Citations

Abstract Eating disorders and substance use disorders frequently co‐occur. Twin studies reveal shared genetic variance between liabilities to eating disorders and substance use, with the strongest associations between symptoms of bulimia nervosa and problem alcohol use (genetic correlation [ r g ], twin‐based = 0.23‐0.53). We estimated the genetic correlation between eating disorder and substance use and disorder phenotypes using data from genome‐wide association studies (GWAS). Four eating disorder phenotypes (anorexia nervosa [AN], AN with binge eating, AN without binge eating, and a bulimia nervosa factor score), and eight substance‐use‐related phenotypes (drinks per week, alcohol use disorder [AUD], smoking initiation, current smoking, cigarettes per day, nicotine dependence, cannabis initiation, and cannabis use disorder) from eight studies were included. Significant genetic correlations were adjusted for variants associated with major depressive disorder and schizophrenia. Total study sample sizes per phenotype ranged from ~2400 to ~537 000 individuals. We used linkage disequilibrium score regression to calculate single nucleotide polymorphism‐based genetic correlations between eating disorder‐ and substance‐use‐related phenotypes. Significant positive genetic associations emerged between AUD and AN ( r g = 0.18; false discovery rate q = 0.0006), cannabis initiation and AN ( r g = 0.23; q < 0.0001), and cannabis initiation and AN with binge eating ( r g = 0.27; q = 0.0016). Conversely, significant negative genetic correlations were observed between three nondiagnostic smoking phenotypes (smoking initiation, current smoking, and cigarettes per day) and AN without binge eating ( r gs = −0.19 to −0.23; qs < 0.04). The genetic correlation between AUD and AN was no longer significant after co‐varying for major depressive disorder loci. The patterns of association between eating disorder‐ and substance‐use‐related phenotypes highlights the potentially complex and substance‐specific relationships among these behaviors.

Background: CLR 131 is a novel targeted radiotherapeutic that exploits the selective uptake and retention of phospholipid ethers (PLEs) by malignant cells. Based on initial preclinical and clinical experience and the radiosensitivity of MM, fractionated dosing of CLR 131 is being examined in RRMM in a Phase 1 trial (NCT02278315) and a Phase 2 trial, CLOVER-1 (NCT02952508). Methods: Both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials of CLR 131 aim to determine efficacy and safety in RRMM. Eligibility criteria include progressive or relapsed MM that is refractory to at least 1 proteasome inhibitor (PI) and 1 immunomodulatory (IMiD) drug with no upper limit to the number of prior lines of therapy. Prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and external beam radiation therapy are allowed (&lt; 20% of total marrow irradiated). The Phase 1 trial was a single and fractionated ascending dose escalation safety study and the Phase 2 trial is evaluating 3 doses: a bolus dose and 2 fractionated doses. The fractionated doses of CLR 131 included infusion of either 31.25 mCi/m2 CLR 131 or 37.5 mCi/m2 CLR 131 (administered as 15.625 mCi/m2 or 18.75 mCi/m2, respectively, on day 1 and day 7 (± 1 day)) administered as a 30-minute intravenous infusion is reported here. Adverse events (AEs) are graded by NCI-CTCAE v4.03. Responses were determined using IMWG criteria as assessed by the investigator. Results: As of 30Jul2019, 10 subjects have received fractionated 31.25 mCi/m2 and 6 subjects fractionated 37.5 mCi/m2 CLR 131. In addition, 1 subject was scheduled to receive fractionated 37.5 mCi/m2 CLR 131 but died due to progressive disease prior to administration of the second dose; this subject is not included in the analyses below as they did not receive both fractionated doses. There is no upper age limit for enrollment and the median age for the 16 RRMM patients was 71 (range 51-83), including 6 females and 10 males with a median of 4 prior therapies (range 2 to 13). Seven patients had prior ASCT. CLR 131 demonstrated 100% disease control rate in subjects receiving either fractionated dose of CLR 131. The overall response rate (ORR) in the fractionated 37.5 mCi/m2 cohort is 50%. Three subjects in the cohort experienced a partial responses (PR), median time to response 43 days, and the other three had minimal responses (MR) with an average 39% reduction in m-protein. In this cohort, 80% of the subjects were either quad- or penta-refractory; all 80% were refractory to daratumumab. There were two subjects in the 31.25 mCi/m2 cohort with non-secretory disease and their status was followed by FDG-PET imaging. Both have been excluded from the evaluation of efficacy as their disease does not meet with IMWG criteria for response. No patients in this cohort achieved a PR or better however a majority of the subjects experienced a minimal response. The primary AEs include thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia, and fatigue (Table 2). The hematologic AEs were expected, manageable and followed a predictable timeline to nadir (average. 40 days) and subsequent recovery (average 17 days post nadir). Conclusions: CLR 131 is a unique, first in class targeted radiotherapeutic for RRMM. Preliminary data for CLR 131 administered as a fractionated dose shows an acceptable and expected safety profile in this patient population. Fractionated dosing at 37.5 mCi/m2 has shown an efficacy signal and has been adopted as the standard for CLR 131 dosing in ongoing and future trials. Dose escalation to determine the highest tolerated dose is ongoing in the Phase 1 study and is currently examining a fractionated infusion of 40 mCi/m2 administered as 20 mCi/m2 CLR 131 on day 1 and day 7 (± 1 day). Based upon these data enrollment to the fractionated 37.5 mCi/m2 cohort of the Phase 2 trial continues. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Stiff:Gilead/Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Gamida-Cell: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Unum: Research Funding. Ibrahim:Cellectar: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pfeizer: Research Funding; Puma: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Hoffman-LaRoche: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Cull:Celgene: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Green:GSK: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding. Oliver:Cellectar Biosciences: Employment. Longcor:Cellectar Biosciences: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Background Artificial Intelligent Virtual Assistants (AIVA) is a segment of artificial intelligence that is rapidly developing. However, its utilization to address patients' frequently asked questions remains unexplored. Methods We developed an AIVA to answer questions related to 10 frequent topics asked by plastic surgery patients in our institution. Between July 27, 2018, and August 10 of 2018, we recruited subjects with administrative positions at our health care institution to chat with the virtual assistant. They asked, with their own words, 1 question for each topic and filled out a satisfaction questionnaire. Postsurvey analysis of questions and answers allowed assessment of the virtual assistant's accuracy. Results Thirty participants completed the survey. The majority was female (70%), and the mean age was 27.76 years (SD, 8.68 [19–51] years). The overall accuracy of the plastic surgery AIVA was 92.3% (277/294 questions), and participants considered the answer correct in 83.3% of the time (250/294 answers). Most of the participants considered the AIVA easy to use, answered adequately, and could be helpful for patients. However, when asked if this technology could replace a human assistant, they stayed neutral.

AbstractThe high discard rate of pediatric donor hearts presents a major challenge for children awaiting heart transplantation. Recent literature identifies several factors that contribute to the disparities in pediatric donor heart usage, including regulatory oversight, the absence of guidelines on pediatric donor heart acceptance, and variation among transplant programs. However, a likely additional contributor to this issue are the behavioral factors influencing transplant team decisions in donor offer scenarios, a topic that has not yet been studied in detail. Behavioral economics and decision psychology provide an excellent foundation for investigating decision‐making in the pediatric transplant setting, offering key insights into the behavior of transplant professionals. We conducted a systematic review of published literature in pediatric heart transplant related to behavioral economics and the psychology of decision‐making. In this review, we draw on paradigms from these two domains in order to examine how existing aspects of the transplant environment, including regulatory oversight, programmatic variation, and allocation systems, may precipitate potential biases surrounding donor offer decisions. Recognizing how human decision behavior influences donor acceptance is a first step toward improving utilization of potentially viable pediatric donor hearts.

Abstract Background: Antiretroviral therapy for HIV-1 infection has become increasingly complex. The availability of new and potent drugs and progress in understanding the pathogenesis of HIV-1 infection have led to the establishment of new treatment paradigms. The varying dosing regimens, associated toxicities, and the potential for drug-drug and food-drug interactions further complicate treatment. This complexity contributes to patient nonadherence. Because clinicians have no tools to monitor adherence or drug-drug interactions and because response requires that therapy exceed the known inhibiting concentration, serum monitoring of antiretroviral therapy may play a role in improving treatment of HIV-1 infection. We report methods to quantify serum concentrations of antiretroviral drugs used to treat HIV-1 infection, precision and interference studies of these methods, and results observed in a pilot evaluation of blood serum concentrations from 12 human subjects. Methods: HPLC offers adequate sensitivity to measure peak or trough serum concentrations of delavirdine, lamivudine, nevirapine, indinavir, nelfinavir, ritonavir, and saquinavir and peak serum concentrations of stavudine, zidovudine, and didanosine with reasonable precision. Results: Peak indinavir serum concentrations in most patients were in the range of 1–10 mg/L, and trough concentrations were in the range of 0.1–0.5 mg/L. Peak stavudine concentrations were in the range of 0.3–1.3 mg/L, and trough concentrations were in the range of 0.1–0.5 mg/L. Peak zidovudine concentrations were in the range of 0.1–1.1 mg/L. Conclusions: Because this was a blood serum concentration-seeking pilot study to evaluate analytic performance, we do not report on the correlation of drug response to blood concentration. However, the concentrations observed in patients are generally consistent with blood concentrations reported from studies of monotherapy.

Abstract Well-founded pharmacokinetic information is one of the cornerstones of a New Drug Application (NDA) to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) required to introduce a new drug or a generic equivalent (ANDA) to the marketplace. The service that laboratories engaged in therapeutic drug monitoring provide to support clinical activities is also needed by the pharmaceutical industry during the evaluation and introduction of drugs to the marketplace. In considering this alternative service activity, one must be aware of and compliant with rules established by the FDA for performance of such studies. As specified in CFR 21, Parts 58, 211, and 320, good clinical and laboratory practice indicates that the laboratory should employ a Lab Study Director, who is responsible for the validation of all procedures implemented to support a study protocol, ensures that the laboratory carries out the study following these defined procedures, and personally reviews the results of all testing. The laboratory must validate each procedure by demonstrating and documenting that the procedure does what it is designed to do while meeting the analytical performance specifications required by the study. Laboratory records of all activities must be maintained and available for inspection by the FDA on request. The FDA has authority over all activities related to NDA and ANDA submissions and can bring criminal charges if results of a study are changed because a laboratory deviates from standard procedure. Competent drug monitoring laboratories are fully capable of participating in clinical trials testing activities. Laboratory staff should be fully versed in the FDA rules governing these activities, validate all procedures, and establish systems to verify the procedures are carried out as specified.

Background: Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, such as infliximab, are commonly used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other immune-mediated disorders. Objective: To determine whether infliximab-associated central nervous system (CNS) demyelination can be differentiated from multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: We present a case of pathologically proven CNS demyelination in a patient treated with infliximab and describe clinical–radiographic–neuropathological findings. Putative mechanisms of TNF-alpha inhibitor-associated CNS demyelination are described. Results and conclusion: Infliximab treatment is associated with CNS inflammatory demyelinating activity, which is histopathologically indistinguishable from MS.

Background: The main objective of this study was to prospectively analyze which personality traits, clinical psychiatric states, and patient decision-making characteristics predict who will be less satisfied after facial plastic surgery. Methods: This prospective study enrolled 60 adult subjects into one of three groups: aesthetic, functional, and reconstructive facial plastic surgery procedures (n = 20 in each group) from November of 2011 to February of 2016. Self-report surveys of personality traits (i.e., NEO Personality Inventory-Revised), psychiatric state (i.e., Patient Health Questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Health Anxiety Inventory–Short Form), and decision-making characteristics (maximizer/satisficer survey) were given during the preoperative clinic visits. In postoperative follow-up, satisfaction questionnaires at 3, 6, and 12 months were administered. Data analysis examined associations between patient satisfaction, decision-making characteristics, and psychiatric variables. Results: Bivariate analyses showed that maximizer/satisficer decision-making style was significantly related to patient satisfaction scores in the year following surgery. This difference reached statistical significance at 6 months and remained a strong trend at 12 months. Patients who were less than extremely satisfied at both postoperative time points were more likely to portray the maximizer decision-making style. No other variables were associated with patient satisfaction at any time point. Maximizer/satisficer survey scores were not associated with self-reports of depression, anxiety, or illness anxiety. Mean scores on the maximizer/satisficer survey did not differ among the aesthetic, functional, and reconstructive groups. Conclusions: The maximizer/satisficer survey captures an aspect of patient care not traditionally measured by standard clinical psychometric screening tools to help predict satisfaction. A short questionnaire targeting consumer decision-making may be a helpful tool for preoperative counseling.