Citations

PURPOSE Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) can occur across all age groups, with a strikingly higher cure rate in children compared with adults. However, the pharmacological basis of age-related differences in ALL treatment response remains unclear. METHODS Studying 767 children and 309 adults with newly diagnosed B-cell ALL enrolled on frontline trials at St Jude Children's Research Hospital, MD Anderson Cancer Center, the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, and the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, we determined the ex vivo sensitivity of leukemia cells to 21 drugs. Twenty-three ALL molecular subtypes were identified using RNA sequencing. We systematically characterized the associations between drug response and ALL genomics in children, adolescents and young adults, and elderly adults. We evaluated the effect of age-related gene expression signature on ALL treatment outcomes. RESULTS Seven ALL drugs (asparaginase, prednisolone, mercaptopurine, dasatinib, nelarabine, daunorubicin, and inotuzumab ozogamicin) showed differential activity between children and adults, of which six were explained by age-related differences in leukemia molecular subtypes. Adolescents and young adults showed similar patterns of drug resistance as older adults, relative to young children. Mercaptopurine exhibited subtype-independent greater sensitivity in children. Transcriptomic profiling uncovered subclusters within CRLF2 -, DUX4 -, and KMT2A -rearranged ALL that were linked to age and cytotoxic drug resistance. In particular, a subset of children had adult-like ALL on the basis of leukemia gene expression patterns across subtypes, despite their chronological age. Resistant to cytotoxic drugs, children with adult-like ALL exhibited poor prognosis in pediatric ALL trials, even after adjusting for age and minimal residual diseases. CONCLUSION Our results provide pharmacogenomic insights into age-related disparities in ALL cure rates and identify leukemia prognostic features for treatment individualization across age groups.

ABSTRACT The advent of immunological therapies has revolutionized the treatment of solid and haematological cancers over the last decade. Licensed therapies which activate the immune system to target cancer cells can be broadly divided into two classes. The first class are antibodies that inhibit immune checkpoint signalling, known as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The second class are cell-based immune therapies including chimeric antigen receptor T lymphocyte (CAR-T) cell therapies, natural killer (NK) cell therapies, and tumour infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapies. The clinical efficacy of all these treatments generally outweighs the risks, but there is a high rate of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which are often unpredictable in timing with clinical sequalae ranging from mild (e.g. rash) to severe or even fatal (e.g. myocarditis, cytokine release syndrome) and reversible to permanent (e.g. endocrinopathies).The mechanisms underpinning irAE pathology vary across different irAE complications and syndromes, reflecting the broad clinical phenotypes observed and the variability of different individual immune responses, and are poorly understood overall. Immune-related cardiovascular toxicities have emerged, and our understanding has evolved from focussing initially on rare but fatal ICI-related myocarditis with cardiogenic shock to more common complications including less severe ICI-related myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, including conduction system disease and heart block, non-inflammatory heart failure, takotsubo syndrome and coronary artery disease. In this scientific statement on the cardiovascular toxicities of immune therapies for cancer, we summarize the pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of ICI, CAR-T, NK, and TIL therapies. We also highlight gaps in the literature and where future research should focus.

Study Design. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. Objective. The aim of this study was to investigate what factors predict delayed improvement after surgical treatment of low-grade spondylolisthesis. Summary of Background Data. Lumbar surgery leads to clinical improvement in the majority of patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis. Most patients improve rapidly after surgery, but some patients demonstrate a delayed clinical course. Methods. The Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD) was queried for grade 1 spondylolisthesis patients who underwent surgery who had patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months, including back and leg pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). Patients were stratified as “early responders” reaching MCID at 3 months and maintaining improvement through 12 months and “delayed responders” not reaching MCID at 3 months but ultimately reaching MCID at 12 months. These two groups were compared with respect to factors which predicted delayed improvement. Results. Of 608 patients enrolled, 436 (72%) met inclusion criteria for this study. Overall, 317 patients (72.7%) reached MCID for ODI at 12 months following surgery. Of these patients, 249 (78.5%) exhibited a rapid clinical improvement trajectory and had achieved ODI MCID threshold by the 3-month postoperative follow-up. Sixty-eight patients (21.4%) showed a delayed trajectory, and had not achieved ODI MCID threshold at 3 months, but did ultimately reach MCID at 12-month follow-up. Factors associated with delayed improvement included impaired preoperative ambulatory status, better baseline back and leg pain scores, and worse 3-month leg pain scores ( P <0.01). Conclusions. The majority of patients undergoing surgery for low-grade spondylolisthesis reach ODI MCID threshold rapidly, within the first 3 months after surgery. Factors associated with a delayed clinical course include impaired preoperative ambulation status, relatively better preoperative back and leg pain, and persistent leg pain at 3 months.

The COVID-19 pandemic challenged healthcare organisations in safely providing healthcare to patients while protecting employees and reducing the spread of the virus. This paper shows how the Mayo Clinic responded by implementing innovations, including screening, testing and tracing patients for COVID-19; expanding telehealth services; adjusting surgical and procedural operations and reallocating staffing and supplies. These changes were operationalised rapidly through the coordinated response from its leadership, partnership of experts across the organisation, prompt decision-making driven by data, redistribution of resources and expedited training. These innovations and methods of rapid implementation enabled Mayo Clinic to safely continue its mission of providing healing and hope to its patients worldwide, and quickly return to financial sustainability.

AbstractIntroductionThe impact of mRNA‐based coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) vaccines on atrial arrhythmias (AA) and ventricular arrhythmias incidence is unknown.MethodsBIOTRONIK Home Monitoring data and Medicare Claims data were utilized to identify individuals implanted with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) between 2010 and 2020 who received one or more doses of COVID‐19 vaccine in 2021. The burden of AA (%) in the 3 months postvaccination was compared to those noted in the preceding 3 months using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Sub‐analyses comparing the effects of the influenza vaccine against the COVID‐19 vaccine were also evaluated for individuals who received the influenza vaccine in 2020. A 1:1 propensity score match comparison between COVID‐19 vaccine and non‐vaccinated patients was also performed.ResultsFirst and second doses of the COVID‐19 vaccine were administered to 7757 and 6579 individuals with a CIED (age 76.2 ± 9.0 years, 49% males), respectively. While a small but statistically significant increase in the burden of AA was noted in the 3 months postvaccination compared to the preceding 3 months after the first dose of the COVID‐19 vaccine (0.43 ± 9.04%, p = .028) a similar rise in AA was found following the influenza vaccine and for matched patients who did not receive the COVID‐19 vaccine. No significant difference in device therapies was seen pre‐ and postvaccination.ConclusionsThough we report a small but significant increase in the number of CIED‐detected AAs following vaccination for COVID‐19 over a 3‐month window, we believe these results correlate more with time and the progressive nature of AF rather than the vaccine itself. While these data should not dissuade from the use of these vaccines, increased vigilance and prompt treatment of AF is required for high‐risk groups, specifically males over 70 years of age, following vaccination.

Background There is potential for adverse events from corticosteroid injections, including increase in blood glucose, decrease in bone mineral density and suppression of the hypothalamic–pituitary axis. Published studies note that doses lower than those commonly injected provide similar benefit. Methods Development of the practice guideline was approved by the Board of Directors of American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine with several other societies agreeing to participate. The scope of guidelines was agreed on to include safety of the injection technique (landmark-guided, ultrasound or radiology-aided injections); effect of the addition of the corticosteroid on the efficacy of the injectate (local anesthetic or saline); and adverse events related to the injection. Based on preliminary discussions, it was decided to structure the topics into three separate guidelines as follows: (1) sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections; (2) joints; and (3) neuraxial, facet, sacroiliac joints and related topics (vaccine and anticoagulants). Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive review of the literature and to draft statements and recommendations, which were refined and voted for consensus (≥75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. The United States Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed. Results This guideline deals with the use and safety of corticosteroid injections for sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections for adult chronic pain conditions. All the statements and recommendations were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Board of Directors of the participating societies also approved all the statements and recommendations. The safety of some procedures, including stellate blocks, lower extremity peripheral nerve blocks and some sites of trigger point injections, is improved by imaging guidance. The addition of non-particulate corticosteroid to the local anesthetic is beneficial in cluster headaches but not in other types of headaches. Corticosteroid may provide additional benefit in transverse abdominal plane blocks and ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks in postherniorrhaphy pain but there is no evidence for pudendal nerve blocks. There is minimal benefit for the use of corticosteroids in trigger point injections. Conclusions In this practice guideline, we provided recommendations on the use of corticosteroids in sympathetic blocks, peripheral nerve blocks, and trigger point injections to assist clinicians in making informed decisions.