Citations

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

ObjectiveWe provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease.MethodsWe developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation.ResultsFifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs.ConclusionThis clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease. Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation. Results Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

Background Prognostic markers and biological pathways linked to detrimental clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remain incompletely defined. Methods and Results We measured serum levels of 4123 unique proteins in 1117 patients with HFpEF enrolled in the PARAGON‐HF (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial using a modified aptamer proteomic assay. Baseline circulating protein concentrations significantly associated with the primary end point and the timing and occurrence of total heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death were identified by recurrent events regression, accounting for multiple testing, adjusted for age, sex, treatment, and anticoagulant use, and compared with published analyses in 2515 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from the PARADIGM‐HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) and ATMOSPHERE (Efficacy and Safety of Aliskiren and Aliskiren/Enalapril Combination on Morbidity–Mortality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure) clinical trials. We identified 288 proteins that were robustly associated with the risk of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death in patients with HFpEF. The baseline proteins most strongly related to outcomes included B2M (β‐2 microglobulin), TIMP1 (tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1), SERPINA4 (serpin family A member 4), and SVEP1 (sushi, von Willebrand factor type A, EGF, and pentraxin domain containing 1). Overall, the protein–outcome associations in patients with HFpEF did not markedly differ as compared with patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. A proteomic risk score derived in patients with HFpEF was not superior to a previous proteomic score derived in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction nor to clinical risk factors, NT‐proBNP (N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide), or high‐sensitivity cardiac troponin. Conclusions Numerous serum proteins linked to metabolic, coagulation, and extracellular matrix regulatory pathways were associated with worse HFpEF prognosis in the PARAGON‐HF proteomic substudy. Our results demonstrate substantial similarities among serum proteomic risk markers for heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death when comparing clinical trial participants with heart failure across the ejection fraction spectrum. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique Identifiers: NCT01920711, NCT01035255, NCT00853658.

LBA507 Background: In monarchE (NCT03155997), 2 years of adjuvant abemaciclib + ET resulted in sustained improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS; HR=0.680, 7.6% absolute benefit at 5 years) in patients (pts) with HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk EBC. Here, we investigate the prognostic value of ctDNA detection and dynamics in pts from monarchE. Methods: Samples were analyzed from a selected pt subset (n=1397; abemaciclib + ET arm, n=685; ET arm, n=712), enriched for overall IDFS events compared to the total monarchE study population (IDFS event rate: 31% [433/1397] vs 18% [992/5637]). Pts had blood collected pre-study treatment (baseline) and at 3, 6, or 24 months. ctDNA detection was performed using the personalized, tumor informed Signatera ctDNA assay (Natera, Inc) and whole exome sequencing (WES) of matched primary tumor and normal required for assay design was performed. Results: Among 1397 pts, 65% (n=910) had sufficient plasma samples and WES performed, and all 910 had successful ctDNA assay testing. Among these 910 pts, the IDFS event rate was 27% (abemaciclib + ET, 23% [101/438]; ET alone, 31% [146/472]). Rates of ctDNA positivity (at baseline and any change from baseline) and associated IDFS events are shown in Table. Among pts with ctDNA positivity, 87% had an IDFS event in comparison to 15% with persistent ctDNA negative (-) status during the study. Conclusions: In a pt subset from monarchE enriched for IDFS events, ctDNA detection was relatively infrequent (<20%); however, its detection at any time during the 24 months of study therapy was adversely prognostic. As compared to pts who had remaining ctDNA positive (+), pts who had clearance of ctDNA on therapy had lower risk of IDFS events, but the event risk still remained clinically meaningful in these pts. Clinical trial information: NCT03155997 . [Table: see text]

Abstract Objectives While guidelines exist for the diagnosis and management of pediatric celiac disease (CeD), current practices in North America are not well‐described. This study aimed to explore current practice patterns to identify gaps and direct future clinical, training and research initiatives. Methods A 23‐item survey designed by the Celiac Disease Special Interest Group was distributed electronically to its members. Questions explored four themes: (1) screening and diagnosis pre and post the coronavirus disease (COVID)‐19 pandemic, (2) treatment and monitoring, (3) family screening and transition of care, and (4) CeD focused training. Results The survey response rate was 10.8% (278/2552). Most respondents were from the United States (89.9%, n = 250) and Canada (8.6%, n = 24). While endoscopy remained the gold standard, serology‐based diagnosis was accepted by 47.5% (132/278). In response to the COVID‐19 pandemic, 37.4% of providers changed their diagnostic practice. Barriers to care included: lack of insurance coverage for dietitians, wait times, and lack of CeD focused training. During fellowship 69.1% (192/278) reported no focused CeD training. Conclusion Survey results revealed practice variation regarding the diagnosis and management of CeD in North America including a substantial proportion accepting non‐biopsy, serology‐based diagnosis, which increased during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Variations in screening, diagnosis, interval surveillance, and family screening were also identified. Dedicated CeD education in pediatric gastroenterology fellowship may be an opportunity for standardizing practice and advancing research. Future North American guidelines should take current care patterns into consideration and develop new initiatives to improve care of children with CeD.

This cross-sectional study evaluates the prevalence of and characteristics associated with discontinuation of cancer treatment among patients who received a diagnosis of COVID-19 during their treatment planning.

Abstract Objectives There is limited research on suicide risk screening (SRS) among head and neck cancer (HNC) patients, a population at increased risk for suicide. To address this gap, this single-site mixed methods study assessed oncology professionals' perspectives about the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of an electronic SRS program that was implemented as a part of routine care for HNC patients. Methods Staff who assisted with SRS implementation completed (e.g., nurses, medical assistants, advanced practice providers, physicians, social workers) a one-time survey (N = 29) and interview (N = 25). Quantitative outcomes were assessed using previously validated feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness measures. Additional qualitative data were collected to provide context for interpreting the scores. Results Nurses and medical assistants, who were directly responsible for implementing SRS, reported low feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness, compared with other team members (e.g., physicians, social workers, advanced practice providers). Team members identified potential improvements needed to optimize SRS, such as hiring additional staff, improving staff training, providing different modalities for screening completion among individuals with disabilities, and revising the patient-reported outcomes to improve suicide risk prediction. Conclusion Staff perspectives about implementing SRS as a part of routine cancer care for HNC patients varied widely. Before screening can be implemented on a larger scale for HNC and other cancer patients, additional implementation strategies may be needed that optimize workflow and reduce staff burden, such as staff training, multiple modalities for completion, and refined tools for identifying which patients are at greatest risk for suicide.