Citations

ObjectiveThe object of this study was to analyze the benefits and harms of different treatment options and to analyze test accuracy used in the evaluation of patients with primary systemic polyarteritis nodosa (PAN).MethodsA systematic search of published English‐language literature was performed in Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from the inception of each database through August 2019. Articles were screened for suitability in addressing patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome questions, with studies presenting the highest level of evidence given preference.ResultsOf 137 articles selected for data abstraction, we analyzed 21 observational studies and seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The results showed indirect evidence that a deep skin biopsy provides good diagnostic accuracy. A combined nerve and muscle biopsy should be obtained for patients with PAN with peripheral neuropathy. Cyclophosphamide with high‐dose glucocorticoids (GCs) is effective as an induction treatment for newly diagnosed active and severe PAN. GC monotherapy is adequate in the majority of patients with nonsevere PAN, although it has a high relapse rate with GC taper. There was insufficient data in determining the optimal duration of non‐GC and GC maintenance therapy. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors are effective treatment for patients with deficiency of adenosine deaminase 2 (DADA2) with stroke and vasculitis manifestations.ConclusionThis comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the harms and benefits of different treatment options and the accuracy of commonly used tests for the diagnosis of systemic PAN. Data for diagnosis and management of PAN and DADA2 are mostly limited to observational studies. More high‐quality RCTs are needed.

ObjectiveEosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is part of a group of vasculitides commonly referred to as antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV), in addition to granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA), and renal‐limited vasculitis. Patients with EGPA characteristically have asthma and marked peripheral eosinophilia with only approximately 30% to 35% of patients being myeloperoxidase (MPO)‐ANCA positive, distinguishing it from other forms of AAV (1,2). The aim of this systematic review is to support the development of the American College of Rheumatology/Vasculitis Foundation guideline for the management of EGPA.MethodsA systematic review was conducted of the literature for seven forms of primary systemic vasculitis (GPA, MPA, EGPA, polyarteritis nodosa, Kawasaki disease, giant cell arteritis, and Takayasu arteritis). The search was done for articles in English using Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles were screened for suitability in addressing population/patients, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions, with studies presenting the highest level of evidence given preference. Two independent reviewers conducted a title/abstract screen and full‐text review for each eligible study.ResultsThe initial search, conducted in August 2019, included 13 800 articles, of which 2596 full‐text articles were reviewed. There were 190 articles (addressing 34 PICO questions) reporting on the diagnosis and management of EGPA.ConclusionThis comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the accuracy of commonly used tests for EGPA as well as benefits and toxicities of different treatment options.

TPS264 Background: Trastuzumab (T), a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting HER2, is standard of care 1st-line therapy for advanced HER2+ GEJ/GC patients. M, an investigational Fc-engineered anti-HER2 mAb, targets the same HER2 epitope but with higher affinity for both 158V (high binding) and 158F (low binding) alleles of activating Fc receptor CD16A. Data suggest margetuximab coordinately enhances both innate and adaptive immunity, including antigen-specific T-cell responses to HER2. PD-1 and LAG-3 are T-cell checkpoint molecules that suppress T-cell function. Retifanlimab (also known as MGA012 or INCMGA00012) is a humanized, hinge-stabilized, IgG4 Κ anti-PD-1 mAb blocking binding of PD-L1 or PD-L2 to PD-1. Tebotelimab (also known as MGD013) is a humanized Fc-bearing bispecific tetravalent DART® protein that binds to both PD-1 and LAG-3, inhibiting their respective ligand binding. We previously reported that a CTX-free regimen of M+PD-1 blockade was well tolerated in GEJ/GC patients, and induced a 44% objective response rate (ORR) in a double-positive biomarker population. This was 2- to 3-fold greater than in historical controls with checkpoint inhibitors alone. This registration-directed trial assesses efficacy, safety, and tolerability of M+checkpoint inhibition ± CTX in metastatic/locally advanced, treatment-naïve, HER2+ GEJ/GC patients. Methods: This is a 2-cohort, adaptive open-label phase 2/3 study (NCT04082364). The first single arm, CTX-free cohort A, evaluates M+retifanlimab in HER2+ (immunohistochemistry [IHC] 3+) and PD-L1+ (excluding microsatellite instability high) patients. After 40 patients are evaluated for response/safety, additional patients will be enrolled if the threshold for continuation is met. In randomized cohort B, HER2+ (IHC 3+ or 2+/fluorescent in situ hybridization+) patients are enrolled irrespective of PD-L1 status. Part 1 of cohort B randomizes patients to 1 of 4 arms (50 patients each): control arm (T+CTX) or 1 of 3 experimental arms (M+CTX; M+CTX+retifanlimab; M+CTX+tebotelimab). CTX is investigator’s choice XELOX or mFOLFOX-6. Part 2 of cohort B consists of control (T+CTX) vs 1 experimental arm (M+CTX) + either retifanlimab or tebotelimab, depending on results from part 1; with 250 patients each. The primary efficacy endpoint for cohort A (both parts) is ORR per RECIST 1.1; for cohort B part 2 it is overall survival. Clinical trial information: NCT04082364.

TPS252 Background: Tucatinib (TUC), a highly selective HER2-directed TKI recently approved for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC), is being developed as a novel therapy for patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and other GI tumors. While trastuzumab (Tras) with chemotherapy is standard in the 1st-line setting for metastatic HER2+ gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEC), no anti-HER2 therapy has demonstrated an OS benefit over chemotherapy in 2nd-line, possibly due to loss of HER2 expression following Tras-based therapy. In GEC xenograft models, dual targeting of HER2 with TUC and Tras showed superior activity to either agent alone. Interim results from the MOUNTAINEER study have shown promising activity for TUC and Tras in HER2+ mCRC. The MOUNTAINEER-02 study is evaluating the efficacy and safety of TUC in combination with Tras, ramucirumab (Ram), and paclitaxel (Pac) in pts with HER2+ GEC. Methods: MOUNTAINEER-02 (NCT04499924) is a phase 2/3 study evaluating TUC and Tras with the 2nd-line standard of care, Ram and Pac. Pts receive TUC 300 mg or placebo PO BID, Tras (6 then 4 mg/kg) or placebo (IV on Days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle), Pac (IV on Days 1, 8, 15), and Ram (IV on Days 1 and 15). Eligible pts have locally-advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2+ GEC, have received a HER2-directed antibody, and 1 prior line of therapy for advanced disease. Pts must be ≥18 years of age, with an ECOG ≤1, and have had no prior exposure to Ram, anti-HER2 or anti-EGFR TKI, HER2-directed antibody-drug conjugates, or taxanes ≤12 months before enrollment. Due to the potential impact of TUC on Pac metabolism, the study will include an initial Pac dose finding stage. The open-label phase 2 part will determine the recommended dose of Pac (60 or 80 mg/m²) combined with TUC, Tras, and Ram in 6-12 patients, and evaluate the safety and activity of the regimen in Cohorts 2A and 2B (30 patients each). The randomized, double-blind, phase 3 part will compare the efficacy and safety of TUC and Tras (Arm 3A; ~235 patients) vs. placebo (Arm 3B; ~235 patients), both in combination with Ram and Pac, and also evaluate activity of TUC with Ram and Pac (Arm 3C; ~30 patients). The dual primary phase 3 endpoints are OS and PFS per investigator, with confirmed ORR as a key secondary endpoint. HER2 status is determined at baseline using a blood-based NGS assay, and IHC/ISH of fresh or archival tumor biopsies, if available. Pts must be HER2+ by blood-based NGS in Cohort 2A and phase 3; in Cohort 2B, pts must be HER2+ in a biopsy taken post-progression during/after 1st-line therapy, but HER2-negative by blood-based NGS. Disease assessments per RECISTv1.1 will occur q6 weeks for 36 weeks, then q9 weeks. The pharmacokinetics of TUC, Pac, and their metabolites will be evaluated in a subset of pts, including a cohort with gastrectomies. Enrollment is ongoing in the U.S. Clinical trial information: NCT04499924.

Study Design. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Objective. To determine if the addition of L5-S1 interbody support in long fusion deformity constructs is associated with superior long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes. To compare the 5-year clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications between long fusion constructs with L5-S1 interbody support versus posterolateral fusion (PLF) alone. Summary of Background Data. Cadaveric biomechanical studies have suggested that an interbody fusion at L5-S1 is beneficial in long fusion constructs with sacropelvic fixation. However, there is limited data reflecting the superiority of interbody support augmentation in optimizing arthrodesis and deformity correction relative to PLF alone. Methods. Eighty-eight consecutive adults with spinal deformity who underwent at minimum T11-pelvis posterior pedicle screw instrumentation with 5-year follow-up were included. Two cohorts were compared based on technique used at the lumbosacral junction (L5-S1): (A) no interbody (PLF; n = 23), or (B) interbody support at L5-S1 (IB; n = 65). Radiographic measurements and clinical outcome measures were compared at multiple time points. Complications were recorded and compared. Results. No differences in baseline patient characteristics between cohorts. One nonunion occurred at L5-S1 in the PLF group (P = 0.091). Initial postop sagittal alignment was better in the IB group (PLF: 6.46 cm, IB: 2.48 cm, P = 0.007); however, this was not maintained over long-term follow-up. No significant differences in proximal junctional kyphosis (PLF: 7/23, IB: 9/65, P = 0.076). Proximal junctional failure was more frequent in the PLF group (PLF: 6/23, IB: 6/65, P = 0.043). No significant differences in complications were found. Both cohorts had improvement from baseline pain and functional scores. Conclusion. There is no absolute long-term advantage for lumbar interbody support in adult spinal deformity patients undergoing spinal arthrodesis to the pelvis. Level of Evidence: 3

PURPOSE This trial assessed the utility of applying tumor DNA sequencing to treatment selection for patients with advanced, refractory cancer and somatic mutations in one of four signaling pathways by comparing the efficacy of four study regimens that were either matched to the patient's aberrant pathway (experimental arm) or not matched to that pathway (control arm). MATERIALS AND METHODS Adult patients with an actionable mutation of interest were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either (1) a study regimen identified to target the aberrant pathway found in their tumor (veliparib with temozolomide or adavosertib with carboplatin [DNA repair pathway], everolimus [PI3K pathway], or trametinib [RAS/RAF/MEK pathway]), or (2) one of the same four regimens, but chosen from among those not targeting that pathway. RESULTS Among 49 patients treated in the experimental arm, the objective response rate was 2% (95% CI, 0% to 10.9%). One of 20 patients (5%) in the experimental trametinib cohort had a partial response. There were no responses in the other cohorts. Although patients and physicians were blinded to the sequencing and random assignment results, a higher pretreatment dropout rate was observed in the control arm (22%) compared with the experimental arm (6%; P = .038), suggesting that some patients may have had prior tumor mutation profiling performed that led to a lack of participation in the control arm. CONCLUSION Further investigation, better annotation of predictive biomarkers, and the development of more effective agents are necessary to inform treatment decisions in an era of precision cancer medicine. Increasing prevalence of tumor mutation profiling and preference for targeted therapy make it difficult to use a randomized phase II design to evaluate targeted therapy efficacy in an advanced disease setting.

Identification of a CD4 + helper T cell population providing in situ help to B and CD8 + T cells in the respiratory mucosa.

Analysis of CD4 + T cell heterogeneity in the lung uncovers a Bcl6-dependent subset that supports mucosal antibody production.

AbstractIgA nephropathy (IgAN), an immune complex‐mediated process and the most common primary glomerulonephritis, can progress to end‐stage renal disease in up to 40% of patients. Accordingly, a therapeutic strategy targeting a specific molecular pathway is urgently warranted. Aided by structure characterisation and target identification, we predicted that a novel ring‐fused 6‐(2,4‐difluorophenyl)‐3‐(3‐(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)‐2H‐benzo[e][1,3]oxazine‐2,4(3H)‐dione (LCC18) targets the NLRP3 inflammasome, which participates in IgAN pathogenesis. We further developed biomarkers for the disease. We used two complementary IgAN models in C57BL/6 mice, involving TEPC‐15 hybridoma‐derived IgA, and in gddY mice. Moreover, we created specific cell models to validate therapeutic effects of LCC18 on IgAN and to explain its underlying mechanisms. IgAN mice benefited significantly from treatment with LCC18, showing dramatically improved renal function, including greatly reduced proteinuria and renal pathology. Mechanistic studies showed that the mode of action specifically involved: (1) blocking of the MAPKs/COX‐2 axis‐mediated priming of the NLRP3 inflammasome; (2) inhibition of ASC oligomerisation and NLRP3 inflammasome assembly by inhibiting NLRP3 binding to PKR, NEK7 and ASC; and (3) activation of autophagy. LCC18 exerts therapeutic effects on murine IgAN by differentially regulating NLRP3 inflammasome activation and autophagy induction, suggesting this new compound as a promising drug candidate to treat IgAN. © 2020 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Study Design. Retrospective cohort study. Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of two-level cervical disc replacement (CDR) in the outpatient setting. Summary of Background Data. Despite growing interest in CDR, limited data exist evaluating the safety of two-level CDR in the outpatient setting. Methods. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried for all two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and CDR procedures between 2015 and 2018. Demographics, comorbidities, and 30-day postoperative complication rates of outpatient two-level CDR were compared to those of inpatient two-level CDR and outpatient two-level ACDF. Radiographic data are not available in the NSQIP. Results. A total of 403 outpatient CDRs were compared to 408 inpatient CDRs and 4134 outpatient ACDFs. Outpatient CDR patients were older and more likely to have pulmonary comorbidities compared to inpatient CDR (P < 0.03). Outpatient CDR patients were less likely to have an American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥2 and have hypertension compared to outpatient ACDF patients (P < 0.0001). Outpatient CDR had a lower 30-day readmission rate (0.5% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.02) and lower 30-day reoperation rate (0% vs. 1%, P = 0.047) compared to inpatient CDR. Outpatient CDR had a lower readmission rate (0.5% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.03) compared to outpatient ACDF, but there was no difference in reoperation rates between the two procedures (0% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.07). Outpatient CDR had an overall complication rate of 0.2%, inpatient CDR had a complication rate of 0.9%, and outpatient ACDF had a complication rate of 1.3%. These differences were not significant. Conclusion. To our knowledge, this is the largest multicenter study examining the safety of two-level outpatient CDR procedures. Outpatient two-level CDR was associated with similarly safe outcomes when compared to inpatient two-level CDR and outpatient two-level ACDF. This suggests that two-level CDR can be performed safely in the outpatient setting. Level of Evidence: 3