Citations

ObjectiveTreat‐to‐target (T2T) and shared decision‐making are valued features of current guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management. Although T2T has demonstrated value for improving RA outcomes, implementation remains inconsistent and lacks standardization and procedures for including patient input. We sought to better understand the impact of shared decisions on T2T and how treatment goal discussions between patients and providers impact RA treatment improvement and satisfaction.MethodsAn anonymous, web‐based questionnaire was presented to United States residents aged 18 years or older with a self‐reported diagnosis of RA by a medical professional with 28 questions regarding socio‐demographics, RA disease activity (DA), diagnosis, treatments, outcomes, and goals. Analyses included descriptive statistics with χ2 and rank sum tests for comparisons.ResultsThe questionnaire was completed by 907 people (mean age of 58 years; mean 11 years since diagnosis; 90% female). The majority (571; 63%) did not discuss RA treatment goals with providers. Patients engaging in treatment goal discussions with their providers were three times more likely to be satisfied with their treatment plans. Patients discussing treatment goals with their providers were more likely to have improved DA levels and 68% more likely to reach remission.ConclusionA majority of patients with RA report having no treatment goal discussion with their providers; however, these discussions are associated with greater DA improvement and treatment satisfaction. Further research should seek understanding of how shared treatment goal discussions relate to successful RA management and explore the development of practical tools to implement them in regular clinic practice as part of a T2T regimen.

Abstract Background Invasive fungal infection (IFI) in heart transplant recipients is associated with poor outcomes. Estimated risk of 1‐year IFI in heart transplant recipients is 3.4–8.6% with risk factors inconsistently identified in previous studies. The role of antifungal prophylaxis is unclear. The transplant program at Mayo Clinic provides 6 months of universal azole prophylaxis for those heart transplant recipients in Arizona. We sought to define risk factors for 1‐year IFI and determine the effect of antifungal prophylaxis. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing heart transplantation at Mayo Clinic from January 2000 to March 2019. We analyzed demographics, details of transplant hospitalization, antifungal prophylaxis, and fungal infection. Multivariable Cox analyses were performed to identify risk factors of 1‐year IFI and impact of IFI on posttransplant mortality. Results A total of 966 heart transplant recipients were identified with a median age of 56 years (IQR 47, 62). A total of 444 patients received antifungal prophylaxis. Over 1‐year follow‐up, 62 patients developed IFI with a cumulative incidence of 6.4%. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with IFI were renal replacement therapy (RRT) (HR 3.24, 95% CI 1.65–6.39), allograft rejection (HR 2.33, 95% CI 1.25–4.34), and antifungal prophylaxis (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11–0.96). RRT was also associated with invasive mold infection (HR 3.00, 95% CI 1.29–6.97). Conclusions RRT and allograft rejection after transplantation are associated with 1‐year IFI, and RRT is also associated with invasive mold infection. Antifungal prophylaxis appears to be protective and further study is needed in the heart transplant population.

Abstract The current retrospective study involving a total of 1607 patients was designed to identify clinical and molecular variables that were predictive of inferior myelofibrosis‐free survival (MFS) in WHO‐defined essential thrombocythemia (ET), utilizing three independent patient cohorts: University of Florence, Italy ( n = 718); Mayo Clinic, USA ( n = 479) and Policlinico Gemelli, Catholic University, Rome, Italy ( n = 410). The Florence patient cohort was first examined to identify independent risk factors for MFS, which included age > 60 years (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.3–4.9), male sex (2.1, 1.2–3.9), palpable splenomegaly (2.1, 1.2–3.9), CALR 1/1‐like or MPL mutation (3.4, 1.9–6.1) and JAK2 V617F variant allele frequency > 35% (4.2, 1.6–10.8). Subsequently, an operational molecular risk category was developed and validated in the other two cohorts from Mayo Clinic and Rome: “high molecular risk” category included patients with JAK2 V617F VAF >35%, CALR type 1/1‐like or MPL mutations; all other driver mutation profiles were assigned to “low molecular risk” category. The former, compared to the latter molecular risk category, displayed significantly higher risk of fibrotic transformation: Florence cohort with respective fibrotic transformation risk rates of 8% vs. 1.2% at 10 years and 33% vs. 8% at 20 years ( p < 0.001; HR 6.1; 95% CI 3.2–11.7); Mayo Cohort, 16% vs. 7% at 10 years and 44% vs. 25% at 20 years ( p < 0.001; HR 2.5; 95% CI 1.6–4.1); and Rome cohort 7.8% vs. 4.6% at 10 years and 31.2% vs. 7.1% at 20 years ( p = 0.007, HR 2.7; 95% CI 1.3–5.8). The present study provides practically useful risk signals for fibrotic transformation in ET and facilitates identification of patients who require close monitoring and appropriate counseling.

With stress echo (SE) 2020 study, a new standard of practice in stress imaging was developed and disseminated: the ABCDE protocol for functional testing within and beyond CAD. ABCDE protocol was the fruit of SE 2020, and is the seed of SE 2030, which is articulated in 12 projects: 1-SE in coronary artery disease (SECAD); 2-SE in diastolic heart failure (SEDIA); 3-SE in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (SEHCA); 4-SE post-chest radiotherapy and chemotherapy (SERA); 5-Artificial intelligence SE evaluation (AI-SEE); 6-Environmental stress echocardiography and air pollution (ESTER); 7-SE in repaired Tetralogy of Fallot (SETOF); 8-SE in post-COVID-19 (SECOV); 9: Recovery by stress echo of conventionally unfit donor good hearts (RESURGE); 10-SE for mitral ischemic regurgitation (SEMIR); 11-SE in valvular heart disease (SEVA); 12-SE for coronary vasospasm (SESPASM). The study aims to recruit in the next 5 years (2021–2025) ≥10,000 patients followed for ≥5 years (up to 2030) from ≥20 quality-controlled laboratories from ≥10 countries. In this COVID-19 era of sustainable health care delivery, SE2030 will provide the evidence to finally recommend SE as the optimal and versatile imaging modality for functional testing anywhere, any time, and in any patient.

SummaryFedratinib, an oral Janus kinase‐2 (JAK2) inhibitor, reduces splenomegaly and improves symptom burden in patients with myelofibrosis. Regulatory approval of fedratinib 400‐mg daily was based on results of an updated analysis of the pivotal phase III, placebo‐controlled JAKARTA trial in patients with JAK‐inhibitor‐naïve myelofibrosis. At week 24, spleen volume response rate was 47% and symptom response rate was 40% with fedratinib 400 mg, versus 1% and 9% respectively, with placebo. Common adverse events were diarrhoea, nausea, anaemia, and vomiting. No Wernicke encephalopathy occurred in patients receiving fedratinib 400 mg/day. These updated data support use of first‐line fedratinib in patients with myelofibrosis.

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.

PURPOSE The prevalence of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in established breast cancer predisposition genes in women in the general population over age 65 years is not well-defined. However, testing guidelines suggest that women diagnosed with breast cancer over age 65 years might have < 2.5% likelihood of a PV in a high-penetrance gene. This study aimed to establish the frequency of PVs and remaining risks of breast cancer for each gene in women over age 65 years. METHODS A total of 26,707 women over age 65 years from population-based studies (51.5% with breast cancer and 48.5% unaffected) were tested for PVs in germline predisposition gene. Frequencies of PVs and associations between PVs in each gene and breast cancer were assessed, and remaining lifetime breast cancer risks were estimated for non-Hispanic White women with PVs. RESULTS The frequency of PVs in predisposition genes was 3.18% for women with breast cancer and 1.48% for unaffected women over age 65 years. PVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 were found in 3.42% of women diagnosed with estrogen receptor (ER)–negative, 1.0% with ER-positive, and 3.01% with triple-negative breast cancer. Frequencies of PVs were lower among women with no first-degree relatives with breast cancer. PVs in CHEK2, PALB2, BRCA2, and BRCA1 were associated with increased risks (odds ratio = 2.9-4.0) of breast cancer. Remaining lifetime risks of breast cancer were ≥ 15% for those with PVs in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2. CONCLUSION This study suggests that all women diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer or ER-negative breast cancer should receive genetic testing and that women over age 65 years with BRCA1 and BRCA2 PVs and perhaps with PALB2 and CHEK2 PVs should be considered for magnetic resonance imaging screening.