Citations

AbstractThe gold standard for enrollment and endpoint assessment in metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatosis clinical trials is histologic assessment of a liver biopsy performed on glass slides. However, obtaining the evaluations from several expert pathologists on glass is challenging, as shipping the slides around the country or around the world is time‐consuming and comes with the hazards of slide breakage. This study demonstrated that pathologic assessment of disease activity in steatohepatitis, performed using digital images on the AISight whole slide image management system, yields results that are comparable to those obtained using glass slides. The accuracy of scoring for steatohepatitis (nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity score ≥4 with ≥1 for each feature and absence of atypical features suggestive of other liver disease) performed on the system was evaluated against scoring conducted on glass slides. Both methods were assessed for overall percent agreement with a consensus “ground truth” score (defined as the median score of a panel of three pathologists’ glass slides). Each case was also read by three different pathologists, once on glass and once digitally with a minimum 2‐week washout period between the modalities. It was demonstrated that the average agreement across three pathologists of digital scoring with ground truth was noninferior to the average agreement of glass scoring with ground truth [noninferiority margin: −0.05; difference: −0.001; 95% CI: (−0.027, 0.026); and p < 0.0001]. For each pathologist, there was a similar average agreement of digital and glass reads with glass ground truth (pathologist A, 0.843 and 0.849; pathologist B, 0.633 and 0.605; and pathologist C, 0.755 and 0.780). Here, we demonstrate that the accuracy of digital reads for steatohepatitis using digital images is equivalent to glass reads in the context of a clinical trial for scoring using the Clinical Research Network scoring system.

Abstract Objective To estimate the number needed to treat and cost per additional responder for atogepant and rimegepant versus placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM) in the United States. Background Migraine has an enormous impact on a person's daily activities and quality of life, and results in significant clinical and economic burden to both individuals and society. It is important to understand the comparative efficacy and economic value of oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) for preventive treatment of EM. Currently, atogepant and rimegepant are US Food and Drug Administration approved for preventive treatment of migraine (rimegepant for EM and atogepant for EM and for chronic migraine). In the absence of head‐to‐head trials, we utilized an indirect treatment comparison on efficacy data from clinical trials conducted for the preventive treatment of EM. We estimated number needed to treat, a valuable metric used in clinical practice to compare treatment efficacy, and cost per additional responder, which can be used to establish the cost effectiveness of a treatment. Methods An indirect treatment comparison was conducted to compare the efficacy of atogepant 60 mg once daily and rimegepant 75 mg once every other day as preventive treatments for EM using published data from the registrational trials of atogepant (ADVANCE) and rimegepant (BHV3000‐305). The efficacy outcome of interest was ≥50% reduction from baseline in mean monthly migraine/headache days (≥50% responder rate), which was variably defined for a base case and two scenario analyses. Number needed to treat and cost per additional responder versus placebo were calculated and compared between both treatments (weeks 9–12 in the base case analysis; weeks 1–12 and 9–12 for atogepant and during weeks 9–12 for rimegepant in the scenario analyses). Results In the base case analysis, ≥50% responder rates were 64.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9–74.5) for atogepant and 51.8% (95% CI, 42.9–60.6) for rimegepant, compared to 44.1% (95% CI, 39.4–49.0) for placebo. The median number needed to treat versus placebo in the base case scenario was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.1–9.0) for atogepant compared to 13.0 (95% CI, 5.9–75.1) for rimegepant. The cost per additional responder versus placebo in the base case scenario was estimated to be $15,823 (95% CI, $11,079–$29,516) for atogepant compared to $73,029 (95% CI, $32,901–$422,104) for rimegepant. Results of the two scenario analyses were consistent with the base case analysis. Conclusions Atogepant had substantially lower numbers needed to treat and costs per additional responder versus placebo than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM across all evaluated scenarios. These analyses suggest that atogepant may be more cost effective than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM. Limitations include differences in inclusion/exclusion criteria and in reporting of the ≥50% responder rates between trials.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Multi‐omics studies in Alzheimer's disease (AD) revealed many potential disease pathways and therapeutic targets. Despite their promise of precision medicine, these studies lacked Black Americans (BA) and Latin Americans (LA), who are disproportionately affected by AD. METHODS To bridge this gap, Accelerating Medicines Partnership in Alzheimer's Disease (AMP‐AD) expanded brain multi‐omics profiling to multi‐ethnic donors. RESULTS We generated multi‐omics data and curated and harmonized phenotypic data from BA ( n = 306), LA ( n = 326), or BA and LA ( n = 4) brain donors plus non‐Hispanic White ( n = 252) and other ( n = 20) ethnic groups, to establish a foundational dataset enriched for BA and LA participants. This study describes the data available to the research community, including transcriptome from three brain regions, whole genome sequence, and proteome measures. DISCUSSION The inclusion of traditionally underrepresented groups in multi‐omics studies is essential to discovering the full spectrum of precision medicine targets that will be pertinent to all populations affected with AD. Highlights Accelerating Medicines Partnership in Alzheimer's Disease Diversity Initiative led brain tissue profiling in multi‐ethnic populations. Brain multi‐omics data is generated from Black American, Latin American, and non‐Hispanic White donors. RNA, whole genome sequencing and tandem mass tag proteomicsis completed and shared. Multiple brain regions including caudate, temporal and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex were profiled.

AbstractA new generation of disease‐specific molecular imaging agents is poised to revolutionize fluorescence‐guided surgery. Pafolacianine has been approved for adult lung and ovarian cancers. We demonstrate a proof of concept for pediatric surgeons treating young adults with pulmonary metastatic sarcomas. Five successful fluorescence‐guided pulmonary metastasectomy operations were performed in young adult patients with metastatic osteosarcoma or Ewing sarcoma following administration of pafolacianine. All osteosarcoma lesions identified using standard techniques were also markedly fluorescent in patients. Novel fluorescent molecular agents targeted to tumor‐specific receptors have promise of increased sensitivity and specificity for detecting metastatic nodules and enhancing surgical clearance of disease.

AbstractWith an annual cumulative occurrence of approximately 15,000 in North America, all childhood cancers are rare. Very rare cancers as defined by both the European Cooperative Study Group for Rare Pediatric Cancers and the Children's Oncology Group fall into two principal categories: those so uncommon (fewer than 2 cases/million) that their study is challenging even through cooperative group efforts (e.g., pleuropulmonary blastoma and desmoplastic small round cell tumor) and those that are far more common in adults and therefore rarely studied in children (e.g., thyroid, melanoma, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor). Treatment strategies for these latter tumors are typically based on adult guidelines, although the pediatric variants of these tumors may harbor different genetic signatures and demonstrate different behavior. If melanoma and differentiated thyroid cancer are excluded, other rare cancer types account for only 2% of the cancers in children aged 0 to 14. This article highlights several of the most common rare tumor types.