Citations

Abstract Background : Patients (pts) with COVID-19 are reported to have increased risk of venous thromboembolism yet bleeding has been an under recognized complication. Rates of bleeding remain unexamined in all patients especially in pts with cancer and COVID-19. Aim: To estimate the incidence of bleeding complication in patients with cancer and COVID 19 Methods: The CCC19 international registry (NCT04354701) aims to investigate complications of COVID-19 in pts with cancer. Our aim was to investigate the frequency of bleeding in hospitalized adult pts with cancer andCOVID-19, enrolled between March 16, 2020 and Feb 8, 2021. The incidence of bleeding complications was captured as defined by CCC19 and included both major and non major bleeding . Associated baseline clinic-pathologic prognostic factors and outcomes such as need for mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality rates were assessed Results :3849 pts met analysis inclusion criteria. Bleeding was reported in 276 (7%) pts with median age of 70years; incidence was 6.6 % in females and 7.6 % in males, 6.5% in non-Hispanic white pts, 8.2 % in non-Hispanic Black pts, and 7.8 % in Hispanic pts. 74% had solid cancer and 29% had hematologic malignancies, 33% had received anti-cancer therapy in preceding 30 days, and 8% had surgery within 4weeks. In pts taking antiplatelet or anticoagulant medications at baseline, 7.2% developed bleeding. Need for mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, 30-day mortality, and total mortality were significantly higher in those with bleeding complications compared to those without, p<0.05 Conclusion : We describe the incidence of bleeding in a large cohort of pts with cancer and COVID-19. Bleeding events were observed in those with adverse outcomes including mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, and high mortality; the overall mortality of 43% in patients with bleeding complications is especially notable. This important complication may reflect underlying COVID-19 pathophysiology as well as iatrogenic causes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kumar: Diagnostica Stago: Honoraria. Zon: AMAGMA AND RLZ: Consultancy, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Byeff: Pfizer, BMS, Takeda,Teva, Merck, United health: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Nagaraj: Novartis: Research Funding. Hwang: astrazaneca,Merck,bayer, Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. McKay: Myovant: Consultancy; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Exelixis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Calithera: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tempus: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tempus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dendreon: Consultancy; Caris: Other: Serves as a molecular tumor board ; Vividion: Consultancy; Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer: Research Funding. Warner: Westat, Hemonc.org: Consultancy, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Connors: Pfizer: Honoraria; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Alnylam: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; takeda: Honoraria; Abbott: Consultancy. Rosovsky: Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Inari: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dova: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: A major cause of mortality in patients receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) is acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a multiorgan disorder that includes the skin, liver and gastrointestinal tract. We have previously identified elafin, a protease inhibitor overexpressed in inflamed epidermis, as a diagnostic biomarker of GVHD in the skin, the most commonly involved GVHD organ. However, our initial study was limited to a subset of patients with isolated skin GVHD. The main driver of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) in HCT patients is GI GVHD. Two biomarkers, Regenerating islet-derived 3a (REG3α) and Suppressor of tumorigenesis 2 (ST2), have since been validated as biomarkers of GI GVHD that predict long-term outcomes in patients treated for GVHD. We undertook this study to determine the utility of elafin as a prognostic biomarker of acute GVHD in the general population of previously unstudied acute GVHD patients, and to compare it to ST2 and REG3α. Study Design: 526 patients who received systemic corticosteroid treatment for skin GVHD were analyzed from the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC), which includes patients from 25 HCT centers. We used ELISA to measure serum concentrations of elafin, ST2 and REG3α. Patients were divided randomly into equal training and validation sets; and we developed a competing risk regression model for 6-month NRM using elafin concentration in the training set. We developed additional models for 6-month NRM using concentrations of ST2 and REG3α, or the combination of all three biomarkers as predictors. We then constructed ROC curves to evaluate the predictive accuracy of each model and to analyze the ability of each model to stratify patients into high- and low-risk groups. We analyzed the cumulative incidence of 6-month NRM and overall survival in each model and compared the accuracy of each model in the validation set. Results: The area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) for elafin alone was 0.55 whereas it was 0.75 and statistically superior (P = 0.02) for the combination of ST2 and REG3α. The combination of 3 biomarkers produced an AUROC of 0.76 that was not significantly better than the two biomarker model (P = 0.10). Elafin concentrations, either alone or in combination with ST2 and REG3α, did not produce higher hazard ratios of NRM (data not shown). Patients in the low-risk elafin group paradoxically demonstrated a higher incidence of 6-month NRM, although this difference was not statistically significant (17% vs. 11%, P=0.19), and both overall survival at 6 months (68% vs. 68%, P>0.99) and four-week response (78% vs. 78%, P=0.98) were similar in the low- and high-risk elafin groups (Figure 1). As demonstrated in previous data sets, the combination of ST2 and REG3α divided patients into two groups with a nearly five-fold difference in NRM (6.7% vs. 31%, P <0.001). Conclusion: We demonstrated that serum elafin concentrations measured at the initiation of systemic treatment for acute GVHD in a multicenter population of patients treated systemically for acute GVHD do not predict 6-month NRM, overall survival, or treatment response. As seen in previous studies, serum concentrations of the GI GVHD biomarkers ST2 and REG3α were significant predictors of NRM and the addition of elafin levels did not improve their accuracy. These results underscore the importance of GI disease in driving NRM in patients who develop acute GVHD. Figure 1. Cumulative incidence of nonrelapse mortality and overall survival in high and low risk groups Six-month cumulative incidences of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) in high (solid line) and low (dotted line) risk groups defined by optimized biomarker thresholds (upper panels) and six-month overall survival estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method (lower panels). (A) Cumulative incidence of NRM (14%) and overall survival (75%) in the total validation set (N=263). (B) Cumulative incidence of NRM in the low (N=150) and high (N=113) elafin group (17% vs. 11%, P=0.19). Overall survival in the low and high elafin group (68% vs. 68%, P > 0.99). (C) Cumulative incidence of NRM in the low (N=175) and high (N=88) ST2 + REG3a group (6.7 vs. 31%, P < 0.001). Overall survival in the low and high ST2 + REG3a group (77% vs. 51%, P < 0.001). (D) Cumulative incidence of NRM in the low (N=180) and high (N=83) elafin + ST2 + REG3a group (7.0 vs. 30%, P < 0.001). Overall survival in the low and high elafin + ST2 + REG3a group (79% vs. 64%, P < 0.001). Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ozbek: Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent with royalties from Viracor. DeFilipp: Omeros, Corp.: Consultancy; Incyte Corp.: Research Funding; Regimmune Corp.: Research Funding; Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy. Grupp: Novartis, Kite, Vertex, and Servier: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Steering committee, Research Funding; Novartis, Roche, GSK, Humanigen, CBMG, Eureka, and Janssen/JnJ: Consultancy; Novartis, Adaptimmune, TCR2, Cellectis, Juno, Vertex, Allogene and Cabaletta: Other: Study steering committees or scientific advisory boards. Hexner: Blueprint medicines: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tmunity Therapeutics: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kitko: Co-investigator on two NIH grants as part of the cGVHD consortium: Research Funding; Vanderbilt University Medical Center: Current Employment; PER: Other: PER - CME educational talks about GVHD; Horizon: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qayed: Novartis: Honoraria; Mesoblast: Honoraria; Medexus: Honoraria. Reshef: ilead, BMS, Precision, Immatics, Atara, Takeda, Shire, Pharmacyclics, Incyte: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead and Novartis: Honoraria; BMS, Regeneron, TScan, Synthekine, Atara, Jasper, Bayer: Consultancy. Levine: Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Viracor: Patents & Royalties: GVHD biomarker patent with royalties from Viracor; Mesoblast: Consultancy, Research Funding; Equillium Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Talaris Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Symbio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biogen: Research Funding; Kamada: Research Funding. Ferrara: Eurofins Viracor: Consultancy, Other: Royalties. Chen: Incyte: Consultancy; Gamida: Consultancy.

Abstract Background Starting in November 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for multiple novel virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapies, including bamlanivimab monotherapy (now revoked), bamlanivimab and etesivimab, casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV), and sotrovimab, for treatment or postexposure prophylaxis of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adolescents (≥12 years of age) and adults with certain high-risk conditions. Previous guidance is now updated based on new evidence and clinical experience. Methods A panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacotherapy, and pediatric critical care medicine from 18 geographically diverse US institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a guidance statement was developed and refined based on a review of the best available evidence and expert opinion. Results The course of COVID-19 in children and adolescents is typically mild, though more severe disease is occasionally observed. Evidence supporting risk stratification is incomplete. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the benefit of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific monoclonal antibody therapies in adults, but data on safety and efficacy in children or adolescents are limited. Potential harms associated with infusion reactions or anaphylaxis are reportedly low in adults. Conclusions Based on evidence available as of August 31, 2021, the panel suggests a risk-based approach to administration of SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapy. Therapy is suggested for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adolescents (≥12 years of age) at the highest risk of progression to hospitalization or severe disease. Therapeutic decision-making about those at moderate risk of severe disease should be individualized. Use as postexposure prophylaxis could be considered for those at the highest risk who have a high-risk exposure but are not yet diagnosed with COVID-19. Clinicians and health systems should ensure safe and timely implementation of these therapeutics that does not exacerbate existing healthcare disparities.

Background Retinal migraine is defined by fully reversible monocular visual phenomena. We present two cases that were complicated by permanent monocular vision deficits. Cases A 57-year-old man with history of retinal migraine experienced persistent monocular vision loss after one stereotypical retinal migraine, progressing to finger-count vision over 4 days. He developed paracentral acute middle maculopathy that progressed to central retinal artery occlusion. A 27-year-old man with history of retinal migraine presented with persistent right eye superotemporal scotoma after a retinal migraine. Relative afferent pupillary defect and superotemporal visual field defect were noted, consistent with ischemic optic neuropathy. Conclusion Retinal migraine can complicate with permanent monocular visual loss, suggesting potential migrainous infarction of the retina or optic nerve. A thorough cerebrovascular evaluation must be completed, which was unrevealing in our cases. Acute and preventive migraine therapy may be considered in retinal migraine patients, to mitigate rare but potentially permanent visual loss.

Abstract Background The history of how our knowledge of celiac disease (CD) evolved points to its importance in children. Although it is now appreciated that CD can present at any age, it was originally thought to occur only in children and, if untreated, led to serious consequences. Content This review includes a brief discussion of small bowel physiology and the pathogenesis of CD. Next, the varied clinical presentations of CD in children are reviewed, including both gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal manifestations and how these contribute to the difficulty in diagnosis. In addition, information on specific conditions that are associated with CD is presented, particularly as it applies to diagnostic testing of apparently asymptomatic children. The review will also focus on diagnostic testing available for CD and their general performance characteristics. The review will end with a comparison between published guidelines from the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition for diagnosis of pediatric CD. In particular, this review will focus on differences in the incorporation of serologic and genetic testing, and the role of biopsies in the pediatric population. Summary It is important for laboratorians to understand the evolution of diagnostic guidelines for pediatric CD and how serologic and genetic testing are being applied to and interpreted in this particular patient group.

In the last decade, a better understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas has resulted in the development of novel targeted therapies, such as small molecule inhibitors of select kinases in the B-cell receptor pathway, antibody–drug conjugates, and small molecules that target a variety of proteins (eg, CD-19, EZH2, and XPO-1–mediated nuclear export). Anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, first approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, has also emerged as a novel treatment option for R/R follicular lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma. These NCCN Guideline Insights highlight the new targeted therapy options included in the NCCN Guidelines for B-Cell Lymphomas for the treatment of R/R disease.

Abstract Background Oral contraceptive pill (OCP) use in the general population is associated with a failure rate as low as 0.3% with perfect use but as high as 9% with typical use. Women with Crohn’s disease (CD) may have malabsorption in the setting of small bowel disease or resection, which could affect absorption of OCPs. Our aim was to determine the incidence of pregnancy in women with CD on OCPs. Methods This is a retrospective study assessing the incidence rate of OCP failure in females between 18 and 45 years of age seen at the Mayo Clinic with a diagnosis of CD and provided a prescription for OCPs, between 2016 and 2020. Failure was defined as clear documentation of becoming pregnant while using OCPs or having an active prescription of OCP at the time of conception. Results A total of 818 female patients with CD between 18 and 45 years of age with a prescription for an OCP were included in our study. Sixty-six patients (8%) conceived in this cohort. Of the 66 patients who became pregnant, 57 stopped the OCP before conceiving, 5 were excluded due to lack of data, and 4 women had active oral contraceptive prescriptions when they became pregnant (pregnancy rate of 0.5%). Conclusions In female patients with CD who are using OCPs for contraception, we found a low rate of pregnancy (0.5%) similar to the rate of pregnancy with perfect use of OCPs in the general population. OCPs are an effective method of birth control in women with CD.