Citations

Objectives: The purpose of this single center, prospective randomized controlled trial was to compare clinical outcomes between an ultrasound-guided greater occipital nerve block (GONB) at the C2 vertebral level versus landmark-based GONB at the superior nuchal line. Methods: Patients with occipital neuralgia or cervicogenic headache were randomized to receive either a landmark-based GONB with sham ultrasound at the superior nuchal line or ultrasound-guided GONB at the C2 vertebral level with blinding of patients and data analysis investigators. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 30 minutes, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks postinjection. Results: Thirty-two patients were recruited with 16 participants in each group. Despite randomization, the ultrasound-guided GONB group reported higher numeric rating scale (NRS) scores at baseline. Those in the ultrasound-guided GONB group had a significant decrease in NRS from baseline compared with the landmark-based GONB group at 30 minutes (change of NRS of 4.0 vs. 2.0) and 4-week time points (change of NRS of 2.5 vs. −0.5). Both groups were found to have significant decreases in Headache Impact Test-6. The ultrasound-guided GONB had significant improvements in NRS, severe headache days, and analgesic use at 4 weeks when compared with baseline. No serious adverse events occurred in either group. Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided GONBs may provide superior pain reduction at 4 weeks when compared with landmark-based GONBs for patients with occipital neuralgia or cervicogenic headache.

Abstract Recent advances in the science and technology of artificial intelligence (AI) and growing numbers of deployed AI systems in healthcare and other services have called attention to the need for ethical principles and governance. We define and provide a rationale for principles that should guide the commission, creation, implementation, maintenance, and retirement of AI systems as a foundation for governance throughout the lifecycle. Some principles are derived from the familiar requirements of practice and research in medicine and healthcare: beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice come first. A set of principles follow from the creation and engineering of AI systems: explainability of the technology in plain terms; interpretability, that is, plausible reasoning for decisions; fairness and absence of bias; dependability, including “safe failure”; provision of an audit trail for decisions; and active management of the knowledge base to remain up to date and sensitive to any changes in the environment. In organizational terms, the principles require benevolence—aiming to do good through the use of AI; transparency, ensuring that all assumptions and potential conflicts of interest are declared; and accountability, including active oversight of AI systems and management of any risks that may arise. Particular attention is drawn to the case of vulnerable populations, where extreme care must be exercised. Finally, the principles emphasize the need for user education at all levels of engagement with AI and for continuing research into AI and its biomedical and healthcare applications.

Background Guidelines promote shared decision‐making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within‐encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision‐making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool changed adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety end points. Methods and Results We conducted a multicenter, encounter‐level, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with versus without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months after enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled for direct oral anticoagulant, and as time in therapeutic range for warfarin). We also noted any strokes, transient ischemic attacks, major bleeding, or deaths as safety end points. We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (Anticoagulation Choice=463, and UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow‐up. We found no differences between arms in either primary adherence (78% of patients in the SDM arm filled their first prescription versus 81% in UC arm) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (percentage days covered of the direct oral anticoagulant was 74.1% in SDM versus 71.6% in UC; time in therapeutic range for warfarin was 66.6% in SDM versus 64.4% in UC). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% of participants in the SDM arm and 14% in the UC arm. Conclusions In this large, randomized trial comparing UC with a tool to promote SDM against UC alone, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or in clinical safety outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02905032.

Patients with decompensated cirrhosis, particularly those with acute‐on‐chronic liver failure (ACLF), show profound alterations in plasma metabolomics. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of treatment with simvastatin and rifaximin on plasma metabolites of patients with decompensated cirrhosis, specifically on compounds characteristic of the ACLF plasma metabolomic profile. Two cohorts of patients were investigated. The first was a descriptive cohort of patients with decompensated cirrhosis (n = 42), with and without ACLF. The second was an intervention cohort from the LIVERHOPE‐SAFETY randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial treated with simvastatin 20 mg/day plus rifaximin 1,200 mg/day (n = 12) or matching placebo (n = 13) for 3 months. Plasma samples were analyzed using ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectroscopy for plasma metabolomics characterization. ACLF was characterized by intense proteolysis and lipid alterations, specifically in pathways associated with inflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction, such as the tryptophan–kynurenine and carnitine beta‐oxidation pathways. An ACLF‐specific signature was identified. Treatment with simvastatin and rifaximin was associated with changes in 161 of 985 metabolites in comparison to treatment with placebo. A remarkable reduction in levels of metabolites from the tryptophan–kynurenine and carnitine pathways was found. Notably, 18 of the 32 metabolites of the ACLF signature were affected by the treatment. Conclusion: Treatment with simvastatin and rifaximin modulates some of the pathways that appear to be key in ACLF development. This study unveils some of the mechanisms involved in the effects of treatment with simvastatin and rifaximin in decompensated cirrhosis and sets the stage for the use of metabolomics to investigate new targeted therapies in cirrhosis to prevent ACLF development.

As with any other intervention in health, liver transplantation (LT) entails a variety of risks, including donor-transmitted cancers (DTCs). At present, 2%–4% of used deceased organ donors are known to have a current or past history of malignancy. The frequency of DTCs is consistently reported at 3–6 cases per 10 000 solid organ transplants, with a similar frequency in the LT setting. A majority of DTCs are occult cancers unknown in the donor at the time of transplantation. Most DTCs are diagnosed within 2 y after LT and are associated with a 51% probability of survival at 2 y following diagnosis. The probability of death is greatest for DTCs that have already metastasized at the time of diagnosis. The International Liver Transplantation Society-Sociedad Española de Trasplante Hepático working group on DTC has provided guidance on how to minimize the occurrence of DTCs while avoiding the unnecessary loss of livers for transplantation both in deceased and living donor LT. The group endorses the Council of Europe classification of risk of transmission of cancer from donor to recipient (minimal, low to intermediate, high, and unacceptable), classifies a range of malignancies in the liver donor into these 4 categories, and recommends when to consider LT, mindful of the risk of DTCs, and the clinical condition of patients on the waiting list. We further provide recommendations to professionals who identify DTC events, stressing the need to immediately alert all stakeholders concerned, so a coordinated investigation and management can be initiated; decisions on retransplantation should be made on a case-by-case basis with a multidisciplinary approach.

Abstract Introduction. About 60% of patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) relapse after standard of care (SOC) anti-CD19 autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, CD19 downregulation representing a major mechanism of resistance. Therefore, agents able to target B-cell antigens other than CD19 could be clinically effective for these patients. Polatuzumab vedotin (PV) is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD79b, and approved by the FDA in combination with bendamustine and rituximab for patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) LBCL. Patients who relapsed after CAR T-cell therapy were not included in the registration study, and reports of PV use after CAR T-cells in real world practice are very limited. Methods. This is a multi-center retrospective analysis of patients with LBCL who relapsed after SOC CAR T-cell therapy and subsequently received SOC PV with or without rituximab and bendamustine between 07/2019 and 04/2021. PV was given at the standard dose of 1.8 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks in all patients (except for one patient, who received 1.4 mg/Kg). Response to treatment and progression were defined according to 2014 Lugano criteria. Survival curves were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and were compared between subgroups using the log-rank test. Cox regression was used for multivariate analysis (MVA). Results. Fifty-four patients were included in the study: median age was 59 (range, 22-79 years), 38 (70%) were male, and 30 (56%) had an internal prognostic index score > 3. Median number of systemic therapies before CAR T-cell therapy was 2 (range, 2-6), 16 (30%) patients previously had autologous stem cell transplant (SCT), and 2 (4%) had allogeneic SCT. Sixteen (30%) patients were primary refractory to CAR T-cell therapy, and median time from CAR T-cell therapy to PV was 5 months (range, 1-40 months). CD19 status at time of relapse after CAR T-cell therapy was assessed by immunohistochemistry and/or flow cytometry in 41 patients, and positive in 34 (83%); CD79b status was assessed in 14 patients, and positive in all cases (100%). Thirty-two (59%) patients received PV-based therapy immediately after CAR T cell therapy, while 22 (41%) had intervening treatments (median 1, range 1-5). At time of PV initiation, median absolute neutrophil count was 2.9 (range 0.5-19 X10 9/L), median platelet count was 87 X10 9/L (range 15-437 X10 9/L), median serum creatinine was 0.9 mg/dL (range 0.4-22 mg/dL), and 44 (81%) patients had elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). The median number of PV cycles was 2 (range, 1-16): PV was combined with rituximab in 51 (94%) patients, and administered with bendamustine in 33 (61%). A response was achieved in 24 (45%) patients, including complete remission (CR) in 8 (14%) patients and partial remission in 16 (30%)(Figure A), with a median duration of response of 11 weeks (95%CI, 5-17 weeks). No significant association between baseline characteristics and response was observed. To date, 49 (91%) patients stopped PV: 38 (70%) due to progression, 7 (13%) because of CR/patient decision, 3 (6%) to proceed to allogeneic SCT, and 1 (2%) to proceed to an immunotherapy clinical trial (despite absence of progression). No patients stopped therapy because of toxicity. After a median follow up of 45 weeks (95% CI, 20-70 weeks), 44 (81%) patients progressed/died, and median PFS was 9 weeks (95% CI, 4-14 weeks). To date, 34 (63%) died, and median OS was 16 weeks (95% CI, 13-19 weeks)(Figure B). Causes of death included progression in 31 patients and transplant-related complications in 3. On univariate analysis, a shorter median progression-free survival (PFS) was observed for patients with bone marrow (BM) involvement (3 vs 10 weeks, p=0.002), prior central nervous system involvement (4 vs 10 weeks, p=0.02), and elevated LDH (6 months vs not reached, p=0.004). On MVA, the association was maintained only for BM involvement (hazard ratio [HR] 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-12.5, p=0.004) and elevated LDH (HR 5; 1.4-16.7, p=0.01)(Figure C). Discussion. PV is safe and effective, but has short duration of response in r/r LBCL after anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, except for patients with normal LDH. Studies aimed at better characterizing intrinsic mechanism of resistance, including upregulation of BCL2 family proteins, to favor the development of more effective PV-based combination strategies for these patients, are warranted. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Crombie: Roche: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Kamdar: Celgene (BMS): Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genetech: Other; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Hess: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Neelapu: Takeda Pharmaceuticals and related to cell therapy: Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Poseida, Cellectis, Celgene, Karus Therapeutics, Unum Therapeutics (Cogent Biosciences), Allogene, Precision BioSciences, Acerta and Adicet Bio: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Pfizer, Allogene Therapeutics, Cell Medica/Kuur, Incyte, Precision Biosciences, Legend Biotech, Adicet Bio, Calibr, Unum Therapeutics and Bluebird Bio: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Pfizer, Allogene, Kuur, Incyte, Precision BioSciences, Legend, Adicet Bio, Calibr, and Unum Therapeutics: Other: personal fees. Lin: Novartis: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy. Strati: Astrazeneca-Acerta: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy.

Abstract Background Recurrent pericarditis (RP) patients report that painful, debilitating flares negatively impact their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). RHAPSODY, the Phase 3 trial of rilonacept (IL-1α/IL-1β cytokine trap), included a daily pain diary and patient-reported outcome SF-36v2 to measure HRQoL throughout the trial. Purpose The purpose of this research is to evaluate the effect of rilonacept on HRQoL in relation to changes in pain for RP patients who have a recurrence. Methods RHAPSODY enrolled 86 patients with acute symptomatic RP to receive weekly rilonacept for a 12-week run-in (RI) period and randomized 61 patients (1:1) to receive placebo (n=31) or continue rilonacept (n=30) for the event-driven randomized-withdrawal (RW) period. Patients on placebo who experienced a qualifying recurrence during RW (return of pericarditis pain and increase in C-reactive protein) were rescued with bailout rilonacept. Patients reported daily pericarditis pain electronically, using a 0–10 numeric rating scale (NRS), and completed the SF-36v2 at study visits prior to clinician interaction. Scores from RI Baseline (BL), RI Week 12 (RW BL), Recurrence visit, and RW up to Week 24 (or end of study; EOS) were evaluated for patients who experienced recurrence in RW. Analyses exclude one patient randomized to placebo who had a recurrence after Week 24 of the RW period. Results Analyses focused on the 22 of 30 patients (73%) in the placebo group who experienced a recurrence before Week 24 of RW (median time from RW BL to recurrence: 8.6 weeks). During RI, daily pain scores decreased while on rilonacept (Cohen's effect size [ES] d=−2.0), and SF-36v2 scores improved, with scores at RI BL (Fig. 1 red line) below the general population average of 50 and near or above average at RI Week 12 (Fig. 1 blue line); ES were all large (d>0.8), ranging from 0.917 (Mental Component Summary) to 2.021 (Bodily Pain). At recurrence, pain scores increased (d=6.5; Fig. 2) and SF-36v2 scores were below the population average (Fig. 1 orange line), with largest reductions between RI Week 12 (RW BL) and recurrence for Bodily Pain (−13.4) and Physical Component Summary (−10.6). Following rilonacept bailout, average pain decreased (d=−2.1; Fig. 2), and by RW Week 24/EOS, SF-36v2 scores returned to similar levels as at the end of the RI period (Fig. 1 green line). Conclusion Impaired RI BL SF-36v2 scores indicate negative impact of RP on HRQOL in RP patients. While receiving rilonacept, HRQoL scores improved to near or above population averages, in conjunction with patient-reported pain. After discontinuing rilonacept during RW, HRQoL scores worsened at recurrence and improved upon receipt of bail-out rilonacept, similar to pain. These results provide support for the broader benefit of rilonacept treatment beyond pain, when administered on top of conventional therapies and as mono-therapy, providing evidence of its potential to improve HRQoL in this patient population. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Other. Main funding source(s): Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.