Citations

Abstract Introduction: Teclistamab is the first FDA approved BCMA-directed bispecific antibody for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). With BCMA-targeting CAR-T therapies, cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is a risk factor for cardiotoxicity. Teclistamab was associated with fatal cardiovascular adverse events (CVAEs) in a recent US pharmacovigilance database analysis, but this analysis was limited by reporting bias. Therefore, the aim of our study is to conduct a multicenter study to define the real-world incidence of CVAEs in RRMM patients treated with teclistamab. Method We performed a retrospective multi-center cohort study of patients receiving teclistamab at 5 medical centers. Baseline oncologic and cardiovascular characteristics (including vital sign and echocardiographic data) were collected. Baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD) was defined as presence of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, severe or symptomatic valvular heart disease, or stroke at baseline. CVAE was collected and categorized based on CTCAE v5.0 by each institution. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was a composite outcome with any of the following: congestive heart failure, asymptomatic cardiomyopathy (interval LVEF drop >10% to resultant LVEF less than 50%), coronary artery disease requiring intervention, stroke or cardiovascular death. Arrhythmia was a composite outcome with any of the following: atrial tachyarrhythmia, ventricular tachyarrhythmia or bradyarrhythmia. Median follow-up was calculated through reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to define the relation between MACE and survival. Cause of death was categorized as myeloma-related death or non-myeloma-related deaths (i.e. CRS, infection or cardiovascular death). Cause-specific Cox regression was performed to define relationship between MACE and cause of death. Results In a cohort of 219 patients treated with teclistamab with median follow-up of 20.1 months, 7.3% (N=16) developed MACE, 7.3% (N=16) developed arrhythmia and 12.8% (N=28) developing any MACE or arrhythmia. MACE occurred at a median of 4.5 days (IQR 2.25-15.75 days) after teclistamab step-up. The incidence of MACE was 16.4% in patients with baseline CVD versus 2.7% in those without baseline CVD (p<0.001). Patients who developed MACE had inferior ECOG performance status (PS) (PS >=2: 62.5% vs. 27.7%; p=0.008). Additionally, baseline hemoglobin level (9 vs 10g/dL; p=0.072) was numerically lower in MACE, compared to no MACE. There was no difference in age, sex, bone marrow (BM) plasma cell burden, ferritin, C-reactive protein or LDH levels between MACE vs. no MACE group. Patients who developed MACE had lower baseline diastolic blood pressure (67.7 vs 73.8mmHg; p=0.041) and numerically lower LVEF (51.4 vs 59.3%; p=0.059; baseline echocardiogram performed in 86% of all cohort). Patients who developed MACE had similar incidences of CRS (Grade >=2: 25.0 vs 16.7%; p=0.620) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity (ICANS) grade 2 or higher (12.5 vs 7.5%; p=0.812). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, MACE was independently associated with inferior overall survival (HR 2.72; 95% CI 1.41-5.25; p=0.003), after adjusting for baseline CVD, age, high BM burden, extramedullary disease, and plasma cell leukemia. In cause-specific multivariable Cox regression analysis, MACE was independently associated with non-myeloma-related death (HR: 10.77 95% CI 4.39- 26.41; p<0.001) but not with myeloma-related death (1.54; 95% CI 0.64- 3.70; p=0.336). Conclusion In conclusion, in this large, real-world multicenter study, we observed that MACE occurred in over 7% of patients following teclistamab for RRMM, typically within 2 weeks of initiation. MACE was significantly associated with increased non-myeloma-related mortality. In contrast to CAR-T therapy, CRS or ICANS were not associated with MACE, whereas majority of patients who developed MACE had ECOG PS >=2 or baseline cardiovascular disease. More studies are necessary to define mechanisms and strategies to reduce these MACE and improve survival. Patients with baseline cardiovascular disease or poor performance status may benefit from cardiovascular optimization before and during teclistamab therapy.

Despite advances in cardiovascular care and improved outcomes, fragmented healthcare systems, nonequitable access to health care, and nonuniform and unbiased collection and access to healthcare data have exacerbated disparities in healthcare provision and further delayed the technological-enabled implementation of precision medicine. Precision medicine relies on a foundation of accurate and valid omics and phenomics that can be harnessed at scale from electronic health records. Big data approaches in noncardiovascular healthcare domains have helped improve efficiency and expedite the development of novel therapeutics; therefore, applying such an approach to cardiovascular precision medicine is an opportunity to further advance the field. Several endeavors, including the American Heart Association Precision Medicine platform and public-private partnerships (such as BigData@Heart in Europe), as well as cloud-based platforms, such as Terra used for the National Institutes of Health All of Us, are attempting to temporally and ontologically harmonize data. This state-of-the-art review summarizes best practices used in cardiovascular genomic and precision medicine and provides recommendations for systems’ requirements that could enhance and accelerate the integration of these platforms.

Background: Inequities in Preeclampsia/Eclampsia (PrE/E) persist. It is unknown if the receipt of cardiology care relates to future risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in Black and White patients with PrE/E. We sought to determine the cumulative incidence of MACE by race and whether predelivery cardiology care was associated with the hazard of MACE up to 1-year post-delivery for Black and White patients with PrE/E. Methods: Using Optum’s Clinformatics® Data Mart Database (CDM), we identified Black and White patients with PrE/E who had a delivery between 2008 to 2019. MACE was defined as the composite of heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and death. Cumulative incidence functions were used to compare the incidence of MACE by race. Cox regression models were used to assess the hazard of MACE by cardiology care for Black and White patients. Results: Among 29,336 patients (83.4% White, 16.6% Black, mean age of 30.9 years) with PrE/E, 11.2% received cardiology care (10.9% White, 13.0% Black). Black patients had a higher incidence of MACE than White patients at 1-yr post-delivery (2.7% vs 1.4%). After adjusting for age and clinical comorbidities, receipt of cardiology care was associated with lower hazard of MACE for White patients (HR= 0.68, 95%CI: 0.50-0.92 p=0.013) but not Black patients (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.82-1.81; p= 0.328). The interaction effect between race and cardiology care was statistically significant (p=0.013) Conclusions: Among a well-insured population of patients with PrE/E, Black patients had a higher cumulative incidence of MACE up to a year post-delivery. However, cardiology care significantly lowered the hazard of MACE for only White women. This observation does not suggest that cardiology care is detrimental to Black individuals but underscores the necessity to investigate why outcomes are disparate among these racial groups.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether predelivery cardiology care is associated with future risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in preeclampsia/eclampsia (PrE/E). We sought to determine the cumulative incidence of MACE by race and whether predelivery cardiology care was associated with the hazard of MACE up to 1 year post-delivery for Black and White patients with PrE/E. METHODS: Using Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database, we identified Black and White patients with PrE/E who had a delivery between 2008 and 2019. MACE was defined as the composite of heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and death. Cumulative incidence functions were used to compare the incidence of MACE by race. Regression models were used to assess the hazard of MACE by cardiology care for each race. Separate hazards were calculated for the first 14 days and the remainder of the year. RESULTS: Among 29 336 patients (83.4% White patients, 16.6% Black patients, 99.5% commercially insured, mean age: 30.9 years) with PrE/E, 11.2% received cardiology care (10.9% White patients, 13.0% Black patients). Black patients had higher incidence of MACE than White patients at 1 year post-delivery (2.7% versus 1.4%) with the majority within 14 days of delivery (Black patients: 58.7%; White patients: 67.8%). After adjusting for age and comorbidities, receipt of cardiology care was associated with a lower hazard of MACE for White patients within 14 days after delivery (hazard ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.21–0.46]; P <0.001) but not Black patients (hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.60–1.67]; P =0.999). The effect of the interaction between race and cardiology care was significant in the first 14 days ( P <0.001) but not the remainder of the year ( P =0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Among a well-insured population of patients with PrE/E, Black patients had a higher cumulative incidence of MACE up to a year post-delivery. Cardiology care was associated with a lower hazard of MACE only for White patients during the first 14 days after delivery.

Abstract Contemporary anticancer therapies frequently have different efficacy and side effects in men and women. Yet, whether women are well‐represented in pivotal trials supporting contemporary anticancer drugs is unknown. Leveraging the Drugs@FDA database, clinicaltrials.gov , MEDLINE, and publicly available FDA‐drug‐reviews, we identified all pivotal (phase II and III) non‐sex specific trials supporting FDA‐approval of anticancer drugs (1998–2018). Observed‐enrollment‐rates were compared to expected‐population‐rates derived from concurrent US‐National‐Cancer‐Institute's Surveillance‐Epidemiology‐and‐End‐Results (SEER) reported rates and US‐Census databases. Primary outcome was the proportional representation of women across trials, evaluated by a participation‐to‐prevalence ratio (PPR), according to cancer type. Secondary outcome was the report of any sex‐specific analysis of efficacy and/or safety, irrespective of treatment‐arm. Overall, there were 148 trials, enrolling 60,216 participants (60.5 ± 4.0 years, 40.7% female, 79.1% biologic, targeted, or immune‐based therapies) evaluating 99 drugs. Sex was reported in 146 (98.6%) trials, wherein 40.7% (24,538) were women, compared to 59.3% (35,678) men ( p < .01). Altogether, women were under‐represented in 66.9% trials compared to the proportional incidence of cancers by respective disease type; weight‐average PPR of 0.91 (relative difference: ‐9.1%, p < .01). Women were most under‐represented in gastric (PPR = 0.63), liver (PPR = 0.71), and lung (PPR = .81) cancer trials. Sex‐based safety data was reported in 4.0% trials. There was no association between adequate female enrollment and drug efficacy (HR: 0.616 vs. 0.613, p = .96). Over time, there was no difference in the percentage of women recruited into clinical trials. Among pivotal clinical trials supporting contemporary FDA‐approved cancer drugs, women were frequently under‐represented and sex‐specific‐efficacy and safety‐outcomes were commonly not reported.

BACKGROUND: Global collaboration in cardio-oncology is needed to understand the prevalence of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in different risk groups, practice settings, and geographic locations. There are limited data on the socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities that may impact access to care and outcomes. To address these gaps, we established the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry, a multinational, multicenter prospective registry. METHODS: We assembled cardiologists and oncologists from academic and community settings to collaborate in the first Global Cardio-Oncology Registry. Subsequently, a survey for site resources, demographics, and intention to participate was conducted. We designed an online data platform to facilitate this global initiative. RESULTS: A total of 119 sites responded to an online questionnaire on their practices and main goals of the registry: 49 US sites from 23 states and 70 international sites from 5 continents indicated a willingness to participate in the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry. Sites were more commonly led by cardiologists (85/119; 72%) and were more often university/teaching (81/119; 68%) than community based (38/119; 32%). The average number of cardio-oncology patients treated per month was 80 per site. The top 3 Global Cardio-Oncology Registry priorities in cardio-oncology care were breast cancer, hematologic malignancies, and patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Executive and scientific committees and specific committees were established. A pilot phase for breast cancer using Research Electronic Data Capture Cloud platform recently started patient enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: We present the structure for a global collaboration. Information derived from the Global Cardio-Oncology Registry will help understand the risk factors impacting cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in different geographic locations and therefore contribute to reduce access gaps in cardio-oncology care. Risk calculators will be prospectively derived and validated.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Background: Outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are influenced by access and adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy. Our objective was to study the association between annual household income and: (1) the odds of having a claim for sacubitril/valsartan among insured patients with HFrEF and (2) medication adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered). We hypothesized that lower annual household income is associated with decreased odds of having a claim for and adhering to sacubitril/valsartan. Methods: Using the Optum de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart, patients with HFrEF and ≥6 months of enrollment for follow-up (2016–2020) were included. Covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, US region, number of prescribed medications, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Prescription for sacubitril/valsartan was defined by the presence of a claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis. Adherence was defined as proportion of days covered ≥80%. We fit multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models and hierarchical logistic regression accounting for covariates. Results: Among 322 007 individuals with incident HFrEF, 135 282 had complete data for analysis. Of the patients eligible for sacubitril/valsartan, 4.7% (6372) had a claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis. Following multivariable adjustment, individuals in the lowest annual income category (<$40 000) were significantly less likely (odds ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.76–0.90]) to have a sacubitril/valsartan claim within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis than those in the highest annual income category (≥$100 000). Annual income <$40 000 was associated with lower odds of proportion of days covered ≥80% compared with income ≥$100 000 (odds ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.59–0.83]). Conclusions: Lower household income is associated with decreased likelihood of a sacubitril/valsartan claim and medication adherence within 6 months of HFrEF diagnosis, even after adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Future analyses are needed to identify additional social factors associated with delays in sacubitril/valsartan initiation and long-term adherence.