Citations

BACKGROUND RelabotulinumtoxinA (RelaBoNT-A) is a complex-free, ready-to-use, liquid botulinum toxin A. OBJECTIVE Efficacy/safety of RelaBoNT-A treatment for lateral canthal lines (LCL). METHODS Randomized adults received RelaBoNT-A (30 U/side; n = 230) or placebo (n = 73) during a 6-month, double-blind, Ph3 study (Relabotulinumtoxin Aesthetic Development Study-2 [READY-2]). Primary end points (Month 1, maximum smile) comprised: composite ≥2-grade responder rate using concurrent LCL severity investigator live assessment (LCL-ILA) and subject live assessment (LCL-SLA); LCL-ILA 0 (none)/1 (mild) responder rate. Subject satisfaction and adverse events were also reported. RESULTS Month 1 composite ≥2-grade responder rates were 51.8% (RelaBoNT-A) and 1.4% (placebo; (p < .001). Month 1 none/mild LCL-ILA responder rates were 87.2% (RelaBoNT-A) and 11.9% (placebo; p < .001). Onset was reported Day 1 by 34%. At Month 6, LCL-ILA responder rates for RelaBoNT-A remained at 23.3% (none/mild) and 35.9% (≥1-grade improvement). Median return to baseline severity was 24.7 weeks; 64% (RelaBoNT-A group) had not returned to baseline at Month 6. RelaBoNT-A satisfaction was high through Month 6 (71%). Mild/moderate treatment-related adverse events occurred in 6.1% (RelaBoNT-A) and 5.5% (placebo). CONCLUSION RelaBoNT-A (60 U) treatment provided statistically significant improvement of moderate-to-severe LCL. One-third of subjects reported onset within 1 day and improvements were maintained through Month 6. Treatment satisfaction was high. RelaBoNT-A was well tolerated.

OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate local control (LC) of tumors, patient overall survival (OS), and the safety of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for esophageal cancer brain metastases (EBMs). METHODS This retrospective cohort study used data from 15 International Radiosurgery Research Foundation facilities encompassing 67 patients with 185 EBMs managed using SRS between January 2000 and May 2022. The median patient age was 63 years, with a male predominance (92.5%). Most patients (64.2%) had a single brain metastasis, while 7.5% had more than 5 metastases. The median tumor volume was 0.9 cm 3 , and the median margin dose delivered to the tumor was 20 Gy. RESULTS The median OS post-SRS was 15.2 months, with 1- and 2-year OS rates of 65.7% and 32.3%, respectively. A significant inverse correlation was found between the number of EBMs and OS in the univariable analysis. LC rates at 1 and 2 years were 89% and 76%, respectively. Adverse radiation effects (AREs) were observed in 17.9% of patients, with 13.4% being mild and transient and 4.5% severely symptomatic (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3). New intracranial disease developed in 58.2% of patients, with 1- and 2-year rates of 58% and 73%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS SRS for EBMs demonstrated high survival rates and effective tumor control, with a low incidence of severe AREs. These findings highlight the potential role of SRS in the multidisciplinary multimodality management paradigm of EBM.

ABSTRACT Background Tricuspid valve‐in‐valve (TVIV) implantation has traditionally included post‐procedure overnight in‐hospital observation with next‐day discharge. Recently, our practice has shifted toward same‐day discharge for most patients after vascular access site hemostasis and adequate recovery from anesthesia. However, data on the safety of this approach remains scarce. Aims Our study aims to describe our practice change and to identify factors that may lead to overnight observation post‐TVIV. Methods We retrospectively reviewed medical records of patients who underwent uncomplicated TVIV implantation as an outpatient procedure at Mayo Clinic between 2011 and 2023. Results Of the 83 patients who underwent TVIV from 2011 to 2023, 65 (78%) were included in the study. The first 39 patients in our institutional series were observed overnight as standard practice. 18 (69%) of the most recent 26 patients in our series were discharged the same day; three patients who remained in the hospital overnight were because of provider preference and/or patient preference without any specific medical concern. Of all 47 patients who were observed overnight, one patient was treated for fluid overload, one patient had non‐sustained ventricular tachycardia on telemetry that resulted in adjustment of antiarrhythmic therapy, two patients had continued bleeding from the access sites and was observed for another day. Among the two of them, one also developed atrial tachyarrhythmias requiring initiation of additional antiarrhythmic therapy. Out of 18 patients discharged the same day, one patient had an ED presentation within 24 h due to access site bleeding which was resolved promptly. There was no mortality or procedural‐related readmission. Conclusion Same‐day discharge may be considered for adult patients who have undergone uncomplicated TVIV with adequate hemostasis and recovery after anesthesia.

Background: PV is a myeloproliferative neoplasm that leads to excessive production of erythrocytes and increased platelet and leukocyte counts. The current standard of care is to use therapeutic phlebotomy (TP) with or without cytoreductive therapy (CRT) to treat PV. Over time, the CRT dose often needs to be increased to treat PV progression. Preliminary results from the phase 2 REVIVE study (NCT04057040) demonstrated that rusfertide was superior to placebo in achieving hematocrit (Hct) levels &lt;45% and reducing or eliminating the need for TP in patients who were phlebotomy-dependent prior to study entry (Kremyanskaya et al. EHA2023. [Abstract LB2710]; Kremyanskaya et al. New Engl J Med 2024;390:723-35).Final data from REVIVE will be presented. Methods: In Part 1 (Weeks 1-29), subcutaneous rusfertide (starting dose: 20 mg q1w) was initiated and titrated to control Hct to &lt;45%. In Part 2 (Weeks 29-41; blinded randomized withdrawal phase), patients were randomized to receive rusfertide or placebo. Randomized patients were eligible to participate in the open-label extension (OLE) portion of the study (Part 3), in which all patients could receive rusfertide and investigators could make CRT dose adjustments. Results: In Part 1, 70 patients were enrolled; 59 were randomized in Part 2. Fifty-eight patients continued to Part 3. As of 9 July 2024, 50 (71.4%), 37 (52.9%), and 17 (24.3%) patients received rusfertide for ≥2, ≥2.5, or ≥3 years, respectively.Overall, median (range) patient age was 57.5 years (27-77); the majority were male (70%) and had high-risk disease (55.7%). Overall, 52.9% and 47.1% of patients were treated with TP alone or TP plus CRT, respectively. Prior to enrollment, the estimated average (mean) phlebotomy rate (EAPR) in patients who enrolled on study was 8.5/year, which was reduced to &lt;1.0/year in Part 1. In Part 2, the EAPR was &lt;1.0/year and 6.6/year in the rusfertide and placebo groups, respectively. For patients who continued onto Part 3 and received rusfertide, the EAPR remained at &lt;1.0/year. In Parts 1, 2, and 3, the mean (SD) weekly average rusfertide dose was 30.7 mg (12.2), 38.5 mg (21.3), and 44.9 mg (20.3), respectively. Rusfertide consistently maintained Hct &lt;45%, including in patients receiving therapy for ≥3 years. Platelets increased following initiation of rusfertide therapy and stabilized over time; mean leukocyte counts remained stable. Prior to enrollment, iron-related parameters were consistent with systemic iron deficiency. Throughout the study, rusfertide resulted in the normalization of mean serum ferritin levels, increased mean transferrin saturation, and increased mean serum iron levels. Overall, mean corpuscular volume increased slightly over the duration of the study. Throughout the study, there was no evidence of increased markers of inflammation (eg, C-reactive protein or interleukin 6). The most common (≥20%) treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were injection site reactions (85.7%), fatigue (38.6%), COVID-19 (32.9%), pruritus (34.3%), arthralgia (30.0%), dizziness (30.0%), nausea (24.3%), headache (24.3%), and anemia (21.4%). Grade 3 TEAEs occurred in 25.7% of patients.There were no Grade 4 or 5 TEAEs. One patient developed acute myeloid leukemia after treatment discontinuation. After more than 150 patient-years of rusfertide exposure, malignancies (most of which were skin cancers) were reported in 11 patients (all had risk factors that may have contributed to the development of these malignancies). There was no obvious correlation between increasing exposure to rusfertide and malignancies reported. Six thrombotic events (5 arterial and 1 venous) occurred in 5 patients with high-risk PV. Conclusions: In REVIVE, rusfertide added to TP with or without CRT provided long-term durable control of Hct and decreased the need for TP. Patients are eligible to roll over to the phase 2 THRIVE OLE study (NCT06033586), which will continue to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of rusfertide for a total period of up to 5.8 years. The randomized phase 3 VERIFY study (NCT05210790) is ongoing and will evaluate rusfertide vs placebo in PV patients.

Background: Positron emission tomography (PET) scan is the imaging modality of choice for initial staging and response assessment of follicular lymphoma (FL). Quantitative parameters such as standardized uptake value (SUV) have been investigated as putative prognosticators in FL, with high baseline SUVmax predicting aggressive disease. To date, there is no data to guide treatment choices in patients (pts) with high SUVmax but with no documented evidence of histologic transformation (HT). Specifically, it remains unclear whether anthracycline-containing regimens, such as R-CHOP, are more beneficial than R-Bendamustine (BR) in these pts. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy of frontline R-CHOP and BR in newly diagnosed FL pts based on the SUVmax at baseline PET (bPET). Patients and Methods: Pts with newly diagnosed, biopsy-proven FL1-2 and FL3A who had a bPET scan and who received either first-line R-CHOP or BR within 6 months of diagnosis between 2002 and 2022 were evaluated. Analysis was restricted to pts with age &lt; 70 years to reduce confounding of age with treatment selection. Cohorts included were the FOLL12 (n=562, Luminari et al JCO 2022) and the R-chemotherapy arm of the RELEVANCE (n=216, Morschhauser et al NEJM 2018) clinical trials, the prospectively enrolled Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) cohorts (n=288) and a retrospective cohort from 13 Australian centers (n=219). Choice of chemotherapy regimen was per treating physician. Maintenance was per protocol (FOLL12/RELEVANCE) or per treating physician (MER/LEO/Australia). Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were defined as time from treatment initiation to progression, relapse, retreatment or death; both were censored at 72 months due to varying follow-up across cohorts. SUVmax was grouped by tertile within each cohort to account for potential differences in SUVmax distributions and patient populations across cohorts. Kaplan Meier curves and multivariable Cox models cohort-stratified and adjusted for clinical factors (FLIPI, ECOG PS, age, grade 3A) were used to evaluate outcomes. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 57 years (IQR 49-64). 651 (51%) pts were treated with R-CHOP and 634 (49%) with BR. Within the study cohorts, there was a prevalence of cases receiving BR compared to R-CHOP in the Australian (90% vs 10%) and MER/LEO (68% vs 32%) cohorts, while the opposite was observed in the RELEVANCE (16% vs 84%) and FOLL12 (37% vs 63; p&lt;0.001) trials. Pts receiving R-CHOP were slightly younger (median 56 vs 58 years, p=0.005), more frequently had grade 3A (17% vs 7%, p&lt;0.001), elevated LDH (27% vs 22%, p=0.029), bulky disease &gt; 7 cm (44% vs 37%, p=0.019), lower ECOG PS (PS &gt;1 7% vs 13%, p&lt;0.001), and higher rate of high risk FLIPI (37% vs 30%, p=0.005). Baseline SUVmax was slightly lower in R-CHOP (median 10.7, IQR 7.9-14.9) vs BR (median 11.0, IQR 8.2-14.2) treated pts (p=0.0045). At a median follow-up of 56 months (range, 1-72 months), 415 pts (32%) had an event and 103 (8%) died. Higher SUVmax was not associated with EFS (middle tertile HR=0.96, 95% CI 0.76-1.22; upper tertile HR=0.86, 95% CI 0.68-1.09; p=0.45) or OS (middle tertile HR=1.28, 95% CI 0.80-2.05; upper tertile HR=0.97, 95% CI 0.59-1.59; p=0.44) in multivariable models stratified on cohort and adjusted for treatment and clinical factors. We then compared outcomes by treatment within tertiles of SUVmax. In multivariable models, R-CHOP had modestly inferior EFS to BR in low (HR=1.27, 95% CI 0.84-1.93) and middle tertiles (HR=1.49, 95% CI 0.99-2.25), and modestly superior OS to BR in low (HR=0.59, 95% CI 0.23-1.47) and middle (HR=0.79, 95% CI 0.37-1.71) tertiles. Both EFS (HR=1.06, 95% CI 0.71-1.58) and OS (HR=1.02, 95% CI 0.45-2.30) for R-CHOP were similar to BR in the highest tertile. No comparisons identified a statistically significant benefit for either therapy in multivariable models when evaluating SUVmax tertile subsets. Conclusions: In this large multicenter study of newly diagnosed FL pts with bPET who received frontline immunochemotherapy, higher baseline SUVmax was not associated with inferior outcomes after adjusting for treatment and clinical factors. Within the caveats of retrospective studies and confounding of treatment selection, these data provide no clear insights for SUVmax-based therapy selection in first-line follicular lymphoma pts treated with immunochemotherapy.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) commonly occurs during initiation of bispecific T-cell engaging therapy (BsAbs) for multiple myeloma (MM) (NEJM 2022;387:495, NEJM 2022;387:2232, Nat Med 2023;29:2259). Pre-medications, step-up dosing (SUD), and monitoring minimize high-grade toxicity risk, while protocolized outpatient (OP) management of BsAbs and toxicities could reduce resource utilization and improve patient satisfaction. At Mayo Clinic, SUD, clinical assessment and grade 1 CRS management occurs primarily as an OP for patients with MM receiving BsAbs. This study aims to assess the current OP management practices of BsAbs and related toxicities including patient outcomes, admission rates, and resource utilization. Patients with MM who received SUD from August 23, 2023, to March 29, 2024, were included. Baseline demographics, patient outcomes, and CRS management details are summarized. Resource utilization outcomes included level of care, length of hospital stay (LOS), and high-cost drug administration. 38 patients received MM BsAbs during the study timeframe. 34 patients initiated OP SUD (teclistamab n=17 and talquetamab n= 17). The median age was 71 years, 59% were male, 82% were white, and 88% had Medicare coverage. Median number of prior lines of therapy was 6. There were 317 OP encounters with a median of 10 encounters per patient. Of these, 72% were planned in-person assessments, 5% were unplanned clinic visits for potential toxicity-related symptom assessment, and 20% were phone visits that obviated in-person assessment. 66 of 68 doses of talquetamab (total of 1,628 mg) and 48 of 50 doses of teclistamab (total of 2,048 mg) were administered and billed in the OP setting. 24 patients (71%) that initiated OP SUD developed CRS (grade 1 n=16, grade 2 n=7). Management of the initial CRS event included steroids and acetaminophen, with or without tocilizumab. 2,600 mg of tocilizumab administered in the OP setting. Recurrent CRS was seen in 5 patients and also treated entirely OP. 4 patients developed ICANS (grade 1 n=3, grade 3 n=1). Hospitalization following OP SUD initiation occurred in 18 (53%) patients at some point during treatment. Indications included grade 2 CRS (n=6), ICANS (grade 1 n=3), refractory CRS (n=7), infection (n=1), GI bleed (n=1), planned observation for comorbidities or prior CRS (n=2), loss of caregiver (n=1), atrial fibrillation (n=1), heart failure (n=1), and pain crisis (n=1). Median LOS was 2 days. Recurrent admission occurred in 41% and median LOS was also 2 days for subsequent admissions. Two patients were admitted to the intensive care unit for hypotension or arrhythmia. 1 patient required dialysis. In total for SUD during the study time frame, 51 mg of teclistamab, 176 mg of talquetamab, and 8,240 mg of tocilizumab were billed under an IP encounter, which likely was due to inpatient administration or hospital admission within 72 hours of receiving the OP SUD. This descriptive study of our OP BsAb management practice demonstrated that 47% of patients remained OP, even with a CRS event. The CRS rate did not surpass those in landmark clinical trials and aligns with real-world data previously reported (Blood Cancer J 2024;14:35.). Availability and use of patient monitoring capabilities along with lack of sentinel outcomes emphasizes the safety of an OP BsAb practice. Drivers of financial burdens and savings include location and reimbursement of high-cost drugs and admission rates. Median LOS was less than half of what's anticipated with inpatient SUD. Inpatient administration of high-cost drugs can be more costly compared to OP due to associated medical costs and insufficient reimbursement in a population primarily insured by Medicare which reimburses inpatient mediations based on the Diagnostic Related Group (DRG) unless the medication has New Technology Add on Payment (NTAP). Using expected Medicare reimbursement rates and wholesale acquisition costs while excluding variable DRG reimbursement and NTAP impacts for teclistamab, the total net revenue improvement for shifting use of all teclistamab, talquetamab, and tocilizumab OP is $115,004 for the period analyzed (CMS.gov 2024). In conclusion, OP management of patients undergoing SUD for MM BsAbs is safe and has substantial reductions in resource utilization and costs.