Citations

ABSTRACT Background The continuum of metabolic syndrome encompasses a spectrum of dysfunctions impacting obesity‐linked insulin resistance, glucose homeostasis, lipid metabolism and pro‐inflammatory immune responses. The global prevalence of metabolic diseases, including diabetes, chronic liver disease, cardiometabolic disease and kidney disease, has surged in recent decades, contributing significantly to population mortality. Metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), formerly known as non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease, is a leading cause of liver disease worldwide. MASLD poses a significant global health challenge with its rising prevalence, placing a substantial burden on healthcare systems, impacts patient well‐being and incurs significant economic costs. Addressing MASLD requires a comprehensive understanding of its interconnected factors, including its prevalence, healthcare burden and economic implications. Lack of awareness, imprecise non‐invasive diagnostic methods and ineffective preventive interventions are core components of the MASLD‐related problem. Aim The aim of this article was to summarise the global burden of MASLD from the payer's perspective. Methods We carried out a review of the global comprehensive burden of MASLD. These topics led to discussions and insights by an expert panel during the 7th Metabolic Continuum Roundtable meeting, which took place in November 2023. This meeting focused on the burden, patient‐reported outcomes and health economics, from payor and societal perspectives, and aimed to identify opportunities for improving patient care, optimise resource allocation and mitigate the overall impact on individuals and society related to MASLD. During the roundtable, an emphasis emerged on the need for greater awareness and strategic deployment of diagnostic, therapeutic and preventative measures to address MASLD effectively. Conclusion The global burden of MASLD is high and growing. Prioritising the prevention of metabolic dysregulation and timely therapeutic interventions can yield a holistic strategy to combat MASLD, its progression and potentially lower disease costs. Trial Registration: NCT06309992

TPS294 Background: Approval of [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 ( 177 Lu-PSMA-617) for the treatment of adult patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, previously treated with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors and taxane-based chemotherapy, was based on the results of the Phase 3 VISION study (NCT03511664). It is important to further characterize long-term safety outcomes in 177 Lu-PSMA-617–treated patients, with particular regard to potential treatment-related risks. To this end, the long-term follow-up (LTFU) safety study (NCT05803941) has been established. Findings from the LTFU study will be crucial for assessing delayed toxicities for patients with PSMA-positive metastatic prostate cancer treated with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 globally. Methods: The LTFU study is a prospective, multi-center, non-EU post-authorization safety study. Patients who received ≥1 dose of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 within one of the prospective parent studies (Table 1) are eligible. Patients may enroll in the LTFU study after fulfilling the requirements of their corresponding parent study. The primary endpoint is the number and proportion of selected adverse events (AEs), including myelosuppression, xerostomia, renal failure, xerophthalmia, and second primary malignancies (eg, myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia), other serious AEs, and changes in laboratory values. The secondary endpoint is the number and proportion of deaths. Following enrollment, patients will undergo assessments at baseline, and then every 6–8 months for up to 10 years after their first dose of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 or until death. At each visit, a review of selected treatment-related AEs (xerostomia, xerophthalmia, myelosuppression), any-cause AEs (renal toxicity, new diagnoses of second primary malignancies), and treatment-related serious AEs will be conducted. Physical and laboratory assessments, as well as details on concomitant medications and interventions, including anti-cancer therapies, will be collected. Patients may receive treatment with any medical intervention. Interim analyses are planned at 2 and 5 years post-study activation. Enrollment is ongoing (n=13). Clinical trial information: NCT05803941 . Parent studies of the long-term follow-up safety study. Trial Indication Phase N (all groups) ClinicalTrials.gov ID VISION (+sub-study) Post-taxane mCRPC 3 831 (+30) NCT03511664 PSMAfore Pre-taxane mCRPC 3 469 NCT04689828 PSMAddition mHSPC 3 1144 NCT04720157 177 Lu-PSMA-617 in patients with moderately or severely impaired, or normal renal function Post-taxane mCRPC 2 20 a NCT06004661 a Planned. mCRPC, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; mHSPC, metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

121 Background: In the Phase 3 VISION trial, treatment with the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted radioligand therapy [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 ( 177 Lu-PSMA-617) + protocol-permitted standard of care (SoC) significantly improved median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; 8.7 vs 3.4 months [mo]) and overall survival (OS; 15.3 vs 11.3 mo) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) vs SoC alone. However, it is unclear how the addition of androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) affected 177 Lu-PSMA-617 treatment outcomes. Here we compared the efficacy and safety of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 in patients treated with vs without concomitant ARPIs. Methods: In VISION, adult patients with PSMA-positive mCRPC previously treated with ≥1 prior ARPI and 1–2 taxane chemotherapy regimens were randomized 2:1 to receive 177 Lu-PSMA-617 (7.4 GBq Q6W, 4–6 cycles) + SoC (which included ARPIs) vs SoC alone. In this secondary analysis, we assessed baseline characteristics, OS, rPFS, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate, duration of PSA response, PSA-PFS, and safety among patients in the intervention arm who were treated with vs without concomitant ARPIs. Results: In total, 289 patients were treated with concomitant ARPIs and 262 patients were not (N=551). Imbalances between the groups were observed in some baseline characteristics: patients treated with concomitant ARPIs were younger, had lower ECOG performance scores, lower mean PSA and lactate dehydrogenase levels, and fewer prior taxane chemotherapy regimens. Baseline mean standardized [ 68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 uptake values and mean hemoglobin levels were well-balanced. A statistically significant difference in median OS was observed in patients treated with concomitant ARPIs vs those without (17.8 vs 12.4 mo; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58–0.89; nominal P=0.001). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed for rPFS, PSA response rate, duration of PSA response or PSA-PFS. The proportion of adverse events reported was similar in patients with or without concurrent ARPI, except for the number of adverse events leading to interruption of best supportive care/SoC, which was higher in patients treated with concurrent ARPIs. Conclusions: OS was significantly different in patients treated with concomitant ARPIs vs those without, while other efficacy endpoints were not. No new safety signals were observed for 177 Lu-PSMA-617 with concomitant ARPI. These findings may be confounded by varied exposure to ARPIs, or differing patient characteristics; patients who received concomitant ARPIs may represent a more favorable treatment population than those who did not. These findings should be considered as hypothesis-generating, and a multivariate analysis has been planned to ascertain the influence of these potential biases. Clinical trial information: NCT03511664 .

Using 32 immune cell surface markers, we identified 23 monocyte clusters in murine blood. Diabetic gastroparesis was associated with a significant decrease in two circulating classical monocyte-like clusters and an upregulation of the Ccr2-Ccl2 axis in the gastric muscularis propria, suggesting increased tissue monocyte migration. This study offers new targets by pointing to a possible role for two classical monocyte subsets connected to the Ccr2- Ccl2 axis.

Background The hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR) has emerged as a vital measure of tissue-level collateral blood flow, helping to identify patients who are likely to benefit from mechanical thrombectomy (MT). We aimed to assess the HIR’s predictive accuracy for clinical outcomes following MT in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were searched to identify studies comparing good versus poor HIR groups based on studies’ reported cut-offs. We pooled binary outcomes to calculate odds ratios (OR) and continuous outcomes to calculate mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using random-effects models. PROSPERO registration code: CRD42024609185. Results 14 studies with 2987 patients, 1553 with good HIR and 1434 with poor HIR, were included in this meta-analysis. Patients with poor HIR exhibited a significantly higher baseline infarct volume compared with those with good HIR (MD 30.6 mL, 95% CI 20.8 mL to 40.3 mL, P<0.01), though baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) (P=0.12) and Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) (P=0.35) were comparable between groups. The rates of infarct growth (MD 22.4 mL, 95% CI 6.7 mL to 38.0 mL, P<0.01) and 3-month mortality (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.58, P=0.04) were higher among the poor HIR group and good functional recovery (modified Rankin Scale 0–2 at 3 months) was lower (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80, P<0.01). The rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (P=0.37) and successful reperfusion (P=0.47) were comparable among groups. Conclusion This meta-analysis highlights the significant negative impact of poor HIR on patient outcomes. These findings emphasize the need for personalized treatment strategies for patients with poor HIR.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Pediatric Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) were developed as a result of meetings convened by a multidisciplinary panel of pediatric ALL experts, with the goal of providing recommendations on standard treatment approaches based on current evidence. The NCCN Guidelines for pediatric ALL focus on risk assessment and stratification of risk-adapted therapy; treatment strategies for BCR::ABL1 (Philadelphia chromosome [Ph])-negative and BCR::ABL1-positive B-cell lineage, T-cell lineage, and infant ALL; and supportive care considerations. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for pediatric ALL focuses on the diagnosis of and management of pediatric T-ALL.