Citations

AbstractSevere cases of COVID-19 infection, often leading to death, have been associated with variants of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Cell therapy with mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) is a potential treatment for COVID-19 ARDS based on preclinical and clinical studies supporting the concept that MSCs modulate the inflammatory and remodeling processes and restore alveolo-capillary barriers. The authors performed a systematic literature review and random-effects meta-analysis to determine the potential value of MSC therapy for treating COVID-19-infected patients with ARDS. Publications in all languages from 1990 to March 31, 2020 were reviewed, yielding 2691 studies, of which nine were included. MSCs were intravenously or intratracheally administered in 117 participants, who were followed for 14 days to 5 years. All MSCs were allogeneic from bone marrow, umbilical cord, menstrual blood, adipose tissue, or unreported sources. Combined mortality showed a favorable trend but did not reach statistical significance. No related serious adverse events were reported and mild adverse events resolved spontaneously. A trend was found of improved radiographic findings, pulmonary function (lung compliance, tidal volumes, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, alveolo-capillary injury), and inflammatory biomarker levels. No comparisons were made between MSCs of different sources.Significance statement The potential benefits of mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) therapy for patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome support the rapid commencement of clinical trials, as well as the compassionate use of MSCs that already have documented safety profiles from FDA-approved studies.

Objective Bioprosthetic valves are being used with increased frequency for valve replacement, with controversy regarding risk:benefit ratio compared with mechanical valves in younger patients. However, prior studies have been too small to provide comparative estimates of less common but serious adverse events such as infective endocarditis. We aimed to compare the incidence of infective endocarditis between bioprosthetic valves and mechanical valves. Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science from inception to April 2018 for studies comparing left-sided aortic and mitral bioprosthetic to mechanical valves for randomised trials or observational studies with propensity matching. We used random-effects model for our meta-analysis. Our primary outcome of interest was the rate of infective endocarditis at follow-up. Results 13 comparison groups with 43 941 patients were included. Mean age was 59±7 years with a mean follow-up of 10.4±5.0 years. Patients with bioprosthetic valves had a higher risk of infective endocarditis compared with patients receiving mechanical valves (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.88, p<0.001) with an absolute risk reduction of 9 per 1000 (95% CI 6 to 14). Heterogeneity within the included studies was low (I2=0%). Exclusion of the study with maximum weight did not change the results of the analysis (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.17, p=0.006). A meta-regression of follow-up time on incidence of infective endocarditis was not statistically significant (p=0.788) indicating difference in follow-up times did not alter the pooled risk of infective endocarditis. Conclusions Bioprosthetic valves may be associated with a higher risk of infective endocarditis. These data should help guide the discussion when deciding between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in individual patients.

SummaryBackgroundWhen opioid‐induced constipation is treated with centrally acting opioid antagonists, there may be opioid withdrawal or aggravation of pain due to inhibition of μ‐opioid analgesia. This led to the development of peripherally acting μ‐opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs).AimTo evaluate the efficacy of available PAMORAs and other approved or experimental treatments for relieving constipation in patients with opioid‐induced constipation, based on a systematic review and meta‐analysis of published studies.MethodsA search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and EBM Reviews Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was completed in July 2019 for randomised trials compared to placebo. FDA approved doses or highest studied dose was evaluated. Efficacy was based on diverse endpoints, including continuous variables (the bowel function index, number of spontaneous bowel movements and stool consistency based on Bristol Stool Form Scale), or responder analysis (combination of >3 spontaneous bowel movements or complete spontaneous bowel movements plus 1 spontaneous bowel movement or complete spontaneous bowel movements, respectively, over baseline [so‐called FDA endpoints]). Adverse effects evaluated included central opioid withdrawal, serious adverse events, abdominal pain and diarrhoea.ResultsWe included 35 trials at low risk of bias enrolling 13 566 patients. All PAMORAs demonstrated efficacy on diverse patient response endpoints. There was greater efficacy with approved doses of the PAMORAs (methylnaltrexone, naloxegol and naldemidine), with lower efficacy or lower efficacy and greater adverse effects with combination oxycodone with naloxone, lubiprostone and linaclotide.ConclusionsTherapeutic response in opioid‐induced constipation is best achieved with the PAMORAs, methylnaltrexone, naloxegol and naldemidine, which are associated with low risk of serious adverse events.

e19530 Background: Intensive chemotherapy (IC) regimens are rarely used in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) for many reasons including advanced age at diagnosis, the frailty of these patients, the presence of several comorbidities and potentially increased mortality when such regimens are used. Additionally, very little literature exists on its safety and long-term benefit in this population. Aim: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of IC regimens in patients with MDS. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane databases from each database's inception from 1990 to January 27th, 2020. Keywords include: “MDS”, “induction chemotherapy” and “remission induction”. Studies evaluating different IC regimens with MDS were included. IC studies for patients with relapsed/ refractory MDS were excluded. Studies that combined acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and MDS outcomes were excluded. The random-effects model was used to pool relative risks and incidence rates. Main endpoints were overall remission rates (ORR), 30- and 60-days mortality, 1-year, 2-year and 5-year overall survival (OS). Results: Characteristics: From 2001 records, we included 13 studies [1,164 patients, median age 60.1 years (range, 17-88), males 58.9%, 58.4% patients had abnormal cytogenetics, median bone marrow blasts 17.8% (range 4 -29%), 4 studies were randomized]. Induction outcome: IC regimes included “7+3, FLAG, s-HAM, and few other regimens. Response: ORR was 55%, including 52% CR rate. Safety: 30- and 60-days mortality were 7%, 15%, respectively. Survival outcome: median survival was 11.6 months, 1-year, 2-year and 5-year OS were 48%, 21% and 5%, respectively. Randomized studies comparison: adding growth factors to IC did not show statistically significant effects on outcomes regarding induction mortality, ORR and OS (p-value > .05). Conclusions: IC is rarely used in MDS patients and its use is associated with high mortality rates and low long-term survival. Limitations to our studies include the long span of this review over 3 decades and the difficulty of using published studies that combines MDS and AML patients’ outcome. More studies are needed in this population of interest in the future.

e17539 Background: Chemotherapy with Docetaxel (D) or androgen pathway inhibition (API) with Abiraterone Acetate plus prednisone (AAP), Aplautamide(APA) and Enzalutamide(E) are acceptable, FDA approved treatment options for mCSPC. It is not clear whether the magnitude of benefit varies by the choice of initial agent [chemotherapy vs API] or by volume of disease [High vs Low]. Data is now available from all registration trials by volume status and motivated this analysis to inform initial treatment choice in mCSPC. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE(Ovid), Embase, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials of chemotherapy(D) or APIs (AAP, APA, ENZ) that had available hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and Progression Free Survival (PFS) according to patient’s volume of disease. We also reviewed abstracts and presentations from all major conference proceedings. We calculated the pooled overall survival HR and 95% CI by chemotherapy and APIs and by high volume(HVD) and low volume(LVD) using a random effect model, and tested for heterogeneity to assess the null hypothesis that no difference in the survival advantage exists by choice of initial agent and volume of disease. Results: Of 4456 studies identified in our search, there were 8 eligible randomized controlled trials that were included in the analysis. Both D and APIs significantly improved PFS [HR 0.48; 0.45-0.51] and OS [0.72; 0.64-0.81] when added to ADT, however the latter was associated with significantly higher improvement in PFS( P < 0.01) and OS (P = 0.03). In patients treated with D, patients with HVD derive significantly more benefit as compared to LVD( P = 0.046) and patients treated with APIs both HVD and LVD patients derive similar benefit( P = 0.80) (Table). Conclusions: mCSPC patients derive higher magnitude of survival benefit when treated with APIs as compared to D; however, D may be preferred in HVD patients. [Table: see text]

5583 Background: FDA has approved three novel AAs [Apalutamide(A), Darolutamide(D) and Enzalutamide(E)] in combination with Androgen deprivation therapy ( ADT) for treatment of (nmCRPC) patients (pts). We report the cost-effectiveness of these drugs from the US perspective to help facilitate the choice of these agents for clinical practice. Methods: A life time Markov state-transition model was constructed with three health states (Metastasis-Free Survival[MFS], Metastatic disease, and Death) to compare cost-effectiveness of AA therapies for treatment of nmCRPC based on US healthcare payer perspective. A network meta-analysis of MFS and OS was conducted due to the lack of head to head trials. An approximation of the original individual-level patient time-to-event data were derived from digitized Kaplan-Meier curves for OS and MFS. Weibull distributions was selected as the best fitted model fitted and extrapolated as per the NICE decision support unit recommendations. Medication costs were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Adverse event (AE) grades 3/4 management costs were incorporated in the model. Discount rate of 3% per year was applied to costs and effects. Life years (LYs) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for each treatment as well as the incremental cost effectiveness (ICER) and cost utility (ICUR) ratios were estimated. Base case analyses (BCA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were estimated. Results: The table summarizes the results form BCA analyses. A+ADT offers best gain in LYs (8.37yrs) and QALYs (5.30 yrs) but at higher cost. Conclusions: Apalutamide was associated with gains in LYs and QALYs traded off with higher lifetime cost relative to other AA alternatives. ADT was associated with lower gains in LYs and QALYs traded off with lower lifetime cost relative to other alternatives. Based on a $150,000/QALY threshold pay off, A+ADT is likely more cost effective compared to E+ADT or ADT alone; while E+ ADT may be more cost effective compared to D+ ADT. [Table: see text]

2054 Background: Systematic reviews that summarize the toxicity of Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) become outdated very soon after publication. Therefore, we reported results of a toxicity meta-analysis at 2019 ASCO meeting and informed the intent to create a living systematic review (LSR). LSRs combine human and machine effort and support rapid evidence synthesis and living clinical practice guidelines. Now, we report our experience maintaining a LSR on toxicity of ICIs. Methods: Steps include quarterly literature searches to identify new clinical trials reporting ICI-associated adverse events (AEs), AI-enabled screening of new citations which meet the inclusion criteria, automated cumulative meta-analysis and an online reporting platform. Standard data formats and protocols were designed for inputting text, tables and graphics. Software was written to interpret these data and output the information in the appropriate format, such as a forest plot and summary tables. Finally, a dynamic interface that enables user inputs and displays the associated output was designed. Results: The LSR is continuously updated incorporating toxicity data from new clinical trials as it becomes available. We have screened 8000 relevant citations and summarized the odds of Grade 3 or higher AEs and AEs of special interest in patient receiving ICIs. The results are updated on quarterly basis and are available online. The results are updated on quarterly basis and will be available on a website at the time of publication. Prototype with dummy data is available at this link . This interface can also be manipulated via user input to organize and sort data tables and forest plots by type of cancer, name or mechanism (PD-1 or PD-L1) of ICI agent, single agent or combination, type of control arm, line of treatment and several other clinically relevant filters. For example, a user can instantaneously generate a meta-analysis summarizing the risk of colitis or pneumonitis in metastatic lung cancer trials with pembrolizmuab. Conclusions: This LSR engine can prospectively synthesize toxicity data from ICI trials in an efficient manner providing accurate and timely information for advanced clinical decision support at point-of-care. Efforts are ongoing to improve efficiency of screening, improve AI-enabled processes for automated screening and data abstraction, and test across multiple clinical questions.

AbstractBackgroundNo consensus exists regarding optimal strategy for antifungal prophylaxis following lung transplant.ObjectiveTo review data regarding antifungal prophylaxis on the development of fungal infections.Study selection/AppraisalWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus for eligible articles through December 10, 2019. Observational or controlled trials published after January 1, 2001, that pertained to the prevention of fungal infections in adult lung recipients were reviewed independently by two reviewers for inclusion.MethodsOf 1702 articles screened, 24 were included. Data were pooled using random effects model to evaluate for the primary outcome of fungal infection. Studies were stratified by prophylactic strategy, medication, and duration (short term < 6 months and long term ≥ 6 months).ResultsWe found no difference in the odds of fungal infection with universal prophylaxis (49/101) compared to no prophylaxis (36/93) (OR 0.76, CI: 0.03‐17.98; I2 = 93%) and preemptive therapy (25/195) compared to universal prophylaxis (35/222) (OR 0.91, CI: 0.06‐13.80; I2 = 93%). The cumulative incidence of fungal infections within 12 months was not different with nebulized amphotericin (0.08, CI: 0.04‐0.13; I2 = 87%) compared to systemic triazoles (0.07, CI: 0.03‐0.11; I2 = 21%) (P = .65). Likewise, duration of prophylaxis did not impact the incidence of fungal infections (short term: 0.11, CI: 0.05‐0.17; I2 = 89%; long term: 0.06, CI: 0.03‐0.08; I2 = 51%; P = .39).ConclusionsWe have insufficient evidence to support or exclude a benefit of antifungal prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTVES Four direct‐acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Limited efficacy and safety data are available for their use in older adults (aged ≥75 years). METHODS Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched for trials comparing DOACs with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of VTE in older adults from inception through January 1, 2020. Meta‐analysis was performed to assess the combined endpoint of recurrent VTE and related deaths and bleeding events (composite of major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding). The Mantel‐Haenszel relative risk (RR) random effects model was used to pool results across studies. RESULTS Six randomized controlled trials at low risk of bias met criteria for inclusion with a total of 3,665 patients aged 75 years and older with follow‐up of 24 weeks or longer. Data for bleeding events were not available for dabigatran. Overall, DOACs had an improved efficacy over VKAs (RR = .56; 95% confidence interval [CI] = .38‐.82). There was no statistically significant difference in the safety outcomes (RR = .77; 95% CI = .56‐1.05). No significant heterogeneity was observed for efficacy outcome, and only moderate heterogeneity was observed for safety outcome. CONCLUSION In older adults with VTE, DOACs appear to improve rates of recurrent VTE and VTE‐related deaths compared with VKAs with similar bleeding outcomes.