Citations

ABSTRACT Approximately 30% of patients with acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) develop steroid-refractory disease and have very poor outcomes. Ruxolitinib has become the standard of care for steroid-refractory acute GVHD, but it is unclear which patients derive benefit. The MAGIC Composite Score (MCS), an algorithm that combines clinical symptoms and biomarkers, has been validated to predict outcomes at the start of primary GVHD treatment. Here, we evaluated its performance at the initiation of second-line treatment in 278 patients. MCS stratified patients into three risk groups (MCS1-3), with the majority (88%) classified as intermediate or high risk. Increasing MCS score was associated with progressively higher 1-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) rates (16%, 41%, and 73%; p<0.001), lower 1-year survival (77%, 56%, and 24%; p<0.001), and lower complete response (CR) rates at day 28 (47%, 38%, and 20%, respectively; p<0.01). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for 1-year NRM was significantly higher with MCS compared to clinical symptoms alone (0.70 vs. 0.63; p=0.023). Among patients treated with ruxolitinib, higher MCS similarly predicted higher NRM and lower survival and CR rates. Patients classified as MCS2/3 had poor outcomes despite ruxolitinib, underscoring the need for novel therapies in this patient population. In conclusion the MCS is an accurate predictor of outcomes for patients who require second-line treatment and may be of use as an eligibility criterion for future clinical trials in this high-risk population. Key Points MAGIC Composite Scores that integrate clinical symptoms and biomarker scores predict outcomes of second-line therapy for acute GVHD more accurately than clinical symptoms alone. MCS identifies patients with high NRM despite treatment with ruxolitinib.

Introduction: Racial, regional, and income disparities have been shown to impact cardiovascular outcomes in postmenopausal women with SARS-CoV-2. Addressing these disparities can improve healthcare equity and outcomes for this vulnerable population. Methods: A retrospective cohort study utilized data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS)-2020 to examine female patients aged over 55 years who were admitted to hospitals in 2020. The study focused on primary endpoints, specifically major cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) including all-cause mortality, AMI, cardiac arrest, and stroke. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between demographic factors and cardiovascular outcomes, after controlling for confounding variables. Results: Of the total 547,225 postmenopausal women hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2, 19.8% had MACCE. Racial disparities were significant, as Native American, Hispanic, Asian and African American women exhibited higher rates of MACCE compared to Caucasian women, with odds ratios (OR) of 1.63 (95% CI: 1.33-1.98, p<0.001), 1.25 (95% CI: 1.18-1.32, p<0.001), 1.17 (95% CI: 1.07-1.28, p<0.001), and 1.11 (95% CI: 1.06-1.17, p<0.001), respectively. Regional variations were also observed, with the Northeast region demonstrating a higher prevalence of cardiovascular complications compared to the West (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14-1.32, p<0.001). Additionally, income level played a significant role, as women from the first- and second-income quartiles had higher MACCE rates compared to those in the fourth quartile (OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.12-1.26, p<0.001; OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.03-1.15, p<0.001). Conclusions: This study reveals significant racial, regional, and income disparities in cardiovascular outcomes among postmenopausal women with SARS-CoV-2. Targeted interventions and further research are necessary to improve healthcare equity and outcomes in vulnerable populations.

Background: Anemia in Type 2 Myocardial Infarction (T2MI) related hospitalizations has been linked to higher one year mortality along with other causes of hemodynamic stress. We conducted the first ever meta analysis to evaluate the overall global prevalence of Anemia among patients with T2MI with differences by subgroups. Methods: PUBMED, SCOPUS and Google Scholar Databases were systematically reviewed to find studies through January 2023 ascertaining prevalence of Anemia in T2MI. Binary Random Effects models were used to estimate the pooled prevalence and subgroup analysis of anemia in T2MI. Heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 statistics. Leave-One-Out sensitivity analysis was also performed. Results: A total of 16 cohorts with 28,629 patients, hospitalized with T2MI (Mean Age 74; SD13) revealed a 23.3% [95% CI 17.8% - 28.8%, I 2 -98.61%, P<0.001] pooled prevalence of Anemia and a Mean Hb level of 121; SD - 25 in g/L. The prevalence of Anemia was higher among T2MI cohorts with younger Mean Age [Mean <70 vs >70 Years; 24.6% (95% CI 14.1% - 34.1%) vs 21.4% (95% CI 15.6 - 27.2%)]; smaller sample size [ n<500 vs n>500; 26.6% (95% CI 18.4% - 34.8%) vs 18.6% (95%CI 10.4% - 26.8%)]; prospective studies [Prospective vs Retrospective; 26.1% (95%CI 17.4% - 34.7%) vs 18.7% (95%CI 12.7% - 24.7%)] and single center studies [Single Center vs Multi Center; 24.9% (95%CI 17.5% - 32.2%) vs 21.4% (95%CI 12.7% - 30.1%)]. The prevalence of Anemia in T2MI related hospitalizations was also higher in studies from Asia [36.2% (95%CI 24.6% - 47.7%)], Europe [21.9% (95% CI 14.1% - 29.7%)] and Multinational [21.1% (95%CI 11.9%-30.2%)] as compared to North America [16.4% (95%CI 8% - 24.8%)]. Conclusions: The pooled prevalence of Anemia in this worldwide meta analysis of T2MI hospitalized patients was 23.3% with wide variance among subgroups. Further studies should focus on scrutinizing the outcomes and devastating complications of Anemic patients with T2MI among various populations universally.

PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing clinicians on the management of patients with small-cell lung cancer. METHODS An Expert Panel of medical oncology, thoracic surgery, radiation oncology, pulmonary, community oncology, research methodology, and advocacy experts were convened to conduct a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2022. Outcomes of interest included response rates, overall survival, disease-free survival or recurrence-free survival, and quality of life. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS The literature search identified 95 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS Evidence-based recommendations were developed to address systemic therapy options, timing of therapy, treatment in patients who are older or with poor performance status, role of biomarkers, and use of myeloid-supporting agents in patients with small-cell lung cancer. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines .

Multiple sclerosis (MS) and myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) share the symptom of fatigue, and might even coexist together. Specifically focusing on genetics, pathophysiology, and neuroimaging data, the authors discuss an overview of the parallels, correlation, and differences in fatigue between MS and ME/CFS along with ME/CFS presence in MS. Studies have revealed that the prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia regions, which are involved in fatigue regulation, have similar neuroimaging findings in the brains of people with both MS and ME/CFS. Additionally, in both conditions, genetic factors have been implicated, with particular genes known to enhance susceptibility to MS and CFS. Management approaches for fatigue in MS and ME/CFS differ based on the underlying factors contributing to fatigue. The authors also focus on the recent updates and the relationship between MS and sleep disorders, including restless legs syndrome, focusing on pathophysiology and therapeutic approaches. Latest therapeutic approaches like supervised physical activity and moderate-intensity exercises have shown better outcomes.

Abstract Purpose A protocol was developed to evaluate the value of an NK-1 receptor antagonist for preventing nausea and vomiting resulting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy when an olanzapine-based antiemetogenic regimen was used. Materials and Methods A221602, a prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, was developed to compare 2 ­olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens, one with an NK-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant or fosaprepitant) and one without. Trial patients had a malignant disease for which they received intravenous highly emetogenic chemotherapy (single day cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide on 1 day). Patients on both arms received commonly administered doses of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and olanzapine. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive an NK-1 receptor antagonist (fosaprepitant 150 mg IV or aprepitant 130 mg IV) or a corresponding placebo. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients with no nausea for 5 days following chemotherapy between the 2 study arms. This trial was designed to test for the noninferiority of deleting the NK-1 receptor antagonist, with noninferiority defined as a decrease in freedom from nausea by less than 10%. Results A total of 690 patients were entered on this trial, 50% on each arm. The proportion of patients without nausea for the complete 5-day study period was 7.4% lower (upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval was 13.5%) in the arm without an NK-1 receptor antagonist compared with the arm with an NK-1 receptor antagonist. Conclusion This trial did not provide sufficient evidence to support that deletion of the NK-1 receptor antagonist was as good as keeping it, as a part of a 4-drug antiemetic regimen for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03578081).

12107 Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a major adverse effect of cancer treatment, can attenuate life quality. Multiple international antiemetic guidelines have recommended a 4-drug regimen (corticosteroid, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, NK-1 receptor antagonist, and the antipsychotic medication olanzapine) for decreasing highly emetogenic CINV. This raised a question regarding whether antiemetic therapy regimens for highly emetogenic chemotherapy could be de-intensified, decreasing cost and side effects from anti-emetogenic agents. Methods: Study A221602 was developed to compare two olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens, one with the use of an NK-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant or fosaprepitant) and one without. Patients (pts) received intravenous highly emetogenic chemotherapy as either 1) cisplatin, given on one day, at a dose of ≥ 70 mg/m2, with or without other chemotherapy agent(s) or 2) doxorubicin (60 mg/m2) plus cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) on one day. Pts in both arms received 1) a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (palonosetron 0.25 mg IV or ondansetron 8-16 mg IV or 16-24 mg PO,) on day one, 2) dexamethasone (12 mg PO, day one followed by 8 mg PO, days 2-4), and 3) olanzapine (10 mg/day PO, days 1 to 4). On Day 1, all agents were given prior to chemotherapy, with the exception that olanzapine could be taken prior to chemotherapy or at bedtime. Additionally, pts were randomized to receive an NK-1 receptor antagonist (fosaprepitant 150 mg IV or aprepitant 130 mg IV; 346 pts) or a matching placebo (344 pts). The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients with no nausea for 5 days following receipt of their chemotherapy between the two study arms. Results: While there was no suggestion of outcome differences on day 1 between the two study arms, fewer pts (7.4%; upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was 13.5%) without NK-1 receptor antagonists were without nausea for the complete 5-day study period. Conclusions: Per the study design, created to exclude a 10% benefit for NK-1 receptor antagonists, the results did not provide sufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis that the 4-drug regimen was superior to the protocol 3-drug regimen (p=0.24). Support: UG1CA189823; Clinical trial information: NCT03578081.

Introduction: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with increased rates of atrial fibrillation (AF). Recent randomized data suggest that traditional scoring of OSA needs to evolve to improve cardiovascular outcomes. Traditional scoring of OSA does not fully reflect pathophysiological links between OSA and AF, particularly regarding OSA-induced prolongation of p-wave duration (PWD), which is the most powerful predictor of AF occurrence. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that OSA episodes that closely follow each other (serially stacked apneas, ssOSA) exert greater effect on PWD compared to isolated OSA (iOSA) episodes. Methods: Sleeping patients (adults with mild-moderate OSA and presence of both iOSA and ssOSA, but without other cardiovascular comorbidities) undergoing diagnostic polysomnography were recorded by continuous 8-lead ECG. iOSA was defined as OSA episodes with no other episode within 30 seconds. ssOSA consisted of ≥3 consecutive apneas with inter-OSA intervals <30 seconds. PWD was defined from onset of p-wave in any ECG lead to termination in any lead (measured by digital calipers, averaged over 3 beats from first half of OSA and 3 beats from second half of OSA). Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used. Results: We analyzed 208 OSA episodes (51.0% iOSA, 49.0% ssOSA) which occurred in 12 patients (7 women; age 63.1±11.5 years; apnea hypopnea index 16.8±5.4). PWD was longer during ssOSA compared to iOSA (median 117.7ms vs 109.6ms; p<0.0001). The following variables did not differ between ssOSA and iOSA: PR interval (p=0.3139), RR interval (p=0.7531), peripheral oxygen saturation (p=0.7776). Conclusions: The impact of OSA on atrial conduction delay is exacerbated by the phenomenon of OSA stacking, which seems independent of oxygen desaturation and heart rate. Stacking of OSA episodes may be an underused and cost-efficient variable in evaluating the severity of OSA and the effectiveness of OSA treatments with the ultimate goal of reducing occurrence of AF.

Abstract Background Black race is associated with worse outcomes in early breast cancer. We evaluated clinicopathologic characteristics, the 21-gene recurrence score (RS), treatment delivered, and clinical outcomes by race and ethnicity among women who participated in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment. Methods The association between clinical outcomes and race (White, Black, Asian, other or unknown) and ethnicity (Hispanic vs non-Hispanic) was examined using proportional hazards models. All P values are 2-sided. Results Of 9719 eligible women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer, there were 8189 (84.3%) Whites, 693 (7.1%) Blacks, 405 (4.2%) Asians, and 432 (4.4%) with other or unknown race. Regarding ethnicity, 889 (9.1%) were Hispanic. There were no substantial differences in RS or ESR1, PGR, or HER2 RNA expression by race or ethnicity. After adjustment for other covariates, compared with White race, Black race was associated with higher distant recurrence rates (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.60, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.07 to 2.41) and worse overall survival in the RS 11-25 cohort (HR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.15) and entire population (HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.90). Hispanic ethnicity and Asian race were associated with better outcomes. There was no evidence of chemotherapy benefit for any racial or ethnic group in those with a RS of 11-25. Conclusions Black women had worse clinical outcomes despite similar 21-gene assay RS results and comparable systemic therapy in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment. Similar to Whites, Black women did not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy if the 21-gene RS was 11-25. Further research is required to elucidate the basis for this racial disparity in prognosis.

Systemic glucocorticoids are the principal treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), which remains the major cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). However, there are no validated biomarkers that measure a patient's response to glucocorticoid therapy, and thus response is evaluated by the change in clinical symptom severity. A major weakness in the predictive power of clinical responses is that changes to all organs are weighted equally even though the major driver of NRM is irreversible damage to the crypts of the GI tract. Recent studies from the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) have validated an algorithm probability (MAP) that combines serum concentrations of two biomarkers of GVHD (REG3α and ST2) to generate an estimated probability of 6 month NRM for individual patients. The MAP has been considered a "liquid biopsy" that estimates the damage caused by GVHD to crypts throughout the lower GI tract (Hartwell et al., JCI Insight, 2017; Major-Monfried et al., Blood, 2018). We hypothesized that the change in MAP between start of treatment and 28 days later could serve as a response biomarker for GVHD and might compare favorably to the change in clinical symptoms that measures response to GVHD treatment, which is widely used as a surrogate for long term survival and is the primary endpoint in most GVHD treatment trials (Martin et al., BBMT, 2009; MacMillan et al., Blood, 2010). We prospectively collected serum samples and clinical staging from 368 sequential HCT patients who received systemic treatment for acute GVHD in one of 20 MAGIC centers between January 2016 and February 2018. We measured the serum concentrations of REG3α and ST2 before and after systemic therapy for acute GVHD and computed MAPs, the changes in MAPs, and clinical responses for each patient. MAPs of patients who experienced 6 month NRM showed significantly greater increases than MAPs of patients who survived (p=0.0004). In patients whose MAPs at the start of treatment were low (Ann Arbor 1, MAP &lt; 0.141) or intermediate (Ann Arbor 2, 0.141 ≤ MAP ≤ 0.290), 6 month NRM clustered among those who had the greatest increases in MAP after 28 days (Fig 1A,B). In patients with high MAPs at the start of treatment (Ann Arbor 3, MAP &gt; 0.290), those who survived tended to have the largest decreases in MAP (Fig 1C). These changes in MAP suggested crossing a single threshold could predict risk of mortality. We found that patients whose MAPs rose above a threshold MAP of 0.290 (5% of Ann Arbor 1, 27% of Ann Arbor 2) had significantly worse survival compared to those who remained below it, whereas the large number patients with initially high MAPs that remained above the threshold (66% of Ann Arbor 3) had a large increases in mortality (Fig 2). When measured at day 28, the MAP was significantly more accurate in predicting NRM than the gold standard of the clinical response, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.86 and 0.70, respectively (p&lt;0.0001). An algorithm that combined clinical response with biomarkers generated the same AUC as the MAP alone (0.83 v 0.86, p = NS). We next tested whether the same MAP threshold of 0.290 could predict risk within clinical response subsets. A significant minority (10%) of clinical responders had high MAPs and experienced three-fold greater NRM than those with low MAPs (40% v 12%, p&lt;0.0001) whereas the majority (57%) of non-responders had low MAPs and experienced almost three-fold lower NRM than those with high MAPs (24% v 65%, p&lt;0.0001) (Fig 3). Thus the MAP provides important prognostic information over and above the change in clinical symptoms, further stratifying both responders and non-responders at four weeks of treatment. The MAP threshold classified patients both with and without significant lower GI symptoms because the MAP is a more specific measure of irreversible cryptic damage in patients with copious diarrhea and more sensitive in patients with less than 0.5 liters of daily diarrhea (Fig 4). We conclude that the MAP is, to our knowledge, the first validated laboratory test to serve as response biomarker for the treatment for acute GVHD and a more accurate predictor of survival than clinical response after four weeks of treatment. The MAP may serve as a novel endpoint and an important complement to changes in clinical symptom severity in future trials of GVHD treatment. Disclosures Srinagesh: National Institutes of Health: Research Funding. Ozbek:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: Biomarker Patent. Ayuk:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. Aziz:Doris Duke Charitable Foundation: Research Funding. Defilipp:Incyte: Research Funding. Grupp:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; CBMG: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: study steering committees or scientific advisory boards; Adaptimmune: Other: study steering committees or scientific advisory boards; Cure Genetics: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy. Hexner:novartis: Research Funding. Kitko:Mallinckrodt: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mielke:EBMT/EHA: Other: Travel support; ISCT: Other: Travel support; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel and speakers fee (via institution), Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; IACH: Other: Travel support; Kiadis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support (via institution), Speakers Bureau; DGHO: Other: Travel support; Bellicum: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel (via institution); GILEAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel (via institution), Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support (via institution), Speakers Bureau. Merli:Sobi: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bellicum: Consultancy. Pulsipher:Amgen: Other: Lecture; Miltenyi: Research Funding; Bellicum: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Other: Education for employees; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Medac: Honoraria. Qayed:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Reshef:Pfizer: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding. Levine:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Biogen: Other: non-financial support; Viracor: Patents & Royalties: biomarker patent; Ironwood: Honoraria; bluebird bio: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Kamada: Research Funding. Ferrara:National Institutes of Health: Research Funding; ViraCor: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kamada: Consultancy; Mallinckrodt: Consultancy; Enlivex: Consultancy; Xenikos: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy.