Citations

Abstract Introduction: Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutations are observed in ~20% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In the U.S., ivosidenib (ivo) is approved with or without azacitidine (aza) in the frontline (FL) and as monotherapy in relapsed/refractory (R/R) IDH1-mutated (mut) AML. Olutasidenib (oluta) is approved as monotherapy for R/R IDH1-mut AML. Enasidenib (ena) is approved as monotherapy for R/R IDH2-mut AML. This study describes real-world IDH inhibitor (IDHi) administration patterns and evaluates their outcomes in on-label settings. Methods: A retrospective review of patients with IDH1/2-mut AML who received ivosidenib, olutasidenib, or enasidenib was conducted at 12 academic institutions in the U.S. Best response at any time during treatment, including complete response (CR) and complete response with partial hematologic recovery (CRh), were graded using European Leukemia Net (ELN) 2022 criteria. Results: A total of 387 patients with IDH1- and IDH2-mut AML were treated with an IDHi in the FL or R/R setting. Median follow-up was 9.6 months (range, 0.03-90.7). Demographics include 79% White, 14% Black, 3% Asian, and 4% other/unknown race; 5% were Hispanic ethnicity; 46% were female; the median age was 70 years (range, 28-95). 70% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, 26% had secondary AML, and 10% had therapy-related AML. Per the ELN 2024 less-Intensive risk classification, 58% were favorable risk, 29% intermediate, 7% adverse, and 6% unknown. Overall, 209 of 387 patients (54%) received IDHi regimens on-label. In FL IDH1-mut AML (n=45), 11 received ivo monotherapy, 25 aza/ivo, and 9 used off-label combinations: 3 hypomethylating agent (HMA) + venetoclax (ven) + ivo, 5 decitabine/ivo, 1 intensive chemotherapy (IC)/ivo. Among R/R IDH1-mut AML (n=109), 47 received ivo monotherapy, 7 oluta monotherapy, and 55 off-label (31 HMA/ivo, 16 HMA/ven/ivo, 3 IC/ivo, and 5 other). 44 received off-label ena for FL treatment of IDH2-mut AML (25 ena monotherapy, 9 HMA/ena, 8 HMA/ven/ena, and 2 IC/ena). In R/R IDH2-mut AML (n=189), 119 patients received ena monotherapy and 70 received off-label combinations (25 HMA/ena, 30 HMA/ven/ena, 7 IC/ena, 6 ena/gilteritinib, and 2 other). In on-label treatment of FL IDH1-mut AML, one of four patients with response assessment of FL ivo monotherapy had a CR/CRh. Of 19 patients with response assessment on FL aza/ivo, 13 patients (68.4%) had a CR as best response (95% CI, 46.0-84.6%). Median OS was 14.9 mo (95% CI, 4.17-NR) for ivo monotherapy (n=11) and 31.9 mo (95% CI, 9.1-NR) for aza/ivo (n=25), with 0 and 2 patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT), respectively. In R/R IDH1-mut AML, the rate of CR/CRh was 35.5% (95% CI, 21.1-53.1) for on-label ivo monotherapy. All 4 patients with response assessment for on-label oluta monotherapy had a CR. Median OS was 14.0 mo (95% CI, 10.1-22.4) for ivo monotherapy and NR for oluta monotherapy (95% CI, 10.1-NR), with 10 and 0 receiving allo-SCT, respectively. The CR/CRh rate for ivo was 38.1% (8 of 21 assessed; 95% CI, 20.8-59.1) in age < 70, and 30.0% (3 of 10 assessed; 95% CI, 10.8-60.3) in age ≥ 70. Median OS was 15.2 mo (95% CI 9.3-NR) in age < 70 (n=27) and 10.4 mo (95% CI 8.0-18) in age ≥ 70 (n=20). In R/R IDH2-mut AML, the rate of CR/CRh for on-label ena monotherapy was 38.2% (95% CI, 27.6-50.1). Median OS was 12.1 mo (95% CI, 8.2-16.6), with 5 having received allo-SCT. In demographic subgroups for ena monotherapy, 52 non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients with response assessment had a CR/CRh rate of 42.3% (95% CI, 0.30-0.56). Only 1 of 13 non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients with response assessment had a CRh (7.7%; 95% CI, 1.4-33.0) as best response, with none attaining CR. Median OS was 13.7 mo (95% CI 10.3-26.3) in NHW (n=82), 11.2 mo (95% CI, 6.1-NR) in NHB (n=18), and 69.1 mo (95% CI, 52.6-NR) in Hispanic patients (n=8). The CR/CRh rate was 48.6% (17 of 35 assessed; 95% CI, 33.0-64.4) for age < 70, and 27.3% (9 of 33 assessed; 95% CI, 15.1-44.2) for age ≥ 70. Median OS was 12.0 mo (95% CI, 9.9-22.1) in age < 70 (n=48) and 5.8 mo (95% CI, 4.1-8.7) in age ≥ 70 (n=69). Conclusion: Practice patterns for IDH inhibitors in AML vary considerably, with high amounts of off-label use. Response rates for ivosidenib and enasidenib in the real-world setting are comparable to those of clinical trials. Descriptive analyses of demographic subgroups highlight areas in need of further research.

Abstract Background: Hypomethylating agent (HMA) with venetoclax (VEN) is used in clinical practice for frontline management of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) based on encouraging data from phase 1 clinical trial (Garcia JS et al. Blood 2025). While the randomized clinical trial (VERONA-NCT04401748) did not show a survival benefit of azacitidine-VEN, the study had important differences such as exclusion of therapy related MDS and being conducted in several non-academic US centers. To better understand the impact of this regimen and its effects in subgroups, we conducted a real-world analysis of frontline MDS patients treated mainly at academic medical centers with HMA-VEN and compared to HMA monotherapy. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study of 19 US academic medical centers. We included contemporary cohorts of adults (age≥18 years) with MDS (intermediate, high or very high risk by IPSS-R) who were treated outside of clinical trials with either upfront combination of HMA-VEN or HMA monotherapy. Data on patient-related, disease-related and treatment-related variables were collected through chart review. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics. Overall survival (OS) and event free survival (EFS: progression, leukemic transformation, death as events) analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier method. Determinants of outcomes were analyzed using multivariable regression models. All analyses were conducted at a significance level of p<0.05. Results: Among 1198 patients with intermediate, high or very-high risk MDS, 313 patients received upfront VEN in combination with HMA [HMA-VEN] and 885 patients received HMA monotherapy. Median age was 70 (63-76) years and majority of patients had MDS with excess blasts-1 (34% overall, HMA-VEN=26%, HMA=37%) or MDS with excess-blasts-2 (41% overall, HMA-VEN=60%, HMA=34%). Disease risk by IPSS-R was intermediate (29% overall, HMA-VEN=18%, HMA=33%), high (30% overall, HMA-VEN=31%, HMA=30%) or very-high risk (41% overall, HMA-VEN=51%, HMA=37%, p<0.001). Therapy related MDS (t-MDS) was seen in 27% of patients (HMA-VEN=33%, HMA=25%, p=0.004), 34% had TP53 mutation (HMA-VEN=40%, HMA=32%, p=0.005) and 33% underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) (HMA-VEN=42%, HMA=30%, p<0.001). The most common mutations detected at baseline included TP53 (34%), ASXL1 (22%), DNMT3A (16%), RUNX1 (16%), TET2 (14%), SRSF2 (13%), and U2AF1 (11%). The response rate by IWG 2006 criteria was significantly higher with HMA-VEN than HMA monotherapy (overall 81% vs 39%, CR: 17% vs 9.6%; marrow CR: 56% vs 14%, p<0.001). In multivariable analysis accounting for upfront treatment, AHSCT, genomic mutations, baseline bone marrow blasts and t-MDS, patients treated with HMA-VEN in the upfront setting had significantly improved EFS (median EFS 10.7 vs. 7.8 mon, HR 0.83, 95%CI 0.72-0.96, p=0.01) and OS (median OS 22.4 vs. 18.1 mon, HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.64-0.97, p=0.02). In addition, TP53 mutation status (OS: HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.57-2.26, p<0.001, EFS: HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.23-1.65, p<0.001), subsequent AHSCT (OS: HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.27-0.41, p<0.001; EFS: HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.40-0.54, p<0.001), and therapy related MDS (OS: HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00-1.44, p=0.04, EFS: HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.96-1.27, p=0.2) were significant predictors on multivariable analysis. When separately investigated in subgroups, an OS benefit of HMA-VEN over HMA was seen in patients undergoing subsequent AHSCT (median OS 40.6 vs. 30 mon, p=0.05), bone marrow blast 10-19% (median OS 25.1 vs. 17.4 mon, P=0.01), de novo MDS (median OS 30 vs. 20.1 mon, P=0.003) and absence of TP53 mutation (median OS 34.9 mon vs. 23.1 mon, p=0.004). The benefit of HMA-VEN over HMA was also seen across molecular mutations including presence of ASXL1 mutation (median OS 35.2 vs 20.9 mon, p=0.03). Conclusions: In this large multicenter retrospective analysis from US academic medical centers, we found that HMA-VEN therapy significantly improved OS in certain subsets of high risk MDS including patients with 10-19% blasts, denovo MDS, subsequent AHSCT and those without TP53 mutation. While our analysis is limited by its retrospective design, prospectively exploring subgroups of MDS patients who could benefit from HMA-VEN therapy is needed.

Abstract Background: Venetoclax (VEN)+obinutuzumab (VO) is an effective therapy for CLL/SLL requiring regular monitoring for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) during VEN ramp-up. The CLL14 trial of VO reported no TLS during VEN ramp-up; however, there are limited real-world data on monitoring practices and TLS outcomes for different dose levels and monitoring timepoints. This study assessed VEN initiation prophylaxis and monitoring outcomes for patients (pts) with CLL/SLL starting VO in first line (1L) in an outpatient, real-world setting. Methods This interim analysis relied onretrospective observational data from 4 US sites of the CLL Collaborative Study of Real-World Evidence (CORE). Adult pts with CLL/SLL were eligible if they: (1) started VO per-label outside of a clinical trial in 1L, or immediately after exposure in 1L to agents with different mechanisms of action (i.e., BTKi, anti-CD20 only) of <30 days; (2) prior to VEN start, had either (i) low physician-determined tumor burden (TB) (i.e., all lymph nodes [LN] <5 cm and ALC <25 x 109/L), or (ii) medium physician-determined TB (i.e., any LN ≥5-<10 cm or ALC ≥25 x 109/L) with creatinine clearance ≥80 mL/min; (3) had no strong CYP3A inhibitors or prophylactic rasburicase from 3 days prior to VEN start until end of VEN ramp-up; and (4) had VEN ramp-up in an outpatient setting. TB-related labs/imaging was assessed from 2 months prior to obinutuzumab initiation (i.e., index date) until VEN start. VEN characteristics (i.e., dosing, duration), prophylaxis measures (i.e., antihyperuricemics and IV hydration), and TLS-related monitoring and management (i.e., lab results and interventions received) were collected per ramp-up week and TLS monitoring timepoint. Results Of 128 pts in CORE who initiated VO in any line, 72 pts met inclusion criteria (low TB: 57 [79.2%]; medium TB: 15 [20.8%]). Median (IQR) age was 62 (56.0, 68.5) years, 58.3% were male, and 81.9% had ECOG grade ≤1. Among pts tested, 7/68 (10.3%) had del(17p)/TP53 mutation and 43/66 (65.2%) had unmutated IGHV. Median (IQR) time from index to VEN start was 23.0 (22.0, 30.0) days. Most pts completed ramp-up (98.6% [71/72]) and followed a per-label regular dosing schedule (93.1% [67/72]). Prior to VEN ramp-up, all pts received prophylactic antihyperuricemics (allopurinol: 71 [98.6%]; febuxostat: 2 [2.8%]) and prophylactic hydration. In the 2 days prior to a dose escalation for at least 1 week of ramp-up, prophylactic IV hydration was reported for 27 (37.5%) pts based on physician determination. One pt stopped VEN after week 2 due to neutropenia (grade 3+). During ramp-up (median [IQR] of 9 [8, 12] blood tests per pt), no lab or clinical TLS was reported. Of 21 (29.2%) pts who received an intervention following a lab assessment, most had low TB at VEN start (16 [76.2%]). All interventions were either prophylactic or non-TLS-related. Following a lab assessment for at least 1 week of ramp-up, prophylactic IV or escalated oral hydration intervention was reported in 17/21 pts (81.0%) based on physician determination (e.g., to manage impaired baseline renal function in those with low TB, patient request, or institutional practice) (IV hydration: 15 pts; escalated oral hydration: 2 pts). By per-label monitoring timepoints, hydration intervention was given prophylactically following pre-dose lab tests for 7 pts (across weeks 1-5), 6-8 hours post-dose for 5 pts (weeks 1-2), and 24 hours post-dose for 10 pts (weeks 1-2). By per-label monitoring timepoints, other non-TLS-related interventions (i.e., blood transfusion for anemia, insulin for hyperglycemia, and potassium for non-TLS-related hypokalemia) were given following pre-dose lab tests for 2 pts (weeks 1-5) and 24 hours post-dose for 4 pts (weeks 1-2). Conclusion Consistent with the CLL14 trial, no TLS was reported in this real-world, interim analysis of pts with mostly low TB and good renal function at 1L VO initation. All interventions during VEN ramp-up were prophylactic or non-TLS-related, with prophylactic hydration commonly given based on physician preference. These results suggest that VO initiation is manageable in an outpatient setting. Consideration should be given for simplified monitoring requirements including potential removal of 6-8 hour post-dose lab in this population and be further explored in prospective studies. Data collection for this study is ongoing to further contextualize real-world VEN initiation prophylaxis and monitoring outcomes in a larger cohort.

Abstract Background Hairy cell leukemia (HCL) is a rare, indolent B-cell malignancy accounting for ~1% of all lymphoid neoplasms. While purine analogs remain the standard first-line therapy, the increasing use of combination regimens and targeted agents has expanded the therapeutic landscape. Data on long-term outcomes in real-world practice remain limited. Methods This is a retrospective, multicenter cohort study. We included 104 patients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of HCL who had at least one oncology visit from January 1, 2010, to July 17, 2025. Patients diagnosed prior to 2010 were left-truncated to account for survivorship bias. Data were abstracted from electronic medical records. Key outcomes included treatment patterns, response rates, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). Results The median age at diagnosis was 56.9 years (range 32.1–83.8), and 80% were male. Most patients (77%) were diagnosed during or after 2010. The most frequent frontline therapies were cladribine (63%), cladribine with rituximab (12%), rituximab monotherapy (9.7%), vemurafenib-based regimens (7.7%), splenectomy with or without interferon (3.8%), interferon monotherapy (2.9%), and other (1.9%). The overall complete response (CR) rate to first-line therapy was 63%, with 15% achieving a partial response (PR) and 22% having stable or no response. For patients receiving cladribine with rituximab first-line (n = 12), 92% had a CR. For patients receiving cladribine monotherapy first-line (n = 65), 63% had a CR and 12% had a PR. For patients receiving rituximab monotherapy first-line (n = 10), 50% had a CR and 20% had a PR. For patients receiving vemurafenib-based regimens first-line (n = 8), 75% had a CR. Among the 39 patients who received second-line therapy, the most common regimens included cladribine (31%), rituximab (26%), cladribine plus rituximab (18%), and vemurafenib-based regimens (13%). The CR rate after second-line therapy was 72%. For patients receiving cladribine with rituximab second-line (n = 7), 86% had a CR and 14% had a PR. For patients receiving cladribine monotherapy second-line (n = 12), 67% had a CR. For patients receiving rituximab monotherapy second-line (n = 10), 80% had a CR and 10% had a PR. For patients receiving vemurafenib-based regimens second-line (n = 5), 40% had a CR and 20% had a PR. Among the 17 patients who received third-line therapy, the most common regimens included rituximab (41%), cladribine (18%), and vemurafenib-based regimens (18%). The CR rate after third-line therapy was 50%. For patients receiving rituximab monotherapy third-line (n = 7), 43% had a CR and 14% had a PR. For patients receiving cladribine monotherapy third-line (n = 3), 33% had a CR. For patients receiving vemurafenib-based regimens third-line (n = 3), 67% had a CR and 33% had a PR. Overall, treatment-related hospitalizations for first-line therapy occurred in 27% of patients. 50% of patients receiving first-line cladribine with rituximab had treatment-related hospitalizations. 25% of patients receiving first-line vemurafenib-based treatment had treatment-related hospitalizations. 23% of patients receiving first-line cladribine monotherapy had treatment-related hospitalizations. 20% of patients receiving first-line rituximab monotherapy had treatment-related hospitalizations. Overall, after a median follow-up of 6.6 years (range 0.1–46), estimated OS was 96.6% at 5 years, 85.7% at 10 years, and 80.3% at 15 years. The median OS was 24.5 years [95% CI: 18.3, not reached]. Estimated PFS was 95.1% at 1 year, 89.9% at 3 years, 74.8% at 5 years, and 50.8% at 10 years. Median PFS was 12.2 years [95% CI: 7.0, not reached]. Estimated OS for first-line cladribine monotherapy was 100% at 5 years and 86.5% at 10 years. Estimated OS for first-line vemurafenib-based treatment was 85.7% at 5 years and 85.7% at 10 years. Conclusions This large real-world cohort provides important insights into the long-term management of HCL. Cladribine-based regimens remain the predominant first-line approach, with high response rates and durable remissions. However, treatment-related toxicity is common. Outcomes in later lines remain favorable, particularly with re-treatment using purine analogs or combination regimens. These findings underscore the importance of individualized treatment planning and the continued need for real-world evidence to inform care in rare hematologic malignancies.

Abstract Background Children’s Oncology Group ACNS0333 treated atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor (ATRT) with surgery, chemotherapy (induction and consolidation) and radiation therapy (RT). M0 had focal RT and M+ had physician-selected focal RT or craniospinal (CSI). Methods Forty patients (29 M0, 11 M+) received RT. Pre-RT chemotherapy response was complete, partial, or stable disease. RT timing (age/stage-based) was pre-consolidation (RT-first) or post-consolidation (consolidation-first). Event-free survival (RT-EFS), overall survival (RT-OS), and cumulative incidence of local relapse (CILR) or distant relapse (RT-CIDR) were calculated. Analyses included log-rank tests and relative hazard rates with 95% confidence intervals to estimate proportional hazards regression. Results Four-year RT-EFS was 56.8% and 4-year RT-OS was 58.8% focal RT: 34 patients, CSI: 6 patients). A trend for superior RT-EFS for M+ compared to M0 (P = .0625, RHR 0.26; 95% CI 0.06-1.18) was shown. RT-EFS was improved for consolidation-first compared to RT-first timing (P = .037, RHR 0.43; 95% CI 0.13-1.37). Pre-RT chemotherapy response was associated with improved RT-EFS (P = .031) and RT-OS (P = .0069). Four-year RT-CILR was 7.84%; no differences in RT-CILR were shown for higher primary RT dose (≥5400 cGy, P = .38) or gross total resection (P = .80). 4-year RT-CIDR was 27.8% for M0 and 9.1% for M+ patients (P = .22). M+ had CSI (n = 6) or focal RT (n = 5). Fatal necrosis potentially-attributable to RT occurred in 3 RT-first patients (occuring either 1.6, 4.6, or 16.2 months post-treatment). Conclusions RT with intensive systemic therapy showed promising survival outcomes and effective primary disease control in ATRT. Sequencing RT prior to myeloblative chemotherapy, rather than post-consolidation, may be associated with increased risk of fatal radionecrosis.

Importance Treatment for cognitive dysfunction due to postacute sequelae of long COVID (ie, symptoms of fatigue, malaise, weakness, confusion that persist beyond 12 weeks after an initial COVID infection) remains a significant unmet need. Objective To test evidence-based rehabilitation strategies for improving cognitive symptoms in persons with long COVID. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a 5-arm, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of 3 remotely delivered interventions conducted between August 17, 2023, and June 10, 2024. The study took place at 22 trial sites and included the screening of individuals with cognitive long COVID. Interventions Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 arms: adaptive computerized cognitive training (BrainHQ [Posit Science]), cognitive-behavioral rehabilitation involving both group and individual counseling sessions (PASC-Cognitive Recovery [PASC-CoRE]) paired with BrainHQ, and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) paired with BrainHQ. Two comparator arms were included as follows: unstructured computer puzzles and games (active comparator) and sham tDCS paired with BrainHQ. The interventions occurred 5 times per week over 10 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures Cognitive and behavioral in-person assessments were performed at baseline, midintervention, at the end of intervention, and 3 months after the end of the intervention. The primary outcome measure was the modified Everyday Cognition Scale 2 (ECog2) completed at the end of the intervention compared to the baseline visit based on participant self-report looking back over the prior 7 days. Results A total of 378 individuals were screened, from which there were 328 participants (median [IQR] age, 48.0 [37.0-58.0] years; 241 female [73.5%]; race: 15 Asian [4.6%], 47 Black [14.3%], and 235 White [71.6%]; ethnicity: 52 Hispanic [15.9%]). None of the 3 active interventions demonstrated benefits on the modified ECog2 in the intention-to-treat population by the end of the intervention period. The adjusted differences in mean change were 0.0 (95% CI, −0.2 to 0.2) for BrainHQ vs active comparator, 0.1 (95% CI, −0.1 to 0.3) for PASC-CoRE + BrainHQ vs active comparator, 0.0 (95% CI, −0.2 to 0.2) for tDCS-active + BrainHQ vs tDCS-sham + BrainHQ, and 0.1 (95% CI, −0.1 to 0.3) for PASC-CoRE + BrainHQ vs BrainHQ alone. Secondary participant-reported outcomes and neuropsychological tests showed no differential benefits for any treatment arm. All 5 arms demonstrated some improvements over time on the modified ECog2 and on secondary outcomes. There were no serious adverse events attributable to the interventions. Conclusions and Relevance This phase 2 randomized clinical trial failed to demonstrate differential benefits for online cognitive training, a structured cognitive rehabilitation program, and tDCS for cognitive long COVID. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05965739 .

Abstract INTRODUCTION The Consortium for Clarity in Alzheimer's disease related dementias (ADRD) Research Through Imaging (CLARiTI) is a study that aims to collect standardized imaging and plasma biomarkers on 2000 Clinical Core participants enrolled across all Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (ADRC) sites. We sought to summarize the known heterogeneity across centers regarding scientific focus and initial enrollment plans for CLARiTI. METHODS We developed and distributed a survey capturing information on the 36 CLARiTI site's theme/expertise, recruitment plans, and the intersection of CLARiTI with other ADRC imaging efforts. RESULTS Anticipated CLARiTI enrollees spanned 11 different categories of suspected etiologies underlying impairment. A wide range of risk factors were endorsed across sites regarding the enrollment of unimpaired individuals. Variability also existed regarding site‐level strategies in enrollment into CLARiTI versus other imaging efforts. DISCUSSION We anticipate that the 2000 individuals that will enroll into CLARiTI will reflect the clinical heterogeneity already in place across the ADRC network. Highlights The ADRC Consortium for Clarity in ADRD Research Through Imaging (CLARiTI) will leverage and contribute to the existing Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (ADRC) program by supporting standardized imaging and plasma collection across all centers. We summarize the variation in scientific focus and enrollment plans across ADRC sites participating in CLARiTI. The anticipated CLARiTI cohort will reflect the clinical heterogeneity that already exists across the ADRC network. CLARiTI will contribute to scientific goals related to the detection of multi‐etiological signatures relevant for Alzheimer's disease and related disorders (ADRDs).

Background: MARVEL-HCM is a US multicenter study assessing the safety and effectiveness of mavacamten in real-world academic and community practices. Mavacamten is a first-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor (CMI) and the only CMI currently approved in over 50 countries for use in patients with symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM). Modest evidence exists describing the effectiveness and safety of mavacamten monotherapy. Aims: To describe the real-world outcomes of patients using mavacamten as monotherapy for oHCM. Methods: Patient-level data from medical records at 5 sites were analyzed to describe mavacamten monotherapy, defined as monotherapy at baseline or after background HCM therapy (beta-blockers [BB], calcium channel blockers [CCB], disopyramide) discontinuation within 12 weeks(wks) of mavacamten initiation and without reinitiation, up to 60 wks. A minimum of 12 wks follow-up was required for inclusion. Patient characteristics, echocardiographic data, and safety are reported at baseline and follow-up visits. Results: The monotherapy cohort comprised 13.4% (32/239) of patients: 24 were on mavacamten monotherapy at initiation, and 8 discontinued background therapy. Baseline characteristics included: NYHA Class II (46.9%) and III (53.1%), female (66%), hypertension (50%), and atrial fibrillation (AF) (18%) (Table 1). Median follow-up and duration of mavacamten monotherapy were 48 wks (range 12-60 wks) and 57 wks (range 14-60 wks), respectively. Resting left ventricular outflow tract gradient (LVOTg) was ≤ 30 mmHg in 93%, 91% and 100% of patients at Wk 24, 36, and 60. Valsalva LVOTg was ≤ 30 mmHg in 61%, 77% and 86% of patients at Wk 24, 36, and 60 (Fig 1). No patients were in NYHA Class III at wk 60, and ~50% of patients were NYHA Class I by wk 48 (Fig 2). Mean reduction in LVEF was 4.8% over 60 wks. One patient had LVEF < 50% at Wk 20, resulting in a dose reduction (10 to 7.5 mg). Safety events included 3 hospitalizations due to AF ablation (n=1), viral gastrointestinal illness (n=1) and heart failure (n=1). Demographic, clinical characteristics, and outcomes were similar across the mavacamten monotherapy cohort, mavacamten in combination with background HCM therapy (n=207), and the overall cohort of MARVEL-HCM (N=239). Conclusions: Mavacamten monotherapy was effective, safe, and consistent with the overall MARVEL cohort, as well as previously reported monotherapy cohorts from pivotal, long-term, and real-world evidence.

OBJECTIVES The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) cervical spine injury (CSI) clinical prediction rule (CPR) was developed to reduce unnecessary imaging in pediatric trauma patients and ensure accurate diagnosis. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to future implementation of this rule in diverse emergency department (ED) settings. METHODS We conducted 40 interviews with 48 clinicians, including ED physicians, surgeons, nurses, and advanced practice providers at 21 health care facilities across the United States. Semistructured interviews explored determinants impacting implementation, guided by the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework. We conducted a deductive thematic analysis using the TICD domains as a priori codes. Three researchers independently coded the transcripts and identified key themes aligned with the TICD framework. RESULTS Barriers included limited guideline accessibility, workflow disruptions, and inconsistent integration with electronic health records. Clinicians’ concerns regarding the applicability and adherence to guidelines were also significant. Facilitators identified included institutional support, stakeholder engagement, and targeted education that addressed knowledge gaps. Implementation strategies varied by context, with suggestions for electronic health record-based decision tools in resource-equipped facilities and external aids, such as pocket cards, in lower-resource settings. Addressing legal concerns, clinician resistance, and workflow alignment emerged as critical priorities. CONCLUSION Implementing the PECARN CSI CPRs requires addressing contextual barriers such as workflow challenges, clinician adherence, and technology integration. Context-sensitive strategies are essential for successful adoption and improved decision-making in pediatric trauma care. Future research should evaluate the impact of these strategies on clinician behavior and patient outcomes.

Abstract Our understanding of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD) has grown exponentially, thanks to significant investments by the National Institute on Aging (NIA). This article celebrates the 40th anniversary of the NIA's Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers, highlighting the pivotal role of neuropathology as the bedrock for neurodegeneration research. Neuropathology has championed the key principles of proteinopathy, selective vulnerability, and stereotypic spread. Furthermore, neuropathologic studies advanced our understanding of ADRD prevalence, heterogeneity, clinical–pathological correlations, and genetic underpinnings, spurring biomarker development for target engagement and disease monitoring. Disease‐modifying therapies for AD were inspired and informed by neuropathology. The neuropathology community is poised to refine diagnostics, leveraging digital pathology and integrating genetics and pathomics to enhance subtyping for novel precision medicine approaches. Despite some common misconceptions and logistical challenges, neuropathology continues to be a critical component of the ADRD research infrastructure, serving as a key bridge between allied basic and clinical sciences. Highlights We celebrate 40 years of NIA‐funded ADRCs and their contributions through neuropathology studies that have significantly advanced our understanding and treatment of ADRD. Neuropathology uncovers principles of neurodegenerative disease: proteinopathy, selective vulnerability, and stereotypic spread, informing diagnostics and therapies. Development of AD biomarkers with reference to neuropathology enhances accuracy in diagnosis and monitoring, paving the way for targeted disease‐modifying therapies. Integration of digital pathology, genetics, and novel tools in neurodegeneration research promises advanced precision medicine approaches and refined diagnostics. Misconceptions and logistical challenges to neuropathological research are addressed to improve understanding and collaboration.