Citations

AbstractThe primary objective of treatment in myelofibrosis (MF) is prolongation of life, which is currently accomplished only by allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT). Determination of optimal timing for AHSCT is facilitated by molecular risk stratification. Non‐transplant treatment options in MF are palliative in scope and include Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) inhibitors (JAKi): momelotinib (FDA approved on September 15, 2023), ruxolitinib (November 16, 2011), fedratinib (August 16, 2019), and pacritinib (February 28, 2022); all four JAKi are effective in reducing spleen size and alleviating symptoms, considered a drug class effect and attributed to their canonical JAK–STAT inhibitory mechanism of action. In addition, momelotinib exhibits erythropoietic effect, attributed to alleviation of ineffective erythropoiesis through inhibition of activin A receptor type‐I (ACVR1). In transplant‐ineligible or deferred patients, the order of treatment preference is based on specific symptoms and individual assessment of risk tolerance. Because of drug‐induced immunosuppression and other toxicities attributed to JAKi, we prefer non‐JAKi drugs as initial treatment for MF‐associated anemia that is not accompanied by treatment‐requiring splenomegaly or constitutional symptoms. Otherwise, it is reasonable to consider momelotinib as the first‐line JAKi treatment of choice, in order to target the triad of quality‐of‐life offenders in MF: anemia, splenomegaly, and constitutional symptoms/cachexia. For second‐line therapy, we favor ruxolitinib, over fedratinib, based on toxicity profile. Pacritinib and fedratinib provide alternative options in the presence of severe thrombocytopenia or ruxolitinib‐resistance/intolerance, respectively. Splenectomy remains a viable option for drug‐resistant symptomatic splenomegaly and cytopenia.

Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) have been widely investigated for treating non-healing fractures. They participate in bone reconstruction by inducing osteoblast differentiation, and osteoid matrix production.1 The human recombinant protein of BMP-7 was among the first growth factors approved for clinical use. Despite achieving comparable results to autologous bone grafting, severe side effects have been associated with its use.2 Furthermore, BMP-7 was removed from the market.3 These complications are related to the high doses used (1.5-40 miligrams per surgery)2 compared to the physiological concentration of BMP in fracture healing (in the nanogram to picogram per milliliter range).4 In this study, we use transcript therapy to deliver chemically modified mRNA (cmRNA) encoding BMP-7. Compared to direct use of proteins, transcript therapy allows the sustained synthesis of proteins with native conformation and true post-translational modifications using doses comparable to the physiological ones.5 Moreover, cmRNA technology overcomes the safety and affordability limitations of standard gene therapy i.e. pDNA.6 BMP-7 cmRNA was delivered using Lipofectamine™ MessengerMAX™ to human mesenchymal stromal cells (hMSCs). We assessed protein expression and osteogenic capacity of hMSCs in monolayer culture and in a house-made, collagen hydroxyapatite scaffold. Using fluorescently-labelled cmRNA we observed an even distribution after loading complexes into the scaffold and a complete release after 3 days. For both monolayer and 3D culture, BMP-7 production peaked at 24 hours post-transfection, however cells transfected in scaffolds showed a sustained expression. BMP-7 transfected hMSCs yielded significantly higher ALP activity and Alizarin red staining at later timepoints compared to the untransfected group. Interestingly, BMP-7 cmRNA treatment triggered expression of osteogenic genes like OSX, RUNX-2 and OPN, which was also reflected in immunostainings. This work highlights the relevance of cmRNA technology that may overcome the shortcomings of protein delivery while circumventing issues of traditional pDNA-based gene therapy for bone regeneration.Acknowledgement: This work has been performed as part of the cmRNAbone project and has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Grant Agreement No 874790.

Bone tissue is known to possess an intrinsic regeneration potential. However, in cases of major injury, trauma, and disease, bone loss is present, and the regeneration potential of the tissue is often impaired. The process of bone regeneration relies on a complex interaction of molecules. MicroRNAs (miRNA) are small, non-coding RNAs that inhibit messenger RNAs (mRNA). One miRNA can inhibit several mRNAs and one mRNA can be inhibited by several miRNAs. Functionally, miRNAs regulate the entire proteome via the local inhibition of translation. In fact, miRNA modulation has been shown to be involved in several musculoskeletal diseases1. In those pathologies, they modulate the transcriptional activity of mRNAs important for differentiation, tissue-specific activity, extracellular matrix production, etc. Because of their function in inhibiting translation, miRNAs are being researched in many diseases and are already being used for interventional treatment2. Bone tissue and its related conditions have been widely investigated up to this day1,3. This talk will focus on the relevancy of miRNAs to bone tissue, its homeostasis, and disease. After, examples will be given of how miRNAs can be used in bone regeneration and diseases such as osteoporosis and osteosarcoma. The use of miRNAs in both, detection and therapy will be discussed.

Messenger RNA (mRNA) is a new class of drug that can be used to express a therapeutic protein and, in contrast to DNA, is safer and inexpensive. Among its advantages, mRNA will immediately begin to express its encoded protein in the cell cytoplasm. The protein will be expressed for a period of time, after which the mRNA is degraded. There is no risk of genetic damage, one of the concerns with plasmid DNA (pDNA) used in traditional gene therapy approaches. Nevertheless, mRNA application in tissue regeneration and regenerative medicine remains limited. In this case, mRNA must overcome its main hurdles: immunogenicity, lack of stability, and intracellular delivery. Research has been done to overcome these limitations, and the future of mRNA seems promising for tissue repair1,2. This keynote talk will address questions including: What are the opportunities for mRNA to improve outcomes in musculoskeletal tissue repair, in particular bone and cartilage? What are the key factors and challenges to expediting this technology to patient treatment (beyond COVID-19 vaccination)?Acknowledgements: E.R.B thanks the cmRNAbone project funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the grant agreement no. 874790 and the NIH R01 AR074395 from NIAMS for funding her mRNA work.

Intra-articular injection is a common way to deliver biologics to joints, but their effectiveness is limited by rapid clearance from the joint space. This barrier can be overcome by genetically modifying cells within the joint such that they produce anti-arthritic gene products endogenously, thereby achieving sustained, therapeutic, intra-articular concentrations of the transgene products without re-dosing. A variety of non-viral and viral vectors have been subjected to preclinical testing to evaluate their suitability for delivering genes to joints. The first transfer of a gene to a human joint used an ex vivo protocol involving retrovirally transduced, autologous, synovial fibroblasts. Recent advances in vector technology allow in vivo delivery using adeno-associated virus (AAV). We have developed an AAV vector encoding the interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (AAV.IL-1Ra) for injection into joints with osteoarthritis (OA). It showed efficacy and safety in equine and rat models of OA, leading to a recently-completed, investigator-initiated, Phase I, dose-escalation clinical trial in 9 subjects with mid-stage OA of the knee (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02790723). Three cohorts of three subjects with mild to moderate OA in the index knee were injected intra-articularly under ultrasound guidance with a low (10e11 viral genomes) medium (10e12 viral genomes) or high (10e13 viral genomes) dose of AAV.IL-1Ra and followed for one year. The data confirm safety, with evidence of sustained intra-articular expression of IL-1Ra and a clinical response in certain subjects. Funding for a subsequent Phase Ib trial involving 50 subjects (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05835895), expected to start later this year, has been acquired. Progress in this area has stimulated commercial activity and there are now at least seven different companies developing gene therapies for OA and a number of clinical trials are in progress.Acknowledgement: Clinical trial funded by US Department of Defense Clinical Trial Award W81XWH-16-1-0540.

AbstractBackgroundThere are no established clinical breakpoints for antifungal agents against Cryptococcus species; however, epidemiological cut‐off values can help distinguish wild‐type (WT) isolates without any acquired resistance from non‐WT strains, which may harbour resistance mechanisms.Patients/MethodsWe describe the trends of antifungal MICs and percentages of WT C. neoformans species complex (CNSC) isolates processed in our reference laboratory from November 2011 to June 2021. There were only nine isolates in 2011, thus, we included them in the year 2012 for data analysis. Clinical data is also described when available.ResultsWe identified 632 CNSC, the majority collected from blood (n = 301), cerebrospinal fluid (n = 230), and respiratory (n = 71) sources. The overall percentage of WT isolates for amphotericin B (AMB), 5‐flucytosine, and fluconazole was 77%, 98%, and 91%, respectively. We noticed a statistically significant change in the percentage of AMB WT isolates over the years, with 98% of isolates being WT in 2012 compared to 79% in 2021 (p < .01). A similar change was not observed for other antifungal agents. Clinical data was available for 36 patients, primarily non‐HIV immunocompromised patients with disseminated cryptococcosis. There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical characteristics and outcomes between patients with WT (58.3%) versus non‐WT (41.7%) isolates, but we noticed higher mortality in patients infected with an AMB non‐WT CNSC isolate.ConclusionsWe observed an increase in the percentage of AMB non‐WT CNSC isolates in the past decade. The clinical implications of this finding warrant further evaluation in larger studies.

Our understanding of how human skin cells differ according to anatomical site and tumour formation is limited. To address this, we have created a multiscale spatial atlas of healthy skin and basal cell carcinoma (BCC), incorporating in vivo optical coherence tomography, single-cell RNA sequencing, spatial global transcriptional profiling, and in situ sequencing. Computational spatial deconvolution and projection revealed the localisation of distinct cell populations to specific tissue contexts. Although cell populations were conserved between healthy anatomical sites and in BCC, mesenchymal cell populations including fibroblasts and pericytes retained signatures of developmental origin. Spatial profiling and in silico lineage tracing support a hair follicle origin for BCC and demonstrate that cancer-associated fibroblasts are an expansion of a POSTN + subpopulation associated with hair follicles in healthy skin. RGS5+ pericytes are also expanded in BCC suggesting a role in vascular remodelling. We propose that the identity of mesenchymal cell populations is regulated by signals emanating from adjacent structures and that these signals are repurposed to promote the expansion of skin cancer stroma. The resource we have created is publicly available in an interactive format for the research community.