Citations

Objective: Pulmonary involvement is commonly observed in anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV), presenting with manifestations such as diffuse alveolar hemorrhage, inflammatory infiltrates, pulmonary nodules, and tracheobronchial disease. We aimed to identify distinct subgroups of tracheobronchial disease patterns in patients with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) using latent class analysis (LCA), and to evaluate their clinical characteristics and outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records of patients aged >18 years diagnosed with AAV and tracheobronchial disease between 1 January 2002 and 6 September 2022. Patients with follow-up <6 months were excluded. LCA was employed to identify disease subtypes based on 10 pre-defined indicators. Maximum likelihood estimation with 10 repetitions per model ensured robustness in model selection, guided by the Akaike information criterion (AIC). Patient and disease characteristics were summarized and compared across predicted classes. Statistical analyses included Kruskal–Wallis and Fisher’s exact tests for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. The primary outcome was time to relapse of the tracheobronchial inflammation after starting immunosuppressive medication, analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank tests. Secondary outcomes included severity of pulmonary disease on pulmonary function tests, endoscopic interventions, tracheostomy, or mortality during follow-up. Results: Among 136 identified AAV patients assessed for tracheobronchial involvement, 111 (81.6%) were included after excluding 25 without tracheal or bronchial disease. Predominant findings included subglottic stenosis (91.0%), lower tracheal stenosis (16.2%), and bronchial stenosis (17.1%). LCA identified a three-class model as optimal: tracheal predominant (n = 94), tracheobronchial (n = 12), and bronchial predominant (n = 5). Tracheal predominant patients showed reduced risk of ear, eye, and lower respiratory manifestations, with milder obstruction on pulmonary function testing (PFT). Tracheobronchial-class patients were prone to saddle nose deformity (50%), extensive lower respiratory involvement (91.7%), and renal disease (66.7%). Bronchial predominant patients exhibited severe obstructive disease (median forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)% predicted: 58, IQR 34–66; FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio: 56.9, interquartile range (IQR) 43–63.3) but lacked systemic AAV manifestations. LCA classes did not predict outcomes such as endoscopic intervention, tracheostomy, recurrent tracheobronchial narrowing, or mortality. Conclusion: LCA shows promise in subtype stratification of AAV patients, yet its utility in predicting outcomes and guiding treatment remains limited based on our analysis. Future studies with enhanced phenotypic data and larger cohorts are warranted to improve predictive accuracy.

Introduction: Phase I trials are designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of new treatments. Review of adverse events (AEs) experienced by trial participants is a critical aspect of these early phase trials. Current practice for safety and tolerability data collection is for clinicians to evaluate AEs using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Past work has demonstrated that clinicians may miss or underreport symptomatic AEs. The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) is an item library of questions for patients to self-report symptomatic AEs in clinical trials that is complementary to the CTCAE. PRO-CTCAE offers a patient-centric method for capturing symptomatic AEs, which may be missed or underreported by clinicians. The PRO-CTCAE library includes questions using patient friendly terms to assess frequency, severity, and interference of symptomatic AEs on 0-4 verbal descriptor scales (e.g., severity is rated by patients as none, mild, moderate, severe, or very severe). The goal of the current work was to demonstrate how to incorporate AE information from PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE into a Phase I dose review report. Methods: We used data from a Phase I clinical trial of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Therapy was administered on 28-day cycles. Patients completed questionnaires on an electronic device on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first cycle of treatment. Through iterative feedback from clinicians and statisticians, we developed an example dose review report. The report summarized data for one dose level in which 4 patients were treated. These 4 patients comprised the first patient cohort enrolled in the available Phase I clinical trial. The report was intended to be representative of the type of report that would be reviewed to make a decision about the next dose level for a new cohort of patients. Results: The final dose review report included narratives for each patient generated by the statistical team based on patient-reported and physician-graded AEs in cycle 1, tabular summaries integrating CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE, and novel graphical presentation of PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE, including swimmer plots and butterfly plots for symptoms listed as dose limiting toxicity criteria. In this cohort, 3/4 (75%) patients had at least one grade 3+ AE, as assessed by CTCAE, and 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one score 3 symptomatic AE, as assessed by PRO-CTCAE. All 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one reported symptom on the PRO-CTCAE that was not captured by CTCAE or was reported at a lower grade by CTCAE. Multiple versions of the example dose review report were presented to the study team and iterative feedback was solicited from clinicians and statisticians. Feedback highlighted the usefulness of narratives and patient-level graphical displays. Narratives within the dose review report were refined to focus on treatment emergent AEs, minimizing text and succinctly presenting baseline symptoms where relevant. Symptom-level graphics of combined PRO-CTCAE scores and CTCAE grades were preferred over graphics consolidating data for multiple symptoms. Final graphics and report will be presented. Conclusions: We demonstrated that PRO-CTCAE, which captures patient-reported symptoms, complements traditional AE reporting and that reporting PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE jointly in a Phase I dose level report can provide a more complete picture of safety and tolerability in the Phase I setting.

Background/Aims: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE ® ) was developed to capture symptomatic adverse events from the patient perspective. We aim to describe statistical properties of PRO-CTCAE items and summary scores and to provide evidence for recommendations regarding PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting. Methods: Using data from the PRO-CTCAE validation study (NCT02158637), prevalence, means, and standard deviations of PRO-CTCAE items, composite scores, and mean and maximum scores across attributes (frequency, severity, and/or interference) of symptomatic adverse events were calculated. For each adverse event, correlations and agreement between attributes, correlations between attributes and composite scores, and correlations between composite, mean, and maximum scores were estimated. Results: PRO-CTCAE items were completed by 899 patients with various cancer types. Most patients reported experiencing one or more adverse events, with the most prevalent being fatigue (87.7%), sad/unhappy feelings (66.0%), anxiety (63.6%), pain (63.2%), insomnia (61.8%), and dry mouth (60.0%). Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated within an adverse event ( r = 0.53 to 0.77, all p < 0.001) but not fully concordant (κ weighted = 0.26 to 0.60, all p < 0.001), with interference demonstrating lowest mean scores and prevalence among attributes of the same adverse event. Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated with composite scores ( r = 0.67 to 0.97, all p < 0.001). Composite scores were moderately to strongly correlated with mean and maximum scores for the same adverse event ( r = 0.69 to 0.94, all p < 0.001). Correlations between composite scores of different adverse events varied widely ( r = 0.04 to 0.68) but were moderate to strong for conceptually related adverse events. Conclusions: Results provide evidence for PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting recommendations that the full complement of attributes be administered for each adverse event, and that attributes as well as summary scores be reported.

Abstract Objectives To define the prevalence, distribution and characteristics of patients with VEXAS (vacuoles, E1-enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammation, somatic) syndrome who have confirmed vasculitis. Methods Patients with VEXAS syndrome, verified by positive UBA1 mutation, were included. Chart review was performed to identify patient characteristics and outcomes. Vasculitis diagnosis was based on either histopathology showing vascular inflammation or non-invasive angiography findings. Summary statistics were calculated. Results Eighty-nine patients met inclusion criteria. All were male with a median age of onset of 66.9 years (interquartile range 60.1, 72.7). Median (interquartile range) follow-up was 3.8 (2.2–5.5) years, during which 21 patients (23.6%) had evidence of vasculitis. Vasculitis subtypes included small vessel vasculitis (19.1%), cutaneous medium vessel vasculitis (2.2%) and large vessel vasculitis (2.2%). No patient had more than one vessel size involved. Histopathology in small vessel vasculitis patients was consistent with cutaneous leukocytoclastic vasculitis in the majority, though one patient had leukocytoclastic peritubular capillaritis on renal biopsy. Cranial symptoms (headache, vision changes or jaw pain) were noted in 18.0%. Two additional patients not experiencing cranial symptoms exhibited large vessel involvement with confirmed carotid thickening on non-invasive angiography; one of these had a positive temporal artery biopsy. Conclusion VEXAS syndrome manifests as a variable vessel vasculitis in a quarter of patients, with cutaneous small and medium vessel involvement being particularly common. Some patients may have positive ANCA serologies or even renal vasculitis leading to misdiagnosis. Cranial symptoms are common and may mimic GCA, though documented large vessel inflammation is rare.

AbstractBackgroundBreast cancer patients experienced heightened anxiety during the pandemic. Also, modifications to clinical trial activities allowing for virtual platforms, local assessments, and greater flexibility were introduced to facilitate participation. We sought to evaluate the association between pandemic‐related anxiety and willingness to participate in trials and how pandemic‐era modifications to trial activities affect the decision to participate.MethodsWe conducted an online survey from August to September, 2021 of patients with breast cancer assessing pandemic‐related anxiety; clinical trials knowledge and attitudes; willingness to participate during and before the pandemic; and how each modification affects the decision to participate. Fisher's exact tests evaluated differences in proportions and two‐sample t‐tests evaluated differences in means. The association of pandemic‐related anxiety with a decline in willingness to participate during compared to prior to the pandemic was modeled using logistic regression.ResultsAmong 385 respondents who completed the survey, 81% reported moderate–severe pandemic‐related anxiety. Mean willingness to participate in a trial was lower during the pandemic than prior [2.97 (SD 1.17) vs. 3.10 (SD 1.09), (p < 0.001)]. Severe anxiety was associated with higher odds of diminished willingness to participate during the pandemic compared to prior (OR 5.07). Each of the modifications, with the exception of opting out of research‐only blood tests, were endorsed by >50% of respondents as strategies that would increase their likelihood of deciding to participate.ConclusionsWhile pandemic‐related anxiety was associated with diminished willingness to participate in trials, the leading reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation were unrelated to the pandemic but included worries about not getting the best treatment, side effects, and delaying care. Patients view trial modifications favorably, supporting continuation of these modifications, as endorsed by the National Cancer Institute and others.

Abstract Background Erenumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) receptor and is approved for the preventative treatment of migraine in adults. CGRP is involved in the regulation of vasomotor tone under physiologic and pathologic conditions, including hypertension. While there has not been evidence of hypertension in preclinical models or clinical trials, post‐marketing data suggest erenumab may be associated with hypertension. This led to a warning in the United States Food and Drug Administration prescribing information for erenumab. Objective To determine the frequency of worsening blood pressure (BP) after initiation of erenumab in patients with migraine and how this is associated with hypertension. Methods This is an observational retrospective cohort study evaluating patients at a tertiary headache or neurology department. Systolic and diastolic BPs were compared between the initial visit prior to initiation of erenumab, and follow‐up visit while on erenumab. Worsening BP was defined as moving from a lower stage to a higher stage of BP, as defined by the American Heart Association. Serious adverse vascular events were also recorded. Results A total of 335 patients were included in the final analysis (mean [SD] age of 45.7 [14.40] years, 83.9% [281/335] female). At baseline, 20.9% (70/335) of patients had a prior diagnosis of hypertension. The median (interquartile range) time to follow‐up appointment from initial appointment was 20.5 (13.3–35.3) weeks. The mean (SD) BP at baseline was systolic 124.7 (15) mmHg and diastolic 77 (11) mmHg, and at follow‐up was systolic 124.0 (15) mmHg and diastolic 77.8 (9) mmHg. Overall, 23.3% (78/335) of all patients had worsening BP, whereas 13/225 (3.9%) patients had improvement in their BP. Patients with atrial fibrillation were more likely to develop worsening BP (odds ratio, 4.9, 95% confidence interval 1.12–21.4; p = 0.035). There was no association between worsening BP and pre‐existing hypertension, sex, body mass index, or age. One patient had non‐ST elevation myocardial infarction attributed to a hypertensive emergency while on erenumab. Conclusion We found that 23.3% of patients initiated on erenumab may have developed worsening BP, suggesting the need for BP monitoring in patients initiated on erenumab.

Abstract Purpose: Myelofibrosis (MF) is a clonal myeloproliferative neoplasm characterized by systemic symptoms, cytopenias, organomegaly, and bone marrow fibrosis. JAK2 inhibitors afford symptom and spleen burden reduction but do not alter the disease course and frequently lead to thrombocytopenia. TGFβ, a pleiotropic cytokine elaborated by the MF clone, negatively regulates normal hematopoiesis, downregulates antitumor immunity, and promotes bone marrow fibrosis. Our group previously showed that AVID200, a potent and selective TGFβ 1/3 trap, reduced TGFβ1-induced proliferation of human mesenchymal stromal cells, phosphorylation of SMAD2, and collagen expression. Moreover, treatment of MF mononuclear cells with AVID200 led to increased numbers of progenitor cells (PC) with wild-type JAK2 rather than JAK2V617F. Patients and Methods: We conducted an investigator-initiated, multicenter, phase Ib trial of AVID200 monotherapy in 21 patients with advanced MF. Results: No dose-limiting toxicity was identified at the three dose levels tested, and grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 28.6% and 19.0% of treated patients, respectively. After six cycles of therapy, two patients attained a clinical benefit by IWG-MRT criteria. Spleen and symptom benefits were observed across treatment cycles. Unlike other MF-directed therapies, increases in platelet counts were noted in 81% of treated patients with three patients achieving normalization. Treatment with AVID200 resulted in potent suppression of plasma TGFβ1 levels and pSMAD2 in MF cells. Conclusions: AVID200 is a well-tolerated, rational, therapeutic agent for the treatment of patients with MF and should be evaluated further in patients with thrombocytopenic MF in combination with agents that target aberrant MF intracellular signaling pathways.