Citations

Abstract Introduction: Binary cardiac response assessment using NT-proBNP is prognostic in light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Previous studies suggested that refining the criteria to multi-level cardiac responses improves prognostic prediction. We validate a graded cardiac response assessment tool in AL amyloidosis using NT-proBNP or BNP. Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter study AL amyloidosis patients who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, achieving at least a hematological partial response (PR) within 12 months of diagnosis and were evaluable for cardiac response (defined as baseline NT-proBNP >650 pg/mL or BNP >150 pg/mL) were included. The following response criteria were tested: cardiac complete response (carCR, nadir NT-proBNP≤350 pg/mL or BNP≤80 pg/mL); cardiac very good partial response (carVGPR, >60% reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP); Cardiac PR (carPR 31-60% reduction); and cardiac non response (carNR, ≤30% reduction). Response was assessed at fixed time points (6, 12 and 24 months from therapy initiation) and at best response. The primary outcome was overall survival based on depth of cardiac response. Multivariate Cox proportional models were analyzed to determine independent prognostic factors for OS and time to cardiac progression using variables with p-value <0.1 in a univariate analysis. Results: Six hundred and fifty-one patients were included. The median age was 64 years. Mayo 2004 cardiac stage II, IIIA and IIIB was present in 47.5%, 38% and 14.5% of patients, respectively (by definition, patients with Mayo stage I do not have cardiac amyloidosis evaluable for response). Seventy-six percent of patients received only one line of therapy within the initial 12 months of diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was the most common (70.2% of patients) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in 15.7% of patients. Hematological CR, hematological VGPR and hematological PR as best response was achieved in 38%, 39% and 23% of patients, respectively. Forty-three percent of the patients have died, with 36% of the patients dying within 5-years of diagnosis. The median follow-up of the surviving patients is 70 months (IQR 56-84). Cardiac response was evaluable using NT-proBNP in 494 patients (75.9%), BNP in 109 patients (16.7%) and both NT-proBNP and BNP in 48 patients (7.4%). The latter two were grouped together for further analysis. The median time to best cardiac response among responders was 12 months (IQR 7-21 months; 18 months for carCR, 11.5 months for carVGPR and 9.5 months for carPR). Cardiac response improved over time with a median percentage reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP compared to baseline of 15%, 37% and 54%, at 6, 12 and 24 months respectively. Cardiac responses at 6-, 12- and 24-months are depicted in Figure 1A. At best cardiac response, carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR were achieved in 16%, 26%, 23% and 35% of patients, respectively. Patients who achieved a carCR had lower cardiac stage at diagnosis compared to patients who achieved carVGPR or carPR (stage II 65% vs 47% vs 47%, respectively; P<0.001). At least carPR at 6 and 12 months and at least carVGPR at 24-months was associated with better survival compared with a lower depth of response. At best cardiac response, deeper cardiac response was associated with a longer survival (5-year OS 93%, 80%, 62% and 35% for carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR, respectively; P<0.001, Figure 1B). A 2-year landmark analysis (excluding early deaths not evaluable for cardiac response depth) confirmed improved survival with a deeper cardiac response (5-year OS 93%, 82%, 70% and 58%, P<0.001; Figure 1C). These cardiac response criteria were independent predictors of survival and time to cardiac progression (>30% rise in NT-proBNP/BNP) in multivariate analysis that included age, type of first line therapy, light chain burden, cardiac stage, and hematological response. Conclusions: We validated the prognostic value of graded cardiac response. These response criteria allow better discrimination of patient populations and assessment of treatment effectiveness in an era of improved therapies for AL amyloidosis. The study emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis which increases the likelihood of deep and durable cardiac responses. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Palladini: Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Hegenbart: Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria. Kumar: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Kastritis: Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Beigene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Eidos: Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sorrento: Research Funding. Landau: Genzyme: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cibeira: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option.

Abstract Background: Initial studies with venetoclax, a BCL-2 inhibitor, alone or in combination with either dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone has shown considerable anti-tumor activity in t(11;14) MM with relapsed disease. Based on preclinical studies suggesting synergy when combined with bortezomib and phase 1 data showing efficacy for venetoclax, this combination was compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone (BortDex) in relapsed MM. While the BELLINI (NCT02755597) trial did demonstrate improved PFS with the combination, there were limited number of patients with t(11;14) treated with BortDex. The objective of this study was to assess real-world effectiveness of BortDex in patients with t(11;14) positive relapsed/refractory MM. Patients and methods: This non-interventional, retrospective observational cohort study included patients with t(11;14) MM from the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) retrospective study of t(11;14) MM. From the overall cohort, patients with t(11;14) MM receiving BortDex in ≥2 nd and ≤4 th line were initially selected. The cohort was further limited to patients with no evidence of allogeneic SCT within 16 weeks or autologous SCT within 12 weeks prior to BortDex initiation. Finally, patients non-refractory to prior PI regimen and not receiving BortDex regimen as part of a clinical trial were included in the study. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics along with real-world effectiveness outcomes including best response, overall survival (OS), and time to next therapy (TTNT) as a surrogate measure for progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed. All analyses were descriptive in nature and were conducted using the SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Results: Overall, 144 patients who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Median age was 62.5 years, 62% were male. Patients had a median of 1 prior line (range 1-3) at start of BortDex, at a median of 18.4 months (range, 1-100) from diagnosis; 29% had a prior transplant. A PR or better was observed in 53% of patients with BortDex. The median TTNT for this cohort was 8.4 months and median OS was 46.1 months. Conclusions: This retrospective study of non-trial patients with t(11;14) MM provides a benchmark for newer therapies in this patient population for comparison with both venetoclax dexamethasone as well as combinations using the -BortDex backbone. Disclosures Emechebe: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Pharmaceutical/Biotech Companies: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Kumar: Tenebio: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Goldschmidt: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grant; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Johns Hopkins University: Other: Grant. Mateos: Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria; Sea-Gen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird bio: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Kim: Janssen, BMS: Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Ludwig: Janssen, Celgene-BMS, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen, Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Handa: Kyowa Kirin: Research Funding; Chugai: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Ono: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; MSD: Research Funding; Shionogi: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Fernandez de Larrea: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy. Reece: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Millennium: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Raje: Celgene, Amgen, Bluebird Bio, Janssen, Caribou, and BMS: Other. Karve: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Arriola: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Ross: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Durie: Amgen: Other: fees from non-CME/CE services ; Amgen, Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda: Consultancy.

Abstract Introduction Systemic immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare disease characterized by amyloid fibril deposits, most commonly in the heart and kidneys. Management of the disease relies primarily on off-label use of multiple myeloma therapies. No treatments are approved for AL amyloidosis in the relapsed/refractory setting. In the phase 3, open-label TOURMALINE-AL1 trial (NCT01659658), patients with relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis were randomized 1:1 to receive either oral ixazomib plus dexamethasone (Id) or physician's choice (CH) in 28-day cycles, and followed until progression or unacceptable toxicity. An interim analysis demonstrated that Id was well tolerated and, although the primary endpoint of hematologic response rate was not met, time-to-event efficacy analyses consistently favored Id. We report an analysis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and AL amyloidosis symptoms from TOURMALINE-AL1; such data for AL amyloidosis in general have been limited. Methods Four PRO instruments were used to collect data to support PRO-related secondary endpoints during the treatment period: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group Neurotoxicity subscale (FACT/GOG-Ntx), an amyloidosis symptom questionnaire (ASQ), the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 3-Level (EQ-5D-3L), and the Visual Analogue Scale (EQ VAS) were collected at screening, day 1 of each cycle, and end of treatment (EOT), and the 36-item Short Form General Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2) was collected at screening, day 1 of every third cycle, and EOT. Analysis of PRO data included descriptive summaries of means and change from baseline and a linear mixed model (LMM) for repeated measures for patients in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population with a baseline and at least one postbaseline PRO-specific assessment. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Data cutoff date was 20 February 2019. Results The ITT population included 168 patients (Id: n=85; CH: n=83), who completed up to 58 cycles (Id) and up to 43 cycles (CH); median treatment duration was 11.7 vs 5.0 months, respectively. PRO compliance in the treatment period was high for all instruments (Figure). Baseline HRQOL as measured by the SF-36v2 and EQ VAS was similar between treatment arms. During the treatment period, SF-36v2 Mental and Physical Component Summary (MCS and PCS) scores remained stable relative to baseline and were similar between arms; the 8 subscale scores were also generally maintained over time, and mostly similar between arms. Least-squares (LS) mean changes from baseline were significantly higher (better HRQoL) for Id compared with CH at several cycles in the SF-36v2 Role Physical and Vitality subscales (p<0.05) (Figure); no subscales demonstrated significant differences favoring CH. Symptom burden as measured by the FACT/GOG-Ntx and ASQ was low at baseline, leaving little room for improvement. FACT/GOG-Ntx scores were generally maintained over time. In the treatment period, there were small but significant differences in LS mean changes from baseline favoring Id over CH at multiple cycles for 7 of the 11 individual items and the neurotoxicity and sensory summary scores; there were small but significant differences favoring CH over Id for 1 individual item (trouble hearing) at a few later cycles. The ASQ total score trended downward slightly (lower burden) during treatment after the first few cycles in both arms. There were significant differences per the LMM favoring Id over CH at cycles 7 and 21 (p<0.05). In both arms, EQ VAS scores trended upward (better HRQoL) during treatment and then declined slightly at EOT. (LMM analyses were not conducted for EQ-5D.) At EOT, a slight deterioration from baseline was observed in actual scores for SF-36v2 domains and summary scales, FACT/GOG-Ntx neurotoxicity and sensory subscales, and ASQ items and total score for both Id and CH. Conclusions Relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis patients treated with Id experienced HRQOL and symptoms that were similar to or trended better than patients treated with CH. These data suggest that treatment with Id, although with a substantially longer treatment duration, did not have a negative impact on HRQOL in patients with relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis, a population with currently no approved treatment options. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Sanchorawala: Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sorrento: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Wechalekar: Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Kim: Janssen, BMS: Research Funding. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Pfizer: Honoraria. Landau: Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Genzyme: Honoraria. Fiona: Pfizer: Research Funding. Suzuki: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; ONO: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Comenzo: Karyopharm: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Unum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Patents & Royalties: WO2016187546A1, Research Funding; Prothena Biosciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Caelum: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cherepanov: Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Hayden: Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. Faller: Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co.: Current Employment; Viracta Therapeutics, Inc: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Ended employment in the past 24 months, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Briacell, Inc: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Kastritis: Amgen, Genesis Pharma, Janssen, Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer: Research Funding; Amgen, Genesis Pharma, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer: Honoraria.

AbstractAimSurgical treatment of splenic flexure cancer (SFC) still presents some debated issues, including the role of laparoscopic surgery. The literature is based on small single‐centre series, while randomized controlled studies comparing open and laparoscopic treatment for colon cancer exclude SFC. This study aimed to determine the role of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of SFC, comparing short‐ and long‐term outcomes with open surgery.MethodThis was an international multicentre retrospective cohort study that analysed patients from 10 tertiary referral centres. From a cohort of 641 cases, 484 patients with Stage I–III SFC submitted to elective surgery with curative intent were selected. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 130 patients in the laparoscopic group (LapGroup) were compared with 130 patients in the open surgery group (OpenGroup).ResultsAfter propensity score matching, the two groups were comparable for demographic and clinical parameters. OpenGroup presented a higher incidence of overall (P = 0.02) and surgery‐related complications (P = 0.05) but a similar rate of severe complications (P = 0.75). Length of stay was notably shorter in the LapGroup (P = 0.001). Overall (P = 0.793) as well as cancer‐specific survival (P = 0.63) did not differ between the two groups.ConclusionsElective laparoscopic surgery for Stage I–III SFC is feasible and associated with improved short‐term postoperative outcomes compared to open surgery. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery appears to provide excellent long‐term cancer outcomes.

Abstract Video-polysomnography (v-PSG) is essential for diagnosing rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (RBD). Although there are current American Academy of Sleep Medicine standards to diagnose RBD, several aspects need to be addressed to achieve harmonization across sleep centers. Prodromal RBD is a stage in which symptoms and signs of evolving RBD are present, but do not yet meet established diagnostic criteria for RBD. However, the boundary between prodromal and definite RBD is still unclear. As a common effort of the Neurophysiology Working Group of the International RBD Study Group, this manuscript addresses the need for comprehensive and unambiguous v-PSG recommendations to diagnose RBD and identify prodromal RBD. These include: (1) standardized v-PSG technical settings; (2) specific considerations for REM sleep scoring; (3) harmonized methods for scoring REM sleep without atonia; (4) consistent methods to analyze video and audio recorded during v-PSGs and to classify movements and vocalizations; (5) clear v-PSG guidelines to diagnose RBD and identify prodromal RBD. Each section follows a common template: The current recommendations and methods are presented, their limitations are outlined, and new recommendations are described. Finally, future directions are presented. These v-PSG recommendations are intended for both practicing clinicians and researchers. Classification and quantification of motor events, RBD episodes, and vocalizations are however intended for research purposes only. These v-PSG guidelines will allow collection of homogeneous data, providing objective v-PSG measures and making future harmonized multicentric studies and clinical trials possible.

AbstractObjectiveTo delineate the full phenotypic spectrum of BCS1L‐related disease, provide better understanding of the genotype–phenotype correlations and identify reliable prognostic disease markers.MethodsWe performed a retrospective multinational cohort study of previously unpublished patients followed in 15 centres from 10 countries. Patients with confirmed biallelic pathogenic BCS1L variants were considered eligible. Clinical, laboratory, neuroimaging and genetic data were analysed. Patients were stratified into different groups based on the age of disease onset, whether homozygous or compound heterozygous for the c.232A>G (p.Ser78Gly) variant, and those with other pathogenic BCS1L variants.ResultsThirty‐three patients were included. We found that growth failure, lactic acidosis, tubulopathy, hepatopathy and early death were more frequent in those with disease onset within the first month of life. In those with onset after 1 month, neurological features including movement disorders and seizures were more frequent. Novel phenotypes, particularly involving movement disorder, were identified in this group. The presence of the c.232A>G (p.Ser78Gly) variant was associated with significantly worse survival and exclusively found in those with disease onset within the first month of life, whilst other pathogenic BCS1L variants were more frequent in those with later symptom onset.InterpretationThe phenotypic spectrum of BCS1L‐related disease comprises a continuum of clinical features rather than a set of separate syndromic clinical identities. Age of onset defines BCS1L‐related disease clinically and early presentation is associated with poor prognosis. Genotype correlates with phenotype in the presence of the c.232A>G (p.Ser78Gly) variant.

Abstract Background/Introduction Cardiomyopathy (CM) with associated heart failure and polyneuropathy (PN) are common manifestations of hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTRv), a progressive, debilitating, and fatal disease that results from the deposition of misfolded transthyretin (TTR) protein throughout the body. NEURO-TTR (NCT01737398) showed that inotersen, an antisense oligonucleotide inhibitor of TTR protein production, slowed the progression of PN and maintained quality of life in patients with ATTRv. Purpose To report efficacy and safety from the open-label extension (OLE) of the NEURO-TTR study in patients with ATTRv PN overall and in CM subgroups. Methods Patients who completed NEURO-TTR, enrolled in the OLE (NCT02175004), and either switched from placebo in NEURO-TTR to inotersen in the OLE (placebo-inotersen) or received inotersen in NEURO-TTR and remained on inotersen in the OLE (inotersen-inotersen) were included. Assessments included the modified Neuropathy Impairment Score +7 composite score (mNIS+7 [range –22.3 to 346.3], a measure of neuropathy with higher scores indicative of poorer function), TTR levels, and safety monitoring. Utilizing patients from Europe and North America (EU+NA) as of 28 July 2020, this post hoc analysis examined two subgroups: CM ECHO and severe CM ECHO. CM was defined as a diagnosis of ATTRv CM at study entry or all of the following criteria: a left ventricular wall thickness of ≥1.3 cm on transthoracic echocardiography at baseline, no known history of persistent hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥150 mm Hg) within 12 months before study screening, and evaluable baseline ECHO obtained by central assessment. Severe CM was defined as an interventricular septum thickness ≥1.5 cm at baseline. Descriptive statistics are reported. Results In the overall population and both CM subgroups, the placebo-inotersen group demonstrated slowing of neurological disease progression compared with natural history based on NEURO-TTR placebo projection (estimated natural history will be presented). Furthermore, in the overall population and both CM subgroups, the inotersen-inotersen group demonstrated sustained benefit compared with the placebo-inotersen group (Table). Change in serum TTR levels will be presented. There have been no reports of grade 4 thrombocytopenia or acute glomerulonephritis under enhanced monitoring in patients in the EU+NA despite the increased duration of exposure. No new safety concerns were identified. Conclusions Inotersen treatment for >3 years slowed the progression of PN associated with ATTRv in patients with CM, including severe CM. In both subgroups, greater neurological preservation was observed in those who initiated inotersen earlier (inotersen-inotersen group), underscoring the benefits of early treatment. No new safety signals were detected in this OLE analysis; enhanced monitoring is successful in managing the risk for thrombocytopenia and acute glomerulonephritis. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): This study was sponsored by Akcea Therapeutics, an affiliate of Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Abstract Background Increased epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) thickness correlates with metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, microvascular dysfunction and enhanced pericardial restraint. Purpose We measured echocardiographic EAT thickness in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction to determine whether EAT could bear prognostic significance at clinical follow-up. Methods We prospectively enrolled 393 consecutive HF outpatients (205 HFrEF, 188 HFpEF) referred to our hospital due to dyspnoea and/or effort intolerance. We performed a resting clinical and biohumoral evaluation, followed by combined cardiopulmonary-echocardiography exercise stress. A composite of cardiovascular death and HF-related hospitalization was chosen as endpoint during follow-up. Results Patients with HFpEF displayed higher EAT thickness (median 8 mm, interquartile range [IQR] 4–12 mm) than HFrEF (median 3 mm, IQR 2–6 mm; p<0.0001). During a median follow-up of 20.9 months (IQR 15–25 months), we reported 34 cardiovascular deaths and 146 HF hospitalizations, with no significant differences between the two HF subsets. EAT predicted adverse events independently from body mass index and well-established markers of poor prognosis (e.g., NT-proBNP, peak oxygen consumption). The risk of adverse events increased with increasing EAT thickness in HFpEF and with EAT thinning in HFrEF. Kaplan-Meier analyses for the composite endpoint showed that in HFpEF, the survival probability was significantly lower in patients with thicker EAT than those with thinner EAT. In HFrEF, conversely, patients with thicker EAT had a higher survival probability than those with reduced EAT thickness (Figure 1). Conclusion EAT accumulation is more marked in HFpEF than HFrEF and carries different prognostic meanings in the two subsets. In HFpEF, EAT thickening portends adverse outcome, which may be due to increased mechanical restraint and secretion of pro-inflammatory and pro-atherogenic adipokines. In HFrEF, greater EAT thickness seems to have a protective role, while EAT thinning is associated with a worse prognosis, likely reflecting a catabolic state (i.e. cardiac cachexia). Larger studies will clarify whether EAT is a bystander or an active player in the different HF phenotypes. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Figure 1

Abstract Background Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) acts as a paracrine organ and could exert direct mechanical compression on the myocardium. Purpose We investigated the impact of echocardiographic EAT thickness on metabolic profile and cardiovascular hemodynamics at rest and during exercise in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction Methods We prospectively enrolled 393 consecutive HF outpatients (205 HFrEF, 188 HFpEF) referred to the our hospital due to dyspnoea and/or effort intolerance. We performed a resting clinical and biohumoral evaluation, followed by combined cardiopulmonary-echocardiography exercise stress. The protocol also included 44 healthy controls. Results Patients with HFpEF displayed the greatest EAT thickness (median 8 mm, interquartile range [IQR] 4–12 mm), while those with HFrEF had thinner EAT (median 3 mm, IQR 2–6 mm) than controls (median 5 mm, IQR 3–7 mm; p<0.0001). In HFrEF, EAT thickness was inversely associated with natriuretic peptides, Troponin T, and C-reactive protein levels. In HFpEF, it was directly correlated with Troponin-T and C-reactive protein levels. EAT thickness was inversely correlated with peak oxygen consumption (VO2) and peripheral oxygen extraction (AVO2diff) in HFpEF, while a direct association was observed in HFrEF (Fig 1). EAT resulted in an independent predictor of peak VO2 and AVO2diff in HFrEF and HFpEF regardless of body mass index, but the relationships were direct in HFrEF (standard regression coefficient [SRC] for peak VO2: 0.18, p=0.02; SRC for peak AVO2diff: 0.17, p=0.03) and indirect in HFpEF (SRC for peak VO2: −0.33, p<0.0001; SRC for peak AVO2diff: −0.25, p<0.0001). The analysis of cardiac mechanics revealed that thinner EAT was associated with worse left ventricle systolic dysfunction (average S') and remodeling (3D left ventricle mass) in HFrEF. In HFpEF, increased EAT was related to more severe left atrio-ventricular (left atrium reservoir strain/left ventricle global longitudinal strain) and right ventriculo-arterial (tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion/systolic pulmonary artery pressure) coupling (Figure 2). Conclusion In HFpEF, EAT accumulation is associated with worse hemodynamic and metabolic profile. In HFrEF, conversely, EAT thinning portends more severe LV dysfunction and impaired global functional capacity. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Figure 1Figure 2

Background Standard therapy for COVID-19 is continuously evolving. Autopsy studies showed high prevalence of platelet-fibrin-rich microthrombi in several organs. The aim of the study was therefore to evaluate the safety and efficacy of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and its impact on survival. Methods 7824 consecutive patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in a multicentre international prospective registry (Health Outcome Predictive Evaluation-COVID-19 Registry). Clinical data and in-hospital complications were recorded. Data on APT, including aspirin and other antiplatelet drugs, were obtained for each patient. Results During hospitalisation, 730 (9%) patients received single APT (93%, n=680) or dual APT (7%, n=50). Patients treated with APT were older (74±12 years vs 63±17 years, p<0.01), more frequently male (68% vs 57%, p<0.01) and had higher prevalence of diabetes (39% vs 16%, p<0.01). Patients treated with APT showed no differences in terms of in-hospital mortality (18% vs 19%, p=0.64), need for invasive ventilation (8.7% vs 8.5%, p=0.88), embolic events (2.9% vs 2.5% p=0.34) and bleeding (2.1% vs 2.4%, p=0.43), but had shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (8±5 days vs 11±7 days, p=0.01); however, when comparing patients with APT versus no APT and no anticoagulation therapy, APT was associated with lower mortality rates (log-rank p<0.01, relative risk 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94). On multivariable analysis, in-hospital APT was associated with lower mortality risk (relative risk 0.39, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48, p<0.01). Conclusions APT during hospitalisation for COVID-19 could be associated with lower mortality risk and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, without increased risk of bleeding. Trial registration number NCT04334291.