Maurer, Matthew J.

AbstractTransthyretin‐mediated amyloidosis (ATTR) is a rare, under‐recognized, progressively debilitating, fatal disease caused by the aggregation and extracellular deposition of amyloid transthyretin (TTR) fibrils in multiple organs and tissues throughout the body. TTR is predominantly synthesized by the liver and normally circulates as a homotetramer, while misfolded monomers aggregate to form amyloid fibrils. One strategy to treat ATTR amyloidosis is to reduce the amount of TTR produced by the liver using drugs that directly target the TTR mRNA or gene. This narrative review focuses on how TTR gene silencing tools act to reduce TTR production, describing strategies for improved targeted delivery of these agents to hepatocytes where TTR is preferentially expressed. Antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) and small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), termed RNA silencers, cause selective degradation of TTR mRNA, while a TTR gene editing tool reduces TTR expression by introducing nonsense mutations into the TTR gene. Two strategies to facilitate tissue‐specific delivery of these nucleic acid‐based drugs employ endogenous receptors expressed by hepatocytes. Lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that recruit apolipoprotein E support low‐density lipoprotein receptor‐mediated uptake of unconjugated siRNA and are now used for CRISPR gene editing tools. Additionally, conjugating N‐acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc) moieties to ASOs or siRNAs facilitates receptor‐mediated uptake by the asialoglycoprotein receptor. In summary, ATTR is a progressive disease with various clinical manifestations due to TTR aggregation, deposition, and amyloid formation. Receptor‐targeted ligands (eg, GalNAc) and nanoparticle encapsulation (eg, LNPs) are technologies to deliver ASOs, siRNAs, and gene editing tools to hepatocytes, the primary location of TTR synthesis.

Abstract Activated B cell (ABC) type diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), double hit lymphoma (DHL) and double expressor lymphoma (DEL) have poor outcomes to frontline R‐CHOP but impact of these molecular features on outcomes of relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease is not well‐characterized. We evaluated the association of diagnostic cell of origin (COO), double hit and double expressor status with overall survival after first relapse in DLBCL patients who were enrolled into the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) cohort. COO was available from immunohistochemistry (IHC) using Hans criteria or gene expression profiling (GEP) (Nanostring) on the diagnostic FFPE biopsy. Of 373 pts with R/R DLBCL, 278 had COO by IHC: 152 were GCB, 107 were non‐GCB. One hundred and fourty had COO by GEP: 44 were ABC, 65 were GCB and 13 were unclassifiable. Nineteen out of 163 (12%) were DHL; 30 out of 135 (22%) had DEL. COO, either by IHC (2 years OS GCB: 45% [CI 95 : 38–54] vs. non‐GCB: 44% [CI 95 :36–55], p > 0.05) or GEP (2 years OS ABC: 42% [CI 95 : 29–59] vs. GCB: 40% [CI 95 : 30–54], p > 0.05), was not associated with difference in OS. DHL (2 years OS 16 [CI 95 :6–45] vs. 45% [CI 95 : 34–59], p < 0.01) and DEL (2 years OS 33% [CI 95 : 20–56], vs. 50% [CI 95 : 41–60], p < 0.05) had lower OS than non‐DHL and non‐DEL/non‐DHL counterparts, respectively. COO by IHC or GEP was not associated with OS in R/R DLBCL while DHL and DEL were adverse prognostic markers in DLBCL at first relapse.

AbstractDirect comparisons of the effectiveness of the numerous novel therapies in the diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treatment landscape in a range of head‐to‐head randomized phase 3 trials would be time‐consuming and costly. Comparative effectiveness studies using real‐world data (RWD) represent a complementary approach. Recently, several studies of relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL have used RWD to create observational cohorts to compare patient outcomes with cohorts derived from single‐arm phase 2 trials. Using propensity score methods to balance clinically and prognostically relevant baseline covariates, closely matched patient‐level cohorts can be generated. By incorporating appropriate measures to assess covariate balance and address potential bias in comparative effectiveness study designs, robust comparative analyses can be performed. Results from such studies have been used to supplement regulatory approval of therapies assessed in single‐arm trials. While RWD studies have a greater susceptibility to bias compared to randomized controlled trials, well‐designed and appropriately analyzed studies can provide complementary real‐world evidence on treatment effectiveness.