Citations

Abstract We conducted this systematic review to evaluate outcomes of thrombolysis followed by anticoagulation vs anticoagulation alone in pediatric patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). This systematic review addresses mortality, VTE resolution, recurrence, bleeding, and organ-specific outcomes in 5 PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes) questions on thrombolysis across pulmonary embolism (PE), extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), right atrial thrombosis (RAT), cerebral sinus venous thrombosis (CSVT), and renal vein thrombosis (RVT). Meta-analysis reported risk ratios or differences (95% confidence intervals [CIs]), and absolute effects per 1000 patients. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE (Grading of recommendation, assessment, Development, and Evaluation) guidelines. Thirteen nonrandomized studies were included and no randomized clinical trials addressed these questions. Thrombolysis might be associated with a higher risk of major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, or unspecified bleeding with risk differences of 0.09 (95% CI, −0.06 to 0.23), 0.06 (95% CI, −0.11 to 0.22), and 0.09 (95% CI, −0.04 to 0.23), respectively. In PE with hemodynamic compromise, thrombolysis might be associated with a lower risk of mortality but conclusions on PE progression were uncertain in submassive PE. In DVT, thrombolysis may have little to no effect on mortality or thrombus resolution but might be associated with lower risk of postthrombotic syndrome. In RAT, thrombolysis might have little to no effect on thrombus resolution but a higher risk of major bleeding and mortality. For CSVT and RVT, the evidence was very limited. These findings were based on very-low-certainty evidence because of confounding and imprecision from small sample sizes. This systematic review highlights key challenges in developing recommendations for thrombolysis in children with VTE.

ImportanceMyeloperoxidase is one of the most abundant peroxidase enzymes in activated myeloid cells. Myeloperoxidase inhibitors may have a clinical benefit in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) by slowing neurodegeneration via reduced neuroinflammation and oxidative stress.ObjectiveTo determine the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of verdiperstat, a selective myeloperoxidase inhibitor, in ALS.Design, Settings, and ParticipantsVerdiperstat was tested as a regimen of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a multicenter, double-blind, perpetual platform design, randomized clinical trial, with sharing of trial infrastructure and placebo data across multiple regimens. The study was conducted at 54 ALS referral centers across the US from July 2020 to April 2022. Adult participants with a diagnosis of clinically possible, probable, laboratory-supported probable, or definite ALS defined by the revised El Escorial criteria were randomized to verdiperstat or regimen-specific placebo. An additional group of participants concurrently randomized to placebo from other regimens was included in the analyses.InterventionsEligible participants were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive oral verdiperstat, 600 mg, twice daily or matching placebo for a planned placebo-controlled duration of 24 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline through week 24 in disease severity, as measured by a joint model of ALS Functional Rating Scale–Revised and survival, with the treatment effect quantified by the disease rate ratio (DRR), with DRR less than 1 indicating a slowing in disease progression of verdiperstat relative to placebo.ResultsA total of 167 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [11.4] years; 59 [35.3%] female; 108 [64.6%] male) were randomized to either verdiperstat (126 [75.4%]) or to placebo (41 [25.6%]). Among the participants randomized to the verdiperstat regimen, 130 (78%) completed the trial. The estimated DRR was 0.98 (95% credible interval, 0.77-1.24; posterior probability = 0.57 for slowing of disease progression [DRR <1]). Verdiperstat was estimated to slow progression by 2% vs placebo (95% credible interval, −23% to 24%; posterior probability 0.57). Verdiperstat was overall safe and well tolerated. Common adverse events in the verdiperstat group were nausea, insomnia, and elevated thyrotropin levels.Conclusions and RelevanceResults demonstrate that treatment with verdiperstat was unlikely to alter disease progression in ALS.Trial RegistrationClinical Trial Identifiers: NCT04297683 and NCT04436510

ImportanceAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal disease. The sigma-1 (σ1) receptor emerged as a target for intervention.ObjectiveTo determine the effects of pridopidine, a σ1-receptor agonist, in ALS.Design, Settings, and ParticipantsPridopidine was tested as a regimen of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a phase 2/3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, platform trial. The study was conducted at 54 sites in the US from January 2021 to July 2022 (final follow-up, July 14, 2022). A total of 163 participants with ALS were randomized to receive pridopidine or placebo. An additional 122 concurrently randomized participants were assigned to receive placebo in other regimens and included in the analyses.InterventionsEligible participants were randomized 3:1 to receive oral pridopidine 45 mg twice daily (n = 121) or matching oral placebo (n = 42) for a planned duration of 24 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline through week 24 in ALS disease severity, analyzed using a bayesian shared parameter model, which has components for function (Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale [ALSFRS-R]) and survival that were linked through an integrated estimate of treatment-dependent disease slowing across these 2 components. This was denoted as the disease rate ratio (DRR), with DRR less than 1 indicating a slowing in disease progression on pridopidine relative to placebo. There were 5 key secondary end points: time to 2-point or greater reduction in ALSFRS-R total score among participants with bulbar dysfunction at baseline, rate of decline in slow vital capacity among participants with bulbar dysfunction at baseline, percentage of participants with no worsening in the ALSFRS-R bulbar domain score, time to 1-point or greater change in the ALSFRS-R bulbar domain score, and time to death or permanent assisted ventilation.ResultsAmong 162 patients (mean age, 57.5 years; 35% female) who were randomized to receive the pridopidine regimen and included in the primary efficacy analysis, 136 (84%) completed the trial. In the primary analysis comparing pridopidine vs the combined placebo groups, there was no significant difference between pridopidine and placebo in the primary end point (DRR, 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.80-1.21]; probability of DRR <1, 0.55) and no differences were seen in the components of ALSFRS-R or survival. There was no benefit of pridopidine on the secondary end points. In the safety dataset (pridopidine, n = 121; placebo, n = 163), the most common adverse events were falls (28.1% vs 29.3%, respectively) and muscular weakness (24.0% vs 31.7%, respectively).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this 24-week study, pridopidine did not impact the progression of ALS.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04297683, NCT04615923

Importance The etiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a fatal neurodegenerative disease, is unknown. However, neuroinflammation and complement activation may play a role in disease progression. Objective To determine the effects of zilucoplan, an inhibitor of complement C5, in individuals with ALS. Design, Setting, and Participants Zilucoplan was tested as regimen A of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a phase 2 to 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled perpetual platform clinical trial with sharing of trial infrastructure and placebo data across multiple regimens. Regimen A was conducted from August 17, 2020, to May 4, 2022. A total of 162 participants were randomized to receive zilucoplan (122 [75.3%]) or regimen-specific placebo (40 [24.7%]). An additional 124 concurrently randomized participants were randomized to receive placebo in other regimens. Interventions Eligible participants were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive zilucoplan or matching placebo within strata of edaravone and/or riluzole use for a planned duration of 24 weeks. Active drug (zilucoplan, 0.3 mg/kg) and placebo were provided for daily subcutaneous dosing. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was change in disease severity from baseline through 24 weeks as measured by the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) total score and survival, analyzed using a bayesian shared-parameter model and reported as disease rate ratio (DRR; <1 indicating treatment benefit). The study included prespecified rules for early stopping for futility. Outcome analyses were performed in the full analysis set comparing the zilucoplan group with the total shared placebo group (n = 164). Results Among the 162 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 59.6 [11.3]; 99 [61.1%] male), 115 (71.0%) completed the trial. The estimated DRR common to ALSFRS-R and survival was 1.08 (95% credible interval, 0.87-1.31; posterior probability of superiority, 0.24). The trial was stopped early for futility. No unexpected treatment-related risks were identified. Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of zilucoplan in ALS, treatment did not alter disease progression. The adaptive platform design of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial made it possible to test a new investigational product with efficient use of time and resources. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04297683

Importance Bioenergetic failure has been proposed as a driver of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). CNM-Au8 is a suspension of gold nanocrystals that catalyzes the conversion of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide hydride into NAD + , resulting in an increase of cellular adenosine triphosphate production. Objective To determine the effects of CNM-Au8 on ALS disease progression. Design, Setting, and Participants CNM-Au8 was tested as a regimen of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a phase 2/3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind platform trial. The study was conducted at 54 sites in the US from July 2020 to March 2022 (final follow-up, March 17, 2022). A total of 161 participants with ALS were randomized to receive CNM-Au8 (n = 120) or regimen-specific placebo (n = 41). Data from 123 concurrently randomized placebo participants in other regimens were combined for analyses. Interventions Eligible participants were randomized in a 3:3:2 ratio to receive CNM-Au8 60 mg daily (n = 61), CNM-Au8 30 mg daily (n = 59), or matching placebo (n = 41) for 24 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline through week 24 in ALS disease severity measured by a bayesian shared parameter model of function (based on the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale) and survival, which provided an estimate of the rate of disease progression measured by the disease rate ratio (DRR), with a DRR of less than 1 indicating treatment benefit. Secondary end points included a Combined Assessment of Function and Survival using a joint-rank test, rate of decline in slow vital capacity (percent predicted), and survival free of permanent assisted ventilation. Results Among 161 participants who were randomized within the CNM-Au8 regimen (mean age, 58.4 years; 61 [37.9%] female), 145 (90%) completed the trial. In the primary analysis comparing the combined CNM-Au8 dosage groups vs the combined placebo groups, the primary end point (DRR, 0.97 [95% credible interval, 0.783-1.175]; posterior probability of DRR <1, 0.65) and the 3 secondary end points suggested no benefit or harm of CNM-Au8. In the active (n = 120) vs placebo (n = 163) groups, the most common adverse events were diarrhea (23 [19%] vs 12 [7%]), nausea (17 [14.2%] vs 14 [8.6%]), fatigue (12 [10.8%] vs 30 [18.4%]), and muscular weakness (24 [20%] vs 45 [27.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance No benefit of CNM-Au8 on ALS disease progression was observed at 24 weeks. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04297683 , NCT04414345

Abstract Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and for identifying asymptomatic carriage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The number of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests continues to increase as does the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss nuances of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings, and highlight important unmet research needs related to COVID-19 diagnostic testing. IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel agreed on 12 diagnostic recommendations. Access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention, and the public health response to COVID-19 infection. Information on the clinical performance of available tests continues to grow, but the quality of evidence of the current literature to support this updated molecular diagnostic guideline remains moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is suggested for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions. Evidence in support of rapid testing and testing of upper respiratory specimens other than nasopharyngeal swabs, which offer logistical advantages, is sufficient to warrant conditional recommendations in favor of these approaches.

Abstract Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens (Ag) are commonly used to diagnose COVID-19. The most widely used tests are lateral flow assays that generate results in approximately 15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 Ag assays have also been developed. The number of commercially available SARS-CoV-2 Ag detection tests has increased rapidly, as has the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is an update to the third in a series of frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by the IDSA. IDSA's goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and nonmedical settings. A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. A review of relevant, peer-reviewed published literature was conducted through 1 April 2022. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel made 10 diagnostic recommendations that address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals and assess single versus repeat testing strategies. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) have high specificity and low to moderate sensitivity compared with nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT). Ag test sensitivity is dependent on the presence or absence of symptoms and, in symptomatic patients, on timing of testing after symptom onset. In most cases, positive Ag results can be acted upon without confirmation. Results of point-of-care testing are comparable to those of laboratory-based testing, and observed or unobserved self-collection of specimens for testing yields similar results. Modeling suggests that repeat Ag testing increases sensitivity compared with testing once, but no empirical data were available to inform this question. Based on these observations, rapid RT-PCR or laboratory-based NAAT remain the testing methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when timely molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing helps identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were insufficient to make a recommendation about the utility of Ag testing to guide release of patients with COVID-19 from isolation. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

Abstract Immunoassays designed to detect SARS-CoV-2 protein antigens are now commercially available. The most widely used tests are rapid lateral flow assays that generate results in ~15 minutes for diagnosis at the point-of-care. Higher throughput, laboratory-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen (Ag) assays have also been developed. The overall accuracy of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests, however, is not well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 Ag testing. This guideline is the third in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 diagnostic guidelines developed by IDSA. IDSA’s goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations or suggestions that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, public health authorities, administrators, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests in both medical and nonmedical settings. A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel agreed on 5 diagnostic recommendations. These recommendations address Ag testing in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals as well as assess single versus repeat testing strategies. Data on the clinical performance of US Food and Drug Administration SARS-CoV-2 Ag tests with Emergency Use Authorization are mostly limited to single, one-time testing versus standard nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) as the reference standard. Rapid Ag tests have high specificity and low to modest sensitivity compared with reference NAAT methods. Antigen test sensitivity is heavily dependent on viral load, with differences observed between symptomatic compared with asymptomatic individuals and the time of testing post-onset of symptoms. Based on these observations, rapid reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or laboratory-based NAAT remain the diagnostic methods of choice for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, when molecular testing is not readily available or is logistically infeasible, Ag testing can help identify some individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The overall quality of available evidence supporting use of Ag testing was graded as very low to moderate.

8016 Background: Patients (pts) with RRMM previously exposed to immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors (PIs), and CD38 antibodies (mAbs) have poor outcomes with subsequent treatments. Ide-cel, a BCMA-directed CAR T cell therapy, showed frequent, deep, and durable responses in heavily pretreated pts with RRMM in the pivotal KarMMa trial (Munshi NC, et al. J Clin Oncol 2020;38[suppl 15]. Abstract 8503). Here, we present updated data. Methods: Pts with ≥ 3 prior regimens (including immunomodulatory agent, PI, and CD38 mAb) and refractory to their last regimen per IMWG criteria were eligible (NCT03361748). Pts received 150─450 × 106 CAR+ T cells (target dose range) after 3 days of lymphodepletion (cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 + fludarabine 30 mg/m2). Endpoints included overall response rate (ORR; primary) and complete response (CR) rate (key secondary). Additional secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: KarMMa enrolled 140 pts, and 128 received ide-cel. Pts had a median age of 61 years and a median of 6 (range, 3-16) prior regimens; 84% were triple-class refractory, and 26% were penta-class refractory (lenalidomide, pomalidomide, bortezomib, carfilzomib, and daratumumab). Most pts (88%) had bridging therapy. Median follow-up was 15.4 mo (data cutoff, 7 Apr 2020). ORR was 73% and median PFS was 8.8 mo in all treated pts; both increased with higher dose (Table). At the highest target dose (450 × 106 CAR+ T cells), the ORR was 81%, the CR rate was 39%, and the median PFS increased to 12.2 months with longer follow-up. Responses were observed in all subgroups including difficult-to-treat subsets (eg, extramedullary disease [ORR, 70%], high tumor burden [71%], and R-ISS stage III disease [48%]). OS continues to mature and the median has not been reached; the 15-month event-free rate for OS was 71%. Cytopenias (97%) and cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 84%) were the most common any-grade toxicities. CRS was mostly grade 1/2; 5 pts (4%) had grade 3, 1 had grade 4 (at 300 × 106), and 1 had grade 5 (at 300 × 106). Investigator-identified neurotoxicity was reported in 23 pts (18%); 4 pts (3%) had grade 3 and 0 had grade ≥ 4. Tocilizumab was used in 67 and 3 pts with CRS and neurotoxicity, respectively. Conclusions: Updated results from the KarMMa trial continue to demonstrate deep, durable responses with ide-cel in heavily pretreated pts with RRMM. Efficacy and safety reflect prior reports and support a favorable clinical benefit-risk profile for ide-cel across the target dose range. Clinical trial information: NCT03361748. [Table: see text]