporary health-system pharmacy enterprises by calendar year 2025. Eight domains of an HVPE were identified: Patient Care Services; Business Services; Ambulatory and Specialty Pharmacy Services; Inpatient Operations; Safety and Quality; Pharmacy Workforce; Information Technology, Data, and Information Management; and Leadership. Phase 1 of the project consisted of the development of draft practice statements, performance elements, and supporting evidence for each domain by panelists, followed by a phase 2 in-person meeting for review and development of consensus for statements and performance elements in each domain. During phase 3, the project cochairs and panelists finalized the domain drafts and incorporated them into a full technical report and this summary report. Conclusion The HVPE framework is a strategic roadmap to advance pharmacy practice by ensuring safe, effective, and patient-centered medication management and business practices throughout the health-system pharmacy enterprise. Grounded in evidence and expert recommendations, the statements and associated performance elements can be used to identify strategic priorities to improve patient outcomes and add value within health systems.

Background: ENA is an oral, selective inhibitor of IDH2 approved for the treatment (Tx) of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory IDH2 mutated (IDH2m) AML. Here we report the results of a Phase 2 expansion and Phase 1b of the Beat AML Master Trial Phase 2/1b sub-study to assess the efficacy of Tx of newly diagnosed (ND) IDH2m AML pts ≥ 60 years of age with ENA monotherapy (ENAm) and subsequent response-driven addition of AZA Tx. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03013998). Methods: The study initiated with a 3-outcome, 2-stage Phase 2 design, which enrolled patients on ENAm for up to 5 cycles. Pts without CR/CRi after 5 cycles of ENAm, or progression/intolerance prior to this time, were transferred to Phase 1b to receive ENA + AZA (Figure 1). Key eligibility included ND IDH2m AML pts with age ≥ 60 years and ECOG performance status 0-2. Pts received ENAm 100 mg/day in continuous 28-day cycles and ENA + AZA (75 mg/m2 days 1-7 every 28 days) for Phase 1b. Response was assessed using 2017 ELN AML criteria. The primary endpoint was CR/CRi rate. The 2-stage design required 24 pts and tested the null hypothesis (H0) that CR/CRi rate equaled 20% vs 50% and then expanded to test a revised H0 of 30% vs 50% in 60 pts (conditional alpha=0.025, power=77%). Expansion also allowed further assessment of safety of this treatment regimen. Results: At data cut off (06/18/2020), 60 pts enrolled, received ENAm, and were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Median age was 75 years and 52% were female (Table 1). Median time on ENAm was 4.7 months (mos). At data cut off, 12 pts were still on ENAm Tx. Most common reasons for discontinuing ENAm were Tx failure (defined as no response to treatment) (23 or 38%), disease progression (loss of response to treatment) (7 or 12%) and adverse events (AEs; 6 or 10%). Five pts (8%) went to transplant. CR/CRi was achieved in 28 pts (47%; adjusted 95% CI 28-59, unadjusted exact 95% CI 34-60) (Table 2). Responses were higher (p=0.04) among the 44 pts with IDH2 R140 (55%) as compared to the 16 with IDH2 R172 mutation (25%) further supporting distinct biology between these subsets. After a median follow up of 14.6 mos, the median overall survival (mOS) was 24.4 mos (95% CI 10.6-not reached). The median duration of response was not reached with 12 mos estimation of 57% (95% CI 34-75). Overall, 20 ENA-related serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 15 pts, the most common was differentiation syndrome (12 or 20%) and 1 had ENA-related SAE of tumor lysis syndrome (1.7%). One pt had ENA-related Grade 5 AE (renal failure/death). Most common AEs of any grade (in ≥20%) were nausea, anemia, and low potassium (Table 3). The 7-day/30-day/60-day deaths observed with ENAm were 2%/5%/11%, respectively. Phase 1b: Seventeen pts had inadequate response to ENAm and transferred to Phase 1b to receive ENA + AZA. Median time on Tx (including ENAm) was 6.2 mos and median time on Tx after pts started ENA + AZA was 2.1 mos (Table 2). Most common reasons for discontinuing ENA + AZA included Tx failure (5 or 29%), disease progression (2 or 12%), transplant, death and AEs (each 2 or 12%). CR/CRi was 41% (exact 95% CI 18-67). After a median follow up of 12.7 mos, the mOS from start of ENA + AZA combination Tx was 8.9 mos. Four ENA-related SAEs occurred in 3 pts on ENA + AZA Tx and the most common was differentiation syndrome (2 or 12.5%). One dose-limiting toxicity (Grade 3 nausea) related to both Txs was observed. Most common AEs (≥20%) of any grade were anemia, low albumin and vomiting (Table 3). One death occurred at day 13 of ENA + AZA. Conclusions: In newly diagnosed pts ≥60 years old with IDH2m AML, ENA had a low early death rate, high CR/CRi rate (47%, adjusted 95% CI 28-59), and yielded durable remissions. The most common unique toxicity with ENA was differentiation syndrome that occurred in 20% of patients. In pts who did not achieve CR/CRi with ENAm, a subset of patients achieved CR/CRi with addition of AZA. This combined approach of serial therapy with ENA monotherapy followed by AZA addition in pts with sub-optimal response resulted in a mOS exceeding 2 years for pts enrolled on study. Further focus on improving response among patients with IDH2 R172 mutations, identifying subsets of pts not responding to ENA monotherapy, and integrating new targeted agents into this treatment regimen are warranted. Figure 1 Disclosures Stein: Syndax: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; Biotheryx: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy. Borate:Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Investigator in AbbVie-funded clinical trials; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Baer:Takeda: Other: Institutional research funding; AbbVie: Other: Institutional research funding; Astellas: Other: Institutional research funding; Forma: Other: Institutional research funding; Kite: Other: Institutional research funding; Oscotec: Other: Institutional research funding; Incyte: Other: Institutional research funding. Kovacsovics:Agios: Honoraria; Astella: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria. Schiller:Astellas Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Stemline: Speakers Bureau; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Deciphera: Research Funding; DeltaFly: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; FujiFilm: Research Funding; Gamida: Research Funding; Genentech-Roche: Research Funding; Geron: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Mateon: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; Regimmune: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Trovagene: Research Funding; Kaiser Permanente: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ono Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Olin:Astellas: Other: Site PI; Genentech: Other: Site PI; Pfizer: Other: Site PI; Daiichi Sankyo: Other: Site PI; Genentech: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Foran:Trillium: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lin:Trovagene: Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Prescient Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bio-Path Holdings: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Aptevo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Mateon Therapeutics: Research Funding; Ono Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Jazz: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Genetech-Roche: Research Funding; Celyad: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Patel:DAVA Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy; France Foundation: Honoraria. Foster:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Druker:Leukemia & Lymphoma Society: Research Funding; Henry Stewart Talks: Patents & Royalties; Iterion Therapeutics (formerly Beta Cat Pharmaceuticals): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vivid Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GRAIL: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Patient True Talks: Consultancy; The RUNX1 Research Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Third Coast Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; VB Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millipore (formerly Upstate Biotechnology): Patents & Royalties; MolecularMD (acquired by ICON): Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; McGraw Hill: Patents & Royalties; Merck & Co: Patents & Royalties; Cepheid: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute: Patents & Royalties; EnLiven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Therapeutics Inc. (formerly Lorus): Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ARIAD: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ALLCRON: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Aileron Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oregon Health & Science University: Patents & Royalties. Byrd:Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding; Vincera: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Janssen, Novartis, Gilead, TG Therapeutics: Other; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Gilead, TG Therapeutics, Novartis, Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Gilead, TG Therapeutics, BeiGene: Research Funding. Levine:Loxo: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imago: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Qiagen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Isoplexis: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria. Mims:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other: Senior Medical Director for Beat AML Study; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Syndax Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Enasidenib is not approved for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML.

Introduction: Novel approaches to treating patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) have improved outcomes but some pts do not respond or, despite initial response, develop progressive disease and have limited treatment options. Camidanlumab tesirine (ADCT-301; Cami) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of a human IgG1 anti-CD25 monoclonal antibody stochastically conjugated to a potent pyrrolobenzodiazepine (PBD) dimer warhead, which triggers cell death via formation of highly cytotoxic interstrand cross-links. Data from a Phase (Ph) 1 dose-escalation, dose-expansion trial demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) in pts with cHL of 86.5% (48.6% complete response [CR] rate) at the 45 μg/kg dose. Cami had a generally acceptable safety profile at Ph 1 but there were 5/77 cases (6.5%) of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS)/polyradiculopathy (Preferred Terms: 4 GBS and 1 radiculopathy) (Collins et al, ICML June 18-22, 2019, Lugano, Switzerland, Abstract 055). Here, we present preliminary efficacy and safety results of a Ph 2 trial of single-agent Cami in pts with R/R cHL (NCT04052997). Methods: A single-arm, multi-center, open-label, Ph 2 trial is currently enrolling pts ≥16 yrs (US) and ≥18 yrs (outside US) with R/R cHL following ≥3 prior treatment lines (or ≥2 lines in pts ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation). Eligible pts had prior treatment with brentuximab vedotin and PD-1 blockade, measurable disease per 2014 Lugano Classification, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. The primary objective is to evaluate efficacy of single-agent Cami by ORR as determined by central review. Secondary objectives include further characterization of additional efficacy endpoints and safety. Pts receive 30-min IV infusions of Cami on Day 1 of each 3-week cycle at a dose of 45 μg/kg for 2 cycles, followed by 30 μg/kg for subsequent cycles for up to 1 yr or until discontinuation due to disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other reasons. Pts deriving clinical benefit at 1 yr may be able to continue treatment on a case-by-case basis. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were defined as AEs occurring/worsening from time of first dose to either 30 days post last dose or to start of new anticancer therapy/procedure, whichever occurs first. This analysis was conducted after meeting a protocol-specified criterion for pausing enrollment (≥2 cases of GBS or other relevant severe neurologic toxicity). Results: As of June 15, 2020, 47 pts with R/R cHL were enrolled and are included in this analysis. Median age was 36 (range 23-74) yrs and pts had received a median of 7 (range 3-20) lines of prior therapy, including transplant (Table 1). Pts received a median of 5 (range 2-10; mean 4.9 [SD 1.86]) cycles of Cami. ORR was 80.9% (38/47 pts), with 18 (38.3%) and 20 (42.6%) pts attaining CR and partial response, respectively; 6 pts (12.8%) had stable disease (Figure 1). TEAEs were experienced by all 47 pts; the most common (≥20% of pts) were fatigue (22, 46.8%); nausea, pyrexia, and maculopapular rash (18, 38.3% each); anemia and headache (12, 25.5% each); pruritus (11, 23.4%); arthralgia, constipation, diarrhea, hypophosphatemia, and rash (10, 21.3% each). TEAEs thought to be PBD-associated included skin reactions and nail disorders (36, 76.6%), liver function test abnormalities (14, 29.8%), and edema or effusion (7, 14.9%). There were 3 (6.4%) pts with GBS/polyradiculopathy (Preferred Terms: grade 4 subacute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, grade 2 radiculopathy, and grade 2 peripheral motor and sensory neuropathy updated to GBS after data cut-off date). In total, 27 (57.4%) pts had grade ≥3 TEAEs; the most common (≥5% of pts) were hypophosphatemia (6, 12.8%) and gamma-glutamyltransferase increased (3, 6.4%). Overall, 3 (6.4%) pts had TEAEs leading to dose reduction/delay and 6 (12.8%) pts had TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: Current data show that therapy with Cami has encouraging anti-tumor activity in heavily pretreated pts with R/R cHL. Safety was consistent with that reported at Ph 1, with no new safety concerns identified and similar incidence of GBS/polyradiculopathy. Following a positive risk-benefit assessment, the enrollment pause was lifted, and pts continue to be enrolled. Updated efficacy and safety results will be presented at the meeting. Funding: Study funded by ADC Therapeutics SA. Disclosures Herrera: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding. Carlo-Stella:Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen Oncology, AstraZeneca: Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics and Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim and Sanofi: Consultancy; Servier, Novartis, Genenta Science srl, ADC Therapeutics, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Karyopharm, Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Collins:Taekda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celleron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses , Speakers Bureau. Maddocks:Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bartlett:Autolus: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BTG: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding. Savage:BeiGene: Other: Steering Committee; Roche (institutional): Research Funding; Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie: Honoraria; Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Servier: Consultancy. Caimi:ADCT, Kite Therapeutics, Genentech, Amgen, Verastem, TG Therapeutics, Bayer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech, ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Hess:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS, AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Zinzani:ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: 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, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kirin Kyowa: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cruz:ADC Therapeutics SA: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wang:ADC Therapeutics America, inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Feingold:ADC Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wuerthner:ADC Therapeutics SA: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding.

Objective: We aimed to investigate eligibility for breast conserving surgery (BCS) pre- and post-neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST), and trends in the surgical treatment of young breast cancer patients. Background: Young women with breast cancer are more likely to present with larger tumors and aggressive phenotypes, and may benefit from NST. Little is known about how response to NST influences surgical decisions in young women. Methods: The Young Women's Breast Cancer Study, a multicenter prospective cohort of women diagnosed with breast cancer at age ≤40, enrolled 1302 patients from 2006 to 2016. Disease characteristics, surgical recommendations, and reasons for choosing mastectomy among BCS-eligible patients were obtained through the medical record. Trends in use of NST, rate of clinical and pathologic complete response, and surgery were also assessed. Results: Of 1117 women with unilateral stage I-III breast cancer, 315 (28%) received NST. Pre-NST, 26% were BCS eligible, 17% were borderline eligible, and 55% were ineligible. After NST, BCS eligibility increased from 26% to 42% (P < 0.0001). Among BCS-eligible patients after NST (n = 133), 41% chose mastectomy with reasons being patient preference (53%), BRCA or TP53 mutation (35%), and family history (5%). From 2006 to 2016, the rates of NST (P = 0.0012), clinical complete response (P < 0.0001), and bilateral mastectomy (P < 0.0001) increased, but the rate of BCS did not increase (P = 0.34). Conclusion: While the proportion of young women eligible for BCS increased after NST, many patients chose mastectomy, suggesting that surgical decisions are often driven by factors beyond extent of disease and treatment response.

AbstractBackgroundApproximately 5% of the 5.6 million (∼280,000) Americans with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) develop symptoms at age 65 or younger and are classified as having early‐onset AD (EOAD). Although EOAD and late‐onset AD (LOAD) share the same pathologic substrate, there are notable differences in their clinical and biological phenotypes. The Longitudinal Early‐onset AD study (LEADS) is a multi‐site, observational clinical and biomarker study of EOAD. In the present study we utilized the currently available LEADS imaging data to explore the spatial extent and magnitude of neurodegeneration EOADMethod95 amyloid positive patients with EOAD, 37 amyloid negative cognitively impaired patients (EOnonAD) , and 55 cognitively unimpaired controls (CNs) were included in the analysis. The magnitude of cortical thinning in the EOAD and EOnonAD groups was estimated using whole‐brain GLMs compared to the CN group. In addition, w‐scores were derived for each EOAD patient for these ROIs: average cortical thickness, hippocampal volume, AD‐signature cortical thickness (typically used in LOAD), and precuneus cortical thickness controlling for age, sex, and acquisition site. The utility of each ROI to differentiate EOAD patients from CNs was assessed by calculating the percentage of patients falling below a W‐threshold of ‐1.5.ResultIn EOAD, a distributed pattern of cortical thinning was observed in lateral temporal, parietal, and frontal cortex (p<.01), and was most prominent in the precuneus (Cohen’s d’ = 1.5). In the EOnonAD group, cortical thinning was observed but was highly variable across individuals. The w‐score analysis in the EOAD group yielded the following results: Mean Cortical thickness: Mean = ‐3.34, SD = 2.97, Classification = 72%.; Hippocampal volume: Mean = ‐2.96, SD = 2.39, Classification = 74%; AD Signature: Mean = ‐4.63, SD = 3.07, Classification = 80%; Precuneus: Mean = ‐5.98, SD = 4.1, Classification = 90%.ConclusionOur results are consistent with previous findings demonstrating cortical thinning in lateral parietal, precuneus, and lateral temporal lobes in EOAD with relatively less involvement of the medial temporal lobes. Our results also suggest that the precuneus may be especially vulnerable to neurodegeneration in patients with EOAD and may serve as a useful biomarker for patient classification.

AbstractBackgroundWhite matter (WM) hypointensity volume in T1 MRI correlates strongly with T2 hyperintensities and both are typically associated with advancing age and vascular brain injury (VBI). Recent research has suggested that Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) neuropathologic changes (ADNC) also increases WM hypointensity volume. Sporadic early onset AD (EOAD) patients provide a unique model to examine the relationship between ADNC biomarkers and WM hypointensity volume in the absence of advanced age, cardiovascular injury, or autosomal dominant genetic mutations.MethodIncluded in the analysis were sporadic EOAD patients (n = 75) and cognitively normal controls (n = 39) from the Longitudinal Alzheimer’s Disease Study (LEADS) for whom full demographic and health information were available. WM hypointensity volume in T1 MRI was segmented by Freesurfer and corrected for total white matter volume. Multiple‐factor ANOVA models with logarithmic transformations were used to determine the effects of age, cohort, and presence of cardiovascular conditions on WM hypointensity volume. Further multiple‐factor ANOVA models assessed whether the addition of covariates improved the model fit.ResultIn a reproduction of prior research, WM hypointensity volume was correlated with age for controls (p < 0.05), but not for EOAD patients. We additionally found an effect of cohort, such that EOAD patients had a higher mean WM hypointensity volume than controls when accounting for age (p < 0.05). No difference in the presence or number of cardiovascular conditions was found between groups. Additionally, no correlation was found between WM hypointensity volume and the presence or number of cardiovascular conditions. Including cardiovascular condition as a covariate failed to improve the model fit, even when accounting for interaction effects.ConclusionThese results support the hypothesis that patients with ADNC have higher WM hypointensity volume beyond what would be expected based on aging or cardiovascular risk factors. Further research is needed to assess the co‐localization of WM hypointensities with cortical degradation, amyloid pathology, and tau pathology.

AbstractBackgroundPrevious studies have reported that age modifies the distribution and burden of tau (and, to a lesser extent, amyloid) pathology in sporadic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Here we present preliminary baseline amyloid and tau PET results from the Longitudinal Early‐Onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study (LEADS), a multi‐site longitudinal study of sporadic early‐onset AD.Method135 patients meeting clinical criteria for MCI or probable AD and 50 cognitively normal controls (all age<65 at enrollment) were enrolled at 12 US centers between August 2018 and December 2019 (Table 1). 18F‐Florbetaben amyloid‐PET (FBB) was used to assign patients to EOAD (amyloid‐positive) or EOnonAD (amyloid‐negative) subgroups based on visual rating and semi‐quantification. 130 patients and all controls had 18F‐Flortaucipir tau‐PET (FTP). Regional Standardized Uptake Value Ratios (SUVR) for FBB (whole cerebellum reference) and FTP (inferior cerebellar gray reference) were extracted using co‐registered 3T‐MRI.Result98 patients (72.6%) were amyloid PET‐positive (EOAD) and 37 (27.4%) were amyloid PET‐negative (EOnonAD). Compared to EOAD, EOnonAD patients had higher MMSE, MOCA and CDR sum‐of‐boxes (CDR‐SB) and were more frequently male (Table 1). Patients with EOAD showed elevated FBB and FTP SUVR in temporoparietal and frontal cortex compared to CN and EOnonAD (Figures 1‐2). In EOAD, MMSE, MOCA and CDR‐SB were significantly correlated with FTP SUVR (Figure 3), while no significant correlations were found with FBB SUVR. EOnonAD patients showed variable FTP binding ranging from negative to mildly elevated binding in anterior temporal and frontal cortex and underlying white matter. Two EOnonAD cases showed intense FTP binding comparable to typical EOAD cases, despite visually and quantitatively negative FBB scans.ConclusionPatients with clinically mild, sporadic EOAD typically show an extensive distribution and burden of tau pathology in the setting of positive amyloid PET. Global clinical measures correlate with tau but not amyloid PET. Over 25% of patients meeting clinical criteria for early‐onset MCI/probable AD have negative amyloid PET, suggesting alternative etiologies for cognitive decline. These findings will inform future design of drug trials in this important and under‐studied population.

Background: Persistent inflammation and incomplete immune recovery among persons with HIV (PHIV) are associated with increased disease risk. We hypothesized that the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) losartan would reduce inflammation by mitigating nuclear factor (NF)κB responses and promote T-cell recovery via inhibition of transforming growth factor-beta (TGFβ)-mediated fibrosis. Methods: Losartan (100 mg) versus placebo over 12 months was investigated in a randomized (1 : 1) placebo-controlled trial, among PHIV age at least 50 years, receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART), with HIV RNA less than 200 copies/ml and CD4+ cell count 600 cells/μl or less. Inflammation, fibrosis and myocardial biomarkers were measured in blood using ELISA, electrochemiluminescence and immunoturbidimetric methods, and T-cell and monocyte phenotypes were assessed with flow cytometry among a subset of participants. Changes over follow-up in (log-2 transformed) biomarkers and cell phenotypes (untransformed) were compared between losartan and placebo arms using linear mixed models. Results: Among 108 PHIV (n = 52 to losartan; n = 56 to placebo), 97% had a month 12 visit. Median age was 57 years and baseline CD4+ cell count was 408 cells/μl. Losartan treatment was not associated with an improvement in interleukin-6 levels, or other blood measures of inflammation, immune activation, fibrosis activity or myocardial function. CD4+ and CD8+ T cells also did not differ by treatment group. Losartan reduced SBP and DBP by 6 and 5 mmHg, respectively. Conclusion: Among older PHIV with viral suppression, losartan did not improve blood measures of inflammation nor T-cell immune recovery. Losartan treatment is unlikely to reduce inflammation associated comorbidities to a clinically meaningful degree, beyond the benefits from lowering blood pressure. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02049307.

AbstractBackgroundEntrustable professional activities (EPAs) are a new tool for assessing learners that represents a significant movement in graduate medical education (GME) toward competency‐based assessment and serves as a bridge between milestones and clinical practice. Whenever a major change is implemented to any system, resistance to change is expected. Many change management models have been proposed to overcome this resistance; a newer model is outlined in the book Switch. The objective was to describe the change management principles used to institute an EPA.MethodsThe model introduced in Switch was used as a framework for implementing a trauma resuscitation EPA in a joint effort between the departments of surgery and emergency medicine (EM) at the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics. The Department of Emergency Medicine used the principles of change management, completing 295 faculty evaluations of trauma resuscitations compared to the Department of Surgery, whose faculty completed 50 evaluations between the study period of July 2018 through October 2019. A survey completed winter 2019 of EM faculty was used to determine the most important principles toward successful implementation.ResultsTwenty‐seven of 35 (78% response rate) of EM faculty identified key concepts from Switch as being instrumental in the successful implementation. Internal discussion of the implementation approach used by the Department of Surgery identified several limitations that would have been overcome by using these same change management principles.ConclusionWe conclude that the principles of change management provide a useful framework for successfully implementing EPAs into GME.