Citations

Background: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are commonly used to treat obesity and diabetes but are linked to a variety of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs). Real-world data on GLP-1 RA-related GI AEs and outcomes are limited. This study assessed GI AEs and adverse outcomes using the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Methods: This retrospective pharmacovigilance study used the US FDA FAERS database (2007–2023). We searched GLP-1 RA medications, AEs, and adverse outcomes. Demographic, treatment indication, and AE data were collected. Descriptive analysis involved frequencies and percentages, while reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio, Bayesian confidence propagation neural network, and multivariate logistic regression were used to analyze GLP-1 RA-related GI AEs and outcomes. Results: From 2007 to 2023, a total of 187,757 AEs were reported with GLP-1 RAs, and 16,568 were GLP-1 RA-associated GI AEs in the US. Semaglutide was linked to higher odds of nausea (IC025: 0.151, βCoeff: 0.314), vomiting (IC025: 0.334, βCoeff: 0.495), and delayed gastric emptying (IC025: 0.342, βCoeff: 0.453). Exenatide was associated with pancreatitis (IC025: 0.601, βCoeff: 0.851) and death (ROR: 4.50, IC025: 1.101). Overall, semaglutide had a broader range of notable adverse effects; by comparison, dulaglutide and liraglutide use was associated with fewer significant GI AEs. Conclusions: Analysis of the FAERS data reveals that GLP-1 RAs, particularly semaglutide and exenatide, are significantly associated with specific GI AEs, such as nausea, vomiting, delayed gastric emptying, and pancreatitis. Clinicians should be aware of these potential risks to ensure optimal monitoring and patient safety. This study demonstrated the utility of pharmacovigilance data in identifying safety signals, which can inform future pharmacoepidemiological investigations to confirm causal relationships. Clinicians should be aware of these potential risks to ensure optimal monitoring and patient safety.

Abstract Aims To evaluate clinical outcomes, echocardiographic features, and the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan across age groups in the PARAGON-HF trial. Methods and results A total of 4796 participants ≥50 years of age with chronic heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥45% were divided into three age groups: <65 years (n = 825), 65–74 years (n = 1772), and ≥75 years (n = 2199). Echocardiograms of 1097 patients were analysed in a standardized fashion at a core imaging laboratory. The primary composite outcome was total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular (CV) death. Older patients were more likely to experience primary composite outcomes (compared to patients <65 years, adjusted rate ratio [aRR] for ≥75 years: 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21–1.61), total HF hospitalization (aRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09–1.49), and CV death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.04, 95% CI 1.44–2.87). Age did not modify the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan on primary composite endpoint (pinteraction = 0.79) in the overall population or in those with LVEF ≤57%. Older adults randomized to sacubitril/valsartan were more likely to develop hypotension compared to those receiving valsartan (pinteraction = 0.026). Older patients had smaller left ventricular chamber sizes, higher LVEF, and were more likely to have abnormal measures of diastolic function. Conclusion Older patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction had higher event rates than younger patients, more adverse events overall, and more hypotension when treated with sacubitril/valsartan; however, the treatment benefits of sacubitril/valsartan were retained in older patients.

SummaryGlobal obesity rates have risen dramatically, now exceeding deaths from starvation. Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS), initially for severe obesity (BMI ≥35 kg/m2), is performed globally over 500 000 times annually, offering significant metabolic benefits beyond weight loss. However, varying eligibility criteria globally impact patient care and healthcare resources. Updated in 2022, ASMBS and IFSO guidelines aim to standardise MBS indications, reflecting current understanding and emphasising comprehensive preoperative assessments. Yet, clinical variability persists, necessitating consensus‐based recommendations. This modified Delphi study engaged 45 global experts to establish consensus on perioperative management in MBS. Experts selected from bariatric societies possessed expertise in MBS and participated in a two‐round Delphi protocol. Consensus was achieved on 90 of 169 statements (53.3%), encompassing multidisciplinary team composition, patient selection criteria, preoperative testing, and referral pathways. The agreement highlighted the critical role of comprehensive preoperative assessments and the integration of healthcare professionals in MBS. These findings offer essential insights to standardise perioperative practices and advocate for evidence‐based guidelines in MBS globally. The study underscores the need for unified protocols to optimise outcomes and guide future research in MBS.

Background and Objective Rehabilitation therapy plays an important role in treating physical and functional impairments observed in individuals undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT). This study assessed the rehabilitation practices implemented in the HSCT population internationally. Materials and Methods A 48-question online survey comprising questions soliciting information regarding patient characteristics, therapy details (timing, indication, and administering providers), outcome measures, and precautions were developed by an international group of cancer rehabilitation physicians. As reported by European registries, surveys were administered to personnel providing care to patients receiving HSCT at cancer centers, which comprised the top 10% of HSCT volume. In addition, emails were sent to National Medical Societies and registries in the Latin America, Asia, and Pacific regions. Results Forty-three institutions from 18 countries responded to the survey. Half of the centers provided referrals for rehabilitation therapy at the time of admission. Referrals were provided for functional decline (84.5%), risk of falls (53.3%), and discharge planning (42.2%). Rehabilitation therapies were administered by physical therapists (93.0%), occupational therapists (34.9%), therapy aides (14.0%), and speech-language pathologists (11.6%). Approximately 95% of the surveyed centers used objective functional measures such as sit-to-stand (46.5%), grip strength (46.5%), and 6-min walk/gait speed (both 34.9%). The blood counts were monitored to determine the appropriateness of the therapy modalities. Conclusion Rehabilitation practices varied internationally; however, most centers provided skilled therapy during hospitalization for HSCT, utilized objective and patient-reported outcomes, and monitored blood counts to determine the safety of administering therapy.

PURPOSE The TRK inhibitor larotrectinib is US Food and Drug Administration approved for NTRK fusion–positive solid tumors that lack a satisfactory alternative or have progressed after treatment but has not been systematically studied as a frontline therapy with a defined duration of treatment. ADVL1823 evaluated larotrectinib in patients with newly diagnosed NTRK fusion–positive solid tumors with response-adapted duration of therapy and local control. METHODS Patients received larotrectinib twice daily in 28-day cycles for a predefined duration of treatment, ranging from 6 to 26 cycles depending on response to therapy and surgical resectability. The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR) within six cycles in patients with infantile fibrosarcoma (IFS); patients with other histologic diagnoses were analyzed in a separate cohort. Secondary objectives included event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Thirty-three patients were enrolled: 18 with IFS and 15 with other solid tumors. The ORR within six cycles was 94% (17/18; 95% adjusted CI, 72.7 to 98.6) among children with IFS and 60% (9/15; 95% CI, 32.3 to 83.7) among children with other solid tumors. Six percent (2/33; 95% CI, 0.7 to 22.2) patients developed progressive disease while on therapy. Two-year EFS and OS among these groups were 82.2% (95% CI, 54.3 to 93.9) and 93.8% (95% CI, 63.2 to 99.1) for IFS and 80% (95% CI, 50.0 to 93.1) and 93.3% (95% CI, 61.3 to 99.0) for other solid tumors, respectively. Patients undergoing surgical resection of their tumor had prolonged EFS, with only 1 of 16 such patients experiencing disease progression. Four of 33 patients had dose-limiting toxicities. CONCLUSION Larotrectinib is highly active in patients with newly diagnosed NTRK fusion–positive solid tumors. Larotrectinib should be a frontline option for patients with IFS and other NTRK fusion–positive solid tumors. Local control with surgical resection remains important in the treatment of patients with IFS.

PURPOSE Lymphomas are a heterogeneous group of diseases that develop in individuals of all ages and have variable prognoses. Improved survival resulting from therapy advances has led to the emergence of diverse late effects. Although several (US)–based organizations have developed survivorship guidelines, the distinct features of lymphoma subtypes and diverse therapies used raise concerns regarding their applicability to lymphoma survivors. We compared survivorship recommendations (outside primary disease monitoring) between US clinical guidelines. METHODS We extracted information from 17 guidelines from five US-based organizations: ASCO (n = 11), American Cancer Society (n = 1), Children's Oncology Group (n = 1), Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (n = 1), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (n = 3). Guidelines were evaluated to determine whether they offer recommendations on physical effects , psychosocial and quality of life ( QOL ), and health promotion and prevention . Comparisons were focused on second primary malignancy, cardiovascular complications, and vaccination. RESULTS Survivorship recommendations on physical effects and psychosocial and QOL mainly differ in the timing and approaches for screening. Vaccination recommendations were primarily derived from other cancer populations. Identified research gaps were a lack of understanding of the risk of late effects across lymphoma subtypes, the role of social determinants of health in survivorship, and the lack of a survivorship care model that integrates lymphoma subtypes and treatment exposures. CONCLUSION This study raises awareness about the complexity and challenges of managing survivors under the umbrella diagnosis of lymphoma. The inconsistency and incompleteness of existing guidelines may lead to suboptimal survivorship care. We propose expert-based research priorities to address gaps and unmet needs to help develop risk-based follow-up recommendations to optimize survivorship care for lymphoma survivors.

Abstract Background: MCL is a B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma for which auto-HCT is often employed in first CR, based on non-randomized phase 2 trials, and a randomized trial (Dreyling et al, Blood 2005) conducted before the advent of more effective induction and maintenance regimens. The TRIANGLE trial (Dreyling et al, Lancet 2024) suggested that auto-HCT may not add benefit to more effective induction and maintenance regimens containing high-dose cytarabine, rituximab and BTK inhibitors. E4151 explored whether auto-HCT benefits pts achieving deep first remission, as measured by a highly sensitive immunoglobulin high throughput sequencing minimal residual disease (MRD) assay. Methods: EA4151 is a four arm trial conducted through the U.S. National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT-CTN). Pts with MCL between the ages of 18 and 70 and in first remission were eligible. After induction, pts underwent PET/CT, bone marrow biopsy, and the clonoSEQ® MRD assay from peripheral blood. Pts in CR with uMRD at 1 in 10-6 sensitivity (uMRD6) were randomized 1:1 to Arm A (auto-HCT + 3 years of maintenance rituximab [MR]) or Arm B (3 years of MR alone), stratified by MIPI-c score and intensive vs non-intensive induction. Pts with either MRD-positive (MRD+) CR or MRD-indeterminate CR (Arm C and Arm D, respsectively) both received auto-HCT + 3 years of MR. Pts who were MRD+ pre-transplant had MRD repeated at day 100. Primary endpoint was to compare overall survival (OS) in Arms A and B, with secondary endpoints including progression-free survival (PFS). Primary analysis population included all randomized pts. As some pts refused their assigned treatment (N=65 [25.3%] for arm A and N=2 [0.8%] for arm B), a “treated as assigned” analysis was also performed. Stratified logrank test was used to compare survival distributions. P-values are two-sided. Results: From Aug 2017 to July 2024, 650 pts were assigned to a treatment arm with 257, 259, 49, and 85 pts enrolled on Arms A, B, C, and D, respectively. Pts were 79% male and 92% white race. Median age was 60 years (range 27-70). MIPI-c was low/low-intermediate (LI) in 63% and high/ high-intermediate (HI) in 37%. Induction was intensive (defined as high-dose cytarabine-containing) in 73% and non-intensive in 27%. A BTK inhibitor was given during induction in 7.2% of pts, and during maintenance in 0.3% of pts. The third pre-planned interim analysis was based on data as of 7/15/24, with median follow up of 2.7 years. The futility boundary was an OS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.984 for Arm A vs B. The estimated OS HR for Arm A vs B in all randomized (n=516) and pts treated as assigned (n=375) were 1.11 (CI 0.71-1.74, p=0.66) and 1.00 (CI 0.58-1.74, p=0.99), respectively and crossed the futility boundary. The 3 year (yr) OS for Arms A and B were 82.1% and 82.7% in all randomized pts, and 86.2% and 84.8% in pts treated as assigned. The estimated PFS HR for Arm A vs B in all randomized and pts treated as assigned were 1.05 (CI 0.71-1.56, p=0.79) and 0.95 (CI 0.59-1.54, p=0.84), respectively. The 3 yr PFS for Arms A and B were 76.6% and 77.4% in all randomized pts, and 81.5% and 80.4% in pts treated as assigned. For Arm C, 3 yr OS and PFS were 81.9% (CI 69.6-96.4%) and 76.9% (CI 64.4-91.7%), respectively. For Arm D, 3 yr OS and PFS were 85.1% (CI 76.0%-95.4%) and 73.4% (62.7-85.9%), respectively. For the MIPI-c low/LI group, 3 yr OS was 84.6% vs 85.7% for Arm A vs B (p=0.96), while in the MIPI-c high/HI group, 3 yr OS was 77.4% vs 77.6% for Arm A vs B (p=0.71). For the intensive induction group, 3 yr OS was 83.0% vs 86.2% for Arm A vs B (p=0.30), while in the non-intensive induction group, 3 yr OS was 79.5% vs 72.8% for Arm A vs B (p=0.48). Exploratory analysis of MRD+ pts (Arm C) showed that pts who converted to uMRD6 post auto-HCT (n=17) had 3 yr OS of 100% and PFS of 100%, whereas those who remained MRD+ (n=13) post auto-HCT had 3 yr OS of 63.6% and PFS of 48.8%. Causes of death (COD) in Arm A were 4.7% lymphoma, 5.1% COVID-19, and 5.0% other/unknown. COD in Arm B were 3.5% lymphoma, 6.6% COVID-19, and 4.6% other/unknown. In Sept 2024, the DSMC recommended termination of accrual and release of trial findings based on these results. Conclusion: In this interim analysis, in the era of highly effective induction and maintenance regimens, MCL pts in first CR with uMRD6 did not benefit from consolidative auto-HCT. Pts who remain MRD+ after induction may benefit from auto-HCT. Longer follow-up will be important to confirm these findings.

Background: The BeatAML Master Trial (BAMT) began in 2016 with a goal of determining the feasibility of a precision-medicine approach in treating acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in older adults ≥ 60 years of age where outcomes are poor. At the time, standard of care (SOC) for older patients with AML was intensive 7+3 chemotherapy (cytarabine + daunorubicin) if fit and hypomethylating agents (HMA: azacitidine or decitabine) if unfit. Besides confirming the feasibility, the early results (2019) from the Master Trial suggested that patients who received therapy on one of the sub-studies had a lower early death rate and superior overall survival compared to patients receiving off-protocol SOC, which was primarily single-agent HMA at the time. Since then, the 2019 approval of venetoclax (ven) + azacitidine for older unfit AML patients has been transformative and emerged as the SOC. Using data from the BAMT from 2016-2024, we suggest that knowing the comprehensive genomic profile of AML at the time of diagnosis is still beneficial in determining therapy that would lead to the optimal outcome and that development of targeted therapies and combination regimens with ven/HMA is still needed. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of 1096 patients who consented and enrolled on the BAMT (NCT03013998) from Nov 2016 through Jun 2024. Patients ≥ 60 years with newly diagnosed AML were included. Patients underwent therapy on a BeatAML sub-study based on their genetics (N=433) or treatment off-protocol (N=663). We divided the patients according to what therapy they received: (1) Non-Intensive (Off-Protocol, N=121), (2) Ven/HMA (Off-Protocol, N=234), (3) Non-Intensive (Sub-Study, N=407), (4) Intensive (Sub-Study, N=26), and (5) Intensive (Off-Protocol, N=155). 94 patients received no treatment and 59 were unknown. Non-intensive therapies included primarily targeted agents or non-ven combinations. We analyzed baseline characteristics and demographics, overall survival (OS), and the impact of allogenic stem cell transplant (SCT). OS, using Kaplan-Meier method, was measured from the start of therapy to all-cause death, censoring patients at last follow-up. Results: Characteristics and demographics were similar between Groups 1, 2 and 3. Group 4 and 5 were treated with intensive chemotherapy and their characteristics are reflective of younger/fit patients appropriate for the intensive regimen. Groups 4 and 5 also had the longest median OS (mOS) of 40.2 months (95% CI: 13.9-not reached (NR)) and 42.3 months (95% CI: 25.1-NR) respectively. Group 3, which included patients treated with a non-intensive, targeted therapy on a sub-study, had an mOS of 14.0 months (95% CI: 12.3-16.7), which was similar to Group 2, treated with Ven/HMA, that had an mOS of 13.2 months (95% CI: 10.9-16.3). Lastly, patients in Group 1, who were treated primarily with HMA monotherapy, did poorly in comparison, with an mOS of 6.0 months (95% CI: 3.3-10.1). Additionally, we looked at the cumulative incidence rate (CIR) of SCT. The CIR in 12 months of Group 1 was 9.8% (95% CI: 6.9-13.4), Group 2: 5.4% (95% CI: 2.2-10.7), Group 3 and 4 combined: 35.0% (95% CI: 628.1-42.1), and Group 5: 13.1% (95% CI: 6.9-13.4). In a multi-variable analysis, after adjusting for typical favorable risk factors like NPM1 mutations and core binding factor, SCT was highly significant (p<0.0001) in improving OS with a hazard ratio of 0.23 (95% CI: 0.16-0.32), and Group 3 performed similarly to Group 2 (p=0.20). Conclusions: First, our results suggest that it is clinically relevant to correctly identify whether an intensive chemotherapy, targeted-therapy, or ven/HMA regimen is best suited for older AML patients, for which a precision-medicine trial is ideal for. Secondly, in this group of patients, our results show that patients treated with a non-intensive targeted therapy (Group 3) has a similar mOS to those treated with ven/HMA (Group 2). Especially after controlling for patient characteristics, patients in Group 2 performed similar to those in Group 3 (p=0.20). Patients in Group 3 were treated on Beat AML sub-studies which included targeted therapy alone or with non-venetoclax combinations, which is a strong rationale for continued development of targeted agents to optimize toxicity and quality of life with similar survival. Lastly, this data also supports the need to improve the ven/HMA SOC by developing combination regimens with targeted agents to further improve outcomes.

Background: Mutations of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) are recurrent in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and the prevalence increases with age. The prognostic impact of IDH1 and IDH2 mutations remains controversial. IDH inhibitors are small molecules that bind within the IDH enzymatic active site, blocking aberrant 2-hydroxyglutarate production and inducing myeloid differentiation. While they can lead to differentiation syndrome, they generally have a more favorable side-effect profile, making them an attractive option for older patients. We aimed to describe the prevalence and prognostic impact of IDH mutations in newly diagnosed (ND) AML patients ≥ 60 years in a large cohort of patients treated on a Leukemia and Lymphoma Society-sponsored trial. Methods: We performed a retrospective observational analysis including patients ≥ 60 years with ND AML who were enrolled on the Beat AML clinical trial (NCT03013998) before May 10, 2023. Patients were treated with a variety of treatment regimens. Cytogenetic analysis and next-generation sequencing (FoundationOne®Heme) were obtained. Mutations were considered present at any detectable VAF. Cox proportional hazard models were used to describe the relative risk of each variable on death over time from the date of trial inclusion. Results: A total of 1023 patients with ND AML were identified. Patients had a median age of 72 (range 60-92) years and the majority were non-Hispanic White (83.2%), and male (57.6%). Ninety-nine (9.7%) patients were IDH1MUT, 193 (18.9%) patients were IDH2MUT including 10 (1.0%) patients with a co-occurring IDH1 and IDH2 gene mutations. Both IDH1MUT and IDH2MUT were associated with 2022 ELN favorable-risk (26.3% and 22.3% for IDH1 and IDH2 respectively, vs 15.5% overall (P<0.001)). IDH1MUT significantly co-occurred with DNMT3AMUT (42.4%), NPM1MUT (44.4%) and less frequently with TP53MUT (10.1%) (P<0.001 for all). IDH2MUT was associated with DNMT3AMUT (35.8%), NPM1MUT (31.1%), SRSF2MUT (38.3%), and less frequently with TET2MUT (6.7%) and TP53MUT (9.3%) (P<0.001 for all). Normal karyotype was higher in IDH1MUT (P<0.001) and IDH2MUT (P<0.001), whereas complex karyotype (P<0.001 for both) and core-binding factor AML (P=0.047, P=0.015) were lower in IDH1MUT and IDH2MUT. To evaluate the impact of IDH mutations in patients ≥ 60 years, we focused on patients evaluable for outcome treated with lower-intensity therapy (LIT) (N=674), and intensive chemotherapy (IC) (N=178), separately. Among the LIT treated patients, 96 patients received treatment with an IDH inhibitor, and 237 patients received a hypomethylating agent (HMA) plus venetoclax. For patients treated with LIT, the hazard ratios (HRs) of death over time were 0.58 [95% CI 0.47-0.72; P<0.002], 0.81 [95% CI 0.59-1.13; P=0.214] and 0.56 [95% CI 0.44-0.72; P<0.001] for IDHMUT, IDH1MUT, IDH2MUT respectively. Among patients receiving IC, the HRs were 1.05 [95% CI 0.68-1.69; P=0.777], 0.70 [95% CI 0.31-1.61; P=0.406] and 1.27 [95% CI 0.77-2.1; P=0.352] for IDHMUT, IDH1MUT, and IDH2MUT respectively. The HR of death for IDH1MUT patients treated with LIT with the addition of an IDH1 inhibitor (N=24) was significantly lower (HR 0.47 [95% CI 0.24-0.92; P=0.027] vs IDH1MUT patients treated without an IDH1 inhibitor, while an IDH2 inhibitor did not change survivial outcomes in patients with IDH2MUT (N=71). Discussion: To our knowledge this is the largest retrospective study characterizing the prevalence of IDH mutations in patients ≥ 60 years with AML. We demonstrated that IDH mutations were detected in ~27% of older patients with AML. Although there could have been selection bias as the Beat AML study had separate IDHMUT study arms, these findings are concordant with other studies showing an increase in frequency of IDH mutations with age. IDH2MUT was associated with a lower HR of death among patients treated with LIT, which was not seen in patients receiving IC. The high prevalence of IDH mutations suggests that IDH inhibitors used as single agents or in combination with lower-intensity therapies are an important class of drugs for this older patient population as they are generally well tolerated, that need further investigation.