Citations

Abstract The American Thoracic Society Sleep Core Curriculum updates clinicians on important sleep topics, presented during the annual meeting, and appearing in summary here. This year’s sleep core theme is sleep-disordered breathing and its management. Topics range from pathophysiological mechanisms for the association of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and metabolic syndrome, surgical modalities of OSA treatment, comorbid insomnia and OSA, central sleep apnea, and sleep practices during a pandemic. OSA has been associated with metabolic syndrome, independent of the role of obesity, and the pathophysiology suggests a role for sleep fragmentation and intermittent hypoxia in observed metabolic outcomes. In specific patient populations, surgical treatment modalities for OSA have demonstrated large reductions in objective disease severity compared with no treatment and may facilitate adherence to positive airway pressure treatment. Patient-centered approaches to comorbid insomnia and sleep apnea include evaluating for both OSA and insomnia simultaneously and using shared-decision making to determine the order and timing of positive airway pressure therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia. The pathophysiology of central sleep apnea is complex and may be due to the loss of drive to breathe or instability in the regulatory pathways that control ventilation. Pandemic-era sleep practices have evolved rapidly to balance safety and sustainability of care for patients with sleep-disordered breathing.

Abstract The SCHOLAR-1 international retrospective study highlighted poor clinical outcomes and survival among patients with refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) treated with conventional chemotherapy. Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, demonstrated durable responses in patients with refractory LBCL in the pivotal phase 1/2 ZUMA-1 study (NCT02348216). Here, we compared SCHOLAR-1 with the 2-year outcomes of ZUMA-1. Prior to comparison of clinical outcomes, propensity scoring (based on a broad set of prognostic covariates) was used to create balance between ZUMA-1 and SCHOLAR-1 patients. In the pivotal phase 2 portion of ZUMA-1, 101 patients received axi-cel and were evaluable for response and survival. In SCHOLAR-1, 434 and 424 patients were evaluable for response and survival, respectively. ZUMA-1 patients were more heavily pretreated than were SCHOLAR-1 patients. The median follow-up was 27.1 months in ZUMA-1. The objective response rate (ORR) and complete response rate were 83% and 54% in ZUMA-1 vs 34% and 12% in SCHOLAR-1, respectively. The 2-year survival rate was 54% in ZUMA-1 and 20% in SCHOLAR-1, and a 73% reduction in the risk of death was observed in ZUMA-1 vs SCHOLAR-1. These results were consistent with those of an additional standardization analysis in which strata were limited to 2 prognostic factors (refractory categorization and presence/absence of stem cell transplant after refractoriness to chemotherapy) to conserve sample size. Despite the limitations of a nonrandomized analysis, these results indicate that axi-cel produces durable responses and a substantial survival benefit vs non–CAR T-cell salvage regimens for patients with refractory LBCL.

Abstract We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis across 10 US academic medical centers to evaluate treatment patterns and outcomes in patients age ≥60 years with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) from 2010-2018. Among 244 eligible patients, median age was 68, 63% had advanced stage (III/IV), 96% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 0-2, and 12% had documented loss of ≥1 activity of daily living (ADL). Medical comorbidities were assessed by the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale–Geriatric (CIRS-G), where n = 44 (18%) had total scores ≥10. Using multivariable Cox models, only ADL loss predicted shorter progression-free (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] 2.13, P = .007) and overall survival (OS; HR 2.52, P = .02). Most patients (n = 203, 83%) received conventional chemotherapy regimens, including doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD; 56%), AVD (14%), and AVD with brentuximab vedotin (BV; 9%). Compared to alternative therapies, conventional regimens significantly improved PFS (HR 0.46, P = .0007) and OS (HR 0.31, P = .0003). Survival was similar following conventional chemotherapy in those ages 60-69 vs ≥70: PFS HR 0.88, P = .63; OS HR 0.73, P = .55. Early treatment discontinuation due to toxicity was more common with CIRS-G ≥10 (28% vs 12%, P = .016) or documented geriatric syndrome (28% vs 13%, P = .02). A competing risk analysis demonstrated improved disease-related survival with conventional therapy (HR 0.29, P = .02) and higher mortality from causes other than disease or treatment with high CIRS-G or geriatric syndromes. This study suggests conventional chemotherapy regimens remain a standard of care in fit older patients with cHL, and highlights the importance of geriatric assessments in defining fitness for cHL therapy going forward.

Objectives: Multicenter data on the characteristics and outcomes of children hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 are limited. Our objective was to describe the characteristics, ICU admissions, and outcomes among children hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 using Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study: Coronavirus Disease 2019 registry. Design: Retrospective study. Setting: Society of Critical Care Medicine Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (Coronavirus Disease 2019) registry. Patients: Children (< 18 yr) hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 at participating hospitals from February 2020 to January 2021. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was ICU admission. Secondary outcomes included hospital and ICU duration of stay and ICU, hospital, and 28-day mortality. A total of 874 children with coronavirus disease 2019 were reported to Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study registry from 51 participating centers, majority in the United States. Median age was 8 years (interquartile range, 1.25–14 yr) with a male:female ratio of 1:2. A majority were non-Hispanic (492/874; 62.9%). Median body mass index (n = 817) was 19.4 kg/m2 (16–25.8 kg/m2), with 110 (13.4%) overweight and 300 (36.6%) obese. A majority (67%) presented with fever, and 43.2% had comorbidities. A total of 238 of 838 (28.2%) met the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and 404 of 874 (46.2%) were admitted to the ICU. In multivariate logistic regression, age, fever, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and pre-existing seizure disorder were independently associated with a greater odds of ICU admission. Hospital mortality was 16 of 874 (1.8%). Median (interquartile range) duration of ICU (n = 379) and hospital (n = 857) stay were 3.9 days (2–7.7 d) and 4 days (1.9–7.5 d), respectively. For patients with 28-day data, survival was 679 of 787, 86.3% with 13.4% lost to follow-up, and 0.3% deceased. Conclusions: In this observational, multicenter registry of children with coronavirus disease 2019, ICU admission was common. Older age, fever, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and seizure disorder were independently associated with ICU admission, and mortality was lower among children than mortality reported in adults.

AbstractData comparing outcomes in prostate cancer and factors affecting treatment choice are sparse. To inform the design of a comparative effectiveness clinical trial, we engaged patients in developing a 28‐question survey about decision making on treatment and research participation and dispersed it among men greater than or equal to 50 years of age. The 1046 respondents ranked long‐term clinical outcomes as most important in making treatment decisions, specific functional outcomes as slightly less important, and duration, location, and cost of treatment as least important. Treatment choice was strongly impacted by side effect profile. Responses to whether the subject would agree to participation in a randomized trial between two types of radiation with minimal differences in outcomes were “yes” in 15%, “no” in 39%, and “undecided” in 46%. Responses to whether the subject would agree to participation in a randomized trial between two treatment durations with similar outcomes were yes in 36%, no in 24%, and undecided in 40%. Findings suggest many potential patients have strong treatment preferences and are averse to randomization, particularly when outcomes of importance may be affected. Patient engagement in study design and novel nonrandomized trial designs may offer a path to increase clinical trial success.

PURPOSE This guideline updates recommendations of the ASCO guideline on chemotherapy and targeted therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) that is either endocrine-pretreated or hormone receptor (HR)–negative. METHODS An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review guided by a signals approach to identify new, potentially practice-changing data that might translate into revised guideline recommendations. RESULTS The Expert Panel reviewed abstracts from the literature review and retained 14 articles. RECOMMENDATIONS Patients with triple-negative, programmed cell death ligand-1–positive MBC may be offered the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy as first-line therapy. Patients with triple-negative, programmed cell death ligand-1–negative MBC should be offered single-agent chemotherapy rather than combination chemotherapy as first-line treatment, although combination regimens may be offered for life-threatening disease. Patients with triple-negative MBC who have received at least two prior therapies for MBC should be offered treatment with sacituzumab govitecan. Patients with triple-negative MBC with germline BRCA mutations previously treated with chemotherapy may be offered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rather than chemotherapy. Patients with HR-positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative MBC for whom chemotherapy is being considered should be offered single–agent chemotherapy rather than combination chemotherapy, although combination regimens may be offered for highly symptomatic or life-threatening disease. Patients with HR-positive MBC with disease progression on an endocrine agent may be offered treatment with either endocrine therapy with or without targeted therapy or single-agent chemotherapy. Patients with HR-positive MBC with germline BRCA mutations no longer benefiting from endocrine therapy may be offered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rather than chemotherapy. No recommendation regarding when a patient's care should be transitioned to hospice or best supportive care alone is possible. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

AbstractThe development of novel agents has transformed the treatment paradigm for multiple myeloma, with minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity now achievable across the entire disease spectrum. Bone marrow–based technologies to assess MRD, including approaches using next-generation flow and next-generation sequencing, have provided real-time clinical tools for the sensitive detection and monitoring of MRD in patients with multiple myeloma. Complementary liquid biopsy–based assays are now quickly progressing with some, such as mass spectrometry methods, being very close to clinical use, while others utilizing nucleic acid–based technologies are still developing and will prove important to further our understanding of the biology of MRD. On the regulatory front, multiple retrospective individual patient and clinical trial level meta-analyses have already shown and will continue to assess the potential of MRD as a surrogate for patient outcome. Given all this progress, it is not surprising that a number of clinicians are now considering using MRD to inform real-world clinical care of patients across the spectrum from smoldering myeloma to relapsed refractory multiple myeloma, with each disease setting presenting key challenges and questions that will need to be addressed through clinical trials. The pace of advances in targeted and immune therapies in multiple myeloma is unprecedented, and novel MRD-driven biomarker strategies are essential to accelerate innovative clinical trials leading to regulatory approval of novel treatments and continued improvement in patient outcomes.

SummaryZUMA‐1 (NCT02348216) examined the safety and efficacy of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi‐cel), an autologous CD19‐directed chimaeric antigen receptor (CAR)‐T cell therapy, in refractory large B‐cell lymphoma. To reduce treatment‐related toxicity, several exploratory safety management cohorts were added to ZUMA‐1. Specifically, cohort 6 investigated management of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events (NEs) with prophylactic corticosteroids and earlier corticosteroid and tocilizumab intervention. CRS and NE incidence and severity were primary end‐points. Following leukapheresis, patients could receive optional bridging therapy per investigator discretion. All patients received conditioning chemotherapy (days −5 through −3), 2 × 106 CAR‐T cells/kg (day 0) and once‐daily oral dexamethasone [10 mg, day 0 (before axi‐cel) through day 2]. Forty patients received axi‐cel. CRS occurred in 80% of patients (all grade ≤2). Any grade and grade 3 or higher NEs occurred in 58% and 13% of patients respectively. Sixty‐eight per cent of patients did not experience CRS or NEs within 72 h of axi‐cel. With a median follow‐up of 8·9 months, objective and complete response rates were 95% and 80% respectively. Overall, prophylactic corticosteroids and earlier corticosteroid and/or tocilizumab intervention resulted in no grade 3 or higher CRS, a low rate of grade 3 or higher NEs and high response rates in this study population.

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration–approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%–12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough the safety and therapeutic efficacy of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been extensively evaluated, the safety of CCP donation has not been explored in a multi‐institutional context.Study design and methodsNine blood collection organizations (BCOs) participated in a multi‐institutional donor hemovigilance effort to assess the safety of CCP donation. Donor adverse events (DAEs) were defined according to the Standard for Surveillance of Complications Related to Blood Donation, and severity was assessed using the severity grading tool. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine attributes associated with DAE severity.ResultsThe overall DAE rate was 37.7 per 1000 donations. Repeat apheresis and apheresis‐naïve donors experienced adverse event rates of 19.9 and 49.8 per 1000 donations, respectively. Female donors contributed 51.9% of CCP donations with a DAE rate of 49.4 per 1000 donations. The DAE rate for male donors was 27.4 per 1000 donations. Vasovagal reactions accounted for over half of all reported DAEs (51.1%). After adjustment, volume of CCP donated was associated with vasovagal reaction severity (odds ratio [OR] 6.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5–17.1). Donor age and donation history were also associated with DAE severity. Considerable differences in DAE types and rates were observed across the participating BCOs despite the use of standardized hemovigilance definitions.ConclusionThe safety of CCP donation appears comparable to that of conventional apheresis plasma donation with similar associated risk factors for DAE types and severity.