Citations

AbstractBackgroundClinical trials are underway to treat familial frontotemporal lobar degeneration (f‐FTLD). This is a rare disease, and a limited number of mutation carriers have been identified; thus, efficient trial design is critical. Multimodal, latent disease progression models (DPM) can estimate time to symptom onset and define the temporal ordering of biomarker changes. DPMs can also be leveraged to select endpoints and potentially supplement analyses by integrating historical data. Recent draft FDA guidance for gene therapy trials in neurological disease supports these novel approaches to clinical trials.MethodParticipants included 1,049 members of families affected by f‐FTLD, due to mutations in GRN, MAPT, or C9orf72 genes, who were enrolled in ALLFTD or GENFI. A Bayesian repeated measures model incorporated multimodal data to estimate disease progression, conditional on latent disease age (proximity to symptom onset), in 677 mutations carriers (GRN (n=233), MAPT (n=151) and C9orf72 (n=293)). Family members without pathogenic mutations were used as the reference group. Mean follow‐up was 1.1 (SD=1.1) years. Jointly modeled longitudinal variables included neuropsychological scores, CDR®+NACC‐FTLD Box Score, MRI volumes of brain regions affected by f‐FTLD, and plasma levels of neurofilament light chain (NfL).ResultDisease progression curves were similar across ALLFTD and GENFI cohorts. Plasma NfL elevations occurred earliest, up to 10 years before symptom onset, and NfL was the most powerful endpoint in the asymptomatic stage. MRI abnormalities occurred next, closer to symptom onset. The earliest MRI changes relative to symptom onset were observed in C9orf72+. GRN mutation carriers showed the most rapid acceleration in all biomarkers, and this acceleration occurred in close proximity to symptom onset. Neuropsychological measures and CDR®+NACC‐FTLD Box Score were among the most promising endpoints in the symptomatic stage. Trial simulations indicated that using latent disease age as an enrollment criterion would allow some asymptomatic mutation carriers to be enrolled without sacrificing power.ConclusionSimilarity in disease progression across ALLFTD and GENFI participants suggests these models will apply to international trials. Model‐derived estimates of disease progression curves indicate that endpoint selection should be specific to disease stage and mutation, and DPMs would facilitate greater participant enrollment.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Oncogenic FGFR2 alterations (fusions/rearrangements, amplifications, mutations) are key drivers in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and multiple solid tumors. Current pan-FGFR inhibitor (FGFRi) therapy is limited by off-isoform toxicity and acquired FGFR2 kinase domain resistance mutations. RLY-4008 is a highly selective and potent oral inhibitor designed to target both FGFR2 driver and resistance mutations. We initiated a first-in-human study in advanced solid tumors patients (pts) to define the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and efficacy of RLY-4008 (NCT04526106). METHODS: Adult pts received RLY-4008 QD or BID on a 4-week cycle following a BOIN escalation design. Adverse events (AEs), PK, ctDNA and anti-tumor activity (RECIST 1.1) were assessed. RESULTS: As of 16AUG21, 45 pts (35 CCA; 10 other) have been treated with RLY-4008 at total daily doses of 30-200 mg (18 pts BID; 27 pts QD). 44 pts had oncogenic FGFR2 alterations (26 fusions/13 mutations/5 amplifications). The median number of prior anti-neoplastic therapies was 3 (range 1-15). 94% (33/35) of CCA pts had prior chemotherapy and 69% (24/35) had prior FGFRi. 56% (9/16) CCA pts with prior FGFRi and evaluable ctDNA had ≥1 FGFR2 resistance mutation at baseline, most commonly at positions 549 (8/9), 617 (3/9), or 564 (2/9). RLY-4008 had rapid absorption (Tmax 1-7h), half-life to support QD dosing (18-34 h), dose-dependent exposure (AUC; Cmax) and predicted FGFR2 occupancy >85% across dose levels. The MTD has not been defined, and QD dose exploration continues to select the optimal biologically efficacious dose. AEs occurring in >20% of pts include stomatitis (49%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE, 38%), dry mouth (29%), and nail toxicities (22%), majority of which were ≤Gr 2. 6 pts had Gr 1-2 retinopathy, which resolved in all cases. 5 AEs were considered dose limiting toxicities: 4 in BID (rash/PPE/mucositis/hyperbilirubinemia) and 1 in QD (retinopathy). No Gr 4/5 drug-related AEs were seen. 25 pts remain on treatment (range 1-37 weeks). RLY-4008 showed broad anti-tumor activity across dose levels and FGFR2 alterations with radiographic tumor reductions of ≥10% in 59% pts (19/32; -11% to -83%). Activity was seen in FGFRi-naïve, FGFR2-fusion+ CCA with PRs in 50% of pts (3/6, 2 confirmed and 1 pending confirmation; -56% to -83%). Activity was also seen in FGFRi pre-treated FGFR2-fusion+ CCA pts (N=16) with 16 SD, including 9 pts with tumor reduction ≥10% (from -12% to -35%). Of the FGFRi pre-treated FGFR2-fusion+ CCA patients with detectable FGFR2 resistance mutations in ctDNA at baseline, 78% (7/9) were undetectable at C2D1. CONCLUSION: RLY-4008 demonstrates promising safety, tolerability, and clinical activity in FGFR2-altered solid tumor pts, including those who progressed on prior FGFRi therapy. Consistent with the FGFR2-selective mechanism, minimal off-isoform toxicity (FGFR1-hyperphosphatemia; FGFR4-diarrhea) was seen. These encouraging data validate selective targeting of FGFR2 and suggest that RLY-4008 has potential to overcome resistance to FGFRi. Citation Format: Lipika Goyal, Mitesh Borad, Vivek Subbiah, Amit Mahipal, Suneel Kamath, Kabir Mody, Robin Katie Kelley, Richard Kim, Vaibhav Sahai, Anthony El-Khoueiry, Efrat Dotan, Oleg Schmidt-Kittler, Jinshan Shen, Kai Yu Jen, Alicia Deary, Wei Guo, Mahesh Padval, Cori Ann J. Sherwin, Charles Ferte, Beni Wolf, Alison M. Schram. First results of RLY-4008, a potent and highly selective FGFR2 inhibitor in a first-in-human study in patients with FGFR2-altered cholangiocarcinoma and multiple solid tumors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC Virtual International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2021 Oct 7-10. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2021;20(12 Suppl):Abstract nr P02-02.

BACKGROUND: Ozanimod, an oral sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator selectively targeting S1P 1 and S1P 5 , demonstrated superior efficacy and safety vs placebo for up to 52 weeks in adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) in a phase 3 study (True North). In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of prior biologic exposure on response to ozanimod. METHODS: True North consisted of two cohorts. In cohort 1, patients with UC received double-blind treatment with once-daily ozanimod 0.92 mg (equivalent to ozanimod HCl 1 mg) or placebo. In cohort 2, patients received open-label once daily ozanimod 0.92 mg. Ozanimod responders after a 10-week induction were re-randomized to double-blind maintenance with ozanimod 0.92 mg or placebo through week 52. Outcomes based on prior biologic exposure (biologic-naïve, 1 biologic, and 2+ biologics) and prior biologic type (anti-tumor necrosis factor [TNF] agents, vedolizumab, or both) were analyzed for clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic improvement, and mucosal healing. Patients exposed to only a JAK inhibitor were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 992 patients (n = 213 placebo and n = 426 ozanimod in cohort 1, n = 353 ozanimod in cohort 2) were included in the analysis for induction; 616 were biologic-naïve, 162 had exposure to 1 biologic, and 214 were exposed to 2 or more biologics. At baseline, biologic-exposed patients had more prior corticosteroid use, longer disease duration, and more extensive disease than biologic-naïve patients. During induction, greater therapeutic effects of ozanimod were generally seen in biologic-naïve vs biologic-exposed patients, and ozanimod-treated patients had greater responses on nearly all reported endpoints at week 10 (cohort 1). Clinical remission was achieved in 23% vs 6.6% of patients on ozanimod vs placebo who were biologic naïve, 17.2% vs 8.3% on 1 prior biologic, and 3.7% vs 2.5% on 2 or more biologics. Clinical response was reached in 53% vs 28% of patients on ozanimod vs placebo who were biologic naïve, 50% vs 33% on 1 biologic, and 27% vs 15% on 2 or more biologics. During maintenance, ozanimod-treated patients had greater responses on all endpoints versus placebo, with similar proportions of patients achieving clinical response to ozanimod regardless of prior biologic exposure (61% for biologic naïve, 60% for 1 biologic, and 55% for 2 or more biologics). At week 52, the proportion of patients on ozanimod with clinical remission was similar in the 1-biologic and 2+-biologic exposure groups (28% and 26%, respectively), and proportions of patients on ozanimod with endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing were similar for the 1-biologic and biologic-naïve groups (47% and 50%, 30%, and 33%, respectively). Among patients with inadequate response to prior anti-TNF agents, vedolizumab, or both at baseline, treatment effects favored ozanimod vs placebo on these endpoints in all three groups during both induction and maintenance. CONCLUSION: Ozanimod improved clinical, endoscopic, and histologic outcomes in both biologic-exposed and -naïve patients. Patients with prior biologic use may require additional time to respond to treatment. Outcomes were improved with ozanimod regardless of prior use of anti-TNF agents and vedolizumab.

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.

AbstractObjectiveDrug‐resistant epilepsy (DRE) occurs at higher rates in children <3 years old. Epilepsy surgery is effective, but rarely utilized in young children despite developmental benefits of early seizure freedom. The present study aims to identify unique patient characteristics and evaluation strategies in children <3 years old who undergo epilepsy surgery evaluation as a means to assess contributors and potential solutions to health care disparities in this group.MethodsThe Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium Epilepsy Surgery Database, a multicentered, cross‐sectional collaboration of 21 US pediatric epilepsy centers, collects prospective data on children <18 years of age referred for epilepsy surgery evaluation. We compared patient characteristics, diagnostic utilization, and surgical treatment between children <3 years old and those older undergoing initial presurgical evaluation. We evaluated patient characteristics leading to delayed referral (>1 year) after DRE diagnosis in the very young.ResultsThe cohort included 437 children, of whom 71 (16%) were <3 years of age at referral. Children evaluated before the age of 3 years more commonly had abnormal neurological examinations (p = .002) and daily seizures (p = .001). At least one ancillary test was used in 44% of evaluations. Fifty‐nine percent were seizure‐free following surgery (n = 34), with 35% undergoing limited focal resections. Children with delayed referrals more often had focal aware (p < .001) seizures and recommendation for palliative surgeries (p < .001).SignificanceThere are relatively few studies of epilepsy surgery in the very young. Surgery is effective, but may be disproportionally offered to those with severe presentations. Relatively low utilization of ancillary testing may contribute to reduced surgical therapy for those without evident lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. Despite this, a sizeable portion of patients have favorable outcome after focal epilepsy surgery resections.

ABSTRACT Coronavirus disease (COVID) toes are pernio-like skin lesions associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We observed pernio-like skin findings presenting after a Pfizer BioNTech vaccine, which significantly worsened after an infusion of rituximab. This suggests that the mechanism for COVID toes is interferon activation. Military providers may avoid unnecessary referrals for this self-limiting condition by anticipating this adverse effect.