Citations

Abstract Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T cell) therapy directed at CD19 produces durable remissions in the treatment of relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Nonetheless, many patients receiving CD19 CAR-T cells fail to respond for unknown reasons. To reveal changes in 4-1BB–based CD19 CAR-T cells and identify biomarkers of response, we used single-cell RNA sequencing and protein surface marker profiling of patient CAR-T cells pre- and postinfusion into patients with NHL. At the transcriptional and protein levels, we note the evolution of CAR-T cells toward a nonproliferative, highly differentiated, and exhausted state, with an enriched exhaustion profile in CAR-T cells of patients with poor response marked by TIGIT expression. Utilizing in vitro and in vivo studies, we demonstrate that TIGIT blockade alone improves the antitumor function of CAR-T cells. Altogether, we provide evidence of CAR-T cell dysfunction marked by TIGIT expression driving a poor response in patients with NHL. Significance: This is the first study investigating the mechanisms linked to CAR-T patient responses based on the sequential analysis of manufactured and infused CAR-T cells using single-cell RNA and protein expression data. Furthermore, our findings are the first to demonstrate an improvement of CAR-T cell efficacy with TIGIT inhibition alone. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1825

Background: Interest in vertebral body tethering (VBT) as an alternative to posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) continues to grow. The purpose of this study was to prospectively assess intervertebral disk health on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 1 year following VBT in AIS patients. Methods: AIS patients were enrolled in a prospective surgeon-sponsored Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) Study and underwent MRI at 1-year following VBT. All spanned disks and the untethered disks immediately adjacent to the upper instrumented vertebra and lowest instrumented vertebra levels were evaluated according to Pfirrmann grading criteria. Associations between patient factors and preoperative and postoperative disk health and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated. Results: Twenty-two patients were enrolled with a postoperative MRI (25 curves, 188 disks), and 7 patients (7 curves) had both preoperative and postoperative MRIs (67 disks). The mean age was 12.7 years. Most were Risser 0 (65%) and either Sanders Skeletal Maturity Score 3 (35%) or 4 (53%). In the 7 patients with preoperative and postoperative MRI, the mean Pfirrmann grade of the disks spanned by the tether was 1.88 preoperatively and 2.31 postoperatively (P=0.0075). No statistically significant differences in preoperative versus postoperative Pfirrmann grade were identified in the disks adjacent to the upper or lower instrumented vertebrae. No association was found between patient-reported outcomes and Pfirrmann grade. Conclusion: At 1 year postoperatively, increased degenerative changes in disks spanned by the tether was identifiable on MRI without evidence of adjacent segment disk disease. These changes were not associated with patient-reported outcomes. Level of Evidence: Level III.

Abstract Clinical question In adults with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL) who are already taking the maximum dose of statins or are intolerant to statins, should another lipid-lowering drug be added, either a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor or ezetimibe, to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events? If so, which drug is preferred? Having decided to use one, should we add the other lipid-lowering drug? Current practice Most guidelines emphasise LDL cholesterol targets in their recommendations for prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe in adults at high risk of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event. However, to achieve these goals in very high risk patients with statins alone is almost impossible, so physicians are increasingly considering other lipid-lowering drugs solely for achieving LDL cholesterol treatment goals rather than for achieving important absolute cardiovascular risk reduction. Most guidelines do not systematically assess the cardiovascular benefits of adding PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe for all risk groups across primary and secondary prevention, nor do they report, in accordance with explicit judgments of assumed patients’ values and preferences, absolute benefits and harms and potential treatment burdens. Recommendations The guideline panel provided mostly weak recommendations, which means we rely on shared decision making when applying these recommendations. For adults already using statins, the panel suggests adding a second lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but recommends against adding it in people at low cardiovascular risk. For adults who are intolerant to statins, the panel recommends using a lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but against adding it in those at low cardiovascular risk. When choosing to add another lipid-lowering drug, the panel suggests ezetimibe in preference to PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel suggests further adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe for adults already taking statins at very high risk and those at very high and high risk who are intolerant to statins. How this guideline was created An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel identified four risk groups of patients (low, moderate, high, and very high cardiovascular risk) and primarily applied an individual patient perspective in moving from evidence to recommendations, though societal issues were a secondary consideration. The panel considered the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of starting a PCSK9 inhibitor and/or ezetimibe, making assumptions of adults’ average values and preferences. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids accompany multi-layered recommendations, developed in an online authoring and publication platform ( www.magicapp.org ) that also allows re-use and adaptation. The evidence A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (14 trials including 83 660 participants) of benefits found that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe probably reduce myocardial infarctions and stroke in patients with very high and high cardiovascular risk, with no impact on mortality (moderate to high certainty evidence), but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk. PCSK9 inhibitors may have similar effects to ezetimibe on reducing non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke (low certainty evidence). These relative benefits were consistent, but their absolute magnitude varied based on cardiovascular risk in individual patients (for example, for 1000 people treated with PCSK9 inhibitors in addition to statins over five years, benefits ranged from 2 fewer strokes in the lowest risk to 21 fewer in the highest risk). Two systematic reviews on harms found no important adverse events for these drugs (moderate to high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors require injections that sometimes result in injection site reactions (best estimate 15 more per 1000 in a 5 year timeframe), representing a burden and harm that may matter to patients. The MATCH-IT decision support tool allows you to interact with the evidence and your patients across the alternative options: https://magicevidence.org/match-it/220504dist-lipid-lowering-drugs/ . Understanding the recommendations The stratification into four cardiovascular risk groups means that, to use the recommendations, physicians need to identify their patient’s risk first. We therefore suggest, specific to various geographical regions, using some reliable risk calculators that estimate patients’ cardiovascular risk based on a mix of known risk factors. The largely weak recommendations concerning the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors reflect what the panel considered to be a close balance between small reductions in stroke and myocardial infarctions weighed against the burdens and limited harms. Because of the anticipated large variability of patients’ values and preferences, well informed choices warrant shared decision making. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids linked to the recommendations can facilitate such shared decisions. The strong recommendations against adding another drug in people at low cardiovascular risk reflect what the panel considered to be a burden without important benefits. The strong recommendation for adding either ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in people at high and very high cardiovascular risk reflect a clear benefit. The panel recognised the key uncertainty in the evidence concerning patient values and preferences, namely that what most people consider important reductions in cardiovascular risks, weighed against burdens and harms, remains unclear. Finally, availability and costs will influence decisions when healthcare systems, clinicians, or people consider adding ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors.

Introduction: CRT optimizations has the potential to improve the 30% non-response rate. Randomized trials (RCTs) comparing device and echo-guided CRT optimization have been overall small and results have been conflicting. Methods: We searched the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases from January 2008 through September 2020 for RCTs and prospective observational studies that randomized patients to either echo-guided or device-based CRT optimization. Included studies had to report on at least one of the following outcomes of interest: all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), NYHA class improvement, mean EF at follow up, LVEDD, 6MWD, and QoL. A meta-analyses on the outcomes of interest was performed using random effects models. Results: We included seven RCTs representing a total of 2,730 patients. Of those, 1,113 patients were randomized to echo-guided optimization, and 1,617 were randomized to device-based optimization. The mean age of patients was 64.5 years, and they were predominantly men (60%). In the device-based optimization group, there was 93 deaths (5.7%) and 142 HFH (5.1%). In the echo-guided optimization group, there was 57 deaths (10.2%) and 112 HFH (12.4%). On random effects meta-analysis, the device-based optimization group had a lower rate of HFH compared with the echo-guided optimization group (OR 0.81, 95% CL 0.70-0.95, Figure). However, differences in the following outcomes between the two groups were not statistically significant: all-cause mortality, mean follow up EF, LVEDD, NYHA class improvement, 6MWD improvement range or QoL. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that echo-guided optimization of CRT is equivalent to device-based optimization in relation to the clinical outcomes of death, EF, LVEDD, NYHA and 6MWD but suggests that device-related optimization could reduce HFH. The latter merits further investigation in relation to different device-base optimization algorithms.

AbstractOraxol consists of an oral dosage form of the chemotherapeutic agent paclitaxel administered with a novel P‐glycoprotein inhibitor encequidar methanesulfonate monohydrate (formerly named HM30181A), which allows oral treatment of cancers that would otherwise be treated with intravenous paclitaxel. Here we describe the population pharmacokinetics (popPK) analyses for oral paclitaxel in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors to characterize pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles and quantify sources of PK variability. The best fit popPK model for oral paclitaxel, based on data from seven clinical studies (197 patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors), involves a linear two‐compartment structural model containing first‐order absorption with a short lag time and first‐order elimination as well as a log additive error. In this popPK model, lower population estimates of central volume for Asian patients versus Caucasian patients did not translate into clinical meaningful differences in oral paclitaxel exposure. Age, sex, body weight or surface area, mild hepatic impairment, and mild to moderate renal impairment had no clinically meaningful effects on the systemic exposure of oral paclitaxel. Simulations were performed on clinical therapeutic dose (oral paclitaxel 205 mg/m2 once daily ×3 days per week) to predict exposure of oral paclitaxel and to support treatment benefits observed in a pivotal phase III trial.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to determine differences in complications and outcomes between posterior fossa decompression with duraplasty (PFDD) and without duraplasty (PFD) for the treatment of pediatric Chiari malformation type I (CM1) and syringomyelia (SM). METHODS The authors used retrospective and prospective components of the Park-Reeves Syringomyelia Research Consortium database to identify pediatric patients with CM1-SM who received PFD or PFDD and had at least 1 year of follow-up data. Preoperative, treatment, and postoperative characteristics were recorded and compared between groups. RESULTS A total of 692 patients met the inclusion criteria for this database study. PFD was performed in 117 (16.9%) and PFDD in 575 (83.1%) patients. The mean age at surgery was 9.86 years, and the mean follow-up time was 2.73 years. There were no significant differences in presenting signs or symptoms between groups, although the preoperative syrinx size was smaller in the PFD group. The PFD group had a shorter mean operating room time (p < 0.0001), fewer patients with > 50 mL of blood loss (p = 0.04), and shorter hospital stays (p = 0.0001). There were 4 intraoperative complications, all within the PFDD group (0.7%, p > 0.99). Patients undergoing PFDD had a 6-month complication rate of 24.3%, compared with 13.7% in the PFD group (p = 0.01). There were no differences between groups for postoperative complications beyond 6 months (p = 0.33). PFD patients were more likely to require revision surgery (17.9% vs 8.3%, p = 0.002). PFDD was associated with greater improvements in headaches (89.6% vs 80.8%, p = 0.04) and back pain (86.5% vs 59.1%, p = 0.01). There were no differences between groups for improvement in neurological examination findings. PFDD was associated with greater reduction in anteroposterior syrinx size (43.7% vs 26.9%, p = 0.0001) and syrinx length (18.9% vs 5.6%, p = 0.04) compared with PFD. CONCLUSIONS PFD was associated with reduced operative time and blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and fewer postoperative complications within 6 months. However, PFDD was associated with better symptom improvement and reduction in syrinx size and lower rates of revision decompression. The two surgeries have low intraoperative complication rates and comparable complication rates beyond 6 months.

Abstract Objective The Genomic Medicine Working Group of the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research virtually hosted its 13th genomic medicine meeting titled “Developing a Clinical Genomic Informatics Research Agenda”. The meeting’s goal was to articulate a research strategy to develop Genomics-based Clinical Informatics Tools and Resources (GCIT) to improve the detection, treatment, and reporting of genetic disorders in clinical settings. Materials and Methods Experts from government agencies, the private sector, and academia in genomic medicine and clinical informatics were invited to address the meeting's goals. Invitees were also asked to complete a survey to assess important considerations needed to develop a genomic-based clinical informatics research strategy. Results Outcomes from the meeting included identifying short-term research needs, such as designing and implementing standards-based interfaces between laboratory information systems and electronic health records, as well as long-term projects, such as identifying and addressing barriers related to the establishment and implementation of genomic data exchange systems that, in turn, the research community could help address. Discussion Discussions centered on identifying gaps and barriers that impede the use of GCIT in genomic medicine. Emergent themes from the meeting included developing an implementation science framework, defining a value proposition for all stakeholders, fostering engagement with patients and partners to develop applications under patient control, promoting the use of relevant clinical workflows in research, and lowering related barriers to regulatory processes. Another key theme was recognizing pervasive biases in data and information systems, algorithms, access, value, and knowledge repositories and identifying ways to resolve them.