Citations

Abstract Background With limited severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing capacity in the United States at the start of the epidemic (January–March 2020), testing was focused on symptomatic patients with a travel history throughout February, obscuring the picture of SARS-CoV-2 seeding and community transmission. We sought to identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the early weeks of the US epidemic. Methods All of Us study participants in all 50 US states provided blood specimens during study visits from 2 January to 18 March 2020. Participants were considered seropositive if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies with the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA in a sequential testing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of these ELISAs and the net sensitivity and specificity of the sequential testing algorithm were estimated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results The estimated sensitivities of the Abbott and EUROIMMUN assays were 100% (107 of 107 [95% CI: 96.6%–100%]) and 90.7% (97 of 107 [83.5%–95.4%]), respectively, and the estimated specificities were 99.5% (995 of 1000 [98.8%–99.8%]) and 99.7% (997 of 1000 [99.1%–99.9%]), respectively. The net sensitivity and specificity of our sequential testing algorithm were 90.7% (97 of 107 [95% CI: 83.5%–95.4%]) and 100.0% (1000 of 1000 [99.6%–100%]), respectively. Of the 24 079 study participants with blood specimens from 2 January to 18 March 2020, 9 were seropositive, 7 before the first confirmed case in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi. Conclusions Our findings identified SARS-CoV-2 infections weeks before the first recognized cases in 5 US states.

10525 Background: Several groups have described disparities in genetic test results for inherited breast cancer predisposition, with a disproportionate number of variants of unknown significance (VUS) reported in non-Caucasian individuals. These disparities are due in part to the underrepresentation of non-Caucasians in reference databases and clinical genetic testing cohorts. Over the past few years, diversification efforts have been made however, little data exists on how ethnicity- and gene-specific VUS rates have changed over time and whether such disparities have improved or worsened. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed demographic information and test results for individuals who underwent hereditary cancer multigene panel testing between March 2012 and September 2020 at a single laboratory. Individuals who self-reported as African American, Asian, Caucasian, or Hispanic on the test requisition form and whose testing included ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 and PALB2 (five commonly tested breast cancer predisposition genes with management guidelines) were included in the study (n = 284,130). The frequency of germline variants of unknown significance (VUS) in the five genes was assessed in September 2015 and September 2020. Results: Amongst patients tested between March 2012 and September 2015, 82.8% of the study cohort self-reported as Caucasian and 17.2% were not Caucasian (6.5% African American, 6.0% Hispanic, and 4.6% Asian). The proportion of non-Caucasian individuals in the study cohort increased slightly by September 2020 to 22.8% (77.2% Caucasian, 9.2% African American, 8.4% Hispanic, and 5.3% Asian). Consistent with previous reports, Caucasians had the lowest VUS rate overall in both 2015 and 2020. This was also true at the individual gene level, with the exception of CHEK2. Over time, we observed a relative decrease in VUS rates across all ethnicities. Between 2015 and 2020, the overall VUS rate for the five included genes in non-Caucasian individuals was reduced by 32.0% in non-Caucasians compared to 23.6% in Caucasians. The absolute difference in VUS rate between non-Caucasians and Caucasians decreased from 7.9% in 2015 to 4.5% in 2020. Conclusions: While VUS rates for commonly tested breast cancer predisposition genes remain higher in non-Caucasians relative to Caucasians, our results demonstrate that this gap has been reduced over a five-year time period. These findings may be indicative of efforts by clinicians and laboratories to reduce these disparities. Further studies are necessary to improve the clinical utility of genetic testing in under-represented populations.[Table: see text]

8030 Background: CARTITUDE-1 is a single arm study of Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; JNJ-68284528) anti-BCMA CAR-T cell therapy in US patients (pts) with relapsed multiple myeloma (RRMM) refractory to both IMiD and proteasome inhibitor (PI) or with at least 3 prior lines of therapy and previously exposed to anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (MoAb). While recently reported efficacy results of cilta-cel were encouraging, it is unknown how they compare with similar pts receiving conventional (non CAR-T) treatment. Methods: We utilized a contemporary US-based dataset of pts with MM refractory to anti-CD38 MoAb (MAMMOTH) to identify pts who would meet eligibility for CARTITUDE-1 and who received conventional therapy. We analyzed the intent-to-treat population (ITT) in CARTITUDE-1, defined as pts who underwent apheresis (N=113) and a modified ITT population (mITT) defined as subset of pts who received cilta-cel at the RP2D (N=97). From the MAMMOTH dataset, we identified a population corresponding to CARTITUDE-1 ITT (N=190) and a mITT population, pts without death or progression within 47 days (median time between apheresis and cilta-cel infusion) from onset of therapy (N=122). We calculated propensity scores (PS) with demographics, N of prior therapies, cytogenetics and refractoriness to MM agents as covariates. An analyst blinded to outcomes performed nearest neighbor 1:1 PS matching. We analyzed overall response rate (ORR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for ITT and mITT in CARTITUDE-1 vs matching MAMMOTH cohorts. Results: Ninety-five ITT (75 received bridging therapy, 82 received cilta-cel) and 69 mITT (54 received bridging) CARTITUDE-1 pts matched MAMMOTH pts (Table). Among the pts in the MAMMOTH ITT cohort 34% received pomalidomide, 24% anti-CD38 MoAb, 19% carfilzomib and 35% cytotoxic chemotherapy in next therapy. ORR in the ITT cohorts was higher in CARTITUDE-1 (84% vs. 28%). Compared to their MAMMOTH counterparts, pts in CARTITUDE-1 ITT cohort had improved PFS (12 mo. 73% vs. 12%) and OS (12 mo. 83% vs 39%). Between the mITT cohorts, CARTITUDE-1 pts had superior ORR (96% vs. 30%), PFS (12 mo 79% vs. 15%) and OS (12 mo. 88% vs. 41%). Conclusions: In pts with RRMM beyond therapy with IMID, PI, and anti-CD38 MoAb, treatment with cilta-cel is associated with higher response rate and superior PFS and OS when compared to conventional treatment.[Table: see text]

8005 Background: CARTITUDE-1 (NCT03548207) is a phase 1b/2 study evaluating ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; JNJ-68284528), a CAR T-cell therapy with two BCMA–targeting single-domain antibodies, in patients (pts) with R/R MM. Here, we report updated results in pts with a longer duration (median 12.4 months) of follow-up. Methods: Eligible pts had MM and received ≥3 prior regimens or were double refractory to a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), and had received a PI, IMiD, and anti-CD38 antibody. After apheresis, bridging therapy was permitted. Pts received a single cilta-cel infusion (target dose: 0.75×106 CAR+ viable T cells/kg; range 0.5-1.0×106) 5–7 days (d) after lymphodepletion (300 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide, 30 mg/m2 fludarabine daily for 3 d). The primary objectives were to characterize cilta-cel safety, confirm the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D; phase 1b), and evaluate efficacy (phase 2). Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was graded by Lee et al (Blood 2014) and neurotoxicity by CTCAE, v5.0 (in phase 1b). CRS and ICANS were graded by ASTCT criteria (in phase 2). Here, Lee et al and CTCAE v5.0 were mapped to ASTCT for CRS and ICANS, respectively. Results: As of Sept 1, 2020, 97 pts with a median of 6 prior lines received cilta-cel. Overall response rate per independent review committee (primary endpoint) was 97% (95% CI, 91–99), with 67% achieving stringent complete response (sCR). Median time to first response was 1 month (range, 1–9), and median time to CR or better was 2 months (range, 1–15). Responses deepened over time, and median duration of response was not reached. Of 57 pts evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment, 93% were MRD-negative at 10-5. The 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival rates (95% CI) were 77% (66–84) and 89% (80–94), respectively; median PFS was not reached. Grade 3/4 hematologic AEs ≥20% included neutropenia (95%), anemia (68%), leukopenia (61%), thrombocytopenia (60%), and lymphopenia (50%). CRS occurred in 95% of pts (4% grade 3/4), with median time to onset of 7 d (range, 1–12), and median duration of 4 d (range, 1–14, excluding 1 pt with 97-d duration). CRS resolved in all but one with grade 5 CRS/haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. CAR T-cell neurotoxicity occurred in 21% of pts (grade ≥3, 10%). Fourteen deaths occurred during the study after cilta-cel infusion: none within the first 30 days, 2 within 100 days; and 12 more than 100 days post infusion, of which 5 were due to disease progression, and 4 due to treatment-related AEs. Conclusions: A single infusion of cilta-cel yielded early, deep, and durable responses in heavily pretreated pts with MM, with a manageable safety profile at the RP2D. Cilta-cel is under further investigation in other MM populations in earlier lines of therapy and in outpatient settings. Clinical trial information: NCT03548207.

6594 Background: Patient reported financial hardship (FH) in cancer care is a growing challenge for patients, their caregivers and healthcare providers. As treatment costs escalate, it is imperative to develop effective strategies to proactively recognize and mitigate FH within oncology practice. Using automated processes to screen and refer patients to appropriate resources is a potential option. At Mayo Clinic, screening for FH involves using a single financial strain question ‘ How hard is it for you to pay for the very basics like food, housing, medical care, and heating?’ completed by all cancer patients annually as part of the Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) assessment. In this study, we describe the prevalence and predictors for FH (denoted by the answer ‘hard and very hard’) in our patient population. Methods: Patients receiving cancer care at the three Mayo Clinic sites (Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida) who completed the FH screen at least once were included in this study. Demographics (age, gender, race/ ethnicity, insurance, employment status, marital status, and zip code) and disease state data for included patients was extracted from the EMR and Mayo Clinic Cancer Registry. Disease state was categorized by type of cancer (hematological or solid malignancy) and cancer stage. Zip code was used to derive median income, rural/urban residence and distance from the cancer center. Multivariable logistic regression models were utilized to examine factors associated with FH. Results: The final study cohort included 31,969 patients with median age 66 years (IQR 57,73), 51% females, and 76% married. Race/ethnicity composition was 93% White, 3% Black, and 4% Hispanic. 52% of patients had Medicare and 43% had commercial insurance. Other notable factors included 48% retired, 41% working/ students, 76% married, and 72% urban residents. Median time from cancer diagnosis was 1.1 year (IQR 0.1, 3.8) and median income was $64,406 (IQR 53,067, 82,038). 31% of patients had hematological malignancies, 20% of the cancers for which staging information was available were metastatic. FH was reported by 4% (n = 1194) of the patients. A significantly higher likelihood of endorsing FH (p < 0.001 for all) was noted in Hispanic (OR 1.64), Black (OR 1.84), American Indian/Alaskan native (OR 2.02), below median income (OR 1.48), rural (OR 1.17), self-pay (OR 2.77), Medicaid (OR 2.29), Medicare (OR 1.43), unemployed/disabled (OR 2.39), single (OR 2.07), or divorced (OR 2.43) patients. Older age, being retired, and living farther from the cancer center were associated with significantly less likelihood of endorsing FH. Conclusions: Our study successfully leveraged the EMR to identify key sociodemographic groups more likely to report FH. An electronic trigger to flag such patients at high-risk of FH and proactively address FH is currently being developed.

Abstract Background As a major public health crisis, the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic demonstrates the urgent need for safe, effective, and evidence-based implementations of digital health. The urgency stems from the frequent tendency to focus attention on seemingly high promising digital health interventions despite being poorly validated in times of crisis. Aim In this paper, we describe a joint call for action to use and leverage evidence-based health informatics as the foundation for the COVID-19 response and public health interventions. Tangible examples are provided for how the working groups and special interest groups of the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA) are helping to build an evidence-based response to this crisis. Methods Leaders of working and special interest groups of the IMIA, a total of 26 groups, were contacted via e-mail to provide a summary of the scientific-based efforts taken to combat COVID-19 pandemic and participate in the discussion toward the creation of this manuscript. A total of 13 groups participated in this manuscript. Results Various efforts were exerted by members of IMIA including (1) developing evidence-based guidelines for the design and deployment of digital health solutions during COVID-19; (2) surveying clinical informaticians internationally about key digital solutions deployed to combat COVID-19 and the challenges faced when implementing and using them; and (3) offering necessary resources for clinicians about the use of digital tools in clinical practice, education, and research during COVID-19. Discussion Rigor and evidence need to be taken into consideration when designing, implementing, and using digital tools to combat COVID-19 to avoid delays and unforeseen negative consequences. It is paramount to employ a multidisciplinary approach for the development and implementation of digital health tools that have been rapidly deployed in response to the pandemic bearing in mind human factors, ethics, data privacy, and the diversity of context at the local, national, and international levels. The training and capacity building of front-line workers is crucial and must be linked to a clear strategy for evaluation of ongoing experiences.

Introduction: Obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM) is characterized by dynamic LV outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction resulting from ventricular hypertrophy and mitral valve systolic anterior motion (SAM), and by elevated left ventricular (LV) filling pressures, all of which result in a significant morbidity despite medical therapy. Mavacamten (Mava) is a novel inhibitor of cardiac myosin that significantly reduces LVOT gradients in oHCM, noted initially in the phase 2 PIONEER and more recently in the phase 3 EXPLORER-HCM studies. Additional echocardiographic analyses were performed to investigate the effect of Mava on focused measures of cardiac structure and function in oHCM. Methods: EXPLORER-HCM (NCT03470545) was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study that randomized symptomatic oHCM patients (LV ejection fraction ≥55% and resting and/or provoked LVOT gradient ≥50 mmHg) 1:1 to Mava vs placebo for 30 weeks. Echocardiograms were performed serially every 2-4 weeks over 30 weeks. Results: In total, 251 patients with oHCM were enrolled and 244 patients completed the study (mean age 58.5; 40.6% female). Compared to placebo, 30-week treatment with Mava led to significant reductions in LA volume index (-7.5 ml/m 2 , p<0.0001), lateral E/e’ (-3.8, p<0.0001), septal E/e’ (-3.4, p<0.0001), and LV mass index (-15.5 g/m 2 , p<0.0001) ( Table ). Significantly more Mava-treated patients achieved resolution of mitral valve SAM compared to placebo (80.9% vs 34.0% of patients; difference of 46.8%; p<0.0001) and mitral regurgitation (MR) (9.0% vs 0.0% of patients; difference of 9.0%; p=0.0006). Conclusions: Treatment with Mava for 30 weeks led to improvement in LV hypertrophy and markers of left-sided filling pressures (LA volume and E/e’). Furthermore, Mava treatment was associated with reduction of SAM and MR. These findings suggest that Mava has beneficial effects on several adverse pathophysiologic processes that are hallmarks of oHCM.

Background: Immunocompromised (IC) patients are at greater risk from cardiac surgery. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be more preferable for treating severe aortic stenosis (AS), though data regarding outcomes of IC patients are limited. Methods: We reviewed TAVR procedures performed at our institution from 1/2015-12/2019.We defined IC as either active malignancy receiving oncologic treatment or post organ transplant on immunosuppression, HIV, chronic steroid use (>5mg/day), or autoimmune disorder. Survival probability was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method. Cox regression was used to evaluate the association of IC with survival. Results: Of 173 patients who underwent TAVR, 56 (32%) were IC: 30 (54%) had active malignancy undergoing active treatment, 19 (34%) were IC without malignancy, and 7 (13%) had both. Among the 19 IC patients without malignancy, 4 were post organ transplant, 3 were taking chronic steroids, 2 had autoimmune disorder, 1 had HIV, and 10 had ≥2 combination of the above. IC patients, as compared to non-IC patients, had similar baseline demographics and STS risk score (median 4.3 vs. 4.4), respectively. There were 37 deaths (16 IC and 21 non-IC) over a median follow up of 1.4 years (IQR 1.0-2.0 years). 1-year survival after TAVR was 84.5% for IC patients and 89.0% for non-IC patients (log rank p = 0.51). After adjusting for age and sex, an association between IC and survival was observed but not found to be statistically significant (adjusted HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.80-3.00). Conclusions: IC patients undergoing TAVR have similar baseline characteristics as non-IC patients with a trend towards worse survival. Longer term follow-up may help clarify the impact of IC status on survival after TAVR.