ABSTRACT
Background: The ZUMA-1 safety management Cohort 6 (N=40), which evaluated whether prophylactic corticosteroids and earlier corticosteroids and/or tocilizumab could improve safety outcomes, demonstrated an improved safety profile (no Grade >=3 cytokine release syndrome [CRS];15% Grade >=3 neurologic events [NEs]) vs pivotal Cohorts 1+2, without compromising response rate or durability (95% ORR, 80% CR rate, and 53% ongoing response rate with >=1 y of follow-up;Oluwole, et al. ASH 2021. 2832). Here, 2-y updated outcomes are reported. Method(s): Eligible pts with R/R LBCL underwent leukapheresis (followed by optional bridging therapy) and conditioning chemotherapy, then a single axi-cel infusion. Pts received corticosteroid prophylaxis (once-daily oral dexamethasone 10 mg on Days 0 [before axi-cel], 1, and 2) and earlier corticosteroids and/or tocilizumab for CRS and NE management vs Cohorts 1+2 (Oluwole, et al. Br J Haematol. 2021). The primary endpoints were incidence and severity of CRS and NEs. Secondary endpoints included ORR (investigator-assessed), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell levels in blood. Result(s): As of December 16, 2021, the median follow-up time for the 40 treated pts was 26.9 mo. Since the 1-y analysis, no new CRS events were reported (no pts had Grade >=3 CRS to date). The incidence of Grade >=3 NEs increased from 15% to 18%between the 1-y and 2-y analyses. Two new NEs occurred in 2 pts: 1 pt had Grade 2 dementia (onset on Day 685 and ongoing at time of data cutoff;not related to axi-cel) and 1 had Grade 5 axi-cel-related leukoencephalopathy. Since the 1-y analysis, 6 new infections were reported (Grades 1, 2, and 5 COVID-19 [n=1 each], Grade 3 Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia [n=1], Grade 3 unknown infectious episode with inflammatory syndrome [n=1], and Grade 2 herpes zoster [n=1]). In total, 8 deaths occurred since the 1-y analysis (progressive disease [n=5], leukoencephalopathy [n=1], and COVID-19 [n=2]). The ORR was 95% (80% CR), which was unchanged from the 1-y analysis. Median DOR and PFS were since reached (25.9 mo [95% CI, 7.8-not estimable] and 26.8 mo [95% CI, 8.7-not estimable], respectively). Median OS was still not reached. Kaplan- Meier estimates of the 2-y DOR, PFS, and OS rates were 53%, 53%, and 62%, respectively. Of 18 pts (45%) in ongoing response at data cutoff, all achieved CR as the best response. By Month 24, 14/20 pts with evaluable samples (70%) had detectable CAR T cells (vs 23/36 pts [64%] in Cohorts 1+2). Conclusion(s): With 2 y of follow-up, the ZUMA-1 Cohort 6 toxicity management strategy continued to demonstrate an improved long-term safety profile of axi-cel in pts with R/R LBCL. Further, responses remained high, durable, and similar to those observed in Cohorts 1+2 (Locke, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2019).Copyright © 2023 American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy
ABSTRACT
Background. Patients receiving CAR-T therapy may have impaired humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations due to their high net state of immunosuppression associated with the underlying disease, prior lines of therapy and CAR-T treatment associated hypogammaglobinemia. Comprehensive data on vaccine immunogenicity in this patient population are currently lacking. Methods. A single-center retrospective study of adults receiving CD19 CAR-T therapy for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was conducted between 3/27/2018 - 8/31/ 2021. Patients received at least two doses of COVID-19 vaccinations with BNT162b2 (Pfizer, BioNTech), mRNA-1273 (Moderna), or 1 dose of Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen) and had SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike (S) levels measured at least one month after the last vaccine dose. We excluded patients who received COVID-19 monoclonal antibody therapy or immunoglobulin within 3 months of the index anti-S titer. Patients were followed from the time of the first COVID-19 vaccines through their index anti-S antibody result. Patients were censored on the first day of any additional antineoplastic therapy after disease relapse. Our primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who develop a positive anti-S response (assessed by anti-S assay cutoff of >0.8 U/mL, Roche assay). Results. Twenty-five patients met eligibility. Median age was 65 years (range 41 - 78), and majority of patients were male (72%). The number of patients with a positive antibody response was 12 (48%). Median number of vaccines received was 3. 18 patients (72%) received Pfizer vaccines, 4 patients (16%) received Moderna, 2 patients (8%) received Moderna and Pfizer, and 1 patient (4%) received Janssen and Pfizer. Median anti-S titers among patients with a positive response was 111 U/mL (range 2.44 - 12500). Two patients (8%) had COVID-19, both with negative anti-S responses. Conclusion. Our analysis shows that only 48% of patients who received CAR-T therapy developed a positive antibody response after at least two COVID-19 vaccine doses, with a low median titer among responders. This patient population is at higher risk for developing severe COVID-19 disease and likely remains vulnerable even after vaccination. Alternative approaches are needed to prevent COVID-19 and mitigate disease severity in patients undergoing CAR-T.
ABSTRACT
“There’s never time to do it right, but there’s always time to do it over.” This chapter explains how the pandemic prevention-and-response enterprise architecture, inclusive of all practitioner and administrator agencies and their relevant domains, will interoperate. It describes how to develop a “detect, (automatically) protect, alert, respond, recover, and improve,” plan to prevent the “shock and awe” that happened at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The plan would include means to ensure if key officials don’t act, there are paths around them to continue the momentum for the necessary Government actions – so as not to rely on the “uninformed or politically motivated” inaction. This chapter will present the framework and roadmap for a federated system of all organizations in the response timeline based on best practices from engineering and systems management. © 2022 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
Most hospitals have a contingency plan, based on all-risks and all-hazards assessment principles. However, emerging threats and risks often necessitate a flexible approach to emergency management at several levels of a disaster response system, for example, in hospitals. Sweden, and possibly other countries, has limited possibilities of surge capacity in the management of large-scale disasters and emergencies, which necessitates a local/national partnership and a flexible local disaster and contingency plan. This study evaluates the opinions of a selected managerial group, both at operative and strategic levels, regarding possible changes in a major hospital’s contingency plan during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Semistructured interviews were conducted to explore the elements of surge capacity and an operational tool, consisting of command and control, safety, communication, assessment, triage, treatment, and transport. The results show a need to create feasible management methods that can be evaluated, establish clear leadership, put preparedness as a constant point on the highest managerial agenda, improve external monitoring, and create a regional coordinating center. Furthermore, the results emphasize the significant role played by the incident command system and qualified leadership to facilitate competent and crucial medical decision making, as well as to provide reliable communication, collaboration, and coordination in a multi-agency response system during dynamic and unexpected emergencies. These steps enable a constant connection between reactive contingency plans and the proactivity in continuous risk assessment and enhance the flexibility of the contingency plans. © 2022, The Author(s).
ABSTRACT
Background: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) is the first CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapy approved for use in patients (pts) with relapsed mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The ZUMA-2 trial demonstrated that brexu-cel induces durable remissions in these pts with an ORR of 85% (59% CR), estimated 12-month PFS rate of 61%, and similar toxicity profile to other CAR T therapies (Wang et al, NEJM 2020). We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of pts treated with commercial brexu-cel to evaluate its safety and efficacy in the non-trial setting. Methods: We reviewed records of pts with relapsed MCL across 12 US academic medical centers. Pts who underwent leukapheresis between July 2020 and June 2021 with the intent to proceed to commercial brexu-cel were included. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariate models were fit to identify predictors of post-CAR T outcomes. Results: Fifty-five pts underwent leukapheresis. There were 3 manufacturing failures. Baseline characteristics of the 52 pts who received brexu-cel are summarized in Table 1. Median age was 66 yrs (range: 47-79 yrs) and 82% were male. Twenty of 29 (69%) pts with known baseline MIPI were intermediate or high risk. Seven pts had a history of CNS involvement. The median number of prior therapies was 3 (range: 2-8), including prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in 21 (40%) and prior allogeneic transplant in 2 pts (1 with prior ASCT and 1 without). Fifty percent had relapsed within 24 months of their initial therapy. All pts had previously received a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi), including 29 (56%) with disease progression on a BTKi. Forty (77%) pts received bridging therapy (17 BTKi, 10 BTKi + venetoclax, 6 chemo, 3 venetoclax, 2 XRT only, 1 steroids only, 1 lenalidomide + rituximab). The ORR was 88% (CR 69%) among patients who received brexu-cel. Two pts had PD on initial restaging and 3 died prior to first response assessment (without evidence of relapse). Seven pts have not completed restaging due to limited follow-up (< 3 months) and were not included in the response assessment. Five pts have progressed, including 2 with CR and 1 with PR on initial restaging. With a median follow-up of 4.2 months, the estimated 6-month PFS and OS rates were 82.7% and 89.0%, respectively. All 7 pts with prior CNS involvement were alive without relapse at last follow-up. The incidence of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was 84% (10% grade ≥ 3) with a median time to max grade of 5 days (range: 0-10 days). There were no cases of grade 5 CRS. The incidence of neurotoxicity (NT) was 57% (31% grade ≥ 3) with a median time to onset of 7 days (range: 4-15 days). NT occurred in 4/7 pts with prior CNS involvement (3 grade 3, 1 grade 4). Grade 5 NT occurred in 1 pt who developed cerebral edema and died 8 days after infusion. Thirty-five pts received tocilizumab, 33 received steroids, 7 received anakinra, and 1 received siltuximab for management of CRS and/or NT. Post-CAR T infections occurred in 8 pts, including two grade 5 infectious AEs (covid19 on day +80 and septic shock on day +40 after infusion). Rates of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were 38% and 37%, respectively. Among pts with at least 100 days of follow-up and lab data available, 5/34 (15%) had persistent grade ≥ 3 neutropenia and 4/34 (12%) had persistent grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia at day +100. Five pts have died, with causes of death being disease progression (2), septic shock (1), NT (1), and covid19 (1). Univariate analysis did not reveal any significant associations between survival and baseline/pre-CAR T MIPI, tumor pathologic or cytogenetic features, prior therapies, receipt of steroids/tocilizumab, or pre-CAR T tumor bulk. Conclusions: This analysis of relapsed MCL pts treated with commercial brexu-cel reveals nearly identical response and toxicity rates compared to those reported on ZUMA-2. Longer follow-up is require to confirm durability of response, but these results corroborate the efficacy of brexu-cel in a population of older adults with high-risk disease features. While all 7 pts with prior CNS involvement are alive and in remission, strategies to mitigate the risk of NT in this setting need to be evaluated. Further studies to define the optimal timing of CAR T, bridging strategies, and salvage therapies for post-CAR T relapse in MCL are warranted. [Formula presented] Disclosures: Gerson: TG Therapeutics: Consultancy;Kite: Consultancy;Abbvie: Consultancy;Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Sawalha: TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding;Celgene/BMS: Research Funding;BeiGene: Research Funding;Epizyme: Consultancy. Bond: Kite/Gilead: Honoraria. Karmali: Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy;BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau;Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau;Takeda: Research Funding;Genentech: Consultancy;AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau;Roche: Consultancy;Karyopharm: Consultancy;Epizyme: Consultancy;Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding;EUSA: Consultancy. Torka: TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chow: ADC Therapeutics: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Research Funding;AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Shadman: Abbvie, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Sound Biologics, Pharmacyclics, Beigene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Morphosys, TG Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Kite Pharma, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Epizyme, Eli Lilly, Adaptimmune, Mustang Bio and Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy;Mustang Bio, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pharmacyclics, Gilead, Genentech, Abbvie, TG Therapeutics, Beigene, AstraZeneca, Sunesis, Atara Biotherapeutics, GenMab: Research Funding. Ghosh: Genentech: Research Funding;Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Karyopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria;Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria;Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Genmab: Consultancy, Honoraria;Epizyme: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria;Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria;AbbVie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Moyo: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Fenske: TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau;Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy;Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau;Sanofi: Speakers Bureau;Pharmacyclics: Consultancy;MorphoSys: Consultancy;Kite (Gilead): Speakers Bureau;KaryoPharm: Consultancy;CSL Therapeutics: Consultancy;Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau;Biogen: Consultancy;Beigene: Consultancy;AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau;ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy;Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy;AbbVie: Consultancy. Grover: Genentech: Research Funding;Novartis: Consultancy;ADC: Other: Advisory Board;Kite: Other: Advisory Board;Tessa: Consultancy. Maddocks: Seattle Genetics: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months;BMS: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months;Pharmacyclics: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months;Novatis: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months;Janssen: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months;Morphosys: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months;ADC Therapeutics: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months;Karyopharm: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months;Beigene: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months;Merck: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months;KITE: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months;Celgene: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Jacobson: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support;Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support;Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support;Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding;Lonza: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support;AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria;Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support;Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support;Nkarta: Consultancy, Honoraria;Axis: Speakers Bureau;Clinical Care Options: Speakers Bureau. Cohen: Janssen, Adaptive, Aptitude Health, BeiGene, Cellectar, Adicet, Loxo/Lilly, AStra ZenecaKite/Gilead: Consultancy;Genentech, Takeda, BMS/Celgene, BioInvent, LAM, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Loxo/Lilly: Research Funding.
ABSTRACT
Background COVID-19 is significantly affecting the healthcare system globally. As a result, healthcare workers need to be updated on the best practices for the proper management of the disease. Objective The purpose of this study was to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) related to COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. Method This was a cross-sectional study conducted among medical personnel at Dhulikhel Hospital Kathmandu University Hospital using a semi-structured questionnaire on KAP related to COVID-19 from May 8th to June 8th, 2020. We analyzed survey data by using descriptive statistics. Spearman rank correlation, chi-square test and binary logistic analysis were used to examine the association between sociodemographic characteristics with KAP related to COVID-19. Result Among 220 participants, the majority were nurses (60%) followed by doctors (27.7%), paramedics (10%) and technicians (2.3%). The results showed that 68.6% of healthcare personnel had a good knowledge with appropriate practices (98.5%) and negative attitude (59.3%). In the multivariate binary logistic analysis, the healthcare workers with the clinical experience level of one to five years (OR:.42, 95% CI:.19-.96) and more than 5 years (OR:.16, 95% CI:.04-.63) were significantly associated with negative attitude. The confidence score for managing COVID-19 (OR:1.16, 95% CI:1.02-1.34) was significantly associated with an optimistic attitude. Conclusion Healthcare workers are knowledgeable about COVID-19 and proactively practising to minimize the spread of infection but lack optimistic attitudes. Hence, the constantly updated educational programmes related to COVID-19 for targeted groups will contribute to improving healthcare workers’ attitude and practices.