Double and Single Bundle in Athletes: A Comparison in Medium and Long-Term Rates to Return to Sport and Re-Injury

Objectives

Compare, retrospectively, the medium- and long-term of return to sport rates and re-injury of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in patients submitted to single-bundle (SB) compared to double-bundle (DB) technique reconstruction.

Methods

Athletes operated by SB or DB ACL reconstruction, with at least five years of follow-up at a single center, were included. The following data were collected: demographic data; competitive sports practice before the injury; previous surgery; injury/surgery to the contralateral knee; return to sports and level of the return; re-injury (time of the re-injury after the first surgery; mechanism of trauma for the re-injury; necessity of operative treatment); signs and complaints related to the knee the last clinical consultation.

Results

Seventy-six athletes (27 SB and 49 DB) were included. The return to sport rate (98%) was the same for both groups, and the return to the previous level rate showed an improvement in the DB group but without statistical significance (63% vs. 79%; P = 0.173). However, other outcomes showed higher results for the DB group: lower re-injury rate throughout the follow-up period (41% vs. 18%; P = 0.034) and during the first year of follow-up (22% vs. 4%; P = 0.021), and less stiffness (0% vs. 22%, P = 0.001). While in primary reconstruction cases, there was not a higher re-injury rate using SB (P = 0.744), in the revision cases, SB was correlated with more re-injuries than DB (P = 0.002).

Conclusion

The overall re-injury in the medium- and long-term and the return to practice sports at the same level as before surgery in athletes submitted to DB reconstruction were slightly better than those submitted to SB reconstruction, especially in the cases that were asecond time lesion ( revisioned knees).

POS0708 EVALUATING THE HYPERSENSITIVITY PROFILE OF ANIFROLUMAB AND THE NEED FOR PREINFUSION PROPHYLACTIC TREATMENT IN PATIENTS WITH SLE

Background

Anifrolumab, a human monoclonal antibody (mAb), is approved in Canada, Japan, and the United States for the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) based on results from the phase 2b MUSE and the phase 3 TULIP-1/-2 trials.1–3 Anaphylactic reactions (ARs), hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), and infusion-related reactions (IRRs) are risks of mAb infusions, so physicians prescribing anifrolumab may wish to understand the hypersensitivity profile and whether prophylactic pretreatments are required to mitigate HSR/IRRs.

Objectives

To evaluate the hypersensitivity profile of anifrolumab and the need for pretreatment.

Methods

Pooled data were analyzed from patients with moderate to severe SLE despite standard therapy who received intravenous infusions (every 4 weeks, 48 weeks) of anifrolumab or placebo in the randomized, 52-week MUSE (NCT01438489),1 TULIP-1 (NCT02446912),2 and TULIP-2 (NCT02446899)3 trials. An AR (analyzed in the anifrolumab 150/300/1000 mg and placebo groups) was defined as acute illness onset within minutes to several hours of infusion with involvement of skin and/or mucosal tissue, and/or respiratory compromise, and/or reduced blood pressure, and/or persistent gastrointestinal symptoms. HSRs and IRRs were analyzed in the anifrolumab 300 mg group (as this is the approved dose) and the placebo group. An HSR was defined as acute illness onset with involvement of skin and/or mucosal tissue during infusion (not meeting the AR definition); IRR was defined as any other reaction occurring during/within 24 hours of infusion. Patients did not receive pretreatment unless they had experienced a previous IRR/HSR in the program. Pretreatment was assumed if a patient received prophylactic antihistamine, corticosteroid, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and/or dopamine antagonist 1 day before/on the day of infusion.

Results

Of patients who received anifrolumab 300 mg (n=459), anifrolumab 1000 mg (n=105), or placebo (n=466), none experienced ARs; 1 patient who received anifrolumab 150 mg (n=93) experienced an AR. HSRs occurred in 3% (n=12) of anifrolumab 300 mg-treated patients (of whom 4 had a history of HSRs) vs 1% (n=3) in the placebo group. IRRs occurred in 9% (n=43) of anifrolumab-treated patients vs 7% (n=33) in the placebo group. All HSRs and IRRs were mild/moderate in intensity. There were no discontinuations due to HSRs or IRRs in the anifrolumab group, while there were 2 in the placebo group (HSR: n=1; IRR: n=1). In the anifrolumab 300 mg and placebo groups, more patients experienced HSR/IRRs with the initial (1–6) vs later infusions (Figure 1). In the anifrolumab group, the median (median absolute deviation) time to first HSR or IRR was 30.5 (29.5) days or 27.0 (26.0) days, respectively. Of the 12 anifrolumab-treated patients with ≥1 HSR, 3 received subsequent pretreatment, and none had any HSR after the use of pretreatment. Of the 43 anifrolumab-treated patients with ≥1 IRR, 2 received pretreatment, of whom 1 had an IRR after pretreatment and anifrolumab dosage remained unchanged.

Conclusion

Following anifrolumab infusion, ARs were uncommon, and few (3%) patients experienced HSRs. HSRs and IRRs with the approved anifrolumab 300 mg dose were mild to moderate, occurred early in treatment, did not lead to discontinuation, and only rarely required pretreatment. Our data support a safe and manageable hypersensitivity profile for anifrolumab.

References

[1]Furie R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69:376–86.

[2]Furie R, et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–19.

[3]Morand E, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–21.

Acknowledgements

Writing assistance was provided by Rosie Butler, PhD, of JK Associates Inc., part of Fishawack Health. This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests

Kenneth C Kalunian Consultant of: Aurinia, Equillium, Kezar, BMS, Chemocentryx, Eli Lilly, Biogen, Roche/Genentech, Grant/research support from: Horizon, UCB, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: Gilead, Abbvie, Behringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Amgen, YL Biologics, Eisai, Astellas, Bristol-Myers, Astra-Zeneca, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Daiichi-Sankyo, Taisho, Ayumi, Sanofi, GSK, Abbvie, Grant/research support from: Asahi-Kasei, Abbvie, Chugai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Eisai, Takeda, Corrona, Daiichi-Sankyo, Kowa, Behringer-Ingelheim, Ihor Hupka Employee of: AstraZeneca, Lijin (Jinny) Zhang Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Manish Shroff Employee of: AstraZeneca, Shanti Werther Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca AB, Catharina Lindholm Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca

OP0282 IMPACT OF ANIFROLUMAB ON NEUROPSYCHIATRIC MANIFESTATIONS OF DEPRESSION AND SUICIDALITY IN PATIENTS WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS

Background

Neuropsychiatric (NP) disease is more common in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than in the general population.1 Increased incidence of NP events (depression and suicidality) has been reported with biologic therapies, including SLE therapies.2 Depression and suicidality were evaluated in patients with SLE treated with anifrolumab, a type I interferon receptor antibody, in the TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials.3,4

Objectives

To understand the impact of anifrolumab treatment on NP manifestations (depression and suicidality) in patients with SLE relative to standard therapy using pooled data from the TULIP trials.

Methods

TULIP-1/-2 were randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trials of intravenous anifrolumab every 4 weeks in patients with moderate to severe SLE despite standard therapy.3,4 Patients with active severe or unstable NP SLE were excluded. Patients who received ≥1 dose of anifrolumab 300 mg or placebo were analyzed for depression and suicidality.3,4 The Personal Health Questionnaire Depression Scale-8 (PHQ-8) and Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) were used to assess clinical depression and suicidal ideation and behavior, respectively. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) within the standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities query of depression (excluding suicide and self-injury) and antidepressant use at baseline and during the study were also assessed.

Results

In the TULIP pooled analysis, 360 patients received anifrolumab and 365 received placebo. Mean PHQ-8 scores were in the mild range (≥5 to <10); 9.7 in both groups at baseline (Table 1). Excluding patients taking antidepressants, mean PHQ-8 scores were 9.5 in the anifrolumab group and 9.7 in the placebo group at baseline. No clinically meaningful worsening in mean PHQ-8 scores was observed from baseline to Week 52 in the anifrolumab (–2.0) or placebo (–1.3) groups; excluding patients taking antidepressants, mean changes in PHQ-8 were –2.0 and –1.2, respectively. Depression AEs during the study were reported in 11 anifrolumab-treated patients (3.1%) and 9 patients who received placebo (2.5%). At baseline, antidepressant use was comparable between groups (anifrolumab group, 7 patients [1.9%]; placebo group, 9 patients [2.5%]). During the study, 8 anifrolumab-treated patients (2.2%) and 12 patients who received placebo (3.3%) used antidepressants; 1 (0.3%) and 4 (1.1%) patients, respectively, initiated antidepressant therapy during the study (1 in the placebo group stopped therapy). Suicidal ideation or behavior, as assessed by C-SSRS, during the study was reported in 5 anifrolumab-treated patients (1.4%) and 11 patients who received placebo (3.0%). Excluding patients taking antidepressants, suicidal ideation or behavior during the study was reported in 4 anifrolumab-treated patients (1.1%) and 9 patients who received placebo (2.5%) (Figure 1).

Table 1.

PHQ-8 Summary

All patientsExcluding patients taking antidepressantsAnifrolumab 300 mg N=360Placebo N=365Anifrolumab 300 mg N=360Placebo N=365nMeanaSDChangebnMeanaSDChangebnMeanaSDChangebnMeanaSDChangebBaseline3419.76.26–3489.76.11–3359.56.21–3389.76.09–Week 242957.65.89–2.13038.06.00–1.52897.55.84–2.12938.16.00–1.5Week 522667.85.99–2.02617.96.03–1.32627.76.00–2.02527.95.96–1.2

SD, standard deviation.

aPHQ-8 classifications: 0–4 = none, 5–9 = mild, 10–14 = moderate, 15–19 = moderately severe, and 20–24 = severe.

bMean change from baseline.

Conclusion

Patients with SLE treated with anifrolumab did not experience increased depression, suicidality, or need for antidepressants when compared with standard therapy, irrespective of baseline antidepressant use.

References

[1]Zhang L, et al. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17:70.

[2]Benlysta (belimumab) [prescribing information]. Philadelphia, PA: GlaxoSmithKline; 2021.

[3]Furie RA, et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–19.

[4]Morand EF, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–21.

Acknowledgements

Writing assistance by Andrea Y. Angstadt, PhD (Fishawack Health). This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests

Susan Manzi Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Exagen Diagnostics, Inc, Cugene, GSK, Lilly, Lupus Foundation of America, UCB Advisory Board, Grant/research support from: HGS/GSK, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Catharina Lindholm Employee of: AstraZeneca, Ihor Hupka Employee of: AstraZeneca, Lijin (Jinny) Zhang Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Manish Shroff Employee of: AstraZeneca, Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca AB, Shanti Werther Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca

Return to Sport and Re-Injury Rate after Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with at least Five Years of Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

This study retrospectively evaluated the medium- and long-term results of patients submitted to double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

A retrospective study of case series at a single center. Cases submitted to isolated ACL reconstruction with at least five years of follow-up were included. The following data were collected: demographic data; practice of competitive sport before the injury; previous surgery; injury/surgery in the contralateral knee; return to the practices of sports and level; re-injury (postoperative time; mechanism; need for surgery); and symptoms at the last clinical follow-up visit. Descriptive and sub-group analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients were included; 52 men (75%), 49 athletes (71%), 47 (68%) with primary injury, mean age of 30 years (SD 10). The patients were followed up for an average of 8.7 years (minimum 5, maximum 11.8) after surgery. After the reconstruction, 67 (97%) returned to the sport; 75% at the same level as before the injury. Ten patients (14%) suffered re-injury after an average of 32 months (between 9 and 50 months). Regarding the outcome of re-injury, no statistically significant differences were found between subgroups of athletes vs non-athletes or primary injury vs revision surgery, despite a significant tendency towards increased re-injury levels in athletes. However, this tendency was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

In our series of patients operated on with the double-bundle technique and with a long follow-up time, 14% presented re-injury, with no differences between primary and revision cases, and with a trend towards higher re-injury levels among the athletes in relation to the non-athletes. The rate of return to sport was satisfactory, with 97%, of which 75% were playing at the same level as before the injury.

POS0691 EFFECTS OF ANIFROLUMAB ON RENAL DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH SLE

Background:

The type I interferon (IFN) receptor antibody anifrolumab has shown efficacy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials.1,2 Type I IFN dysregulation is associated with lupus nephritis (LN) pathogenesis.3

Objectives:

Pooled TULIP data were analyzed post hoc to assess baseline characteristics of patients with and without renal involvement and to evaluate the effects of anifrolumab on renal disease.

Methods:

TULIP-1 (NCT02446912) and TULIP-2 (NCT02446899) were randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trials of intravenous anifrolumab every 4 weeks in patients with moderate to severe SLE despite standard therapy, which excluded patients with severe active LN.1,2 Renal involvement at baseline was defined as any of the following: BILAG-2004 renal score A–C; SLEDAI-2K renal score >0; urine protein–creatinine ratio (UPCR) >0.5 mg/mg. Baseline characteristics were evaluated in patients with and without renal involvement, and the following endpoints were compared for the anifrolumab 300 mg and placebo groups: cumulative UPCR (area under the curve, AUC) through Week (W)52; percentage of patients with UPCR >0.5 mg/mg at baseline who improved to UPCR ≤0.5 mg/mg at W52; percentage of patients with renal flares (new BILAG-2004 A/B renal score vs prior visit); cumulative glucocorticoid (GC) use (AUC) through W52; and percentage changes in complement C3/C4 from baseline to W52.

Results:

Of the 726 patients in TULIP-1/-2 (anifrolumab, n=360; placebo, n=366), 99 had renal involvement at baseline (anifrolumab, n=45; placebo, n=54), 57 of whom had UPCR >0.5 mg/mg (anifrolumab, n=24; placebo, n=33). Patients with renal involvement vs without renal involvement had a lower mean age (37.8 vs 42.4 years) and were more likely to be male (14.1% vs 6.1%), Asian (16.2% vs 9.6%), IFN gene signature test–high (89.9% vs 81.5%), and anti-dsDNA positive (69.7% vs 40.4%); have a SLEDAI-2K score ≥10 (91.9% vs 68.4%); and be receiving GC ≥10 mg/day (67.7% vs 49.1%) or mycophenolate (26.3% vs 11.5%) at baseline. Among patients with baseline renal involvement, anifrolumab treatment was associated with a numerically greater improvement vs placebo in cumulative UPCR (AUC) through W52 (LS mean difference [SE]: –54.1 [54.26]) (Table 1). Numerically more patients improved from UPCR >0.5 mg/mg at baseline to ≤0.5 mg/mg at W52 with anifrolumab vs placebo (difference [SE], 4.9% [13.3]). Among all TULIP patients, fewer had ≥1 BILAG-2004 renal flare with anifrolumab vs placebo (5.0% vs 7.4%).4 Among patients with renal involvement, cumulative GC use (AUC) through W52 was lower with anifrolumab vs placebo (LS mean difference [SE]: –210.3 mg [332.6]) and there were numerically greater improvements in C3 and C4 from baseline to W52 (Table 1).

Conclusion:

TULIP data suggest renal benefit with anifrolumab in patients with SLE with mild/stable renal disease, supporting further investigation into anifrolumab’s efficacy in patients with active LN.

References:

[1]Furie R. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–19.

[2]Morand E. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–21.

[3]Feng X. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:2951–62.

[4]Furie R [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(supp 10).

Table 1.

Renal Endpoints in TULIP-1 and TULIP-2

Endpoint (baseline to Week 52)PlaceboAnifrolumab 300 mgUPCR AUCan5445LS mean (SE)271.8 (54.8)217.7 (60.0)LS mean difference (SE), 95% CI−54.1 (54.3), −161.9, 53.6Improvement from >0.5 to ≤0.5 mg/mg UPCRbn3324Patients with improvement (%)36.341.2Difference, % (SE), 95% CI4.9 (13.3), −21.1, 30.9Glucocorticoid AUCan5445LS mean (SE)3524.5 (339.0)3314.2 (365.2)LS mean difference (SE), 95% CI−210.3 (332.6), −870.7, 450.1Change in C3/C4 (%)cC3N3121Mean (SE)20.3 (6.2)26.6 (5.0)C4N1914Mean (SE)29.1 (12.0)38.7 (13.8)

AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; LS, least squares; UPCR, urine protein–creatinine ratio; SE, standard error.

n, number satisfying baseline inclusion criteria for subgroup.

aPatients with baseline renal involvement; analysis of covariance.

bStratified Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel.

cPatients with renal involvement and abnormal C3/C4 at baseline.

Acknowledgements:

Writing assistance by Rosie Butler, PhD, of JK Associates Inc. part of Fishawack Health. This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests:

Eric F. Morand Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Richard Furie Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and YL Biologics, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Takeda, and UCB, Tsutomu Takeuchi Speakers bureau: AbbVie GK., Bristol–Myers K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co,. Ltd., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Pfizer Japan Inc., Astellas Pharma Inc, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Eisai Co., Ltd., Sanofi K.K., Teijin Pharma Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Novartis Pharma K.K., Consultant of: AstraZeneca K.K., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Novartis Pharma K.K., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Abbvie GK, Nipponkayaku Co.Ltd, Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K., Astellas Pharma Inc,. Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd., Grant/research support from: Astellas Pharma Inc, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., AbbVie GK, Asahikasei Pharma Corp., Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Co., Pfizer Japan Inc., Eisai Co., Ltd., AYUMI Pharmaceutical Corporation, Nipponkayaku Co.Ltd., Novartis Pharma K.K., Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Employee of: AstraZeneca, Catharina Lindholm Employee of: AstraZeneca

AB0289 PATIENT REPORTED PHYSICAL HEALTH COMPARED TO CLINICIAN RECORDED BILAG-2004 MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM SCORES – DISCORDANCE BETWEEN PATIENTS AND CLINICIANS

Background:

The musculoskeletal organ system BILAG-2004 (MSK BILAG) assessment is of critical importance in SLE clinical trials. Severe active polyarthritis, MSK BILAG A, by definition includes significant impairment of basic activities of daily living (ADLs), as opposed to MSK BILAG C, D, or E where ability to perform ADLs is expected to be preserved. In clinical trials, BILAG is scored by clinicians without formal review of patient reported outcomes (PROs). The Physical Health domain of the LupusQoL (LQol PH) (range 0 – 100) can be used to assess the patient’s physical function and ADLs. LQoL PH score thresholds defining impairment severity have not been established; however, a transformed LQoL PH score ≤50 suggests more impaired function, which would not be expected in MSK BILAG C, D, or E. Conversely, a score >50 implies no major issues with ADLs, which would be contradictory to the definition of MSK BILAG A.

Objectives:

To assess correlation of patient reported LQoL PH with MSK BILAG scores recorded by clinicians at various timepoints using data from the phase 3 TULIP studies 1,2 and to investigate the percent of discordance between patients and clinicians.

Methods:

Data from TULIP 1 and 2 studies (anifrolumab 300 mg and placebo arms) were pooled to evaluate the relationship between LQoL PH and MSK BILAG scores at baseline, weeks 24 and 52 using Spearman correlations as post-hoc analysis. Mean LQoL PH scores were assessed for each MSK BILAG category at the three timepoints using one-way ANOVA. Percent of patients with MSK BILAG A and LQoL PH scores >50 and patients with MSK BILAG C, D, or E and LQoL PH scores ≤50 was calculated at baseline, week 24 and 52. MSK BILAG B was excluded from the analysis because discordance could not be easily defined for this category compared with the more extreme MSK BILAG categories.

Results:

Total of 690 patients were included in the pooled analysis (Table 1). Significant correlations between LQoL PH and MSK BILAG scores were found at each time point (nominal p<0.0001); this relationship became stronger over time. Mean LQoL PH scores were different in each MSK BILAG category, with the highest in MSK BILAG D/E and the lowest in the MSK BILAG A category, thus confirming the discriminatory ability of the LQoL PH (Table 1).

Table 1.

Correlation coefficients (CC) between LQoL PH and MSK BILAG scores, and mean LQoL PH scores with standard deviations (SD) per each MSK BILAG category at baseline, weeks 24 and 52.

BaselineWeek 24Week 52CCNCCNCCNTotal Population-0.25690-0.36626-0.41552MSK BILAGMean LQoL PH Score (SD)Mean LQoL PH Score (SD)Mean LQoL PH Score (SD)0 (D/E)69.3 (24.7)1774.2 (22.1)18674.5 (21.3)2371 (C)62.3 (25.4)6064.0 (23.9)23360.6 (22.5)1848 (B)56.6 (24.4)39855.1 (24.2)16351.3 (24.3)10512 (A)44.9 (25.8)21543.9 (25.9)4444.2 (26.2)26

At baseline, 40% of patients who were assessed by clinicians as having MSK BILAG A reported minimal impairment in physical function and ADLs (LQoL PH >50) and 24.1% who had MSK BILAG C, D, or E reported difficulties with ADLs (LQoL HP ≤50), suggesting discordance between patients and clinicians. This discordance slightly decreased over time (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Percent of patients with MSK BILAG A and LQoL PH scores >50 and patients with MSK BILAG C, D, or E and LQoL PH scores ≤50 at baseline, weeks 24 and 52.

Conclusion:

Patient reported LQoL PH scores correlated with MSK BILAG scores and showed discriminant validity for MSK BILAG scores. Greater discordance was seen between LQoL PH and MSK BILAG A compared with C, D, or E. These findings suggest a need for further investigation of a role for PROs in MSK BILAG scoring. Formal review of PROs by clinicians during MSK BILAG assessment could be considered in future SLE clinical trials.

References:

[1]Furie R et al. Lancet 2019

[2]Morand EF et al. N Engl J Med 2020

Acknowledgements:

This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests:

Ewa Olech Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Merck, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: BMS, Donald Stull: None declared, Betsy Williams: None declared, Stephanie Bean: None declared, Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca, Erik Schwetje Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Employee of: AstraZeneca, Sean O’Quinn Shareholder of: AstraZeneca, Employee of: AstraZeneca

OP0131 ANIFROLUMAB EFFECTS ON RASH AND ARTHRITIS IN PATIENTS WITH SLE AND IMPACT OF INTERFERON SIGNAL IN POOLED DATA FROM PHASE 3 TRIALS

Background:

Treatment with the type I interferon (IFN) receptor antibody anifrolumab was associated with clinical improvements in mucocutaneous and musculoskeletal disease activity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the phase 2 MUSE trial (NCT01438489) and phase 3 TULIP trials.1–4 Because rash and arthritis are the most common manifestations of SLE, the effect of anifrolumab on these symptoms can be examined in biomarker-defined subsets, as previously reported for the MUSE trial.2

Objectives:

To evaluate the effect of anifrolumab on rash and arthritis in patients with SLE, and the impact of IFN gene signature (IFNGS) on treatment response, using disease measures of different stringency in pooled data from the phase 3 TULIP trials.

Methods:

TULIP-1 (NCT02446912) and TULIP-2 (NCT02446899) were placebo-controlled, 52-week trials of intravenous anifrolumab administered every 4 weeks in patients with moderate to severe SLE.3,4 In this post hoc analysis, outcomes of rash and arthritis were evaluated using mucocutaneous and musculoskeletal domains of the SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) and the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index. In addition, the modified Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index (mCLASI) score was used to evaluate rash, and tender and swollen joint counts were used to assess arthritis.

Results:

360 patients received anifrolumab 300 mg (IFNGS test–high, n=298; IFNGS test–low, n=62) and 366 patients were given placebo (IFNGS test–high, n=302; IFNGS test–low, n=64). Change from baseline to Week 52 compared with placebo was measured by outcomes, ordered by their stringency. More anifrolumab-treated patients achieved rash improvement using SLEDAI-2K (complete resolution: difference 13.5%, nominal P<0.001), BILAG (at least 1 severity grade lowering: difference 15.5%, nominal P<0.001), and mCLASI (≥50% improvement, if baseline score >0: difference 15.6%, nominal P<0.001). Results were comparable in the IFNGS test–high subset (SLEDAI-2K: difference 17.0%, nominal P<0.001, BILAG: difference 16.1%, nominal P<0.001; mCLASI: difference 18.1%, nominal P<0.001). There was a trend toward anifrolumab-associated rash improvement in IFNGS test–low patients using BILAG (Figure). More patients receiving anifrolumab had SLEDAI-2K–defined resolution in arthritis (difference 8.2%, nominal P=0.029), BILAG severity lessening (difference 11.8%, nominal P=0.002), and ≥50% decrease in tender/swollen joint counts, when ≥6 at baseline (difference 12.6%, nominal P=0.016). Results were comparable in the IFNGS test–high subset (SLEDAI-2K: difference 11.7%, nominal P=0.005; BILAG: difference 12.9%, nominal P=0.003; joint counts: difference 11.3%, nominal P=0.054). In IFNGS test–low patients, there was a trend toward anifrolumab-associated arthritis improvement when measured using BILAG, and the effect of anifrolumab on the number of swollen/tender joint counts was similar to the IFNGS test–high group, although the IFNGS test–low sample size in this analysis was very small (Figure).

Conclusion:

In pooled data from the TULIP trials, anifrolumab treatment was associated with improvements in rash and arthritis using measures of different stringency. The SLEDAI-2K findings were largely driven by the subset of patients who were IFNGS test–high. However, using measures that were more sensitive to change, despite small sample sizes, IFNGS test–low patients may also have benefit.

References:

[1]Furie R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69:376–86.

[2]Merrill JT, et al. Lupus Sci Med. 2018;5:e000284.

[3]Furie RA, et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–19.

[4]Morand EF, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–21.

Acknowledgements:

Writing assistance by Victoria Alikhan, PhD, of JK Associates Inc., part of Fishawack Health. This study was sponsored by AstraZeneca.

Disclosure of Interests:

Joan T Merrill Consultant of: AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Amgen, Aurinia, BMS, EMD Serono, GSK, Remegen, Janssen, Provention, and UCB, Grant/research support from: BMS and GSK, Victoria Werth Speakers bureau: University of Pennsylvania, who own the copyright for the CLASI and SDASI, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Argenx, AstraZeneca, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Chrysalis, CSL Behring, Cugene, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, GSK, Incyte, Idera, Janssen, Kirin, Medimmune, Medscape, Nektar, Octapharma, Pfizer, Principa, Regeneron, Resolve, and Viela Bio, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Celgene, Corbus Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Syntimmune, and Viela Bio, Richard Furie Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Eric F. Morand Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, J Michelle Kahlenberg Consultant of: Admirex Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Ventus Therapeutics, Grant/research support from: BMS/Celgene and Q32 Bio, Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Employee of: AstraZeneca

SAT0174 FLARE ASSESSMENTS IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS TREATED WITH ANIFROLUMAB IN 2 PHASE 3 TRIALS

Background:

Anifrolumab treatment resulted in improved British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)–based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response rates in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in the phase 3 TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 trials.1,2In addition, annualized flare rates were lower among the groups treated with anifrolumab compared with placebo.1,2

Objectives:

TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 data were analyzed to assess the effects of anifrolumab on the number of SLE flares and time to first flare during 52 weeks of treatment.

Methods:

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 trials evaluated efficacy and safety of intravenous anifrolumab 300 mg vs placebo every 4 weeks for 48 weeks, with the primary endpoints assessed at Week 52, in patients with moderate to severe SLE despite standard-of-care treatment. Flares were defined as ≥1 new BILAG-2004 A or ≥2 new (worsening) BILAG-2004 B domain scores compared with the prior month’s visit. Time to first flare was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Annualized flare rate was analyzed using a negative binomial regression model.

Results:

In TULIP-2 (anifrolumab, n=180; placebo, n=182) and TULIP-1 (anifrolumab, n=180; placebo, n=184), fewer patients experienced ≥1 BILAG-2004 flare in the anifrolumab groups (TULIP-2: 31.1%, n=56; TULIP-1: 36.1%, n=65) compared with the placebo groups (TULIP-2: 42.3%, n=77; TULIP-1: 43.5%, n=80; Figure 1). Results favoring anifrolumab were observed in time to first flare (TULIP-2: hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46–0.91 and TULIP-1: HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55–1.06; Figure 2) and BILAG-based annualized flare rates (TULIP-2: adjusted rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.48–0.94 and TULIP-1: rate ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.60–1.14) across both trials.

Conclusion:

Across 2 phase 3 trials, we observed reductions in the total number of flares and annualized flare rates, as well as prolongation of time to first flare with anifrolumab treatment compared with placebo. These results support the potential of anifrolumab to reduce disease activity and reduce flares, benefiting patients with SLE.

References:

[1]Morand EF, et al.N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–221.

[2]Furie RA, et al.Lancet Rheumatol.2019;1:e208–e219.

Disclosure of Interests:

Richard Furie Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Eric F. Morand Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Anca Askanase Grant/research support from: Regeneron and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie and BMS, Employee of: GSK, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Lilly, and Mallinckrodt, Edward Vital Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, and Sandoz, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche/Genentech, and Sandoz, Speakers bureau: Becton Dickinson and GSK, Rubana Kalyani Employee of: AstraZeneca, Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca, Lilia Pineda Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Employee of: AstraZeneca

OP0049 EFFICACY OF ANIFROLUMAB IN ACTIVE SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS: PATIENT SUBGROUP ANALYSIS OF BICLA RESPONSE IN 2 PHASE 3 TRIALS

Background:

Treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) with the type I interferon (IFN) receptor inhibitor anifrolumab resulted in higher British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)–based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response rates vs placebo at Week 52 in the phase 3 randomized trials, TULIP-2 (primary endpoint; 16.3% difference)1and TULIP-1 (secondary endpoint; 16.4% difference).2BICLA is a validated composite global disease measure that registers both partial and complete improvement within organ systems.

Objectives:

TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 data were analyzed to evaluate BICLA responses to anifrolumab vs placebo at Week 52 in protocol-defined subgroups of patients with active SLE.

Methods:

TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated efficacy and safety of intravenous anifrolumab vs placebo administered every 4 weeks, with the primary endpoints assessed at Week 52, in patients with moderate to severe SLE despite standard-of-care treatment.1,2BICLA responses are defined by all of the following: reduction of baseline BILAG-2004 A and B domain scores to B/C/D and C/D, respectively, and no worsening in any organ system; no worsening of the SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) score; no worsening of ≥0.3 points in the Physician’s Global Assessment (range 0–3); no trial treatment discontinuation; and no use of medications restricted by the protocol.3BICLA responses were compared between anifrolumab 300 mg and placebo groups, and robustness of BICLA responses was assessed across protocol-defined subgroups. TULIP-1 data were analyzed incorporating the amended restricted medication rules, as described.2

Results:

In TULIP-2 and TULIP-1, 180 patients in each trial received anifrolumab 300 mg (182 and 184 patients received placebo, respectively). Baseline demographics, disease characteristics, and standard-of-care medications were balanced between anifrolumab and placebo groups within both TULIP trials. Patients in TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 had comparable BICLA responses (Figure). Across multiple subgroups, higher percentages of patients achieved BICLA responses at Week 52 in the anifrolumab vs placebo arms (Figure). There was concordance of BICLA responses favoring anifrolumab across the protocol-defined subgroups of baseline disease severity (SLEDAI-2K <10 points [difference 15.3%, TULIP-2; 16.9%, TULIP-1] vs ≥10 points [difference 16.7%, TULIP-2; 17.1%, TULIP-1]) and baseline oral corticosteroid use (prednisone or equivalent <10 mg/d [difference 20.1%, TULIP-2; 16.2%, TULIP-1] vs ≥10 mg/d [difference 12.0%, TULIP-2; 17.7%, TULIP-1]). Numerically different BICLA effect sizes between the anifrolumab vs placebo arms were observed in both studies in relation to baseline IFN gene signature status (high [difference 17.3%, TULIP-2; 19.1%, TULIP-1] vs low [difference 11.2%, TULIP-2; 7.5%, TULIP-1]). Other subgroups including age, sex, age at onset, race, and anti-drug antibody status showed similar uniformity of response.

Conclusion:

The uniformity of robust BICLA response rates across prespecified subgroups in both phase 3 trials shows consistent clinical benefit of anifrolumab irrespective of patient baseline characteristics. However, given the small patient numbers in some subgroups, these results should be interpreted with caution.

References:

[1]Morand EF, et al.N Engl J Med.2020;382:211–221.

[2]Furie RA, et al.Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–e219.

[3]Wallace DJ, et al.Ann Rheum Dis.2014;73:183–190.

Disclosure of Interests:

Eric F. Morand Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Richard Furie Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Yoshiya Tanaka Grant/research support from: Asahi-kasei, Astellas, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, and Ono, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Takeda, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Sanofi, UCB, and Teijin, Rubana Kalyani Employee of: AstraZeneca, Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca, Lilia Pineda Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Employee of: AstraZeneca

OP0003 EARLY AND SUSTAINED RESPONSES WITH ANIFROLUMAB TREATMENT IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS (SLE) IN 2 PHASE 3 TRIALS

Background:

In the phase 3 TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 trials in SLE, treatment with the type I interferon receptor antibody anifrolumab resulted in higher percentages of patients with BICLA responses vs placebo at Week 52, with differences of 16.3% (primary endpoint; P=0.001, 95% CI 6.3–26.3) and 16.4% (secondary endpoint; 95% CI 6.7–26.2), respectively.1,2

Objectives:

To better understand the time course of BICLA responses to anifrolumab, we examined responses over time compared with placebo in TULIP-2 and TULIP-1, including those that were sustained from attainment through Week 52.

Methods:

The TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluated the efficacy and safety of anifrolumab (300 mg Q4W) over 52 weeks in patients with moderately to severely active SLE who were receiving standard-of-care treatment. Time to onset of BICLA response that was sustained from attainment through Week 52 was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model. For TULIP-1, BICLA response rate and time to onset of BICLA response were analyzed using the amended restricted medication rules.2

Results:

Overall, 180 patients each in TULIP-2 and TULIP-1 received anifrolumab compared with 182 and 184 patients in the placebo arms, respectively. At the first 3 assessments in TULIP-2 (Weeks 4, 8, and 12), numerically greater percentages of patients treated with anifrolumab (26.8%, 35.3%, and 42.9%, respectively) were classified as having a BICLA response compared with placebo (21.3%, 21.6%, and 31.8%). A similar trend was observed in TULIP-1 with anifrolumab (23.3%, 34.2%, and 36.5%) vs placebo (18.3%, 23.2%, and 27.5%). The time to onset of BICLA response sustained from onset through Week 52 favored anifrolumab in both TULIP-2 (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.11–2.18) and TULIP-1 (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.38–2.73) (Figure). In TULIP-2, 86 (47.8%) patients treated with anifrolumab had BICLA responses that were sustained from time of onset through Week 52 compared with 57 (31.3%) patients in the placebo group. In TULIP-1, 85 (47.2%) patients in the anifrolumab treatment arm had BICLA responses that were sustained from time of onset through Week 52 compared with 55 (29.9%) patients in the placebo group.

Conclusion:

In 2 Phase 3 studies, a greater proportion of patients achieved BICLA responses sustained from onset through Week 52 with anifrolumab treatment compared with placebo. Anifrolumab resulted in numerically favorable differences in time to onset of BICLA responses maintained through Week 52 across the TULIP studies. These data support the sustainability of clinical benefit derived from anifrolumab treatment of patients with active SLE.

References:

[1]Morand EF, et al.N Engl J Med. 2020;382:211–221.

[2]Furie RA, et al.Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1:e208–e219.

Disclosure of Interests:

Eric F. Morand Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Richard Furie Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Biogen, Ian N. Bruce Grant/research support from: Genzyme Sanofi, GSK, and UCB, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, UCB, Iltoo, and Merck Serono, Speakers bureau: UCB, Kenneth Kalunian Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, Resolve, Takeda, Idorsia, BMS, and Kirin, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Nektar, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, GSK, AbbVie, Chemocentryx, Genentech-Roche, Biogen, and Equillium, Rubana Kalyani Employee of: AstraZeneca, Gabriel Abreu Employee of: AstraZeneca, Lilia Pineda Employee of: AstraZeneca, Raj Tummala Employee of: AstraZeneca

P767 Imagiologic features and Prevalence of Cardiac Lesions detected in Transesophageal Echocardiography

INTRODUCTION

Echocardiography plays a central role in the detection of intracardiac lesions, with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) acquiring an outstanding role due to its increased sensitivity, improving diagnosis and evaluation of complications.

PURPOSE

To characterize clinically and echocardiographically the type of intracardiac masses mostly identified on TEE, in order to reflect about its prevalence, exam indication and echocardiographic criteria for correct diagnosis.

METHODS

Unicentric, retrospective observational analysis of TEE examinations performed between 01/2014 and 05/2019. Data collected from TEE registers and patient process assessment. Cardiac findings were classified according to its echocardiographic features as vegetations, thrombi or suspected tumoral masses.

RESULTS

144 TEE examinations revealed the presence of intracavitary lesions, with 62% of them (89 exams) having imagiologic features suggestive of vegetations, with polypoid highly mobile lesions attached to valve leaflets, often leading to valvular insufficiency. More than one valve was affected in 21% and about 30% were prosthetic valves. Potential serious complications such as perforation and abscess formation were present in 13% and 7%, respectively.

35 examinations disclosed the presence of thrombi, 66% located on the left atrial appendage and 17% on the left atrium (LA). In 4 cases they were attached to prosthetic valves and 10 of the patients had not been anticoagulated previously. Some doubtful diagnosis were lately confirmed after disappearance of the lesion with anticoagulation therapy.

Diagnosis of tumoral masses was made in 11%, some of them waiting for histologic confirmation. 50% had features resembling pappilary fibroelastomas (PF) (38% of the aortic valve, 25% of the mitral valve, 1 of the pulmonary valve and 1 the left ventricle pathologically confirmed), such as a filiform highly mobile pedunculated structure attached to a valve leaflet. Heterogeneous masses suggestive of myxomas were identified in 35%, 80% located on the LA.

The most frequent reason for performing a TEE examination was a previous embolic event, a doubtful image on transthoracic echocardiogram or before electrical cardioversion.

Except for PF which were increasingly detected by echocardiography, the prevalence of thrombi or vegetations remained similar across the years.

Most presumptive diagnosis made by TEE were confirmed based on clinical evolution or histology.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort, most TEE examinations revealed the presence of vegetations, a major criterion for establishing the diagnosis of infective endocarditis.

TEE enables more accurate evaluation of the lesions and although histologic confirmation is frequently necessary, some imagiologic features allow for a presumptive diagnosis which is often correct.

This analysis also reflects the prevalence of cardiac lesions and the increased awareness of some conditions, such as PF.

P228 Mitral valve aneurysm in the context of post-infective endocarditis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: an issue of inflammation or pressure gradients?

Mitral valve aneurysms (MVA) are uncommon and usually develop acutely in the setting of infective endocarditis (IE).

We present a case report of a patient with a ruptured aneurysm of the mitral valve (MV) leaflet and obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), previously treated for IE. Echocardiography is essential for diagnosis, highlighting the importance of imaging for early identification and timely intervention.

CASE REPORT

68-year-old male patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia was admitted to hospital with a 3-week history of malaise, fever and recent left-sided abdominal pain. No past relevant history.

Physical examination revealed a grade II/VI systolic heart murmur at the cardiac apex, fever, abdominal tenderness in the left upper quadrant and purpuric lesions in the inferior limbs.

Neutrophilia, CPR 211mg/L. Positive blood cultures for Staphylococcus aureus methicillin-sensitive. Spleen embolization, with no abcess on abdominal CT.

Transthoracic (TTE) and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) disclosed a highly mobile polypoid mass in the atrial side of the anterior MV leaflet, septal left ventricular hypertrophy and systolic anterior motion (SAM) of the MV. Mild mitral regurgitation (MR). No evidence of abcess, aneurysm or valve perforation.

The diagnosis of IE was established and the patient completed 42 days of Flucloxaciline. Favorable clinical evolution, residual lesions on the MV.

TTE and TEE were repeated on follow-up. Besides HCM and SAM of the MV, an aneurysm of the anterior leaflet of the MV was identified and two regurgitant jets: one due to incomplete coaptation of the leaflets; other through the perforated aneurysm. Mild global MR.

A strategy of close follow-up was adopted. Beta blocker dose was increased. Maintenance of the characteristics of the aneurysm.

DISCUSSION

MVA are rare, with perforation and significant MR development as the most serious complications.

They mostly develop in the acute setting of IE of the aortic valve (AV), due to the "jet lesion" from the regurgitant jet or direct extension of the infection. In this case, MVA developed as a late complication of IE of the MV.

Previous infection and inflammation lead to increased susceptibility of the valve leaflet, with possible persistent chronic inflammation. In the setting of obstructive HCM, the lesioned endothelium is exposed to significant intraventricular pressure gradients, which have probably raised its propensity to bulge towards the atrium, resulting in aneurysm formation and perforation.

Optimal approach to MVA has not been defined. If the setting of perforation with severe MR, surgery must be performed in order to avoid a fatal outcome. In small aneurysms with mild MR, a conservative approach seems reasonable.

The purpose of this case is to highlight potential complications of IE, which should be actively investigated, with echocardiography playing a central role in the diagnosis and follow-up.

Protein glycation and in vivo distribution of human lens fluorescence

Glycated proteins formed by the Maillard reaction were measured by furosine determination in human normal lenses and in senile and diabetic cataracts. Furosine, an hydrolysis product of fructose-lysine adduct formed in the early stages of the Maillard reaction, was measured by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Furosine levels in diabetic cataracts were found to be 3 to 4 times higher than those observed for senile cataracts. The increased glycation levels both in cortex and nucleus were related to the increase of fluorescence determined in vitro by fluorometry and in vivo by Scheimpflug photography. Lens proteins were incubated with glucose and it has been demonstrated that protein glycation occurred parallel with the increase in concentration of fluorescent chromophores that present similar characteristics as those observed in vivo. The results indicate that protein insolubilization seemed to involve preferentially glycated proteins and at least in diabetic cataracts, the process seems to be initiated in the cortical region.

Pathological and parasitological aspects of the first autochthonous case of human paragonimiasis in Venezuela

A worm found in histopathologic sections of a lung piece of a young Venezuelan male was identified as a Paragonimus sp. Definitive identification of the species was not possible since only a deteriorated segment of the worm was recovered, nevertheless comparison with other known species is discussed. This is the first report of an indigenous case of human paragonimiasis in Venezuela.