Citations

Background There is limited prospective or comparative data evaluating the HRQoL impact of intensive chemotherapy (IC) in older adults (age ≥60 years) with AML. In the recent EA E2906 phase 3 study of '7&3' (daunorubicin & cytarabine) vs. clofarabine (CLO), a putative lower intensity therapy, we incorporated a prospective patient-reported outcomes (PRO) assessment of HRQoL and fatigue to understand treatment impact from the patients' (pts) perspective. Methods E2906 study design and results have been presented previously [n=727, med. age 68 years (range 60-86), randomized 1:1 to ‘standard’ ‘7&3‘ & high dose cytarabine (Arm A) vs. single agent CLO (Arm B), as remission induction (Step 1) and consolidation (Step 2), respectively]. There was no difference in composite complete remission (CCR, 50%) or 30-day mortality rates (8.5%), and in primary analysis CLO was inferior for Overall Survival. HRQoL was a key secondary protocol endpoint. PROs assessed HRQoL and leukemia-specific symptoms and concerns using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia scale (FACT-Leu), & Fatigue using FACT-Fatigue subscale. PROs were administered at prespecified time points: (1) Baseline; (2) Cycle 1 at nadir (approx. Day 15); (3) End of Step 1 restaging (approx. D 40); (4) Beginning of Step 2 (1 st consolidation, approx. D 45); and (5) 2 nd cycle consolidation/End Step 2 (approx. D 60). The FACT-Leu Trial Outcome Index ( TOI) was calculated by summing physical well-being, functional well-being, and leukemia-specific concerns subscales to create a single composite score. Higher TOI scores correspond to better HRQoL. The primary endpoint was to evaluate TOI difference from randomization to day 30 after induction therapy between arms, evaluated using Wilcoxon rank sum test. We also compared Clinically Meaningful differences (CMiD) in TOI (defined as patient change ≥½ standard deviation from baseline TOI) between arms, using the X2 test. Pts not completing at least 2 assessment forms (including baseline) were excluded. Testing of constructs of Physical Well-being (PWB), Functional, Leukemia & Fatigue scales demonstrated high Cronbach's a values (a >0.7) except for PWB (a=0.672) at a single time point (End of Step 2). Results Baseline TOI was available for n=489, and 364 pts (n=182 each Arm) were evaluable in this planned analysis. Evaluating CMiD during Cycle 1 induction, pts in Arm B were less likely to experience ‘Worse’ TOI score (32% vs. 40.7%, Arm A), more likely to maintain stable TOI scores (49.1% vs. 39%, Arm A), and had a similar proportion of ‘Better’ TOI scores (20.3%, A vs. 18.9%, B) although differences were not significant (p=0.1389). Conversely in cycle 1 consolidation, more patients in Arm A experienced Better TOI (45.1% vs. 29.2%, Arm B), fewer had stable TOI (45.1% vs. 58.3%, Arm B), and rates of ‘Worse’ TOI were similar (9.8%, A vs 12.5%, Arm B), again differences were not significant (p=0.2616). There was no difference in Fatigue scores between Arms (p=0.49). We evaluated whether TOI and Fatigue scores could predict the ability to complete protocol therapy. In univariate analysis baseline TOI (p=0.0059) and Fatigue (p=0.0057) were associated with Step 1 completion, however on multivariate analysis (adjusting for age, sex, and Arm) were no longer significant [TOI, Odds Ratio (OR) 1.03 (0.98-1.08, p=0.27); Fatigue, OR 1.03 (0.96-1.11, p=0.42)]. There was a borderline association of TOI with Step 2 completion [TOI OR 1.10 (1.00-1.23, p=0.06)]. Using a multivariable linear mixed effects model, we observed similar and significant changes in TOI scores in both Arms, demonstrating the effect of IC & CLO on HRQoL (Figure). Comparing to baseline, TOI scores decreased significantly at C1 induction nadir (-4.0873, p<0.0001), and increased by 5.0762 (p=0.0004) at end Step 1, by 6.9047 at cycle 1 consolidation (p<0.0001), and by 11.4601 (p<0.0001) at end Step 2. Differences were mainly apparent in those who achieved CCR, and there was significant attrition in PRO responses in non-CCR pts. Conclusions Older adults experienced significant improvement in HRQoL after nadir regardless of therapy, and those achieving CCR report significantly higher scores. We did not observe differences in leukemia specific HRQoL or fatigue between treatment Arms (7&3 vs. CLO). Patient-reported HRQoL & Fatigue was not predictive of completion of protocol therapy. These results serve as a benchmark for expectations with IC in older adults.

BACKGROUND: The association between myeloid neoplasm (MN) and autoimmune rheumatological diseases (AIRD) is increasingly recognized. Furthermore, prolonged cytotoxic disease modifying anti-rheumatological drugs (DMARD) for AIRD may potentially induce therapy-related MN (t-MN), a lethal haematological malignancy with dismal outcomes. However, the genetic association and mechanism underpinning immune dysfunction in patients with between MN and AIRD is not fully elucidated. METHODS: In this collaborative study across the two disciplines and continents (Australia and USA), we assessed the burden of well-defined AIRD in a large cohort of MN (n=1702) that included myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS; n=861), acute myeloid leukaemia (AML; n=640), myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN; n=89) and MDS/MPN overlap (n=112). We characterized the cytogenetic and mutational landscape of MN with AIRD (MN-AIRD) and without AIRD. In order to assess the mechanistic link between AIRD and MN, we investigated the bone marrow microenvironment in MN-AIRD vs. well-curated age matched controls. RESULTS: 132 (7.75%) of MN (n=1702) had concomitant AIRD. Although association of AIRD was observed across all subtypes of MN, enrichment of AIRD was observed in patients with MDS, MDS/MPN and MPN compared to AML (9.5% vs. 9.8% vs 10.1% vs. 4.67%; P <0.001). Inflammatory arthritis (n=65; 49.24%) followed by inflammatory connective tissue diseases (CTD, n=23; 17.42%), polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR, n=18; 13.63%) and vasculitis (n=16; 12.12%) were the most prevalent AIRD in the MN cohort. Notably, 87.7% of inflammatory arthritis were rheumatoid arthritis (RA; n=57). Striking survival differences were observed between t-MN without AIRD and MN-AIRD (14.0 vs. 33.7 months; P <0.0001) and t-MDS no-AIRD and MDS-AIRD (16.1 vs. 33.4 months, P =0.001). Chromosomal abnormalities including complex karyotype, monosomal karyotype, del 5q, del 7q, marker chromosome and TP53 mutations were enriched in t-MN following independent primary cancer (t-MN without AIRD). However striking enrichment of IDH1 and IDH2 (henceforth referred as IDH) mutations in MN with AIRD compared to MN without AIRD (20% vs. 11%, P =0.02), particularly in MDS-AIRD compared to MDS without AIRD (21% vs. 7%; P =0.001). The enrichment of IDH mutations were particularly prevalent in in MN cases with RA compared to other AIRD (34% vs. 11%; P =0.005). While IDH mutations were observed in only 8% and 6% of PMR and inflammatory CTD patients, respectively. Surprisingly higher frequency of IDH mutations was observed in evaluable seronegative compared to seropositive RA patients (62% vs. 0%; P =0.006). We also observed that majority of IDH mutations in seronegative RA were IDH1 (6/8; 75%) while IDH2 mutations were common other AIRD (6/6; 100%) ( P =0.009). We also assessed the impact of DMARDs on genomics of myeloid neoplasm. The majority of MN-AIRD patients treated with methotrexate did not harbor poor risk cytogenetic and mutation features such as complex karyotype, monosomal karyotype, del 5q, del 7q and/or TP53 mutation. In contrast, the majority of patients who had cyclophosphamide harbored high risk cytogenetic and molecular features. To assess pathogenic mechanisms linking MN and AIRD, we evaluated bone marrow microenvironment in myeloid neoplasm patients with and without AIRD. Bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) isolated from MN-AIRD were highly senescent compared to age matched healthy controls, MN without AIRD, with defective proliferating and differentiation capacity of MN-AIRD and secretion of highly proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, our key findings include: 7.8% of MN were associated with AIRD with stronger association of AIRD with MDS and MDS/MPN compared to AML and striking enrichment of IDH mutations in MN with inflammatory arthritis compared to MN with other AIRD (29% vs 11%; P =0.02), especially in seronegative RA compared to seropositive RA (62% vs. 0%; P =0.006). In contrast to cyclophosphamide and azathioprine, majority of cases treated with methotrexate did not harbor poor risk cytogenetic and/or TP53 mutation. As methotrexate is widely used as an anchor drug in many rheumatology treatment regimens, this is a highly significant finding of clinical relevance.

AbstractBackgroundRecent clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of vonoprazan‐amoxicillin (VA) dual therapy as the first‐line treatment for Helicobacter pylori infection in different regions with inconsistent results reported. In this systematic review and meta‐analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of VA dual therapy compared to the currently recommended therapy for eradicating H. pylori.Materials and MethodsA comprehensive search of the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases was performed using the following search terms: (“Helicobacter” OR “H. pylori” OR “Hp”) AND (“vonoprazan” OR “potassium‐competitive acid blocker” OR “P‐CAB”) AND (“amoxicillin” OR “penicillin”) AND (“dual”). The primary outcome was to evaluate the eradication rate according to intention‐to‐treat and per‐protocol analysis. The secondary outcomes were adverse events and compliance.ResultsA total of 15 studies involving 4, 568 patients were included. The pooled eradication rate of VA dual therapy was 85.0% and 90.0% by intention‐to‐treat and per‐protocol analysis, respectively. The adverse events rate and compliance of VA dual therapy were 17.5% and 96%, respectively. The efficacy of VA dual therapy was superior to proton pump inhibitors‐based triple therapy (82.0% vs. 71.4%, p < 0.01) but lower than vonoprazan‐containing quadruple therapy (83.1% vs. 93.3%, p = 0.02). 7‐day VA dual therapy showed lower eradication rates than 10‐day (χ2 = 24.09, p < 0.01) and 14‐day VA dual therapy (χ2 = 11.87, p < 0.01). The adverse events rate of VA dual therapy was lower than vonoprazan triple therapy (24.6% vs. 30.9%, p = 0.01) and bismuth‐containing quadruple therapy (20.5% vs. 47.9%, p < 0.01). No significant difference of compliance was observed between VA dual therapy and each subgroup.ConclusionVA dual therapy, a novel regimen, showed high efficacy as the first‐line treatment for H. pylori eradication, which should be optimized before application in different regions.

AbstractObjectiveWe published a list of “must‐know” routine EEG (rEEG) findings for trainees based on expert opinion. Here, we studied the accuracy and inter‐rater agreement (IRA) of these “must‐know” rEEG findings among international experts.MethodsA previously validated online rEEG examination was disseminated to EEG experts. It consisted of a survey and 30 multiple‐choice questions predicated on the previously published “must‐know” rEEG findings divided into four domains: normal, abnormal, normal variants, and artifacts. Questions contained de‐identified 10–20‐s epochs of EEG that were considered unequivocal examples by five EEG experts.ResultsThe examination was completed by 258 international EEG experts. Overall mean accuracy and IRA (AC1) were 81% and substantial (0.632), respectively. The domain‐specific mean accuracies and IRA were: 76%, moderate (0.558) (normal); 78%, moderate (0.575) (abnormal); 85%, substantial (0.678) (normal variants); 85%, substantial (0.740) (artifacts). Academic experts had a higher accuracy than private practice experts (82% vs. 77%; p = .035). Country‐specific overall mean accuracies and IRA were: 92%, almost perfect (0.836) (U.S.); 86%, substantial (0.762) (Brazil); 79%, substantial (0.646) (Italy); and 72%, moderate (0.496) (India). In conclusion, collective expert accuracy and IRA of “must‐know” rEEG findings are suboptimal and heterogeneous.SignificanceWe recommend the development and implementation of pragmatic, accessible, country‐specific ways to measure and improve the expert accuracy and IRA.

While acknowledging that newer therapies have improved survival rates in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), patients with high-risk disease features are at an increased risk of treatment failure. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) was traditionally offered as front-line consolidation in high-risk CLL; however, with the emergence of targeted therapies like Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) and B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitors, the role of allo-HCT has been relegated to later stages of the disease. Patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL who have failed both BTK and BCL-2 inhibitors represent a therapeutic challenge owing to a poor prognosis. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapies targeting CD19 have improved response rates and overall survival in various types of R/R B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas. For CLL, no approved CAR T-cell therapies are yet available. Emerging data appear to show a therapeutic benefit of CAR T-cell therapy in patients with R/R CLL, even after failing an allo-HCT.