Citations

Background: Understanding the accuracy of a woman's perceived breast cancer risk can enhance shared decision-making about breast cancer screening through provider and patient discussion. We aim to report and compare women's perceived lifetime breast cancer risk to calculated lifetime breast cancer risk. Methods: Women presenting to Mayo Clinic in Arizona and Minnesota in July 2016 completed a survey assessing their perceived breast cancer risk. Lifetime Gail risk scores were calculated from questions pertaining to health history and were then compared with perceived breast cancer risk. Results: A total of 550 predominantly white, married, and well-educated (≥college) women completed surveys. Using lifetime Gail risk scores, 5.6% were classified as high risk (>20% lifetime risk), 7.7% were classified as intermediate risk (15%–20%), and 86.6% were classified as average risk (<15%). Of the 27 women who were classified as high risk, 18 (66.7%) underestimated their risk and of the 37 women who were intermediate risk, 12 (32.4%) underestimated risk. Women more likely to underestimate their risk had a reported history of an abnormal mammogram and at least one or more relative with a history of breast cancer. Surveyed women tended to overestimate risk 4.3 (130/30) times as often as they underestimated risk. Conclusion: In a group of predominantly white, educated, and married cohort of women, there was a large portion of women in the elevated risk groups who underestimated risk. Specific aspects of medical history were associated with underestimation including a history of abnormal mammogram and family history of breast cancer. Overall, in our sample, more women overestimated than underestimated risk.

AbstractBackgroundMultiple myeloma (MM) measurable residual disease (MRD) evaluated by flow cytometry is a surrogate for progression‐free and overall survival in clinical trials. However, analysis and reporting between centers lack uniformity. We designed and evaluated a consensus protocol for MM MRD analysis to reduce inter‐laboratory variation in MM MRD reporting.MethodsSeventeen participants from 13 countries performed blinded analysis of the same eight de‐identified flow cytometry files from patients with/without MRD using their own method (Stage 1). A consensus gating protocol was then designed following survey and discussions, and the data re‐analyzed for MRD and other bone marrow cells (Stage 2). Inter‐laboratory variation using the consensus strategy was reassessed for another 10 cases and compared with earlier results (Stage 3).ResultsIn Stage 1, participants agreed on MRD+/MRD− status 89% and 68% of the time respectively. Inter‐observer variation was high for total numbers of analyzed cells, total and normal plasma cells (PCs), limit of detection, lower limit of quantification, and enumeration of cell populations that determine sample adequacy. The identification of abnormal PCs remained relatively consistent. By consensus method, average agreement on MRD− status improved to 74%. Better consistency enumerating all parameters among operators resulted in near‐unanimous agreement on sample adequacy.ConclusionUniform flow cytometry data analysis substantially reduced inter‐laboratory variation in reporting multiple components of the MM MRD assay. Adoption of a harmonized approach would meet an important need for conformity in reporting MM MRD for clinical trials, and wider acceptance of MM MRD as a surrogate clinical endpoint.

Abstract Purpose To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for patients with brain metastases from solid tumors. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. Results Thirty-two randomized trials published in 2008 or later met eligibility criteria and form the primary evidentiary base. Recommendations Surgery is a reasonable option for patients with brain metastases. Patients with large tumors with mass effect are more likely to benefit than those with multiple brain metastases and/or uncontrolled systemic disease. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases should receive local therapy regardless of the systemic therapy used. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, local therapy should not be deferred unless deferral is specifically recommended in this guideline. The decision to defer local therapy should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion of the potential benefits and harms that the patient may experience. Several regimens were recommended for non–small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases and no systemic therapy options, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone should be offered to patients with one to four unresected brain metastases, excluding small-cell lung carcinoma. SRS alone to the surgical cavity should be offered to patients with one to two resected brain metastases. SRS, whole brain radiation therapy, or their combination are reasonable options for other patients. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be offered to patients who receive whole brain radiation therapy and have no hippocampal lesions and 4 months or more expected survival. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status ≤ 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status &lt; 70 with no systemic therapy options do not derive benefit from radiation therapy. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines.

PURPOSE To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for patients with brain metastases from solid tumors. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS Thirty-two randomized trials published in 2008 or later met eligibility criteria and form the primary evidentiary base. RECOMMENDATIONS Surgery is a reasonable option for patients with brain metastases. Patients with large tumors with mass effect are more likely to benefit than those with multiple brain metastases and/or uncontrolled systemic disease. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases should receive local therapy regardless of the systemic therapy used. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, local therapy should not be deferred unless deferral is specifically recommended in this guideline. The decision to defer local therapy should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion of the potential benefits and harms that the patient may experience. Several regimens were recommended for non–small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases and no systemic therapy options, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone should be offered to patients with one to four unresected brain metastases, excluding small-cell lung carcinoma. SRS alone to the surgical cavity should be offered to patients with one to two resected brain metastases. SRS, whole brain radiation therapy, or their combination are reasonable options for other patients. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be offered to patients who receive whole brain radiation therapy and have no hippocampal lesions and 4 months or more expected survival. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status ≤ 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status < 70 with no systemic therapy options do not derive benefit from radiation therapy. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines .

Two cases of severe neurologic symptoms after a Blalock-Taussig anastomosis are presented in detail. The histories of 116 patients with cyanotic congenital heart disease who had such an anastomotic operation at the Mayo Clinic were reviewed. There was a low incidence (less than 1%) of postoperative neurologic complications in patients without evidence of focal dysfunction of the central nervous system prior to operation. The review suggested an increased incidence of complications in those patients with a cerebrovascular abnormality before surgery. It is likely that these complications are related to alterations in the vertebrobasilar arterial system associated with this procedure.

Abstract Background P. aeruginosa is a Gram-negative pathogen responsible for many serious infections. MDR, both intrinsic and acquired, presents major clinical challenges. Taniborbactam (formerly VNRX-5133; Fig 1) is a β-lactamase inhibitor (BLI) characterized as a bicyclic boronate, uniquely possessing activity toward all four Ambler classes of β-lactamases, both serine and metallo, with the exception of class B IMP β-lactamases. The β-lactam-BLI (BL-BLI) combination cefepime-taniborbactam (FTB; Fig 1) is currently in phase 3 clinical trials. Structures of taniborbactam and cefepime. The β-lactamase inhibitor is in red and the β-lactam antibiotic is in black. Methods The activity of FTB was tested against 197 well-characterized clinical P. aeruginosa isolates that were part of PRIMERS (Platforms for Rapid Identification of MDR-Gram-negative bacteria and Evaluation of Resistance Studies). Nearly 58% of these strains were reported as carbapenem-non-susceptible. Porin changes, efflux pumps, and/or the presence of acquired class A or class B carbapenemases were previously reported. Broth microdilution minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) were determined by CLSI M07 Ed. 11 methods with custom Sensititre frozen panels and interpreted using CLSI M100 Ed. 30 breakpoints. American Type Culture Collection strains were used for quality control. FEP breakpoints were provisionally used for FTB, where taniborbactam was fixed at 4 µg/mL. Results Percent susceptibility to BL agents alone was 45.2% for imipenem (IPM), 55.8% for meropenem (MEM), 60.9% for ceftazidime (CAZ), and 67.0% for FEP. The addition of BLI to BL increased % susceptibility for MEM-vaborbactam (MVB), 56.9%; ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T), 77.7%, CAZ-avibactam (CZA), 79.7%, and FTB, 82.7%. MIC50s were in the susceptible range for all drugs except IPM, which was intermediate, and all MIC90s were in the resistant range (Table 1). Taniborbactam reduced FEP MIC by 2-fold in 32% of isolates and ≥ 4-fold in 13% of isolates. Against carbapenem-non-susceptible strains, % susceptibilities were: FTB, 68.5%, CZA, 63.0%, C/T, 59.3%; and MVB, 21.3% (Table 2). MIC50 and MIC90 values (µg/mL) and percent susceptibility (%S) for all P. aeruginosa strains (n=197). AMK, amikacin; ATM, aztreonam; C/T, ceftolozane-tazobactam; CAZ, ceftazidime; CZA, ceftazidime-avibactam; FEP, cefepime; FTB, cefepime-taniborbactam; IPM, imipenem; MEM, meropenem; MVB, meropenem-vaborbactam; TZP, piperacillin-tazobactam; TOB, tobramycin. *The breakpoints for FEP and MEM alone were provisionally applied to FTB and MVB, respectively. Tazobactam, avibactam, and taniborbactam were fixed at 4 µg/mL, while vaborbactam was fixed at 8 µg/mL. Breakpoints from CLSI M100, 31st ed, 2021. MIC50 and MIC90 values (µg/mL) and percent susceptibility (%S) for the subset of carbapenem-non-susceptible P. aeruginosa strains (n=108). AMK, amikacin; ATM, aztreonam; C/T, ceftolozane-tazobactam; CAZ, ceftazidime; CZA, ceftazidime-avibactam; FEP, cefepime; FTB, cefepime-taniborbactam; IPM, imipenem; MEM, meropenem; MVB, meropenem-vaborbactam; TZP, piperacillin-tazobactam; TOB, tobramycin. *The breakpoints for FEP and MEM alone were provisionally applied to FTB and MVB, respectively. Tazobactam, avibactam, and taniborbactam were fixed at 4 µg/mL, while vaborbactam was fixed at 8 µg/mL. Breakpoints from CLSI M100, 31st ed, 2021. Conclusion Compared to MVB, CZA, and C/T, FTB demonstrated the greatest activity against the 197 P. aeruginosa strains tested, including many carbapenem-non-susceptible strains. Pending completion of clinical development, FTB may be a promising therapeutic option for MDR P. aeruginosa infections. Disclosures Robin Patel, MD, 1928 Diagnostics (Consultant)BioFire Diagnostics (Grant/Research Support)ContraFect Corporation (Grant/Research Support)Curetis (Consultant)Hylomorph AG (Grant/Research Support)IDSA (Other Financial or Material Support, Editor’s Stipend)Infectious Diseases Board Review Course (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria)Mammoth Biosciences (Consultant)NBME (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria)Netflix (Consultant)Next Gen Diagnostics (Consultant)PathoQuest (Consultant)PhAST (Consultant)Qvella (Consultant)Samsung (Other Financial or Material Support, Patent Royalties)Selux Diagnostics (Consultant)Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Grant/Research Support)Specific Technologies (Consultant)TenNor Therapeutics Limited (Grant/Research Support)Torus Biosystems (Consultant)Up-to-Date (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria) Robin Patel, MD, BioFire (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; Contrafect (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; IDSA (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Editor’s stipend; NBME, Up-to-Date and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Honoraria; Netflix (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; TenNor Therapeutics Limited (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; to Curetis, Specific Technologies, Next Gen Diagnostics, PathoQuest, Selux Diagnostics, 1928 Diagnostics, PhAST, Torus Biosystems, Mammoth Biosciences and Qvella (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant David van Duin, MD, PhD, Entasis (Advisor or Review Panel member)genentech (Advisor or Review Panel member)Karius (Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Pfizer (Consultant, Advisor or Review Panel member)Qpex (Advisor or Review Panel member)Shionogi (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Utility (Advisor or Review Panel member) Vance G. Fowler, Jr., MD, MHS, Achaogen (Consultant)Advanced Liquid Logics (Grant/Research Support)Affinergy (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Affinium (Consultant)Akagera (Consultant)Allergan (Grant/Research Support)Amphliphi Biosciences (Consultant)Aridis (Consultant)Armata (Consultant)Basilea (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Bayer (Consultant)C3J (Consultant)Cerexa (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Contrafect (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Debiopharm (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Destiny (Consultant)Durata (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, educational fees)Genentech (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Green Cross (Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Integrated Biotherapeutics (Consultant)Janssen (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Karius (Grant/Research Support)Locus (Grant/Research Support)Medical Biosurfaces (Grant/Research Support)Medicines Co. (Consultant)MedImmune (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support)NIH (Grant/Research Support)Novadigm (Consultant)Novartis (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support)Regeneron (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)sepsis diagnostics (Other Financial or Material Support, Pending patent for host gene expression signature diagnostic for sepsis.)Tetraphase (Consultant)Theravance (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Trius (Consultant)UpToDate (Other Financial or Material Support, Royalties)Valanbio (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Stock options)xBiotech (Consultant) Daniel D. Rhoads, MD, Becton, Dickinson and Company (Grant/Research Support) Michael Jacobs, MBBS, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Grant/Research Support) Focco van den Akker, PhD, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Grant/Research Support) David A. Six, PhD, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee) Greg Moeck, PhD, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee) Krisztina M. Papp-Wallace, Ph.D., Merck & Co., Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Spero Therapeutics, Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Wockhardt Ltd. (Other Financial or Material Support, Research Collaborator) Robert A. Bonomo, MD, entasis (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support)NIH (Grant/Research Support)VA Merit Award (Grant/Research Support)VenatoRx (Grant/Research Support)

Abstract Background Carbapenem resistance in Klebsiellae spp. arises through mutational and acquired mechanisms and is considered an “urgent threat” by the CDC. VNRX-5236 is a bicyclic boronate β-lactamase inhibitor (BLI) that combines oral bioavailability (via etzadroxil prodrug VNRX-7145; Figure 1) and activity against all three Ambler classes of serine β-lactamases. VNRX-7145 is currently in development with the oral cephalosporin, ceftibuten (CTB) (Figure 1). Figure 1. Structures of VNRX-7145, VNRX-5236, and ceftibuten. The β-lactamase inhibitors are in red and the β-lactam antibiotic is in black. Methods The activity of CTB/VNRX-5236 against 200 carbapenem-resistant Klebsiellae from the Consortium on Resistance against Carbapenems in Klebsiella (CRACKLE) was assessed in this study. Among these, 193 expressed class A KPC enzymes, one expressed a class B NDM enzyme, and six expressed a class D OXA-48 or variant enzyme. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were determined by broth microdilution (CLSI M07 Ed. 11) using the ThermoFisher Sensititre system with custom assay panels. MICs were interpreted using CLSI M100 Ed. 30, except the EUCAST breakpoint for CTB (S≤1 µg/mL) was used for CTB and was applied for comparative purposes to CTB/VNRX-5236 MICs where VNRX-5236 was fixed at 4 µg/mL. American Type Culture Collection strains were used for quality control. Results 92.5% of stains studied in this CRACKLE collection were provisionally susceptible to CTB/VNRX-5236. In comparison, strains were 95.5% and 98% susceptible to meropenem-vaborbactam (MVB) and ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA), respectively. MIC50s were in the susceptible range for CZA, MVB, and CTB/VNRX-5236; and resistant for CTB, ceftazidime (CAZ) and meropenem (MEM). MIC90s were in the susceptible range for CZA, MVB, and CTB/VNRX-5236 and resistant range for CAZ, MEM, and CTB (Table 1). One of four CZA-resistant and three of nine MVB non-susceptible strains were provisionally susceptible to CTB/VNRX-5236. MIC50 and MIC90 values (µg/mL) and percent susceptibility for Klebsiella pneumoniae strains (n=200). AMK, amikacin; CST, colistin; CAZ, ceftazidime; CZA, ceftazidime-avibactam; FEP, cefepime; MEM, meropenem; MVB, meropenem-vaborbactam; CTB, ceftibuten; TGC, tigecycline. * The breakpoint for CST is intermediate, as no susceptible breakpoint is available. ** The CTB breakpoint is valid only for urinary tract isolates. *** The breakpoint for CTB was provisionally used for CTB/VNRX-5236, where VNRX-5236 was fixed at 4 µg/mL. Conclusion The addition of VNRX-5236 enhanced the activity of CTB against the 200 Klebsiella isolates tested, reaching a total of 92.5% susceptibility. The prodrug (VNRX-7145) allows for oral administration, making it a potential option for step-down therapy. Importantly, VNRX-5236 has a broader spectrum of activity than existing oral BLIs, opening new treatment options for resistant infections as a key addition to the existing antibiotic arsenal. Disclosures Robin Patel, MD, 1928 Diagnostics (Consultant)BioFire Diagnostics (Grant/Research Support)ContraFect Corporation (Grant/Research Support)Curetis (Consultant)Hylomorph AG (Grant/Research Support)IDSA (Other Financial or Material Support, Editor’s Stipend)Infectious Diseases Board Review Course (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria)Mammoth Biosciences (Consultant)NBME (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria)Netflix (Consultant)Next Gen Diagnostics (Consultant)PathoQuest (Consultant)PhAST (Consultant)Qvella (Consultant)Samsung (Other Financial or Material Support, Patent Royalties)Selux Diagnostics (Consultant)Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Grant/Research Support)Specific Technologies (Consultant)TenNor Therapeutics Limited (Grant/Research Support)Torus Biosystems (Consultant)Up-to-Date (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria) Robin Patel, MD, BioFire (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; Contrafect (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; IDSA (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Editor’s stipend; NBME, Up-to-Date and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Honoraria; Netflix (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; TenNor Therapeutics Limited (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; to Curetis, Specific Technologies, Next Gen Diagnostics, PathoQuest, Selux Diagnostics, 1928 Diagnostics, PhAST, Torus Biosystems, Mammoth Biosciences and Qvella (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant David van Duin, MD, PhD, Entasis (Advisor or Review Panel member)genentech (Advisor or Review Panel member)Karius (Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Pfizer (Consultant, Advisor or Review Panel member)Qpex (Advisor or Review Panel member)Shionogi (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Utility (Advisor or Review Panel member) Vance G. Fowler, Jr., MD, MHS, Achaogen (Consultant)Advanced Liquid Logics (Grant/Research Support)Affinergy (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Affinium (Consultant)Akagera (Consultant)Allergan (Grant/Research Support)Amphliphi Biosciences (Consultant)Aridis (Consultant)Armata (Consultant)Basilea (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Bayer (Consultant)C3J (Consultant)Cerexa (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Contrafect (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Debiopharm (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Destiny (Consultant)Durata (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, educational fees)Genentech (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Green Cross (Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Integrated Biotherapeutics (Consultant)Janssen (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Karius (Grant/Research Support)Locus (Grant/Research Support)Medical Biosurfaces (Grant/Research Support)Medicines Co. (Consultant)MedImmune (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support)NIH (Grant/Research Support)Novadigm (Consultant)Novartis (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support)Regeneron (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)sepsis diagnostics (Other Financial or Material Support, Pending patent for host gene expression signature diagnostic for sepsis.)Tetraphase (Consultant)Theravance (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Trius (Consultant)UpToDate (Other Financial or Material Support, Royalties)Valanbio (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Stock options)xBiotech (Consultant) Daniel D. Rhoads, MD, Becton, Dickinson and Company (Grant/Research Support) Michael Jacobs, MBBS, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Grant/Research Support) Focco van den Akker, PhD, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Grant/Research Support) David A. Six, PhD, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee) Greg Moeck, PhD, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee) Krisztina M. Papp-Wallace, Ph.D., Merck & Co., Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Spero Therapeutics, Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Wockhardt Ltd. (Other Financial or Material Support, Research Collaborator) Robert A. Bonomo, MD, entasis (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support)NIH (Grant/Research Support)VA Merit Award (Grant/Research Support)VenatoRx (Grant/Research Support)

Abstract Background Klebsiellae are Gram-negative pathogens responsible for serious nosocomial and community-acquired infections. Carbapenem resistance, both intrinsic and acquired, complicates therapy. Taniborbactam (formerly VNRX-5133; Fig 1) is a bicyclic boronate β-lactamase inhibitor (BLI) that inhibits all four Ambler classes of β-lactamase enzymes, both serine- and metallo-, with the notable exception of class B IMP β-lactamases. Taniborbactam is currently undergoing phase 3 clinical trials in combination with cefepime (FEP; Fig 1) as part of the β-lactam-BLI (BL-BLI) combination FEP-taniborbactam (FTB). Figure 1. Structures of taniborbactam and cefepime. The β-lactamase inhibitor is in red and the β-lactam antibiotic is in black. Methods We determined the activity of FTB against 200 carbapenem-resistant Klebsiellae (CRK) strains collected as part of the Antibiotic Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) Consortium on Resistance against Carbapenems in Klebsiella (CRACKLE) study. Among these strains, 193 expressed class A KPCs, one expressed a class B NDM, and six expressed class D OXA-48 or variants. Broth microdilution minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC)s were determined using the ThermoFisher Sensititre system with custom assay panels. American Type Culture Collection strains were used for quality control. The susceptible-dose-dependent breakpoint for FEP was provisionally used for FTB, where taniborbactam was fixed at 4 µg/mL. Results Among the 200 Klebsiella strains tested, susceptibility for β-lactams alone ranged from 1% for ceftazidime (CAZ), 2.5% for meropenem, and 13.5% for FEP (Table 1). The addition of BLIs increased % susceptibility compared to BL alone to: 98% for CAZ-avibactam (CZA); 95.5% for MEM-vaborbactam (MVB); and 99.0% for FTB. MIC50 and MIC90 were in the susceptible and provisionally susceptible range for CZA and MVB, and in the provisionally susceptible range for FTB. Analyzing the CZA and MVB non-susceptible strains, 7 of 9 MVB non-susceptible strains and 2 of 4 CZA-resistant strains were provisionally susceptible to FTB. Table 1. MIC50 and MIC90 values (μg/mL) and percent susceptibility for Klebsiella pneumoniae strains (n=200). AMK, amikacin; CST, colistin; CAZ, ceftazidime; CZA, ceftazidime-avibactam; FEP, cefepime; FTB, cefepime-taniborbactam; MEM, meropenem; MVB, meropenem-vaborbactam; TGC, tigecycline. * The breakpoint for CST is intermediate, as no susceptible breakpoint is available. ** The susceptible-dose-dependent breakpoint for FEP alone was provisionally applied to FTB, where taniborbactam was fixed at 4 μg/mL. Breakpoints from CLSI M100, 31st ed, 2021. Conclusion The addition of taniborbactam restored susceptibility to FEP in 99.0% of CRACKLE isolates studied, comparable to CZA and MVB. Taniborbactam also restored FEP activity against some MVB- and CZA-resistant strains. FTB may provide a promising therapy for CRK infections. Disclosures Robin Patel, MD, 1928 Diagnostics (Consultant)BioFire Diagnostics (Grant/Research Support)ContraFect Corporation (Grant/Research Support)Curetis (Consultant)Hylomorph AG (Grant/Research Support)IDSA (Other Financial or Material Support, Editor’s Stipend)Infectious Diseases Board Review Course (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria)Mammoth Biosciences (Consultant)NBME (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria)Netflix (Consultant)Next Gen Diagnostics (Consultant)PathoQuest (Consultant)PhAST (Consultant)Qvella (Consultant)Samsung (Other Financial or Material Support, Patent Royalties)Selux Diagnostics (Consultant)Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Grant/Research Support)Specific Technologies (Consultant)TenNor Therapeutics Limited (Grant/Research Support)Torus Biosystems (Consultant)Up-to-Date (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria) Robin Patel, MD, BioFire (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; Contrafect (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; IDSA (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Editor’s stipend; NBME, Up-to-Date and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Honoraria; Netflix (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; TenNor Therapeutics Limited (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; to Curetis, Specific Technologies, Next Gen Diagnostics, PathoQuest, Selux Diagnostics, 1928 Diagnostics, PhAST, Torus Biosystems, Mammoth Biosciences and Qvella (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant David van Duin, MD, PhD, Entasis (Advisor or Review Panel member)genentech (Advisor or Review Panel member)Karius (Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Pfizer (Consultant, Advisor or Review Panel member)Qpex (Advisor or Review Panel member)Shionogi (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Utility (Advisor or Review Panel member) Vance G. Fowler, Jr., MD, MHS, Achaogen (Consultant)Advanced Liquid Logics (Grant/Research Support)Affinergy (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Affinium (Consultant)Akagera (Consultant)Allergan (Grant/Research Support)Amphliphi Biosciences (Consultant)Aridis (Consultant)Armata (Consultant)Basilea (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Bayer (Consultant)C3J (Consultant)Cerexa (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Contrafect (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Debiopharm (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Destiny (Consultant)Durata (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, educational fees)Genentech (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Green Cross (Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Integrated Biotherapeutics (Consultant)Janssen (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Karius (Grant/Research Support)Locus (Grant/Research Support)Medical Biosurfaces (Grant/Research Support)Medicines Co. (Consultant)MedImmune (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support)NIH (Grant/Research Support)Novadigm (Consultant)Novartis (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support)Regeneron (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)sepsis diagnostics (Other Financial or Material Support, Pending patent for host gene expression signature diagnostic for sepsis.)Tetraphase (Consultant)Theravance (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Trius (Consultant)UpToDate (Other Financial or Material Support, Royalties)Valanbio (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Stock options)xBiotech (Consultant) Daniel D. Rhoads, MD, Becton, Dickinson and Company (Grant/Research Support) Michael Jacobs, MBBS, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Grant/Research Support) Focco van den Akker, PhD, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Grant/Research Support) David A. Six, PhD, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee) Greg Moeck, PhD, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee) Krisztina M. Papp-Wallace, Ph.D., Merck & Co., Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Spero Therapeutics, Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Wockhardt Ltd. (Other Financial or Material Support, Research Collaborator) Robert A. Bonomo, MD, entasis (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support)NIH (Grant/Research Support)VA Merit Award (Grant/Research Support)VenatoRx (Grant/Research Support)

ObjectiveThe relative risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 disease severity among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) compared to those without RMDs is unclear. This study was undertaken to quantify the risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in those with RMDs and describe clinical outcomes of COVID‐19 in these patients.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review using 14 databases from January 1, 2019 to February 13, 2021. We included observational studies and experimental trials in RMD patients that described comparative rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization, oxygen supplementation/intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mechanical ventilation, or death attributed to COVID‐19. Methodologic quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools or the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. Risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated, as applicable for each outcome, using the Mantel‐Haenszel formula with random effects models.ResultsOf the 5,799 abstracts screened, 100 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, and 54 of 100 had a low risk of bias. Among the studies included in the meta‐analyses, we identified an increased prevalence of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in patients with an RMD (RR 1.53 [95% CI 1.16–2.01]) compared to the general population. The odds of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were similar in patients with and those without an RMD, whereas the mortality rate was increased in patients with RMDs (OR 1.74 [95% CI 1.08–2.80]). In a smaller number of studies, the adjusted risk of outcomes related to COVID‐19 was assessed, and the results varied; some studies demonstrated an increased risk while other studies showed no difference in risk in patients with an RMD compared to those without an RMD.ConclusionPatients with RMDs have higher rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and an increased mortality rate.

Abstract Background and study aims En bloc endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is preferred over piecemeal resection for polyps ≤ 20 mm. Data on colorectal EMR training are limited. We aimed to evaluate the en bloc EMR rate of polyps ≤ 20 mm among advanced endoscopy trainees and to identify predictors of failed en bloc EMR. Methods This was a multicenter prospective study evaluating trainee performance in EMR during advanced endoscopy fellowship. A logistic regression model was used to identify the number of procedures and lesion cut-off size associated with an en bloc EMR rate of ≥ 80 %. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of failed en bloc EMR. Results Six trainees from six centers performed 189 colorectal EMRs, of which 104 (55 %) were for polyps ≤ 20 mm. Of these, 57.7 % (60/104) were resected en bloc. Trainees with ≥ 30 EMRs (OR 6.80; 95 % CI: 2.80–16.50; P = 0.00001) and lesions ≤ 17 mm (OR 4.56;95 CI:1.23–16.88; P = 0.02) were more likely to be associated with an en bloc EMR rate of ≥ 80 %. Independent predictors of failed en bloc EMR on multivariate analysis included: larger polyp size (OR:6.83;95 % CI:2.55–18.4; P = 0.0001), right colon location (OR:7.15; 95 % CI:1.31–38.9; P = 0.02), increased procedural difficulty (OR 2.99; 95 % CI:1.13–7.91; P = 0.03), and having performed < 30 EMRs (OR: 4.87; 95 %CI: 1.05–22.61; P = 0.04). Conclusions In this pilot study, we demonstrated that a relatively low proportion of trainees achieved en bloc EMR for polyps ≤ 20 mm and identified procedure volume and lesion size thresholds for successful en bloc EMR and independent predictors for failed en bloc resection. These preliminary results support the need for future efforts to define EMR procedure competence thresholds during training.