Citations

AbstractBackgroundLittle is known about the ablation outcomes of premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) that originate from the periprosthetic aortic valve (PPAV) regions of patients with aortic valve replacement (AVR).Methods and ResultsOur study had 11 patients who underwent catheter ablation for PVCs arising from the PPAV regions (bioprosthetic aortic valve, n = 5; mechanical aortic valve, n = 6). The PVC characteristics, procedure characteristics, and efficacy of ablation were compared with the control group (n = 33). At baseline, the PPAV group had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction (mean [SD], 41% [12%] vs. 51% [8%]; p = .002). The rate of acute ablation success was 90.9% in the PPAV group. Ablation sites were identified above the left coronary cusp (LCC) and right coronary cusp commissure (LRCC) in one PVC, below the prosthetic valve in eight PVCs (four below LCC and four below LRCC), and within the distal coronary sinus in two PVCs. The mean procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and radiation in the PPAV group were all significantly greater than those in the control group (all p < .05). However, the number of radiofrequency ablation energy deliveries was not different. The PPAV group had a long‐term success rate compared with the control group (72.7% vs. 87.9%, p = .48) and an increase of left ventricular ejection fraction from 43% to 49% after successful PVC ablation at follow‐up (p < .001). Echocardiography showed no significant change in valve regurgitation after ablation. No new atrioventricular block occurred.ConclusionPVCs arising from PPAV regions can be successfully ablated in patients with prior AVR, without damaging the prosthetic aortic valve and atrioventricular conduction.

ObjectiveMultiple sclerosis (MS) is a heterogeneous inflammatory demyelinating disease. Iron distribution is altered in MS patients' brains, suggesting iron liberation within active lesions amplifies demyelination and neurodegeneration. Whether the amount and distribution of iron are similar or different among different MS immunopatterns is currently unknown.MethodsWe used synchrotron X‐ray fluorescence imaging, histology, and immunohistochemistry to compare the iron quantity and distribution between immunopattern II and III early active MS lesions. We analyzed archival autopsy and biopsy tissue from 21 MS patients.ResultsImmunopattern II early active lesions contain 64% more iron (95% confidence interval [CI] = 17–127%, p = 0.004) than immunopattern III lesions, and 30% more iron than the surrounding periplaque white matter (95% CI = 3–64%, p = 0.03). Iron in immunopattern III lesions is 28% lower than in the periplaque white matter (95% CI = −40 to −14%, p < 0.001). When normalizing the iron content of early active lesions to that of surrounding periplaque white matter, the ratio is significantly higher in immunopattern II (p < 0.001). Microfocused X‐ray fluorescence imaging shows that iron in immunopattern II lesions localizes to macrophages, whereas macrophages in immunopattern III lesions contain little iron.InterpretationIron distribution and content are heterogeneous in early active MS lesions. Iron accumulates in macrophages in immunopattern II, but not immunopattern III lesions. This heterogeneity in the two most common MS immunopatterns may be explained by different macrophage polarization, origin, or different demyelination mechanisms, and paves the way for developing new or using existing iron‐sensitive magnetic resonance imaging techniques to differentiate among immunopatterns in the general nonbiopsied MS patient population. ANN NEUROL 2021;89:498–510

Abstract The primary cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) is an infection. Therefore, there is great concern about susceptibility to the outcome of COVID-19–infected patients with MM. This retrospective study describes the baseline characteristics and outcome data of COVID-19 infection in 650 patients with plasma cell disorders, collected by the International Myeloma Society to understand the initial challenges faced by myeloma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyses were performed for hospitalized MM patients. Among hospitalized patients, the median age was 69 years, and nearly all patients (96%) had MM. Approximately 36% were recently diagnosed (2019-2020), and 54% of patients were receiving first-line therapy. Thirty-three percent of patients have died, with significant geographic variability, ranging from 27% to 57% of hospitalized patients. Univariate analysis identified age, International Staging System stage 3 (ISS3), high-risk disease, renal disease, suboptimal myeloma control (active or progressive disease), and 1 or more comorbidities as risk factors for higher rates of death. Neither history of transplant, including within a year of COVID-19 diagnosis, nor other anti-MM treatments were associated with outcomes. Multivariate analysis found that only age, high-risk MM, renal disease, and suboptimal MM control remained independent predictors of adverse outcome with COVID-19 infection. The management of MM in the era of COVID-19 requires careful consideration of patient- and disease-related factors to decrease the risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection, while not compromising disease control through appropriate MM treatment. This study provides initial data to develop recommendations for the management of MM patients with COVID-19 infection.

Abstract Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the major type of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. High-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBCL) with MYC/BCL2 double-hit (DH) represents a distinct entity with dismal prognosis after standard immunochemotherapy in the current WHO lymphoma classification. However, whether TP53 mutation synergizes with MYC abnormalities (MYC rearrangement and/or Myc protein overexpression) contributing to HGBCL-like biology and prognosis is not well investigated. In this study, patients with DLBCL with MYC/TP53 abnormalities demonstrated poor clinical outcome, high-grade morphology, and distinct gene expression signatures. To identify more effective therapies for this distinctive DLBCL subset, novel MYC/TP53/BCL-2–targeted agents were investigated in DLBCL cells with MYC/TP53 dual alterations or HGBCL-MYC/BCL2-DH. A BET inhibitor INCB057643 effectively inhibited cell viability and induced apoptosis in DLBCL/HGBCL cells regardless of MYC/BCL2/TP53 status. Combining INCB057643 with a MDM2-p53 inhibitor DS3032b significantly enhanced the cytotoxic effects in HGBCL-DH without TP53 mutation, while combining with the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax displayed potent therapeutic synergy in DLBCL/HGBCL cells with and without concurrent TP53 mutation. Reverse-phase protein arrays revealed the synergistic molecular actions by INCB057643, DS3032b and venetoclax to induce cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis and to inhibit AKT/MEK/ERK/mTOR pathways, as well as potential drug resistance mechanisms mediated by upregulation of Mcl-1 and RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathways. In summary, these findings support subclassification of DLBCL/HGBCL with dual MYC/TP53 alterations, which demonstrates distinct pathobiologic features and dismal survival with standard therapy, therefore requiring additional targeted therapies. Implications: The clinical and pharmacologic studies suggest recognizing DLBCL with concomitant TP53 mutation and MYC abnormalities as a distinctive entity necessary for precision oncology practice. Visual Overview: http://mcr.aacrjournals.org/content/molcanres/19/2/249/F1.large.jpg.

Introduction: Hypomethylating agents (HMAs) or DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTi) such as decitabine or azacitidine are established standard of care for the treatment of MDS and CMML. The oral bioavailability of these agents has been limited due to rapid degradation by cytidine deaminase (CDA) in the gut and liver, hence requiring intravenous infusion or subcutaneous injections daily for 5-7 days every month (m). This parenteral administration requirement adds significant burden to older cancer patients due to daily time commitment and travel to treatment centers. It also increases exposure to and infection risk with SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oral decitabine 35 mg/cedazuridine 100 mg (ASTX727) is an oral fixed dose combination drug of decitabine and the CDA inhibitor cedazuridine that have shown 99% (90% CI 93% to 106%) equivalent exposure to standard dose IV decitabine 20 mg/m2 in a randomized cross-over study (Garcia-Manero et al, ASH 2019). Here, we present the clinical efficacy and safety results of oral decitabine/cedazuridine from 133 patient study in MDS and CMML (ASTX727-02 ASCERTAIN study). Methods: We used a randomized cross over design where patients were randomized in the first 2 cycles 1:1 to either Sequence A: decitabine 35 mg/ cedazuridine 100 mg in Cycle 1 followed by IV decitabine at 20 mg/m2 in Cycle 2, or Sequence B: IV decitabine in Cycle 1 followed by oral decitabine/cedazuridine in Cycle 2 to do an intra-patient comparison of decitabine PK (primary PK endpoint: decitabine AUC equivalence over 5 days of dosing). Cycles were repeated every 28 days. All patients received oral decitabine/cedazuridine in all subsequent cycles from Cycle 3 onwards until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were eligible as per the FDA-approved label of IV decitabine (MDS patients by FAB classification including CMML, or MDS IPSS Intermediate-1, 2 or high-risk patients). Clinical endpoints were best response as assessed by an independent expert panel according to International Working Group (IWG) 2006 response criteria, transfusion independence for at least 8 or 16 consecutive weeks, overall survival, and safety. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.03. Results: 138 subjects were randomized, of whom 133 were treated on study. The median age was 71.0 years (range 44-88), 65% were male, 88% MDS and 12% CMML, 43% were either red blood cells (RBCs) or platelets transfusion-dependent at baseline, 25% had poor-risk cytogenetics, and 42% had baseline bone marrow blasts &gt;5%. At the data cutoff for the response analysis, the median duration of follow up was 12.6 m (range 9.3 to 20.5 m) with median number of treatment cycles of 8 (range 1 to 18). Of the 133 treated patients the best response was complete response (CR) in 28 patients (21%; 95% CI 15-29%), marrow (m)CR with hematological improvement (HI) in 20 patients (15%), mCR without HI in 23 patients (17.3%), and HI in 10 patients (7.5%) for an overall objective response (CR+mCR+HI) in 81 patients (61%; 95% CI 52-69%). Median duration of CR was 7.5 m (range 1.6 to 17.5 m), and median time to CR was 4.3 m (range 2.1 to 15.2 m). Of the 133 treated patients 27 (20%) went on to receive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant. Of the 57 patients who were either RBCs or platelets transfusion-dependent at baseline, 30 (53%) became transfusion independent for both RBCs and platelets for at least 8 consecutive weeks, and 19 (33%) were both RBCs and platelets transfusion independent for at least 16 consecutive weeks. Median survival has not been reached. Most common Treatment-Emergent AEs of Grade ≥3 regardless of causality were neutropenia in 51.5%, thrombocytopenia in 50%, anemia in 40%, febrile neutropenia in 26%, leukopenia in 21%, pneumonia in 12%, and sepsis in 7% of patients treated with oral decitabine/cedazuridine (excluding the IV decitabine cycle). Summary/Conclusions: Efficacy and safety from oral decitabine 35 mg/ cedazuridine 100 mg daily for 5 days every 28 days are consistent with clinical data from standard IV decitabine 20 mg/m2 daily for 5 days. Oral decitabine/cedazuridine is the only oral HMA with systemic exposure equivalent to its injectable drug. Further investigation of oral decitabine/cedazuridine in all-oral combination studies is warranted and underway. Disclosures Savona: BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ryvu: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Griffiths:Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech Inc: Research Funding; Boston Biomedical: Honoraria; AbbVie Inc: Honoraria; Persimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex Pharmceuticals: Research Funding. Zeidan:CCITLA: Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeyondSpring: Consultancy, Honoraria; Taiho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cardinal Health: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ionis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acceleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; MedImmune/Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria. Patel:DAVA Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; France Foundation: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy. Keating:Takeda: 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, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Taiho: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Fazal:Jansen: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopham: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Glaxosmith Kline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Odenike:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex Pharmaceuticals, NS Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Oncology, Oncotherapy, Agios, CTI/Baxalta, Aprea: Other: Institutional research funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Institutional research funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Impact Biomedicines: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; BioAscend: Honoraria; Delta Fly: Honoraria; Ascentage: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Immunogen: Research Funding; Aptitute Health: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Research Funding; Oxford Biomedical: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive biotechnologies: Honoraria. DeZern:MEI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Roboz:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Amphivena: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Jasper Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy. Busque:Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Wells:Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Leber:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda/Palladin: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Treadwell: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lundbeck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Keer:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Garcia-Manero:Acceleron Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amphivena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Helsinn Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Assessment of bone density is an important part of liver transplantation (LT) evaluation for early identification and treatment of osteoporosis. Dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA) is currently the standard clinical test for osteoporosis; however, it may contribute to the appointment burden on LT candidates during the cumbersome evaluation process, and there are limitations affecting its accuracy. In this study, we evaluate the utility of biomechanical analysis of vertebral images obtained during dual‐energy abdominal triple‐phase computed tomography (TPCT) in diagnosing osteoporosis among LT candidates. We retrospectively reviewed cases evaluated for LT between January 2017 and March 2018. All patients who underwent TPCT within 3 months of DXA were included. The biomechanical computed tomography (BCT) analysis was performed at a centralized laboratory (O.N. Diagnostics, Berkeley, CA) by 2 trained analysts blinded to the DXA data. DXA‐based osteoporosis was defined as a T score ≤−2.5 at the hip or spine. BCT‐based osteoporosis was defined as vertebral strength ≤4500 N for women or ≤6500 N for men or trabecular volumetric bone mineral density ≤80 mg/cm3. Comparative data were available for 91 patients who had complete data for both DXA and BCT: 31 women and 60 men, age 54 ± 11 years (mean ± standard deviation), mean body mass index 28 ± 6 kg/m2. Using DXA as the clinical reference, sensitivity of BCT to detect DXA‐defined osteoporosis was 83.3% (20/24 patients) and negative predictive value was 91.7%; specificity and positive predictive value were 65.7% and 46.5%, respectively. BCT analysis of vertebral images on triple‐phase computed tomography, routinely obtained during transplant evaluation, can reliably rule out osteoporosis in LT candidates. Patients with suspicion of osteoporosis on TPCT may need further evaluation by DXA.

AbstractBackgroundThe leadless Micra transcatheter‐pacing system (Micra‐TPS) is implanted via a femoral approach using a 27‐French introducer sheath. The Micra Transcutaneous Pacing Study excluded patients with inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.ObjectiveTo examine the feasibility and safety of Micra‐TPS implantation through an IVC filter.MethodsThis multicenter retrospective study included patients with an IVC filter who underwent a Micra‐TPS implantation. Data for clinical and IVC filter characteristics, preprocedure imaging, and procedural interventions were collected. The primary outcome was a successful leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation via a femoral approach in the presence of an IVC filter. Periprocedural and delayed clinical complications were also evaluated.ResultsOf the 1528 Micra‐TPS implants attempted, 23 patients (1.5%) had IVC filters. The majority (69.6%) of IVC filters were permanent. Six (26.1%) patients underwent preprocedural imaging to assess for filter patency. One patient's filter was retrieved before LP implantation. The primary outcome was achieved in 21 of 22 patients (95.5%) with an existing IVC filter. An occluded IVC precluded LP implantation in one patient. Difficulty advancing the stiff guidewire or the 27‐Fr sheath was encountered in five patients. These cases required repositioning of the wire (n = 2), gradual sheath upsizing (n = 2), or balloon dilation of the filter (n = 1). Postprocedure fluoroscopy revealed intact filters in all cases. During a median 6‐month follow‐up, there were no clinical complications related to the filter or the Micra‐TPS.ConclusionThis multicenter experience demonstrates the feasibility and safety of Micra‐TPS implantation via an IVC filter without acute procedural or delayed clinical complications.