Citations

Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis is a life-threatening complication of cirrhotic ascites. Optimal patient management depends on the isolation of the causal organism from ascitic fluid. To evaluate culture techniques for the diagnosis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, we prospectively compared three blood culture system, the Isolator system, a lysis-centrifugation system, the Septi-Chek system, a biphasic culture system, and a nonvented tryptic soy broth system, all inoculated at the bedside, and our standard method of direct inoculation of specimens after transport to the laboratory onto agar plates and into thioglycolate broth. The results showed that the Septi-Chek and nonvented tryptic soy broth systems each recovered statistically significantly more pathogens than either the Isolator system (P = 0.0084) or the standard method (P = 0.00098). The Isolator system recovered more pathogens than the standard plate method, but this difference was not statistically significant. Both the Isolator system and the standard plate method recovered more contaminating microorganisms than the Septi-Chek or nonvented tryptic soy broth system. The Isolator system required the most processing time compared with the processing times required by any other method.

Background Past research has shown how fires, heat and hot substances are important causes of health loss globally. Detailed estimates of the morbidity and mortality from these injuries could help drive preventative measures and improved access to care. Methods We used the Global Burden of Disease 2017 framework to produce three main results. First, we produced results on incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, deaths, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life years from 1990 to 2017 for 195 countries and territories. Second, we analysed these results to measure mortality-to-incidence ratios by location. Third, we reported the measures above in terms of the cause of fire, heat and hot substances and the types of bodily injuries that result. Results Globally, there were 8 991 468 (7 481 218 to 10 740 897) new fire, heat and hot substance injuries in 2017 with 120 632 (101 630 to 129 383) deaths. At the global level, the age-standardised mortality caused by fire, heat and hot substances significantly declined from 1990 to 2017, but regionally there was variability in age-standardised incidence with some regions experiencing an increase (eg, Southern Latin America) and others experiencing a significant decrease (eg, High-income North America). Conclusions The incidence and mortality of injuries that result from fire, heat and hot substances affect every region of the world but are most concentrated in middle and lower income areas. More resources should be invested in measuring these injuries as well as in improving infrastructure, advancing safety measures and ensuring access to care.

Background: Less-fit patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplasia (MDS) age 60 years and older constitute the majority of patients with AML/MDS but are not well represented in clinical trials. DNA-methyltransferase inhibitor (HMA) monotherapy (e.g. azacitidine or decitabine) is usual. Overall response rates (ORR) are low; improvement in overall survival relative to supportive care alone is modest, highlighting the critical need for efficient identification of effective novel therapies. Blocking programed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) signaling with nivolumab may increase the sensitivity of AML cells to azacitidine and improve outcomes and is the focus of one arm of the S1612 trial. Signaling through PD-1 contributes to tumor immune evasion and growth in AML [Chen, Cancer Biol Ther 2008]. Increased expression of PD-1 (~40% of AML), is associated with poor HMA response [Ørskov, Oncotarget 2015]. A single center azacitidine/nivolumab non-randomized phase II study in relapsed/refractory AML reported ORR of 33% (23/70), including 22% complete remission/complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery [Daver, Cancer Discovery 2018]. About 25% of the patients developed grade 2-4 immune toxicities; nivolumab immune-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in nearly 1 in 7 patients. Study Design and Methods:The S1612 trial [NCT03092674] is a platform randomized phase II/III clinical trial with a common azacitidine control arm (CA) and two currently active experimental arms (EA). Therapy is intended for community setting: azacitidine/nivolumab; and azacitidine/midostaurin. The innovative design utilizes a phase II go/no-go decision comparing each EA with the CA independently when there are 100 pts/arm and 104 deaths on the EA and CA combined. EAs will proceed to phase III if the null hypothesis (HR=1) is rejected in favor of the EA (15% one-sided alpha). When the two currently active EAs complete phase II accrual, a third EA (decitabine/cytarabine) will open. The CA stays open the entire length of the trial and only concurrently randomized patients will be compared across arms. If an EA proceeds to phase III, 200 additional patients (300 total patients) will be accrued. Phase III analysis occurs 1.5 years after accrual or at 414 deaths (in the respective EA and CA), whichever comes first. The phase III tests the null hypothesis with 4.5% two-sided alpha and 83% power for each EA to detect an improvement in median OS from 10.4 to 15.6 months. Eligible pts are age ≥60 years, newly diagnosed AML with ≥ 20% blasts or myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts-2 (MDS-EB-2); deemed by the treating physician unfit for standard cytotoxic chemotherapy; and no prior HMA permitted. Trial in Progress Issues:Between December 2017 and October 2018, 113 patients were screened and 78 randomized to study treatment (median/range age: 75/61-86 years; median/range performance status 1/0-3). Two concerns challenged this trial: 1) required administration of 7-day azacitidine at the enrolling sites created a burden for this population and 2) an early excess grade 5 toxicity signal in the azacitidine/nivolumab arm compared with the control arm. Without a control comparison, this safety signal likely would have been missed. Strategies to address these concerns were developed by the study team. Discussion with the sponsor and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) focused on allowance of standard-of-care protocol-directed azacitidine administration in the patient's primary care doctor's office rather than at the oncology center. Because of the toxicity concern, the trial was placed on partial clinical hold for further evaluation and possible nivolumab-arm eligibility changes, along with new surveillance and pre-emptive action including prompt steroid initiation for suspected immune-related toxicities. The S1612 trial highlights special concerns when enrolling vulnerable populations onto leukemia clinical trials, and the importance of collaborative strategies including with the FDA to preserve clinical trial integrity for patient benefit. It also demonstrates the efficiency this novel platform design has for therapeutic investigation and, importantly, very early identification of serious toxicity. Updates on accrual and resolution and of these issues will be presented. Disclosures Hay: Kite: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Assouline:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Walter:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Race Oncology: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Amphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Aptevo Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Argenx BVBA: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; BioLineRx: Consultancy; BiVictriX: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Covagen: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Radich:TwinStrand Biosciences: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: RNA Sequencing. Othus:Celgene: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; Glycomimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee. Erba:Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; ImmunoGen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy; Covance: Other: Fees for serving as chair on an independent review board for AbbVie Phase III studies; MacroGenics: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Chair, IRC for phase III studies, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: chair, AML Registry Scientific Steering Committee, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: Chair, data and safety monitoring board, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Michaelis:Pfizer: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; JAZZ: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, uncompensated, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Bioline: Research Funding; ASTEX: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Macrogeneics: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Off label experimental combination therapies in newly diagnosed AML/MDS will be discussed, including nivolumab and azacitidine.

Abstract Introduction: In multiple myeloma, randomized trials of maintenance therapy using thalidomide or lenalidomide following autologous transplant (ASCT) demonstrated prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), but overall survival benefit was inconsistent. The MY.10 trial (n=332) demonstrated improved PFS with thalidomide-prednisone maintenance therapy, but quality of life was inferior and overall survival was not improved. As a randomized trial with a no-treatment control arm and biospecimen collection, MY.10 provides a unique opportunity to identify predictors of benefit from therapy that could be used to personalize treatment. Immunomodulatory drug action is mediated in part through binding to cereblon (CRBN) and downregulation of IRF4. Candidate single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected from the CRBN/IRF4 pathway and other genes previously associated with myeloma prognosis, drug response and toxicity from literature review. The aim of this study was to investigate associations between candidate SNPs and benefit from immunomodulatory compound-based maintenance therapy, as well as prognostic impact. Methods: Genomic DNA was extracted from samples preserved in Trizol¨. SNPs were genotyped using TaqMan¨ genotyping assays on the ViiA7 qPCR platform. Analysis was performed on 187 patients with available samples and clinical data (86 in treatment arm; 101 in observation arm). Cox regression models were performed using SAS clinical 2.0 for prognostic impact of a single SNP on PFS, assessed with and without adjusted covariates (age, stage, performance status and response to ASCT). In treatment benefit analysis, PFS was modeled with genotype, treatment assignment and their interaction term. Results: SNPs with significant prognostic impact for PFS in all 187 patients were found in CRBN (rs1672753) (HR 0.59, 95%CI 0.4-0.86; p=0.006) and the following SNPs which had been found to be prognostic in prior studies were validated: CYP1A1 (rs1048943) (HR 1.98, 95%CI 1.19-3.27; p=0.008), CYP1B1 (rs1056836) (HR 0.72, 95%CI 0.52-0.99; p=0.043), and trend toward significance for SNP in CYP1A2 (rs2069514) (HR 2.02, 95%CI 0.98-4.15; p=0.057). Of these, only the CYP1A1 SNP was found to be possibly predictive of greater benefit from maintenance therapy. A SNP in ABCA1 (rs363717), previously associated with thalidomide-induced neuropathy,‎ was prognostic in this study (HR 1.44, 95%CI 1.03-2.02; p=0.033) but not predictive of treatment benefit. Table 1 lists SNPs associated with a differential level of benefit from maintenance therapy, including SNPs in FAM179a and ICAM1 that were possibly associated with harm from maintenance therapy. Table 1. SNPs and treatment interaction with significant impact on PFS. HR represent hazard ratio of treatment versus observation for a given genotype group. Asterisk Indicates trend toward significance. Wildtype Heterozygote & mutant p-value interaction Gene dbSNP ID SNP HR 95% CI HR 95% CI FAM179A rs1053667 T>C 0.46 0.33, 0.66 2.28 0.78, 6.65 0.003 ICAM1 rs1799969 G>A 0.51 0.36, 0.73 1.75 0.83, 3.70 0.007 CASP3 rs1049216 A>G 0.82 0.54, 1.25 0.41 0.25, 0.69 0.029 IRF4 rs12203592 C>T 0.69 0.47, 1.02 0.38 0.21, 0.69 0.062* CYP1A1 rs1048943 A>G 0.62 0.44, 0.87 0.11 0.02, 0.52 0.079* Conclusion: Previously identified SNPs in drug metabolism and drug efflux genes were validated to be prognostic in this cohort. The prognostic but not predictive significance of a SNP in CRBN suggests a possible role for CRBN in multiple myeloma disease biology independent of immunomodulatory therapy. SNPs predictive of differing degrees of benefit from immunomodulatory maintenance were found in genes involved in immunomodulatory activation, drug action and cell adhesion mediated drug resistance; SNPs in FAM179A and ICAM1 were possibly associated with harm from thalidomide maintenance and could potentially be used to identify patients unsuitable for immunomodulatory maintenance therapy. These results may be applicable to lenalidomide and pomalidomide, since immunomodulatory compounds exhibit similar chemical structures and mechanisms of action. Validation of these SNPs in prospective clinical trials involving other immunomodulatory can test this hypothesis. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings. Disclosures Off Label Use: thalidomide and prednisone maintenance for multiple myeloma. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Speakers Bureau; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding. Song:Celgene Canada: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. White:Celgene Canada: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Seftel:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Howsen-Jan:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Reece:Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Otsuka: Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Shepherd:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Chen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Djurfeldt:Celgene: Research Funding. Reiman:Soricimed Biopharma Inc: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Board for Soricimed.

e18367 Background: Regorafenib at 160mg daily 21/28 days is a standard therapeutic option in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. However, the cost of treatment and management of its side-effects is more than the cost-effectiveness threshold for oncology drugs in US and many countries around the world. ReDOS (Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study), is a randomized phase II trial in refractory mCRC and established that weekly dose escalation of regorafenib over the conventional dosing is superior in the composite endpoint of safety and efficacy. We explored the impact of the new dosing strategy on CE of regorafenib. Methods: A Markov model was constructed to compare costs and effectiveness of regorafenib (standard), regorafenib (ReDOS), and best supportive care (BSC). Model inputs for clinical efficacy and safety were from the CORRECT trial for regorafenib (standard) and BSC, and the ReDOS study for regorafenib (ReDOS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were reported to compare treatments. Model robustness was checked with univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The model used a US payer’s perspective with 5% annual discount rate, and all costs were measured in 2018 US dollars. Results: Regorafenib (ReDOS) dominated regorafenib (standard), producing higher quality-adjusted life years at a lower cost. When compared to BSC, regorafenib (ReDOS) resulted in the ICER of $112,705 while regorafenib (standard) resulted in the ICER of $384,687. The most influential parameters on the ICERs were efficacy and health state utility parameters under univariate sensitivity analysis. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, regorafenib (ReDOS) was more cost-effective than regorafenib (standard) and BSC in 70% of repetition at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $120,000 per QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life Year) and 98% at a WTP threshold of $150,000. Conclusions: Based on the outcomes demonstrated in the ReDOS study, the dose optimization strategy of regorafenib results in favorable cost-effectiveness under a typical US willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY.