Citations

Abstract Introduction While the clinical efficacy of deep brain stimulation (DBS) the treatment of motor‐related symptoms is well established, the mechanism of action of the resulting cognitive and behavioral effects has been elusive. Methods By combining functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and DBS, we investigated the pattern of blood‐oxygenation‐level‐dependent (BOLD) signal changes induced by stimulating the nucleus accumbens in a large animal model. Results We found that diffused BOLD activation across multiple functional networks, including the prefrontal, limbic, and thalamic regions during the stimulation, resulted in a significant change in inter‐regional functional connectivity. More importantly, the magnitude of the modulation was closely related to the strength of the inter‐regional resting‐state functional connectivity. Conclusions Nucleus accumbens stimulation affects the functional activity in networks that underlie cognition and behavior. Our study provides an insight into the nature of the functional connectivity, which mediates activation effect via brain networks.

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is a human CD38 IgGκ monoclonal antibody that demonstrated significant activity and a manageable safety profile in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone. In a randomized phase 3 study, daratumumab in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (DVd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus bortezomib and dexamethasone alone (Vd) in a pre-specified interim analysis of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM; Palumbo A. N Engl J Med 2016; in press). Herein, we examine subgroups from this study to compare the efficacy of DVd vs Vd in bortezomib-naive and bortezomib-experienced pt populations. In addition, the efficacy of DVd vs Vd in pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at last prior line of therapy was also evaluated. Methods: Pts who received ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to 8 cycles (q3w) of Vd (bortezomib: 1.3 mg/m2 SC on Days 1, 4, 8, 11; dexamethasone: 20 mg PO on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV qw in Cycles 1-3, Day 1 of Cycles 4-8, then q4w until progression). Pts who were refractory to bortezomib were not eligible. The primary endpoint was PFS. Bone marrow aspirate samples that had been prepared with Ficoll were evaluated for minimal residual disease (MRD) using three different thresholds (10-4, 10-5, and 10-6) based on the ClonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA, USA). Results: Median follow-up was 7.4 months. Among bortezomib-naive pts (DVd, n=89; Vd, n=83), PFS was significantly improved with DVd vs Vd (median: not reached [NR] vs 7.5 months; HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P<0.0001); estimated 12-month PFS rates were 72% vs 28%, respectively. ORR was 88% with DVd vs 70% with Vd (P=0.0040), with ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rates of 72% vs 42% (P<0.0001), and ≥complete response (CR) rates of 30% vs 20% (P=0.1199), respectively. For pts who previously received a bortezomib-containing regimen (DVd, n=162; Vd, n=164), PFS was also significantly longer with DVd vs Vd (median: 12.3 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.66; P<0.0001). Estimated 12-month PFS rates were 55% vs 27%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with DVd vs Vd (80% vs 60%; P=0.0001), along with significantly higher rates of ≥VGPR (52% vs 22%; P<0.0001) and ≥CR (13% vs 3%; P=0.0019). Among pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at the last prior line of therapy (DVd, n=45; Vd, n=60), PFS was significantly longer in DVd vs Vd (median: 10.3 vs 4.4 mo; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.65; P=0.0004; Figure). Within this subgroup, ORR was significantly higher for DVd vs Vd (81% vs 50%; P=0.0021), and the same trends were observed for rates of ≥VGPR (54% vs 12%; P<0.0001) and ≥CR (20% vs 5%; P=0.0261). Updated efficacy and safety data, including MRD analyses across different sensitivity thresholds (10-4, 10-5, and 10-6), will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: These analyses confirm that addition of daratumumab to Vd significantly improves outcomes for RRMM pts regardless of prior treatment with bortezomib. Importantly, this treatment benefit of DVd vs Vd was maintained in pts who were refractory to lenalidomide at the last prior line of therapy. These data lend further support to adding daratumumab to a standard-of-care regimen in RRMM. Figure Progression-free Survival in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide at the Last Prior Line of Therapy Figure. Progression-free Survival in Patients Refractory to Lenalidomide at the Last Prior Line of Therapy Disclosures Lentzsch: BMS: Consultancy; Foundation One: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Quach:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Cilag: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ovilla:Janssen: Consultancy. Qi:Janssen: Employment. Deraedt:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schecter:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Amin:Janssen: Employment. Qin:Janssen: Employment. Casneuf:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen R&D, Beerse, Belgium: Employment. Chiu:Janssen: Employment. Sasser:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen Pharmaceuticals R&D: Employment. Sonneveld:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction Lenalidomide-based therapies are a standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible MM. Daratumumab (DARA) is a human, CD38-targeted, IgG1κ monoclonal antibody which has single-agent activity in heavily pretreated MM patients. As previously reported in 3 phase 3 studies, the addition of DARA to standards of care in both relapsed refractory (D-Rd, DARA plus bortezomib and dexamethasone [D-Vd]) or transplant-ineligible NDMM (DARA plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone [D-VMP]) resulted in a ≥50% reduction in the risk of disease progression or death (Palumbo A, et al. N Engl J Med 2016;375:754-766; Dimopoulos MA, et al. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1319-1331; Mateos MV, et al. N Engl J Med 2018;378:518-528). Of these, the POLLUX study with D-Rd showed the greatest benefit with a 63% reduction in risk of disease progression or death in patients with MM who had at least one prior line of therapy. Based on the efficacy and tolerable safety profile of D-Rd, we conducted a phase 3 study (MAIA) to evaluate D-Rd vs Rd in transplant-ineligible NDMM. Here we report the prespecified interim analysis of the MAIA study. Methods Patients ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation due to age ≥65 years or comorbidities were randomized 1:1 to Rd ± DARA. Stratification was based on International Staging System stage (ISS [I, II, III]), region (North America vs other), and age (<75 vs ≥75 years). All patients received 28-day cycles of treatment with Rd ± DARA. R: 25 mg (oral) QD on Days 1-21; d: 40 mg (oral) on Days 1, 8, 15 and 22. In the D-Rd arm, DARA was given at 16 mg/kg (intravenously) QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter. In both arms, patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rate (10-5 sensitivity, clonoSEQ® version 2.0), and safety. Results This international study randomized 737 patients (368 to D-Rd; 369 to Rd) from 14 countries. Key baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. The median (range) age was 73 (45-90) years with 44% of patients ≥75 years, and 52% were male. Two thirds of patients had ECOG scores ≥1: ECOG score 0, 34%; 1, 50%; ≥2, 17%. Overall, 27%, 43%, and 29% were ISS stage I, II, and III, respectively. Of 642 patients evaluable for FISH/karyotyping analysis, 86% and 14% were standard and high cytogenetic risk, respectively. The prespecified interim analysis occurred after 239 PFS events on 24 September 2018 with a median follow up of 28 months. For the primary endpoint, the hazard ratio was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.72; P <0.0001), representing a 45% reduction in the risk of progression or death in patients treated with D-Rd (Figure). The median PFS for the Rd arm was 31.9 months and not reached for the D-Rd arm. Adding DARA to Rd resulted in deeper responses with a complete response (CR) or better rate of 47.6% in the D-Rd arm compared with 24.7% in the Rd arm (odds ratio [OR] 2.75, 95% CI, 2.01 to 3.76; P <0.0001). The very good partial response (VGPR) or better rate was 79.3% in the D-Rd arm compared with 53.1% in the Rd arm (OR 3.4, 95% CI, 2.45 to 4.72; P <0.0001). A total of 19% of patients have died and the HR for OS was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.56 to 1.1); follow-up is ongoing. Higher rates (5% or more difference) of grade 3/4 pneumonia, neutropenia, and leukopenia were observed in the D-Rd arm. The safety profile is consistent with previously reported DARA studies. The complete topline data set will be presented with additional efficacy endpoints, including MRD negativity rate. Conclusion The addition of DARA to Rd in patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM significantly reduced the risk of progression or death by 45%. There are no new safety signals using DARA plus Rd in NDMM. These data together with the phase 3 ALCYONE study (D-VMP vs VMP) support the addition of DARA to standard of care combinations in patients with NDMM ineligible for transplant. Disclosures Facon: Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kumar:KITE: 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, Research Funding; Celgene: 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, Research Funding. Plesner:Celgene: Other: Independent Response Assessment Comittee; Janssen: Consultancy. Orlowski:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioTheryX: Research Funding; Spectrum Pharma: Research Funding. Moreau:Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: 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, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Hulin:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Goldschmidt:Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; ArtTempi: Honoraria. O'Dwyer:Janssen: Consultancy. Perrot:Janssen: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Honoraria. Venner:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Weisel:Celgene: Consultancy; Angeb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers SquibbMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ahmadi:Genmab: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chiu:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wang:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Van Rampelbergh:Janssen: Employment. Uhlar:Janssen: Employment. Kobos:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Qi:Janssen Research & Development, LLC: Employment. Usmani:Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Genmab, Merck, MundiPharma, Janssen, Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Pharmacyclics,Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Research Funding.

AbstractObjectiveTo characterize the molecular and phenotypic basis of a severe slow‐channel congenital myasthenic syndrome (SCCMS).MethodsIntracellular and single‐channel recordings from patient endplates; alpha‐bungarotoxin binding studies; direct sequencing of AChR genes; microsatellite analysis; kinetic analysis of AChR activation; homology modeling of adult human AChR structure.ResultsAmong 24 variants reported to cause SCCMS only two appear in the AChR δ‐subunit. We here report a 16‐year‐old patient harboring a novel δL273F mutation (δL294F in HGVS nomenclature) in the second transmembrane domain (M2) of the AChR δ subunit. Kinetic analyses with ACh and the weak agonist choline indicate that δL273F prolongs the channel opening bursts 9.4‐fold due to a 75‐fold increase in channel gating efficiency, whereas a previously identified εL269F mutation (εL289F in HGVS nomenclature) at an equivalent location in the AChR ε‐subunit prolongs channel opening bursts 4.4‐fold due to a 30‐fold increase in gating efficiency. Structural modeling of AChR predicts that inter‐helical hydrophobic interactions between the mutant residue in the δ and ε subunit and nearby M2 domain residues in neighboring α subunits contribute to structural stability of the open relative to the closed channel states.InterpretationThe greater increase in gating efficiency by δL273F than by εL269F explains why δL273F has more severe clinical effects. Both δL273F and εL269F impair channel gating by disrupting hydrophobic interactions with neighboring α‐subunits. Differences in the extent of impairment of channel gating in δ and ε mutant receptors suggest unequal contributions of ε/α and δ/α subunit pairs to gating efficiency.

Background:Patients (pts) with multiple myeloma associated with high cytogenetic risk abnormalities have poor outcomes. In CASTOR, D‐Vd prolonged progression‐free survival (PFS) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) alone, and exhibited a manageable safety profile in pts with RRMM. We conducted a subgroup analysis of D‐Vd vs Vd in CASTOR, based on cytogenetic risk.Aims:The purpose of this analysis was to determine the efficacy and safety of D‐Vd in CASTOR based on cytogenetic risk status.Methods:Eligible pts received ≥1 prior line of therapy. Cytogenetic risk was based on a combined analysis of next‐generation sequencing (NGS) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)/karyotype testing. High‐risk pts had t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17p abnormalities. Standard (std)‐risk pts were confirmed negative for all 3 abnormalities. Minimal residual disease (MRD; 10–5) was assessed via NGS using clonoSEQ® assay V2.0.Results:In CASTOR (D‐Vd, n = 251; Vd, n = 247), high‐risk was confirmed in 26.7% and 25.9% of pts in the D‐Vd and Vd groups, respectively. At a median follow up of 40.0 months (mo), D‐Vd prolonged PFS vs Vd in pts with high‐ (median 13.4 vs 7.2 mo; HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.24–0.65]; P = 0.0002) or std‐risk (median 18.4 vs 6.8 mo; HR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.20–0.37]; P <0.0001). Higher ORR was seen with D‐Vd vs Vd (high risk: 84.8% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0226; std risk: 85.4% vs 65.0%; P <0.0001), including deep responses of ≥CR (high risk: 33.3% vs 8.3%; std risk: 29.9% vs 10.2%) and ≥VGPR (high risk: 65.2% vs 35.0%; P = 0.0049; std risk: 64.3% vs 28.0%; P <0.0001). Higher rates of MRD negativity (high risk: 17.9% vs 0%; P = 0.0003; std risk: 13.3% vs 2.4%; P = 0.0003), and sustained MRD negativity for ≥6 mo (high risk: 16.4% vs 0%; P = 0.0006; std risk: 6.1% vs 1.8%; P = 0.0859) and ≥12 mo (high risk: 7.5% vs 0%; P = 0.0581; std risk: 1.8% vs 0%; P = 0.2477) were seen with D‐Vd vs Vd. D‐Vd significantly prolonged PFS vs Vd in pts with one prior line of therapy only (high risk: median 20.1 vs 8.4 mo; HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.14–0.64]; P = 0.0012; std risk: median 32.6 vs 7.9 mo; HR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.11–0.29]; P <0.0001; Figure). Additionally, D‐Vd significantly prolonged PFS2 (high risk: median 27.9 vs 18.6 mo; HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.37–0.94]; P = 0.0258; std risk: median 40.1 vs 21.6 mo; HR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.32–0.59]; P <0.0001) regardless of cytogenetic risk status.Additional data including safety analyses will be presented.Summary/Conclusion:Adding daratumumab to Vd demonstrates significant efficacy in pts with high‐risk RRMM including PFS2. Among high‐risk RRMM pts, MRD negativity was only achieved with D‐Vd. These findings support use of D‐Vd for high‐risk RRMM. NCT02136134image

The possible association between the membrane-associated guanylate kinase with inverted domain structure-1 (MAGI1) and inflammation has been suggested, but the molecular mechanisms underlying this link, especially during atherogenesis, remain unclear. In endothelial cells (ECs) exposed to disturbed flow (d-flow), p90 ribosomal S6 kinase (p90RSK) bound to MAGI1, causing MAGI1-S741 phosphorylation and sentrin/SUMO-specific protease 2 T368 phosphorylation-mediated MAGI1-K931 deSUMOylation. MAGI1-S741 phosphorylation upregulated EC activation via activating Rap1. MAGI1-K931 deSUMOylation induced both nuclear translocation of p90RSK-MAGI1 and ATF-6-MAGI1 complexes, which accelerated EC activation and apoptosis, respectively. Microarray screening revealed key roles for MAGI1 in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress response. In this context, MAGI1 associated with activating transcription factor 6 (ATF-6). MAGI1 expression was upregulated in ECs and macrophages found in atherosclerotic-prone regions of mouse aortas as well as in the colonic epithelia and ECs of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Further, reduced MAGI1 expression in Magi1 –/+ mice inhibited d-flow–induced atherogenesis. In sum, EC activation and ER stress–mediated apoptosis are regulated in concert by two different types of MAGI1 posttranslational modifications, elucidating attractive drug targets for chronic inflammatory disease, particularly atherosclerosis.

ABSTRACT The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of scientific publications describing physiological and pathological functions of extracellular vesicles (EVs), a collective term covering various subtypes of cell‐released, membranous structures, called exosomes, microvesicles, microparticles, ectosomes, oncosomes, apoptotic bodies, and many other names. However, specific issues arise when working with these entities, whose size and amount often make them difficult to obtain as relatively pure preparations, and to characterize properly. The International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) proposed Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles (“MISEV”) guidelines for the field in 2014. We now update these “MISEV2014” guidelines based on evolution of the collective knowledge in the last four years. An important point to consider is that ascribing a specific function to EVs in general, or to subtypes of EVs, requires reporting of specific information beyond mere description of function in a crude, potentially contaminated, and heterogeneous preparation. For example, claims that exosomes are endowed with exquisite and specific activities remain difficult to support experimentally, given our still limited knowledge of their specific molecular machineries of biogenesis and release, as compared with other biophysically similar EVs. The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV‐associated functional activities. Finally, a checklist is provided with summaries of key points.