Citations

Abstract Introduction: A baseline involved to uninvolved free light chain ratio (FLCr) ≥100 with involved free light chain (iFLC) ≥10 mg/dL is considered a multiple myeloma (MM)-defining event (MDE). However, prior reports have demonstrated that the presence of multimeric light chain aggregates can contribute to falsely increased FLC levels due to impaired renal light chain clearance. Therefore, we aimed to compare the disease progression risk in patients with high versus low urine monoclonal protein (uMCP) excretion in the setting of an elevated serum FLCr. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated untreated smoldering MM (SMM) and asymptomatic MM patients diagnosed between January 1, 2000 and January 10, 2020. Included patients had a baseline bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) burden of 10-59% without concomitant end organ damage (hypercalcemia, anemia, renal failure, or lytic lesions on x-ray or cross-sectional imaging; "CRAB" MDE). Patients with a baseline FLCr ≥100 and iFLC >10 mg/dL were included if they had a 24-hour urine collection and electrophoresis. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Progression was defined as treatment for systemic AL amyloidosis or symptomatic MM (typical "CRAB" MDE). SMM patients treated due to evolving biomarkers or "SLiM" MDE (lytic lesions on MRI, BMPC ≥60%, or FLCr ≥100) were censored. Cox proportional hazards models were used for uni- and multivariable analyses. A two-sided p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: We included 822 patients without MDE besides elevated FLCr (n=120 with FLCr ≥100, n=702 with FLC <100). Patients with a FLC ≥100 were grouped based on 24-hour uMCP excretion (≥200 mg/24h [n=35], <200 mg/24h [n=85]). Among included patients with a baseline FLCr ≥100, the median iFLC was 79.9 (IQR 42.9-131.5) mg/dL and median FLCr was 207.1 (IQR 137.7-400.3). Patients with a FLCr ≥100 and high (≥200 mg/24h) versus low (<200 mg/24h) uMCP excretion had a median iFLC of 101 versus 66.5 mg/dL (p=0.001), median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 74.4 versus 74.6 mL/min/1.73m 2 (p=0.505), and median BMPC burden of 30% versus 21% (p=0.088), as shown in Table 1. The 2-year risk of progression to symptomatic MM or AL amyloidosis was significantly higher in patients with uMCP excretion ≥200 versus <200 mg/24h (36.2% versus 13.5%, respectively; HR 2.79, 95% CI 1.57-4.96, p<0.001, see Figure 1). However, the progression risk was similar in patients with a baseline FLCr <100 versus those with a FLCr≥100 and uMCP <200 mg/24h (log rank p=0.127). After adjusting for baseline eGFR, BMPC burden, iFLC, and light chain isotype, the progression risk was still 2.7 times higher in patients with high versus low uMCP excretion (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.39-5.10, p=0.003). In patients with a baseline FLCr ≥100 that had cross-sectional imaging at diagnosis or prior to progression confirming the absence of osteolytic lesions, the risk of progression remained significantly higher in patients with a high versus low uMCP excretion (n=14 versus n=53, respectively; HR 4.20, 95% CI 1.86-9.49, p<0.001). In patients with FLCr ≥100, there were a total of 52 patients with end organ damage at progression (26 [50%] patients with anemia, 8 [15%] with renal failure, 21 [40%] with lytic lesions, 6 [12%] with systemic AL amyloidosis). Among patients who progressed, 5 (25%) of 20 patients with high uMCP excretion and 3 (9.4%) of 32 patients with low uMCP excretion presented with renal failure as the MDE. In patients with baseline high versus low uMCP excretion that experienced renal failure at progression, the median serum creatinine of 2.7 (range 1.9-4.1) versus 2.5 (range 1.9-3.2) mg/dL (p=0.653), median uMCP 4964 (range 738-5910) versus 512 (range 196-734) mg/24h (p=0.052), and median iFLC 388 (range 317-1640) versus 437 (range 199-1030) mg/dL (p=1.00). Conclusions: Increased uMCP excretion in the setting of a FLCr ≥100 is an unfavourable prognostic marker and is associated with an increased risk of progression. The progression risk in patients with a FLCr ≥100 and low uMCP excretion (<200 mg/24h) is similar to patients with a baseline FLCr <100. Our findings underscore the importance of conducting a 24-hour urine assessment at diagnosis and may help refine the subset of patients with FLCr ≥100 in whom pre-emptive therapy is warranted. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: AbbVie: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board. Dingli: Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy. Kumar: Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: While CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR-T) therapy does not use myeloablative chemotherapy, patients with aggressive lymphoma treated with CAR-T are immunosuppressed from lymphodepletion chemotherapy, and prolonged B cell aplasia and hypogammaglobulinemia from CAR-T. The impact of CAR-T on immunologic protection from vaccine-preventable diseases (and thus the need to revaccinate) has not been formally studied. We report the vaccine titers of patients treated with CAR-T at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who received CAR-T from 9/2018 to 4/2021 for treatment of aggressive lymphoma at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Data was collected on anti-viral and anti-bacterial titers prior to CAR-T infusion and at month 3 post CAR-T. Clinical assays for vaccine titers were used for patient assessment and threshold for clinical assays was used to define antibody titer as positive or negative. Results: In our cohort of 87 CAR-T patients, 83 (94%) patients were infused with axicabtagene ciloleucel, 4 (5%) patients received brexucabtagene autoleucel and 1 (1%) received tisagenlecleucel. Prior to CAR-T therapy, positive titer rate was highest for tetanus and lowest for Streptococcus pneumoniae (Strep PNA). Similar trends were seen whether patients had autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) within 2 years of CAR-T (i.e. within immunization timeframe post ASCT) or not (Table 1). At 3 months post CAR-T, overall seropositivity rates were similar when compared to pre-CAR-T levels for the prior transplant and no prior transplant group. For patients who had received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) supplement prophylactically (for IVIG<400 mg/dl), seropositivity rate for Strep PNA remained zero (Table 1). Among the 30 patients who received IVIG, variable rate of conversion from negative to positive titers were seen for measles (1/2, 50%), mumps (3/5, 60%), rubella (3/4, 75%), varicella-zoster (VZV, 4/4, 100%), hepatitis A (8/9, 89%) and hepatitis B (10/12, 83%). For patients who did not receive IVIG prophylaxis after CAR-T, seropositivity rate for hepatitis A and B was low. In addition, some of these patients had a loss of seropositivity for Strep PNA (2/5, 40%) and hepatitis A (1/4, 25%). Conclusion: The presence of protective vaccine titers is variable for patients receiving CAR-T therapy, regardless of recent ASCT. The loss of protective titers post CAR-T was low. The need for immunization post CAR-T may remain important regardless of transplant status prior to CAR-T. Prophylactic IVIG does not confer complete immunization protection. Optimal timing for immunization post CAR-T is probably unknown and may need to be considered earlier for patients not on prophylactic IVIG. Further study with longer follow-up is needed to inform the need for immunization and optimal timing post CAR-T. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Bennani: Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Wang: LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InnoCare: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Lin: Sorrento: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR-T) is a recent therapeutic advance for the treatment of myeloma. Among the FDA approved and investigational CAR-T, primary refractory disease post CAR-T infusion is uncommon, however most patients eventually relapse. To gain insight to the myeloma cell and immune cell characteristics associated with early relapse (PD) versus durable response (DR), we examined myeloma cells and immune cells in both the bone marrow and blood by single cell RNA-seq. Method: Bone marrow aspirate and blood samples were collected prior to BCMA targeted CAR-T therapy. CD138 + and CD138 neg cells from bone marrow (BM) and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMNC) were collected for 5' based scRNA-seq (10X Genomics). CD138 + cells were clustered by Harmony integration. Top expressing genes in unique clusters for PD and DR were analyzed by Ingenuity Pathway Analyses. To profile CD138 neg BM cells and PBMNC from myeloma patients, the scRNA-seq dataset was mapped to the human PBMC reference using the Seurat v4 reference-guiding approach. Differential gene expression between responders and non-responders was performed using the FindMarkers function for each of the immune cell clusters in the BM and PB. Results: BM and PB samples from 15 patients were analyzed. Among these, 5 patients had relapsed disease more than 1-year post CAR-T infusion (Durable Response, DR), and 10 patients had relapse within 1 year (early relapse, PD). Among these, CD138+ cells were available from 3 DR and 4 PD for analysis. Multimodal expression of BCMA were seen among the CD138+ cells across all samples. Using the mode of the highest expression level as a cut-off, patients with DR had a trend toward having higher fraction of BCMA high CD138+ cells compared to pts with PD. Clustering of all CD138+ cells by Harmony integration identified 12 distinct clusters, among which two clusters were unique to pts in DR, and one was unique to patients in PD. Ingenuity pathway analysis identified the top marker genes in these 3 clusters to be enriched in pathways for IL-15 signaling, BCR signaling, and primary immunodeficiency signaling. (Figure 1A-E.) Differential gene expression for immune cell clusters from CD138 neg BM cells and PBMNC were compared between pts in PD and DR. Interestingly, different patterns were seen in immune cells in PB and BM (Figure 1G). For example, compared to pts in PD, those with DR had decreased signaling in CD16 PB monocytes for interferon signaling and differentiation to macrophages, whereas the CD16 monocytes in the BM in pts in DR had increased expression of mitochondrial genes for anti-oxidant stress, polarization to M1 macrophage and anti-apoptosis. Similarly, pts in DR had CD8 Tcm in the BM with increased expression of genes involved in cell adhesion and anti-apoptosis, and CD4 Tcm in the BM with increased expression of genes in protein metabolism. Conclusion: scRNAseq analysis of myeloma cells suggest different tumor transcriptome profile may be identified in myeloma cells that could relapse early after CAR-T therapy. In addition, host immune profile both in the BM microenvironment and in systemic PB circulation could be associated with durable clinical response. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Dingli: GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Kumar: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Carsgen: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Lin: Merck: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: GLUT4 inhibition is an attractive therapeutic option in multiple myeloma (MM) given the dependence of MM cells on glucose transport. Furthermore, combining a GLUT4 inhibitor with an oxidative phosphorylation inhibitor in MM cells to counter the possibility of therapeutic resistance to GLUT4 inhibition has demonstrated synergistic promise (Dalva-Aydemir et al, Clin Can Res 2015). Using a GLUT4 inhibitor such as the HIV protease inhibitor nelfinavir is an attractive choice since it not only inhibits the transport function of GLUT4, but it also lowers the cytotoxicity resistance of MM cells against proteasome inhibitors such as bortezomib (Driessen et al, Blood 2018). Thus, in summary the FDA-approved oral HIV-PI nelfinavir, long used for the treatment of HIV disease, can bind to glucose transporters (GLUT4) on MM cells and reversibly inhibit glucose uptake, thus disrupting the Warburg effect. Nelfinavir can also enhance the activity of PIs such as bortezomib overcome its resistance in MM cells. Metformin, an oral FDA-approved drug for the treatment of Type II Diabetes has the ability to disrupt the electron transport chain of defective mitochondria within MM cells, thus blocking the ability of such mitochondria to generate energy and anabolic substrates as compensatory mechanisms required for proliferation in the setting of GLUT4 inhibition. Thus, this study will look at the safety and tolerability of repurposing the existing FDA-approved drugs for Type II diabetes and HIV in combination with bortezomib for the treatment of relapsed and/or refractory myeloma. Methods: This study is a phase 1 clinical trial of metformin and nelfinavir in combination with bortezomib for patients with relapsed and/or refractory myeloma. Part A of this trial is a 3+3 dose escalation design with 3 dose levels planned. Part B is a dose expansion cohort at the Maximal Tolerated Dose (MTD) determined in Part A. Up to a maximum of 36 patients will be enrolled and treated for a maximum of six 21-day cycles. Bortezomib is administered in its usual weekly subcutaneous dosing schedule of days 1, 8 and 15 of a 21-day cycle at a dose level of 1.3 mg/m2. Metformin will be administered for 14 days of a 21-day cycle and started at a dose level of 500 mg twice daily and will be investigated to a maximum dose of 1000 mg twice daily. Nelfinavir will also be administered for 14 days of a 21-day cycle and started at a dose level of 1250 mg twice daily and will be investigated to a maximum dose of 2500 mg twice daily. Key inclusion criteria include having relapsed/refractory myeloma with at least 2 prior lines of therapy and prior exposure to PIs, immunomodulators and Anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, adequate hematologic reserve, kidney function and liver function. This trial especially allows patients with non-secretory disease yet measurable by bone marrow assessments or cross-sectional imaging of plasmacytomas to be enrolled which constitutes an unmet need in the real-world MM population. Finally, this allows patients to be treated with a dexamethasone-free regimen. The primary objective of this trial is to determine the MTD of metformin and nelfinavir in combination with bortezomib. The secondary objective is to evaluate the safety and tolerability as well as the overall response rate (ORR) associated with this combination. Potential predictive biomarkers as well as resistance mechanisms using genomic RNA, immunohistochemistry and metabolomics-based assessment platforms will be evaluated in this study. Recruitment is ongoing with no safety concerns. This trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03829020. This investigator-initiated trial was funded by the generous gift of the Helen Diller Family Foundation. Disclosures Kumar: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Ailawadhi: Karyopharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a plasma cell disorder characterized by multisystem deposition of misfolded immunoglobulin light chains produced by clonal plasma cells. Hematologic and organ responses with treatment have been shown to correlate with survival as early as 3 months from initiation of first-line treatment. Our group recently developed and validated a model integrating organ and hematologic responses for assessment of treatment outcomes at 6 months. Although current organ response criteria do not consider the depth of organ response, this has been shown to have prognostic utility in newly diagnosed patients. So, we designed this study to evaluate a composite hematologic and organ scoring system that also considers the depth of organ response at 1 to 6 months from initiation of first-line treatment. Methods: We included patients with AL amyloidosis who had at least one major organ involvement (cardiac, renal and/or liver involvement) and who had not started a second line treatment by 6 months from the time of initiating first-line treatment. For each patient, we calculated an organ response score and a hematologic response score at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 months from initiation of first-line treatment. A score was assigned for each depth of hematologic response as follows: complete response=0, very good partial response=1, partial response=2, and no response/progressive disease=3). To calculate organ response, a score was assigned to each organ based on the depth of organ response (Muchtar et al. 2018): non-evaluable=0, complete response=1, very good partial response=2, partial response=3, and no response=4. The final organ response score was obtained by calculating the average of the individual involved organ scores. We then calculated the composite hematologic and organ response (HOR) score by adding the organ and hematologic responses at each interval and compared overall survival (OS) between patients with HOR score ≤ 5 (group 1) and those with score > 5 (group 2). Results: The cohort included 730 patients diagnosed with AL amyloidosis between February 10 th, 2006 and July 9 th, 2019. Median age was 63 (IQR: 56-69), and 65% were male. The involved light chain was Lambda in 75% of cases. Cardiac, renal, and liver involvement were found in 81%, 61%, and 17% of patients, respectively. Among all patients, 28% underwent autologous stem cell transplantation during their disease course. The median follow up in the entire cohort was 7.0 (95%CI: 6.4-8.0) years and OS was 3.6 (95%CI: 2.6-4.4) years. At 1 to 4 months, we observed a statistically significant difference in OS between patients with HOR score ≤5 vs. >5. However, there was no difference in OS between the 2 groups at 5 and 6 months. These results are presented in Table 1. Conclusion: A composite hematologic and organ response score that takes into consideration the depth of organ response can discriminate 2 groups of patients with distinct survival outcomes as early as 1 month from treatment initiation and maintains its predictive ability for up to 4 months. The lack of predictive ability beyond 4 months in this study may be due to limited sample size especially in group 2 as more patients achieve deeper responses with time. This approach can provide the basis for early changes in treatment but needs validation in future studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding. Gertz: Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring. Kapoor: Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Dingli: GSK: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Apellis: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy. Kumar: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Background: Preoperative opioid use has been shown to be a negative predictor of patient outcomes, complication rates, and resource utilization in a variety of different orthopaedic procedures. To date, there are no studies investigating its effect on outcomes after hip arthroscopy in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Purpose: To determine the association of preoperative opioid use with postoperative outcomes after hip arthroscopy in patients with FAI. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database was queried for all patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAI between 2011 and 2018. Opioid prescriptions filled in the 6 months preceding surgery were queried, and the average daily oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) in this period were computed for each patient. Patients were divided into 4 cohorts: opioid naïve, <1 OME per day, 1 to 5 OMEs per day, and >5 OMEs per day. Postoperative 90-day complications, health care utilization, perioperative costs, postoperative opioid use, and 1- and 3-year revision rates were then compared among cohorts. Results: A total of 22,124 patients were ultimately included in this study; 31.2% of these patients were prescribed opioids preoperatively. Overall, the percentage of preoperative opioid-naïve patients increased from 64.5% in 2011 to 78.9% in 2018. Patients who received preoperative opioids had a higher rate of complications, increased resource utilization, and increased revision rates. Specifically, on multivariate analysis, patients taking >5 OMEs per day (compared with patients who were preoperatively opioid naïve) had increased odds of a postoperative emergency department visit (Odds Ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.94-2.56; P < .001), 90-day readmission (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.77-2.87; P < .001), increased acute postoperative opioid use (OR, 25.56; 95% CI, 22.98-28.43; P < .001), prolonged opioid use (OR, 10.45; 95% CI, 8.92-12.25; P < .001), and 3-year revision surgery (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.36-3.36; P < .001). Perioperative adjusted costs were increased for all preoperative opioid users and were highest for the >5 OMEs per day cohort ($6255; 95% CI, $5143-$7368). Conclusion: A large number of patients with FAI are prescribed opioids before undergoing hip arthroscopy, and use of these pain medications is associated with increased health care utilization, increased costs, prolonged opioid use, and early revision surgery.

Abstract BACKGROUND PCV+RT substantially prolongs survival in AO patients, but long-term CF and QOL implications are unclear. We compared CF and QOL by treatment arm in RTOG 9402 participants and evaluated the impact that baseline characteristics had on CF, QOL, and survival. METHODS CF and QOL were evaluated using the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) and Brain-Quality of Life (B-QOL) scale at baseline and annually. Scores were analyzed between treatment arms at each time point for patients with ≥ 10 years of follow-up data. Shared parameter models evaluated MMSE and B-QOL scores and survival for all patients. RESULTS 42/148 (28.4%) participants in PCV+RT and 20/143 (14%) in RT alone arms survived ≥ 10 years. 35/42 and 39/42 (PCV+RT) and 18/20 and 17/20 (RT) participants completed baseline B-QOL and MMSE assessments, respectively. B-QOL scores did not differ between treatment groups at any time-point. Among 16 patients (10 PCV+RT, 6 RT) who completed year 10 MMSE evaluations, mean MMSE score at 10 years was higher in the RT arm (29.83 [95% CI 22.1, 30.0] vs. 26.50 [95% CI 29.4, 30.0], P= 0.04). Change in MMSE and B-QOL scores from baseline did not differ significantly between treatment groups at any time. In shared parameter models including all patients with baseline assessments, MMSE and B-QOL scores decreased over time (MMSE P= 0.0189, B-QOL P= 0.0005), but this did not differ by treatment group (MMSE P= 0.5727, B-QOL P= 0.3592). Younger age and higher KPS predicted better scores (MMSE P &lt; 0.0001, P = 0.0002; B-QOL P = 0.0043, P = 0.0007). PCV+RT predicted better survival in both models. CONCLUSIONS PCV+RT improves survival in AO. Shared parameter models show decrease in MMSE and B-QOL over time. However, relative to RT alone, the addition of PCV did not impact change in CF and QOL over time.

Background Goals of care (GOC) conversations in the emergency department (ED) are often a brief discussion of code status rather than a patient-oriented dialogue. We aimed to develop a guide to facilitate conversations between ED clinicians and patients to elicit patient values and establish goals for end-of-life care, while maintaining ED efficiency. Paths of ED Care, a conversation guide, is the product of this work. Design A multidisciplinary/multispecialty group used recommended practices to adapt a GOC conversation guide for ED patients. ED clinicians used the guide and provided feedback on content, design, and usability. Patient-clinician interactions were recorded for discussion analysis, and both were surveyed to inform iterative refinement. A series of discussions with patient representatives, multidisciplinary clinicians, bioethicists, and health care designers yielded feedback. We used a process similar to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and provide comparison to these. Results A conversation guide, eight pages with each page 6 by 6 inches in dimension, uses patient-oriented prompts and includes seven sections: 1) evaluation of patient/family understanding of disease, 2) explanation of possible trajectories, 3) introduction to different pathways of care, 4) explanation of pathways, 5) assessment of understanding and concerns, 6) code status, and 7) personalized summary. Limitations Recruitment of sufficient number of patients/providers to the project was the primary limitation. Methods are limited to qualitative analysis of guide creation and feasibility without quantitative analysis. Conclusions Paths of ED Care is a guide to facilitate patient-centered shared decision making for ED patients, families, and clinicians regarding GOC. This may ensure care concordant with patients’ values and preferences. Use of the guide was well-received and facilitated meaningful conversations between patients and providers.

Background The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial. Methods In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4–5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement. Results Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation. Conclusions Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.