Citations

Sex and gender disparity in asthma is recognized and suggests a modulatory role for sex steroids, particularly estrogen. However, there is a dichotomous role for estrogen in airway remodeling, making it unclear whether sex hormones are protective or detrimental in asthma and suggesting a need to explore mechanisms upstream or independent of estrogen. We hypothesize that kisspeptin (Kp)/KISS1R signaling serves this role. Airway smooth muscle (ASM) is a key structural cell type that contributes to remodeling in asthma. We explored the role of Kp/KISS1R in regulating ASM proliferation. We report potentially novel data indicating that Kp and KISS1R are expressed in human airways, especially ASM, with lower expression in ASM from women compared with men and lower in patients with asthma compared with people without asthma. Proliferation studies showed that cleaved forms of Kp, particularly Kp-10, mitigated PDGF-induced ASM proliferation. Pharmacological inhibition and shRNA knockdown of KISS1R increased basal ASM proliferation, which was further amplified by PDGF. The antiproliferative effect of Kp-10 in ASM was mediated by inhibition of MAPK/ERK/Akt pathways, with altered expression of PCNA, C/EBP-α, Ki-67, cyclin D1, and cyclin E leading to cell cycle arrest at G 0 /G 1 phase. Overall, we demonstrate the importance of Kp/KISS1R signaling in regulating ASM proliferation and a potential therapeutic avenue to blunt remodeling in asthma.

Background: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions that enhance patient-physician communication by encouraging patients to ask questions during consultations. Aim: The aim of this study was to develop a preliminary achalasia-specific QPL created by esophageal experts. Methods: The QPL content was derived through a modified Delphi method consisting of 2 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts “What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of achalasia” and “What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?” In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. Questions considered “essential” or “important” were accepted into the QPL. Feedback regarding the QPL was obtained in a pilot study wherein patients received the QPL before their consultation and completed surveys afterwards. Results: Nineteen esophageal experts participated in both rounds. Of 148 questions from round 1, 124 (83.8%) were accepted into the QPL. These were further reduced to 56 questions to minimize redundancy. Questions were categorized into 6 themes: “What is achalasia,” “Risks with achalasia,” “Symptom management in achalasia,” “Treatment of achalasia,” “Risk of reflux after treatment,” and “Follow-up after treatment.” Nineteen patients participated in the pilot, most of whom agreed that the QPL was helpful (84.2%) and recommended its wider use (84.2%). Conclusions: This is the first QPL developed specifically for adults with achalasia. Although well-received in a small pilot, follow-up studies will incorporate additional patient feedback to further refine the QPL content and assess its usability, acceptability, and feasibility.

Abstract Study Objectives Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (RBD) share some common features including prominent nightmares and sleep disturbances. We aimed to comparatively analyze REM sleep without atonia (RSWA) between patients with chronic PTSD with and without dream enactment behavior (DEB), isolated RBD (iRBD), and controls. Methods In this retrospective study, we comparatively analyzed 18 PTSD with DEB (PTSD+DEB), 18 PTSD without DEB, 15 iRBD, and 51 controls matched for age and sex. We reviewed medical records to determine PTSD clinical features and quantitatively analyzed RSWA. We used nonparametric analyses to compare clinical and polysomnographic features. Results PTSD patients, both with and without DEB, had significantly higher RSWA than controls (all p < .025, excepting submentalis phasic duration in PTSD+DEB). Most RSWA measures were also higher in PTSD+DEB than in PTSD without DEB patients (all p < .025). Conclusions PTSD patients have higher RSWA than controls, whether DEB is present or not, indicating that REM sleep atonia control is abnormal in chronic PTSD. Further prospective studies are needed to determine whether neurodegenerative risk and disease markers similar to RBD might occur in PTSD patients.

Abstract Introduction Central nervous system (CNS) relapse (CNSr) in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) occurs uncommonly (estimated incidence 5%) but carries a high morbidity and mortality. Studies have identified risk factors for CNSr such as high tumor burden and extranodal (EN) disease. However, most focus on B-cell NHL with minimal data in T-cell lymphomas (TCL), which are significantly less common and more heterogenous. The few small series of CNSr in TCL report a median overall survival (OS) less than 3 months (mo) with incidence ranging from 2.6-9%. To better define CNSr in TCL, we performed a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of TCL patients with CNSr and herein describe clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment of CNSr. Methods We performed a retrospective observational study using data from 9 US academic centers with IRB approval at individual sites. We included adult patients diagnosed with a mature T-cell neoplasm as per the 2016 WHO classification between 1/1/2009-1/1/2019, who were found to have CNSr at any time after initial diagnosis, and collected patient, disease, and treatment characteristics at time of initial diagnosis as well as at CNSr. Patients with a diagnosis of a precursor T-cell malignancy or with CNS disease identified at initial TCL diagnosis (TCLd) and/or prior to first-line systemic treatment were excluded. Results In this analysis, we report the outcomes of 75 patients (male n=45, female n=30). At TCLd, the median age was 59 years (range 20-81), and 61% of patients (n=46) had an IPI score of at least 3, 92% (n=69) had EN involvement with 37% (n=28) involving at least 2 EN sites, and 59% (n=44) had BM involvement. The most common pathologic diagnoses were peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (PTCL, NOS; 24%, n=18), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL; 17%, n=13), adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL; 17%, n=13), and mycosis fungoides (MF; 12%, n=9) (Figure 1A). First-line systemic therapy for TCL included anthracyclines for 72% (n=54). Autologous and allogenic transplants were performed prior to CNSr in 12% (n=9) and 8% (n=6) of patients, respectively. Prior to CNSr, 48% (n=36) had non-CNS relapse. Some form of CNS prophylaxis was used during initial systemic lymphoma therapy in 24% of patients (n=18), predominantly intrathecal methotrexate (IT MTX; n=16). Median time from TCLd to CNSr was 8.5mo, though this was significantly longer in MF (46.8mo [range 17.5-187.7]) versus PTCL, NOS (7.6mo [range 1.1-58.4], P=0.0002), AITL (21.2mo [range 2.0-61.6, P=0.008), and ATLL (7.3mo [range 0.7-46.4], P=0.0005) (Figure 1B). CNSr developed within 6mo of TCLd in 31% of patients (n=23) and within 12mo in 57% (n=43). Symptoms related to CNSr occurred in 71% of patients (n=53). CNSr patterns were 61% leptomeningeal (n=46), 21% parenchymal (n=16), and 17% both (n=13) with no significant survival difference between leptomeningeal or parenchymal disease alone (HR 1.45, 95% CI 0.78-2.70, P=0.28). Concomitant systemic relapse was observed in 59% of patients (n=44). The most common CNS-directed therapy for CNSr was IT MTX (56%; n=42), though multiple different IT and/or systemic regimens were used. Patients received a median of 1 line of CNS-directed treatment (range 0-5). The overall response rate to initial CNS directed treatment was 32% (16% CR, 16% PR). Median follow up after CNSr was 40.7mo. At last follow up, 83% had died (n=62). Median OS after CNSr was 4.6mo (range 0.1-68.7) (Figure 1C). Those with ATLL had the shortest median OS after CNSr (2.7mo) versus 6.3mo in MF (HR 3.69, 95% CI 1.44-9.42, P=0.005), 6.5mo in AITL (HR 2.16, 95% CI 0.92-5.06, P=0.054), and 4.8mo in PTCL, NOS (HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.70-3.19, P=0.27) (Figure 1D). The most common cause of death was progressive lymphoma (77%; n=48). Conclusions This is to our knowledge the largest series of CNSr in TCL to date. Most CNSr occurred within 12mo, though CNSr occurred later in patients with MF. Although the prognosis after CNSr was generally poor, we found that median OS in CNSr was longer than previously reported, perhaps reflecting more effective treatments for CNS and systemic relapse, inclusion of MF, or lead time bias. Further analysis of the impact of different treatment strategies and outcomes in CNSr was limited by the small sample size and heterogeneity within our cohort, and future analyses in a larger cohort should focus on factors associated with outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Horwitz: ADC Therapeutics, Affimed, Aileron, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Forty Seven, Inc., Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Millennium /Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Trillium Therapeutics, and Verastem/SecuraBio.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Aileron: Research Funding; Acrotech Biopharma, Affimed, ADC Therapeutics, Astex, Merck, Portola Pharma, C4 Therapeutics, Celgene, Janssen, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Myeloid Therapeutics, ONO Pharmaceuticals, Seattle Genetics, Shoreline Biosciences, Inc, Takeda, Trillium Th: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Crispr Therapeutics: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Forty Seven, Inc.: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; ONO Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Trillium Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tubulis: Consultancy; Verastem/Securabio: Research Funding. Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Chavez: AstraZeneca: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merk: Research Funding; MorphoSys, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Kite, a Gilead Company, and Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; MorphoSys, Bayer, Karyopharm, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Janssen, AbbVie, TeneoBio, and Pfizer: Consultancy; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Sokol: Dren Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kyowa-Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Saeed: Nektar Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: research investigator; MEI Pharma Inc: Consultancy, Other: investigator; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Other: investigator; MorphoSys AG: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy; sano-aventis U.S.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP: Consultancy, Other: investigator; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Other: investigator; Other-TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: investigator; Other-Epizyme, Inc.: Consultancy; Other-Secura Bio, Inc.: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mehta-Shah: Kiowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Ono Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Innate Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding; Corvus Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Olszewski: TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; PrecisionBio: Research Funding; Celldex Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Allen: Epizyme: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Secure Bio: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy. Gerson: Abbvie: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Landsburg: Triphase: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; ADCT: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: DSMB member; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schuster: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tessa Theraputics: Consultancy; Juno Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Alimera Sciences: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; TG Theraputics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Svoboda: Atara: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Imbrium: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barta: Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria; Acrotech: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Seagen: Honoraria.

INTRODUCTION: Functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) panometry can evaluate esophageal motility in response to sustained esophageal distension at the time of sedated endoscopy. This study aimed to describe a classification of esophageal motility using FLIP panometry and evaluate it against high-resolution manometry (HRM) and Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0). METHODS: Five hundred thirty-nine adult patients who completed FLIP and HRM with a conclusive CCv4.0 diagnosis were included in the primary analysis. Thirty-five asymptomatic volunteers (“controls”) and 148 patients with an inconclusive CCv4.0 diagnosis or systemic sclerosis were also described. Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening and the contractile response (CR) to distension (i.e., secondary peristalsis) were evaluated with a 16-cm FLIP during sedated endoscopy and analyzed using a customized software program. HRM was classified according to CCv4.0. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, 156 patients (29%) had normal motility on FLIP panometry, defined by normal EGJ opening and a normal or borderline CR; 95% of these patients had normal motility or ineffective esophageal motility on HRM. Two hundred two patients (37%) had obstruction with weak CR, defined as reduced EGJ opening and absent CR or impaired/disordered CR, on FLIP panometry; 92% of these patients had a disorder of EGJ outflow per CCv4.0. DISCUSSION: Classifying esophageal motility in response to sustained distension with FLIP panometry parallels the swallow-associated motility evaluation provided with HRM and CCv4.0. Thus, FLIP panometry serves as a well-tolerated method that can complement, or in some cases be an alternative to HRM, for evaluating esophageal motility disorders.

Background: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions intended for patient use, enhancing the patient-physician communication by encouraging patients to ask relevant questions during a consultation. Recently, a preliminary 78 question gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) specific QPL was created by 12 esophageal experts through a modified Delphi (RAND/University of California, Los Angeles) technique. Patients’ perspectives and opinions on each question, however, had not been accounted for in the preliminary expert’ version. Aim: The aim was to modify a preliminary experts’ QPL, specific to adults with GERD, following patient perspectives and opinions. Methods: A preliminary GERD QPL was modified through patient input and opinions. Thirty-eight patients with a clinical diagnosis of GERD followed at Stanford University Esophageal Clinic between January and November 2019 were consented to modify the preliminary 78 question expert QPL version. After receiving the QPL in Qualtrics (Provo, UT) by a direct e-mail invitation, patients independently rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1=“should not be included,” 2=“unimportant,” 3=“don’t know/depends,” 4=“important,” and 5=“essential.” Questions were accepted for inclusion in the QPL with an a priori interagreement of 80% ranking in the range of 4 to 5. At the end, patients were encouraged to propose additional questions to incorporate into the QPL by open-endedly asking “Are there questions we didn’t ask, that you think we should?” Results: Twenty-three patients with GERD (19 female, median age 64) fully participated and modified the existing QPL (60.5%). Of the 78 questions from the preliminary GERD QPL, 66 questions (84.6%) were accepted for inclusion. The question with the highest agreement among patients rating a question as essential consisted of “what habits, food, and drinks do I have to avoid?” (82.6%). Questions eliminated because of disagreement included “What is the natural history of GERD,” “Do I have a high chance to die from my Barrett’s?,” and “Why are you prescribing an antidepressant to treat my GERD?” Nine patients suggested additional questions totaling to 16 separate questions, including “What type of surgeries are there to help GERD?,” “What stage is my GERD?,” “What are the odds/percentage of getting cancer from GERD?” Incorporating the suggested questions, the final GERD QPL—created by esophageal experts and modified by patients—consisted of 82 questions. Conclusion: Esophageal experts and GERD patients have a high level of agreement on important questions, though there is some variation in perspective. Future studies can simplify this list and measure the impact of a shared GERD QPL on patients’ decisional conflict and perceived involvement in care.