Citations

Abstract Background: Splenomegaly is a marker of disease progression in MF; larger spleen size (SS) is correlated with poorer survival and debilitating MF symptoms. In a retrospective real-world study of 408 patients (pts) with MF treated with ruxolitinib (RUX), pts with SS ≥ 10 cm below the left costal margin (LCM) were significantly less likely to attain a spleen response than pts with SS < 10 cm (Palandri 2017); this finding has not been reported in clinical trials of RUX. FEDR is a JAK2-selective inhibitor approved in the US, EU, Canada, and elsewhere as first-line (1L) MF treatment (Tx) and in pts previously treated with RUX. FEDR was evaluated as 1L MF Tx in the phase 3, placebo (PBO)-controlled JAKARTA trial, and in the phase 2, single-arm JAKARTA2 trial in pts previously treated with RUX. Pts allocated to FEDR 400 mg/day (d) in these trials reported substantial reductions from baseline (BL) in spleen volume and MF symptom severity after 6 FEDR Tx cycles. It is important to determine whether spleen volume and symptom improvements during FEDR Tx are influenced by degree of pre-Tx splenomegaly. Objective: Investigate the clinical efficacy of FEDR 400 mg/d in pts in JAKARTA & JAKARTA2 with large spleens at BL. Methods: The JAKARTA trial assessed FEDR 400 mg/d, FEDR 500 mg/d, and placebo in pts with JAK-inhibitor-naïve MF, and the JAKARTA2 trial evaluated FEDR 400 mg/d (starting dose) in pts resistant/intolerant to prior RUX. Both studies enrolled pts with intermediate- or high-risk MF, SS > 5 cm from LCM by palpation, platelets ≥ 50 ×10 9/L, and ECOG PS ≤ 2. These analyses include pts in each trial allocated to receive FEDR 400 mg/d in continuous 28d Tx cycles. Too few pts had BL SS < 10 cm by palpation in JAKARTA (n = 21) and JAKARTA2 (n = 12) for meaningful comparison vs SS ≥ 10 cm. Thus, in these post hoc analyses we divided pts according to the median SS (mSS) at BL in each study , and assessed changes from BL in spleen volume and MFSAF total symptom score (TSS) at the end of cycle 6 (EOC6). Spleen volume was assessed by MRI/CT scan; MFSAF TSS was the sum of 6 MF symptom scores: night sweats, early satiety, pruritus, pain under ribs-left side, abdominal discomfort, and bone/muscle pain. Pts must have had spleen volume and/or TSS data at BL and EOC6. R esults: In JAKARTA, 96 pts were randomized to FEDR 400 mg/d; mSS at BL for all pts was 16 cm (range 5-40). Median (range) BL spleen volume was 1771 (316-3396) mL in the < mSS cohort and 3329 (983-6430) mL in the ≥ mSS cohort; median TSS was 13.0 and 17.6, respectively. Spleen volume data were available at BL and EOC6 for 37 (82%) and 38 (75%) pts in the < mSS and ≥ mSS cohorts, respectively. Median spleen volume reduction (SVR) at EOC6 was -38% [95%CI -43%, -31%] in the < mSS group and -40% [-40%, -28%] in the ≥ mSS group (Figure). Changes in MF symptom scores at EOC6 were similar in the < mSS (n = 37) and ≥ mSS (n = 34) cohorts, with median TSS reductions of -49% and -51%, respectively. For individual symptoms, median reductions in abdominal discomfort, bone/muscle pain, and early satiety were similar between BL SS cohorts, whereas changes were greater in the < mSS group for pruritus and pain under ribs-left side, and greater in the ≥ mSS group for night sweats. In JAKARTA2, 97 pts received FEDR 400 mg/d (starting dose); BL mSS for all pts was 18 cm (range 5-36). Median (range) BL spleen volumes were 1937 (737-4305) and 4002 (1821-7815) mL for pts with < mSS and ≥ mSS, respectively; and BL TSS was 17.2 (0.7-48.0) and 23.6 (1.0-44.0). Spleen volume and MFSAF TSS data were available at BL and EOC6 for 41 and 29 pts, respectively, in the < mSS cohort, and for 41 and 22 pts in the ≥ mSS group. At EOC6, median SVR from BL was -35% [95%CI -40%, -29%] for pts with < mSS at BL and -30% [-37%, -17%] for pts with ≥ mSS (Figure). Median TSS changes were -36% and -49% in the < mSS and ≥ mSS cohorts, respectively; pts with ≥ mSS at BL had similar or greater reductions from BL in 5/6 MFSAF symptoms (all except pruritus) vs those with < mSS. Conclusions: These analyses demonstrate that extent of splenomegaly at BL in JAKARTA and JAKARTA2 did not influence the likelihood of achieving improvements in spleen volume or MF symptom severity for pts receiving FEDR 400 mg/d as 1L MF Tx or as post-RUX salvage Tx. For pts who completed 6 FEDR Tx cycles, reductions in spleen volume and TSS at EOC6 in the ≥ mSS cohorts in both studies were similar to those in the < mSS cohorts, even though BL spleen volumes and TSS were higher in the ≥ mSS groups. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kiladjian: Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Taiho Oncology, Inc.: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Other: Personal fees; AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Passamonti: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi: BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Talpaz: Imago: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Constellation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Grant/research support . Cervantes: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Harrison: Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CTI BioPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Keros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Promedior: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Galacteo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Mesa: AOP: Consultancy; La Jolla Pharma: Consultancy; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Pharma: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding. Mascarenhas: Geron: Consultancy; Merus: Research Funding; Geron: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Constellation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prelude: Consultancy; Galecto: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CTI Biopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Forbius: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Promedior: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kartos: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Verstovsek: Promedior: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Ital Pharma: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Constellation: Consultancy; Pragmatist: Consultancy. Devos: Alexion, AstraZeneca Rare Disease Inc.: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb - Celegene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Rose: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Zhang: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Sy: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment.

Abstract Introduction: Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia (AIHA) is caused by autoantibodies that react with red blood cells (RBCs) resulting in predominantly extravascular hemolysis in an FcR and/or complement-dependent manner. In warm AIHA (wAIHA), autoantibodies are generally of the IgG isotype, while in cold agglutinin disease (CAD) they are predominantly of the IgM isotype. It is well established that the classical complement cascade is critical for the pathogenesis of CAD based on therapeutic clinical studies. Published data also suggest that complement activation plays a role in wAIHA, although it is not clear which patients would most benefit from complement-based therapy. To help address this question, we utilized an assay that measures the ability of autoantibodies in patient sera to induce complement deposition on the surface of donor RBCs (based on Meulenbroek, et al., 2015). Methods: Sera were collected retrospectively from 12 wAIHA patients whose direct antiglobulin tests (DAT) were either IgG+/C3+ or IgG+/C3-. Sera retrospectively collected from two CAD patients were used as positive controls. Individual patient sera were examined in the in vitro complement deposition assay using RBCs from type O+ healthy donors. RBCs and sera were incubated at 37 oC in the presence of either EDTA or an inhibitory antibody against C1q as inhibitors of the classical pathway. RBCs were then stained and processed by flow cytometry to determine the level of C4 deposition. Results: Sera from both CAD patients deposited C4 on the surface of ~70% of healthy human RBCs in vitro. Four out of twelve (33%) sera from wAIHA patients displayed this activity, and all four of these patients were identified as IgG+/C3+ on DAT. Complement deposition ranged from ~10-60% of the RBCs in wAIHA, suggesting heterogeneity in antibody activity for complement deposition in sera from wAIHA patients. Addition of EDTA or an inhibitory antibody against C1q fully blocked deposition of C4 on RBCs by wAIHA sera, indicating dependence of the classical complement pathway. These results indicate differences in the frequency of classical pathway involvement in CAD versus wAIHA and may help identify a subset of wAIHA patients most likely to respond to anti-C1q therapy. Conclusions: The hypothesis of classical complement cascade involvement in wAIHA disease in a subset of patients is supported by our results. Critically, complement deposition on the surface of cells by anti-C1q prevented the deposition of a downstream complement marker, C4. Inhibition of C1q has been shown to block activation of all downstream classical complement components, including C3b and C4b involved in extravascular hemolysis and C5b involved in direct cell lysis. The therapeutic potential of blocking classical complement pathway activity in wAIHA is currently being evaluated in an ongoing Phase 2 interventional trial (NCT04691570) assessing efficacy of an anti-C1q drug candidate in wAIHA patients, focusing on those with evidence of classical complement pathway activity. Disclosures Teigler: Annexon Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Low: Annexon Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Rose: Annexon Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Cahir-Mcfarland: Annexon Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yednock: Annexon Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kroon: Annexon Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Keswani: Annexon Inc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Barcellini: Novartis: Honoraria; Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract PURPOSE Vertebral compression fracture (VCF) is a potential adverse effect following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases. In this analysis, we developed and internally validated a risk stratification model for VCF. METHODS From an initial set of 680 treatments, we excluded those with proton therapy, prior surgical intervention, or missing data. The final dataset had 464 treatments in 313 patients. Delineations of VCF and all radiographic components of the spinal instability neoplastic score (SINS) were determined by a radiologist. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was conducted using separate training (70%), internal validation (15%), and test (15%) sets. The log-rank test was used as the criterion for node splitting. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 21 months, we identified 84 VCF (18%), including 65 (77%) de novo and 19 (23%) progressive fractures. There was a median 9 months (IQR: 3 – 21) to VCF. From an initial set of 15 candidate variables, six were identified using the backwards selection method, feature importance testing, and a correlation heatmap. Four were then selected in the highest-fidelity RPA models: epidural tumor extension, lumbar location, gross tumor volume > 10 cc, and SINS > 6. One point was assigned to each variable, and the resulting multivariate Cox model had a concordance of 0.760. Each one point increase in score was associated with increasing rates of VCF. Low-risk lesions (score: 0-1, n=273) had 2-year freedom from VCF of 92%, compared to 80% for intermediate-risk (score: 2, n=99) and 56% (score: 3-4, n=92) for high-risk lesions (p < 0.0001). Cumulative incidence curves with death as a competing risk showed increased VCF with higher scores via Gray’s test (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Our internally-validated model identifies a subgroup of patients with high risk for VCF who may benefit from prophylactic surgical stabilization or vertebroplasty.

Background The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial. Methods In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4–5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement. Results Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation. Conclusions Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

Abstract Objective This post hoc analysis in patients medically diagnosed with chronic migraine (CM) and medication‐overuse headache (MOH) evaluated reductions in the use of acute headache medication (AHM) and sustained changes in the diagnostic status of CM and MOH following eptinezumab treatment in the PROMISE‐2 study. Background Eptinezumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits calcitonin gene‐related peptide, is approved in the United States for the preventive treatment of migraine. A previous analysis showed that eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days and was well tolerated in the subgroup of PROMISE‐2 patients diagnosed with both CM and MOH. Methods The phase 3, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled PROMISE‐2 study (NCT02974153) randomized adults with CM to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo (administered intravenously every 12 weeks for up to two doses). MOH was prospectively diagnosed at screening by trained physicians based on 3 months of medication history and International Classification of Headache Disorders‐3β criteria. This post hoc analysis evaluated changes in total and class‐specific days of AHM usage, the percentage of patients using AHM at or above MOH diagnostic thresholds, and the percentage of patients experiencing monthly headache and migraine day frequency below diagnostic thresholds for MOH and/or CM. Results In PROMISE‐2, 431/1072 (40.2%) patients with CM were diagnosed with MOH (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 139; 300 mg, n = 147; placebo, n = 145) and were included in this analysis. Total monthly AHM use decreased from 20.6 days/month at baseline to 10.6 days/month over 24 weeks of treatment (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 100 mg, from 20.7 to 10.5 days/month (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 300 mg, and from 19.8 to 14.0 days/month (29% decrease) with placebo. Numerically greater decreases from baseline with eptinezumab were also observed for individual drug classes. In each study month, the percentages of patients who were below MOH thresholds were numerically higher for both eptinezumab doses compared with placebo, as were the percentages of patients experiencing headache and migraine frequency below CM thresholds. Of patients with available data across the entire treatment period, 29.0% (58/200) of patients treated with eptinezumab stopped meeting and remained below diagnostic thresholds for both CM and MOH during Weeks 1–24, as well as 6.3% (6/96) of patients who received placebo. Conclusions Across 24 weeks of treatment, eptinezumab reduced AHM use in patients diagnosed with CM and MOH. More than one‐fourth (29%) of patients treated with eptinezumab did not meet the diagnostic thresholds for either CM or MOH for the entire treatment period.

Abstract Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been identified as a major threat to maternal health in the US and UK with cardiomyopathy being one of the most common acquired CVD in the pregnant and postpartum period. Diagnosing cardiomyopathy in pregnancy is challenging due to an overlap of cardiovascular symptoms with normal pregnancy symptoms. Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an ECG based deep learning model in identifying cardiomyopathy among pregnant and postpartum women. Methods We utilized an ECG based deep learning model to detect cardiomyopathy in a cohort of pregnant or postpartum women seen at multiple hospital sites. Model performance was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. We compared the diagnostic probabilities of the deep learning model with natriuretic peptides and a multivariable model consisting of demographic and clinical parameters. Results 1,807 women were included. 7%, 10% and 13% had LVEF ≤35%, <45% and <50% respectively. The ECG based deep learning model identified cardiomyopathy with an AUC of 0.92 for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, 0.89 for LVEF <45% and 0.87 for LVEF <50%. For LVEF ≤35%, AUC was higher in Black (0.95) and Hispanic (0.98) women compared to white (0.91). Natriuretic peptides and the multivariable model had AUCs of 0.85 and 0.72 respectively. Conclusions A deep learning model effectively identifies cardiomyopathy in pregnant or postpartum women, outperforms natriuretic peptides and traditional clinical parameters with the potential to become a powerful initial screening tool for cardiomyopathy in the obstetric care setting. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Other. Main funding source(s): This study was made possible using resources supported by the Mayo Clinic Women's Health Research Center and the Mayo Clinic Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (BIRCWH) Program funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant number K12 HD065987. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

AbstractData regarding the use of corticosteroids for treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are conflicting. As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic progresses, more literature supporting the use of corticosteroids for COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS have emerged. Glucocorticoids are proposed to attenuate the inflammatory response and prevent progression to the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS through their multiple mechanisms and anti‐inflammatory properties. The purpose of this systematic review was to comprehensively evaluate the literature surrounding corticosteroid use in ARDS (non‐COVID‐19 and COVID‐19) in addition to a narrative review of clinical considerations of corticosteroid use in these patient populations. OVID Medline and EMBASE were searched. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of corticosteroids for COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS in adult patients on mortality outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. There were 388 studies identified, 15 of which met the inclusion criteria that included a total of 8877 patients. The studies included in our review reported a mortality benefit in 6/15 (40%) studies with benefit being seen at varying time points of mortality follow‐up (ICU survival, hospital, and 28 and 60 days) in the COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS studies. The two non‐COVID19 trials assessing lung injury score improvements found that corticosteroids led to significant improvements with corticosteroid use. The number of mechanical ventilation‐free days significantly were found to be increased with the use of corticosteroids in all four studies that assessed this outcome. Corticosteroids are associated with improvements in mortality and ventilator‐free days in critically ill patients with both COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS, and evidence suggests their use should be encouraged in these settings. However, due to substantial differences in the corticosteroid regimens utilized in these trials, questions still remain regarding the optimal corticosteroid agent, dose, and duration in patients with ARDS.