Citations

Abstract Background Nocardia more commonly causes infection in immunocompromised individuals, notably with a relapse rate of approximately 5%. Solid organ transplant recipients will often receive post-treatment prophylaxis as the underlying immunosuppression is unable to be completely removed. However, data supporting this practice is sparse. We sought to evaluate recurrence of nocardiosis in solid organ transplant recipients, specifically evaluating the role of post-treatment prophylaxis. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients at our medical center diagnosed with nocardiosis from 2000 through 2020. We included adult SOT recipients who completed their course of Nocardia therapy. Patients were excluded if they had not yet completed therapy, died prior to completing therapy, or there was no post-therapy follow-up. The primary outcome was Nocardia recurrence. Continuous variables were presented as mean or median with interquartile range (IQR). Results 108 patients meeting inclusion criteria were analyzed. 72 (66.7%) were male and median age was 60 years (IQR 52-65). Most common SOT types were kidney (47.2%), heart (17.6%), kidney-pancreas (11.1%), and lung (11.1%). Median time from transplantation to diagnosis of nocardiosis was 396 days (IQR 154-1071). Most common sites of infection were lung (88.0%), skin (16.7%), brain (13.9%), and blood (6.5%). Multi-organ infection was present in 22.2% and 24.1% were on trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) prophylaxis at diagnosis. Post-treatment prophylaxis was utilized in 55 (50.9%) patients (Table 1). TMP-SMX was the most common prophylaxis (87.3%; Figure 1). Four patients experienced Nocardia recurrence, 2 of which were receiving TMP-SMX prophylaxis at time of relapse (Table 2). These were dosed as double strength tablet daily and weekly, respectively. Median time from treatment completion to relapse was 255.5 days (range 107-871). Figure 1. Post-Treatment Prophylaxis Regimens for Nocardia in 55 Patients Conclusion Nocardia recurrence in solid organ transplant recipients is an uncommon occurrence. Double strength daily and weekly TMP-SMX prophylaxis does not appear to be entirely protective and relapse may be dependent upon other factors such as primary treatment length. Further study into the use of post-treatment prophylaxis is warranted. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Aims Remote monitoring of pulmonary artery pressure has reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in chronic HF as elevation of pulmonary artery pressure provides information that can guide treatment. The venous system is characterized by high capacitance, thus substantial increases in intravascular volume can occur before filling pressures increase. The inferior vena cava (IVC) is a highly compliant venous conduit and thus a candidate for early detection of change in intravascular volume. We aimed to compare IVC cross‐sectional area using a novel sensor with cardiac filling pressures during experimental manipulation of volume status, vascular tone, and cardiac function. Methods and results Experiments were conducted in sheep to manipulate volume status (colloid infusion), vascular tone (nitroglycerin infusion) and cardiac function (rapid cardiac pacing). A wireless implantable IVC sensor was validated ex‐vivo and in‐vivo , and then used to measure the cross‐sectional area of the IVC. Right‐ and left‐sided cardiac filling pressures were obtained via right heart catheterization. The IVC sensor provided highly accurate and precise measurements of cross‐sectional area in ex‐vivo and in‐vivo validation. IVC area changes were more sensitive than the corresponding changes in cardiac filling pressures during colloid infusion ( p < 0.001), vasodilatation ( p < 0.001) and cardiac dysfunction induced by rapid pacing ( p ≤ 0.02). Conclusions Inferior vena cava area can be remotely and accurately measured in real time with a wireless implantable sensor. Changes in IVC area are more sensitive than corresponding changes in filling pressures following experimental volume loading and fluid redistribution. Additional research is warranted to understand if remote monitoring of the IVC may have advantages over pressure‐based monitors in HF.

Abstract We conducted a national survey of pediatric infectious diseases (ID) clinicians on outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy (OPAT) practices and post-discharge ID follow-up. Only 15% of sites required ID consultation for all OPAT. ID division resources for post-discharge care varied. Opportunities exist to increase ID involvement in post-discharge management of serious infections.

Abstract Background: Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) has been shown to improve survival compared to conventional chemotherapy alone. However, the ability to perform ASCT relies, in part, on collecting a sufficient number (#) of CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), typically from peripheral blood. The ideal HSC mobilization regimen would enable collection of optimal #s of HSCs (5-6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg) within the minimum # of apheresis sessions possible. Yet, despite currently available G-CSF (G) based mobilization regimens and multiple apheresis days, many remain unable to collect optimal #s of HSCs. Motixafortide (M) is a novel CXCR4 inhibitor, with high affinity (IC 50 0.54-4.5 nM) and long receptor occupancy (&gt;48 hours). Methods: In this prospective, phase 3, double blind, placebo controlled, multicenter trial, 122 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive either M+G or placebo (P)+G for HSC mobilization prior to ASCT for MM. All patients received G (10 mcg/kg) on days 1-5 (and 6-8, if needed). Patients received either M (1.25 mg/kg, subcutaneous injection) or P on day 4 (and 6, if needed). Apheresis began day 5, with the primary (PEP) and secondary (SEP) endpoints of collecting ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in up to 2 apheresis days or 1 day, respectively. Apheresis continued on days 6-8 if needed. Total CD34+ cells/kg were analyzed on site to determine if patients mobilized to the goal and all samples were subsequently sent for assessment by central laboratory. Patients that did not collect ≥2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg by day 8 proceeded to rescue mobilization. The # of CD34+ cells infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice (minimum ≥2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg). Analyses of the PEP/SEPs were performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Results: Demographics between the 2 treatment arms were similar. Mobilization with M+G resulted in 92.5% of patients collecting ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg within 2 apheresis days vs 26.2% with P+G (Odds Ratio (OR) 53.3, 95% CI 14.12-201.33, p&lt;0.0001). Furthermore, 88.8% of patients with M+G collected ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in 1 apheresis day vs 9.5% with P+G (OR 118.0, 95% CI 25.36-549.35, p&lt;0.0001); and 96.3% with M+G collected ≥2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg within 1 apheresis day vs 64.3% with P+G (OR 18.9, 95% CI 4.47-80.04, p&lt;0.0001). The PEP and SEPs were confirmed as statistically significant by central laboratory (all respective p-values &lt;0.0001). The median # of HSCs mobilized in 1 apheresis day with M+G was 10.80x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg vs 2.14x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg with P+G. The # of cells infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice. Median time to neutrophil engraftment was 12 days in both arms (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.62-1.41, p=0.75). Median time to platelet engraftment was 18 days (range: 17-19) with M+G and 17 days (range: 17-18) with P+G (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59-1.34, p=0.57). Graft durability at day 100 post-ASCT was 92.2% in the M+G arm and 91.9% in the P+G arm (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.2-4.5, p=0.96). Overall, adverse events were reported in 98.8% (Grade 3/4: 68.8%) of patients with M+G vs 95.2% (Grade 3/4: 42.9%) with P+G, with cytopenias in the post-ASCT period prior to engraftment accounting for the majority of Grade 3/4 AEs in both arms, as expected. The most common AEs related to M included: local injection site reactions (any grade: 70.0%, Grade 3/4: 11.3%); and systemic reactions such as pruritis (33.8%), flushing (32.5%) and urticaria (12.5%). Additionally, mobilization with M+G resulted in a 10.5x increase in mean absolute # of CD34+CD45RA-CD123loCD38-CD90+CD49f+ primitive HSCs collected vs P+G (p&lt;0.0001). Multicolor FACS and scRNA sequencing of CD34+ HSCs from both arms will be reported in a separate ASH abstract. Conclusions: A single injection of M on top of G significantly increased the proportion of patients mobilizing ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg for ASCT (92.5%) vs G (26.2%) in up to 2 apheresis days (p&lt;0.0001), while enabling 88.8% to collect ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in just 1 apheresis (p&lt;0.0001, Figure 1A). Despite the higher # of cells mobilized by M+G, the # of CD34+ cells/kg infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice with comparable engraftment kinetics and graft durability between the 2 arms. Finally, M+G mobilized 10.5x more immunophenotypically primitive CD34+ HSCs capable of durable multilineage hematopoietic engraftment vs P+G (p&lt;0.0001, Figure 1B). Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Crees: BioLineRx Ltd.: Research Funding. Larson: TORL biotherapeutics: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Bioline: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Illés: Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: 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; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stiff: Incyte: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Seagen: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; BioLineRX: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sborov: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; SkylineDx: Consultancy. Pereira: Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mikala: Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Krka: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Holtick: Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Qazilbash: Amgen: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; Biolline: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; NexImmune: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Hardy: American Gene Technologies, International: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InCyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vainstein: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Sorani: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Gliko-Kabir: BioLineRx Ltd.: Current Employment. Goldstein: BioLineRx Ltd.: Current Employment. Kadosh: BioLineRx Ltd.: Current Employment.

Abstract Background: Protein production and homeostasis are critical to life and death decisions of malignant plasma cells in multiple myeloma (MM). While protein homeostasis has been targeted effectively with proteasome inhibitors in this disease, inhibition of protein production has not been clinically tested. Protein translation inhibition represents an immediately available avenue, with the agent omacetaxine mepesuccinate (Oma). Recent in vivo and ex vivo work illustrates the broad sensitivity MM cells have to Oma, irrespective of proteasome inhibitor (PI) or immunomodulatory (IMiD) drug treatment exposure (Walker et al. Clinical Cancer Research, 2021). High levels of baseline protein translation, compared to other cells in the bone marrow, serves as a biomarker of high Oma sensitivity in MM patient samples. Based on this, we hypothesized that Oma treatment in MM may lead to eventual drug resistance through the downregulation of protein synthesis. To test this, we evaluated the effects of long-term Oma treatment on MM cells, by establishing resistance in two human MM cell lines and comparing them to their isogenic parental lines. Methods: Omacetaxine resistance was established by dose escalation in MM cell lines NCI-H929 and MM1S, with concentrations gradually increased over 80 weeks to 84 nM and 52 nM, respectively. Resistance was confirmed via CellTiter-Glo after 96 h incubations. Translation rates were measured by incorporation of OP-Puromycin. Flow cytometry was used for cell cycle analysis. Mass cytometry (CyTOF) was performed on a Fluidigm Helios system with a 35-marker panel. Cell morphology was examined by confocal microscopy using a Zeiss LSM780 spectral microscope with DAPI and Mitotracker stains. Cell line xenograft studies were performed using NSG mice engrafted via IV tail injection. Results: Resistant cell lines H929-R and MM1S-R displayed decreased cytotoxicity to Oma, with EC50 &gt;100 nM after 96 h treatment, compared to parental line sensitivity of 24 nM for MM1S and 54 nM for H929 (Fig 1A and 1B). Next, we evaluated baseline translation rates for both parental and resistant lines. As hypothesized, H929 cells significantly downregulated translation after acquiring Oma resistance, but MM1S cells actually significantly upregulated protein synthesis (n = 3, p &lt; 0.001 for both lines, Fig 1C). Interestingly, MM1S-R cells showed global phenotypic changes from the parental line based on UMAP analysis of CyTOF results, whereas H929-R appeared similar to its isogenic line (Fig 1D). The most altered protein was the transcription factor XBP1s, which was elevated in MM1S-R cells compared to parental (Fig 1E). An increased percentage of aneuploidy cells was observed in both resistant lines compared to the parental lines, indicating genomic pressure on both (Fig 1F). Consistent with this, confocal microscopy showed the emergence of multi-nucleated and pleomorphic cells in the Oma resistant lines compared to parental (Fig 1G). Finally, both resistant lines showed a surprising extended survival in an untreated MM NSG xenograft model. Mice engrafted with either H929-R or MM1S-R had a significant survival advantage over their parental cell lines (p = 0.0019, p = 0.0014, Fig 1G and 1H). Median survival was 119 days for H929-P and unreached for H929-R mice, MM1S was 47 and 68 days respectively. Conclusion: After prolonged exposure to Oma, cell lines H929 and MM1S displayed unique characteristics compared to their parental lines, including changes in protein translation rates, drug sensitivities, aneuploidy, and in vivo growth characteristics. Once resistant to Oma, H929 cells downregulated translation, similar to published patient sample data. Conversely, MM1S cells upregulated translation and displayed a more complex phenotypic shift, including an upregulation of XPB1s, an indication of increased unfolded protein response. Much like PIs, we believe Oma disrupts the delicate proteostasis intrinsic to MM cells, putting them on the defensive. Both Oma resistant cell lines exhibited a stressed cell state evident through their decline of in vivo fitness and an increase in poly-aneuploidy. Ongoing research with these cell lines will evaluate transcriptional changes, continuing to advance our understanding of Oma sensitivity and resistance in multiple myeloma. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable form of plasma cell cancer in which primary and secondary chromosomal translocations routinely juxtapose oncogenes to plasma cell-specific super-enhancers. Coincidentally, drugs which target super-enhancers have had success clinically. For example, immunomodulatory imide drugs (IMiDs) degrade super-enhancer-binding pioneer factors IKAROS and AIOLOS, while glucocorticoids (Dexamethasone) and proteasome inhibitors (Bortezomib) have the ability to transrepress or block the processing of super-enhancer-forming NF-κB proteins, respectively. Currently, alternative enhancer-targeting drugs are also in clinical development, like p300 inhibitors which target the acetyl-binding bromodomains and/or histone acetyl transferase activity of the chromatin-regulating coactivator homologs CBP and EP300. Despite showing therapeutic promise, our understanding of how these drugs function, alone or together, remains incomplete. Case in point, we find that IMiD-induced degradation of its target proteins IKAROS and AIOLOS does not guarantee a therapeutic response in vitro, and patients successfully treated with IMiDs eventually relapse; meanwhile, coactivator-targeting therapies like p300 inhibitors are often too toxic in vivo, and lack a therapeutic window. To improve the outcomes of MM patients we need to understand the heterogeneous genetics and transcription-factor milieus of the myeloma enhancer landscape, as well as how to increase the precision of enhancer-disrupting drugs. To accomplish this, our lab utilizes more than 60 human myeloma cell lines that have been extensively characterized at the genetic, proteomic, and drug-therapeutic-response levels. Additionally, we have generated a highly-predictive immunocompetent mouse model (Vk*MYC hCRBN+) that develops human-like MM and is sensitive to both IMiDs and a new class of therapeutics termed "degronimids" (normal mice do not respond to IMiDs or degronimids). Our central hypothesis is that combining a broad coactivator-targeting drug (e.g., the p300 inhibitor GNE-781), with a MM-specific transcription factor-targeting drug (e.g., IMiDs) restricts toxicities to myeloma cells and thus improves the therapeutic window. Currently, we are testing a variety of coactivator-targeting compounds alongside traditional IMiD therapies and other preclinical transcription factor-targeting drugs both in vivo and in vitro. We show that Vk*MYC hCRBN+ mice are exquisitely sensitive to GNE-781, requiring one fourth of the dose needed to treat other cancers and therefore avoiding the neutropenia and thrombocytopenia seen at higher doses. Second, we show that although IMiDs and GNE-781 induce an effective but transient response in vivo as single agents, the combination of the two drugs proved curative, with a progressive deepening of the anti-tumor response occurring even after therapy is discontinued. Ongoing experiments aim to determine how this drug combination, and other coactivator + transcription factor-targeting combinations, permanently disrupt myeloma-specific super-enhancers. Disclosures Neri: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bahlis: Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy. Boise: AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie/Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chesi: Abcuro: Patents & Royalties: Genetically engineered mouse model of myeloma; Pi Therapeutics: Patents & Royalties: Genetically engineered mouse model of myeloma; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN transgenic mouse; Palleon Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Genetically engineered mouse model of myeloma.

Abstract Background: CD34+ hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell (HSPC) dose during hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) remains one of the most reliable clinical parameters to predict quality of engraftment. A minimum HSPC dose of 2-2.5x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg is considered necessary for reliable engraftment, while optimal doses of 5-6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg are associated with faster engraftment, as well as fewer transfusions, infections, and antibiotic days. CXCR4 inhibition significantly improves the number (#) of CD34+ HSPCs mobilized for HCT, when added to G-CSF (G). Motixafortide (M), a novel CXCR4 antagonist, is a potent mobilizer of HSPCs recently evaluated in the phase 3, double blind, placebo controlled, multicenter GENESIS Trial as a mobilizing agent prior to autologous HCT (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). Methods: Patients received G (10 mcg/kg) on days 1-5 (and days 6-8, if needed). On day 4 (and day 6, if needed), patients received either M (1.25 mg/kg) or placebo (P). Apheresis began day 5, with up to 4 days of apheresis if needed. The primary and secondary endpoints were collection of ³6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in up to 2 days of apheresis or 1 day, respectively. The # of CD34+ cells/kg infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice, but a minimum of ³2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg was required. A post-hoc analysis was performed pooling data from both arms to evaluate time to platelet engraftment (TPE) (≥20x10 9/L without transfusions x7 days) and neutrophil engraftment (TNE) (ANC ≥0.5x10 9/L x3 days) based on total # of CD34+ cells/kg and # of specific CD34+ HSPC subsets infused. CD34+ HSPC immunophenotyping was performed via multicolor fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS). TPE/TNE was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards model. Results: 114 MM patients underwent apheresis, ASCT and were evaluable (M+G N=77; P+G N=37). M+G mobilization yielded a median of 10.8x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg collected in 1 apheresis vs 2.3x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg with P+G (p&lt;0.0001). M+G also resulted in mobilization of higher #s of relevant CD34+ HSPC subsets vs P+G, including 5.6 fold more HSCs (CD45RA-CD123loCD38+CD90+CD49f+) (p&lt;0.0001), 3.5 fold more multipotent progenitors (MPPs) and common myeloid progenitors (CMPs) (CD45RA-CD123loCD38+CD90-CD49f+) (p=0.0004) and 5.6 fold more granulocyte and macrophage progenitors (GMPs) (CD45RA+CD123loCD38+/-CD10-) (&lt;0.0001). The median # of infused HSPCs in both arms was &lt;6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg (Table 1), with similar TPE of 17-18 days (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59-1.34, p=0.57) and TNE of 12 days (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.62-1.41, p=0.75). However, pooled analysis of all patients (N=114) revealed infusion of ³6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg was associated with faster median TPE of 16 days vs 18 days with &lt;6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.96, p=0.03) (Figure 1A). Further analysis demonstrated an inverse correlation between increasing CD34+ cells/kg infused and TPE (Pearson r=-0.2789, p=0.0027). In addition, pooled analysis of 36 patients (M+G N=24; P+G N=12) using extended multicolor FACS revealed infusion of higher #s (&gt;75 th percentile) of combined CD34+ HSC, MPP, CMP and GMP subsets was associated with faster TPE of 12 days vs 19 days with lower #s of these subsets (p=0.003) (Figure 2A). Furthermore, higher #s (&gt;75 th percentile) of GMPs was individually associated with faster TPE of 13 days vs 19 days with lower GMP cell doses (p=0.0116) (Figure 2C). TNE was not impacted by increasing doses of total CD34+ HSPCs or any specific CD34+ HSPC subset (all p&gt;0.05) (Figures 1B, 2B and 2D). Conclusions: M+G mobilization enabled significantly more CD34+ cells to be collected in 1 apheresis (median 10.8x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg) vs P+G (2.3x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg), as well as 3.5-5.6 fold higher #s of HSCs, MPPs, CMPs and GMPs (all p-values &lt;0.0004). This high # of CD34+ cells/kg mobilized with M+G enables the potential infusion of ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg and cryopreservation of cells for later use. A dose response was observed with significant correlation between faster TPE and infusion of higher #s of total CD34+ HSPC doses (³6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg) and combined HSC, MPP, CMP and GMP subsets. Additionally, infusion of higher #s of CD34+ GMP subsets was independently associated with faster TPE, suggesting these more committed progenitors may play a critical role in early engraftment. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Crees: BioLineRx Ltd.: Research Funding. Retting: BioLineRx Ltd.: Research Funding. Larson: TORL biotherapeutics: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Abbvie, Bioline, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Juno, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda: Research Funding. Illes: Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Takeda, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Roche: Consultancy. Stiff: CRISPR: Consultancy; Gamida-Cell, Atara, Amgen, Incyte, Takeda, Macrogenetics, Eisai: Research Funding. Sborov: SkylineDx: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pereira: Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mikala: Abbvie: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Krka: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Holtick: Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Qazilbash: Janssen: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; Biolline: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; NexImmune: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding. Hardy: Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; American Gene Technologies, International: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InCyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sorani: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Shemesh-Darvish: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Vainstein: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment; Enlivex: Consultancy. Kadosh: StatExcellence: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; BioLineRx: Honoraria.

Abstract Background Starting in November 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for multiple novel virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapies, including bamlanivimab monotherapy (now revoked), bamlanivimab and etesivimab, casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV), and sotrovimab, for treatment or postexposure prophylaxis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adolescents (≥12 years of age) and adults with certain high-risk conditions. Previous guidance is now updated based on new evidence and clinical experience. Methods A panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacotherapy, and pediatric critical care medicine from 18 geographically diverse US institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a guidance statement was developed and refined based on a review of the best available evidence and expert opinion. Results The course of COVID-19 in children and adolescents is typically mild, though more severe disease is occasionally observed. Evidence supporting risk stratification is incomplete. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the benefit of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific monoclonal antibody therapies in adults, but data on safety and efficacy in children or adolescents are limited. Potential harms associated with infusion reactions or anaphylaxis are reportedly low in adults. Conclusions Based on evidence available as of August 31, 2021, the panel suggests a risk-based approach to administration of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapy. Therapy is suggested for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adolescents (≥12 years of age) at the highest risk of progression to hospitalization or severe disease. Therapeutic decision-making about those at moderate risk of severe disease should be individualized. Use as postexposure prophylaxis could be considered for those at the highest risk who have a high-risk exposure but are not yet diagnosed with COVID-19. Clinicians and health systems should ensure safe and timely implementation of these therapeutics that does not exacerbate existing healthcare disparities.

ObjectiveThe relative risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 disease severity among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) compared to those without RMDs is unclear. This study was undertaken to quantify the risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in those with RMDs and describe clinical outcomes of COVID‐19 in these patients.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review using 14 databases from January 1, 2019 to February 13, 2021. We included observational studies and experimental trials in RMD patients that described comparative rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization, oxygen supplementation/intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mechanical ventilation, or death attributed to COVID‐19. Methodologic quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools or the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. Risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated, as applicable for each outcome, using the Mantel‐Haenszel formula with random effects models.ResultsOf the 5,799 abstracts screened, 100 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, and 54 of 100 had a low risk of bias. Among the studies included in the meta‐analyses, we identified an increased prevalence of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in patients with an RMD (RR 1.53 [95% CI 1.16–2.01]) compared to the general population. The odds of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were similar in patients with and those without an RMD, whereas the mortality rate was increased in patients with RMDs (OR 1.74 [95% CI 1.08–2.80]). In a smaller number of studies, the adjusted risk of outcomes related to COVID‐19 was assessed, and the results varied; some studies demonstrated an increased risk while other studies showed no difference in risk in patients with an RMD compared to those without an RMD.ConclusionPatients with RMDs have higher rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and an increased mortality rate.