Citations

Abstract Polyphenon E (Poly E) is a green tea polyphenol preparation whose most active component is epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG). We studied the cancer preventive efficacy and safety of Poly E in subjects with rectal aberrant crypt foci (ACF), which represent putative precursors of colorectal cancers. Eligible subjects had prior colorectal advanced adenomas or cancers, and had ≥5 rectal ACF at a preregistration chromoendoscopy. Subjects (N = 39) were randomized to 6 months of oral Poly E (780 mg EGCG) daily or placebo. Baseline characteristics were similar by treatment arm (all P >0.41); 32 of 39 (82%) subjects completed 6 months of treatment. The primary endpoint was percent reduction in rectal ACF at chromoendoscopy comparing before and after treatment. Among 32 subjects (15 Poly E, 17 placebo), percent change in rectal ACF number (baseline vs. 6 months) did not differ significantly between study arms (3.7% difference of means; P = 0.28); total ACF burden was also similar (−2.3% difference of means; P = 0.83). Adenoma recurrence rates at 6 months were similar by arm (P > 0.35). Total drug received did not differ significantly by study arm; 31 (79%) subjects received ≥70% of prescribed Poly E. Poly E was well tolerated and adverse events (AE) did not differ significantly by arm. One subject on placebo had two grade 3 AEs; one subject had grade 2 hepatic transaminase elevations attributed to treatment. In conclusion, Poly E for 6 months did not significantly reduce rectal ACF number relative to placebo. Poly E was well tolerated and without significant toxicity at the dose studied. Prevention Relevance: We report a chemoprevention trial of polyphenon E in subjects at high risk of colorectal cancer. The results show that polyphenon E was well tolerated, but did not significantly reduce the number of rectal aberrant crypt foci, a surrogate endpoint biomarker of colorectal cancer.

AbstractThe pathophysiology of dystonic tremor and essential tremor remains partially understood. In patients with medication-refractory dystonic tremor or essential tremor, deep brain stimulation (DBS) targeting the thalamus or posterior subthalamic area has evolved into a promising treatment option. However, the optimal DBS targets for these disorders remains unknown. This retrospective study explored the optimal targets for DBS in essential tremor and dystonic tremor using a combination of volumes of tissue activated estimation and functional and structural connectivity analyses. We included 20 patients with dystonic tremor who underwent unilateral thalamic DBS, along with a matched cohort of 20 patients with essential tremor DBS. Tremor severity was assessed preoperatively and approximately 6 months after DBS implantation using the Fahn-Tolosa-Marin Tremor Rating Scale. The tremor-suppressing effects of DBS were estimated using the percentage improvement in the unilateral tremor-rating scale score contralateral to the side of implantation. The optimal stimulation region, based on the cluster centre of gravity for peak contralateral motor score improvement, for essential tremor was located in the ventral intermediate nucleus region and for dystonic tremor in the ventralis oralis posterior nucleus region along the ventral intermediate nucleus/ventralis oralis posterior nucleus border (4 mm anterior and 3 mm superior to that for essential tremor). Both disorders showed similar functional connectivity patterns: a positive correlation between tremor improvement and involvement of the primary sensorimotor, secondary motor and associative prefrontal regions. Tremor improvement, however, was tightly correlated with the primary sensorimotor regions in essential tremor, whereas in dystonic tremor, the correlation was tighter with the premotor and prefrontal regions. The dentato-rubro-thalamic tract, comprising the decussating and non-decussating fibres, significantly correlated with tremor improvement in both dystonic and essential tremor. In contrast, the pallidothalamic tracts, which primarily project to the ventralis oralis posterior nucleus region, significantly correlated with tremor improvement only in dystonic tremor. Our findings support the hypothesis that the pathophysiology underpinning dystonic tremor involves both the cerebello-thalamo-cortical network and the basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical network. Further our data suggest that the pathophysiology of essential tremor is primarily attributable to the abnormalities within the cerebello-thalamo-cortical network. We conclude that the ventral intermediate nucleus/ventralis oralis posterior nucleus border and ventral intermediate nucleus region may be a reasonable DBS target for patients with medication-refractory dystonic tremor and essential tremor, respectively. Uncovering the pathophysiology of these disorders may in the future aid in further improving DBS outcomes.

Background: Light chain (AL) amyloidosis is a rare disease in which deposits of insoluble amyloid derived from immunoglobulin light chains accumulate and cause dysfunction of organs including the heart and kidneys. In order to reverse organ damage and improve overall survival, treatment must provide rapid, deep, and sustained hematologic responses. Although therapies approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma have demonstrated some efficacy, there are currently no health authority-approved treatments for AL amyloidosis. A retrospective observational study was undertaken to characterize patients and describe treatment patterns in patients with AL amyloidosis from real-world data in the US. Methods: Data were extracted from Optum Electronic Health Records (EHR) and Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (claims) databases. Eligible patients had (1) a diagnosis of AL amyloidosis (ICD-10 code E85.81) on or after January 1, 2008 or (2) a diagnosis of amyloidosis (ICD-9 codes 277.30, 277.39; ICD-10 codes E85.89, E85.9) on or after January 1, 2008 and at least one line of therapy (LOT) comprising one or more of the following treatments: bendamustine bortezomib, carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, daratumumab, dexamethasone, doxorubicin, elotuzumab, etoposide, interferon alfa-2a, interferon alfa-2b, ixazomib, lenalidomide, melphalan, panobinostat, pomalidomide, prednisone/prednisolone, thalidomide, vincristine, or autologous stem cell transplant. Patients were required to have continuous medical enrollment during the 365 days prior to the index amyloidosis diagnosis date (claims data) or have first active date at least 365 days prior to index amyloidosis date (EHR data), must not have had prior cancer in the 365-day period prior to the index amyloidosis diagnosis date, and must have been age ≥18 years at time of amyloidosis diagnosis. Patients treated with dexamethasone only or dexamethasone and prednisolone only for ≤90 days and those treated with prednisone/prednisolone only irrespective of duration were excluded. LOTs were defined by a start date, an end date, and a distinct regimen made up of ≥1 drugs. Patients may have multiple sequential LOTs during the available follow-up period. Comorbidities were scored according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). A score of 0 reflects no comorbidities; higher scores reflect increased mortality risk and the maximum score is 24. Descriptive statistics are provided for patient characteristics at index diagnosis date for patients who had ≥1 LOT, distribution of regimens in each LOT, treatment attrition, and duration of treatment in each line of therapy and by regimen. Results: Data from 1688 patients (Optum claims, n=624; Optum EHR, n=1064) were included in the analysis (Figure). Median age at diagnosis was 67 years and 55.7% of patients were male. Almost 70% of patients had an index diagnosis date between 2013 and 2019. The median CCI score at index diagnosis date (based on comorbidities in the 365-day pre-index diagnosis period) was 1 and 10.9% of patients had a stem cell transplant on or after the index diagnosis date. The three most common comorbidities were hypertension (50.8%), renal failure (26.2%), and congestive heart failure (24.6%). Median follow-up period was 28 months. Treatment information for regimens used by ≥5% of patients for LOT1 is summarized in the Table. The most common treatment regimen for LOT1 was a proteasome inhibitor (PI), an alkylating agent, and a steroid (n=392, 23.2%); this combination was used for an average of 111 days. Of patients treated with this combination, the most common regimen was bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd), used by 358 patients. Steroid only (dexamethasone for ≥90 days) regimens accounted for 16.4% and a PI ± steroid for 13.2% of LOT1. A limitation of the study is that assumptions were used to classify AL amyloidosis vs other types of amyloidosis. Conclusions: VCd is the most commonly used regimen in patients with newly-diagnosed AL amyloidosis. This is consistent with clinical guidelines and real world data from Europe (Palladini et al, EHA 2020), supporting this regimen as the current standard of care for treatment of patients with newly-diagnosed AL amyloidosis. Disclosures Dispenzieri: Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Alnylam: Research Funding; Intellia: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Zonder:Intellia, Amgen, Takeda, Janssen, Regeneron, Alnylam, Caelum, Oncopeptides: Consultancy; BMS, Celgene: Research Funding. Hoffman:Loxo: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Wong:Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Liedtke:Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria. Abonour:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. D'Souza:Amgen, Merck, TenoBio: Research Funding; Akcea, Imbrium, Janssen, Pfizer: Consultancy. Lee:Janssen: Current Employment. Nair:Janssen: Current Employment. Potluri:SmartAnalyst Inc.: Current Employment. Weiss:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Vermeulen:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lam:Janssen: Current Employment. Mehra:Janssen: Current Employment.

Background and Aims Electronic health record (EHR)‐based research allows the capture of large amounts of data, which is necessary in NAFLD, where the risk of clinical liver outcomes is generally low. The lack of consensus on which International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes should be used as exposures and outcomes limits comparability and generalizability of results across studies. We aimed to establish consensus among a panel of experts on ICD codes that could become the reference standard and provide guidance around common methodological issues. Approach and Results Researchers with an interest in EHR‐based NAFLD research were invited to collectively define which administrative codes are most appropriate for documenting exposures and outcomes. We used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on several commonly encountered methodological challenges in the field. After two rounds of revision, a high level of agreement (>67%) was reached on all items considered. Full consensus was achieved on a comprehensive list of administrative codes to be considered for inclusion and exclusion criteria in defining exposures and outcomes in EHR‐based NAFLD research. We also provide suggestions on how to approach commonly encountered methodological issues and identify areas for future research. Conclusions This expert panel consensus statement can help harmonize and improve generalizability of EHR‐based NAFLD research.

Abstract Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high‐resolution manometry (HRM). Fifty‐two diverse international experts separated into seven working subgroups utilized formal validated methodologies over two‐years to develop CCv4.0. Key updates in CCv.4.0 consist of a more rigorous and expansive HRM protocol that incorporates supine and upright test positions as well as provocative testing, a refined definition of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction (EGJOO), more stringent diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and description of baseline EGJ metrics. Further, the CCv4.0 sought to define motility disorder diagnoses as conclusive and inconclusive based on associated symptoms, and findings on provocative testing as well as supportive testing with barium esophagram with tablet and/or functional lumen imaging probe. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification and provide more standardized and rigorous criteria for patterns of disorders of peristalsis and obstruction at the EGJ.