Citations

Objective To determine the onset of preventive efficacy with eptinezumab in patients with migraine. Background Eptinezumab is a monoclonal antibody inhibiting calcitonin gene‐related peptide approved as an intravenously administered treatment for the prevention of migraine. Methods Patients who received eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, or placebo in PROMISE7‐1 (episodic migraine; 100 mg, n = 221; 300 mg, n = 222; placebo, n = 222) or PROMISE7‐2 (chronic migraine; 100 mg, n = 356; 300 mg, n = 350; placebo, n = 366) were included. Testing of the percentage of patients with a migraine on day 1 after dosing was prespecified and alpha‐controlled. In further exploration of this prespecified endpoint, a post hoc closed testing procedure, which controlled the false‐positive (type 1) error rate, provided a statistically rigorous evaluation of migraine prevention onset. The procedure involved up to 84 tests of significance, all of which were performed in sequence until the first nonsignificant result. Results For both studies, all tests for significance for eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg, from days 1‐84 through day 1 alone, achieved nominal significance ( P < .05), indicating that eptinezumab was fully effective beginning on day 1. Over each interval, the treatment effect was comparable to the effect over weeks 1‐12. Mean changes from baseline in monthly migraine days for the primary endpoint period ranged from −3.9 to −4.9, −4.1 to −4.9, and −2.2 to −3.2 for eptinezumab 100, 300 mg, and placebo, respectively, in PROMISE7‐1 and from −7.2 to −8.0, −7.9 to −8.2, and −4.3 to −5.6, respectively, in PROMISE7‐2. The difference from placebo (95% confidence interval) in day 1 treatment effect was −2.2 (−4.1, −0.3) and −2.5 (−4.4, −0.6) days/month for eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg, respectively, in PROMISE7‐1, and was −3.8 (−5.6, −2.0) and −4.0 (−5.8, −2.1) days/month for 100 and 300 mg, respectively, in PROMISE7‐2. Conclusions The migraine preventive effect of eptinezumab is rapid and sustained in patients with episodic or chronic migraine, with onset of optimal preventive efficacy observed on the day following the initial dose.

Background: Lenalidomide combined with rituximab (R2) has shown complimentary clinical activity and is a tolerable regimen in both untreated and relapsed or refractory (R/R) patients with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Patients with advanced age at diagnosis are considered to be high risk, supporting post-hoc subgroup analyses by age, with a focus on patients aged ≥ 70 years from the MAGNIFY study. Methods: MAGNIFY is a multicenter, phase IIIb trial in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma (FL) grades 1-3b, transformed FL (tFL), marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), or mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; NCT01996865) exploring optimal lenalidomide duration. Lenalidomide 20 mg on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle + rituximab 375 mg/m2/week cycle 1 and then every 8 weeks starting with cycle 3 (R2) are administered for 12 cycles followed by 1:1 randomization in patients with stable disease, partial response, or complete response/complete response unconfirmed (CR/CRu) to R2 vs rituximab maintenance for 18 months. Data presented here focus on induction R2 in efficacy-evaluable FL grade 1-3a and MZL patients (FL grade 3b, tFL, and MCL not included) receiving ≥ 1 treatment with baseline/postbaseline assessments. The primary end point is progression-free survival (PFS) by 1999 International Working Group criteria. Post-hoc analyses were performed by analyzing data from patients aged ≥ 70 years at time of study entry. Results: As of November 30, 2019, 393 patients have enrolled and 152 (39%) were aged ≥ 70 years. Baseline characteristics including histology, disease status, and prior treatments of patients ≥ 70 and the overall population are shown in the table. Median PFS in the ≥ 70 subgroup was 36.0 months (95% CI, 28.3-NR). Overall response rate and CR/CRu were 75% and 38%, with a median duration of response that was not reached (95% CI, 27.1-NR). Efficacy results for the overall population are shown in the table. In patients ≥ 70 the most common (≥ 20%) any-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were fatigue (44%), neutropenia (41%), diarrhea (34%), constipation (34%), and nausea (27%). Neutropenia (35%) was the only grade 3/4 TEAE occurring in &gt; 10% of patients (febrile neutropenia occurred in 3 patients [2%]). TEAEs led to lenalidomide dose reduction in 69 patients (46%) and discontinuation in 40 patients (26%). Seventy-eight patients ≥ 70 (51%) completed all 12 cycles of induction treatment, and 72 (47%) have entered the maintenance phase. Sixty-one patients ≥ 70 (40%), compared to 35% of patients in overall population, prematurely discontinued both lenalidomide and rituximab, due to TEAEs (n = 26; 17%), progressive disease (n = 15; 10%), patient withdrawal (n = 12; 8%), death (n = 5; 3%), and other reasons (n = 3; 2%). Neutropenia was the only TEAE leading to discontinuation of lenalidomide in more than 2 patients (n = 10; 7%). Conclusions: Similar to findings in the overall population, R2 treatment in advanced-age patients with R/R FL and MZL resulted in encouraging efficacy, and with close attention to dose reduction there is a tolerable safety profile. Table Disclosures Lansigan: BMS Steering Committee for MAGNIFY Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Andorsky:AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding. Coleman:Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding; Boston BIoMedical, Inc.: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; ARCUS Biosciences: Research Funding; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP (Acerta Pharma BV Trials): Research Funding; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP: Research Funding; BMS (Celgene Corporation): Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Research Funding; EMD Serono Research and Development Institute Inc.: Research Funding; Genetech (F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd): Research Funding; Hutchinson MediPharma, LTD: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Ipsen Group: Research Funding; Karyopharma Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Klus Pharma, Inc.: Research Funding; MeiPharma, Inc.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Yacoub:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Current equity holder in private company; Cara therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Dynavax: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Melear:AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau. Fanning:Prisma Health: Current Employment; Abbvie: Consultancy; TG Therapeautics: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi Aventis: Speakers Bureau. Kolibaba:Compass Oncology: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Atara Biotech: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Oncology: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company; AbbVie: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartix: Research Funding. Reynolds:IHA Hematology/Oncology Consultants: Current Employment. Nowakowski:Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Nanostrings: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kymera: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gharibo:Bayer: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ahn:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Li:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Rummel:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen GmbH: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma GmbH: Honoraria. Sharman:Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: Relapse is expected when treating patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) and marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), with a shortened response associated with each relapse. Lenalidomide combined with rituximab (R2) has shown enhanced activity, with a recently reported median progression free-survival (PFS) of 39.4 months in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, including those with FL and MZL (AUGMENT; J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1188). Methods: MAGNIFY is a multicenter, phase IIIb trial in patients with R/R FL grades 1-3b, transformed FL (tFL), MZL, or mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; NCT01996865) in which optimal lenalidomide duration is being explored. Patients received 12 cycles of R2 (lenalidomide 20 mg/d, d1-21/28 + rituximab 375 mg/m2 weekly in cycle 1 and then on day 1 of cycles 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11) followed by 1:1 randomization in patients with stable disease, partial response, or complete response/complete response unconfirmed (CR/CRu) to R2 versus rituximab maintenance for 18 months. Data presented here focus on induction R2 in efficacy-evaluable MZL patients compared with the overall population of FL grades 1-3a+MZL (not including FL grade 3b, tFL, or MCL) receiving ≥ 1 treatment with baseline/post-baseline assessments. The primary end point is progression-free survival (PFS) by 1999 International Working Group criteria. Results: As of November 30, 2019, 393 patients with FL grades 1-3a and MZL enrolled; 76 (19%) had MZL. The median age of MZL patients was 68 years (range, 46-90), 68 (89%) had stage III/IV disease, and 72 (95%) had prior rituximab-containing therapy. Overall response rate was 68% with 39% CR/CRu, and median duration of response was 38.6 months (95% CI, 29.4-not reached [NR]). The median PFS was 41.2 months (95% CI, 38.4-NR). Efficacy results for MZL subtypes and the overall population (FL grades 1-3a + MZL) are shown in the table. Forty-two patients (55%) have completed 12 cycles of R2, and 41 (54%) have been randomized and entered maintenance. Twenty-eight patients (37%) prematurely discontinued both lenalidomide and rituximab, primarily due to adverse events (AEs; n = 11; 14%) and progressive disease (n = 6; 8%). The most common (≥ 20%) all-grade AEs were neutropenia (49%), diarrhea (37%), anemia (25%), thrombocytopenia (24%), and constipation (24%). Most common (≥ 10%) grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia (41%; 1 patient [1%] had febrile neutropenia), thrombocytopenia (13%), and leukopenia (11%). Conclusions: R2 is active with a tolerable safety profile in patients with R/R MZL. The efficacy and safety profile of R2 in MZL patients were similar to results observed in the overall MAGNIFY population. Disclosures Coleman: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; EMD Serono Research and Development Institute Inc.: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; ARCUS Biosciences: Research Funding; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP (Acerta Pharma BV Trials): Research Funding; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP: Research Funding; BMS (Celgene Corporation): Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Research Funding; Genetech (F. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd): Research Funding; Hutchinson MediPharma, LTD: Research Funding; Ipsen Group: Research Funding; Karyopharma Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Klus Pharma, Inc.: Research Funding; MeiPharma, Inc.: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Boston BIoMedical, Inc.: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Andorsky:CTI: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Yacoub:Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support; Dynavax: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Hylapharm: Current equity holder in private company; Cara Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Agios: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Melear:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau. Fanning:Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeautics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Prisma Health: Current Employment; Sanofi Aventis: Speakers Bureau. Kolibaba:Atara Biotech: Consultancy; Compass Oncology: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Verastem: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Novartix: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Oncology: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lansigan:BMS: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; BMS Steering Committee for MAGNIFY Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Spectrum Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Reynolds:IHA Hematology/Oncology Consultants: Current Employment. Nowakowski:Kymera: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Curis: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gharibo:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Bayer: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Ahn:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Li:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Rummel:Roche: Honoraria; Amgen GmbH: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis Pharma GmbH: Honoraria. Sharman:BeiGene: Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background Two methods combining survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data in glioma trials to calculate the “net clinical benefit” were evaluated: Quality-adjusted effect sizes (QASES) and joint modeling (JM). Methods The net clinical benefit in two trials was calculated as proof of concept for other trials. With the QASES method, effect sizes for differences in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) and HRQoL between the experimental arm and standard treatment arm were calculated, while the relative emphasis placed on survival/HRQoL varied. JM allows simultaneous modeling of HRQoL and OS/PFS. Results In the EORTC 26951 trial, combined radiochemotherapy significantly prolonged OS (difference 11.7 months), but also resulted in more patients experiencing clinically relevant worsening (≥10 points) in appetite loss and nausea/vomiting shortly after treatment. Using QASES, the survival benefit of additional procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV) decreased from 42.3 months to 29.5 and 28.2 months when accounting for appetite loss and nausea/vomiting, respectively. JM analyses resulted in a loss of the beneficial effect of additional PCV between 13% and 24% when adjusting for different HRQoL parameters. The EORTC 22033 trial showed no significant PFS difference between radiotherapy or temozolomide alone (46 vs 39 months), nor clinically relevant differences in HRQoL. JM analyses also showed no significant association between PFS and HRQoL scales/items, whereas QASES showed that temozolomide alone was more favorable when considering symptom burden (47–49 instead of 39 months). Conclusions Both methods resulted in different outcomes, but adjusting for the impact of treatment on HRQoL resulted in theoretically reduced survival benefits.

Abstract Rationale Obesity is associated with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), but its impact on outcomes such as health-related quality of life (HRQoL), hospitalizations, and survival is not well understood. Objectives To assess the effect of obesity on HRQoL, hospitalizations, and survival in patients with PAH. Methods We performed a cohort study of adults with PAH from the Pulmonary Hypertension Association Registry, a prospective multicenter registry. Multivariate linear mixed-effects regression was used to examine the relationship between weight categories and HRQoL using the Short Form-12 and emPHasis-10. We used multivariable negative binomial regression to estimate hospitalization incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for transplant-free survival by weight status. Results A total of 767 subjects were included (mean age of 57 years, 74% female, 33% overweight, and 40% with obesity), with median follow-up duration of 527 days. Overweight patients and patients with obesity had higher baseline emPHasis-10 scores (worse HRQoL), which persisted over time (P &lt; 0.001). Patients who are overweight and obese have a trend toward increased incidence of hospitalizations compared with normal-weight patients (IRR, 1.34; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.94–1.92 and IRR, 1.33; 95% CI 0.93–1.89, respectively). Overweight patients and patients with obesity had lower risk of transplant or death compared with normal-weight patients (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25–0.80 and HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22–0.70, respectively). Conclusions In a large multicenter, prospective cohort of PAH, patients who were overweight or obese had worse disease-specific HRQoL despite better transplant-free survival compared with normal-weight patients. Future interventions should address the specific needs of these patients.

140 Background: Prior studies have suggested that patient-reported outcomes may be associated with cancer outcomes. We evaluated the association between clinically significant fatigue (CSF) and adverse events (AEs), quality of life (QOL), and overall survival (OS) during cancer treatment. Methods: Four phase II or III chemotherapy trials, two each in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and advanced hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC), were used to compare patients with or without baseline CSF. Baseline CSF was defined as a rating of 2 or greater on the FACT fatigue survey question or an EORTC QLQ-C30 fatigue symptom score of 50% or greater. Change in QOL from baseline, AE rates, and survival were compared according to baseline CSF with linear regression models, equality of proportions chi-squared tests, and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression models, respectively, separately for each trial. Results: Of 1,994 participants, 1,907 had complete baseline QOL survey data, with 52% reporting CSF at baseline. Baseline CSF was associated with an increased incidence of grade 3-5 constitutional (16.5% vs 9.4%, p = 0.002 and 13.9% vs 6.3%, p = 0.002) and neurological (11.7% vs 6.1%, p = 0.006 and 9.0% vs 3.9%, p = 0.01) AEs, respectively, in two studies of advanced HRPC. Overall, patients with baseline CSF had significantly lower baseline QOL across all four domains (p < 0.01). Across all four studies, baseline CSF was associated with higher mortality rates, with adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval, p-value): 1.34 (1.14, 1.57, p < .001) and 1.30 (1.02, 1.66, p = 0.03) in NSCLC studies, 1.49 (0.95, 2.35, p = 0.09) and 1.53 (1.12, 2.11, p = 0.008) in HRPC studies. Conclusions: Oncology trial participants with baseline CSF had significantly lower baseline QOL, experienced more adverse events and had poorer survival compared to participants without CSF. We have confirmed previous work indicating that fatigue is an important baseline stratification factor that should be considered in all oncology treatment trials. Consistent with other research, our results indicate that fatigue should be measured and ameliorated wherever possible among advanced cancer patients.

Abstract Vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) are characterized by the aging neurovascular unit being confronted with and failing to cope with biological insults due to systemic and cerebral vascular disease, proteinopathy including Alzheimer's biology, metabolic disease, or immune response, resulting in cognitive decline. This report summarizes the discussion and recommendations from a working group convened by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke to evaluate the state of the field in VCID research, identify research priorities, and foster collaborations. As discussed in this report, advances in understanding the biological mechanisms of VCID across the wide spectrum of pathologies, chronic systemic comorbidities, and other risk factors may lead to potential prevention and new treatment strategies to decrease the burden of dementia. Better understanding of the social determinants of health that affect risks for both vascular disease and VCID could provide insight into strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in VCID.

Abstract Comparative outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for BCR-ABL1− myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) in blast phase (MPN-BP) vs de novo acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and AML with prior myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs; post-MDS AML), are unknown. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database, we compared HCT outcomes in 177 MPN-BP patients with 4749 patients with de novo AML, and 1104 patients with post-MDS AML, using multivariate regression analysis in 2 separate comparisons. In a multivariate Cox model, no difference in overall survival (OS) or relapse was observed in patients with MPN-BP vs de novo AML with active leukemia at HCT. Patients with MPN-BP in remission had inferior OS in comparison with de novo AML in remission (hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.76]) due to higher relapse rate (HR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.69-2.80]). MPN-BP patients had inferior OS (HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.00-1.43]) and increased relapse (HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.31-1.96]) compared with post-MDS AML. Poor-risk cytogenetics were associated with increased relapse in both comparisons. Peripheral blood grafts were associated with decreased relapse in MPN-BP and post-MDS AML (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.57-0.86]). Nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was similar between MPN-BP vs de novo AML, and MPN-BP vs post-MDS AML. Total-body irradiation–based myeloablative conditioning was associated with higher NRM in both comparisons. Survival of MPN-BP after HCT is inferior to de novo AML in remission and post-MDS AML due to increased relapse. Relapse-prevention strategies are required to optimize HCT outcomes in MPN-BP.

Background: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an important cause of cardiovascular mortality; however, its genetic determinants remain incompletely defined. In total, 10 previously identified risk loci explain a small fraction of AAA heritability. Methods: We performed a genome-wide association study in the Million Veteran Program testing ≈18 million DNA sequence variants with AAA (7642 cases and 172 172 controls) in veterans of European ancestry with independent replication in up to 4972 cases and 99 858 controls. We then used mendelian randomization to examine the causal effects of blood pressure on AAA. We examined the association of AAA risk variants with aneurysms in the lower extremity, cerebral, and iliac arterial beds, and derived a genome-wide polygenic risk score (PRS) to identify a subset of the population at greater risk for disease. Results: Through a genome-wide association study, we identified 14 novel loci, bringing the total number of known significant AAA loci to 24. In our mendelian randomization analysis, we demonstrate that a genetic increase of 10 mm Hg in diastolic blood pressure (odds ratio, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.24–1.66]; P =1.6×10 −6 ), as opposed to systolic blood pressure (odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.97–1.15]; P =0.2), likely has a causal relationship with AAA development. We observed that 19 of 24 AAA risk variants associate with aneurysms in at least 1 other vascular territory. A 29-variant PRS was strongly associated with AAA (odds ratio PRS , 1.26 [95% CI, 1.18–1.36]; P PRS =2.7×10 −11 per SD increase in PRS), independent of family history and smoking risk factors (odds ratio PRS+family history+smoking , 1.24 [95% CI, 1.14–1.35]; P PRS =1.27×10 −6 ). Using this PRS, we identified a subset of the population with AAA prevalence greater than that observed in screening trials informing current guidelines. Conclusions: We identify novel AAA genetic associations with therapeutic implications and identify a subset of the population at significantly increased genetic risk of AAA independent of family history. Our data suggest that extending current screening guidelines to include testing to identify those with high polygenic AAA risk, once the cost of genotyping becomes comparable with that of screening ultrasound, would significantly increase the yield of current screening at reasonable cost.