SAFETY OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS (PTS) WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (RA) TREATED WITH FILGOTINIB (FIL) IN FILOSOPHY: INTERIM RESULTS FROM A PROSPECTIVE OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

BackgroundConsideration is needed when using Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors to treat RA in pts aged ≥65 years or those with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. The JAK1 preferential inhibitor FIL was generally well tolerated in clinical trials[1];safety has not been determined in a real-world setting.ObjectivesTo report baseline characteristics and up to 6-month safety data from the first 480 pts treated with FIL in the FILOSOPHY study (NCT04871919), and in two mutually exclusive subgroups based on age and CV risk.MethodsFILOSOPHY is an ongoing, phase 4, non-interventional, European study of pts with RA who have been prescribed FIL for the first time and in accordance with the product label in daily practice. Baseline characteristics and the incidence of select adverse events (AEs) are assessed in pts aged ≥65 years and/or with ≥1 CV risk factor (Table 1), and in those aged <65 years with no CV risk factors.ResultsAs of the end of June 2022, 480 pts had been treated: 441 received FIL 200 mg and 39 received FIL 100 mg. Of the 480 pts, 148 (30.8%) were aged ≥65 years;332 (69.2%) were aged <65 years. In total, 86 (17.9%) were former smokers, 81 (16.9%) were current smokers and 203 (42.3%) were non-smokers (data were missing for 110 pts [22.9%]). In addition to smoking, the most frequent CV risk factors included a history of hypertension (32.3%), a history of dyslipidemia (10.2%) and a family history of myocardial infarction (8.5%;Table 1).23 pts (4.8%) discontinued treatment due to AEs. Of the 354 pts aged ≥65 years or with ≥1 CV risk factor, infections affected 64 pts (18.1%), 34 (9.6%) had COVID-19, 2 (0.6%) had herpes zoster, and cardiac disorders (angina pectoris, atrial fibrillation, palpitations and tachycardia) affected 5 pts (1.4%);no cases of malignancies were observed. In the subgroup aged <65 years and with no CV risk factors (n=126), infections occurred in 18 pts (14.3%) (9 [7.1%] had COVID-19;3 [2.4%] had herpes zoster) and malignancies (myeloproliferative neoplasm) affected 1 pt (0.8%);no pts had cardiac disorders. There were no cases of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism in either subgroup.ConclusionIn this interim analysis of FILOSOPHY, no unexpected safety signals emerged at up to 6 months. Although infections and cardiac disorders affected a numerically greater proportion of pts aged ≥65 years or with ≥1 CV risk vs those aged <65 years with no CV risk, longer follow-up on a broader cohort is necessary to further characterize the safety of FIL in different groups of pts with RA.Reference[1]Winthrop K, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2022;81:184–92Table 1.Baseline characteristics and CV risk factorsBaseline demographics/CV risk factorsAll FIL-treated pts (N=480)≥65 years or with ≥1 CV risk factor (n=354)<65 years and no CV risk factor (n=126)*Female sex, n (%)351 (73.1)252 (71.2)99 (78.6)Age, years, mean (SD)57.6 (11.5)60.4 (10.8)49.6 (9.6)Rheumatoid factor positive, n (%)†228 (47.5)167 (47.2)61 (48.4)Anti-citrullinated protein antibody positive, n (%)‡243 (50.6)176 (49.7)67 (53. 2)Body mass index, kg/m2, mean (SD)27.6 (5.7) n=43728.0 (5.4) n=33126.3 (6.4) n=106RA disease duration, years, mean (SD)10.4 (9.4) n=47810.5 (9.5) n=35310.0 (8.8) n=125Tender joint count 28, mean (SD)8.6 (6.9) n=4578.7 (7.1) n=3408.3 (6.3) n=117Swollen joint count 28, mean (SD)5.6 (5.2) n=4525.7 (5.4) n=3365.4 (4.4) n=116Former smoker, n (%)§86 (17.9)86 (24.3)0Current smoker, n (%)§81 (16.9)81 (22.9)0Non-smoker, n (%)§203 (42.3)130 (36.7)73 (57.9)Family history of myocardial infarction, n (%)41 (8.5)41 (11.6)0Medical history of: n (%) CV disease33 (6.9)33 (9.3)0 Diabetes35 (7.3)35 (9.9)0 Dyslipidemia49 (10.2)49 (13.8)0 Hypertension155 (32.3)155 (43.8)0 Ischemic CNS  vascular disorders11 (2.3)11 (3.1)0 Peripheral vascular disease17 (3.5)17 (4.8)0*Includes 53 pts with missing smoking status data who were aged <65 years with no other CV risk factors.†Missing/unknown in 154 pts;‡Missing in 153 pts;§Smoking status data missing in 110 pts (22.9%).AcknowledgementsWe thank the physicia s and patients who participated in this study. The study was funded by Galapagos NV, Mechelen, Belgium. Publication coordination was provided by Fabien Debailleul, PhD, of Galapagos NV. Medical writing support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), and funded by Galapagos NV.Disclosure of InterestsPatrick Verschueren Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Roularta, Consultant of: Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Nordic Pharma, Sidekick Health, Grant/research support from: Galapagos, Pfizer, Jérôme Avouac Speakers bureau: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: BMS, Fresenius Kabi, Novartis, Pfizer, Karen Bevers Grant/research support from: Galapagos, Susana Romero-Yuste Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Consultant of: Sanofi, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Lilly, MSD, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, UCB, Thomas Debray Consultant of: Biogen, Galapagos, Gilead, Francesco De Leonardis Employee of: Galapagos, James Galloway Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Medicago, Novavax, Pfizer, Monia Zignani Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Chugai, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi.

PLACEBO-CONTROLLED EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB THROUGH ONE YEAR IN PATIENTS WITH NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS

BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase inhibitor, was effective and well tolerated in patients (pts) with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) through 14 weeks (wks) of treatment.[1]ObjectivesThis analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of UPA vs placebo (PBO) through 1 year.MethodsThe SELECT-AXIS 2 nr-axSpA study included a 52-wk randomized, double-blind, PBO-controlled period. Enrolled adults had a clinical diagnosis of active nr-axSpA fulfilling the 2009 ASAS classification criteria, objective signs of inflammation based on MRI sacroiliitis and/or elevated C-reactive protein, and an inadequate response to NSAIDs. One-third of pts had an inadequate response to biologic DMARDs. Pts were randomized 1:1 to UPA 15 mg once daily or PBO. Concomitant medications, including NSAIDs, had to be kept stable through wk 52. The study protocol outlined that pts who did not achieve ASAS20 at any two consecutive study visits between wks 24 to 52 should receive rescue therapy with NSAIDs, corticosteroids, conventional synthetic/biologic DMARDs, or analgesics. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with non-responder imputation incorporating multiple imputation (NRI-MI) was used to handle missing data and intercurrent events for binary efficacy endpoints. Mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRM) was used to assess continuous efficacy endpoints. NRI was used for binary endpoints after rescue and as observed analysis excluding data after rescue for continuous endpoints. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported through wk 52.ResultsOf the 314 pts randomized, 259 (82%;UPA, n=130;PBO, n=129) completed wk 52 on study drug. More pts achieved an ASAS40 response with UPA vs PBO from wks 14 to 52 with a 20% treatment difference at wk 52 (63% vs 43%;nominal P <.001;Figure 1). The proportion of pts achieving ASDAS inactive disease with UPA remained higher than PBO at wk 52 (33% vs 11%;nominal P <.0001;Figure 1). Consistent improvements and maintenance of efficacy were also seen across other disease activity measures. Between wks 24 and 52, fewer pts on UPA (9%) than PBO (17%) received rescue therapy. A similar proportion of pts in each treatment group had a TEAE (Table 1). Infections were the most common TEAE;the rates of serious infections and herpes zoster were higher with UPA vs PBO, although no new serious infections were reported from wks 14 to 52. COVID-19 events were balanced between treatment groups. No opportunistic infections, malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events, inflammatory bowel disease, or deaths were reported. Two pts (1.3%) on PBO had adjudicated venous thromboembolic events.ConclusionUPA showed consistent improvement and maintenance of efficacy vs PBO through 1 year across multiple disease activity measures. No new safety risks were identified with longer-term UPA exposure. These results continue to support the benefit of UPA in pts with active nr-axSpA.Reference[1]Deodhar A, et al. Lancet. 2022;400(10349):369–379.Table 1.Safety through week 52Event, n (%)PBO (n = 157)UPA 15 mg QD (n = 156)Any AE103 (66%)107 (69%)Serious AE6 (3.8%)6 (3.8%)AE leading to D/C4 (2.5%)6 (3.8%)COVID-19-related AE22 (14%)24 (15%)Deaths00Infection60 (38%)68 (44%) Serious infection1 (0.6%)2 (1.3%) Herpes zoster1 (0.6%)5 (3.2%)Malignancy other than NMSC00NMSC1 (0.6%)0Hepatic disorder7 (4.5%)6 (3.8%)Neutropenia1 (0.6%)8 (5.1%)MACE (adjudicated)00VTE (adjudicated)2 (1.3%)a0Uveitisb3 (1.9%)2 (1.3%)Inflammatory bowel disease00aBoth patients had non-serious events of deep vein thrombosis in the lower limb with risk factors including obesity and prior deep vein thrombosis in one patient and concomitant COVID-19 infection in the other patient.bThree events of uveitis occurred in each treatment group (among n = 3 patients in the PBO group and n = 2 patients in the UPA group);two events in the PBO group and one in the UPA group occurred in patients with a history of uveitis.AcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, res arch, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, review, and approval of the . All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Julia Zolotarjova, MSc, MWC, of AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsFilip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Atul Deodhar Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Medscape, MoonLake, Novartis, Peervoice, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Medscape, MoonLake, Novartis, Peervoice, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer., Walter P Maksymowych Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Employee of: Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Tae-Hwan Kim Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celltrion, Kirin, Lilly, and Novartis., Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and UCB., Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Novartis, Yuanyuan Duan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Kristin D'Silva Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Peter Wung Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, In-Ho Song Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie.

Re-vaccination against SARS-COV2 in allogeneic HSCT patients: Repeated primary vaccines doses increases seroconversion rates

Patients undergoing treatment for haematological malignancies have been shown to have reduced antibody responses to vaccination against SARS-COV2. This is particularly important in patients who have undergone allogeneic haemopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), in whom there is limited data about vaccine efficacy. In this retrospective single-centre analysis, we present data on serologic responses following one, two, three or four doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech (PB), AstraZeneca (AZ) or Moderna (MU) SARS-CoV- 2 vaccines from a series of 75 patients who have undergone allogeneic HSCT within 2 years from the time they were revaccinated. The seroconversion rates following post-HSCT vaccination were found to be 50.7%, 78%, 79% and 83% following the first, second, third and fourth primary post -HSCT vaccine doses, respectively. The median time from allograft to first revaccination was 145 days (range 79-700). Our findings suggest that failure to respond to the first SARS-CoV- 2 vaccine post-HSCT was associated with the presence of acute GVHD (p = 0.042) and treatment with rituximab within 12 months of vaccination (p = 0.019). A statistical trend was observed with the presence of chronic GVHD and failure to seroconvert following the second (p = 0.07) and third (p = 0.09) post-HSCT vaccine doses. Patients who had received one or more SARS-CoV- 2 vaccines prior to having an allogeneic stem cell transplant were more likely to demonstrate a positive antibody response following the first dose of revaccination against Sars-CoV- 2 (p = 0.019) and retained this seropositivity following subsequent doses. The incidence of confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis among this cohort at the time of analysis was 16%. 17% of these were hospitalised and there was one recorded death (8%) secondary to COVID-19 in a patient who was 15.7 months post allogeneic transplant. In summary, this study suggests that despite the initial low seroconversion rates observed postallogeneic transplant, increasing levels of antibody response are seen post the second primary vaccine dose. In addition, there seems to be lower risk of mortality secondary to COVID-19 in this vaccinated population, compared to what was reported in the earlier phases of the pandemic prior to use of SARS-COV2 vaccination. This adds support to the widely adopted policy of early full revaccination with repeat of primary vaccine doses and boosters post-HSCT to reduce mortality in this population. Finally, we have identified rituximab use and active GVHD as potential risk factors influencing serological responses to SARS-COV2 vaccination and further work should focus on further characterising this risk and optimum dosing schedule both pre-and post-transplant.

The evolution of a charity support services team

Our charity's mission is dedicated to beating blood cancer by funding research and supporting those affected. Since 1960, we have invested over 500 million in blood cancer research, transforming treatments and saving lives. Since 2015 there has been a Support Services team within the charity. This service was established to provide information that the blood cancer community can trust, in a language they can understand. By connecting and listening to our community they deepen our understanding and help shape our work. Research suggests that blood cancer patients are more likely than any other patients to leave their diagnosis appointment feeling they do not fully understand their condition. Our service can often consolidate the information given by clinicians. Patients also need advice and support on how to adapt to day-to- day life after their diagnosis. There are challenges that are unique to blood cancer, such as living with cancer as a chronic condition, being on 'watch and wait' or fluctuating remissions and relapses. In 2023 the Support Services team have a 7 day presence on our phone line, email and social media platform where people can communicate with one of our trained blood cancer support officers, or one of three Registered Nurses, all who can provide information about blood cancer diagnosis and help with emotional and practical support. We also run an online community forum where people affected by blood cancer can connect, share experiences and provide peer support. The highly experienced haematology nurses provide a clinical aspect to the support of the Blood Cancer Community that enhances the established patient centred support given historically by the charity. The nurses advanced knowledge and experience of haematological cancers, treatments, side effects, holistic care and NHS process can further guide the community. This is in addition to the invaluable information from their treatment teams. In 2023 the Support Services team are now reaching thousands of the blood cancer community. We understand that in the past 3 years the COVID-19 pandemic and the work of our charity around this will have influenced the significant increase in contacts but equally the robust and trusted services provided through this charity has contributed too.

CHARACTERISTICS OF PATIENTS WHO RECEIVED BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT AFTER KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION AND THE INCIDENCE OF SERIOUS INFECTIONS: A MULTICENTER STUDY

BackgroundKidney transplant patients due to both primary kidney involvement of chronic/autoimmune inflammatory diseases and end-stage kidney disease related to amyloidosis are followed up in rheumatology clinics. Biological agents one of the treatment options in kidney transplant recipients with chronic/autoimmune inflammatory disease.ObjectivesHowever, there is insufficient data on the development of infection in kidney transplant recipients who received biological treatment. Herein, we aimed to determine the incidence of serious infections in patients with kidney transplant recipients who are received biological therapy.MethodsKidney transplant recipients who are received biological agents due to rheumatologic disease were included in the study. Patients' demographic features, transplantation data, biological treatment, development of infection and severity of infection were screened retrospectively. Infections that requiring hospitalization were defined as severe infections.ResultsA total of 31 patients were included in the study, 14 (45%) of whom were female and mean age was 41 ±9 years. Twenty-five patients (80%) of them were non-preemptive kidney transplant and mean duration of hemodialysis before the transplantation was 40 ±40 months. Twenty-three patients (74%) had end stage kidney failure due to FMF-amyloidosis(Figure-1-). Seventeen patients (54%) received anakinra, 11 patients (35%) received canakinumab and 3 patients (10%) received etanercept with other immunosuppressive treatment. Mean treatment duration of biological agents was 4.2±2.6 years. Two patients developed solid organ malignancy and one patient developed hematological malignancy after transplantation. Sixteen of the patients (52%) were hospitalized at least once due to infection and 4 patients (13%) died due to infection. The cause of decease in two patients was COVID-19.ConclusionRheumatic diseases are an important cause of end-stage renal disease and definitive treatment is kidney transplantation. Kidney transplant recipients due to rheumatological disease also use biological agents in the post-transplantation period. Kidney transplant recipients have higher risk for the development of infection since they receive immunosuppressive therapy and use of biologic agents may further increase the risk for development infection. Meyer et al reported that infection developed in 54 of 187 solid organ transplant recipients using biological agents.[1] Mean treatment duration of biological agents was 12 months in this study. The incidence of infection was 54% in our study. Mean treatment duration of biological agent was 4.2 year was considered main reason for higher incidence of infection in our study.Reference[1]Meyer F, Weil-Verhoeven D, Prati C, Wendling D, Verhoeven F. Safety of biologic treatments in solid organ transplant recipients: A systematic review. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2021 Dec;51(6):1263-1273. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.08.013. Epub 2021 Aug 26. Erratum in: Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2022 Aug;55:152015. PMID: 34507811.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

The temporal evolution in disease phenotype of COVID-19 hospitalisation, intensive care and case fatality rates in cancer patients across the United Kingdom (UKCCP)

Background: People living with cancer are reported to be at increased risk of hospitalization and death following infection with acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This is proposed to be dependent on a combination of intrinsic patient and cancer factors such as cancer subtype, and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants with differing pathogenicity. However, COVID-19 phenotype evolution across the pandemic from 2020 has not yet been systematically evaluated in cancer patients. Method(s): This study is a population-scale real-world evaluation of Coronavirus outcomes in the United Kingdom for cancer patients from 1st November 2020-31st August 2022. The cancer cohort comprises individuals from Public Health England's national cancer dataset, excluding individuals less than 18 years old. Case-outcome rates, including hospitalization, intensive care and casefatality rates were used to assess the evolution in disease phenotype of COVID-19 in cancer patients. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to compare risk of Coronavirus outcomes in the cancer cohort relative to the non-cancer population during the Omicron wave in 2022. Result(s): The cancer cohort comprised of 198,819 positive SARS-CoV-2 tests from 127,322 individual infections. Coronavirus case-outcome rates were evaluated by reference to 18,188,573 positive tests from 15,801,004 individual infections in the non-cancer population. From 2020 to 2022, the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype became less severe in both patients with cancer and the non-cancer population, though cancer patients remain at higher risk. In 2022, the relative risk of Coronavirus hospital admission, inpatient hospitalization, intensive care admission and mortality in cancer patients was 3.02x, 2.10x, 2.53x and 2.54x compared to the non-cancer population following multivariable adjustment, respectively. Higher risk of hospital admission and inpatient hospitalization were associated with receipt of B/T cell antibody and/or targeted therapy which also corresponded with an increased risk of Coronavirus mortality. Conclusion(s): The disease phenotype of SARS-CoV-2 in cancer patients in 2022 has evolved significantly from the disease phenotype in 2020. Direct effects of the virus in terms of SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization, intensive care and case fatality rates have fallen significantly over time. However, relative to the general population, people living with cancer and hematological malignancies remain at elevated risk. In order to mitigate the indirect effects of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in terms of disruption to cancer care, there should be increased focus on preventative measures. Used in conjunction with vaccination and early treatment programs, this will maximize quality of life for those with cancer during the ongoing pandemic and ensure the best cancer outcomes.

Invasive aspergillosis in patients with COVID-19 in intensive care units: results of a multicenter study.

Objective. To study risk factors, clinical and radiological features and effectiveness of the treatment of invasive aspergillosis (IA) in adult patients with COVID-19 (COVID-IA) in intensive care units (ICU). Materials and methods. A total of 60 patients with COVID-IA treated in ICU (median age 62 years, male - 58%) were included in this multicenter prospective study. The comparison group included 34 patients with COVID-IA outside the ICU (median age 62 years, male - 68%). ECMM/ISHAM 2020 criteria were used for diagnosis of CAPA, and EORTC/MSGERC 2020 criteria were used for evaluation of the treatment efficacy. A case-control study (one patient of the main group per two patients of the control group) was conducted to study risk factors for the development and features of CAPA. The control group included 120 adult COVID-19 patients without IA in the ICU, similar in demographic characteristics and background conditions. The median age of patients in the control group was 63 years, male - 67%. Results. 64% of patients with COVID-IA stayed in the ICU. Risk factors for the COVID-IA development in the ICU: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR = 3.538 [1.104-11.337], p = 0.02), and prolonged (> 10 days) lymphopenia (OR = 8.770 [4.177-18.415], p = 0.00001). The main location of COVID-IA in the ICU was lungs (98%). Typical clinical signs were fever (97%), cough (92%), severe respiratory failure (72%), ARDS (64%) and haemoptysis (23%). Typical CT features were areas of consolidation (97%), hydrothorax (63%), and foci of destruction (53%). The effective methods of laboratory diagnosis of COVID-IA were test for galactomannan in BAL (62%), culture (33%) and microscopy (22%) of BAL. The main causative agents of COVID-IA are A. fumigatus (61%), A. niger (26%) and A. flavus (4%). The overall 12-week survival rate of patients with COVID-IA in the ICU was 42%, negative predictive factors were severe respiratory failure (27.5% vs 81%, p = 0.003), ARDS (14% vs 69%, p = 0.001), mechanical ventilation (25% vs 60%, p = 0.01), and foci of destruction in the lung tissue on CT scan (23% vs 59%, p = 0.01). Conclusions. IA affects predominantly ICU patients with COVID-19 who have concomitant medical conditions, such as diabetes mellitus, hematological malignancies, cancer, and COPD. Risk factors for COVID-IA in ICU patients are prolonged lymphopenia and COPD. The majority of patients with COVID-IA have their lungs affected, but clinical signs of IA are non-specific (fever, cough, progressive respiratory failure). The overall 12-week survival in ICU patients with COVID-IA is low. Prognostic factors of poor outcome in adult ICU patients are severe respiratory failure, ARDS, mechanical ventilation as well as CT signs of lung tissue destruction.Copyright © 2022, Interregional Association for Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.

Blood derivative therapy

There are three main components manufactured from whole blood: red blood cells (RBCs), plasma, and platelets. Plasma contains a multitude of different proteins, peptides, and biologic substances. Approximately 53 million liters of plasma was collected in the United States in 2019. Following collection, plasma is frozen and manufactured into plasma-derived medicinal products (PDMPs). During the manufacture process, several thousand plasma units are pooled for Cohn fractionation, which is based upon cold ethanol precipitation of proteins. The PDMPs are further prepared using ion exchange or affinity chromatography and additional steps to inactivate and remove infectious diseases such as viruses. Almost 20 different therapeutic plasma proteins are purified from plasma via these multi-step manufacturing processes. Interestingly, the demand for pharmaceutical plasma products, particularly intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) products, has been increasing. The manufacture and therapeutic role of blood derivatives particularly immunoglobulin therapy, Rh immunoglobulin (RhIG), COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) and hyperimmune globulins, albumin, clotting factors, fibrin sealants, and platelet rich plasma will be described.Copyright © 2022 AME Publishing Company. All Rights Reserved.

Case Report of Succesful Multidisiplinary Treatment for Patient with Metastatic Lung Cancer and Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphatic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma

Introduction: Croatian National Cancer Registry of Croatian Institute for Public Health reported that in year 2020 lung cancer was the second most common cancer site diagnosed in men with 16% and the third most common in women with 10% incidence among all cancer sites. Unfortunatelly lung cancer has the highest mortality in both men and women. Haematological malignancies had 7% share in all malignancies in both male and female cances cases. In 2020 190 newly diagnosed cases of lymphatic leukemia in men and 128 cases in women were reporeted, meaning 1.5 and 1.2% of all malignancies, respectively. Chronic lymphatic leukemia (CLL) is an advanced age disease and incidence increases with age. Impaired immunity, T and B cell dysfunction in CLL, chromosomal aberations, long-term immunosuppressive therapy and genetic factors can all cause secondary malignancies. Co- occurence of solid tumors and CLL is very rare. Although patiens with CLL have an increased risk of developing second primary malignancies including lung carcinoma, the data about their clinical outcomes are lacking. Parekh et al. retrospectively analyzed patients with simultaneous CLL and lung carcinoma over a 20-year period, and they found that ~2% of patients with CLL actually developed lung carcinoma. The authors claimed that up to 38% of patients will also develop a third neoplasm more likely of the skin (melanoma and basal cell carcinoma), larynx (laryngeal carcinoma) or colon. Currently there are no specific guidelines for concurrent CLL and non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) treatment. Usually, when the tumors are diagnosed simultaneously, treatment is based to target the most aggressive malignancy, as the clinical outcomes depend on the response of the tumor with the poorest prognosis. For this reason, a multidisciplinary approach is mandatory. Case report: A patient with history of coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was diagnosed in 2019 (at the age of 71) with B chronic lymphocytic leukemia with bulky tumor (inguinal lymph nodes 8x5 cm), stage B according to Binet, intermediate risk. He was treated with 6 cycles of chemoimmunotherapy (rituximab/cyclofosfamid/fludarabine). In 10/2019 remission was confirmed, but MSCT described tumor in the posterior segment of upper right lung lobe measuring 20x17 mm and bilateral metastases up to 11 mm. Bronchoscopy and biopsy were performed, and EGFR neg, ALK neg, ROS 1 neg, PD-L1>50% adenocarcinoma was confirmed. He was referred to Clinical Hospital Center Osijek where monotherapy with pembrolizumab in a standard dose of 200 mg intravenously was started in 01/2020. Partial remission was confirmed in October 2020. Immunotherapy was discontinued due to development of pneumonitis, dysphagia and severe weight loss (20kg), but without radiologically confirmed disease progression. At that time he was referred to our hospital for further treatment. Gastroscopy has shown erosive gastritis with active duodenal ulcus, Forrest III. Supportive therapy and proton pump inhibitor were introduced. After complete regression of pneumonitis, improvement of general condition and resolution of dysphagia, no signs of lung cancer progression were found and pembrolizumab was reintroduced in 12/2021. Hypothyroidism was diagnosed in 01/2021 and levothyroxine replacement ther apy was started. In 03/2021 he underwent surgical removal of basal cell carcinoma of skin on the right temporal region with lobe reconstruction. From 02/2021, when pembrolizumab was reintroduced, regression in tumor size was continously confirmed with complete recovery of general condition. He was hospitalized for COVID 19 infection in 09/2021, and due to complications pembrolizumab was discontinued till 11/2021. Lung cancer immunotherapy proceeded till 11/2022, when Multidisciplinary team decided to finish pembrolizumab because of CLL relapse. CLL was in remission till August 2022 when due to B symptoms, lymphcytosis, anemia and generalized lymphadenopathy, hematological workup including biopsy of cervical lymph node was performed and CLL/SLL relapse was confirmed. Initially chlorambucil was introduced, but disease was refractory. Based on cytogenetic test results (IGHV unmutated, negative TP53) and due to cardiovascular comorbidity (contraindication for BTK inhibitors) venetoclax and rituximab were started in 01/2023. After just 1 cycle of treatment normal blood count as well as regression of B symptoms and peripheral lymphadenopathy occured, indicating the probability of complete disease remission. In our patient with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma excellent disease control is achieved during 41 month of treatment in first line setting. Furthermore, relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL is currently in confirmed remission. Conclusion(s): Successful treatment of patients with multiple primary malignancies is based on multidisciplinarity, early recognition and management of side effects, treatment of comorbidities with the aim of prolonging life, controlling symptoms of disease and preserving quality of life.

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF ABBV-599 HIGH DOSE (ELSUBRUTINIB 60 MG AND UPADACITINIB 30 MG) AND UPADACITINIB MONOTHERAPY FOR THE TREATMENT OF SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS: A PHASE 2, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED TRIAL

BackgroundABBV-599 is a novel combination of elsubrutinib (ELS;a selective BTK inhibitor) and upadacitinib (UPA;a JAK inhibitor) that targets non-overlapping signaling pathways associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).ObjectivesTo report results from SLEek, a phase 2, randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study evaluating efficacy and safety of ABBV-599 and UPA monotherapy in adults with moderately to severely active SLE (NCT03978520).MethodsPatients (pts) were randomized 1:1:1:1:1 to once daily (QD) ABBV-599 high dose (HD;ELS 60 mg + UPA 30 mg), ABBV-599 low dose (LD;ELS 60 mg + UPA 15 mg), ELS 60 mg, UPA 30 mg, or PBO. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients at W24 achieving SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI-4) and steroid dose ≤ 10 mg QD;additional efficacy and safety endpoints through W48 are also reported. The pre-specified 2-sided alpha level was 0.1.Results341 patients were enrolled. After a planned interim analysis when 50% of pts reached W24, the ABBV-599LD and ELS 60 mg arms were discontinued for lack of efficacy (no safety concerns). Of 205 continuing pts (ABBV-599HD n = 68, UPA 30 mg n = 62, PBO n = 75), baseline characteristics were well balanced. The primary endpoint (proportion achieving SRI-4 and steroid dose ≤ 10 mg QD at W24 vs PBO) was met by ABBV-599HD and UPA 30 mg. Key secondary endpoints were also achieved at W48 in both groups (Table 1). Overall flares and time to first flare were substantially reduced in the ABBV-599HD and UPA 30 mg groups through W48 (Figure 1). Anti-double stranded DNA antibodies were significantly decreased with both treatments. TEAEs considered related to study drug were 42.6% ABBV-599HD, 32.3% UPA 30 mg, and 33.3% PBO. There were no malignancies or VTE. There were 3 non-fatal CV events (1 MI on PBO and 2 ruptured cerebral aneurysms [1 each on ABBV-599HD and UPA 30 mg]);all were assessed as unrelated to study drug by investigators. No new safety signals were observed beyond previously known data for UPA or ELS.ConclusionABBV-599HD (ELS 60 mg + UPA 30 mg) and UPA 30 mg demonstrated significant improvements in SLE disease activity and flares with acceptable safety through 48 weeks.Table 1.Key Endpoints at Week 48PBO (n = 75)ABBV-599HD (n = 68)UPA 30 mg (n = 62)SRI-4 and steroid dose ≤ 10 mg QD, n (%) [95% CI]a24 (32.0) [21.4, 42.6]33 (48.5) [36.7, 60.4]*27 (43.5) [31.2, 55.9]SRI-4, n (%) [95% CI]a24 (32.0) [21.4, 42.6]35 (51.5) [39.6, 63.3]*28 (45.2) [32.8, 57.5]+BICLA, n (%) [95% CI]a19 (25.3) [15.5, 35.2]33 (48.5) [36.7, 60.4]***33 (53.2) [40.8, 65.6]***LLDAS, n (%) [95% CI]a18 (24.0) [14.3, 33.7]27 (39.7) [28.1, 51.3]*31 (50.0) [37.6, 62.4]***Joint-Count 50 in patients with ≥ 6 affected joints at baseline, n/n (%) [95% CI]a26/59 (44.1) [31.4, 56.7]37/58 (63.8) [51.4, 76.2]*34/59 (57.6) [45.0, 70.2] +CLASI-50 in patients with baseline CLASI ≥ 10, n/n (%) [95% CI]a5/14 (35.7) [10.6, 60.8]6/12 (50.0) [21.7, 78.3]5/8 (62.5) [29.0, 96.0]*Change from baseline in steroid dose, mg, LS mean (SE)b−1.5 (0.5)−1.5 (0.5)−1.2 (0.5)SFI, events/patient-years (95% CI)c Overall flares2.8 (2.4, 3.3)1.5 (1.2, 1.9)***2.0 (1.6, 2.4)** Mild/moderate flares2.5 (2.1, 2.9)1.3 (1.0, 1.6)***1.9 (1.5, 2.3)* Severe flares0.3 (0.2, 0.5)0.2 (0.1, 0.3)0.2 (0.1, 0.3) +Time to first flare by SFI, days, median (Q1, Q3)c141 (57, NE)312 (114, NE)*311 (99, NE)**BILAG-based flare rate, estimated incidence ratec0.570.19*0.26Data are presented for the full analysis set.aMissing data imputed using NRI incorporating multiple imputation to handle missing data due to COVID 19.bMissing data imputed using MMRM.cObserved data w/o imputation.+P <.1;*P <.05;**P <.01, ***P <.001 vs PBO.ABBV-599HD, elsubrutinib 60 mg QD and UPA 30 mg QD;CLASI-50, ≥ 50% reduction in CLASI activity score;Joint-Count 50, ≥ 50% improvement in tender or swollen lupus joints;LLDAS, Lupus Low Disease Activity State;NE, not estimated;PBO, placebo;SFI, SELENA SLEDAI Flare Index;UPA, upadacitinib.AcknowledgementsAbbVie and the authors thank the patients who particip ted in the study and all study investigators for their contributions. Medical writing assistance, funded by AbbVie, was provided by Callie A S Corsa, PhD, of JB Ashtin.Disclosure of InterestsJoan T Merrill Consultant of: AbbVie, Alexion, Alumis, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Aurinia, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Provention, Remegen, Sanofi, UCB, and Zenas, Grant/research support from: Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, Lilly, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Asahi-Kasei, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, and Takeda., David d'cruz Consultant of: GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, and UCB., Karina Vila Consultant of: AbbVie, Daniel Siri Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, Hoffman Laroche, Jansen, Lilly, and Sanofi, Xiaofeng Zeng: None declared, Kristin D'Silva Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ling Cheng Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Thierry Sornasse Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Thao Doan Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Denise Kruzikas Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Alan Friedman Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie.

LONG-TERM EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: 3-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE PHASE 3 SELECT-PsA 1 STUDY

BackgroundUpadacitinib (UPA) improved symptoms in patients (pts) with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with prior inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (nbDMARD-IR) through week (wk) 104 or 2 years of treatment in SELECT-PsA 1 [1].ObjectivesTo evaluate efficacy and safety of UPA vs adalimumab (ADA) through wk 152 or 3 years from the ongoing long-term open-label extension of SELECT-PsA 1.MethodsPts were randomized to receive UPA 15 mg (UPA15) or UPA 30 mg (UPA30) once daily, ADA 40 mg (ADA) every other wk, or placebo (PBO). At wk 24, PBO pts switched to UPA15 or UPA30. Following approval of UPA15, the protocol was amended so pts on UPA30 switched to UPA15 (earliest at wk 104). Efficacy was assessed through wk 152, and safety through June 13, 2022.ResultsOf 1704 pts randomized, 911 completed 152 wks of treatment. The proportions of pts achieving.≥20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/50/70), minimal disease activity (MDA), and ≥75%/90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at wk 152 were generally consistent with those at wk 1041. UPA had greater ACR20/50/70 and MDA responses vs ADA, and a greater mean change from baseline (BL) in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, pt's assessment of pain, and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index vs ADA. Change from BL in modified total Sharp/van der Heijde score were similar between UPA30 and ADA, and numerically higher with UPA15 (Table 1). The overall UPA safety profile remained unchanged (Figure 1) [1,2]. UPA had numerically higher rates of serious infection (SI), herpes zoster (HZ), anemia, lymphopenia, creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevation, and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) vs ADA. Increases for SI, HZ, anemia, and CPK elevation with UPA were dose dependent. Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy excluding NMSC were low and generally similar across groups. The most common cause of death was COVID-19.ConclusionEfficacy of UPA in nbDMARD-IR pts with PsA was maintained through 3 years of treatment. No new safety signals were identified.References[1]McInnes IB, et al. Rheumatol Ther 2022;1–18 [Epub ahead of print].[2]McInnes IB, et al. RMD Open 2021;7(3):e001838.Table 1.Efficacy endpoints at wk 152UPA15 (n=429)UPA30a (n=423)ADA (n=429)Proportion of pts (%)NRIAONRIAONRIAOACR20/50/7064.6/52.0/35.9*89.8/71.6/ 48.263.1/54.1*/ 35.787.9/74.4/ 47.861.1/46.6/ 28.786.2/65.2/ 39.8Minimal disease activity37.555.143.5*60.335.950.2PASI75/90/100b50.5/42.5/32.269.2/58.5/ 43.458.1/46.7/3 7.678.6/63.5/ 50.954.0/40.8/ 30.379.6/59.9/ 44.6Resolution of enthesitis by Leeds Enthesitis Indexc50.475.248.973.846.077.0Resolution of dactylitis by Leeds Dactylitis Indexd65.495.266.197.965.497.1Change from BLeMMRMAOMMRMAOMMRMAOHealth Assessment Questionnaire- Disability Index-0.51-0.55-0.53*-0.58-0.45-0.49Pt's assessment of pain (numeric rating scale)-3.3*-3.5-3.3*-3.6-2.8-3.0Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Indexf-3.09-3.27-3.16-3.54-2.81-2.71Modified total Sharp/van der Heijde score0.210.190.050.040.090.09aFollowing a protocol amendment, all pts on UPA30 switched to UPA15 (earliest switch at wk 104);data are presented by originally randomized group. bPts with psoriasis affecting ≥3% of body surface area at BL. cPts with LEI >0 at BL;resolution LEI=0. dPts with LDI >0 at BL;resolution LDI=0. eData shown as MMRM (least squares mean) and AO (mean). fPts with psoriatic spondylitis at BL. n value ranges: UPA15 (99–429), UPA30 (95–423), ADA (89–429). Nominal *p<0.05 UPA vs ADA.ACR20/50/70, ≥20%/50%/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria;ADA, adalimumab;AO, as observed;BL, baseline;MMRM, mixed effect model repeated measurement;NRI, non-responder imputation;PASI75/90/100, ≥75%/90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index;pt, patient;UPA15/30, upadacitinib 15/30 mg once daily;wk, weekAcknowledgementsAbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, and the review and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Carl Davies, MSc, of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.Disclosure of InterestsIain McInnes Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Evelo, Causeway Therapeutics, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Regeneron, and UCB Pharma, Koji Kato Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Marina Magrey Consultant of: BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, and UCB Pharma, Joseph F. Merola Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, Avotres, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EMD Sorono, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma, Mitsumasa Kishimoto Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Asahi-Kasei Pharma, Astellas, Ayumi Pharma, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharma, Pfizer, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, and UCB Pharma, Derek Haaland Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Adiga Life Sciences, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Can-Fite Biopharma, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB;and has received honoraria or other fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda, and UCB Pharma, Yihan Li Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Yanxi Liu Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Jianzhong Liu Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Ralph Lippe Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options, Peter Wung Employee of: AbbVie and may hold stock or options.

Systemic and Local Disease Manifestations Following COVID-19 Vaccination

Introduction/Objective COVID-19 vaccine-related lymphadenopathy, particularly in the ipsilateral axilla, is a relatively well-known side effect of mRNA vaccines with many reports in radiology, but less is known regarding histopathology and additional sites of lymphadenopathy, as well as other localized potential vaccine-related mass manifestations. In addition to a case of minimal change disease, we report two cases here with associated systemic and local pathologic changes related to COVID-19 vaccination. Methods/Case Report In case #1, a 17-year-old male presented with a 2.4 cm left postauricular mass. He had originally noticed the mass six months prior and thought that it had recently been growing. The mass was soft, nonfluctuant, and nontender to palpation. Given the risk of malignancy, a resection was performed. Histology showed an enlarged lymph node composed of mixed inflammatory cell components consistent with lymphoid hyperplasia and no evidence of malignancy. On further chart review, the patient had received his second COVID-19 vaccination just prior to noticing the mass enlarging. A SARS-CoV-2 Anti-Spike IgG assay was as high as 24,396 AU/ml, suggesting that this benign lymphadenopathy was most likely related to his vaccination. For case #2, a 47-year-old male developed a painless right deltoid mass shortly after receiving his vaccination at the same area that subsequently increased in size over seven months to 6.5 cm. Imaging showed a heterogeneous mass within the deltoid muscle concerning for malignancy and a biopsy was performed. Sections showed wavy, bland spindle cells with nuclei staining diffusely positive for beta-catenin, consistent with fibromatosis at his vaccination site. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) NA. Conclusion In summary, these case reports show potential systemic and local reactive effects in response to COVID-19 vaccination.

COVID-19 pre-exposure prophylaxis with tixagevimab/cilgavimab in patients with haematological malignancy: A single-centre experience

Background: COVID-19 pandemic still pose a substantial threat worldwide despite increasing vaccine availability. Patients with haematological malignancies have been shown to have increased risk of contracting COVID-19 and are more susceptible to develop severe illness from SARS-CoV- 2 infection. The immune response to vaccines is impaired in patients with haematological malignancy due to underlying disease or antineoplastic therapies. The monoclonal-antibody combination, Evusheld is composed of tixagevimab and cilgavimab, two neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV- 2. It has been shown to be safe and have efficacy for the prevention of COVID-19. Our aim of study is to describe the incidence and outcome of breakthrough COVID-19 infection among patients who received Evusheld in our centre and analyse the factors that possibly increase the risk of breakthrough infection. Material(s) and Method(s): A retrospective review of all adult patients with haematological malignancy who received tixagevimab/ cilgavimab 150/150 mg injection in Hospital Pulau Pinang from 1 July 2022 to 31 August 2022 with a follow-up period to 30 November 2022 was conducted. Demographic data, clinical characteristics and outcome will be retrieved from patient's medical records. Data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (version 21.0). Result(s): A total of 96 patients (50 males and 46 females) received tixagevimab/cilgavimab injection during the study period with a median age of 61 years (range 19-82). Majority of them were diagnosed with multiple myeloma (42.7%), followed by lymphoma (33.3%) and leukaemia (24%). One third of them had history of therapy with monoclonal antibody and 20% had haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. No major adverse effects of tixagevimab/cilgavimab injection were noted among the study population. Of the 12 patients (12.5%) who had COVID-19 infection, all of them had mild infection;three were asymptomatic and six patients received Paxlovid antiviral therapy. The median time from tixagevimab/cilgavimab to the onset of COVID-19 infection was 35 days (range 5-97 days). The mean age of patients with breakthrough COVID-19 infection were older compared to those without breakthrough infection but was not statistically significant. The incidence of breakthrough COVID-19 infection was not affected by type of haematological malignancy, history of monoclonal antibody therapy or COVID-19 vaccination. Discussion and Conclusion(s): Our findings showed that tixagevimab/cilgavimab was safe and effective in preventing COVID-19- related morbidity and mortality among patients with haematological malignancy during the study period. However, the limitation is the lack of access to whole genome sequencing for detection of resistant variants for breakthrough infections.

SeroNet Pooling Project of immunocompromised populations

Introduction: COVID-19 vaccination substantially reduces morbidity and mortality associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe illness. However, despite effective COVID-19 vaccines many questions remain about the efficacy of vaccines and the durability and robustness of immune responses, especially in immunocompromised persons. The NCI-funded Serological Sciences Network (SeroNet) is a coordinated effort including 11 sites to advance research on the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination among diverse and vulnerable populations. The goals of the Pooling Project are: (1) to conduct real-world data (RWD) analyses using electronic medical records (EMR) data from four health care systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Northwell Health, Veterans Affairs-Case Western, and Cedars-Sinai) to determine vaccine effectiveness in (a) cancer patients;(b) autoimmune diseases and (c) solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR);(2) to conduct meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies from eight SeroNet institutions (Cedars-Sinai, Johns Hopkins, Northwell Health, Emory University, University of Minnesota, Mount Sinai, Yale University) to determine post-vaccine immune responses in (a) lung cancer patients;(b) hematologic cancers/hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients;(c) SOTR;(d) lupus. Method(s): For our RWD analyses, data is extracted from EMR using standardized algorithms using ICD-10 codes to identify immunocompromised persons (hematologic and solid organ malignancy;SOTR;autoimmune disease, including inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and SLE). We use common case definitions to extract data on demographic, laboratory values, clinical co morbidity, COVID-19 vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19, and diseasespecific variables. In addition, we pool individual-level data from prospective cohorts enrolling patients with cancer and other immunosuppressed conditions from across network. Surveys and biospecimens from serology and immune profiling are collected at pre-specified timepoints across longitudinal cohorts. Result(s): Currently, we have EMR data extracted from 4 health systems including >715,000 cancer patients, >9,500 SOTR and >180,000 with autoimmune conditions. Prospective cohorts across the network have longitudinal data on >450 patients with lung cancer, >1,200 patients with hematologic malignancies, >400 SOTR and >400 patients with lupus. We will report results examining vaccine effectiveness for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe COVID-19 and post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PAS-C or long COVID) in cancer patients compared to other immunocompromised conditions. Conclusion(s): Our goal is to inform public health guidelines on COVID-19 vaccine and boosters to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe illness in immunocompromised populations.

Evusheld prophylaxis increases social interactions and improves anxiety, depression, agoraphobia and quality of life scores

Evusheld is a combination injection of tixagevimab/cilgavimab for pre-exposure COVID-19 prophylaxis and was made available to UK private clinics from October 2022. NICE review is ongoing. Whilst efficacy analysis of Evusheld has focused on the risk-reduction of contracting COVID-19, anecdotal reports suggest additional psychological benefits from Evusheld, although supportive objective data are lacking. In this study, we used 4 well-established psychological health questionnaires to assess different psychological parameters (EQ5D-3 L quality of life (QoL) score, DSM5 Agoraphobia score, Duke's Social Support Index (DSSI) and the hospital anxiety and depression score (HADS)) in blood cancer patients treated with Evusheld at the Genesis Care (GC) Clinic, Cambridge. Patient data (pre-and post-Evusheld) were compared with a control group of GC blood cancer patients who had not received Evusheld. The study was approved by GC and all patients had consented to email contact. Questionnaire replies were anonymised and free-text comments were invited. Questionnaires were completed by 29/40 Evusheld and 54/100 control patients. With EQ5D, Evusheld did not impact mobility, self-care and pain/discomfort scores and patient/ control groups scored at similar levels. EQ5D scores for 'usual activities' and 'anxiety/depression' improved post-Evusheld (patients reporting 'normal activities' increased from 52% to 76% (control = 78%);patients reporting 'no anxiety/ depression' increased from 45% to 66% (control = 65%)). The mean global EQ5D QoL score improved post-Evusheld [69.4% to 72.9% (control = 75.7%)]. With the DSM5 agoraphobia score, Evusheld treatment improved agoraphobia parameters, reducing the mean score from 15.7 to 5.1 (control = 3.7;max = 40) with certain striking changes;72% of pretreatment patients avoided crowded situations all of/most of the time, reducing to 14% post-Evusheld (control = 11%). The DSSI score assessed social/work interactions with external household contacts and post-Evusheld the mean number of interactions over 3 weeks increased from 1.48 to 3.37 (control = 3.77). Pre-Evusheld, 52% of patients had no interactions outside their household, dropping to 20% in the 3 weeks post-Evusheld (control = 17%). Using the HADS 14-point analysis of depression and anxiety revealed on average that each parameter was 25.3% 'significantly improved' and 25.4% 'a little improved' post-Evusheld. Accepting limitations of a small study and potential biases associated with a self-funding patient cohort, Evusheld treatment broadly improved all psychological scores assessed. Free-text comments clearly indicate that Evusheld had a major positive impact on QoL/social mobility for specific patients. The Evusheld patients had higher baseline scores for social isolation, anxiety, depression and agoraphobia compared with control patients, yet Evusheld treatment appeared to improve these parameters to a level similar to control patients.

Outcomes of cancer patients with Covid-19 admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: A retrospective study

Introduction: Active cancer increases the odds of death among patients with COVID-19.1 Cancer patients may be at increased risk of complications and mortality from COVID-19 owing to the systemic effects of malignancy, immune suppression after chemotherapy, treatment-related complications and presence of co-morbidities.2 They may develop serious complications necessitating ICU admission. In a meta-analysis, the pooled mortality in cancer patients with COVID-19 admitted to an ICU was 60.2%.3 Our hospital is a tertiary referral cancer centre, and the ICU admitted cancer patients with Covid-19 throughout the pandemic. Objective(s): To determine the 30-day in-hospital mortality of adult cancer patients with Covid-19 admitted to the ICU. We also aimed to determine the factors associated with mortality in cancer patients with Covid-19. Method(s): After approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee, data of all cancer patients (age = 16 years) with Covid-19 admitted to the ICU between March 2020 and March 2021 were retrieved from the hospital records. In case of multiple ICU admissions, data from the first admission was recorded. Data recorded included demographic details, type of cancer (solid, haematological), surgical status, APACHE-II and SOFA scores, C-reactive protein, and interventions in ICU. The primary outcome was 30-day in-hospital mortality. Data were analysed using Man-Whitney test and chi-square test. A multivariable regression analysis was carried out to determine factors associated with mortality. Result(s): Data of 127 cancer patients with Covid-19 was analysed. The median [interquartile range, IQR] age was 55 (43-62) years, and there were 50 females (39.3%). Comorbidities were present in 46 (36%) patients, the commonest being diabetes (29 patients) and hypertension (31 patients). The median [IQR] APACHE-II and SOFA scores were 15[8-20] and 4[2-7], respectively. Overall, 62/127 patients died, and 30-day hospital mortality was 49%. There were 30 patients with haematological malignancy and 97 with solid tumours with 30-day in-hospital mortality rates of 46.7% and 49.5%, respectively;p = 0.84). Amongst patients with solid tumours, there was no difference in mortality in surgical patients compared to non-surgical patients (43.3% vs. 52.2%;p = 0.42). Table 1 summarises the parameters and interventions in survivors and non-survivors. On multivariable analysis, only the change in SOFA score from Day 1 to Day 3 was independently associated with outcome (Odds ratio 1.36 (95% confidence interval 1.01-1.84, p-0.04). Conclusion(s): In patients with cancer and Covid-19 and age =16 years admitted to our ICU, the crude 30-day hospital mortality was 47%. There was no association of mortality with cancer type or surgical status. The only independent predictor of mortality was progression of organ failure. Cancer patients with Covid-19 have a reasonable outcome and should be given a trial of intensive care.

Experiences of patients from minority ethnic backgrounds in the stem cell transplant pathway during COVID-19

Background: Stem cell transplantation is a potentially life-saving intervention for patients with blood cancer. Research suggests that there are existing disparities in access, care and treatment experiences, with patients identifying with a minority ethnic heritage reporting greater disadvantage compared to patients from white British, Irish or Northern European backgrounds. Although we know that the COVID-19 pandemic has been challenging for patients, less is known about the experiences of patients from specific ethnic communities. Method(s): In this research, we undertook 1-1, semi-structured interviews with eight patients within the stem cell transplant pathway who identify with a minority ethnic background. Interviews took place online, between May and November 2021. The interview questions explored views on aspects of the pandemic, including access and experience of care delivery, intervention, mental health and financial impact. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Result(s): The majority of patient participants were female (75%), and identified with a Black African or Caribbean heritage (75%). Four themes were identified from the data: (1) 'Lack of suitable donors' described the challenges of finding a stem cell donor and the importance of raising awareness of stem cell donation specifically within minority ethnic communities;(2) 'Experiences of care' explored patients' experiences of the healthcare system from pre-diagnosis to post-treatment, including how the COVID-19 pandemic had made some aspects of care easier but acted to disrupt others;(3) 'Intense and unpredictable process' described the nature of living with blood cancer and how this has impacted upon patients' lives including the extent to which they had been able to access and make use of advice to help keep them safe during the pandemic;and (4) 'Coping mechanisms' identified the factors which helped patients' to understand and adjust to living with their diagnosis and the treatment process. Conclusion(s): Patients in the stem cell transplant pathway often experience intense treatment regimens, debilitating symptoms and long hospital stays, which has a significant impact on their lives. Minority ethnic patients describe facing additional challenges in relation to health inequalities both within and outside of the pandemic. Seeking support from family, peers or community organisations can help buffer the negative impacts of living with blood cancer and multiple disadvantages, but such support was more difficult to access during the pandemic. This had psychological consequences for patients who are already within an intense emotional journey. Pandemic recovery plans should address mental health support as a priority.

HIGH DOSE INTRAVENOUS ANAKINRA TREATMENT IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE IN SEVERE AND CRITICAL COVID-19 PATIENTS: A PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHED STUDY IN A SINGLE CENTER

BackgroundIn COVID-19 severe disease course such as need of intensive care unit (ICU) as well as development of mortality is mainly due to cytokine storm.ObjectivesIn this study, we aimed to evaluate the high dose intravenous anakinra treatment response and outcome in patients with severe and critical COVID-19 compared to standard of care.MethodsThis retrospective observational study was carried out at a tertiary referral center. The study population consisted of two groups as follows;the patients receiving high dose intravenous anakinra (anakinra group) between 01.09.2021 and 01.02.2022 and the patients treated with standard of care (SoC, control group) as historical control group who were hospitalized between 01.07.2021 and 01.09.2021.ResultsAfter the propensity score 1:1 matching 79 patients in anakinra and 79 patients in SoC matched and included into the analysis. Mean±SD patient age was 67.4±16.7 and 67.1±16.3 years in anakinra and SoC group, respectively (p=0.9). Male gender was 38 (48.7 %) in anakinra and 36 (46.2 %) SoC (p=0.8). Overall, ICU admission was in 14.1 % (n=11) and 30.8 % (n=24) (p=0.013;OR: 6.2), intubation in 12.8 % (n=10) and 16.7 % (n=13) patients (p=0.5), 14.1 % (n=11) and 32.1 % (n=25) patients died in anakinra and control group, respectively (p=0.008;OR: 7.1)ConclusionIn our study mortality was lower in patients receiving anakinra compared to SoC. Intravenous high dose anakinra is safe and effective treatment in patients with severe and critical COVID-19.Table 1.Baseline clinical and laboratory features of patients receiving standard of care (SoC) and Anakinra before and after propensity score (PS) matchingBefore PS matchingAfter PS matchingVariablesAnakinra (n=148)SoC (n=114)p value (OR)Anakinra (n=78)SoC (n=78)p value (OR)Age (years) (mean±SD)66.8±1763.1±170.0967.4±16.767.1±16.30.9Gender, male (n, %)78 (52.7)45 (39.5)0.033 (4.5)38 (48.7)36 (46.2)0.8Duration of hospitalization (days) (median, IQR)11 (12)9 (7.3)0.027.5 (9)11 (8)0.01Comorbidities (n, %) Diabetes mellitus41/146 (28.1)39 (34.2)0.318 (23)31 (39.7)0.025 (5) Hypertension84/143 (58.7)64 (56)0.730 (61.5)50 (64)0.7 Coronary heart disease27/143 (19)24 (21)0.718 (23)20 (25.6)0.7 Heart failure18/143 (12.6)23 (20)0.114 (18)20 (25.6)0.24 Chronic renal failure31 (21)6 (5.3)<0.001 (13.06)15 (19)6 (7.7)0.035 (4.5) Chronic obstructive lung disease23/144 (16)19 (16.7)0.914 (18)15 (19)0.8 Dementia15/117 (12.8)2 (1.8)0.001 (10.4)3/61 (5)2 (2.6)0.5 Malignancy16/146 (11)8 (7)0.39 (11.5)6 (7.7)0.4 Immunosuppressive usage18/146 (12.3)2 (1.8)0.001 (10.08)5 (6.5)2 (2.6)0.2Disease severity (n, %) NIH score 3 (severe)57 (38.5)68 (59.6)0.001 (11.5)48 (61.5)44 (56.4)0.5 NIH score 4 (critical)91 (61.5)46 (40.4)30 (38.5)34 (43.6) mcHIS score (mean±SD)3.4±1.22.64±1.5<0.0012.9±13.1±1.30.2PS: Propensity score, SoC: Standard of care, OR: Odds ratio, SD: Standard deviation, IQR: Interquartile range, mcHIS: Modified Covid hyperinflammatory syndrome score, NIH: National Institute Health, ALT: Alanin aminotransferase, AST: Aspartate aminotransferaseTable 2.Outcomes of patients receiving SoC and Anakinra before and after PS matchingBefore PS matchingAfter PS matchingVariables (n, %)Anakinra (n=148)SoC (n=114)p value (OR)Anakinra (n=78)SoC (n=78)p value (OR)Pneumothorax3/134 (2.2)00.25*2/73 (2.7)00.5*Myocardial infarction3/132 (2.3)6 (5.3)0.32/72 (2.8)2/56 (3.6)1Pulmonary embolism4/134 (3)11 (9.6)0.034 (4.8)*3/73 (4.1)7 (9)0.3*Intensive care unit60 (40.5)25 (22)0.001 (10.2)11 (14.1)24 (30.8)0.013 (6.2)Intubation54 (36.5)13 (11.4)<0.001 (21.3)10 (12.8)13 (16.7)0.5Mortality56 (37.8)27 (23.7)0.015 (5.96)11 (14.1)25 (32.1)0.008 (7.1)PS: Propensity score, SoC: Standard of care, OR: Odds ratioREFERENCES:NIL.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

Expansion of human T cells using xenogeneic free and gamma irradiated human platelet lysate

Commercially available human platelet lysate (hPL) is produced using expired human platelets obtained from accredited blood banks in the United States. These platelets were originally intended for use in patient transfusion. The safety of platelets used in transfusion is managed by the U.S. Food Drug Administration (FDA), as well as the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB). These organizations set standards, including testing for transmissible diseases. The United States record for blood safety is well established, with extremely low rates of disease transmission, making the platelet units used for hPL manufacture low risk. The Covid-19 pandemic has increased awareness of emerging infectious diseases, even though transmission of Covid-19 via blood transfusion has not been documented. For that reason, gamma irradiated hPL offers an additional safety measure in the clinic. Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) expressing T-cells have demonstrated potent clinical efficacy in patients with hematological malignancies. In addition, there are several phase I clinical trials evaluating the use of CAR-T-cells for targeting of solid tumorassociated antigens. Some of the challenging issues found during production of CAR-T cells are the efficiency of T cell transduction to generate CAR-T cells, the expansion of T cells to clinically relevant numbers and the long-term survival in vivo of the therapeutic cells. The use of human platelet lysate has been demonstrated to improve these issues. Our data from experiments performed using human CD3+ from donors demonstrates that human platelet lysates offer an improved performance on T cell expansion versus serum derived products. hPL efficiently promotes T cell expansion, with higher cell yields and lower cell exhaustion rate. Additionally, we efficiently developed a protocol for suspension culture of T cells, which could facilitate the large-scale expansion of allogeneic CAR-T cells.