Citations

Abstract Aims While data from randomized trials suggest a declining incidence of sudden cardiac death (SCD) among heart failure patients, the extent to which such a trend is present among patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has not been evaluated. We therefore assessed changes in SCD incidence, and associated factors, in CRT recipients over the last 20 years. Methods and results Literature search from inception to 30 April 2018 for observational and randomized studies involving CRT patients, with or without defibrillator, providing specific cause-of-death data. Sudden cardiac death was the primary endpoint. For each study, rate of SCD per 1000 patient-years of follow-up was calculated. Trend line graphs were subsequently constructed to assess change in SCD rates over time, which were further analysed by device type, patient characteristics, and medical therapy. Fifty-three studies, comprising 22 351 patients with 60 879 patient-years of follow-up and a total of 585 SCD, were included. There was a gradual decrease in SCD rates since the early 2000s in both randomized and observational studies, with rates falling more than four-fold. The rate of decline in SCD was steeper than that of all-cause mortality, and accordingly, the proportion of deaths which were due to SCD declined over the years. The magnitude of absolute decline in SCD was more prominent among CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P) patients compared to those receiving CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D), with the difference in SCD rates between CRT-P and CRT-D decreasing considerably over time. There was a progressive increase in age, use of beta-blockers, and left ventricular ejection fraction, and conversely, a decrease in QRS duration and antiarrhythmic drug use. Conclusion Sudden cardiac death rates have progressively declined in the CRT heart failure population over time, with the difference between CRT-D vs. CRT-P recipients narrowing considerably.

Abstract Background Cardiac implantable electronic device-related infective endocarditis (CIED-IE) comprises 10–57% of total CIED infections. Patients with definite CIED-IE who fulfill both major modified Duke criteria have not been well characterized. Methods Data from the Multicenter Electrophysiologic Device Infection Cohort, a prospective, multinational study of CIED infections were used to describe a subset of patients with CIED-IE who met both major Duke criteria for definite IE (bloodstream infection and intracardiac vegetations [VEG]). Results Of 433 patients with CIED infection, 144 (33.3%) had definite CIED-IE. The median age was 68 years and 77.1% were male. Twelve (8.3%) had past CIED infection. Seventy-seven patients (53.5%) had permanent pacemakers, 38 (26.4%) had implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and 29 (20.1%) had combination devices. The median time following the last device procedure was 550 days. CIED-IE was early in 60 patients (41.7%) and late in 84 (58.3%). Most patients presented with fever (77.8%) and sepsis (44.4%) with a median symptom duration of 7 days. On echocardiography, lead VEG was noted in 125 patients (86.8%) and valvular VEG in 54 patients (37.5%) with the tricuspid valve involved in 56.5%. On the basis of VEG location, there were 90 patients (62.5%) with isolated lead-associated IE (LAE), 19 patients (13.2%) with isolated valve-associated IE (VAE), and 35 patients (24.3%) with both (LVAE). All patients had positive blood cultures and 63/119 (52.9%) had positive lead cultures. The predominant organism in blood was Staphylococcus aureus (42.4%), followed by coagulase-negative staphylococci (20.1%). CIED removal occurred in 131 patients (91%). There were 25 deaths during the index hospitalization and 34 total deaths (24.3%) by 6 months. Mortality correlated with age >75 (P = 0.023) and sepsis on presentation (P = 0.052). Infecting organism, site of VEG, and device removal did not impact the risk of death. Conclusion Definite CIED-IE is relatively common. The majority of patients tend to have late-onset infection and often present with sepsis. S. aureus is the dominant organism causing definite CIED-IE. Isolated LAE occurs in 63% of patients. Older age and sepsis on admission are associated with higher mortality. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Abstract Abstract 2778 Introduction: Lenalidomide is approved for the treatment of del(5q) MDS in US and Japan. In Low to Intermediate-1 (Int-1) risk non-del(5q) MDS, lenalidomide treatment is less effective with a lower response rate (25%) and shorter response duration [Raza A. et al, Blood, 2008.111,1]. Ezatiostat, a glutathione S-transferase P1-1 (GST P1-1) inhibitor, activates Jun kinase, promoting the growth and maturation of hematopoietic progenitors while inducing apoptosis in malignant cells. Based on the novel mechanism of action, response rates, non-overlapping toxicities, and tolerability observed in a single agent ezatiostat Phase 2 study in MDS, a study of the combination of ezatiostat and lenalidomide was conducted to determine the safety and efficacy of ezatiostat with lenalidomide in non-del(5q) Low to Int-1 risk MDS. Methods: In this multicenter Phase 1 dose-ranging study, ezatiostat was given at a starting dose of 2000 mg in combination with lenalidomide at 10 mg, days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle. In stage 1, 3–6 patients in a standard 3+3 design were treated before escalation to the ezatiostat/lenalidomide 2500/10 mg dose level. Treatment was given until lack of MDS response or unacceptable toxicity. Hematologic improvement-erythroid (HI-E) rates were determined by the MDS International Working Group (IWG; 2006) criteria. Results: Eighteen pts (median age 73 yrs; range 57–82; 72% male), with World Health Organization classifications: 4 refractory anemia (RA), 2 RA with excess blasts-1, 4 refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia (RCMD), 5 RCMD with ring sideroblasts, 2 MDS-unclassified, 1 MDS/myeloproliferative disorder-U were enrolled. Thirteen pts (72%) were Int-1 risk, 5 (28%) Low risk; 4 pts (22%) had abnormal cytogenetics. Twelve RBC transfusion-dependent pts (67%) required a median of 6 units (range 4–10)/8-weeks. Two pts (11%) were platelet transfusion dependent. A total of 67 treatment cycles were given (median 3.5 cycles/pt [range 1–11]) and only 6 cycles (9%) required dose reductions and 8 (12%) dose delays. Two of 6 pts reported DLTs (Grade 3 diarrhea and Grade 3 rash) at 2500/10 mg, with 9 additional pts receiving the recommended combination dose of 2000/10 mg. Eleven of 18 pts were evaluable (4 at 2500/10 mg and 7 at 2000/10 mg), and 3 pts are still on therapy with insufficient treatment duration to be evaluable. The HI-E rate was 43% (3/7; 95% CI, 10%–82%) for pts at the recommended 2000/10 mg dose and 6 pts are continuing therapy at the time of analysis. Three of 8 (38%; 95% CI, 9%–76%) RBC transfusion-dependent evaluable pts achieved transfusion independence including 1 responder who did not respond to prior lenalidomide. In responders, the median increase in hemoglobin level was 3.4 g/dL (from 7.9 g/dL). In 2 of 4 thrombocytopenic pts, a HI-platelet (HI-P) response was observed. A bilineage (HI-E and HI-P) response in 2 of 4 pts with anemia and thrombocytopenia was reported. One RBC and platelet transfusion-dependent pt who had a poor response to prior anti-thymocyte globulin treatment achieved complete RBC and platelet transfusion independence. The combination was generally well tolerated with no unexpected toxicities. Most common treatment-related non-hematologic adverse events (AEs) were Grades 1 and 2 including: fatigue (6%, 28%), swelling (0%, 11%), anorexia (11%, 6%), rash (0%, 6%), skin odor (11%, 6%), nausea (39%, 11%), diarrhea (22%,17%), vomiting (28%,17%), upper abdominal pain (5.6%, 5.6%), and constipation (11%, 0%). Grade 3 events were rash (11%), nausea (6%), diarrhea (17%), and vomiting (6%). Most common hematologic-related AEs were Grades 1 and 2 thrombocytopenia (11%, 6%) and neutropenia (0%, 11%). Grade 3–4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (11%, 17%), neutropenia (17%, 11%), anemia (6%, 6%), and febrile neutropenia (11%, 0%). Conclusions: Ezatiostat is the first GST P1-1 inhibitor to cause clinically significant reductions in RBC and platelet transfusions, including RBC and platelet transfusion independence. Since ezatiostat is non-myelosuppressive, it is a good candidate for combination with lenalidomide and in this study, the combination was well tolerated. Interestingly, ezatiostat may also have the potential to enhance lenalidomide's efficacy. The recommended doses of this combination regimen for future studies is the ezatiostat/lenalidomide 2000/10 mg. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Lenalidomide was used off-label in patients with non-del5q MDS. Mulford:Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Brown:Telik, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Meng:Telik, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lyons:Incyte: Research Funding; Telik: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Mesa:NS Pharma: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; SBio: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 278 Background: Overactive JAK-STAT signaling as a result of gain-of-function mutations (eg, JAK2V617F) and/or high circulating levels of inflammatory cytokines is considered to play a key role in the pathogenesis of myeloproliferative neoplasms. Ruxolitinib, a selective oral inhibitor of JAK1 and JAK2, demonstrated a significant reduction in spleen volume (SV) and improvements in myelofibrosis (MF)-related symptoms in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial (COMFORT-I). The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of ruxolitinib across patient (pt) subgroups in COMFORT-I. Methods: Pts with MF were randomized to start placebo or ruxolitinib at a dose of 15 mg or 20 mg PO BID depending on baseline platelet count (100–200 ×109/L or >200 ×109/L, respectively). The dose was optimized for efficacy and safety during treatment. SV change was measured by MRI; MF symptoms were assessed using a daily diary (modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form [MFSAF] v2.0) over 1 wk prior to dosing and throughout the 24 wks of dosing. The percent changes from baseline to wk 24 in SV and MFSAF Total Symptom Score (TSS, a measure of combined scores for abdominal discomfort, pain under ribs on left side, early satiety, itching, night sweats, and bone/muscle pain) were compared for ruxolitinib and placebo pts across the following subgroups: MF disease subtype, age, International Prognosis Scoring System (IPSS) risk group, presence/absence of JAK2V617F mutation, baseline hemoglobin, baseline spleen size (palpable spleen length), and baseline TSS. Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Changes in SV and TSS Across Subgroups: 309 pts were randomized: 155 to ruxolitinib and 154 to placebo. Ruxolitinib demonstrated consistent benefit compared with placebo in both SV and TSS across all subgroups evaluated (Table). The impact of symptom severity on response was evaluated by baseline TSS quartiles (maximum score for TSS = 60). Ruxolitinib pts with baseline TSS of <8.5, 8.5-<16.5, 16.5-<25.5 and ≥25.5 had mean percent changes in SV of −28.0, −31.4, −31.7 and −34.8, respectively, vs +8.1 for all placebo pts combined. The mean percent change in TSS for these same subgroups was −40.5, −47.2, −48.1 and −48.2 vs +41.8 for all placebo pts combined. These data indicate that pts with modest to marked symptoms all benefit from ruxolitinib therapy in terms of both SV and TSS. Survival Analysis: 13 ruxolitinib and 24 placebo pts died during the study or during extended follow-up (median follow-up of 52 and 51 wks, respectively), representing a hazard ratio (95% CI) of 0.499 (0.254, 0.98) (p=0.0395). For ruxolitinib- and placebo-treated pts, respectively, the probability of survival (95% CI) >48 wks was 0.98 (0.92, 0.99) and 0.90 (0.81, 0.95) for pts with baseline hemoglobin values ≥10 g/dL and 0.84 (0.72, 0.91) and 0.77 (0.63, 0.86) for pts with baseline hemoglobin <10 g/dL. Conclusions: Pts receiving ruxolitinib had higher response rates than placebo based on reductions in SV and improvements in TSS at wk 24 regardless of baseline subgroup: MF disease subtype, age (≤65 or >65 y), IPSS risk group (intermediate-2 or high-risk), presence or absence of JAK2V617F mutation, hemoglobin level (≥10 g/dL or <10 g/dL), palpable spleen length (≤10 cm or >10 cm), and symptom severity (TSS quartile). In addition, the overall survival analysis suggested a benefit with ruxolitinib therapy over placebo. Disclosures: Verstovsek: Incyte: Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; SBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Gotlib:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding. Levy:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gupta:Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Catalano:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Deininger:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Miller:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Winton:Incyte: Consultancy. Arcasoy:Incyte: Research Funding. Lyons:Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Telik: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Vaddi:Incyte: Employment. Erickson-Viitanen:Incyte: Employment. Sun:Incyte: Employment. Sandor:Incyte: Employment. Kantarjian:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 5146 Background: Myelofibrosis (MF) is characterized by splenomegaly, debilitating symptoms, hematologic abnormalities, and shortened survival. COMFORT-I is a Phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib in patients (pts) with MF. The placebo arm of this ongoing study provides a unique population in which to assess the clinical burden of MF in a controlled setting. Methods: 151 pts with intermediate-2 or high-risk primary-MF (PMF), post-polycythemia vera-MF (PPV-MF), or post-essential thombocythemia-MF (PET-MF) who were not candidates for other therapies were randomized to receive placebo in COMFORT-I after a 28-day washout of previous MF therapies. Assessments included MF symptoms measured daily using an electronic diary (modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form [MFSAF] v2.0), spleen volume measured every 12 wks by blinded abdominal MRI or CT scans, and laboratory measures at least monthly through wk 24. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMISE) Fatigue and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) questionnaires were administered at each visit. Pts with missing data (baseline or post-baseline assessment measured), or pts who withdrew or crossed over to active treatment before a study visit were not included in analyses. Results: 151 pts received 1 or more doses of placebo (median exposure 204 days). The study included 65% high-risk and 35% intermediate-2 risk pts, with a median of 2.5 years since diagnosis. 55% had PMF, 31% PPV-MF, and 14% PET-MF. Regardless of prior MF therapy (57% were on hydroxyurea), there was continual worsening of symptoms over time as assessed by the MFSAF Total Symptom Score (TSS, comprised of scores for night sweats, itching, abdominal pain and discomfort, early satiety and bone/muscle pain) (see Figure). At wk 24, mean/median spleen volume increased by +8.1%/+8.5%, and both intermediate-2 and high-risk pts demonstrated progressive disease over the course of the study. Mean/median PROMIS Fatigue score worsened by 9.1%/6.5%. Mean/median score for the PGIC (a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = very much improved to 7 = very much worse, with 4 = no change) was 4.2/4.0 at wk 24; 19.6% of pts reported feeling much worse or very much worse. Mean/median total body weight changed from 72.0 kg/72.2 kg to 70.1 kg/69.7 kg at wk 24. Hematology assessments (median, baseline vs wk 24) were as follows: hemoglobin, 105 vs 106 g/L; platelets, 233 vs 219 x109/L; neutrophils, 14.8 vs 16.0 x109/L; white blood cell count, 18.4 vs 20.1 x109/L. Two of 151 pts had new-onset (new or worsening) grade 3 or grade 4 thrombocytopenia, and 23/151 pts had new-onset grade 3 or grade 4 anemia. 16 pts met protocol-specified criteria for unblinding and crossover to active treatment before wk 24, which was a 25% increase in MRI-based spleen volume either with or without increased pain or weight loss; thus, mean and median values reported at wk 24 may represent an underestimate of the degree of worsening in disease parameters. Conclusion: The signs and symptoms of MF continued to worsen over a 6-month time frame in this placebo population. The data illustrate the progressive nature of MF and support the need for effective therapeutic interventions. Moreover, treatment benefit must be benchmarked against continual evolution of the disease in the absence of treatment. Early recognition of the debilitating symptoms of MF and intervention with effective therapy to prevent continual worsening of the disease should be strongly considered. Disclosures: Verstovsek: Incyte: Research Funding. Mesa:Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; SBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Gotlib:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding. Levy:Incyte: Employment, Equity Ownership. Gupta:Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Catalano:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Deininger:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Miller:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Winton:Incyte: Consultancy. Arcasoy:Incyte: Research Funding. Lyons:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Telik: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding. Vaddi:Incyte: Employment. Erickson-Viitanen:Incyte: Employment. Sun:Incyte: Employment. Sandor:Incyte: Employment. Kantarjian:Incyte: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Few data are available on the outcomes of patients who fail to engraft following URD transplantation. We describe the results of 122 patients reported to the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) between 1990 and 2005, who received a second bone marrow (BM) or peripheral blood (PB) URD transplant after failing to achieve an absolute neutrophil count of ≥ 500/mm3 without evidence of recurrent disease. Patients were transplanted for leukemia (n=83), myelodysplastic disorders (n=16), severe aplastic anemia (n=20) and other disease (n=3). The median age at first transplant was 29 years. Approximately one third were in each age range, < 20 (33%), 20–40 (37%) and >40 (29%). The initial transplant was BM in 84% of patients while 51% received BM for the subsequent transplant. One hundred ten of these patients received two transplants, 11 received three and one received 4 transplants. Twenty four used a different donor whereas 98 used the original donor for the second transplant; 28 of these used cells that had been cryopreserved at the initial transplant date. Nearly two thirds of the patients received reduced intensity conditioning or no conditioning for the second transplant. Sixty one percent had ATG as a component of their second transplant. The median interval from first transplant to second transplant was 48 (range, 18–126) days. The median nucleated cell dose was 2 × 108/kg (range, <1–23) for the first transplant and 2 × 108/kg (range, <1–50) for the second. The median follow up of survivors after second transplant was 77 (range, 2–144) months. Univariate probabilities of outcomes for these patients after second transplant were: Outcome N eval Probability (95% CI) *cumulative incidence Neutrophil engraftment* 122 @ 28 days 43 (34–52) % @100 days 48 (39–57) % 30 day mortality 122 39 (31–48) % 100 day mortality 122 75 (67–82) % Overall survival (OS) @ 1 year 122 11 (6–17) % Treatment related mortality (TRM) @ 1 year* 99 86 (79–92) % Disease free survival (DFS) @ 1 year 99 7 (2–12) % Of the 122 patients analyzed, only 10 remain alive. The most common causes of death were graft failure or rejection (33%), organ failure/interstitial pnuemoniatis (22%), infection (15%), GVHD (14%) and recurrent disease (6%). Of the 37 patients who had persistent graft failure 21 (57%) died from infectious causes. We observed no differences between patients who received a graft from the same donor vs. different donor, fresh vs. cryopreserved cells, or small initial graft size vs. large initial graft size. Patients who received a T-cell depleted graft at the time of their first transplant had significantly worse survival at 1 year after their second transplant, 4% (95% CI, 0–11) compared to those patients who had a non T-cell depleted initial graft, 16% (95 % CI, 8–25)(P = 0.02). It appears that a second salvage transplant strategy may be effective in a small group of patients, although the overall DFS at 1 year of only 7% is disappointing. To improve these results, efforts might focus on early identification and treatment of those at highest risk for non engraftment to determine whether such a strategy can alter the natural history we have described.

Abstract Abstract 2656 Background Treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) can lead to development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We sought to describe the cumulative incidence of CVD in adult NHL survivors diagnosed in the recent treatment era (since 2002) and identify clinical and treatment predictors for its development. Methods All patients were from the Mayo component of the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE). The MER offers enrollment to all consecutive patients with newly diagnosed NHL who are US residents and age >18 years. Clinical data from the time of diagnosis and treatment data are abstracted from medical records using a standard protocol. Patients are prospectively contacted via telephone or in person per protocol every 6 months for the first 3 years from diagnosis and yearly afterwards to assess disease status and development of comorbid conditions. CVD events, including heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI), arrhythmia, pericarditis, and valvular heart disease, occurring after diagnosis were identified during follow-up and validated against medical records. HF was validated with the Cardiovascular Health Study Criteria and/or the Framingham Criteria. MI was validated using case definition standards of coronary heart disease, while arrhythmia, pericarditis, and valvular heart disease were validated using clinical definitions. The prevalence of CVD and associations between CVD and clinical characteristics (sex, age) and treatment (radiation, anthracyclines) were performed using Cox models with a competing risk approach. Results 1164 patients with NHL were enrolled into the MER at Mayo Clinic between 9/1/2002–2/28/2008. 646 were male (56%) and median age at diagnosis was 62 years (range 20–93). Median follow-up of all cases was 59 months (range 1–105). 131 patients reported CVD prior to the diagnosis of NHL and were excluded from analyses. An additional 76 patients did not have follow-up and were excluded. Of the 957 remaining patients, 75 (7.8%) self-reported a new diagnosis of CVD. Of these, 71 cases had available medical records. 57 of the 71 reviewed cases (80%) were validated (18 HF, 9 MI, 21 arrhythmia, 2 pericarditis, and 10 valvular heart disease). Cumulative incidence of CVD at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years was 1.3%, 3.7%, 5.2%, and 7.4%, respectively. Median time from NHL diagnosis to CVD was 26.5 months (range 1–84). Older age was associated with increased risk of overall CVD (p-value<0.001). Gender (p=0.59), radiation therapy (p=0.61), and anthracycline treatment (p=0.25) were not associated with the incidence of overall CVD. Among types of CVD, anthracycline use was associated with development of HF (HR=5.30; p-value=0.008) and arrhythmia (HR=2.68; p-value=0.04). Radiation was associated with development of arrhythmia (HR=2.73; p-value=0.03), while older age was associated with development of HF (HR=1.36 per 5 year increment; p-value=0.003) and arrhythmia (HR=1.25 per 5 year increment; p-value=0.02). Conclusions The risk of CVD in patients with NHL is approximately 1% per year after the initial diagnosis of lymphoma. The most commonly occurring CVDs in this cohort of NHL survivors were arrhythmia and HF. Treatment with anthracyclines and radiation are associated with increased risk of developing some types of CVD. 80% of self-reported CVD events in NHL survivors were validated using epidemiologic criteria. Future studies will include building models incorporating comorbid health conditions and lifestyle factors to determine risk of CVD as well as the impact of CVD on quality of life. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background In the primary analysis of the phase III COMFORT-I study, the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib (RUX) significantly improved splenomegaly, myelofibrosis (MF)-related symptoms, and quality of life (QoL) measures in patients (pts) with MF versus placebo (PBO). An additional analysis (median follow-up 51 weeks [wks)]) showed RUX was associated with a survival advantage versus PBO (Verstovsek et al. N Engl J Med2012). Longer term follow-up (median 102 wks) showed durable SV reductions and QoL improvements. At this time point, RUX continued to be associated with a survival advantage, despite all pts originally randomized to PBO having discontinued or crossed over to ruxolitinib shortly after the primary analysis (Verstovsek et al. ASH 2012. abstract 800). We report additional longer-term follow-up of pts from COMFORT-I. Methods In COMFORT-I, 309 pts were randomized (1:1) to RUX or PBO. RUX starting dose depended on baseline platelet count (100–200´109/L: 15 mg BID; >200´109/L: 20 mg BID). Doses could be titrated for lack of efficacy or excess toxicity as specified in the protocol. Pts receiving PBO could crossover to RUX after the primary analysis (ie, when all pts completed 24 wks and half the pts completed 36 wks of therapy) or at any time if they met protocol-specified criteria for worsening splenomegaly. The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts who achieved a ≥35% reduction in spleen volume (SV) at wk 24. Symptoms were assessed up to wk 24 using the modified MF Symptom Assessment Form v2.0. QoL continued to be evaluated beyond wk 24 using the EORTC QoL Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30). Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis according to original randomized treatment. To better understand the effect of crossover on the PBO arm, statistical modeling of survival was conducted using a generalized Gamma distribution. Results Median follow-up was 149 wks at the time of this updated analysis. Of 155 pts originally randomized to RUX, 77 remain on therapy. Of 154 pts originally randomized to PBO, 111 crossed over to RUX; the median time to crossover was 41.1 wks (range, 5.1–65.4). At wk 24, pts originally randomized to RUX had a mean SV reduction of −31.6%; this was durable for pts who continued on RUX, where the mean SV reduction at wk 144 was −34.1%. Fifty-nine percent (91/155) of pts originally randomized to RUX achieved a ≥35% SV reduction at any time during study; for these pts, the probability of maintaining this response for >132 weeks from the time of their initial response was 0.53. Pts originally randomized to RUX who continued on therapy experienced durable improvements in the Global Health Status/QoL and functional domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Overall survival favored RUX (HR=0.69; 95% CI: 0.46, 1.03; P= 0.067; Fig 1), with 42 and 54 deaths among pts originally randomized to RUX and PBO, respectively. Modeling of the hazard function of death over time to explore the effect of crossover to RUX in pts originally randomized to PBO showed a decrease in hazard for these pts, which corresponded to an increased proportion of pts crossing over to RUX. In pts originally randomized to RUX who continued on therapy, there was no substantial change in the rate, distribution, or severity of nonhematologic adverse events (AEs) with longer-term therapy; most nonhematologic AEs were grade 1 or 2. Mean and median hemoglobin and platelet count remained stable with longer-term therapy. Consistent with this, the incidence of new onset grade 3 or 4 anemia and thrombocytopenia observed after the first 6 months of RUX therapy decreased relative to that seen in the first 6 months of therapy (Fig 2). With approximately 1 year of additional follow up, 4 new cases of acute myeloid leukemia were reported: 2 pts originally randomized to PBO (376 and 666 days after crossover to RUX) and 2 pts originally randomized to RUX (848 and 1143 days after starting RUX). Conclusions After a median follow-up of 149 wks, the hazard ratio for overall survival favored pts originally randomized to RUX over those originally randomized to PBO, the majority of whom crossed over to RUX. The hazard of death for pts originally randomized to PBO decreased as pts crossed over to RUX. SV reductions and QoL improvements were sustained with longer-term therapy. The incidence of new onset grade 3 or 4 anemia and thrombocytopenia decreased with longer-term therapy. Collectively, these data reinforce the durable efficacy and longer-term safety of RUX in pts with MF. Disclosures: Verstovsek: Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Mesa:Genentech: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding. Gotlib:Incyte Corporation: Travel support, Travel support Other; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Levy:Incyte Corporation: Equity Ownership; Incyte Corporation: Employment. Gupta:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Inctye Corporation: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Deininger:BMS, ARIAD, NOVARTIS: Consultancy; BMS, NOVARTIS, CELGENE, GILEAD: Research Funding; ARIAD, NOVARTIS: Advisory Boards, Advisory Boards Other. Miller:Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria. Talpaz:Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Ariad: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Winton:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Arcasoy:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Lyons:Lilly: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Paquette:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Raza:Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Onconova Inc: Research Funding. Vaddi:Incyte Corporation: Employment; Incyte Corporation: Equity Ownership. Sun:Incyte: Employment; Incyte: Equity Ownership. Peng:Incyte Corporation: Employment; Incyte Corporation: Equity Ownership. Sandor:Incyte: Employment; Incyte: Equity Ownership. Kantarjian:Ariad: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding.

Abstract Abstract 1753 Background: Ruxolitinib (INC424), a potent and selective oral JAK1 and JAK2 inhibitor, has demonstrated rapid and durable reductions in splenomegaly and improved disease-related symptoms, role functioning, and quality of life (QoL) in 2 phase 3 studies in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) (the COMFORT studies). These studies compared ruxolitinib with either placebo or best available therapy (BAT). This analysis compares the efficacy outcomes between the placebo arm from COMFORT-I and the BAT arm from COMFORT-II. Methods: COMFORT-I is a randomized (1:1), double-blind, multicenter study comparing ruxolitinib 15 or 20 mg twice daily (bid) with placebo, and COMFORT-II is a randomized (2:1), open-label, multicenter study comparing ruxolitinib 15 or 20 mg bid with BAT (investigator-selected therapy, including no treatment). Both studies met their primary end points with statistical significance (ruxolitinib vs control): the percentage of patients achieving ≥35% reduction in spleen volume at week 24 (COMFORT-I, P <.0001) and week 48 (COMFORT-II, P <.0001). QoL was measured using patient responses with the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Questionnaire–Core 30 (QLQ-C30) as an exploratory end point in both studies. Results: In the COMFORT-I and COMFORT-II studies, 154 patients received placebo (ruxolitinib, n=155) and 73 patients received BAT (ruxolitinib, n=146), respectively, and were included in the primary efficacy analyses. The demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the control arms of the 2 studies, including spleen size below the costal margin (mean [standard deviation, SD] 16.4 [6.27] cm and 15.8 [6.71] cm in placebo and BAT, respectively). Only 1 patient (0.7%) who received placebo and no patients who received BAT had a ≥35% reduction in spleen volume from baseline at week 24. The median spleen volume increased from baseline at week 24 in both the placebo and BAT groups and was numerically similar (placebo, 8.5% [range, −46.4% to 48.8%]; BAT, 5.1% [range, −33.3% to 29.7%]). In contrast, patients who received ruxolitinib had median reductions in spleen volume from baseline at week 24 of −33.0% (COMFORT-I) and −27.5% (COMFORT-II). The QLQ-C30 provides a measurement of change in QoL and MF-related symptoms, including fatigue, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, and appetite loss. At 24 weeks, neither the placebo nor BAT arms had clinically meaningful changes from baseline (10 points [Osoba et al. J Clin Oncol. 1998]) in any of the QoL (decreases indicate worsening) or symptom scores (increases indicate worsening) (Table). Although differences existed between the placebo and BAT arms, the SDs are large, thus complicating comparisons between the 2 groups. Conclusions: In the COMFORT studies, ruxolitinib demonstrated significantly greater reductions in spleen size compared with placebo or BAT. This post hoc analysis of the 2 studies shows that patients who received BAT in the COMFORT-II study had similar symptom and QoL responses and numerically similar increases in spleen size as those who received placebo in the COMFORT-I study. No clinically meaningful improvements in QoL or symptoms were seen on either the placebo or BAT arms. These new data strongly suggest that current therapies for MF provide little improvement in spleen size, symptoms, or QoL as compared with placebo. Disclosures: Mesa: Incyte: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; SBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Verstovsek:Incyte Corporation: Research Funding. Cervantes:Bristol-Myers-Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Waltzman:Novartis: Employment. Mendelson:Novartis: Employment, Equity Ownership. Martin:Novartis Pharma AG: Employment. Sun:Incyte: Employment. Sandor:Incyte: Employment. Levy:Incyte Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Harrison:Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; S*Bio: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi Aventis: Honoraria.

Abstract Abstract 2868 Poster Board II-844 Background and Objective: In newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM), the combination of lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone (RD) is superior to high-dose dexamethasone (Zonder JA et al, Blood 2007;110:77). Preliminary results show that lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) has better 2-year overall survival (OS) compared with RD (Rajkumar SV et al, J Clin Oncol 2008;26:8504). The addition of clarithromycin (Biaxin) to lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (BiRd) has been investigated in a phase II study, demonstrating a high response rate and 2-year OS (Niesvizky R at al, Blood 2008;111:1101-1109). However, the additive value of clarithromycin is not known. No randomized trials have compared Rd versus BiRd, none are planned. The objective of this case–matched study was to compare the efficacy and the toxicity of BiRd vs Rd as initial therapy for newly diagnosed MM. Patients and methods: Data from 72 newly diagnosed MM patients treated at the New York Presbyterian Hospital–Cornell Medical Center, from December 2004 to December 2006, with BiRD, were analyzed. For comparison, an equal number of pair mates were selected among newly diagnosed patients seen at the Mayo Clinic who received Rd, from March 2005 to December 2008. Case matching was performed with respect to age, gender, and transplant status. Patients treated with BiRd received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 3-21 of cycle 1; days 1-21 of subsequent cycles); dexamethasone (40 mg days 1, 2, 3, 8, 15, 22 of cycle 1; days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each subsequent cycle); clarithromycin (500 mg twice daily, from day 2 of cycle 1). Patients treated with Rd received oral lenalidomide (25 mg/day, days 1-21) plus low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg days 1, 8, 15, 22). In both groups patients were allowed to discontinue treatment to pursue transplant, but treatment until progression, relapse or unacceptable toxicity was permitted at the physician's discretion. Outcome was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The Chi-square or the rank sum tests were used to compare variables. Time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method; comparisons were determined by the log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Median duration of treatment was 11.8 months in the BiRd group vs 6 months in the Rd group. On intention-to-treat analysis, complete response was significantly higher with BiRd compared to Rd (45.8% vs 13.9%, respectively, p<0.001); similarly very good partial response (VGPR) or better was higher with BiRd (73.6% vs 33.3%, p<0.001). Rates of VGPR or better, after 6 months and 1 year of therapy, were significantly higher in BiRd patients. Both time-to-progression (TTP) (median 48.3 months vs 27.5 months; HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.25-1.06; p=0.071) and PFS (median 48.3 months vs 27.5 months, HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.25-0.98; p=0.044) were higher with BiRd. Median time to next treatment (TTNT) was not reached in BiRd group compared to 29.9 months in Rd patients (HR 0.37 95% CI 0.20-0.66, p<0.001). There was a trend toward better OS with BiRd, (3-year OS: 89.7% vs 73.0%), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.17-1.37; p=0.170). Thirty-two patients in each group received transplant; median time to transplant was longer in BiRd group (13.5 vs 5.9 months). Results of survival, for patients who received transplant and patients who did not, were similar to those of the total population. On subset analysis, among patients presenting with International Staging System (ISS) stage I/II at diagnosis, TTP, PFS and TTNT were significantly longer in BiRd patients; no significant differences were found among patients with ISS stage III. Main grade 3-4 toxicities of BiRd were hematological, in particular thrombocytopenia (23.6% vs 8.3%, p=0.012); rate of neutropenia was similar between the 2 groups (19.4% vs 16.7%, p=0.665). Infections (16.7% vs 9.7%, p=0.218) and dermatological toxicity (12.5% vs 4.2%, p=0.129) were higher in patients who received Rd. Rate of venous thromboembolism was similar in the 2 groups (9.7% vs 12.5%, respectively in Rd and BiRd patients, p=0.596). Conclusion: Results of this case-control analysis suggest superiority of BiRd in terms of response rate and survival, compared with Rd, and suggest that there may be a significant additive value when clarithromycin is added to Rd. These data indicate the need for randomized prospective phase III studies to evaluate BiRd versus Rd in the treatment of MM. Disclosures: Off Label Use: research drug in combination to standard of care. Kumar:celgene: Research Funding; millenium: Research Funding; bayer: Research Funding; novartis: Research Funding; genzyme: Research Funding. Mark:celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:celgene: Research Funding. Gertz:celgene: Honoraria; genzime: Honoraria; millenium: Honoraria; amgen: Honoraria. Leonard:celgene: Consultancy. Lacy:celgene: Research Funding. Witzig:celgene: Research Funding. Fonseca:medtronic: Consultancy; genzyme: Consultancy; celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; otsuka: Consultancy. Greipp:celgene: Research Funding. Niesvizky:celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Proteolix: Research Funding, data monitoring committee.