Citations

Background Up to one third of survivors of AKI that required dialysis (AKI-D) during hospitalization remain dialysis dependent at hospital discharge. Of these, 20%–60%, depending on the clinical setting, eventually recover enough kidney function to stop dialysis, and the remainder progress to ESKD. Methods To describe the challenges facing those still receiving dialysis on discharge, the AKINow Committee conducted a group discussion comprising 59 participants, including physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, pharmacists, and patients. The discussion was framed by a patient who described gaps in care delivery at different transition points and miscommunication between care team members and the patient. Results Group discussions collected patient perspectives of ( 1 ) being often scared and uncertain about what is happening to and around them and ( 2 ) the importance of effective and timely communication, a comfortable physical setting, and attentive and caring health care providers for a quality health care experience. Provider perspectives included ( 1 ) the recognition of the lack of evidence-based practices and quality indicators, the significant variability in current care models, and the uncertain reimbursement incentives focused on kidney recovery and ( 2 ) the urgency to address communication barriers among hospital providers and outpatient facilities. Conclusions The workgroup identified key areas for future research and policy change to ( 1 ) improve communication among hospital providers, dialysis units, and patients/care partners; ( 2 ) develop tools for risk classification, subphenotyping, and augmented clinical decision support; ( 3 ) improve education to providers, staff, and patients/care partners; ( 4 ) identify best practices to improve relevant outcomes; ( 5 ) validate quality indicators; and ( 6 ) assess the effect of social determinants of health on outcomes. We urge all stakeholders involved in the process of AKI-D care to align goals and work together to fill knowledge gaps and optimize the care to this highly vulnerable patient population.

Summary Chimeric antigen receptor T‐cell (CAR‐T) therapy and bispecific T‐cell engagers (BsAb) have emerged as promising immunotherapeutic modalities in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, there is limited data on the safety and efficacy of CAR‐T and BsAb therapies in MM patients with a prior history of allogeneic transplantation (allo‐HCT). Thirty‐three MM patients with prior allo‐HCT received CAR‐T ( n = 24) or BsAb ( n = 9) therapy. CAR‐T therapy demonstrated an ORR of 92% (67% ≥ CR), and 73% were MRD negative. BsAb therapy resulted in an ORR of 44% (44% ≥ CR) and 44% MRD negative. Safety analysis showed grade ≥3 AEs in 92% of CAR‐T and 56% of BsAb patients. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 83% of CAR‐T and 78% of BsAb recipients, while immune effector cell‐associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) was observed in three CAR‐T patients. Infections of grade ≥3 were reported in 50% of CAR‐T and 44% of BsAb recipients. No exacerbation of graft‐versus‐host disease occurred except in one BsAb recipient. CAR‐T and BsAb therapies appear to be feasible, safe and provide deep and durable responses in MM patients with prior allo‐HCT.