ABSTRACT
Introduction: COVID19-associated cardio complications occur through different mechanisms including the inflammatory response causing severe issues such as ARDS, sepsis, and coagulopathy. Many points remain unclear regarding the impact of coagulation disorder in patients who are admitted with COVID19 infection. We present an analysis of the cardiovascular outcomes of coagulation disorders in COVID19-related hospitalizations. Method(s): The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2020 was queried to identify COVID-19 patients. Subsequently, we classified COVID hospitalization based on the presence or absence of coagulation disorder. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital cardiovascular outcomes, ICU admissions, bleeding, Stroke, and resource utilization. Result(s): Out of 1,060,885 patients with a diagnosis of COVID, 43905 had coagulation disorder. On adjusted analysis, patients with COVID and coagulation disorder had significantly higher odds of MACCE (aOR 1.57, 95% CI 1.47-1.67, p<0.001), in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.46-1.67, p<0.001), cardiac arrest (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.28-1.57, P<0.001), acute MI (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.19-1.47, P<0.001), stroke (aOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.76-2.52, P<0.001), cardiogenic shock (aOR 2.19, 95% CI 1.78-2.70, P<0.001), MCS (aOR 3.98 CI 2.31-6.85 p<0.001), and bleeding (aOR 1.64 CI1.40-1.92 p<0.001) compared to patients without coagulation disorder. The length of stay (11.43 vs 7.27) and mean in-hospital cost was increased ($150,759.70 vs $75321.1) in patients with and without coagulation disorders. Conclusion(s): COVID patients with coagulation disorder have a significantly higher risk of MACCE, in-hospital mortality, cardiac arrest, AMI, stroke, shock, MCS, and bleeding. Large prospective trials are needed to further study these findings. [Formula presented]Copyright © 2023
ABSTRACT
Background: COVID rapidly became a multisystemic infection with varied cardiovascular complications including Acute Coronary Syndrome. Current literature is limited on the impact of COVID on ACS patients. Methods: We queried the national inpatient sample (NIS) from 2020 to identify patients who were admitted for ACS and stratified them based on the presence or absence of COVID. The adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of in-hospital outcomes and resource utilization were calculated using chi-square statistics in the software STATA v.17. Results: Out of 883940 patients analyzed, who were admitted for ACS, 3900 patients had COVID. On adjusted analysis, patients with COVID had significantly elevated In-Hospital mortality (aOR, 2.91 CI 2.25-3.79), MACCE (aOR 2.53, CI 1.90-3.10), cardiac arrest (aOR 3.34, CI 1.1-10.1) with longer length of stay (6.34 ± 0.39 vs 4.48 ± 0.02). Interestingly, the outcome PCA (aOR, 0.39 CI 0.33-0.46) showed significant improvement. Interestingly, mean costs were elevated in patients without COVID at $105,550.8 vs $98597.7 in patients without COVID. In terms of trends, as exposure increased through the year with the highest levels in December, the mortality also increased (April 18.52% vs 25.64%). Interestingly, the cardiac arrest percentage decreased from April 2020 (7.4%) to Dec 2020 (1.98%) as well as MCS in April 202 (11.11%)vs December 2020 (3.47%) in patients exposed to COVID. Conclusions: In patients admitted for ACS, the presence of COVID significantly increases the risk of MACCE, in-hospital mortality, and cardiac arrest. Prospective trials are necessary for the identification of risk factors to improve clinical outcomes in these patients. Key words: COVID, Sars-2 coronavirus. Coronavirus. ACS. Acute Coronary Syndrome. [Formula presented]
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Adolescents are vulnerable populations at risk for mental health disorders due to physical, social, and educational transitions and need to be assessed seriously, especially after the recent COVID-19 pandemic. We aim to understand and identify irritability at a preschool age as a predictor of developing psychopathology later in adolescence. Method(s): A literature search was conducted using relevant Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) keywords in PubMed, MEDLINE, and PubMed Central databases. We identified all relevant published articles from inception until March 31, 2021. Out of 99 studies applied, 19 studies were chosen for full-text review when inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. After a full-text review, we included 6 relevant studies in our final qualitative synthesis review. Result(s): The results of the studies showed an association between preschool irritability and mental health outcomes later in life. A 2019 study showed that irritability in preschoolers predicted later diagnosis of mood and externalizing disorders when controlled for social adversity, maternal history of mood disorders, and externalizing diagnoses at baseline. Irritability early in childhood predicted mania later in life (OR = 1.99;95% CI, 1.19-3.37;p =.009), and the OR of later being diagnosed with depression was 3.11 (95% CI, 1.32-3.27;p =.002) for each point increase in irritability factor score. Results further indicated that high stable irritability in early childhood is a predictor of irritability at age 12 (r =.35;p <.001). A 2021 study reproduced the results showing that preschool irritability predicted internalizing and externalizing comorbidity (OR = 1.67;95% CI, 1.22-2.28;p =.001). Conclusion(s): The findings show that irritability in preschool children is a predictor of internalizing, externalizing, and other behaviors later in life. It indicates an association between preschool irritability and psychopathology later in adolescence. A large-scale well-structured randomized controlled trial is recommended to unearth the potential benefit of identifying irritability in early life. ADOL, IMD, PSC Copyright © 2022
ABSTRACT
Background: The bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) regimen is a standard of care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) is a B-cell maturation antigen-binding antibody-drug conjugate that eliminates myeloma cells by a multimodal mechanism: direct cell kill and anti-myeloma tumor immune response. Belamaf has demonstrated deep and durable responses as a monotherapy in the DREAMM-2 study of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Preclinical evidence of belamaf in combination with bortezomib or lenalidomide suggests enhanced anti-myeloma activity, providing rationale for this treatment combination. Aims: To evaluate the safety and tolerability of this combination in adult pts with transplant-ineligible (TI) NDMM and establish the recommended Phase III dose. Methods: DREAMM-9 (NCT04091126) is an ongoing Phase I, open-label, randomized study of belamaf + VRd. The belamaf dose cohorts currently being evaluated are Cohort 1 (1.9 mg/kg Q3/4W), Cohort 2 (1.4 mg/kg Q6/8W), Cohort 3 (1.9 mg/kg Q6/8W), Cohort 4 (1.0 mg/kg Q3/4W), and Cohort 5 (1.4 mg/kg Q3/4W). Belamaf is given with VRd Q3W until Cycle 8, and with Rd Q4W thereafter. After evaluation of safety data for Cohort 1, Cohorts 2-5 were opened in parallel and enrolled pts were randomized 1:1:1:1. Primary endpoint is safety. Secondary endpoints include efficacy, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK). Results: As of data cutoff (07 Dec 2021), 64 pts were analyzed across all cohorts. Median age (range) was 73.0 (51- 88) years, 55% were male, 80% were white, 8% had extramedullary disease, 59% were International Staging System stage II or III, 20% had amp1q, and 17% had high-risk cytogenetics (≥1 of: t(4;14), t(14;16), del17p). The median duration of follow-up varied: Cohort 1 (17.4 months [mo]), Cohort 2 (5.9 mo), Cohort 3 (6.1 mo), Cohort 4 (4.7 mo), Cohort 5 (5.8 mo). Median number of belamaf cycles were: Cohort 1 (6), Cohort 2 (3), Cohort 3 (3.5), Cohort 4 (4.5), and Cohort 5 (5). Most common adverse events (AEs) across cohorts included thrombocytopenia (49%), constipation (43%), diarrhea (32%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (30%). AEs related to study treatment were experienced by 61 (97%) pts. Belamaf-related grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 24 (38%) pts. Belamaf dose reductions occurred in 11 (18%) pts, with dose delays in 10 (16%) pts. Three pts experienced a fatal severe AE (unrelated to study treatment);2 due to COVID-19 infection, 1 due to pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Early deep responses were observed;67-92% pts achieved ≥very good partial response (VGPR) (Table), with median time to VGPR of 2.1-2.9 months across cohorts. Of pts with ≥VGPR, 17 were minimal residual disease (MRD) negative, 10 in Cohort 1. As of data cutoff, 8-75% of pts achieved best response of complete response (CR) or stringent CR (sCR). Grade 3 corneal exam findings were reported in 25-58% of pts;grade 3 visual acuity changes were reported in 21-75% of pts. No grade 4 corneal exam findings or visual acuity changes were reported in pts receiving belamaf Q6/8W, compared with 0-17% and 0-8%, respectively, in the Q3/4W cohorts. Belamaf PK profile was similar to that in pts with RRMM, accounting for baseline characteristics. Image: Summary/Conclusion: Belamaf + VRd demonstrated high response rates in pts with TI NDMM, with a high rate of MRD negativity indicating deep responses. No new safety signals were observed relative to DREAMM-2. Study is ongoing to evaluate the safety and efficacy of variable dose intensities of belamaf in combination with VRd.
ABSTRACT
Background: The bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) regimen is a SoC for NDMM. Belamaf, a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, demonstrated durable responses in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Preclinical studies of belamaf in combination with bortezomib/ lenalidomide suggest enhanced antimyeloma activity. We report preliminary findings of belamaf + VRd for patients with TI NDMM. Materials and Methods: DREAMM-9 (NCT04091126) is an ongoing Phase I, open label, randomized, dose and schedule evaluation trial. Adults with TI NDMM and ECOG status 0-2 are eligible. VRd is administered Q3W until Cycle 8, followed by lenalidomide + dexamethasone (Rd) Q4W. Belamaf + VRd is administered until Cycle 8, and with Rd thereafter. The currently evaluated belamaf dose cohorts are: Cohort 1 (1.9 mg/kg Q3/4W), Cohort 2 (1.4 mg/kg Q6/8W), Cohort 3 (1.9 mg/ kg Q6/8W), Cohort 4 (1.0 mg/kg Q3/4W), and Cohort 5 (1.4 mg/kg Q3/4W). Primary endpoint is safety. Secondary endpoints include efficacy, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK). Results: Overall 36 patients were treated across the 5 cohorts. The median (range) age was 74.0 (63-80) years;56% patients were male, 17 (47%) had stage 2 disease, 3 (8%) had extramedullary disease, 6 (17%) patients had high risk cytogenetic abnormalities;the median number of belamaf cycles ranged from 1-9. No new safety signals were observed. Across Cohorts 1-5, all patients experienced AEs related to study treatment;1 patient in Cohort 1 died due to COVID-19 infection. The most common AEs leading to dose modification were thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and corneal events. Patients in Cohort 2 and 3 had the lowest number of Grade ≥3 corneal events (3 and 2 events, respectively). All 12 patients in Cohort 1, all 6 in Cohorts 3 and 5, and 5/6 patients in Cohorts 2 and 4 have responded to the treatment;≥half of patients in each cohort achieved very good partial response or better. As of data cut-off, 3/12 patients in Cohort 1, 2/6 in Cohort 4, and 1/6 patients each in Cohorts 3 and 5 remained in complete response. Belamaf PK profile was similar to that observed in patients with RRMM taking into consideration baseline patients characteristics. Conclusions: Preliminary data suggest addition of belamaf to VRd did not reveal new safety signals and demonstrates high response rates, albeit with short follow-up. The trial is ongoing to confirm safety and evaluate the efficacy of belamaf + VRd. .
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to determine how various stressors related to COVID-19 impacted the patient experience during fertility treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed to patients at a private fertility clinic via the patient portal. Survey questions investigated patient demographics and feelings of anxiety regarding COVID-19 related stressors. Baseline levels of anxiety were measured by GAD-7, a 7-question generalized anxiety disorder scale. Patient confidence in their fertility treatment and potential changes to their treatment plan due to COVID-19 were assessed. Responses ranged from “not at all” to “all of the time”. Survey responses were analyzed at two different points, on Feb 5th with 290 participants and April 11th with 647 to determine average response and response frequencies. RESULTS: Of the initial 290 participants, 89% were women with an average age of 33.8. 58.9% reported pursuing fertility treatment for at least a year. The average GAD-7 Anxiety Severity Score for this cohort was 5.79, indicating an overall feeling of mild anxiety among respondents. 59% of respondents reported COVID-19 health concerns as one of their causes of stress, but only 29% reported considering or ultimately delaying treatment due to the pandemic. The data was again analyzed with 647 participants, of whom 80% were women with an average age of 34.5. 47.8% reported pursuing fertility treatment for at least a year. The average GAD-7 Anxiety Severity Score was 5.01 for this cohort, indicating a reduced overall feeling of mild anxiety. 52% of respondents reported COVID-19 health concerns as one of their causes of stress, but only 17% reported considering or deciding to delay treatment due to the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals struggling to conceive often report feelings of depression and anxiety. Over the past year, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has been shown to cause increased stress, anxiety, and feelings of depression across almost all populations. For those already experiencing heightened levels of stress and anxiety prior to the pandemic, the effect of increased stress and worry may have detrimental effects on health outcomes. While the cause-and-effect relationship between stress and infertility is still unclear, it is important to consider how the COVID-19 pandemic leads to increased distress among infertility patients and how this may impact perceived treatment outcomes. In comparing results between data collection on Feb. 5th and April 11th, it appears that patients may be experiencing a reduction in stress regarding COVID-19. As the pandemic continues to evolve in terms of vaccine, treatment, and spread mitigation plans, patients continue to be resilient in adapting to COVID-19. Being aware of the increased levels of stress and anxiety experienced by patients during the ongoing COVID-19 crisis can help healthcare providers alleviate some of these worries. IMPACT STATEMENT: Various stressors, particularly during COVID-19 may impact a patient's experience in their fertility treatment, allowing healthcare providers an opportunity to help mitigate these during care.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) regimen is an acceptable standard of care (SoC) for both transplant-eligible and transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TI NDMM). Ongoing development of novel therapies and combinations strive to improve survival outcomes beyond what is expected from SoC. Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) is a B-cell maturation antigen-binding antibody-drug conjugate that eliminates myeloma cells by a multimodal mechanism and has demonstrated durable responses in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Preclinical evidence of belamaf in combination with bortezomib or lenalidomide suggests enhanced anti-myeloma activity, providing rationale for this treatment combination. We report the preliminary findings of belamaf + VRd for TI NDMM patients. Methods: DREAMM-9 (NCT04091126) is an ongoing Phase I, open-label, randomized, dose and schedule evaluation study of belamaf + VRd in patients with TI NDMM. Eligible patients include those ≥18 years old with ECOG status 0-2 and adequate organ system functions. The study evaluates safety and tolerability of belamaf + VRd in up to 8 cohorts, up to 144 patients, to establish the recommended phase 3 dose (RP3D). VRd is administered Q3W until cycle 8, followed by lenalidomide + dexamethasone (Rd) Q4W. Belamaf + VRd is administered until cycle 8, and then in combination with Rd thereafter. The belamaf dose cohorts currently being evaluated are: cohort 1 (1.9 mg/kg Q3/4W), cohort 2 (1.4 mg/kg Q6/8W), cohort 3 (1.9 mg/kg Q6/8W), cohort 4 (1.0 mg/kg Q3/4W), and cohort 5 (1.4 mg/kg Q3/4W). After evaluation of safety data for cohort 1, cohorts 2-5 were opened in parallel and enrolled patients were randomized 1:1:1:1. Safety data, clinical activity, and drug concentrations will be assessed, and used to determine the belamaf RP3D. This analysis reports the preliminary results from cohort 1. Primary endpoints include number of patients with adverse events (AEs). Secondary endpoints include establishing relative dose intensity of lenalidomide and bortezomib in combination with belamaf, cumulative dose of belamaf, pharmacokinetics (PK) profile of belamaf when combined with VRd, overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), stringent complete response (sCR), complete response rate ([CRR];% of patients with a confirmed CR or better), and rate of very good partial response or better (≥VGPR). Exploratory endpoints include assessing minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients who achieve ≥VGPR, and safety and efficacy exposure-response relationships. Results: Twelve patients in cohort 1 were included in this preliminary analysis. Eight patients (67%) were male;median age (range) was 72.5 years (63-77). Ten patients (83%) were white and 2 (17%) were Asian. Nine patients (75%), were ISS stage II or III, and 4 (33%) patients had high-risk cytogenetics (consisting of one or more of the following: t(4;14), t(14;16), del17p, 17p13del). AEs related to study treatment were experienced by all 12 patients. Dose reductions occurred in 12 (100%) patients, all of whom also experienced a dose delay. Most common AEs leading to dose modification were thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and corneal events. Grade 3 or 4 AEs related to belamaf occurred in 9 (75%) patients. During the trial, one patient experienced a fatal severe AE due to COVID-19 infection (unrelated to study treatment;Table). All patients, 100% (n=12;95% CI: 73.5-100) achieved ≥VGPR. Early deep responses were observed;2 (17%) patients achieved VGPR as early as 4 weeks. As of data cut-off, 5 (42%) remain in CR and 3 (25%) in sCR. Based on real-time data captured in the clinical database, 7 out of 9 patients achieved MRD-negative status at the first test after VGPR. Belamaf PK profile was similar to that observed in patients with RRMM taking into consideration baseline patients characteristics. Conclusion: Preliminary data suggest addition of belamaf to VRd did not reveal new safety signals and demonstrates high response rates, albeit with short follow up. The study is ongoing to confirm safety and evaluate the efficacy of belamaf + VRd. Updated data for cohort 1 will be reported at the congress. Funding: GSK (Study 209664);belamaf drug linker technology licensed from Seagen;belamaf monoclonal antibody produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa. [Formula presented] Disclosures: Usmani: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding;Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding;Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding;SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding;Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding;Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding;EdoPharma: Consultancy;GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding;Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding;Abbvie: Consultancy;Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Quach: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding;Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding;GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding;Janssen/Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding;Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding;Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding;Antengene: 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;CSL: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Koh: Pfizer: Consultancy;Jassen: Honoraria;AstraZeneca: Honoraria;Novartis: Honoraria;GSK: Honoraria;Roche: Honoraria;Takeda: Honoraria. Guenther: Novartis: Consultancy;Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria;Roche: Consultancy;Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria;AbbVie: Consultancy;Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria;Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zhou: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment. Kaisermann: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mis: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment. Williams: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment. Yeakey: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ferron-Brady: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Figueroa: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment. Kremer: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment. Gupta: Novartis: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company;GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Janowski: Celgene: Consultancy;AstraZeneca: 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;Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.
ABSTRACT
TOPIC: Critical Care TYPE: Medical Student/Resident Case Reports INTRODUCTION: The novel coronavirus pandemic of 2019 (SARS COVID-19) has significant morbidity and mortality. The downstream complications resulting from this infection are not well characterized. There have been case reports of patients with COVID-19 infection presenting with Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) Here, we present a case of one such patient, who failed initial management with intravenous immunoglobulin G (IVIG), requiring plasmapheresis as a treatment modality. CASE PRESENTATION: A 48-year-old male with a past medical history of hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus presented to the emergency department with a four day history of progressive paresthesias and weakness. This began in his bilateral lower extremities and ascended to the bilateral upper limb and face. Concurrent mild dysarthria and dysphagia were noted. On this encounter, he had a first time positive test for COVID-19 via nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR). On physical exam he had reduced dorsiflexion of the right ankle, with normal power throughout the rest of the body. He had graded sensory loss in the lower extremities, without a sensory level and diminished reflexes throughout. Lumbar puncture and MRI imaging were suggestive of demyelinating neuropathy. Due to the clinical history and albuminocytologic dissociation in the CSF, he was assessed with GBS and commenced on IVIG 0.4g/kg for 5 days. On day 4 of hospitalization, worsening dysarthria and dysphagia was noted and he was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU). Subsequently, due to lack of adequate improvement in the patient's symptoms, plasmapheresis was initiated. The patient completed 7 additional sessions of plasmapheresis and had symptom resolution. DISCUSSION: There have been several case reports of GBS in the setting of COVID-19, which has been thought to be a para-infectious in origin. According to a systematic review, 96.6% of patients affected with COVID-19 GBS experienced typical COVID-19 symptoms prior to being diagnosed with GBS. This syndrome has been seen in other viral illnesses, such as West Nile virus and the Zika virus. Most of these cases have been treated successfully with IVIG, but in this report, the patient required plasmapheresis to achieve successful resolution of his symptoms. At this time, there have been approximately three published cases of GBS in the setting of COVID-19 in the USA which required plasmapheresis as a treatment modality. Additionally, all of these cases presented with typical clinical symptoms associated with COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: This patient's findings highlight one of the first cases of GBS in the setting of sub-clinical COVID-19 infection. This adds to the growing set of literature establishing a neurological component of the disease. It also demonstrates the use of plasmapheresis as an additional tool in the treatment of COVID-19 associated GBS. REFERENCE #1: Agosti, E., Giorgianni, A., D'Amore, F., Vinacci, G., Balbi, S., & Locatelli, D. (2021). Is Guillain-Barrè syndrome triggered by SARS-CoV-2? Case report and literature review. Neurological Sciences, 42(2), 607-612. REFERENCE #2: Abrams, R. M., Kim, B. D., Markantone, D. M., Reilly, K., Paniz-Mondolfi, A. E., Gitman, M. R., … & Robinson-Papp, J. (2020). Severe rapidly progressive Guillain-Barré syndrome in the setting of acute COVID-19 disease. Journal of neurovirology, 26(5), 797-799. REFERENCE #3: Hasan, I., Saif-Ur-Rahman, K. M., Hayat, S., Papri, N., Jahan, I., Azam, R., … & Islam, Z. (2020). Guillain-Barré syndrome associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System, 25(4), 335-343. DISCLOSURES: No relevant relationships by Spencer Deleveaux, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by Sarah Usmani, source=Web Response
ABSTRACT
Background: Isatuximab (SAR650984) is an IgG1k monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity to CD38 expressed on plasma cells in AL amyloidosis. It has been shown to be efficacious and well tolerated in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma as a single agent and in combination. Here we report on the preliminary results of a prospective multi-center, phase II study of isatuximab in previously treated patients with AL amyloidosis (NCT03499808). Methods: Eligibility included age ≥ 18 years, relapsed or refractory systemic AL amyloidosis, ≥ 1 prior line of therapy, measurable disease (defined as a positive monoclonal serum immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) or urine IFE, a serum free light chain ratio outside of the normal range (0.25-1.65), and a difference in the involved versus the uninvolved serum free light chain of ≥ 4.5 mg/dL), at least one organ involved, not refractory to daratumumab, ECOG performance status 0-2, creatinine clearance ≥25 mL/min as measured by 24-hour urine collection or as estimated by Cockcroft and Gault formula, and NT-proBNP ≤8500 pg/mL. Patients received isatuximab intravenously 20 mg/kg weekly during the first 28 day cycle and every other week during cycles 2 through 24 for a maximum of 24 cycles. The primary objective was hematologic response with secondary objectives of organ response, safety, progression free survival, and overall survival. Results: At data cut-off (July 24, 2020), 43 patients were registered from March 2018 to September 2019 at 14 institutions. Thirty six patients were eligible with 35 patients receiving at least one dose of isatuximab. Of the eligible patients, the median age was 70 (range 40-81). Prior therapies included proteasome inhibitors in 32 patients (89%), high dose therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant in 17 patients (47%), immunomodulatory therapy in 9 patients (25%), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody therapy in 2 patients (6%). Single organ system involvement was seen in 19 patients (53%), ≥ 2 organ systems in 17 patients (47%), 16 patients (44%) had renal involvement, and 24 (67%) had cardiac involvement. For those with cardiac involvement, 7 patients (29%) had cardiac biomarker stage II and 9 patients (38%) had stage III disease using the Revised Mayo Staging (Kumar S et al., J Clin Oncol, 2012). A total of 17 patients remain on therapy. The median duration on treatment for eligible patients is currently 11.8 months (current range, 0.3-22.1). Of the 19 patients who discontinued treatment, the most common reasons included adverse events in 5 patients (26%), disease progression in 4 patients (21%), sub-optimal response in 2 patients (11%), and concerns related to COVID-19 in 2 patients (11%). The current median follow up is 16.3 months. The most common drug-related AEs were infusion related reactions in 18 patients (50%) with the majority (16/18) being grade I or II, anemia in 9 patients (25%) with the majority (8/9) being grade I, and lymphopenia in 8 patients (22%). Patient characteristics and preliminary safety data were previously presented at the International Symposium on Amyloidosis. The overall hematologic response rate was 77%. Hematological complete response (CR) was observed in 1 of 35 evaluable (completing at least 1 dose) patients (3%), very-good-partial response (VGPR) in 19 patients (54%), and partial response (PR) in 7 patients (20%). Conclusions: Isatuximab demonstrates encouraging efficacy in previously treated patients with AL amyloidosis. The administration of isatuximab in these patients is associated with a good safety profile similar to other monoclonal antibodies against CD38. The data will be updated at the meeting. Disclosures: Sanchorawala: Prothena: Research Funding;Caelum: Research Funding;Oncopeptide: Research Funding;Janssen: Research Funding;Regeneron: Other: advisory board;Caleum: Other: advisory board;Proclara: Other: advisory board;Abbvie: Other: advisory board;UpToDate: Patents & Royalties;Takeda: Research Funding;Celgene: Research Funding. Kapoor: Sanofi: Consultancy, Resea ch Funding;Celgene: Honoraria;Cellectar: Consultancy;Janssen: Research Funding;Amgen: Research Funding;GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding;Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Neparidze: GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding;Janssen: Research Funding;Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory board;Eidos Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Diagnostic committee member. Sarosiek: Spectrum: Research Funding. Durie: Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy. Usmani: Incyte: Research Funding;Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding;Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding;SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding;Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding;Array Biopharma: Research Funding;Pharmacyclics: Research Funding;Celgene: Other;Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding;GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding;BMS, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding;Abbvie: Consultancy. Orlowski: Laboratory research funding from BioTheryX, and clinical research funding from CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding;STATinMED Research: Consultancy;Founder of Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., with associated patents and an equity interest, though this technology does not bear on the current submission.: Current equity holder in private company, Patents & Royalties;Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Amgen, Inc., AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, Legend Biotech USA, Molecular Partners, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. OffLabel Disclosure: Isatuximab is FDA approved for relapsed refractory myeloma in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone. Isatuximab is not FDA approved for AL amyloidosis.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 CANDOR study compared carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab (KdD) to carfilzomib and dexamethasone (Kd) in patients with multiple myeloma who have relapsed after 1-3 prior lines of therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03158688). In the previously reported primary analysis (Dimopoulos et al, Lancet 2020), a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit was demonstrated in patients treated with KdD vs patients treated with Kd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.46-0.85];two-sided P=0.0027). However, after a median follow-up of 16.9 months, median PFS was not reached in the KdD arm. Here, we report updated efficacy and safety outcomes from the CANDOR study. Methods: Adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) received 28-day cycles of KdD or Kd (randomized 2:1). In the primary analysis, PFS was the primary endpoint and overall survival (OS) a key secondary endpoint. In this prespecified interim OS analysis, statistical testing was based on the actual number of OS events observed by the data cutoff (approximately 36 months after enrollment of the first patient);PFS was summarized descriptively. Disease progression was determined locally by investigators in an unblinded manner and centrally by the sponsor using a validated computer algorithm (Onyx Response Computer Algorithm [ORCA]) in a blinded manner. PFS and OS were compared between the KdD and Kd arms using a stratified log-rank test, and HRs were estimated by a stratified Cox proportional-hazards model. Results: Patients were randomized to KdD (n = 312) and Kd (n = 154). Of all randomized patients, median age was approximately 64 years;42% received previous lenalidomide, and 33% were lenalidomide refractory;90% received previous bortezomib, and 29% were bortezomib refractory. At the data cutoff date of June 15, 2020, 199 (63.8%) patients in the KdD arm and 88 (57.1%) in the Kd arm remained on study. Among patients treated with KdD and Kd, 140 (44.9%) and 85 (55.2%) had PFS events, respectively;median follow-up was 27.8 months (KdD) and 27.0 months (Kd). Median PFS by ORCA was 28.6 months for the KdD arm versus 15.2 months for the Kd arm (HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.45-0.78];Figure). OS data were not mature and will be updated at a future prespecified analysis. Median treatment duration was 79.3 weeks with KdD versus 40.3 weeks with Kd. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 87.0% and 75.8% of patients in the KdD and Kd arms, respectively, and fatal AEs occurred in 8.8% and 4.6%;one fatal AE in the KdD arm (due to arrhythmia) and one fatal AE in the Kd arm (due to COVID-19 pneumonia) had occurred since the primary analysis. Carfilzomib treatment discontinuation rates due to AEs were 26.0% with KdD and 22.2% with Kd. Exposure-adjusted AE rates per 100 patient years were: 171.2 and 151.9 for grade ≥3 AEs and 6.9 and 5.6 for fatal AEs in the KdD and Kd arms, respectively. Updated data by key subgroups will be presented. Conclusion: With approximately 11 months of additional follow-up, a 13.4-month improvement in median PFS was observed in patients treated with KdD (28.6 months) versus patients treated with Kd (15.2 months;HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.45-0.78]). Safety was consistent with previously reported results. KdD continues to show a favorable benefit-risk profile and represents an efficacious treatment option for patients with RRMM. [Formula presented] Disclosures: Dimopoulos: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau;Celgene: Consultancy, Ho oraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau. Quach: GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Consultancy;Amgen, Celgene, karyopharm, GSK, Janssen Cilag, Sanofi.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees;Amgen, sanofi, celgene, Karyopharm, GSK: Research Funding;GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Honoraria. Mateos: EDOMundipharma: Consultancy;Adaptive: Consultancy;Pharmamar: Consultancy;GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy;AbbVie: Consultancy;Takeda: Consultancy;Amgen: Consultancy;Celgene: Consultancy;Janssen: Consultancy. Landgren: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria;Merck: Other;Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria;Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria;Glenmark: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria;Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria;Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria;Karyopharma: Research Funding;Merck: Other;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials, Research Funding;Takeda: Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials, Research Funding;Glenmark: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria;Seattle Genetics: Research Funding;Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria;Seattle Genetics: Research Funding;Takeda: Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials, Research Funding;BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria;Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Binding Site: Consultancy, Honoraria;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Independent Data Monitoring Committees for clinical trials, Research Funding;Karyopharma: Research Funding. Leleu: Incyte: Honoraria;Merck: Honoraria;Novartis: Honoraria;Amgen: Honoraria;GSK: Honoraria;Sanofi: Honoraria;BMS-celgene: Honoraria;Janssen: Honoraria;Oncopeptide: Honoraria;AbbVie: Honoraria;Carsgen: Honoraria;Karyopharm: Honoraria. Siegel: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;Celulatiry: Consultancy;Karyopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria;Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau;BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Weisel: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria;Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria;Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria;GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria;Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria;Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gavriatopoulou: Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria;Genesis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria;Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Oriol: Janssen: Consultancy;Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau;Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Rabin: Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Takeda, Karyopharm, Amgen: Consultancy;Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Takeda: Other: Travel;Jansse, BMS/Celgene, Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Nooka: GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal Fees: Travel/accomodations/expenses, Research Funding;Karyopharm Therapeutics, Adaptive technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy;Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria;Adaptive Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria;Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ding: Amgen: Current Employment. Zahlten-Kumeli: Amgen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded compan . Usmani: Celgene: Other;GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding;Pharmacyclics: Research Funding;Array Biopharma: Research Funding;Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding;Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding;Incyte: Research Funding;SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding;Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding;Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding;Abbvie: Consultancy;BMS, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding;Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding;Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding.
ABSTRACT
Background: SARS-CoV-2 virus has been shown to persist in respiratory tract in immunocompromised patients. However, such data are lacking for both asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. We share our single center experience on duration of SARS-CoV-2 viral presence in the upper respiratory tract of cancer patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (asymptomatic and symptomatic) detected by viral PCR. Methods: This is retrospective review of cancer patients with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection and measurement of viral shedding at Levine Cancer Institute. Testing indications were COVID-19 symptomatic illness, pre-procedural and pre-chemo testing. Prolonged shedding was defined as presence of viral RNA beyond 30 days after first positive test. To document viral clearance, patients required 2 negative SARSCoV-2 PCR test separated by at least 24 hours and maximum 3 weeks apart either by nasopharyngeal or nasal PCR swab. Differences in distributions were identified between patients shedding virus more than 30 days and less than 30 days using uni- and multivariable logistic regression models. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.10 to enter the multivariable model, and p < 0.05 to remain. Results: Demographic data: median age 62 (range 20-93);58.5% females;70% White, 21% Black, and 7.4% Hispanics. Comorbidities included hypertension 43.2%, diabetes 16.7% and chronic lung disease 3.7%. Underlying malignancies were breast cancer 25%, hematologic cancer 22%, lung cancer 16% and genitourinary 11%. Chemotherapy was received by 26.5% patients within 4 weeks prior to testing. 162 patients were identified median duration of 18 days (range 4-90 days). Of these, 76% patients were tested for non-symptomatic indication with median duration of shedding 17 days (range 6-80) and 23% were tested for clinical symptoms with median duration of shedding 29 days (range 4-90) (p = < 0.001);50% of patients never developed symptoms, whereas 35% patients with non-symptomatic testing indication, subsequently developed symptoms. Viral clearance by day 30, day 45, day 60 and day 90 was 78%, 93%, 97% and 100% respectively. Univariate analysis did not show difference between patients with prolonged shedding vs those shedding less than 30 days for age, gender, race, ethnicity, underlying malignancy, co-morbidities including body mass index, diabetes, chronic lung conditions, hypertension, or receipt of cytotoxic chemo. Multivariable analysis showed that presence of symptoms at any point during SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 5.9, 95% CI 2.4-14.5, p < 0.001) was associated with prolonged shedding. Conclusions: Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with prolonged viral shedding in cancer patients. Cancer patients can have asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. More studies are warranted to understand viral kinetics and its clinical implications in cancer patients.
ABSTRACT
Background: Cancer patients are more susceptible to developing severe disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Herein, data from a high-volume cancer center is presented highlighting risk factors associated with hospitalization with COVID-19 disease. Methods: Cancer patients in the Levine Cancer Institute COVID19 database who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 due to clinical illness from March 1, 2020 to October 29, 2020 with 90 days follow-up are described here. Patients' demographic and clinical information were retrospectively entered into a REDCap database from chart reviews. Differences in distributions were identified between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients using the chi-squared test with uni- and multivariable logistic regression models. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Results: 228 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified, of whom 103 (45%) were hospitalized. Median age was 63 years (range 28-95). Race distribution for infection showed White 65%, followed by Black 26.8% and Hispanic ethnicity 16.7% , with a similar distribution for hospital admission. Median length of stay was 10 days (range 1-91) with no readmissions within 90 days. The most common underlying malignancies were breast (29.8%), hematologic (21.1%) and genitourinary (12.3%). The most common preexisting conditions included hypertension (55.7%), diabetes (27.2%) and cardiac disease (3.9%). The most common presenting symptoms were cough (50.2%), fever (38.4%), fatigue (37.8%) and shortness of breath (36.4%). Maximum oxygen requirements for hospitalized patients were ambient air (34%), nasal canula (34%), high/medium flow nasal canula (10%), non-invasive ventilation (13%) and mechanical ventilation (10%). Case fatality rate was 10% with diagnosis of COVID-19, including 21.4% of those admitted to the hospital and 51.7% of those admitted to the ICU. Univariable logistic regression analysis showed that age, sex, prior chemotherapy, upper gastrointestinal cancers, hematologic cancers, number of medical conditions, cardiac disease, chronic lung diseases, hypertension, and diabetes increased risk of hospitalization. Table shows results of multivariate analysis. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused high case fatality rates in our cancer patients. We identified age, cardiac disease, hematologic malignancy and receipt of chemotherapy within 4 weeks of diagnosis as risk factors for hospitalization. These data may help in prioritizing early intervention in vulnerable subgroups to improve survival outcomes.