Citations

AbstractObjectivesTo investigate immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) association with cancer and its clinical implications.MethodsIMNM cases were identified 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2020 matching sex and age controls (4:1).ResultsA total of 152 patients with IMNM were identified and among serologically tested, 60% (83/140) were HMGCR-IgG+, 14% (20/140) were SRP-IgG+ and 26% (37/140) were seronegative. Cancer rates were not significantly different between serological subgroups; 18.1% (15/83) HMGCR-IgG+, 25% (5/20) SRP-IgG+ and 30% (11/37) seronegative (P = 0.34). Cancer screening was performed within 12 months from IMNM diagnosis in 88% (134/152) (whole-body CT plus FDG-PET CT in 53, CT alone in 72 and FDG-PET alone in 9). FDG-PET/CT was positive in 73% (25/34) of cancers. Increasing age was the only risk associated with cancer (P = 0.02). The odds of developing cancer at ±3 or ±5 years from IMNM diagnosis was not higher than controls (OR = 0.49; CI: 0.325–0.76). Lifetime IMNM diagnosis of cancer was less compared with controls (OR = 0.5 CI: 0.33–0.78, P = 0.002). Most patients responded to treatment (137/147, P < 0.001). Death and treatment response did not significantly differ between cancer [23% (8/34); 88% (29/33)] and non-cancer patients [19% (23/118); 92% (108/118)]. In total, 13% (20/152) of patients died during follow-up compared with 14% (41/290) of medicine and 16% (46/290) of neurology controls (P = 0.8). Seropositives had greater life expectancy than seronegatives (P = 0.01).ConclusionsGreater cancer risk is not observed in IMNM vs controls. Cancer screening in IMNM should be individualized based on age-personal and family history, including consideration of FDG-PET/CT. Immune-treatment response did not differ with cancer.

AbstractIntroduction/AimsImmune‐mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) is considered a rare subtype of the immune‐mediated myopathies, but its incidence and prevalence are unknown. In this study we aimed to determine the incidence and prevalence of IMNM among adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota.MethodsWe identified adult patients with IMNM, as defined by the 2016 European Neuromuscular Centre diagnostic criteria, among residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota over a 20‐year period.ResultsSeven patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Six patients were tested for IMNM antibodies: four were anti–3‐hydroxy‐3‐methylglutaryl‐coenzyme A reductase (HMGCR) positive, one was anti–signal recognition particle positive, and one was seronegative. The incidence of IMNM during 2010‐2019 was 8.3 per million person‐years. The prevalence of IMNM in 2010 was 1.85 per 100 000 people at least 50 years of age. Median age at symptom onset was 64 (range, 52‐86) years and median time from symptom onset to diagnosis was 3 (range, <1 to 156) months. Statin use among anti‐HMGCR IMNM patients, but not the entire IMNM cohort, was higher than in controls (P = .024). Two IMNM patients developed cancers. The incidence of malignancy in IMNM was not higher than that of the general population. Treatment outcome was favorable in all patients except for one patient with delayed treatment and another with insufficient therapy. Among three deceased patients, one died of cancer and another died of IMNM‐related cardiorespiratory complications.DiscussionIMNM is a rare disease. Its prevalence is one tenth that of inclusion‐body myositis in Olmsted County, Minnesota. IMNM patients in our cohort were not at higher risk for developing cancer.

Abstract Background: Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) has been shown to improve survival compared to conventional chemotherapy alone. However, the ability to perform ASCT relies, in part, on collecting a sufficient number (#) of CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), typically from peripheral blood. The ideal HSC mobilization regimen would enable collection of optimal #s of HSCs (5-6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg) within the minimum # of apheresis sessions possible. Yet, despite currently available G-CSF (G) based mobilization regimens and multiple apheresis days, many remain unable to collect optimal #s of HSCs. Motixafortide (M) is a novel CXCR4 inhibitor, with high affinity (IC 50 0.54-4.5 nM) and long receptor occupancy (&gt;48 hours). Methods: In this prospective, phase 3, double blind, placebo controlled, multicenter trial, 122 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive either M+G or placebo (P)+G for HSC mobilization prior to ASCT for MM. All patients received G (10 mcg/kg) on days 1-5 (and 6-8, if needed). Patients received either M (1.25 mg/kg, subcutaneous injection) or P on day 4 (and 6, if needed). Apheresis began day 5, with the primary (PEP) and secondary (SEP) endpoints of collecting ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in up to 2 apheresis days or 1 day, respectively. Apheresis continued on days 6-8 if needed. Total CD34+ cells/kg were analyzed on site to determine if patients mobilized to the goal and all samples were subsequently sent for assessment by central laboratory. Patients that did not collect ≥2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg by day 8 proceeded to rescue mobilization. The # of CD34+ cells infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice (minimum ≥2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg). Analyses of the PEP/SEPs were performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Results: Demographics between the 2 treatment arms were similar. Mobilization with M+G resulted in 92.5% of patients collecting ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg within 2 apheresis days vs 26.2% with P+G (Odds Ratio (OR) 53.3, 95% CI 14.12-201.33, p&lt;0.0001). Furthermore, 88.8% of patients with M+G collected ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in 1 apheresis day vs 9.5% with P+G (OR 118.0, 95% CI 25.36-549.35, p&lt;0.0001); and 96.3% with M+G collected ≥2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg within 1 apheresis day vs 64.3% with P+G (OR 18.9, 95% CI 4.47-80.04, p&lt;0.0001). The PEP and SEPs were confirmed as statistically significant by central laboratory (all respective p-values &lt;0.0001). The median # of HSCs mobilized in 1 apheresis day with M+G was 10.80x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg vs 2.14x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg with P+G. The # of cells infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice. Median time to neutrophil engraftment was 12 days in both arms (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.62-1.41, p=0.75). Median time to platelet engraftment was 18 days (range: 17-19) with M+G and 17 days (range: 17-18) with P+G (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59-1.34, p=0.57). Graft durability at day 100 post-ASCT was 92.2% in the M+G arm and 91.9% in the P+G arm (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.2-4.5, p=0.96). Overall, adverse events were reported in 98.8% (Grade 3/4: 68.8%) of patients with M+G vs 95.2% (Grade 3/4: 42.9%) with P+G, with cytopenias in the post-ASCT period prior to engraftment accounting for the majority of Grade 3/4 AEs in both arms, as expected. The most common AEs related to M included: local injection site reactions (any grade: 70.0%, Grade 3/4: 11.3%); and systemic reactions such as pruritis (33.8%), flushing (32.5%) and urticaria (12.5%). Additionally, mobilization with M+G resulted in a 10.5x increase in mean absolute # of CD34+CD45RA-CD123loCD38-CD90+CD49f+ primitive HSCs collected vs P+G (p&lt;0.0001). Multicolor FACS and scRNA sequencing of CD34+ HSCs from both arms will be reported in a separate ASH abstract. Conclusions: A single injection of M on top of G significantly increased the proportion of patients mobilizing ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg for ASCT (92.5%) vs G (26.2%) in up to 2 apheresis days (p&lt;0.0001), while enabling 88.8% to collect ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in just 1 apheresis (p&lt;0.0001, Figure 1A). Despite the higher # of cells mobilized by M+G, the # of CD34+ cells/kg infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice with comparable engraftment kinetics and graft durability between the 2 arms. Finally, M+G mobilized 10.5x more immunophenotypically primitive CD34+ HSCs capable of durable multilineage hematopoietic engraftment vs P+G (p&lt;0.0001, Figure 1B). Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Crees: BioLineRx Ltd.: Research Funding. Larson: TORL biotherapeutics: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Bioline: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Illés: Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stiff: Incyte: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Seagen: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; BioLineRX: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sborov: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; SkylineDx: Consultancy. Pereira: Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mikala: Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Krka: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Holtick: Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Qazilbash: Amgen: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; Biolline: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; NexImmune: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Hardy: American Gene Technologies, International: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InCyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vainstein: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Sorani: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Gliko-Kabir: BioLineRx Ltd.: Current Employment. Goldstein: BioLineRx Ltd.: Current Employment. Kadosh: BioLineRx Ltd.: Current Employment.

Abstract Background: CD34+ hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell (HSPC) dose during hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) remains one of the most reliable clinical parameters to predict quality of engraftment. A minimum HSPC dose of 2-2.5x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg is considered necessary for reliable engraftment, while optimal doses of 5-6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg are associated with faster engraftment, as well as fewer transfusions, infections, and antibiotic days. CXCR4 inhibition significantly improves the number (#) of CD34+ HSPCs mobilized for HCT, when added to G-CSF (G). Motixafortide (M), a novel CXCR4 antagonist, is a potent mobilizer of HSPCs recently evaluated in the phase 3, double blind, placebo controlled, multicenter GENESIS Trial as a mobilizing agent prior to autologous HCT (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). Methods: Patients received G (10 mcg/kg) on days 1-5 (and days 6-8, if needed). On day 4 (and day 6, if needed), patients received either M (1.25 mg/kg) or placebo (P). Apheresis began day 5, with up to 4 days of apheresis if needed. The primary and secondary endpoints were collection of ³6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in up to 2 days of apheresis or 1 day, respectively. The # of CD34+ cells/kg infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice, but a minimum of ³2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg was required. A post-hoc analysis was performed pooling data from both arms to evaluate time to platelet engraftment (TPE) (≥20x10 9/L without transfusions x7 days) and neutrophil engraftment (TNE) (ANC ≥0.5x10 9/L x3 days) based on total # of CD34+ cells/kg and # of specific CD34+ HSPC subsets infused. CD34+ HSPC immunophenotyping was performed via multicolor fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS). TPE/TNE was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards model. Results: 114 MM patients underwent apheresis, ASCT and were evaluable (M+G N=77; P+G N=37). M+G mobilization yielded a median of 10.8x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg collected in 1 apheresis vs 2.3x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg with P+G (p&lt;0.0001). M+G also resulted in mobilization of higher #s of relevant CD34+ HSPC subsets vs P+G, including 5.6 fold more HSCs (CD45RA-CD123loCD38+CD90+CD49f+) (p&lt;0.0001), 3.5 fold more multipotent progenitors (MPPs) and common myeloid progenitors (CMPs) (CD45RA-CD123loCD38+CD90-CD49f+) (p=0.0004) and 5.6 fold more granulocyte and macrophage progenitors (GMPs) (CD45RA+CD123loCD38+/-CD10-) (&lt;0.0001). The median # of infused HSPCs in both arms was &lt;6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg (Table 1), with similar TPE of 17-18 days (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59-1.34, p=0.57) and TNE of 12 days (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.62-1.41, p=0.75). However, pooled analysis of all patients (N=114) revealed infusion of ³6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg was associated with faster median TPE of 16 days vs 18 days with &lt;6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.96, p=0.03) (Figure 1A). Further analysis demonstrated an inverse correlation between increasing CD34+ cells/kg infused and TPE (Pearson r=-0.2789, p=0.0027). In addition, pooled analysis of 36 patients (M+G N=24; P+G N=12) using extended multicolor FACS revealed infusion of higher #s (&gt;75 th percentile) of combined CD34+ HSC, MPP, CMP and GMP subsets was associated with faster TPE of 12 days vs 19 days with lower #s of these subsets (p=0.003) (Figure 2A). Furthermore, higher #s (&gt;75 th percentile) of GMPs was individually associated with faster TPE of 13 days vs 19 days with lower GMP cell doses (p=0.0116) (Figure 2C). TNE was not impacted by increasing doses of total CD34+ HSPCs or any specific CD34+ HSPC subset (all p&gt;0.05) (Figures 1B, 2B and 2D). Conclusions: M+G mobilization enabled significantly more CD34+ cells to be collected in 1 apheresis (median 10.8x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg) vs P+G (2.3x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg), as well as 3.5-5.6 fold higher #s of HSCs, MPPs, CMPs and GMPs (all p-values &lt;0.0004). This high # of CD34+ cells/kg mobilized with M+G enables the potential infusion of ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg and cryopreservation of cells for later use. A dose response was observed with significant correlation between faster TPE and infusion of higher #s of total CD34+ HSPC doses (³6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg) and combined HSC, MPP, CMP and GMP subsets. Additionally, infusion of higher #s of CD34+ GMP subsets was independently associated with faster TPE, suggesting these more committed progenitors may play a critical role in early engraftment. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Crees: BioLineRx Ltd.: Research Funding. Retting: BioLineRx Ltd.: Research Funding. Larson: TORL biotherapeutics: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Abbvie, Bioline, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Juno, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda: Research Funding. Illes: Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Takeda, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Roche: Consultancy. Stiff: CRISPR: Consultancy; Gamida-Cell, Atara, Amgen, Incyte, Takeda, Macrogenetics, Eisai: Research Funding. Sborov: SkylineDx: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pereira: Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mikala: Abbvie: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Krka: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Holtick: Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Qazilbash: Janssen: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; Biolline: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; NexImmune: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding. Hardy: Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; American Gene Technologies, International: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InCyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sorani: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Shemesh-Darvish: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Vainstein: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment; Enlivex: Consultancy. Kadosh: StatExcellence: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; BioLineRx: Honoraria.

AbstractIntroduction/AimsImmune‐mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) is an immune‐mediated myopathy typically presenting with progressive subacute weakness and characteristic, but nonspecific, myopathological findings. Atypical cases however can mimic other inherited or acquired myopathies, depriving patients of treatment. We describe a cohort of such patients.MethodsWe retrospectively identified IMNM patients who either previously carried a diagnosis of an inherited myopathy established on clinicopathological grounds or whose muscle biopsies displayed atypical features suggestive of a different myopathy.ResultsAmong 131 IMNM patients, seven previously unreported patients (5%) met one of the above criteria. Three patients were diagnosed with limb‐girdle muscular dystrophy on the basis of a chronic progressive course of weakness and family history of myopathy or cardiomyopathy. The other four patients displayed atypical histological features (two prominent mitochondrial abnormalities, one myofibrillar pathology, and one granulomatous inflammation). Immunostaining of biopsies from 12 additional IMNM patients did not identify myofibrillar pathology. The patient with granulomatous inflammation was known to have pulmonary sarcoidosis. Genetic testing for inherited myopathies was unrevealing. Antibodies against 3‐hydroxy‐3‐methylglutaryl‐CoA reductase or signal recognition particle were identified in 5 and 1 patients, respectively. Four patients presented with slowly progressive weakness over 3–13 y, while weakness was subacute over ≤6 mo in three patients. All patients responded to immunomodulatory therapy.DiscussionAtypical clinical and histological features can occur in IMNM patients, causing delays in diagnosis and treatment. Clinicians should, therefore, consider IMNM in the differential diagnosis of unexplained proximal myopathies in spite of atypical clinical and myopathological findings.

Abstract Introduction/Aims Intracellular congophilic inclusions within muscle fibers, although nonspecific, are one of the pathological hallmarks of sporadic inclusion body myositis (sIBM). Extracellular amyloid deposits in muscle, on the other hand, are the canonical findings of amyloid myopathies, which occur with or without systemic amyloidosis. Methods We reviewed the muscle biopsy database (1998–2020) to identify sIBM patients with extracellular amyloid deposits. Clinical and laboratory data were reviewed. Results We identified five sIBM patients (three clinicopathologically defined and two clinically defined) with extracellular amyloid deposits in muscle. Mean age at diagnosis was 74.8 y (range, 68–84 y). All patients had a typical sIBM pattern of weakness without associated sensory or autonomic symptoms. None had electrophysiological evidence of peripheral neuropathy. Only one patient had a monoclonal gammopathy (immunoglobulin M‐lambda, IgM‐λ) with normal bone marrow biopsy. This patient with monoclonal gammopathy and three other patients underwent abdominal fat pad aspirate and were negative for amyloid. Cardiac evaluation was unrevealing in the four patients tested. Three patients without monoclonal gammopathy had normal transthyretin gene sequencing and inconclusive mass spectrometry‐based analysis. The patient with monoclonal gammopathy died of pneumosepsis 5 y after diagnosis and autopsy revealed multi‐organ transthyretin amyloidosis. Discussion Detection of extracellular amyloid deposition in muscle should trigger an aggressive search for systemic amyloidosis independently from other associated myopathological abnormalities. Amyloid subtyping is crucial for early therapy and mortality prevention. An isolated monoclonal gammopathy should not halt a search for non‐hematological causes of systemic amyloidosis.

Abstract Despite recent advances in the understanding of inherited muscle and neuromuscular junction diseases, as well as the advent of a wide range of genetic tests, patients continue to face delays in diagnosis of sometimes treatable disorders. These guidelines outline an approach to genetic testing in such disorders. Initially, a patient's phenotype is evaluated to identify myopathies requiring directed testing, including myotonic dystrophies, facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy, mitochondrial myopathies, dystrophinopathies, and oculopharyngodistal myopathy. Initial investigation in the remaining patients is generally a comprehensive gene panel by next‐generation sequencing. Broad panels have a higher diagnostic yield and can be cost‐effective. Due to extensive phenotypic overlap and treatment implications, genes responsible for congenital myasthenic syndromes should be included when evaluating myopathy patients. For patients whose initial genetic testing is negative or inconclusive, phenotypic re‐evaluation is warranted, along with consideration of genes and variants not included initially, as well as their acquired mimickers.