Citations

9030 Background: AI use is ubiquitous among HOT and healthcare workers, but with variable base knowledge and comfort level. Its indiscriminate use may be problematic. To address this educational gap, we developed a WS for HOT to assess their use of AI and educate them on how to employ it in MedEd and patient-centered CP based on LSP. Methods: A faculty member developed a WS on how to use AI in MedEd and CP based on LSP of analogy, contrasting cases, elaboration, generation, and question driven learning. The WS was for HOT, but faculty could join. It had 3 sections: introduction to basic concepts of AI; principles of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and protected health information; AI in MedEd; and AI in CP. Sections had real use case examples of AI, for participants to interact, ask questions, and share their personal use cases. HOT were invited to compare and generate examples during the WS, based on their educational and clinical experience and needs. Participants’ AI use and self-perceived and objective knowledge about it were assessed in a pre activity survey, a post WS survey, and a post 8 week survey to evaluate long term learning. Results: A 2 hour WS with 9 HOT and 2 faculty was completed successfully. 10 participants completed the pre WS survey, and 11 completed the post WS and the post 8 week surveys. 100% of them used generative AI tools before the WS, while 10% had prior training in AI. 90% used AI in personal life and MedEd, 70% used it in CP, and 30% in academic research. Table 1 shows participants’ self-assessed knowledge of AI, comfort level in using AI for MedEd and CP, self-assessed preparedness to implement AI in MedEd and CP, and objective knowledge. 8 weeks post WS, 91% of participants reported increased AI use in CP, leading anywhere from slight to significant decreases in time spent on documentation tasks for 91% of them. In MedEd, 73% reported increased AI use, and 82% described slight to significant improvement in the quality of time dedicated to it. 82% described the WS as extremely relevant to their daily responsibilities, and 91% reported confidence navigating ethical and privacy risks of AI in HemOnc. All participants were interested in having a similar WS in the future. Conclusions: An LSP based WS about AI increased the self-perceived and objective knowledge of HOT about using this tool in MedEd and CP. It also increased HOT comfort level, preparedness, and efficiency using AI. With the ubiquitous use of AI by HOT, ongoing education about it focused on supporting high-quality patient care should be a part of fellowship curriculum. Pre WS % Post WS % Post 8 week % Moderately/Very knowledgeable about AI 50 91 100 Comfortable using AI in MedEd 60 82 82 Prepared to implement AI in MedEd 30 91 73 Comfortable using AI in CP 40 73 82 Prepared to implement AI in CP 0 91 73 Correct answers on objective assessment 53 68 71

8094 Background: Patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) who progress after platinum-based chemotherapy plus immunotherapy have limited options. Whether adding lurbinectedin while continuing immune checkpoint blockade at relapse improves outcomes is unknown. We report results for the platinum-resistant cohort (progression ≤3 months from last chemotherapy) of MC1923. Methods: MC1923 is a phase II trial using a Simon optimal two-stage design. Patients were assigned to a starting dose of durvalumab 1500 mg IV plus lurbinectedin 3.2 mg/m 2 IV on Day 1 of 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint was the 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFS6). Accrual continued to 22 eligible patients if ≥2/9 achieved PFS6; the regimen would be considered promising if ≥7/22 (32%) were alive and progression-free at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included adverse events (AEs), objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: Twenty-two patients enrolled (02/04/2022–05/21/2025); all were eligible and treated. Median age was 66 years; 32% were male; ECOG performance status was 0 in 9% and 1 in 91%; 96% had prior atezolizumab. Median cycles delivered were 4 (range 1–13). PFS6 was 4/22 (18.2%; 95% CI, 7.5–44.1%), below the prespecified threshold. Median PFS was 3.1 months (95% CI, 1.6–5.3). ORR was 13.6% (3/22; all partial responses; 95% CI, 2.9–34.9%). At data cutoff (12/18/2025), 4 patients were alive; median follow-up was 16.8 months (range 5.5–39.6). Median OS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 4.3–18.6) and 1-year OS was 33.1% (95% CI, 17.6–61.9%). One (1) patient discontinued treatment with durvalumab due to AE. No treatment-related Grade 5 AEs occurred; Grade 3–4 AEs at least possibly related to treatment occurred in 32% (7/22); Grade 4 AEs occurred in 5% (1/22), all hematologic. Most common Grade 3 AEs were decreased neutrophils and white blood cells (each 9%). Conclusions: Durvalumab plus lurbinectedin demonstrated manageable toxicity in platinum-resistant ES-SCLC after chemoimmunotherapy but did not meet the prespecified PFS6 efficacy threshold, supporting the need for alternative strategies in this high-risk population. Clinical trial information: NCT04607954 .

12007 Background: YAs with cancer, defined as those diagnosed prior to the age of 40, may experience greater symptom burden compared to those diagnosed at older ages. We evaluated the impact of an ePROM-triggered, CC-based, supportive care intervention on symptom burden in YAs with cancer. Methods: The Enhanced, Electronic Health Record-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) trial was a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial (NCT03892967) that enrolled oncology patients seen at Mayo Clinic Rochester and within the Mayo Clinic Health System (sites in Minnesota and Wisconsin) between March 2019 and January 2023. Patients routinely reported the severity of six SPPADE symptoms (Sleep deficit, Pain, Physical function impairment, Anxiety, Depression, and Energy deficit/fatigue) on 11-point numerical rating scales. Symptom severity was classified as none to mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). Those with moderate or severe symptoms were offered symptom management education, while those with severe symptoms were also offered the option to work virtually with a symptom care manager. In this post hoc analysis, we examined the effects of the intervention on change in symptom scores among YAs and time to improvement to a mild/moderate level in those with at least one severe symptom. Results: Among 40,659 patients who responded to at least one survey, 2,598 were YAs and 38,061 were adults ≥ 40 years. Among YAs, 10.7%, 24.3%, and 65.1% were 18-24 years, 25-31 years, and 32-39 years, respectively. A greater proportion of YA patients were female (61.5% vs 57.0%), of a non-white race (12.4% vs 5.3%), living in an urban setting (65.7% vs 55.1%), single (36.4% vs 9.6%), on non-government insurance (78.1% vs 36.6%), employed (72.6% vs 37.4%), and had a Bachelor’s degree or greater (37.8% vs 28.3%, p < 0.001 for all). Fewer YA patients had metastatic disease compared to older patients (24.2% vs 35.2%, p < 0.001). Compared to a pre-intervention baseline, the mean change in symptom score for YA patients following the intervention demonstrated improvements in anxiety (-0.195) and depression (-0.168, p < 0.0001 for both), while physical function impairment worsened over the intervention period (0.101, p = 0.014). Compared to adults ≥ 40 years, YAs experienced greater intervention effects for management of depression ( p < 0.001), fatigue ( p = 0.01), pain ( p < 0.0001), and physical function impairment ( p < 0.0001). Among YAs with a severe symptom during the intervention period, median time to improvement to a mild/moderate level was longer for anxiety compared to those ≥ 40 years (3.5 vs 2.7 months, p = 0.009). Conclusions: Routine ePROM surveillance, coupled with CC-based symptom management, led to improvements in anxiety and depression among YAs with cancer, although, time to improvement was longer for anxiety compared to adults ≥ 40 years.

ABSTRACT Background Polypharmacy is common in autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) and increases adverse drug events (ADEs), but comparative evidence across diseases is limited. We aimed to quantify ADE burden and identify medications associated with ADE risk across six ARDs, and to examine shared and disease-specific patterns across diseases. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary medical center (2010–2024). Adults with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Sjögren’s disease (SjD), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or systemic sclerosis (SSc) were identified using diagnostic codes. ADEs were ascertained using validated case definitions. Medications were mapped to Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classes; active exposure was defined within 30 days before the index date. Polypharmacy was defined as ≥5 concurrent medications (minor 5–10; major >10). Within each ARD, nested case–control analyses matched on encounter type (1:4) were performed, and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were estimated using conditional logistic regression. Findings Among 10,578 patients, 3,154 (29.8%) experienced at least one ADE. ADE burden varied across diseases, with the highest prevalence observed in SSc (35.9%). Polypharmacy was common (57.3% minor, 39.4% major) and medication burden was consistently higher in ADE cases across encounter types (eg, SLE outpatient median 12 vs 6; inpatient 20 vs 10; emergency 17 vs 8). Across ARDs, the strongest associations with ADEs were observed for supportive and symptom-directed therapies (acid suppressors, pain adjuncts, and sedative-hypnotic/psychotropic medications), whereas conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) showed weaker associations. Disease-specific signatures included gastrointestinal agents in SSc (metoclopramide aOR 12.32), antibiotics and respiratory agents in AS (ciprofloxacin aOR 13.71, fluticasone aOR 8.88). Interpretation ADEs affect nearly one-third of ARD patients and increase with medication burden. Risk concentrates in supportive and symptom-directed therapies rather than DMARDs, with both shared and disease-specific patterns. Optimizing prescribing, particularly for pain management and corticosteroid use, can reduce medication-related harm.

Objective: To evaluate magnetic resonance (MR) imaging artifact and image distortion associated with the Oticon Medical Sentio Ti bone conduction implant (BCI) and identify optimized imaging techniques. Study design: Cadaveric study. Intervention: One cadaveric head specimen was unilaterally implanted with Sentio Ti BCI according to the manufacturer's instructions. Main outcome measures: Imaging was performed with a Siemens 1.5 Tesla MR machine on XA60 software before and after implantation. Imaging was performed with both standard and metal mitigation techniques. Image scoring (diagnostic vs. nondiagnostic) and qualitative assessment of anatomic subsites were performed by 2 experienced neuroradiologists. Results: Image distortion and artifact were noted in all postimplant sequences. For all sequences, imaging of the ipsilateral middle ear, mastoid, and internal auditory canal (IAC) was nondiagnostic. The axial T1 turbo spin echo high bandwidth sequence had the best artifact reduction; however, the ipsilateral temporal bone remained nondiagnostic. Notably, nonecho planar diffusion-weighted imaging (non-EPI DWI) was nondiagnostic for both the ipsilateral temporal bone and the contralateral IAC and middle ear. Conclusions: After implantation of the Sentio Ti BCI, imaging of the ipsilateral temporal bone is rendered nondiagnostic on all MR sequences due to artifact despite the use of metal mitigation techniques. Importantly, the non-EPI DWI HASTE sequence, which is used for cholesteatoma surveillance, is nondiagnostic for all ipsilateral and most contralateral temporal bone subsites, making cholesteatoma surveillance challenging with an implant in place. This finding is critical for clinical decision-making, as rehabilitation of conductive hearing loss in the setting of chronic otitis media is among the most common indications for use of a BCI.

Abstract Background The Global Bipolar Cohort (GBC) was established to identify existing bipolar disorder (BD) cohorts worldwide and foster collaborations focused on descriptive and analytic outcomes relevant to BD. A distributed analytic framework has been implemented to engage multiple sites without the need for central data pooling. This report describes the GBC endeavor and global functional impairment patterns. Cross-cohort comparisons of functional correlates are limited by heterogeneous measures and data-sharing constraints. Large, culturally diverse comparisons are needed to distinguish broadly reproducible correlates from cohort-specific effects. Participating sites completed a 28-item descriptive survey covering diagnostic methods, cognition, genetics, treatment, functioning, and follow-up strategies. We implemented a harmonized local logistic regression model of dichotomized functional outcome and shared summary statistics only. Results We identified 69 cohorts across five continents. Thirty-seven cohorts contributed functional outcome analyses from 17,130 participants. Outcome measures included clinician-rated disability scales and social indicators such as employment and marital status. The proportion classified with poor functioning ranged from 16% to 77% (mean 50%). In 32 of 37 cohorts, the overall regression model significantly explained variance in functioning. Current depressive symptoms were the most robust and reproducible correlate of poor functional outcome: they were assessed in 29 cohorts, significant in 22 (75.8%), ranked among the top three correlates in 22, and were the top-ranked correlates in 19. Associations between depressive burden and poor functioning were observed across clinician-rated disability scales and work or social indicators, and across geographically diverse cohorts. Comorbid substance use disorder and medication-related variables were associated with poorer functioning in subsets of cohorts, whereas sex, ancestry, bipolar subtype, psychosis history, and premorbid IQ showed weak or inconsistent associations. Cognitive measures, available in a minority of regression models, showed modest and non-uniform effects. Conclusions Across heterogeneous international cohorts, current depressive symptom burden emerged as the most consistent correlate of poor functioning in bipolar disorder. These findings replicate earlier multisite work at a larger scale, show that protocol-based distributed analyses can identify reproducible clinical signals without sharing individual-level data, and support prioritizing detection and treatment of depressive symptoms when aiming to improve real-world functioning. Future work should expand longitudinal harmonization and representation of under-studied populations.

Abstract Introduction Daily fluctuations in sleep disturbances have been shown to shape pain experiences among individuals with chronic pain. Additional biobehavioral factors, such as abuse history, depression, current and long-term anxiety, opioid use, physical functioning, and fatigue, may also affect daily pain outcomes. Yet the extent to which these factors collectively contribute to daily pain intensity and unpleasantness remains insufficiently understood. Methods Using baseline data from the SPINII randomized controlled trial (R01NR017168; McCrae, PI), women with insomnia and fibromyalgia (N = 294, x- age = 40) completed 14 days of sleep diaries assessing sleep onset latency (SOL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), total sleep time (TST), and pain intensity and unpleasantness (0–100). Additional predictors included abuse history, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and PROMIS-57 physical functioning and social functioning. Linear mixed models examined the effects of sleep and related factors on daily pain. Results Significant predictors of pain intensity included higher between-person SOL (b = 0.08, p &lt; .001) and WASO (b = 0.08, p &lt; .001), lower between-person TST (b = -0.10, p &lt; .001), lower within-person TST (b = −0.03, p &lt; .001), opioid use (b = 2.84, p = .029), poorer physical functioning (b = −0.35, p = .008), and higher depression scores (b = 0.20, p = .046). Pain unpleasantness showed nearly identical patterns, with only physical functioning becoming non-significant. Random intercepts and residual variance values were significant in both models (p &lt; .001), indicating within- and between-person variation in pain. ICCs of .80-.85 revealed that the majority of variance was between-person, while non-significant autocorrelations (p &gt; .05) indicated minimal day-to-day carryover effects beyond stable individual differences. Conclusion Overall sleep quality and emotional health shape pain experience more strongly than daily fluctuations. Although TST offers some next-day relief, chronic contributors are more relevant to daily pain. Effects were largely consistent; between- and within-person TST showed strong effects, and depression had a slightly larger effect on pain unpleasantness than pain sensitivity, reinforcing a multidimensional biopsychosocial pain process. These findings highlight the need for integrated interventions that strengthen sleep, emotional well-being, and physical functioning. Support (if any) NIDA

Abstract Introduction Chronic and episodic headaches have a strong bidirectional relationship with insomnia and poor sleep outcomes. AM (morning) headaches are common among chronic pain populations, but additional research is needed to understand their pain experiences and potentially inform targeted interventions. Herein, we investigated whether presence of AM headaches is associated with differences in diary-based sleep parameters and pain ratings in women with pain and sleep complaints. We hypothesize individuals with AM headaches will have more sleep disturbances and fatigue as well as greater pain intensity and unpleasantness. Methods Women (N=293, Mage=39.59, SD 12.65, 65% with morning headaches) reporting insomnia and pain complaints (65% also reporting morning headaches) were recruited in mid-Missouri for an RCT (R01NR017168, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03744156). During baseline assessment, participants completed 2 weeks of daily electronic diaries and reported AM headache presence (Y/N). Independent samples t-tests (SPSS) evaluated differences in sleep parameters and pain ratings in those with and without AM headaches. Participants reporting diagnosed sleep apnea were excluded. Results Morning fatigue was higher among individuals with AM headaches (M=54.72+/-18.25) than those without (M=50.02+/-19.12), t(291)=-2.07, p=.04. Pain intensity was greater in the AM headache group in the morning (M=47.65+/-19.73 vs. M=42.52+/-21.91), t(291)=-2.04, p=.042, and evening, (M=49.62+/-19.10 vs. M=44.23+/-20.66), t(283)=-2.21, p=.028. Evening pain unpleasantness was also rated as higher among those with AM headaches (M=45.90+/-19.55) compared to those without (M=40.82+/-22.52), t(283)=-1.99, p=.048, but morning pain unpleasantness ratings only trended towards significance. Conclusion AM headaches can present as a chronic condition or as a symptom of other sleep disorders. Individuals with AM headaches had minimal sleep differences overall, but morning fatigue, pain intensity (AM and PM), and evening pain unpleasantness ratings were all significantly greater in those with AM headaches. Undiagnosed sleep disorders other than insomnia (i.e., obstructive sleep apnea) or other health concerns, like increased intracranial pressure, may have contributed to pain-related findings. Considering the high prevalence of COMISA in chronic pain populations, further investigation should examine its impact on sleep and headache severity. Support (if any) National Institute of Nursing Research (NR017168; Clinical trial: NCT03744156; PI: McCrae).

Background: Premedications used to prevent paclitaxel-associated infusion hypersensitivity reactions (iHSRs) can cause undesirable toxicities, such as sleep disturbance and weight gain. Although phase II data suggest that discontinuing premedications after paclitaxel-associated iHSRs may be safe and feasible in select patients without prior iHSRs, no prospective randomized trials have evaluated this approach. Patients and Methods: This randomized clinical trial enrolled patients with breast cancer receiving paclitaxel chemotherapy. Those who experienced no iHSRs with the first 2 doses of paclitaxel were randomized to either continue standard premedications (control arm) or to discontinue all premedications (investigational arm). Both arms were followed longitudinally for any subsequent iHSRs requiring parenteral rescue medications. Additionally, changes in weight, drug-related side effects, and quality of life were assessed. Results: A total of 98 patients were randomized; 89 were evaluable (46 in the control arm and 43 in the investigational arm). Only 1 (2.3%) patient in the investigational arm experienced an iHSR, which resolved with rescue medications. No iHSRs occurred in the control arm. The estimated proportion of subjects who experienced a hypersensitivity reaction (exact binomial 95% CI) was 2.3% (95% CI, 0.1%–12.3%) in the investigational arm and 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0%–7.7%) in the control arm. Patients in the investigational arm reported significantly less sleep disruption (0.5 vs 1.7; P =.002) and unwanted appetite increases (1.0 vs 2.5; P =.0018). Conclusions: Discontinuation of premedications after 2 uneventful paclitaxel doses was not associated with a high rate of subsequent iHSRs and resulted in fewer steroid-related side effects. This strategy may reduce unnecessary medication exposure, improve patient experience, and streamline clinical workflows. For patients who do not experience iHSRs during the first 2 paclitaxel treatments, discontinuing premedications appears safe and may improve tolerability.