Citations

Abstract Background Carbapenem resistance in Klebsiellae spp. arises through mutational and acquired mechanisms and is considered an “urgent threat” by the CDC. VNRX-5236 is a bicyclic boronate β-lactamase inhibitor (BLI) that combines oral bioavailability (via etzadroxil prodrug VNRX-7145; Figure 1) and activity against all three Ambler classes of serine β-lactamases. VNRX-7145 is currently in development with the oral cephalosporin, ceftibuten (CTB) (Figure 1). Figure 1. Structures of VNRX-7145, VNRX-5236, and ceftibuten. The β-lactamase inhibitors are in red and the β-lactam antibiotic is in black. Methods The activity of CTB/VNRX-5236 against 200 carbapenem-resistant Klebsiellae from the Consortium on Resistance against Carbapenems in Klebsiella (CRACKLE) was assessed in this study. Among these, 193 expressed class A KPC enzymes, one expressed a class B NDM enzyme, and six expressed a class D OXA-48 or variant enzyme. Minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) were determined by broth microdilution (CLSI M07 Ed. 11) using the ThermoFisher Sensititre system with custom assay panels. MICs were interpreted using CLSI M100 Ed. 30, except the EUCAST breakpoint for CTB (S≤1 µg/mL) was used for CTB and was applied for comparative purposes to CTB/VNRX-5236 MICs where VNRX-5236 was fixed at 4 µg/mL. American Type Culture Collection strains were used for quality control. Results 92.5% of stains studied in this CRACKLE collection were provisionally susceptible to CTB/VNRX-5236. In comparison, strains were 95.5% and 98% susceptible to meropenem-vaborbactam (MVB) and ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA), respectively. MIC50s were in the susceptible range for CZA, MVB, and CTB/VNRX-5236; and resistant for CTB, ceftazidime (CAZ) and meropenem (MEM). MIC90s were in the susceptible range for CZA, MVB, and CTB/VNRX-5236 and resistant range for CAZ, MEM, and CTB (Table 1). One of four CZA-resistant and three of nine MVB non-susceptible strains were provisionally susceptible to CTB/VNRX-5236. MIC50 and MIC90 values (µg/mL) and percent susceptibility for Klebsiella pneumoniae strains (n=200). AMK, amikacin; CST, colistin; CAZ, ceftazidime; CZA, ceftazidime-avibactam; FEP, cefepime; MEM, meropenem; MVB, meropenem-vaborbactam; CTB, ceftibuten; TGC, tigecycline. * The breakpoint for CST is intermediate, as no susceptible breakpoint is available. ** The CTB breakpoint is valid only for urinary tract isolates. *** The breakpoint for CTB was provisionally used for CTB/VNRX-5236, where VNRX-5236 was fixed at 4 µg/mL. Conclusion The addition of VNRX-5236 enhanced the activity of CTB against the 200 Klebsiella isolates tested, reaching a total of 92.5% susceptibility. The prodrug (VNRX-7145) allows for oral administration, making it a potential option for step-down therapy. Importantly, VNRX-5236 has a broader spectrum of activity than existing oral BLIs, opening new treatment options for resistant infections as a key addition to the existing antibiotic arsenal. Disclosures Robin Patel, MD, 1928 Diagnostics (Consultant)BioFire Diagnostics (Grant/Research Support)ContraFect Corporation (Grant/Research Support)Curetis (Consultant)Hylomorph AG (Grant/Research Support)IDSA (Other Financial or Material Support, Editor’s Stipend)Infectious Diseases Board Review Course (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria)Mammoth Biosciences (Consultant)NBME (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria)Netflix (Consultant)Next Gen Diagnostics (Consultant)PathoQuest (Consultant)PhAST (Consultant)Qvella (Consultant)Samsung (Other Financial or Material Support, Patent Royalties)Selux Diagnostics (Consultant)Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Grant/Research Support)Specific Technologies (Consultant)TenNor Therapeutics Limited (Grant/Research Support)Torus Biosystems (Consultant)Up-to-Date (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria) Robin Patel, MD, BioFire (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; Contrafect (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; IDSA (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Editor’s stipend; NBME, Up-to-Date and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Honoraria; Netflix (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; TenNor Therapeutics Limited (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; to Curetis, Specific Technologies, Next Gen Diagnostics, PathoQuest, Selux Diagnostics, 1928 Diagnostics, PhAST, Torus Biosystems, Mammoth Biosciences and Qvella (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant David van Duin, MD, PhD, Entasis (Advisor or Review Panel member)genentech (Advisor or Review Panel member)Karius (Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Pfizer (Consultant, Advisor or Review Panel member)Qpex (Advisor or Review Panel member)Shionogi (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Utility (Advisor or Review Panel member) Vance G. Fowler, Jr., MD, MHS, Achaogen (Consultant)Advanced Liquid Logics (Grant/Research Support)Affinergy (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Affinium (Consultant)Akagera (Consultant)Allergan (Grant/Research Support)Amphliphi Biosciences (Consultant)Aridis (Consultant)Armata (Consultant)Basilea (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Bayer (Consultant)C3J (Consultant)Cerexa (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Contrafect (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Debiopharm (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Destiny (Consultant)Durata (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, educational fees)Genentech (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Green Cross (Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Integrated Biotherapeutics (Consultant)Janssen (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Karius (Grant/Research Support)Locus (Grant/Research Support)Medical Biosurfaces (Grant/Research Support)Medicines Co. (Consultant)MedImmune (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support)NIH (Grant/Research Support)Novadigm (Consultant)Novartis (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support)Regeneron (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)sepsis diagnostics (Other Financial or Material Support, Pending patent for host gene expression signature diagnostic for sepsis.)Tetraphase (Consultant)Theravance (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Trius (Consultant)UpToDate (Other Financial or Material Support, Royalties)Valanbio (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Stock options)xBiotech (Consultant) Daniel D. Rhoads, MD, Becton, Dickinson and Company (Grant/Research Support) Michael Jacobs, MBBS, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Grant/Research Support) Focco van den Akker, PhD, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Grant/Research Support) David A. Six, PhD, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee) Greg Moeck, PhD, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee) Krisztina M. Papp-Wallace, Ph.D., Merck & Co., Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Spero Therapeutics, Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Wockhardt Ltd. (Other Financial or Material Support, Research Collaborator) Robert A. Bonomo, MD, entasis (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support)NIH (Grant/Research Support)VA Merit Award (Grant/Research Support)VenatoRx (Grant/Research Support)

Abstract Background Klebsiellae are Gram-negative pathogens responsible for serious nosocomial and community-acquired infections. Carbapenem resistance, both intrinsic and acquired, complicates therapy. Taniborbactam (formerly VNRX-5133; Fig 1) is a bicyclic boronate β-lactamase inhibitor (BLI) that inhibits all four Ambler classes of β-lactamase enzymes, both serine- and metallo-, with the notable exception of class B IMP β-lactamases. Taniborbactam is currently undergoing phase 3 clinical trials in combination with cefepime (FEP; Fig 1) as part of the β-lactam-BLI (BL-BLI) combination FEP-taniborbactam (FTB). Figure 1. Structures of taniborbactam and cefepime. The β-lactamase inhibitor is in red and the β-lactam antibiotic is in black. Methods We determined the activity of FTB against 200 carbapenem-resistant Klebsiellae (CRK) strains collected as part of the Antibiotic Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) Consortium on Resistance against Carbapenems in Klebsiella (CRACKLE) study. Among these strains, 193 expressed class A KPCs, one expressed a class B NDM, and six expressed class D OXA-48 or variants. Broth microdilution minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC)s were determined using the ThermoFisher Sensititre system with custom assay panels. American Type Culture Collection strains were used for quality control. The susceptible-dose-dependent breakpoint for FEP was provisionally used for FTB, where taniborbactam was fixed at 4 µg/mL. Results Among the 200 Klebsiella strains tested, susceptibility for β-lactams alone ranged from 1% for ceftazidime (CAZ), 2.5% for meropenem, and 13.5% for FEP (Table 1). The addition of BLIs increased % susceptibility compared to BL alone to: 98% for CAZ-avibactam (CZA); 95.5% for MEM-vaborbactam (MVB); and 99.0% for FTB. MIC50 and MIC90 were in the susceptible and provisionally susceptible range for CZA and MVB, and in the provisionally susceptible range for FTB. Analyzing the CZA and MVB non-susceptible strains, 7 of 9 MVB non-susceptible strains and 2 of 4 CZA-resistant strains were provisionally susceptible to FTB. Table 1. MIC50 and MIC90 values (μg/mL) and percent susceptibility for Klebsiella pneumoniae strains (n=200). AMK, amikacin; CST, colistin; CAZ, ceftazidime; CZA, ceftazidime-avibactam; FEP, cefepime; FTB, cefepime-taniborbactam; MEM, meropenem; MVB, meropenem-vaborbactam; TGC, tigecycline. * The breakpoint for CST is intermediate, as no susceptible breakpoint is available. ** The susceptible-dose-dependent breakpoint for FEP alone was provisionally applied to FTB, where taniborbactam was fixed at 4 μg/mL. Breakpoints from CLSI M100, 31st ed, 2021. Conclusion The addition of taniborbactam restored susceptibility to FEP in 99.0% of CRACKLE isolates studied, comparable to CZA and MVB. Taniborbactam also restored FEP activity against some MVB- and CZA-resistant strains. FTB may provide a promising therapy for CRK infections. Disclosures Robin Patel, MD, 1928 Diagnostics (Consultant)BioFire Diagnostics (Grant/Research Support)ContraFect Corporation (Grant/Research Support)Curetis (Consultant)Hylomorph AG (Grant/Research Support)IDSA (Other Financial or Material Support, Editor’s Stipend)Infectious Diseases Board Review Course (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria)Mammoth Biosciences (Consultant)NBME (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria)Netflix (Consultant)Next Gen Diagnostics (Consultant)PathoQuest (Consultant)PhAST (Consultant)Qvella (Consultant)Samsung (Other Financial or Material Support, Patent Royalties)Selux Diagnostics (Consultant)Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Grant/Research Support)Specific Technologies (Consultant)TenNor Therapeutics Limited (Grant/Research Support)Torus Biosystems (Consultant)Up-to-Date (Other Financial or Material Support, Honoraria) Robin Patel, MD, BioFire (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; Contrafect (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; IDSA (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Editor’s stipend; NBME, Up-to-Date and the Infectious Diseases Board Review Course (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Honoraria; Netflix (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; TenNor Therapeutics Limited (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Grant/Research Support; to Curetis, Specific Technologies, Next Gen Diagnostics, PathoQuest, Selux Diagnostics, 1928 Diagnostics, PhAST, Torus Biosystems, Mammoth Biosciences and Qvella (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant David van Duin, MD, PhD, Entasis (Advisor or Review Panel member)genentech (Advisor or Review Panel member)Karius (Advisor or Review Panel member)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Pfizer (Consultant, Advisor or Review Panel member)Qpex (Advisor or Review Panel member)Shionogi (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Utility (Advisor or Review Panel member) Vance G. Fowler, Jr., MD, MHS, Achaogen (Consultant)Advanced Liquid Logics (Grant/Research Support)Affinergy (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Affinium (Consultant)Akagera (Consultant)Allergan (Grant/Research Support)Amphliphi Biosciences (Consultant)Aridis (Consultant)Armata (Consultant)Basilea (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Bayer (Consultant)C3J (Consultant)Cerexa (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Contrafect (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Debiopharm (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Destiny (Consultant)Durata (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, educational fees)Genentech (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Green Cross (Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Integrated Biotherapeutics (Consultant)Janssen (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Karius (Grant/Research Support)Locus (Grant/Research Support)Medical Biosurfaces (Grant/Research Support)Medicines Co. (Consultant)MedImmune (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support)NIH (Grant/Research Support)Novadigm (Consultant)Novartis (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support)Regeneron (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)sepsis diagnostics (Other Financial or Material Support, Pending patent for host gene expression signature diagnostic for sepsis.)Tetraphase (Consultant)Theravance (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Educational fees)Trius (Consultant)UpToDate (Other Financial or Material Support, Royalties)Valanbio (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, Stock options)xBiotech (Consultant) Daniel D. Rhoads, MD, Becton, Dickinson and Company (Grant/Research Support) Michael Jacobs, MBBS, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Grant/Research Support) Focco van den Akker, PhD, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Grant/Research Support) David A. Six, PhD, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee) Greg Moeck, PhD, Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Employee) Krisztina M. Papp-Wallace, Ph.D., Merck & Co., Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Spero Therapeutics, Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Venatorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Grant/Research Support)Wockhardt Ltd. (Other Financial or Material Support, Research Collaborator) Robert A. Bonomo, MD, entasis (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support)NIH (Grant/Research Support)VA Merit Award (Grant/Research Support)VenatoRx (Grant/Research Support)

Abstract Background: Pts with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after first-line (1L) therapy may have poor outcomes with SOC, including salvage CT and ASCT, which underscores a critical unmet need. Liso-cel is an autologous CD19-directed, defined composition, 4-1BB CAR T cell product administered at equal target doses of CD8 + and CD4 + CAR + T cells. In the TRANSCEND NHL 001 study (NCT02631044) in pts with R/R LBCL (≥ 2 prior lines of therapy), liso-cel treatment resulted in an ORR of 73% (CR rate, 53%), 2% grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and 10% grade ≥ 3 neurological events (NE) (Abramson et al. Lancet 2020). Here we present a prespecified interim analysis of TRANSFORM (NCT03575351; SOC vs liso-cel as 2L therapy in pts with R/R LBCL). Methods: TRANSFORM is a pivotal, global, randomized, multicenter, phase 3 study comparing efficacy and safety of SOC (Arm A; R-DHAP, R-ICE, or R-GDP per investigator choice followed by BEAM + ASCT) vs liso-cel (Arm B). Pts were adults (aged ≤ 75 years), eligible for ASCT, and with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy. Key inclusion criteria were ECOG PS ≤ 1 and adequate organ function (LVEF ≥ 40%; serum CrCl > 45 mL/min); pts with secondary CNS lymphoma were allowed. Key exclusion criteria were prior gene or anti-CD19-targeted therapy, and active infection. Pts in Arm A were to receive 3 cycles of CT. Responding pts (CR or PR) were to proceed to BEAM + ASCT. Pts in Arm B were to undergo lymphodepletion with fludarabine/cyclophosphamide followed by liso-cel at a target dose of 100 × 10 6 CAR + T cells. Bridging therapy with an Arm A CT regimen was allowed. Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed in Arm A for pts not achieving CR or PR after 3 cycles of CT or not in CR after ASCT, or demonstrating PD at any time. Primary endpoint is event-free survival (EFS) based on independent review committee per Lugano 2014 criteria, defined as time from randomization to death from any cause, PD, failure to achieve CR or PR by 9 weeks after randomization, or start of new antineoplastic therapy, whichever occurred first. Key secondary endpoints included in the testing strategy are CR rate, PFS, and OS. P value significance threshold for endpoints to reject the null hypothesis was ≤ 0.012. Results: A total of 184 pts were randomized, with 92 pts in each arm. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between both arms (Table). Of 91 treated pts in Arm A (1 pt withdrew consent), 43 received BEAM + ASCT, of which 28 achieved CR with CT. Fifty pts crossed over to receive liso-cel. In Arm B, 90 pts received liso-cel infusion; 58 pts (63%) received bridging therapy. Two Arm B pts were not infused (1 each due to manufacturing failure and rapid progression). Median EFS and PFS were significantly longer, and CR rate was significantly improved for Arm B vs Arm A. For Arms A and B, respectively, median EFS was 2.3 vs 10.1 mo (HR, 0.349; P < 0.0001), median PFS was 5.7 vs 14.8 mo (HR, 0.406; P = 0.0001), and CR rate was 39% vs 66% (P < 0.0001). OS data were immature at the time of this analysis with a median follow-up of 6.2 mo (range, 0.9-20.0), but a numerical trend favored Arm B (HR, 0.509; 95% CI, 0.258-1.004; P = 0.0257). Cellular kinetics in Arm B showed a median t max of 10 d (range, 6‒22). No new liso-cel safety signals were detected in the 2L setting. In Arm B, any-grade CRS was reported in 49% of pts, with grade 1 in 37% and grade 2 in 11%. Only 1 pt had grade 3 CRS (onset at Day 9, which resolved in 2 days). Any-grade NEs were reported in 12% of pts and were also primarily low grade (grade 3, 4%). No grade 4 or 5 CRS or NEs were reported. In Arm B, 24% of pts received tocilizumab, 17% received corticosteroids, and none received vasopressors. The most common TEAEs in both arms were cytopenias. Prolonged cytopenias in Arm B (ie, grade ≥ 3 at 35 d after infusion) were reported in 43% of pts; the majority recovered within 2 mo after infusion. Conclusions: In the TRANSFORM study, liso-cel demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the primary endpoint, EFS, as well as in key secondary efficacy endpoints (CR rate and PFS) compared with SOC as 2L therapy in pts with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy. Safety results in the 2L setting were consistent with the liso-cel safety profile in 3L or later LBCL, and no new safety concerns were identified. Liso-cel improved outcomes vs SOC and exhibited a favorable safety profile, providing support for liso-cel as a potential new SOC for 2L treatment in pts with R/R LBCL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kamdar: SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Other; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy; Genetech: Other; Genentech: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy. Arnason: Juno/BMS: Honoraria. Glass: BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment. Bachanova: KaryoPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; FATE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ibrahimi: Karyopharm Theraputics: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Mielke: Immunicum: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Other: Data safety monitoring board; DNA Prime SA: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/KITE: Other: Travel support, Expert panel ; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau. Mutsaers: BMS: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Hernandez-Ilizaliturri: Kite: Other: Advisory Boards; Amgen: Other: Advisory Boards; Pharmacyclics: Other: Advisory Boards; BMS: Other: Advisory Boards; Celgene: Other: Advisory Boards; Incyte: Other: Advisory Boards; AbbVie: Other: Advisory Boards; Gilead: Other: Advisory Boards; Epyzime: Other: Advisory Boards. Izutsu: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Huya Biosciences: Research Funding; Genmab: Honoraria, Research Funding; Fuji Film Toyama Chemical: Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Allergan Japan: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Ono Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Solasia: Research Funding; Symbio: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Yakult: Research Funding. Morschhauser: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy; AstraZenenca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lunning: Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Acrotech: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy. Maloney: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb; A2 Biotherapeutics: Honoraria, Other: Stock options; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene: Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Umoja: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Legend Biotech: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Juno therapeutics: Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Navan Technologies: Honoraria, Other: Stock options; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb. Crotta: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Montheard: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Previtali: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Stepan: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ogasawara: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mack: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Abramson: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Liso-cel is a CAR T cell therapy approved for use in the third line for R/R LBCL. This trial reports data from the pivotal trial in the second line.

Abstract Background It is unclear how acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-directed therapies are used in children with life-threatening COVID-19 in US hospitals. We described characteristics of children hospitalized in the intensive care unit or step-down unit (ICU/SDU) who received COVID-19-directed therapies and the specific therapies administered. Methods Between March 15, 2020 and December 27, 2020, children <18 years of age in the ICU/SDU with acute COVID-19 at 48 pediatric hospitals in the United States were identified. Demographics, laboratory values, and clinical course were compared in children who did and did not receive COVID-19-directed therapies. Trends in COVID-19-directed therapies over time were evaluated. Results Of 424 children in the ICU/SDU, 235 (55%) received COVID-19-directed therapies. Children who received COVID-19-directed therapies were older than those who did not receive COVID-19-directed therapies (13.3 [5.6-16.2] vs 9.8 [0.65-15.9] years), more had underlying medical conditions (188 [80%] vs 104 [55%]; difference = 25% [95% CI: 16% to 34%]), more received respiratory support (206 [88%] vs 71 [38%]; difference = 50% [95% CI: 34% to 56%]), and more died (8 [3.4%] vs 0). Of the 235 children receiving COVID-19-directed therapies, 172 (73%) received systemic steroids and 150 (64%) received remdesivir, with rising remdesivir use over the study period (14% in March/April to 57% November/December). Conclusion Despite the lack of pediatric data evaluating treatments for COVID-19 in critically ill children, more than half of children requiring intensive or high acuity care received COVID-19-directed therapies.

Abstract Carotid artery angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been shown to be equally effective as carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for carotid stenosis in both symptomatic and asymptomatic disease. 1 In patients who are considered high risk for endarterectomy, CAS is safe and effective. 2 While this is a common procedure, proper technique is crucial to ensure that the procedure is safe with minimal risk of stroke. This patient consented to treatment. The following is a video detailing the CAS procedure in a 77-yr-old male with a symptomatic 65% carotid stenosis (by NASCET criteria 3 ) in a patient with prior CEA.

Abstract Since the International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial, 1 endovascular treatment has been the favored treatment for appropriate ruptured intracranial aneurysms. While our endovascular technology has advanced to allow us to treat the majority of intracranial aneurysms, simple coil embolization is still the most common modality. This video demonstrates the fundamentals of aneurysm catheterization and coiling for safe treatment. In addition, the set-up and devices are detailed. This video is to add to the library of basic techniques that will aid a large number of practitioners. This patient consented to endovascular treatment. The video demonstrates endovascular coil embolization of a posterior communicating artery aneurysm in a 76-yr-old female who presented with a subarachnoid hemorrhage. Image of biplane suite in video used courtesy of Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. Illustration at 5:12 reprinted from Yasargil MG, et al, Microneurosurgery IV B , p. 9, Thieme, New York, 1995.

Abstract OBJECTIVES This study sought to evaluate the long-term differences in survival between multiple arterial grafts (MAG) and single arterial grafts (SAG) in patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the SYNTAX study. METHODS The present analysis included the randomized and registry-treated CABG patients (n = 1509) from the SYNTAX Extended Survival study (SYNTAXES). Patients with only venous (n = 42) or synthetic grafts (n = 1) were excluded. The primary end point was all-cause death at the longest follow-up. Multivariable Cox regression was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. Sensitivity analysis using propensity matching with inverse probability for treatment weights was performed. RESULTS Of the 1466 included patients, 465 (31.7%) received MAG and 1001 (68.3%) SAG. Patients receiving MAG were younger and at lower risk. At the longest follow-up of 12.6 years, all-cause death occurred in 23.6% of MAG and 40.0% of SAG patients [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.55–0.98); P = 0.038], which was confirmed by sensitivity analysis. MAG in patients with the three-vessel disease was associated with significant lower unadjusted and adjusted all-cause death at 12.6 years [adjusted HR 0.65, 95% CI (0.44–0.97); P = 0.033]. In contrast, no significance was observed after risk adjustment in patients with the left main disease, with and without diabetes, or among SYNTAX score tertiles. CONCLUSIONS In the present post hoc analysis of all-comers patients from the SYNTAX trial, MAG resulted in markedly lower all-cause death at 12.6-year follow-up compared to a SAG strategy. Hence, this striking long-term survival benefit of MAG over SAG encourages more extensive use of multiple arterial grafting in selected patients with reasonable life expectancy. Trial registration SYNTAXES ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT03417050; SYNTAX ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT00114972.

Abstract Aim The aim of this study was to compare long-term all-cause mortality between patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using multiple (MAG) or single arterial grafting (SAG). Methods and results The current study is a post hoc analysis of the SYNTAX Extended Survival Study, which compared PCI with CABG in patients with three-vessel (3VD) and/or left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) and evaluated survival with ≥10 years of follow-up. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at maximum follow-up (median 11.9 years) assessed in the as-treated population. Of the 1743 patients, 901 (51.7%) underwent PCI, 532 (30.5%) received SAG, and 310 (17.8%) had MAG. At maximum follow-up, all-cause death occurred in 305 (33.9%), 175 (32.9%), and 70 (22.6%) patients in the PCI, SAG, and MAG groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Multiple arterial grafting [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49–0.89], but not SAG (adjusted HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67–1.03), was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality compared with PCI. In patients with 3VD, both MAG (adjusted HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37–0.81) and SAG (adjusted HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50–0.91) were associated with significantly lower mortality than PCI, whereas in LMCAD patients, no significant differences between PCI and MAG (adjusted HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.56–1.46) or SAG (adjusted HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.81–1.53) were observed. In patients with revascularization of all three major myocardial territories, a positive correlation was observed between the number of myocardial territories receiving arterial grafts and survival (P trend = 0.003). Conclusion Our findings suggest that MAG might be the more desirable configuration for CABG to achieve lower long-term all-cause mortality than PCI in patients with 3VD and/or LMCAD. Trial registration Registered on clinicaltrial.gov. SYNTAXES: NCT03417050 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03417050); SYNTAX: NCT00114972 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00114972).

Abstract Acute carotid terminus occlusion (CTO) is responsible for up to 5% of acute ischemic strokes secondary to emergent large vessel occlusion (ELVO) and up to 20% of acute internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusions. 1 The term “CTO” has also been used to describe occlusions in the supra-clinoid segment or at the bifurcation of the ICA. Compared to other ELVOs, patients with CTO present with higher stroke severity and larger infarct volume, likely to be a result of disruption of direct Circle of Willis collaterals across the anterior communicating artery (AComA) and posterior communicating artery (PComA). 2,3 Similary, CTO is usually associated with worse prognosis compared to other ELVOs in general. With regard to response to treatment, previous studies have reported significantly lower recanalization rates with intravenous alteplase with CTO compared to M1 segment occlusion. With regard to the safety and efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy, prior reports provide conflicting results with some reporting lower successful recanalization rates with CTO compared to M1 occlusion, and others reporting similar results. In our experience, we have found that successful recanalization of CTO can be achieved with a similar approach to M1 occlusions utilizing a direct aspiration first pass technique (ADAPT). 3,4 Herein, we present a case of CTO for which we performed mechanical thrombectomy using ADAPT. This procedure was an emergent standard of care procedure for which a consent was not required and so not obtained.

Introduction: Our goal was to systematically review contemporary literature comparing the relative effectiveness of two mechanical compression devices (LUCAS and AutoPulse) to manual compression for achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Methods: We searched medical databases systematically for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies published between January 1, 2000–October 1, 2020 that compared mechanical chest compression (using any device) with manual chest compression following OHCA. We only included studies in the English language that reported ROSC outcomes in adult patients in non-trauma settings to conduct random-effects metanalysis and trial sequence analysis (TSA). Multivariate meta-regression was performed using preselected covariates to account for heterogeneity. We assessed for risk of biases in randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting. Results: A total of 15 studies (n = 18474), including six RCTs, two cluster RCTs, five retrospective case-control, and two phased prospective cohort studies, were pooled for analysis. The pooled estimates’ summary effect did not indicate a significant difference (Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio = 1.16, 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.39, P = 0.11, I2 = 0.83) between mechanical and manual compressions during CPR for ROSC. The TSA showed firm evidence supporting the lack of improvement in ROSC using mechanical compression devices. The Z-curves successfully crossed the TSA futility boundary for ROSC, indicating sufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions regarding these outcomes. Multivariate meta-regression demonstrated that 100% of the between-study variation could be explained by differences in average age, the proportion of females, cardiac arrests with shockable rhythms, witnessed cardiac arrest, bystander CPR, and the average time for emergency medical services (EMS) arrival in the study samples, with the latter three attaining statistical significance. Conclusion: Mechanical compression devices for resuscitation in cardiac arrests are not associated with improved rates of ROSC. Their use may be more beneficial in non-ideal situations such as lack of bystander CPR, unwitnessed arrest, and delayed EMS response times. Studies done to date have enough power to render further studies on this comparison futile.