Citations

Abstract Despite the challenges of the pandemic, there has been substantial progress with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies. Pivotal COVID-19 trials like SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, and ACCT-1 were rapidly conducted and data disseminated to support effective therapies. However, critical shortcomings remain on trial conduct, dissemination and interpretation of study results, and regulatory guidance in pandemic settings. The lessons that we learned have implications for both the current pandemic and future emerging infectious diseases. There is a need for establishing and standardizing clinical meaningful outcomes in therapeutic trials and for targeting defined populations and phenotypes that will most benefit from specific therapies. Standardized processes should be established for rapid and critical data review and dissemination to ensure scientific integrity. Clarity around the evidence standards needed for issuance of both emergency use authorization (EUA) and biologic license application (BLA) should be established and an infrastructure for executing rapid trials in epidemic settings maintained.

Abstract Given the urgent need for treatments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for multiple therapies. In several instances, however, these EUAs were issued before sufficient evidence of a given therapy’s efficacy and safety were available, potentially promoting ineffective or even harmful therapies and undermining the generation of definitive evidence. We describe the strengths and weaknesses of the different therapeutic EUAs issued during this pandemic. We also contrast them to the vaccine EUAs and suggest a framework and criteria for an evidence-based, trustworthy, and publicly transparent therapeutic EUA process for future pandemics.

Abstract Myelofibrosis (MF) is a clonal stem cell neoplasm characterized by abnormal JAK-STAT signaling, chronic inflammation, cytopenias, and risk of transformation to acute leukemia. Despite improvements in the therapeutic options for patients with MF, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation remains the only curative treatment. We previously demonstrated multiple immunosuppressive mechanisms in patients with MF, including increased expression of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) on T cells compared with healthy controls. Therefore, we conducted a multicenter, open-label, phase 2, single-arm study of pembrolizumab in patients with Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System category of intermediate-2 or greater primary, post-essential thrombocythemia or post-polycythemia vera myelofibrosis that were ineligible for or were previously treated with ruxolitinib. The study followed a Simon 2-stage design and enrolled a total of 10 patients, 5 of whom had JAK2V617mutation, 2 had CALR mutation, and 6 had additional mutations. Most patients were previously treated with ruxolitinib. Pembrolizumab treatment was well tolerated, but there were no objective clinical responses, so the study closed after the first stage was completed. However, immune profiling by flow cytometry, T-cell receptor sequencing, and plasma proteomics demonstrated changes in the immune milieu of patients, which suggested improved T-cell responses that can potentially favor antitumor immunity. The fact that these changes were not reflected in a clinical response strongly suggests that combination immunotherapeutic approaches rather than monotherapy may be necessary to reverse the multifactorial mechanisms of immune suppression in myeloproliferative neoplasms. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03065400.

Abstract Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), gastritis (EG), and/or duodenitis (EoD) are associated with accumulation and activation of eosinophils and mast cells in the esophagus, stomach, and/or duodenum, respectively. Lirentelimab (AK002), an antibody against siglec-8, depletes eosinophils and inhibits mast cells. We performed an open-label extension (OLE) study of subjects who completed ENIGMA (a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study of lirentelimab in adults with symptomatic, biopsy-confirmed EG and/or EoD, with or without EoE) to evaluate long-term responses. Methods Subjects who received 4 monthly infusions of lirentelimab or placebo during ENIGMA (n = 59) were eligible for the OLE; they received monthly, escalating doses of lirentelimab (0.3 or 1 mg/kg escalating to 3 mg/kg). Symptoms were assessed weekly using an electronic daily patient-reported outcome questionnaire and total symptom scores (TSS) were calculated. Patients underwent upper endoscopy with biopsy at screening and at the end of ENIGMA (day 99, week 16, blinded); in the OLE, endoscopies were performed on day 323 (30 weeks after the first dose in the OLE). Histopathology was assessed by a single pathologist. Results Fifty-eight subjects entered the OLE; 45 completed ≥52 weeks lirentelimab (including exposure during ENIGMA) and 29 completed 70 weeks. Mean TSS improved through week 70 (Figure 1). Subjects receiving 70 weeks lirentelimab (ENIGMA+OLE) had further improvements in TSS from baseline (mean reductions: 68% at weeks 29–30, 70% at weeks 51–52, 75% at weeks 69–70). Symptom scores (abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, early satiety, appetite loss, abdominal cramping, bloating, diarrhea) decreased significantly from baseline. Treatment response was not associated with concomitant EoE. The most common adverse event was mild to moderate infusion-related reactions, usually with the first infusion. Conclusion In the OLE of the ENIGMA study, patients with EG and or EoD (with or without concomitant EoE) who received lirentelimab had sustained tissue eosinophil depletion and significant long-term symptom improvement. Symptoms continued to improve with duration of treatment. Lirentelimab appears to be a promising targeted treatment for EG and/or EoD.

Abstract Although the prevalence of eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) is increasing, there is evidence that eosinophilic gastritis and/or duodenitis (EG/EoD) are underdiagnosed. Patients with EG/EoD often present with chronic, non-specific gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, similar to patients with functional GI disorders. We hypothesized that systematic evaluation, including multiple esophageal, gastric and duodenal biopsies, of patients with chronic GI symptoms might reveal a high rate of gastroduodenal eosinophila, with or without eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Methods We performed a prospective multi-center study of patients with non-specific GI symptoms for ≥6 months, from 20 sites. Patients completed a questionnaire assessing abdominal pain, abdominal cramping, early satiety, bloating, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and loss of appetite. Those with daily average symptom severity scores ≥3/10 for any single symptom underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with collection of 4 esophageal (EoE), 8 gastric, and 4 duodenal biopsies, analyzed by central pathologists. Histologic criteria for EoE was ≥15eos/hpf in ≥1 esophageal site and for EG/EoD was peak eosinophil counts ≥30/hpf in ≥5 gastric hpfs and/or 3 duodenal hpfs—criteria used in randomized trials. Results Of 556 patients screened, 405 (73%) met symptom criteria and underwent EGD; 181 patients (45%, mean age 45, 73% female) who underwent EGD met the histologic criteria for EG/EoD, and of these, 7% also had EoE diagnosed. Overall 2% met histologic criteria for EoE alone. Of patients who met the histologic criteria for EG/EoD, 93% were previously diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), or functional dyspepsia (FD) (Figure 1). The average duration of GI symptoms in the screened population as well as those that met histologic criteria for EG/EoD was 11 years. Conclusion Forty-five percent of patients with moderate-to-severe GI symptoms who underwent EGD met histologic criteria for EG/EoD. Over 90% of these patients had previously been diagnosed with GERD, IBS, and/or FD, and had minimal overlap with EoE. EGD with systematic gastroduodenal biopsies, and intentional evaluation for tissue eosinophilia, should be performed in patients with chronic GI symptoms. Accurate diagnosis of EG/EoD is required for appropriate, targeted treatment and improved outcomes of patients with moderate-to-severe GI symptoms.

Abstract The basis for acquired resistance to JAK inhibition in patients with JAK2-driven hematologic malignancies is not well understood. We report a patient with a myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) with a BCR activator of RhoGEF and GTPase (BCR)–JAK2 fusion with initial hematologic response to ruxolitinib who rapidly developed B-lymphoid blast transformation. We analyzed pre-ruxolitinib and blast transformation samples using genome sequencing, DNA mate-pair sequencing (MPseq), RNA sequencing (RNA-seq), and chromosomal microarray to characterize possible mechanisms of resistance. No resistance mutations in the BCR-JAK2 fusion gene or transcript were identified, and fusion transcript expression levels remained stable. However, at the time of blast transformation, MPseq detected a new IKZF1 copy-number loss, which is predicted to result in loss of normal IKZF1 protein translation. RNA-seq revealed significant upregulation of genes negatively regulated by IKZF1, including IL7R and CRLF2. Disease progression was also characterized by adaptation to an activated B-cell receptor (BCR)–like signaling phenotype, with marked upregulation of genes such as CD79A, CD79B, IGLL1, VPREB1, BLNK, ZAP70, RAG1, and RAG2. In summary, IKZF1 deletion and a switch from cytokine dependence to activated BCR-like signaling phenotype represent putative mechanisms of ruxolitinib resistance in this case, recapitulating preclinical data on resistance to JAK inhibition in CRLF2-rearranged Philadelphia chromosome-like acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Abstract The discipline of Cardio-Oncology has seen tremendous growth over the past decade. It is devoted to the cardiovascular (CV) care of the cancer patient, especially to the mitigation and management of CV complications or toxicities of cancer therapies, which can have profound implications on prognosis. To that effect, many studies have assessed CV toxicities in patients undergoing various types of cancer therapies; however, direct comparisons have proven difficult due to lack of uniformity in CV toxicity endpoints. Similarly, in clinical practice, there can be substantial differences in the understanding of what constitutes CV toxicity, which can lead to significant variation in patient management and outcomes. This document addresses these issues and provides consensus definitions for the most commonly reported CV toxicities, including cardiomyopathy/heart failure and myocarditis, vascular toxicity, and hypertension, as well as arrhythmias and QTc prolongation. The current document reflects a harmonizing review of the current landscape in CV toxicities and the definitions used to define these. This consensus effort aims to provide a structure for definitions of CV toxicity in the clinic and for future research. It will be important to link the definitions outlined herein to outcomes in clinical practice and CV endpoints in clinical trials. It should facilitate communication across various disciplines to improve clinical outcomes for cancer patients with CV diseases.

Abstract Background The symptom burden associated with cancer and its treatment can negatively affect patients’ quality of life and survival. Symptom-focused collaborative care model (CCM) interventions can improve outcomes, but only if patients engage with them. We assessed the receptivity of severely symptomatic oncology patients to a remote nurse-led CCM intervention. Methods In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge trial conducted as part of the National Cancer Institute IMPACT Consortium (E2C2, NCT03892967), patients receiving cancer care were asked to rate their sleep disturbance, pain, anxiety, emotional distress, fatigue, and limitations in physical function. Patients reporting at least 1 severe symptom (≥7/10) were offered phone consultation with a nurse symptom care manager (RN SCM). Initially, patients had to “opt-in” to receive a call, but the protocol was later modified so they had to “opt-out” if they did not want a call. We assessed the impact of opt-in vs opt-out framing and patient characteristics on receptiveness to RN SCM calls. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Of the 1204 symptom assessments (from 864 patients) on which at least 1 severe symptom was documented, 469 (39.0%) indicated receptivity to an RN SCM phone call. The opt-out period (odds ratio [OR] = 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12 to 2.32, P = .01), receiving care at a tertiary care center (OR = 3.59, 95% CI = 2.18 to 5.91, P < .001), and having severe pain (OR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.62, P = .002) were associated with statistically significantly greater willingness to receive a call. Conclusions Many severely symptomatic patients were not receptive to an RN SCM phone call. Better understanding of reasons for refusal and strategies for improving patient receptivity are needed.