Citations

AbstractAimsTo compare brief advice (BA), motivational interviewing (MI), rate reduction (RR), and combined MI and RR (MI + RR) to promote smoking cessation in smokers not ready to quit.DesignRandomized controlled trial with four parallel groups of smoking cessation intervention. Participants were randomly assigned 1:2:2:2 to receive one of the following interventions: BA (n = 128), MI (n = 258), RR (n = 257), and MI + RR (n = 260).SettingThe United States. All participant contact occurred over the telephone to be consistent with the typical quit line format.ParticipantsA total of 903 adult smokers. Participants had a mean age of 49 (SD = 13.3) years and were 28.9% male and 63.3% Caucasian.InterventionsThe BA group received advice similar to typical smoking cessation quit lines. The MI group received advice using basic MI principles to elicit language that indicates behavioral change. The RR group received behavioral skills training and nicotine gum. The MI + RR group combined elements of MI and RR conditions. All interventions were six sessions.MeasurementsThe primary outcome measure was self‐reported point prevalence at 12 months. The secondary outcome was self‐reported prolonged abstinence at 12 months.FindingsIntention to treat (ITT) point prevalence at 12 months indicated that BA (10.9%) had significantly lower point prevalence rates than RR (27.2%, OR = 3.17, 1.69–5.94), and MI + RR (26.9%, OR = 3.16, 1.68–5.93). BA did not have a significantly lower point prevalence rate than MI (15.5%, OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 0.81–3.02).ConclusionsThis randomized controlled trial provided evidence that rate reduction, which offers structured behavioral skills and nicotine gum, either alone or combined with motivational interviewing, is the most effective form of cessation intervention for smokers not ready to quit.

AstraZeneca coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations have recently been implicated in thromboembolism formations. Our aim was to investigate the outcomes of patients with thromboembolic events following the AstraZeneca vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AZD1222). A literature search was performed from December 2019 to September 2021. Eligible studies must report participants older than 18 years vaccinated with AstraZeneca and outcomes of thromboembolic events. Pooled mean or proportion were analyzed using a random-effects model. A total of 45 unique studies (number of patients = 144, 64.6% women, mean age 21–68 years) were included. The most common presenting adverse events were headache (12.1%), intracerebral hemorrhage (7.5%), and hemiparesis (7%). The most common thromboembolic adverse events were cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (38.5%) and deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (21.1%). The most common radiologic finding were intracerebral hemorrhage and cerebral venous thrombosis. Laboratory findings included thrombocytopenia (75%) and hypofibrinogenemia (41%). On admission, 64 patients tested positive for PF4-Heparin ELISA assay (80%). Seventy-four patients were hospitalized with 22 being admitted to the ICU. A total of 78 patients recovered while 39 patients died. This meta-analysis presents evidence to suggest vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) following AstraZeneca vaccine. Clinical practice must, therefore, account for the possibility of VITT and subsequent embolic events in certain individuals’ postvaccination with adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccines. Serum anti-PF4 suggests diagnostic value for VITT and could subsequently inform treatment choices in such instances.

AbstractErdheim–Chester disease (ECD) is a histiocytic neoplasm that predominantly harbors mitogen‐activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway variants. MAPK inhibitors typically are effective treatments, but mutations outside the MAPK pathway, such as CSF1R variants, may cause refractory ECD. We describe a patient with a novel somatic mutation in CSF1R (CSF1RR549_E554delinsQ) that resulted in refractory ECD affecting the central nervous system. Cell model studies, RNA sequencing analysis, and in silico protein modeling suggested that she had a gain‐of‐function mutation occurring in a region critical for autoinhibition. The patient was treated with pexidartinib, a CSF1R inhibitor, and has had a complete clinical and metabolic response lasting more than 1.5 years to date. To our knowledge, this is the first report to describe successful treatment of a patient with ECD by using an agent that specifically targets CSF1R. This case also highlights the critical role of individualized molecular profiling to identify novel therapeutic targets in ECD.

Abstract Purpose: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is molecularly and clinically heterogeneous, and can be subtyped according to genetic alterations, cell-of-origin, or microenvironmental signatures using high-throughput genomic data at the DNA or RNA level. Although high-throughput proteomic profiling has not been available for DLBCL subtyping, MYC/BCL2 protein double expression (DE) is an established prognostic biomarker in DLBCL. The purpose of this study is to reveal the relative prognostic roles of DLBCL genetic, phenotypic, and microenvironmental biomarkers. Experimental Design: We performed targeted next-generation sequencing; IHC for MYC, BCL2, and FN1; and fluorescent multiplex IHC for microenvironmental markers in a large cohort of DLBCL. We performed correlative and prognostic analyses within and across DLBCL genetic subtypes and MYC/BCL2 double expressors. Results: We found that MYC/BCL2 double-high-expression (DhE) had significant adverse prognostic impact within the EZB genetic subtype and LymphGen-unclassified DLBCL cases but not within MCD and ST2 genetic subtypes. Conversely, KMT2D mutations significantly stratified DhE but not non-DhE DLBCL. T-cell infiltration showed favorable prognostic effects within BN2, MCD, and DhE but unfavorable effects within ST2 and LymphGen-unclassified cases. FN1 and PD-1–high expression had significant adverse prognostic effects within multiple DLBCL genetic/phenotypic subgroups. The prognostic effects of DhE and immune biomarkers within DLBCL genetic subtypes were independent although DhE and high Ki-67 were significantly associated with lower T-cell infiltration in LymphGen-unclassified cases. Conclusions: Together, these results demonstrated independent and additive prognostic effects of phenotypic MYC/BCL2 and microenvironment biomarkers and genetic subtyping in DLBCL prognostication, important for improving DLBCL classification and identifying prognostic determinants and therapeutic targets.

Abstract Introduction Histiocytic disorders pose significant diagnostic and management challenges for the clinicians due to diverse clinical manifestations and often non-specific histopathologic findings. Herein, we report the tumor board experience from the first-of-its-kind Histiocytosis Working Group (HWG). Materials and Methods The HWG was established in June 2017 and consists of experts from 10 subspecialties that discuss cases in a multidisciplinary format. We present the outcome of tumor board case discussions during the first 2 years since its inception (June 2017-June 2019). Results Forty cases with a suspected histiocytic disorder were reviewed at HWG during this time period. Average number of subspecialties involved in HWG case discussion was 5 (range, 2-9). Histiocytosis Working Group tumor board recommendations led to significant changes in the care of 24 (60%) patients. These included change in diagnosis (n = 11, 27%) and change in treatment (n = 13, 33%). Conclusion Our report highlights the feasibility of a multidisciplinary tumor board and its impact on outcomes of patients with histiocytic disorders.

AbstractBackgroundAmyloid‐related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), edema (E) or hemorrhagic (H) type, have been reported in trials of anti‐β‐amyloid passive immunotherapies in sporadic and dominantly inherited Alzheimer Disease (DIAD). However, beyond APOE‐ɛ4 the risk factors and clinical implications of ARIA are not well understood, especially in DIAD populations. Here we characterize ARIA, focusing on ARIA‐E in the DIAN‐TU‐001 trial evaluating gantenerumab and solanezumab in DIAD.MethodThe DIAN‐TU‐001 trial enrolled 194 participants, including 144 DIAD mutation‐carriers receiving gantenerumab (n=52), solanezumab (n=52), or a placebo (n=40). Clinical assessments included the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR). Imaging assessments included PiB‐PET and safety MR, including T2‐FLAIR and T2*‐GRE. Treatment dosage and APOE‐ɛ4 status were also reported.ResultEleven participants developed a total of 14 ARIA‐E episodes (discovered on scheduled safety MR) and three had associated mild symptoms reported in retrospect (e.g. headache, imbalance disorder). Though one ARIA‐E case was observed in the solanezumab arm, the following results focus on the gantenerumab arm to prevent unblinding. Recipients of gantenerumab were more likely to develop ARIA‐E compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR)=9.29, 95% confidence interval (CI)=[1.1,75.9], p‐value<0.05). ARIA‐E participants were PiB‐PET+ and 60% were CDR>0. APOE‐ɛ4 tends to be associated with risk for developing ARIA‐E (OR=5.0, 95%CI=[1.0,30.4], p‐value=0.055). ARIA‐E were not observed at initial 225mg dose and were first observed after a titration step (within 4‐24 weeks, after 1‐6 injections, Table 1). Time‐to‐resolution of ARIA‐E was 10.4±6.2weeks. Seven of ten ARIA‐E patients paused/reduced dose escalation and three discontinued treatment. Overall, developing ARIA‐E did not increase the odds of trial discontinuation (OR=1.57, 95%CI=[0.34,7.33], p‐value=0.57). ARIA‐E occurred primarily in the occipital lobe (71%) with associated incident ARIA‐H (microhemorrhages or superficial siderosis) in 60% of ARIA‐E participants. ARIA‐E size was associated with microhemorrhage count (Spearman’s rho=0.72, p‐value<0.05), rate of change (rho=0.78, p‐value<0.01), and baseline PiB‐PET (rho=0.68, p‐value<0.05). Normalizing by baseline, PiB‐PET decreased similarly in ARIA‐E+ (‐0.21±0.20) and ARIA‐E‐ (‐0.16±0.20) participants.ConclusionIn DIAD, gantenerumab dose over 225mg increased ARIA‐E risk, possibly more for APOE‐ɛ4 carriers. ARIA‐E was reversible, generally asymptomatic, and without increased odds of trial discontinuation. These aspects of drug response give insights for managing ARIA‐E occurrence in future trials.

Abstract Objective To examine and compare health care provider perceptions for integrating family caregivers into patient encounters and other processes of care by medical specialty. Data Sources/Setting Data were from 19 interviews conducted in 2018, 10 with primary care or palliative care providers and nine with proceduralists or interventionists in practices located in Minnesota, Florida, and Arizona. Study Design This was a qualitative study using data collected from one‐on‐one, semi‐structured interviews with physicians. Data Collection By using purposeful “maximum variation” sampling to capture differences between primary and palliative care providers and proceduralists/interventionists, data were collected, reviewed, coded, and then analyzed using inductive content analysis with a constant comparison approach. Primary Findings Primary care providers described a lack of organizational and institutional resources to support caregivers. Accordingly, they were compelled to curb caregiver engagement in order to meet patients' clinical care needs within the time and workflow demands in encounters. Proceduralists and interventionists described the need to assess caregivers for suitability to provide care during intense periods of treatment. They reported having access to more formal organizational resources for supporting caregivers. Overall, providers described a paradox, where caregivers are seen as contributing value to patient encounters until they need training, education, or support to provide care, at which point they become burdensome and require more time and resources than are typically available. Conclusions Results highlight how organizational constraints inhibit caregiver engagement in patient encounters and influence provider attitudes about engaging caregivers and assessing their unmet needs. Findings also provide insights into challenges across practice types for implementing state and federal laws that promote caregiver engagement.