Citations

Abstract Introduction: Renal light chain (AL) amyloidosis typically manifests as proteinuria with or without renal failure and is associated with a risk of progression to renal replacement therapy (RRT). A significant reduction in circulating amyloidogenic light chain is needed to achieve a renal response. Current renal response criteria are binary defining a renal response as >30% reduction in 24-h proteinuria without worsening estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Several studies suggest that greater reduction in proteinuria following successful therapy improves renal and overall survival. Methods: AL amyloidosis patients diagnosed between 2010 to 2015, achieving at least hematological partial response (hemPR) to therapy and with renal involvement (defined as 24-h non-selective proteinuria >0.5 g/24-h) were included. Four predefined renal response categories were formulated based on reduction level in pretreatment 24-h proteinuria in the absence of renal progression (≥25% decrease in eGFR): renal complete response (renCR, 24-h proteinuria ≤200 mg/24-h); renal very good partial response (renVGPR, >60% reduction in 24-h proteinuria); renal partial response (renPR, 31-60% reduction in 24-proteinuria); and renal no response (renNR, 30% or less reduction). Renal response was assessed at landmark (6-, 12-, and 24 months from treatment initiation) and as best renal response. Graded renal responses were assessed as predictors for time from diagnosis to RRT and overall survival. Results: Seven hundred and thirty-seven patients were included. The median age was 63. The breakdown of renal stage was: I, 34%; II, 52%; and III, 14%. Eighty percent of patients received 1 line of therapy within 12 months of their diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was given to 60% of the patients; 28% received autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as their first line therapy. Hematological CR was achieved in 44% of patients, followed by hematological very good partial response (38%) and hemPR (18%). RRT was required during follow-up in 15% of patients (n=108) with a median time from diagnosis to RRT of 18 (IQR 6-43) months. Twenty-eight percent of the patients died. The median follow-up of the surviving patients was 69 months (IQR 56-86). Reduction in 24-h proteinuria from baseline improved over time with a median reduction of 34%, 50% and 71% at 6-month, 12-month, and 24-months, respectively. At best response, renCR, renVGPR, renPR and renNR were achieved in 27% (n=199), 34% (n=247), 15% (n=112) and 24% (n=179) of patients, respectively. The median time to best renal response among renal responders was 17 (IQR 8-31) months, longer for renCR (23 months, IQR 10-40) compared to renVGPR (16 months, IQR 9-27) or renPR (11 months, IQR 6-19). A renal response as early as 6 months after therapy initiation was able to predict time to RRT with an increase in RRT risk with lower level of renal response at that time point (5-year RRT risk 0%, 3%, 9% and 16% for renCR, renVGPR, renPR and renNR, respectively, P<0.001, Figure 1A). Prediction of risk for RRT based on renal response depth improved at 12- and 24-months (Figure 1B-C) and at best renal response (Figure 1D). Overall survival discrimination based on renal response depth was noted as early as 12 months from therapy initiation and improved with time. Renal response criteria as best response were tested in a univariate analysis and multivariable proportional hazard models for time to RRT and OS. The graded renal response criteria demonstrated an independent prognostic role for time to RRT and OS. Along with renal stage, graded renal responses were the strongest predictors for time to RRT. Conclusions: We validated new graded renal response criteria based on reduction in 24-h proteinuria. These 4-level renal response criteria highlight the importance of achieving a deep renal response to improve renal and overall survival. These findings will allow clinicians to make decisions on therapy changes or augmentation based on response depth as early as 6-months, before irreversible renal failure develops. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Palladini: Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees; Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Milani: Celgene: Other: Travel support; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria. Schönland: Sanofi: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Pfizer: Honoraria. Hegenbart: Akcea: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kumar: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Carsgen: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Kastritis: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Beigene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Eidos: Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sorrento: Research Funding; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Landau: Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Genzyme: Honoraria. Cibeira: Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wechalekar: Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria.

Abstract Introduction: Binary cardiac response assessment using NT-proBNP is prognostic in light chain (AL) amyloidosis. Previous studies suggested that refining the criteria to multi-level cardiac responses improves prognostic prediction. We validate a graded cardiac response assessment tool in AL amyloidosis using NT-proBNP or BNP. Methods: In this retrospective, multicenter study AL amyloidosis patients who were diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, achieving at least a hematological partial response (PR) within 12 months of diagnosis and were evaluable for cardiac response (defined as baseline NT-proBNP >650 pg/mL or BNP >150 pg/mL) were included. The following response criteria were tested: cardiac complete response (carCR, nadir NT-proBNP≤350 pg/mL or BNP≤80 pg/mL); cardiac very good partial response (carVGPR, >60% reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP); Cardiac PR (carPR 31-60% reduction); and cardiac non response (carNR, ≤30% reduction). Response was assessed at fixed time points (6, 12 and 24 months from therapy initiation) and at best response. The primary outcome was overall survival based on depth of cardiac response. Multivariate Cox proportional models were analyzed to determine independent prognostic factors for OS and time to cardiac progression using variables with p-value <0.1 in a univariate analysis. Results: Six hundred and fifty-one patients were included. The median age was 64 years. Mayo 2004 cardiac stage II, IIIA and IIIB was present in 47.5%, 38% and 14.5% of patients, respectively (by definition, patients with Mayo stage I do not have cardiac amyloidosis evaluable for response). Seventy-six percent of patients received only one line of therapy within the initial 12 months of diagnosis. Bortezomib-based therapy was the most common (70.2% of patients) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in 15.7% of patients. Hematological CR, hematological VGPR and hematological PR as best response was achieved in 38%, 39% and 23% of patients, respectively. Forty-three percent of the patients have died, with 36% of the patients dying within 5-years of diagnosis. The median follow-up of the surviving patients is 70 months (IQR 56-84). Cardiac response was evaluable using NT-proBNP in 494 patients (75.9%), BNP in 109 patients (16.7%) and both NT-proBNP and BNP in 48 patients (7.4%). The latter two were grouped together for further analysis. The median time to best cardiac response among responders was 12 months (IQR 7-21 months; 18 months for carCR, 11.5 months for carVGPR and 9.5 months for carPR). Cardiac response improved over time with a median percentage reduction in NT-proBNP/BNP compared to baseline of 15%, 37% and 54%, at 6, 12 and 24 months respectively. Cardiac responses at 6-, 12- and 24-months are depicted in Figure 1A. At best cardiac response, carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR were achieved in 16%, 26%, 23% and 35% of patients, respectively. Patients who achieved a carCR had lower cardiac stage at diagnosis compared to patients who achieved carVGPR or carPR (stage II 65% vs 47% vs 47%, respectively; P<0.001). At least carPR at 6 and 12 months and at least carVGPR at 24-months was associated with better survival compared with a lower depth of response. At best cardiac response, deeper cardiac response was associated with a longer survival (5-year OS 93%, 80%, 62% and 35% for carCR, carVGPR, carPR and carNR, respectively; P<0.001, Figure 1B). A 2-year landmark analysis (excluding early deaths not evaluable for cardiac response depth) confirmed improved survival with a deeper cardiac response (5-year OS 93%, 82%, 70% and 58%, P<0.001; Figure 1C). These cardiac response criteria were independent predictors of survival and time to cardiac progression (>30% rise in NT-proBNP/BNP) in multivariate analysis that included age, type of first line therapy, light chain burden, cardiac stage, and hematological response. Conclusions: We validated the prognostic value of graded cardiac response. These response criteria allow better discrimination of patient populations and assessment of treatment effectiveness in an era of improved therapies for AL amyloidosis. The study emphasizes the importance of early diagnosis which increases the likelihood of deep and durable cardiac responses. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Palladini: Siemens: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Janssen Global Services: Honoraria, Other: advisory board fees. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants. Hegenbart: Alnylam: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Akcea: Honoraria. Kumar: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Kastritis: Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Dimopoulos: Beigene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Liedtke: GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Witteles: Eidos: Research Funding; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sanchorawala: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sorrento: Research Funding. Landau: Genzyme: Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cibeira: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Akcea: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gertz: Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option.

Abstract Introduction Systemic immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare disease characterized by amyloid fibril deposits, most commonly in the heart and kidneys. Management of the disease relies primarily on off-label use of multiple myeloma therapies. No treatments are approved for AL amyloidosis in the relapsed/refractory setting. In the phase 3, open-label TOURMALINE-AL1 trial (NCT01659658), patients with relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis were randomized 1:1 to receive either oral ixazomib plus dexamethasone (Id) or physician's choice (CH) in 28-day cycles, and followed until progression or unacceptable toxicity. An interim analysis demonstrated that Id was well tolerated and, although the primary endpoint of hematologic response rate was not met, time-to-event efficacy analyses consistently favored Id. We report an analysis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and AL amyloidosis symptoms from TOURMALINE-AL1; such data for AL amyloidosis in general have been limited. Methods Four PRO instruments were used to collect data to support PRO-related secondary endpoints during the treatment period: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group Neurotoxicity subscale (FACT/GOG-Ntx), an amyloidosis symptom questionnaire (ASQ), the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 3-Level (EQ-5D-3L), and the Visual Analogue Scale (EQ VAS) were collected at screening, day 1 of each cycle, and end of treatment (EOT), and the 36-item Short Form General Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2) was collected at screening, day 1 of every third cycle, and EOT. Analysis of PRO data included descriptive summaries of means and change from baseline and a linear mixed model (LMM) for repeated measures for patients in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population with a baseline and at least one postbaseline PRO-specific assessment. No adjustment was made for multiple comparisons. Data cutoff date was 20 February 2019. Results The ITT population included 168 patients (Id: n=85; CH: n=83), who completed up to 58 cycles (Id) and up to 43 cycles (CH); median treatment duration was 11.7 vs 5.0 months, respectively. PRO compliance in the treatment period was high for all instruments (Figure). Baseline HRQOL as measured by the SF-36v2 and EQ VAS was similar between treatment arms. During the treatment period, SF-36v2 Mental and Physical Component Summary (MCS and PCS) scores remained stable relative to baseline and were similar between arms; the 8 subscale scores were also generally maintained over time, and mostly similar between arms. Least-squares (LS) mean changes from baseline were significantly higher (better HRQoL) for Id compared with CH at several cycles in the SF-36v2 Role Physical and Vitality subscales (p<0.05) (Figure); no subscales demonstrated significant differences favoring CH. Symptom burden as measured by the FACT/GOG-Ntx and ASQ was low at baseline, leaving little room for improvement. FACT/GOG-Ntx scores were generally maintained over time. In the treatment period, there were small but significant differences in LS mean changes from baseline favoring Id over CH at multiple cycles for 7 of the 11 individual items and the neurotoxicity and sensory summary scores; there were small but significant differences favoring CH over Id for 1 individual item (trouble hearing) at a few later cycles. The ASQ total score trended downward slightly (lower burden) during treatment after the first few cycles in both arms. There were significant differences per the LMM favoring Id over CH at cycles 7 and 21 (p<0.05). In both arms, EQ VAS scores trended upward (better HRQoL) during treatment and then declined slightly at EOT. (LMM analyses were not conducted for EQ-5D.) At EOT, a slight deterioration from baseline was observed in actual scores for SF-36v2 domains and summary scales, FACT/GOG-Ntx neurotoxicity and sensory subscales, and ASQ items and total score for both Id and CH. Conclusions Relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis patients treated with Id experienced HRQOL and symptoms that were similar to or trended better than patients treated with CH. These data suggest that treatment with Id, although with a substantially longer treatment duration, did not have a negative impact on HRQOL in patients with relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis, a population with currently no approved treatment options. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Sanchorawala: Regeneron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Proclara: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Sorrento: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Wechalekar: Caelum Biosciences: Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Kim: Janssen, BMS: Research Funding. Schönland: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Pfizer: Honoraria. Landau: Takeda, Janssen, Caelum Biosciences, Celgene, Pfizer, Genzyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Genzyme: Honoraria. Fiona: Pfizer: Research Funding. Suzuki: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; ONO: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Comenzo: Karyopharm: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Unum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Patents & Royalties: WO2016187546A1, Research Funding; Prothena Biosciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Caelum: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cherepanov: Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Hayden: Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kumar: Takeda: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Labotka: Takeda: Current Employment. Faller: Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co.: Current Employment; Viracta Therapeutics, Inc: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company, Ended employment in the past 24 months, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Briacell, Inc: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Kastritis: Amgen, Genesis Pharma, Janssen, Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer: Research Funding; Amgen, Genesis Pharma, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer: Honoraria.

Background: In Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders (ADRD) research, common outcome measures include cognitive and functional impairment, as well as persons with mild cognitive impairment (pwMCI) and care partner self-reported mood and quality of life. Studies commonly analyze these measures separately, which potentially leads to issues of multiple comparisons and/or multicollinearity among measures while ignoring the latent constructs they may be measuring. Objective: This study sought to examine the latent factor structure of a battery of 12-13 measures of domains mentioned above, used in a multicomponent behavioral intervention (The HABIT® program) for pwMCI and their partners. Methods: Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) involved 214 pwMCI-partner pairs. Subsequent Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) used 730 pairs in both pre- and post-intervention conditions. Results: EFA generated a three-factor model. Factors could be characterized as partner adjustment (29.9%), pwMCI adjustment (18.1%), and pwMCI impairment (12.8%). The subsequent CFA confirmed our findings, and the goodness-of-fit for this model was adequate in both the pre- (CFI = 0.937; RMSEA = 0.057, p = 0.089) and post-intervention (CFI = 0.942; RMSEA = 0.051, p = 0.430) groups. Conclusion: Results demonstrated a stable factor structure across cohorts and intervention conditions suggesting that three broad factors may provide a straightforward and meaningful model to assess intervention outcome, at least during the MCI phase of ADRD.

There is currently limited and mixed evidence for the cognitive benefits of Computerized Cognitive Training (CCT) and yoga in persons with Mild Cognitive Impairment (pwMCI). The objective of this study was to investigate the benefit of computerized cognitive training (CCT) vs. physical (yoga) intervention on cognitive abilities. Participants in this study were part of the larger Mayo Clinic’s Healthy Action to Benefit Independence and Thinking (HABIT) program comparative effectiveness trial. The HABIT program is designed for pwMCI and their care partner and consists of five behavioral interventions: CCT, Memory Support System-Calendar (MSS-Calendar), wellness education, support groups, and yoga. The subtractive study design randomly withheld one of the interventions for a total of five study arms. Longitudinal mixed-effects regression models were used to investigate the hypothesis that CCT and yoga has a greater positive impact on psychomotor and basic attention abilities at 12 months post-intervention as compared to the other HABIT interventions. Findings showed CCT had a positive impact compared to yoga on the Cogstate psychomotor/attention composite at 12 months post-intervention (ES = 0.54; unadjusted p value = 0.007, adjusted p value = 0.021). The impact of yoga or combining CCT with yoga did not show statistically significant improvement. Continued CCT practice at home showed further benefit on psychomotor/attention at 12 months post-intervention. There was no significant benefit of CCT or yoga on Cogstate learning/working memory composite.

BACKGROUND Enteroendocrine cells (EECs) in the gastrointestinal (GI) epithelium are specialized sensors of luminal chemicals and forces. Upon stimulation, EECs release a variety of neurotransmitters and hormones, but cellular mechanisms of excitation‐secretion coupling are poorly understood. We recently discovered that a population of EECs expresses the mechanosensitive ion channel Piezo2, which is necessary for force‐dependent intracellular Ca2+ increase and serotonin release. However, the molecular mechanism that links Piezo2 and serotonin release is unknown. In other sensory systems, the Cacna1h ‐encoded t‐type voltage‐gated calcium channel Cav3.2 is important in mechanotransduction for linking mechanical activation with neurotransmitter release. AIM to determine if Cav3.2 is expressed and functionally relevant in EECs. METHODS Quantitative RT‐PCR for Cacna1h mRNA expression was evaluated in colon epithelium of control and NeuroD1 Cre x RiboTag mice, in which actively transcribed mRNA specifically from EECs is tagged with hemagglutinin (HA). NeuroD1 Cre x tdTomato colon cross‐sections were fixed and immunolabeled with anti‐Cav3.2 antibody. Single primary NeuroD1 cre x GCaMP5 EECs were mechanically stimulated and Cav3.2 role in mechanotransduction was tested by pharmacology (Ca2+ free, nickel, mibefradil, ω‐agatoxin IVA) and Cacna1h siRNA knockdown. RESULTS Murine colon epithelium expressed Cav3.2 mRNA. In NeuroD1 Cre x RiboTag mouse, HA co‐localized with EEC marker Chromogranin A (Chga). NeuroD1+ EEC ribosomal trapped mRNA was enriched for markers of epithelium (Vil1), EEC (Chga), and enriched 7.0‐fold for Cav3.2 (n=3, p<0.05 compared to whole epithelium). Immunohistochemistry in NeuroD1 Cre x tdTomato showed that Cav3.2 co‐localized specifically with tdTomato (NeuroD1+) EECs. In primary NeuroD1+ EECs, Cav3.2 inhibition by all pharmacologic agents and siRNA knockdown inhibited mechanically induced Ca2+ response (96±1% for Ca2+ free, 71±9% nickel, 61±6% mibefradil, 80±4% ω‐agatoxin IVA and 96±1% Cav3.2 siRNA, n=3–18, p<0.05 compared to control untreated cells or cells treated with non‐targeted siRNA). CONCLUSIONS Cav3.2 is densely and specifically expressed in mouse colon EECs and it is important for regulating Ca2+ in EEC mechanotransduction. Future studies will determine how Cav3.2 channels contribute to EEC electrical excitability, excitation‐secretion coupling, and ultimately EEC Cav3.2 roles in GI physiology. Support or Funding Information Supported by NIH DK106456, NIH DK084567, and AGA RSA This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

Background: Isatuximab (SAR650984) is an IgG1k monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity to CD38 expressed on plasma cells in AL amyloidosis. It has been shown to be efficacious and well tolerated in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma as a single agent and in combination. Here we report on the preliminary results of a prospective multi-center, phase II study of isatuximab in previously treated patients with AL amyloidosis (NCT03499808). Methods: Eligibility included age ≥ 18 years, relapsed or refractory systemic AL amyloidosis, ≥ 1 prior line of therapy, measurable disease (defined as a positive monoclonal serum immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) or urine IFE, a serum free light chain ratio outside of the normal range (0.25-1.65), and a difference in the involved versus the uninvolved serum free light chain of ≥ 4.5 mg/dL), at least one organ involved, not refractory to daratumumab, ECOG performance status 0-2, creatinine clearance ≥25 mL/min as measured by 24-hour urine collection or as estimated by Cockcroft and Gault formula, and NT-proBNP ≤8500 pg/mL. Patients received isatuximab intravenously 20 mg/kg weekly during the first 28 day cycle and every other week during cycles 2 through 24 for a maximum of 24 cycles. The primary objective was hematologic response with secondary objectives of organ response, safety, progression free survival, and overall survival. Results: At data cut-off (July 24, 2020), 43 patients were registered from March 2018 to September 2019 at 14 institutions. Thirty six patients were eligible with 35 patients receiving at least one dose of isatuximab. Of the eligible patients, the median age was 70 (range 40-81). Prior therapies included proteasome inhibitors in 32 patients (89%), high dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant in 17 patients (47%), immunomodulatory therapy in 9 patients (25%), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapy in 2 patients (6%). Single organ system involvement was seen in 19 patients (53%), ≥ 2 organ systems in 17 patients (47%), 16 patients (44%) had renal involvement, and 24 (67%) had cardiac involvement. For those with cardiac involvement, 7 patients (29%) had cardiac biomarker stage II and 9 patients (38%) had stage III disease using the Revised Mayo Staging (Kumar S et al., J Clin Oncol, 2012). A total of 17 patients remain on therapy. The median duration on treatment for eligible patients is currently 11.8 months (current range, 0.3-22.1). Of the 19 patients who discontinued treatment, the most common reasons included adverse events in 5 patients (26%), disease progression in 4 patients (21%), sub-optimal response in 2 patients (11%), and concerns related to COVID-19 in 2 patients (11%). The current median follow up is 16.3 months. The most common drug-related AEs were infusion related reactions in 18 patients (50%) with the majority (16/18) being grade I or II, anemia in 9 patients (25%) with the majority (8/9) being grade I, and lymphopenia in 8 patients (22%). Patient characteristics and preliminary safety data were previously presented at the International Symposium on Amyloidosis. The overall hematologic response rate was 77%. Hematological complete response (CR) was observed in 1 of 35 evaluable (completing at least 1 dose) patients (3%), very-good-partial response (VGPR) in 19 patients (54%), and partial response (PR) in 7 patients (20%). Conclusions: Isatuximab demonstrates encouraging efficacy in previously treated patients with AL amyloidosis. The administration of isatuximab in these patients is associated with a good safety profile similar to other monoclonal antibodies against CD38. The data will be updated at the meeting. Disclosures Sanchorawala: Prothena: Research Funding; Caelum: Research Funding; Oncopeptide: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Regeneron: Other: advisory board; Caleum: Other: advisory board; Proclara: Other: advisory board; Abbvie: Other: advisory board; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Kapoor:Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Neparidze:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board; Eidos Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Diagnostic committee member . Sarosiek:Spectrum: Research Funding. Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy. Usmani:Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Celgene: Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Orlowski:Laboratory research funding from BioTheryX, and clinical research funding from CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; STATinMED Research: Consultancy; Founder of Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., with associated patents and an equity interest, though this technology does not bear on the current submission.: Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties; Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, Inc., AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech USA, Molecular Partners, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Isatuximab is FDA approved for relapsed refractory myeloma in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Isatuximab is not FDA approved for AL amyloidosis.

AbstractBackgroundThe American Academy of Neurology Practice Guidelines recommends physical exercise to help maintain cognition in people with Mild Cognitive Impairment (pwMCI). We previously demonstrated yoga’s benefit in maintenance of memory related activities of daily living at one year follow‐up in pwMCI (Chandler et al., 2019), and yoga may be beneficial in offsetting a sense of burden in care partners at 12 months (Amofa et al., submitted). In this analysis, we sought to examine the impact of yoga training on physical performance in pwMCI and their care partners.MethodIn this multisite, randomized clinical trial, we enrolled 272 patients meeting National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association criteria for MCI and a care partner. The intervention program was modeled on the 10 day Mayo Clinic HABIT Healthy Action to Benefit Independence and Thinking® program. Of 5 possible interventions (memory compensation training, computerized cognitive training, yoga, patient and partner support groups, and wellness education), 1 of 5 interventions was randomly selected to be withheld for each intervention group, thus allowing us to examine comparative effectiveness. Participants and their partners had 1‐day booster sessions at 6 and 12 months after intervention. The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), a measure of balance, gait speed, and repeated chair stands was used to assess physical function outcomes.ResultThere was a general pattern of physical decline on the SPPB over the year in pwMCI, regardless of yoga training (d=‐0.04, p=0.78) (Figure 1, Panel A). Among care partners, those randomized to the no yoga group had a worse decline in physical function compared to those receiving yoga (d=‐0.31, p=0.034) (Figure 1, Panel B). While not reaching statistical significance in subgroup comparisons, yoga training tended to have a greater effect on SPPB than computerized cognitive training (d = 0.35, p = .06) or wellness education (d = 0.32, p =.09) (Table 1).ConclusionParticipation in yoga had a positive impact on physical performance outcomes at one year for care partners, but did not counteract general physical decline in pwMCI.