Disparities in neighbourhood characteristics and 10-year dementia risk by nativity status

AIMS

Prior research indicates that neighbourhood disadvantage increases dementia risk. There is, however, inconclusive evidence on the relationship between nativity and cognitive impairment. To our knowledge, our study is the first to analyse how nativity and neighbourhood interact to influence dementia risk.

METHODS

Ten years of prospective cohort data (2011-2020) were retrieved from the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative sample of 5,362 U.S. older adults aged 65+. Cox regression analysed time to dementia diagnosis using nativity status (foreign- or native-born) and composite scores for neighbourhood physical disorder (litter, graffiti and vacancies) and social cohesion (know, help and trust each other), after applying sampling weights and imputing missing data.

RESULTS

In a weighted sample representing 26.9 million older adults, about 9.5% (n = 2.5 million) identified as foreign-born and 24.4% (n = 6.5 million) had an incident dementia diagnosis. Average baseline neighbourhood physical disorder was 0.19 (range 0-9), and baseline social cohesion was 4.28 (range 0-6). Baseline neighbourhood physical disorder was significantly higher among foreign-born (mean = 0.28) compared to native-born (mean = 0.18) older adults (t = -2.4, p = .02). Baseline neighbourhood social cohesion was significantly lower for foreign-born (mean = 3.57) compared to native-born (mean = 4.33) older adults (t = 5.5, p < .001). After adjusting for sociodemographic, health and neighbourhood variables, foreign-born older adults had a 51% significantly higher dementia risk (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.19-1.90, p < .01). There were no significant interactions for nativity with neighbourhood physical disorder or social cohesion.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that foreign-born older adults have higher neighbourhood physical disorder and lower social cohesion compared to native-born older adults. Despite the higher dementia risk, we observed for foreign-born older adults, and this relationship was not moderated by either neighbourhood physical disorder or social cohesion. Further research is needed to understand what factors are contributing to elevated dementia risk among foreign-born older adults.

Gallstone ileus 30 years after cholecystectomy and hepaticojejunostomy

Gallstone ileus occurs when the small or large intestine is obstructed by a gallstone and is a rare occurrence in a post-cholecystectomy patient. Non-specific clinical symptoms and inconsistent imaging results often lead to a delay in diagnosis. Complex anatomy, such as a Roux-en-Y biliary-enteric anastomosis, can increase the risk of stone formation and further confound a potential case of gallstone ileus. Here, we present a rare case of gallstone ileus at the anastomosis site of a Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy done 30 years prior for a common bile duct injury during a cholecystectomy. The possibility of negative CT findings, pattern of presentation on imaging as intussusception, and potential pathomechanism of gallstone formation in post-cholecystectomy patients are discussed. Through this case and review of similar cases, we emphasise the need for further study of post-cholecystectomy gallstone ileus and the importance of clinical suspicion during diagnosis.

Interventions to reduce falls in community-dwelling adults with intellectual disability: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

People with intellectual disability have a high risk of falls and falls-related injuries. Although people with intellectual disability are at increased risk of falls, there is a need to better understand the efficacy of interventions that can help reduce falls and address risk factors in this population. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the type, nature and effectiveness of interventions undertaken to reduce falls with community-dwelling adults with intellectual disability and the quality of this evidence.

METHOD

Four electronic databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they involved people aged 18 years or over, at least 50% of study participants had intellectual disability, participants were community-dwelling, and the study evaluated any interventions aiming to reduce falls. Study quality was assessed using the National Institutes of Health study quality assessment tools. Reporting of the review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Seven studies were eligible for review, with a total of 286 participants and mean age of 50.4 years. As only one randomised trial was identified, a narrative synthesis of results was undertaken. Five studies evaluated exercise interventions, one evaluated a falls clinic programme, and one evaluated stretch fabric splinting garments. Methodological quality varied (two studies rated as good, four as fair, and one as poor). Exercise interventions varied in terms of exercise type and dosage, frequency and intensity, and most did not align with recommendations for successful falls prevention exercise interventions reported for older people. While the majority of studies reported reduced falls, they differed in methods of reporting falls, and most did not utilise statistical analyses to evaluate outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This review identified a small number of falls prevention intervention studies for people with intellectual disability. Although several studies reported improvements in fall outcomes, ability to draw conclusions about intervention effectiveness is limited by small sample sizes and few studies. Further large-scale research is required to implement and evaluate falls prevention interventions specifically for adults with intellectual disability.

Prognostically distinct phenotypes of metabolic health beyond obesity in aortic stenosis

Background

Whilst current evidence are in favour of metabolic health and non-obesity in the reduction of incident cardiovascular disease, little is known regarding the prognosis across the metabolic phenotypes once cardiovascular disease occurs. This study examined the prognosis of patients with significant aortic stenosis (AS) based on the presence of metabolic health and obesity.

Methods

This retrospective cohort on consecutive patients presenting with moderate-to-severe AS to a tertiary hospital between 2010 and 2015. Patients were allocated into 4 groups based on obesity and metabolic health: metabolically healthy obese (MHO), metabolically healthy non-obese (MHNO), metabolically unhealthy obese (MUO) and metabolically unhealthy non-obese (MUNO). Metabolic health was defined in accordance to Program Adult Treatment Panel III criteria. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Cox regression examined independent associations between mortality and metabolic phenotypes, adjusting for aortic valve area, ejection fraction, age, sex, chronic kidney disease and AVR as a time-dependent covariate.

Results

Of 727 patients, the majority (51.6%) were MUNO, followed by MUO (32.7%), MHNO (11.4%), and MHO (4.3%). MHNO had the highest mortality (43.0%), followed by the MUNO (37.5%), MUO (30.0%) and MHO (6.9%) groups (p=0.001). Compared to MHNO, MHO (HR 0.159, 95% CI 0.038–0.668, p=0.012) and MUO (HR 0.614, 95% CI 0.403–0.937, p=0.024) were independently associated with lower all-cause mortality rates, after adjusting for confounders. In obese patients, metabolic health had favourable survival compared to metabolically unhealthy (p=0.015), but this protective impact of metabolic health was not observed in overweight or normal weight individuals. Obesity had favourable survival compared to overweight and normal weight, in both metabolically health (p=0.002) and unhealthy (p=0.007) patients,

Conclusion

MHO patients with AS have the most favourable prognosis whilst the seemingly healthy MHNO group had the worst survival. There should be a paradigm shift towards prioritising metabolic health rather than weight reduction in patients with significant AS.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.

POS0343 TREATMENT PERSISTENCE AND ADHERENCE AMONG PATIENTS WITH JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS RECEIVING ABATACEPT OR TNF INHIBITORS USING US CLAIMS DATA

Background

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common rheumatic condition among children and teens1 and contributes to a diminished quality of life.2 Previous data underscore the potential for abatacept to improve health-related outcomes in patients with JIA after demonstrating poor responses to other DMARDs.3 Patients with RA show greater persistence on abatacept vs TNF inhibitors (TNFi), and this should also be confirmed in patients with JIA.4

Objectives

To evaluate treatment persistence and adherence at 12- and 18-month follow-up in patients with JIA newly initiating either abatacept or a TNFi.

Methods

This analysis used data from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus claims database from Jan 2008–Apr 2021. We identified patients with ≥ 1 claim of JIA diagnosis after Jan 2008, who were < 18 years old at initial diagnosis, had ≥ 1 claim of abatacept or TNFi treatment (adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab) following diagnosis, had continuous enrollment in medical and pharmacy benefits for ≥ 12 months before index date (first prescription of abatacept or TNFi), and had 12 or 18 months’ continuous medical and pharmacy enrollment after index date. Patients receiving abatacept or TNFi treatment ≤ 12 months prior to index date and patients initiating combined abatacept + TNFi treatment on the index date were excluded. Specific outcomes included: discontinuation (absence of a new prescription for index treatment within the gap of 5× treatment half-life), persistence rate (proportion of patients continuing index medication without any gaps exceeding 5× treatment half-life), and treatment adherence (defined as medication possession ratio [MPR, proportion of follow-up period where medication supply is available] and proportion of days covered [PDC, proportion of follow-up period where a patient is covered by a given drug]). All outcomes were reported at 12 and 18 months. All statistical analyses are descriptive with the intent for hypothesis generation.

Results

There were 2847 patients (abatacept, n = 111; TNFi, n = 2736) at 12-month follow-up; fewer completed the 18-month follow-up (2403 patients: abatacept, n = 94; TNFi, n = 2309). At index date, treatment groups were similar for sex, geographic location, and comorbidities (Table 1). Numerically higher persistence was observed in patients prescribed abatacept compared with TNFi overall at both time points. Abatacept persistence was higher than etanercept but similar to adalimumab (Figure 1). At 12 months, the percent of patients with PDC ≥ 0.8 was 57% for abatacept, 51% for adalimumab, and 38% for etanercept, while MPR ≥ 0.8 was 63% for abatacept, 55% for adalimumab, and 42% for etanercept. Patients prescribed abatacept had numerically greater proportions of PDC ≥ 0.8 (abatacept, 48%; adalimumab, 40%; etanercept, 29%) and MPR ≥ 0.8 (abatacept, 53%; adalimumab, 44%; etanercept, 33%) at 18 months.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of patients with 12-month follow-up data

CharacteristicAbatacept (n = 111)TNFi (n = 2736)Age, years, mean (SD)14.4 (3.8)12.6 (4.6)Female sex89 (80.2)1930 (70.5)Geographic region South43 (38.7)865 (31.6) Midwest40 (36.0)818 (29.9) West9 (8.1)408 (14.9) East19 (17.1)540 (19.7) Unknown0 (0)105 (3.8)Comorbidities Asthma9 (8.1)275 (10.1) COPD11 (9.9)323 (11.8) Cardiovascular disease14 (12.6)222 (8.1) Uveitis14 (12.6)321 (11.7) Iridocyclitisa12 (10.8)216 (7.9)CCI score, mean (SD)0.58 (0.73)0.46 (0.68)

Data are shown as n (%) unless otherwise specified.

aSubgroup disease under uveitis.

CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Conclusion

The present findings suggest that patients with JIA initiating abatacept treatment display numerically higher persistence and adherence compared with patients treated with TNFis at both 12- and 18-months’ follow-up.

References

[1]Prakken B, et al. Lancet 2011;377:2138–49.

[2]Lovell DJ, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2015;67:2759–70.

[3]Ruperto N, et al. Lancet 2008;372:383–91.

[4]Han X, et al. J Health Econ Outcomes Res 2021;8:71–8.

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. Medical writing and editorial assistance were provided by Ryan Miller, of Caudex, and were funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Project analysis was provided by Akshay Vinod (Mu Sigma).

Disclosure of Interests

Ching-An Wang Consultant of: Novartis (used to work there as an external contractor from Jan 2016 to Apr 2021), Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Tzuyung Douglas Kou Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Hanke Zheng Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Keith Wittstock Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Vadim Khaychuk Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Vardhaman PATEL Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb

POS0579 ABSENCE OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ABATACEPT EXPOSURE LEVELS AND INITIAL INFECTION IN PATIENTS WITH RA: A POST HOC ANALYSIS OF THE RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED AVERT-2 STUDY

Background

Infections are the most commonly reported AE observed in patients with RA treated with immunosuppressive therapies and can be clinically significant. A recent review reported differences in the risk of infection for some biologics such as tocilizumab and TNF inhibitors.1 Abatacept selectively modulates T-cell co-stimulation and is approved for the treatment of RA. In patients with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis, no association was found between higher serum abatacept exposure and the incidence of infection.2 This has not been evaluated for adult patients with RA.

Objectives

To determine if higher serum abatacept exposure during treatment with SC abatacept was associated with increased risk of infection in adult patients with RA.

Methods

AVERT-2 (Assessing Very Early Rheumatoid arthritis Treatment-2) was a randomized, placebo-controlled study of SC abatacept + MTX vs abatacept placebo + MTX in MTX-naive, anti-citrullinated protein antibody–positive patients with early, active RA.3 A post hoc population pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis was performed using PK-evaluable patient data from the induction period (year 1) of AVERT-2. Association between steady-state abatacept exposure (min plasma concentration [Cmin], max plasma concentration [Cmax], and average plasma concentration [Cavg]) and first infection was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier plots of probability vs time on treatment by abatacept exposure quartiles and Cox proportional-hazards models.

Results

PK of SC abatacept was defined as a linear 2-compartment model with first-order absorption and first-order elimination. The findings of the updated PK analysis were consistent with those reported in prior population analyses of abatacept PK in adults with RA. The final model included effects of baseline body weight, estimated glomerular filtration rate, sex, age, albumin, MTX use, NSAID use, SJC, and race on abatacept clearance. The only covariate with a clinically relevant effect was higher body weight, which caused an increase in clearance and volume. Infections occurred in a total of 330/693 (47.6%; serious, 1.6%) patients treated with abatacept, and 134/301 (44.5%; serious, 1.3%) with placebo during the first year of AVERT-2. In patients taking abatacept, the mean (SD) study exposure to abatacept was 376 (60) days, while mean (SD) prednisone equivalent dose was 6.7 (3.8) mg/day and mean (SD) MTX dose was 9.6 (3.0) mg/week. No exposure–response relationship was observed between the probability of first infection and steady-state abatacept exposure quartiles (Cavg, Cmin, and Cmax), or compared with placebo (Figure 1A–C). Kaplan–Meier assessment also showed no increase in risk of infection with concomitant use of MTX and glucocorticoids.

Conclusion

No association was found between initial infection and steady-state abatacept exposure (Cavg, Cmin, Cmax) or MTX and glucocorticoid use in patients with RA treated with SC abatacept.

References

[1]Jani M, et al. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2019;31:285–92.

[2]Ruperto N, et al. J Rheumatol 2021;48:1073–81.

[3]Emery P, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019;71(suppl 10):L11.

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. Writing and editorial assistance were provided by Fiona Boswell, PhD, of Caudex, and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Support was provided by Sandra Overfield as Protocol Manager, and Prema Sukumar and Renfang Hwang as Data Science Leads.

Disclosure of Interests

Paul Emery Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Roy Fleischmann Consultant of: Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Amgen, AbbVie, Arthrosi, Biosplice, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, TEVA, UCB, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Mitsubishi Tanabe, YL Biologics, Consultant of: AbbVie, Ayumi, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Taisho, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Corrona, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Kowa, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Takeda, Vivian Bykerk Consultant of: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme Corporation, Gilead, Regeneron, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genzyme Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Aventis, UCB, Clifton Bingham Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Thomas Huizinga Speakers bureau: Abblynx, Abbott, Biotest AG, Bristol Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Epirus, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi- Aventis, UCB, Consultant of: Abblynx, Abbott, Biotest AG, Bristol Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Epirus, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi- Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abblynx, Abbott, Biotest AG, Bristol Myers Squibb, Crescendo Bioscience, Eli Lilly, Epirus, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi- Aventis, UCB, Gustavo Citera Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Signifience, Vidya Perera Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Bindu Murthy Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Kelly Maxwell Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Cognigen Corporation, Julie Passarell Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Cognigen Corporation, William Hedrich: None declared, Daphne Williams Consultant of: Black Diamond Network, Joule, Syneos, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb.

POS0340 PREDICTORS OF CLINICAL RESPONSE TO ABATACEPT IN CHILDREN WITH POLYARTICULAR JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS

Background

For children with polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) and inadequate response or intolerance to initial treatment with MTX, treatment options include abatacept.1 Abatacept, a selective T-cell co-stimulation modulator, has a distinct mechanism of action from other current treatments for rheumatic diseases,2 and factors predicting clinical response can help determine optimal treatment strategy. Two phase 3 studies demonstrated the efficacy and safety of IV and SC abatacept in patients with pJIA and an inadequate response to other DMARDs.2,3

Objectives

To determine baseline and post-baseline factors that may predict a clinical response in children and adolescents with pJIA treated with abatacept for 2 years.

Methods

Baseline demographic and disease characteristics and post-baseline factors (50% and 70% improvement in ACR criteria [ACR50, ACR70] at days 57 and 85) were analyzed using data from 2 phase 3 studies of abatacept in patients with JIA aged 2–17 years (SC administration) and 6–17 years (IV administration). Efficacy endpoints were Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score in 10 joints based on CRP (JADAS10-CRP) inactive disease (ID; score of ≤ 2.7),4 and remission, defined as 6 consecutive months of post-baseline JADAS10-CRP ID. Data were analyzed over the entire 2-year study period. The earliest time point at which patients achieved these outcomes was reported. The aforementioned study factors were subjected to a time-to-event analysis, including Cox proportional hazards univariate regression analysis and Cox proportional hazards multivariate regression analysis using stepwise regression; results of the multivariate analysis are reported. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to estimate time to achieve clinical response. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to determine threshold values for continuous variables.

Results

Overall, 347 patients were included in the analysis (SC, n = 219; IV, n = 128; 73.8% female; mean [SD] age, 11.3 [4.0] years). Following abatacept treatment, both time to JADAS10-CRP ID and time to JADAS10-CRP remission were predicted (nominal P ≤ 0.05) by age (≤ 11 years: hazard ratio [HR], 1.52 [95% CI, 1.14–2.02] and ≤ 10 years: HR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.20–2.48], respectively), high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP; ≤ 0.6 mg/dL: HR, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.22–2.28] and ≤ 0.21 mg/dL: HR, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.15–2.42], respectively), Parent/Patient Global Assessment of well-being (≤ 35.86: HR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.41–2.51] and ≤ 43.16: HR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.35–3.10], respectively), and Childhood HAQ-DI (CHAQ-DI; ≤ 1.63: HR, 2.23 [95% CI, 1.47–3.39] and ≤ 0.75: HR, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.24–2.73], respectively) (remission data shown in Figure 1). Disease duration ≤ 2 years from baseline (HR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.25–2.21]) and SC route of administration (HR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.45–2.91]) also predicted ID. Among the post-baseline factors, ACR50 at days 57 and 85 predicted both ID (HR, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.04–2.36] and HR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.41–2.51], respectively) and remission (HR, 1.96 [95% CI, 1.11–3.45] and HR, 3.05 [95% CI, 1.47–6.34], respectively); ACR70 at day 57 also predicted ID (data not shown). Patients with predictive factors for age, hsCRP, Parent/Patient Global Assessment of well-being, and CHAQ-DI, and with lower disease activity achieved ID and/or remission earlier than patients with high disease activity.

Conclusion

We identified baseline and post-baseline factors that predicted JADAS10-CRP ID and remission in patients with pJIA treated with abatacept for 2 years. Screening of abatacept-treated patients with pJIA for such factors may help predict earlier achievement of ID and/or remission.

References

[1]Ringold S, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019;71:846–63.

[2]Brunner HI, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018;70:1144–54.

[3]Ruperto N, et al. Lancet 2008;372:383–91.

[4]Trincianti C, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2021;73:1966–75.

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb. Writing and editorial assistance were provided by Candice Judith Dcosta, MSc, of Caudex, funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. We would like to acknowledge Mara Becker, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA, for her contribution to the study analysis.

Disclosure of Interests

Nicolino Ruperto Speakers bureau: Honoraria for consultancies or speaker bureaus from the following pharmaceutical companies in the past 3 years: 2 Bridge, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia, Bayer, Brystol Myers Squibb, Cambridge Healthcare Research, Celgene, Domain Therapeutic, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Idorsia, inMed, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sobi, UCB, Consultant of: Honoraria for consultancies or speaker bureaus from the following pharmaceutical companies in the past 3 years: 2 Bridge, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurinia, Bayer, Brystol Myers Squibb, Cambridge Healthcare Research, Celgene, Domain Therapeutic, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Idorsia, inMed, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sobi, UCB, Hermine Brunner Speakers bureau: GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca-Medimmune, Biogen, Boehringer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Cerocor, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Idorsia, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, R-Pharm, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: The Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, where HIB works as a full-time public employee, has received contributions from the following industries in the past 3 years: Bristol Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer. This funding has been reinvested for the research activities of the hospital in a fully independent manner, without any commitment to third parties, Alberto Berman Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Francisco Avila Zapata: None declared, Gerd Horneff Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Chugai, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Chugai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Linda Wagner-Weiner Grant/research support from: Abbott, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, UCB, Alexander Belot Speakers bureau: Chugai, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Roche (punctual scientific intervention), Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck (joint research project), Ruben Burgos-Vargas: None declared, Maria Luz Gámir Gámir: None declared, Claudia Goldenstein-Schainberg Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Maria T. Terreri: None declared, Margarita Askelson Consultant of: Acerta Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Alberto Martini Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Idorsia, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Daniel J Lovell Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman LaRoche, Novartis, UBC (all contracts with employer, CCHMC), Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche (all contracts with employer, CCHMC); NIH grants: NIAMS, NICHD

Development of an intervention to manage knee osteoarthritis risk and symptoms following anterior cruciate ligament injury

INTRODUCTION

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is a risk factor for developing knee osteoarthritis (OA). We developed an intervention to support people manage risk factors for OA.

METHODS

We conducted one-on-one interviews with 20 individuals with OA symptoms 6-15 years post ACL injury and used a nominal group process during a workshop with 40 patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) to elicit information on the intervention content and delivery characteristics (timing, HCPs, and methods). Interview data were analyzed using content analysis. Nominal group ideas with importance ratings ≥5 of 7 met criteria for inclusion. Results were integrated, considering similarities and differences.

RESULTS

Eight content categories were identified: 1. understanding knee injury and expectations about recovery; 2. understanding OA risk; 3. understanding OA signs and symptoms; 4. managing OA risk; 5. managing knee OA symptoms; 6. information for influencers; 7. credible sources; and, 8. updates on new evidence and treatments. Delivery timing reflected a lifespan approach from time of injury through symptomatic knee OA management. Although multiple media for delivery were identified, introductory face-to-face discussions and opportunity for re-accessing HCPs were critical. All HCPs who treat people with ACL should be familiar with and able to deliver the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This co-development approach identified that an intervention to support people with ACL injury to limit and manage knee OA requires content embedded within an easily accessible, multi-media delivery model with capacity for check-back with HCPs that is appealing to different age groups and personal preferences over the lifespan post injury.

A network meta-analysis on the vasomodulators for portopulmonary hypertension

Background

In patients with portopulmonary hypertension (PoPH) who are eligible and awaiting liver transplant, guidelines recommend lowering pulmonary pressures with vasomodulators as a bridge to transplant. However, efficacy of each vasomodulator class as a bridge to transplant remains unknown.

Purpose

This review compares the use of endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors (PDE5-I), prostacyclin (PC) and combination therapy in its pulmonary pressure-lowering effects and pre-transplant mortality in this strictly selected subset of patients.

Methods

A search conducted on Medline and Embase on articles relating to vasomodulator use in PoPH for pulmonary pressure-lowering effects and mortality. Network analysis was conducted to summarize the evidence. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank treatments.

Results

Ten studies with 180 patients were included. SUCRA analysis demonstrated largest mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) lowering effects in ERA and combination therapy, followed by PDE5-I and PC. mPAP-lowering effects were largest in ERA (MD −19.440, CI: −62.280 to 23.400) and combination therapy (MD −18.223, CI: −29.677 to −6.770) when compared to PDE5-I (table 1). Pre-transplant mortality were comparable between ERA, PDE5-I and combination therapy. Both ERA (RR:0.349. CI: 0.137–0.891) and PDE5-I (RR: 0.279, CI: 0.091–0.854) had significantly lower mortality than PC (table 2).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence that ERA have shown larger pulmonary pressure-lowering effects than PDE5-I in PoPH patients who were eligible for LT. Both ERA and PDE5-I have comparable mortality outcomes, with unfavorable outcomes in PC users.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.

Host inflammatory response is the major marker of severe respiratory syncytial virus infection in older adults

OBJECTIVES

We aim to study the viral kinetics and host inflammatory response of RSV infection in older adults, and their correlation with disease severity.

METHODS

We performed a prospective observational study in adults with RSV infection. We serially collected nasal-throat swabs for quantification of RSV-A and RSV-B viral load, and peripheral blood samples for measurement of cytokine/chemokine concentrations. The study endpoints were (i) requiring supplemental oxygen therapy, and (ii) non-invasive ventilation, intensive care, or died within 30 days of admission. We performed multivariable logistic regression models to identify independent variables for severe disease.

RESULTS

We enrolled 71 hospitalized patients and 10 outpatients treated for RSV infection (median age 75 years, 51% male, and 74% with comorbidities). Among hospitalized patients, 61% required supplemental oxygen therapy, and 18% had severe disease requiring non-invasive ventilation or intensive care, or died within 30 days. Inflammatory cytokine/chemokines IL-6, CXCL8/IL-8, CXCL9/MIG and CXCL10/IP-10 increased significantly during the acute phase of illness. IL-6 concentration was independently associated with severe disease after adjusting for confounding factors. RSV viral load was not associated with disease severity throughout the course of illness.

CONCLUSION

Host inflammatory response is a major marker of severe disease in older adults with RSV infection.

Initial experience of TAS-102 chemotherapy in Australian patients with Chemo-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

For patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment with Trifluridine/Tipiracil, also known as TAS-102, improves overall survival. This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of TAS-102 in a real-world population from Victoria, Australia. A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer (TRACC) registry was undertaken. The characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving TAS-102 were assessed and compared to those enrolled in the registration study (RECOURSE). Across 13 sites, 107 patients were treated with TAS-102. The median age was 60 years (range: 31-83), compared to 63 for RECOURSE. Comparing registry TAS-102-treated and RECOURSE patients, 75% vs 100% were ECOG performance status 0-1, 74% vs 79% had initiated treatment more than 18 months from diagnosis of metastatic disease and 36% vs 49% were RAS wild-type. Median time on treatment was 10.4 weeks (range: 1.7-32). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.3 months compared to 2 months in RECOURSE, while median overall survival was the same at 7.1 months. Two patients (2.3%) had febrile neutropenia and there were no treatment-related deaths, where TAS-102 dose at treatment initiation was at clinician discretion.TRACC registry patients treated with TAS-102 were younger than those from the RECOURSE trial, with similar overall survival observed. Less strict application of RECIST criteria and less frequent imaging may have contributed to an apparently longer PFS.

Sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor-induced diabetic ketoacidosis following tooth extraction: improving awareness among dental practitioners

Sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) are a relatively new class of oral glucose lowering agents that improve glycaemic control and also provide significant cardiac and renal benefits. However, SGLT-2i use is associated with a small but significant increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) especially during periods of reduced oral intake such as following dental procedures, bowel preparation for colonoscopy, surgery and concurrent illness. In contrast with typical DKA, in many cases of SGLT2i-associated DKA, the blood glucose is normal or only slightly elevated, giving rise to the term euglycaemic DKA (euDKA). Patients with euDKA often present with non-specific symptoms. Moreover, their normal or only mildly elevated blood glucose levels might lead to delayed diagnosis and treatment and hence potentially life-threatening complications. Not only should patients taking an SGLT-2i be informed about the risk of euDKA, and be provided with SGLT-2i sick day management education, but clinicians should also be alert to this diagnosis.

POS0076 S100A8/A9 AND S100A12 AS POTENTIAL PREDICTIVE BIOMARKERS OF ABATACEPT RESPONSE IN POLYARTICULAR JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS

Background:

The calcium-binding proteins S100A8/A9 (calprotectin) and S100A12 (extracellular newly identified receptor for advanced glycation end-products binding protein [EN-RAGE]) are involved in multiple signalling pathways to mediate inflammation, can be secreted by activated monocytes/macrophages and exhibit cytokine-like extracellular functions. Circulating levels of these proteins have been associated with disease and clinical responses in systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (sJIA), including treatment response.1 Studies suggest that serum S100A8/A9 and S100A12, which are released at inflammation sites, are more specific biomarkers of local inflammation (e.g. in the synovium) than systemic biomarkers such as CRP and ESR.2,3

Objectives:

To investigate if baseline S100A8/A9 and S100A12 predict clinical response to abatacept treatment in polyarticular JIA (pJIA), and to assess whether changes from baseline in S100A8/A9 or S100A12 can be better prognostic markers for response to abatacept treatment than CRP in pJIA.

Methods:

Data are from a phase III trial of SC abatacept for the treatment of pJIA (NCT01844518).4 This 24-month, single-arm, open-label, international, multicentre, two-part study included male and female patients with pJIA aged 2–17 years. This analysis examined the correlation between biomarkers (S100A8/A9, S100A12 and high-sensitivity CRP [hsCRP]) and disease activity (measured using Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score [JADAS]) at baseline, baseline biomarker values as predictors of future treatment response (ACR and JADAS endpoints), and the correlation between change from baseline in biomarker values and treatment response at Day 113.

Results:

Of 219 total patients, 158 (72%) had S100A8/A9 values and 155 (71%) had S100A12 values at baseline. Median S100A8/A9 and S100A12 values were 3295 ng/mL (normal range, 716–3004 ng/mL) and 176 ng/mL (normal range, 32–385 ng/mL), respectively. S100A8/A9, S100A12 and hsCRP (median 0.20 mg/dL; normal ≤0.6 mg/dL) had a low-to-moderate but significant association with disease activity at baseline; coefficients for associations between JADAS71-CRP low disease activity (LDA) and the biomarkers S100A8/A9, S100A12 and hsCRP were 0.23 (p=0.0038), 0.16 (p=0.0448) and 0.26 (p=0.0001), respectively. Baseline S100A8/A9 level above the median was associated with lower odds of ACR100 at Day 113 (p=0.0052). Figure 1 shows the associations of baseline biomarker values with Day 113 ACR and JADAS scores in the overall population. Baseline S100A8/A9 or S100A12 did not significantly influence ACR50 or ACR70 responses at Day 113, but high baseline values were associated with reduced odds of ACR90 (p=0.01), ACR100 (p=0.005), ACR-inactive disease (ID) (p=0.0001), and JADAS71-CRP (LDA) (p=0.02). By Day 477, elevated baseline S100A12 was still significantly associated with lower odds of ACR100 overall (0.467; p=0.0248) but baseline S100A8/A9 was not; at Day 645, neither was significantly associated with ACR100 response. At Day 113, changes from baseline in S100A8/A9 and S100A12 were correlated with ACR100 (coefficients of 0.22 [p=0.0082] and 0.26 [p=0.0015], respectively) and with ACR-ID (0.22 [p=0.0067] and 0.26 [p=0.0014], respectively); change in hsCRP was not significantly correlated with disease response.

Conclusion:

S100A8/A9 and S100A12 may serve as prognostic biomarkers to predict response to abatacept treatment at Day 113. Changes from baseline S100A8/A9 and S100A12 levels were more highly correlated with efficacy outcomes including ACR100 and ACR-ID at Day 113 compared with hsCRP.

References:

[1]Aljaberi N, et al. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2020;18:7.

[2]Hammer H, et al. Arthritis Res Ther 2011;13:R178.

[3]Nordal HH, et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014;15:335.

[4]Brunner H, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018;70:1144–1154.

Acknowledgements:

Professional medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Rob Coover, MPH, at Caudex and was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Disclosure of Interests:

Nicolino Ruperto Speakers bureau: NR has received honoraria for consultancies or speaker bureaus (< 10.000 USD each) from the following pharmaceutical companies in the past 3 years: Ablynx, Astrazeneca-Medimmune, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Sinergie, Sobi and UCB, Consultant of: NR has received honoraria for consultancies or speaker bureaus (< 10.000 USD each) from the following pharmaceutical companies in the past 3 years: Ablynx, Astrazeneca-Medimmune, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Sinergie, Sobi and UCB, Grant/research support from: The IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini (IGG), where NR works as full-time public employee has received contributions (>10.000 USD each) from the following industries in the last 3 years: Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, F Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sobi. This funding has been reinvested for the research activities of the hospital in a fully independent manner, without any commitment with third parties., Grant Schulert Speakers bureau: Novartis, Consultant of: SOBI, Alyssa Sproles: None declared, Sherry Thornton: None declared, Gabriel Vega Cornejo Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Parexel, Sanofi, Jordi Anton Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Gebro, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sobi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Gebro, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sobi, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Gebro, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Novartis, Novimmune, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, Ruben Cuttica Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Paid instructor for: AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Michael Henrickson: None declared, Ivan Foeldvari Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Hexal, MEDAC, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Daniel Kingsbury Consultant of: Pfizer, Margarita Askelson Consultant of: Currently working for Syneos Health providing services to Bristol Myers Squibb, Jinqi Liu Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Sumanta Mukherjee Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Daniel J Lovell Speakers bureau: Genentech, Wyeth Pharm, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-La Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Takeda, UBC, Wyeth Pharma, Xoma, Alberto Martini Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Idorsia, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Alexei Grom Consultant of: AB2Bio, Novartis, Sobi (NovImmune), Grant/research support from: AB2Bio, Novartis, Sobi (NovImmune), Hermine Brunner Speakers bureau: GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Paid instructor for: Novartis, Pfizer (funds go to CCHMC/employer), Consultant of: Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB (funds go to CCHMC/employer), Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer (funds go to CCHMC/employer).

A Risk Score Model for Locoregional Recurrence Following Upfront Surgery for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Implications for Adjuvant Therapy

AIMS

The aims of the study were to identify predictors of locoregional failure (LRF) following surgery for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, develop a prediction risk score model of LRF and evaluate the impact of postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) on LRF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on patients with stages I-III pancreatic adenocarcinoma who underwent surgery at our institution (2005-2016). Univariable and then multivariable analyses were used to evaluate clinicopathological factors associated with LRF for patients who did not receive PORT. The risk score of LRF was calculated based on the sum of coefficients of the predictors of LRF. The model was applied to the entire cohort to evaluate the impact of PORT on the high- and low-risk groups for LRF.

RESULTS

In total, 467 patients were identified (median follow-up 22 months). Among patients who did not receive PORT (n = 440), predictors of LRF were pN+, involved or close ≤1 mm margin(s), moderately and poorly differentiated tumour grade and lymphovascular invasion. After adding patients who received PORT, the 2-year LRF in the high-risk group was 57% for patients who did not receive PORT (n = 242) and 32% among patients who received PORT (n = 22), with an absolute benefit to LRF of 25% (95% confidence interval 5-52%, P = 0.07). The 2-year overall survival for the high-versus the low-risk group was 36% versus 67% (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This risk group classification could be used to identify pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients with higher risk of LRF who may benefit from PORT. However, validation and prospective evaluation are warranted.

Impact of COVID-19 on social media as perceived by the oncology community: results from a survey in collaboration with the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the OncoAlert Network

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all aspects of modern-day oncology, including how stakeholders communicate through social media. We surveyed oncology stakeholders in order to assess their attitudes pertaining to social media and how it has been affected during the pandemic.

Materials and methods

A 40-item survey was distributed to stakeholders from 8 July to 22 July 2020 and was promoted through the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the OncoAlert Network.

Results

One thousand and seventy-six physicians and stakeholders took part in the survey. In total, 57.3% of respondents were medical oncologists, 50.6% aged <40 years, 50.8% of female gender and mostly practicing in Europe (51.5%). More than 90% of respondents considered social media a useful tool for distributing scientific information and for education. Most used social media to stay up to date on cancer care in general (62.5%) and cancer care during COVID-19 (61%) given the constant flow of information. Respondents also used social media to interact with other oncologists (78.8%) and with patients (34.4%). Overall, 61.1% of respondents were satisfied with the role that social media was playing during the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, 41.1% of respondents reported trouble in discriminating between credible and less credible information and 30% stated social networks were a source of stress. For this reason, one-third of respondents reduced its use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding meeting attendance, a total of 59.1% of responding physicians preferred in-person meetings to virtual ones, and 51.8% agreed that virtual meetings and social distancing could hamper effective collaboration.

Conclusion

Social media has a useful role in supporting cancer care and professional engagement in oncology. Although one-third of respondents reported reduced use of social media due to stress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority found social media useful to keep up to date and were satisfied with the role social media was playing during the pandemic.

•

More than 90% of the 1076 respondents believed in the role of social media promoting scientific information and education.

•

41% of respondents had trouble discriminating between credible and less credible information on social media.

•

61% of respondents used social media to stay up to date with scientific information regarding cancer care and COVID-19.

•

The flow of information on COVID-19 via social media was deemed useful for 49% of respondents but caused stress in 30%.

•

52% of respondents agreed that virtual meetings and social distancing could hamper effective collaboration.

Rapid assessment on the utilization of maternal and child health services during COVID-19 in Rwanda

SETTING

All public health facilities in Rwanda, East Africa.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the change in the utilization of maternal and child health (MCH) services during the COVID-19 outbreak.

DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional quantitative study.

RESULTS

During the COVID-19 outbreak in Rwanda, the utilization of 15 MCH services in all four categories-antenatal care (ANC), deliveries, postnatal care (PNC) and vaccinations-significantly declined. The Northern and Western Provinces were affected the most, with significant decrease in respectively nine and 12 services. The Eastern Province showed no statistically significant utilization changes. Kigali was the only province with significant increase in the fourth PNC visits for babies and mothers, while the Southern Province showed significant increase in utilization of measles + rubella (MR) 1 vaccination.

CONCLUSION

Access and utilization of basic MCH services were considerably affected during the COVID-19 outbreak in Rwanda. This study highlighted the need for pre-emptive measures to avoid disruptions in MCH service delivery and routine health services during outbreaks. In order for the reductions in MCH service utilization to be reversed, targeted resources and active promotion of ANC, institutional deliveries and vaccinations need to be prioritized. Further studies on long-term impact and geographical variations are needed.

Factors associated with pain at the end-of-life among older adults in Mexico

OBJECTIVES

The goal of care at the end-of-life has changed in recent years to encompass not only the relief of suffering but also improve the quality of death. Palliative care offers a coordinated and multidisciplinary approach to improving the quality of life and quality of care of individuals and their families facing illness at the end-of-life. This manuscript examines the end-of-life of older adults in Mexico and the factors associated with pain in this period of their life.

STUDY DESIGN

We used data from the Mexican Health and Aging Study (MHAS), a longitudinal panel study of adults 50 years and older in Mexico that is nationally representative of urban and rural areas and includes a next-of-kin questionnaire that captures the conditions during the last year of life of those who died. We used all four waves of data to construct a group of deceased individuals between 2001 and 2015, including information in the wave immediately before death and a complete next-of-kin questionnaire. We studied factors associated with pain at the end-of-life in this group.

METHODS

The dependent variable was pain reported over time among deceased individuals. We constructed pain categories based on whether the pain was reported in one or two waves (occasional and persistent), and the pain intensity reported (mild, moderate, or severe). We included independent variables previously reported to be related to pain, including sociodemographic, functional, and health characteristics. We used descriptive statistics and a multinomial regression model to examine the factors associated with pain in this group.

RESULTS

Pain was reported by 71.5% of older adults who died between 2001 and 2015. The prevalence of pain differed significantly by sociodemographic characteristics. Women had 1.69 higher odds of reporting severe pain than men. Compared to those with zero years of education, the odds of reporting severe pain were 0.72 for those with 1-6 years of education (P < 0.05) and 0.55 for those with more than 7 years (P < 0.001). Poor self-reported health, arthritis, taking more medications, depression, and functional limitations in the wave prior to death were associated with higher odds of persistent pain at the end-of-life (P < 0.05). Conversely, older age, more years of education, and diabetes were associated with lower odds of persistent pain (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of pain among older Mexican adults is high at the end-of-life. Sociodemographic factors, some chronic diseases, number of medications, psychosocial factors, and functional status impact the odds of reporting pain in this group at the end-of-life. Providing education to families on psychosocial interventions to improve the quality of care at the end-of-life is a pressing need in Mexico. These findings provide information to help policymakers and healthcare providers in Mexico improve the quality of care at the end-of-life.

Regional Therapies for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Systematic Review and Clinical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND

Resection is the foundation for cure for colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases; however, only 20% of patients are suitable for surgery. Those suitable would be considered for resection or local therapies before being considered for regional therapies. Noncurative treatment is usually systemic chemotherapy. For patients with liver-only or liver-predominant metastases that are unresectable, regional therapies [conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE), drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE), and transarterial radioembolization (TARE)] may be considered. We review the current evidence for regional therapies for CRC liver metastases.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Literature searches (January 2000 to March 2019 or January 2010 to March 2019 depending on the specific systematic review question) were conducted, including Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) abstracts.

RESULTS

A total of 4100 articles were identified; 15 studies were included in the review. There were no comparative data regarding the resectable population. There was either insufficient evidence (cTACE or DEB-TACE) or evidence against (TARE) the addition of regional therapies to systemic therapy in the first line in the unresectable population. There was either no evidence (cTACE) or weak evidence (DEB-TACE or TARE) for the addition of regional therapies with or without systemic therapy in the second line or later in the unresectable population.

CONCLUSION

Limited evidence supports the delivery of percutaneous regional therapies in patients with unresectable CRC liver metastases. There are strong data demonstrating positive effects of TARE within the liver, but they do not translate to a benefit in patient-important outcomes. DEB-TACE appears to offer a survival benefit in the second-line setting, although the evidence is limited by small sample size and larger trials are needed.

PD-1 inhibition in malignant melanoma and lack of clinical response in chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the same patients: a case series

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (cll) is the most common adult leukemia in the Western world. Unfortunately, affected patients are often immunosuppressed and at increased risk of infection and secondary malignancy. Previous meta-analysis has found that patients with cll have a risk of melanoma that is increased by a factor of 4 compared with the general population. Recent advances in the understanding of the PD receptor pathway have led to immunotherapies that target cancer cells. The use of PD-1 inhibitors is now considered first-line treatment for BRAF wild-type metastatic melanoma. Interestingly, early preclinical data suggest that inhibition of that pathway could also be used in the treatment of cll; however, recent clinical data did not support the effectiveness of that approach. In this case series, we highlight 2 cases in which patients with cll and concurrent malignant melanoma underwent treatment with PD-1 inhibitors and were found to experience reductions in their white blood cell counts without improvement in their hemoglobin. Those cases further illustrate that treatment of cll with PD-1 inhibitors is ineffective.

SAT0104 MAINTENANCE OF SDAI REMISSION AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES (PROS) FOLLOWING DOSE DE-ESCALATION OF ABATACEPT IN MTX-NAÏVE, ANTI-CITRULLINATED PROTEIN ANTIBODY (ACPA)+ PATIENTS WITH EARLY RA: RESULTS FROM AVERT-2, A RANDOMISED PHASE IIIB STUDY

Background:

The Phase IIIbAssessingVeryEarlyRATreatment (AVERT)-2 trial (NCT02504268) evaluated SC abatacept (ABA) + MTX vs ABA placebo (PBO) + MTX in ACPA+ patients (pts) with early, active RA.1Results from the 56-wk induction period (IP) showed a significantly greater proportion of pts treated with ABA + MTX (vs MTX alone) reported clinically meaningful improvements in HAQ-DI, global disease activity and pain, which were sustained at 52 wks.2

Objectives:

To report maintenance of SDAI remission and PROs from the AVERT-2 de-escalation (D-E) period.

Methods:

Pts received blinded SC ABA (125 mg once wkly [QW]) + MTX or ABA PBO + MTX induction treatment for 56 wks. In this analysis, pts who completed induction with ABA + MTX and had sustained SDAI remission (≤3.3 at Wks 40 and 52) were re-randomised 1:1:1 to ABA QW + MTX, stepwise D-E (ABA every other wk + MTX for 24 wks then ABA PBO + MTX for 24 wks), or ABA QW + MTX PBO for 48 wks in the D-E period. PROs included physical function (HAQ-DI [0–3; decrease=improvement] and Short-Form 36 [SF-36] v2.0 Physical Functioning Scale [PFS]; 0–100; increase=improvement), and fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-F] score; 0–52; decrease=improvement). Endpoints included: proportion of pts in SDAI remission and pts with HAQ-DI response (decrease from IP Day [D]1 in HAQ-DI ≥0.30); adjusted mean change (adMC) from D-E D1 in HAQ-DI, SF-36 PFS or FACIT-F to D-E Wk 48. adMCs were estimated using a mixed effect model with repeated measures.

Results:

147 ABA + MTX-treated pts were re-randomised in the D-E period. Across re-randomised arms, the range of mean scores was 1.87–2.52 for SDAI and 0.18–0.30 for HAQ-DI at entry into D-E period (D-E D1). 74% of pts receiving ABA QW + MTX maintained SDAI remission at D-E Wk 48 (Fig 1); this proportion was higher than in the ABA withdrawal and ABA QW + MTX PBO arms. Pts continuing ABA QW + MTX maintained HAQ-DI response during D-E (Fig 1), but by D-E Wk 48 the proportion of pts with HAQ-DI response in the ABA withdrawal arm declined by 30%. At D-E Wk 48, a small numerical decrease (adMC –0.04) in HAQ-DI was observed in the ABA QW + MTX arm; increases were seen in the withdrawal (adMC 0.26) and ABA QW + MTX PBO arms (adMC 0.16). By D-E Wk 48, SF-36 PFS increased (adMC 1.68) in the ABA QW + MTX arm but decreased in the withdrawal (adMC –3.34) and ABA QW + MTX PBO (adMC –1.45) arms. FACIT-F score increased during D-E in all arms, but the increase at D-E Wk 48 was lower in the ABA QW + MTX arm (adMC 0.79) vs the withdrawal (adMC 4.12) and ABA QW + MTX PBO (adMC 2.41) arms. Similar trends were seen for other PROs including Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-RA; while activity impairment remained stable in the ABA QW + MTX arm, there was a trend for worsening in the withdrawal arm.

Conclusion:

In the AVERT-2 D-E period, continued combination therapy (abatacept + MTX) resulted in maintenance of benefits on PROs, particularly physical functioning, in seropositive pts with early RA. D-E of abatacept followed by complete withdrawal was associated with the greatest loss of remission as well as worsening of PROs. The PRO results corresponded well to the maintenance of clinical (SDAI) remission.

References:

[1]Emery P, et al. ACR 2018; San Diego, USA: Poster 563.

[2]Emery P, et al. ACR 2019; Atlanta, USA: Poster 1423.

Acknowledgments:

Joanna Wright (medical writing, Caudex; funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb)

Disclosure of Interests:

Paul Emery Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche (all paid to employer), Consultant of: AbbVie (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Bristol-Myers Squibb (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Lilly (clinical trials, advisor), Merck Sharp & Dohme (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Novartis (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Pfizer (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Roche (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Samsung (clinical trials, advisor), Sandoz (clinical trials, advisor), UCB (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), 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, Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Thomas Huizinga Grant/research support from: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Gustavo Citera Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gema, Genzyme, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gema, Genzyme, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Clifton Bingham Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Subhashis Banerjee Shareholder of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lily, Pfizer, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb (current); AbbVie, Lily, Pfizer (past), Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Joe Zhuo Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kuan-Hsiang Gary Huang Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roy Fleischmann Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, IngelhCentrexion, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Selecta, Taiho, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB

FRI0090 MAINTENANCE OF CLINICAL RESPONSE WITH ABATACEPT IN COMBINATION WITH MTX IN INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS WITH EARLY RA WHO ARE MTX-NAÏVE AND ANTI-CITRULLINATED PROTEIN ANTIBODY (ACPA)+: RESULTS FROM THE INDUCTION PERIOD OF AVERT-2, A RANDOMISED PHASE IIIB STUDY

Background:

In the 56-wk induction period (IP) of the Phase IIIbAssessingVeryEarlyRATreatment (AVERT)-2 trial (NCT02504268), more patients (pts) achieved SDAI remission (≤3.3) with abatacept (ABA) + MTX vs ABA placebo (PBO) + MTX at IP Wk 52.1It is unknown whether each individual pt within a treatment (Tx) group achieves and sustains the same efficacy endpoints at all time points during the IP.

Objectives:

To investigate whether ABA effectiveness is sustained by individual pts who achieved SDAI remission (≤3.3), SDAI low disease activity (LDA; >3.3–11), DAS28 (CRP) <2.6, ACR50/70 response or Boolean remission at IP Wk 24 (AVERT-2 primary endpoint) and both Wks 40 and 52 (Wks 40/52).

Methods:

Pts were randomised 3:2 to blinded SC ABA (125 mg/wk) + MTX or ABA PBO + MTX induction Tx for 56 wks. Key inclusion criteria: age ≥18 yrs; RA diagnosis (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria); RA duration ≤6 mos; SDAI >11; ACPA+; CRP >3 mg/L or ESR ≥28 mm/h; TJC ≥3 and SJC ≥3; DMARD naïve. Response rates were investigated by Tx arm in the cohort 1 analysis population (all randomised pts treated in the IP [intent-to-treat analysis]).

Results:

Of randomised cohort 1, 752 pts were treated during the IP: 451 with ABA + MTX and 301 with ABA PBO + MTX. Baseline characteristics were similar across Tx arms.1Stringent SDAI remission endpoint at IP Wk 24 was achieved by 22% of ABA + MTX-treated pts; of these, 56% sustained SDAI remission at IP Wks 40/52 (Table). A similar proportion of ABA + MTX-treated pts achieved (17%) and sustained (58%) Boolean remission at IP Wks 24 and 40/52. At IP Wk 24, 42% of ABA + MTX-treated pts achieved DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 and 74% sustained DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 to IP Wks 40/52; a high proportion of patients sustained ACR50/70 responses at IP Wks 40/52 (83% and 79%, respectively). A lower proportion of pts sustained SDAI LDA to IP Wks 40/52 vs other endpoints (Table). Most efficacy endpoints were achieved by fewer pts who received ABA PBO + MTX than ABA + MTX (Table); among responders in this Tx group, fewer sustained remission at Wks 40/52, which correlates with a higher proportion of pts sustaining SDAI LDA at Wks 40/52 with ABA PBO + MTX than ABA + MTX.

Conclusion:

The majority of individual pts with RA who achieved clinically stringent endpoints such as SDAI remission, DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 or Boolean remission, as well as clinically meaningful endpoints such as ACR50/70 at IP Wk 24 with weekly SC abatacept, sustained their responses to Wks 40/52. The high proportion of patients achieving early stringent remission and response to SC abatacept by individual pts may be indicative of sustained efficacy over time.

References:

[1]Emery P, et al. ACR 2018; San Diego, USA: Poster 563.

Table .

Proportion of Pts With Response at IP Wk 24 Who Also Achieved Remission at Wks 40/52

EndpointResponders at IP Wk 24, n (%)Responders at IP Wk 24 and Wks 40/52, n/N (%)ABA + MTX(n=451)ABA PBO + MTX(n=301)ABA + MTX*ABA PBO + MTX*SDAI remission (≤3.3)100 (22)40 (13)56/100 (56)17/40 (43)SDAI low disease activity (>3.3–11)167 (37)82 (27)46/167 (28)32/82 (39)DAS28 (CRP) <2.6188 (42)78 (26)139/188 (74)43/78 (55)ACR50 response†260 (58)125 (42)215/260 (83)92/125 (74)ACR70 response†156 (35)66 (22)123/156 (79)42/66 (64)Boolean remission76 (17)29 (10)44/76 (58)8/29 (28)

*% based on number of pts within each Tx group who achieved response at IP Wk 24 (denominator);†Response at IP Wks 24 and 52

Acknowledgments:

Lola Parfitt (medical writing, Caudex; funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb)

Disclosure of Interests:

Paul Emery Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche (all paid to employer), Consultant of: AbbVie (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Bristol-Myers Squibb (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Lilly (clinical trials, advisor), Merck Sharp & Dohme (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Novartis (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Pfizer (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Roche (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), Samsung (clinical trials, advisor), Sandoz (clinical trials, advisor), UCB (consultant, clinical trials, advisor), 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, Vivian Bykerk: None declared, Clifton Bingham Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Thomas Huizinga Grant/research support from: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Consultant of: Ablynx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Sanofi, Gustavo Citera Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gema, Genzyme, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gema, Genzyme, Novartis and Pfizer Inc, Kuan-Hsiang Gary Huang Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Yedid Elbez Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Karissa Lozenski Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roy Fleischmann Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer, IngelhCentrexion, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Selecta, Taiho, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB

THU0497 MAINTENANCE OF MINIMAL DISEASE ACTIVITY OR INACTIVE DISEASE STATUS AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN INDIVIDUAL PAEDIATRIC PATIENTS WITH JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH SUBCUTANEOUS ABATACEPT

Background:

Maintenance of clinical response over time has been shown in individual patients (pts) with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) treated with SC abatacept (ABA).1It is unknown whether each individual pt with sustained efficacy also consistently maintains the previously reported shorter-term benefits on patient-reported outcomes (PROs)2,3over time.

Objectives:

Investigate whether combined efficacy and stringent, optimal PRO responses to ABA treatment are maintained by individual pts with pJIA over time.

Methods:

In this analysis of the intent-to-treat population, pts in two age cohorts (2–5 and 6–17 yrs) who achieved clinical response to weekly SC ABA (10–<25 kg [50 mg], 25–<50 kg [87.5 mg], ≥50 kg [125 mg]) at Mo 4 (time point of primary pharmacokinetic endpoint4) were followed for 2 yrs. Stringent efficacy outcomes (Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score 27 [JADAS27] minimal disease activity [MDA; ≤3.8] and inactive disease [ID; ≤1] status) were combined with optimal PRO endpoints (childhood [C]HAQ-DI=0, Parental Global Assessment [PaGA] ≤1 and Pain visual analogue scale [VAS] <35). Combined efficacy and PRO responses were analysed at Mos 4, 13 and 21.

Results:

219 pts entered the study (46 [21.0%] 2–5 yrs; 173 [79.0%] 6–17 yrs); a subgroup of these pts achieved a clinical response at Mo 4 (Table 1). Many pts who achieved JADAS27 MDA or JADAS27 ID combined with optimal PROs at Mo 4 sustained their response at Mo 13, and at both Mo 13 and Mo 21 in the 2–5-yr and 6–17-yr cohorts (Table 1). Across the cohorts, 33–88% of pts maintained a combined JADAS27 MDA with optimal PRO responses through Mo 21. Where estimable, median times to combined efficacy and specific optimal PRO responses were consistent across the cohorts (Table 2; Figs 1, 2).

Table 1.

Proportion of pts with combined efficacy and optimal PRO responses at Mos 4, 13 and 21

EndpointResponders at Mo 4Responders at Mos 4 and 13*Responders at Mos 4, 13 and 21*2–5 yrs (n=46)6–17 yrs (n=173)2–5 yrs6–17 yrs2–5 yrs6–17 yrsJADAS27 MDA and CHAQ-DI=09 (20)34 (20)5/9 (56)25/34 (74)3/9 (33)16/34 (47)JADAS27 MDA and PaGA ≤18 (17)14 (8)8/8 (100)7/14 (50)7/8 (88)5/14 (36)JADAS27 MDA and Pain VAS <35 mm28 (61)70 (41)25/28 (89)58/70 (83)21/28 (75)43/70 (61)JADAS27 ID and CHAQ-DI=07 (15)20 (12)2/7 (29)13/20 (65)1/7 (14)9/20 (45)JADAS27 ID and PaGA ≤16 (13)10 (6)4/6 (67)4/10 (40)4/6 (67)4/10 (40)JADAS27 ID and Pain VAS <35 mm17 (37)31 (18)10/17 (59)22/31 (71)8/17 (47)17/31 (55)

Data are n (%) or n/N (%). *% based on n of pts who achieved response at Mo 4 (denominator)

Table 2.

Kaplan–Meier estimates for median (95% CI) times (mos) to achieving combined efficacy and optimal PRO responses

Endpoint2–5 yrs6–17 yrsJADAS27 MDA and CHAQ-DI=021.5 (6.8, NE)21.5 (13.1, 24.4)JADAS27 MDA and PaGA ≤1NE (15.9, NE)24.6 (24.3, NE)JADAS27 MDA and Pain VAS <35 mm2.8 (1.9, 2.9)3.8 (3.7, 6.6)JADAS27 ID and CHAQ-DI=0NE (18.4, NE)24.4 (18.7, NE)JADAS27 ID and PaGA ≤1NE (21.3, NE)24.6 (24.3, NE)JADAS27 ID and Pain VAS <35 mm3.8 (3.8, 10.3)13.2 (10.3, 15.9)

NE=not estimable

Conclusion:

Many individuals with pJIA who achieved stringent efficacy and PRO measures with weekly SC abatacept by Mo 4 sustained them over 2 years. Time to achieve combined efficacy and Pain VAS <35 response was shorter than that for PaGA ≤1 and CHAQ-DI=0.

References:

[1]Ruperto N, et al.Ann Rheum Dis2019;78:99–100 (abstr OP0056)

[2]Brunner H, et al.Arthritis Rheumatol2019;71(suppl 10):abstr 2707

[3]Ruperto N, et al.Ann Rheum Dis2017;76:75 (abstr OP0058)

[4]Brunner HI, et al.Arthritis Rheumatol2018;70:1144–54

Acknowledgments:

Katerina Kumpan, PhD, Caudex; funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb

Disclosure of Interests: :

Hermine Brunner Consultant of: Hoffman-La Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, Merck Serono, AbbVie, Amgen, Alter, AstraZeneca, Baxalta Biosimilars, Biogen Idec, Boehringer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Janssen, MedImmune, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Biosciences, Speakers bureau: GSK, Roche, and Novartis, Nikolay Tzaribachev: None declared, Ingrid Louw Consultant of: Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche (advisory boards), Inmaculada Calvo Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clementia, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-La Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-La Roche, Novartis, Francisco Zapata: None declared, Gerd Horneff Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bayer, Chugai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Ivan Foeldvari Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Daniel Kingsbury: None declared, Maria Gastanaga Grant/research support from: Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, Carine Wouters Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, Johannes Breedt: None declared, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Marleen Nys Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Margarita Askelson Consultant of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Joe Zhuo Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Alberto Martini Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lily, EMD Serono, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Daniel J Lovell Consultant of: Abbott (consulting and PI), AbbVie (PI), Amgen (consultant and DSMC Chairperson), AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb (PI), Celgene, Forest Research (DSMB Chairman), GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-La Roche, Janssen (co-PI), Novartis (consultant and PI), Pfizer (consultant and PI), Roche (PI), Takeda, UBC (consultant and PI), Wyeth, Employee of: Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Speakers bureau: Wyeth, Nicolino Ruperto Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, F Hoffmann-La Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sobi (paid to institution), Consultant of: Ablynx, AbbVie, AstraZeneca-Medimmune, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Sanofi, Servier, Sinergie, Sobi, Takeda, Speakers bureau: Ablynx, AbbVie, AstraZeneca-Medimmune, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, EMD Serono, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharma, Sanofi, Servier, Sinergie, Sobi, Takeda

FRI0038 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ABATACEPT EXPOSURE AND EFFICACY MEASURES IN EARLY MTX-NAIVE ANTI-CITRULLINATED PROTEIN ANTIBODY-POSITIVE PATIENTS WITH RA DURING THE DE-ESCALATION PERIOD OF A PHASE IIIB STUDY

Background:

Although EULAR/ACR guidelines suggest tapering biologic treatment for RA following sustained remission in patients (pts), specific de-escalation (DE) regimens are not defined. The Phase IIIb Assessing Very Early Rheumatoid arthritis Treatment (AVERT)-2 trial (NCT02504268) is evaluating SC abatacept (ABA) + MTX versus ABA placebo (PBO) + MTX in Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibody (ACPA)-positive pts with early (ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria; disease duration ≤6 mths), active RA (SDAI >11). AVERT-2 was designed to investigate achievement of SDAI remission and a clinically meaningful dose DE strategy among pts in sustained remission who completed induction with ABA + MTX. In moderately to severely active RA and JIA patients, a relationship between ABA Cmin and efficacy was observed. Therefore, this analysis in very early RA patients, reports on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and immunogenicity of ABA and the maintenance of remission during the DE period of AVERT-2.

Objectives:

To assess the relationship between changes in ABA exposure and the maintenance of remission and the effect of immunogenicity on exposure during the DE period of AVERT-2.

Methods:

Pts received blinded SC ABA (125 mg once wkly [QW]) + MTX or ABA PBO + MTX induction treatment for 56 wks. Pts who completed induction with ABA + MTX and had sustained SDAI remission (≤3.3 at Wks 40 and 52) were re-randomized 1:1:1 to ABA QW + MTX for 48 wks (Arm C), ABA every other wk (EOW) + MTX for 24 wks followed by ABA PBO + MTX for 24 wks (Arm D), or ABA QW + MTX PBO for 48 wks (Arm E) in the DE period. ABA trough (Cmin) and anti-drug antibody (ADA) samples were collected in all subjects during the DE period. Serum ABA concentrations and ADA were measured using a validated enzyme immunoassay method and an electrochemiluminescence assay, respectively. Efficacy endpoints included change from DE Day 1 in SDAI score, HAQ-DI score, Physician’s Global Assessment (PhGA), and tender (TJC) and swollen (SJC) joint counts. The relationship between ABA Cmin and efficacy endpoints were assessed. Additionally, the impact of immunogenicity on ABA Cmin was explored.

Results:

Mean ABA Cmin values remained stable throughout the DE period for subjects in Arms C and E. ABA Cmin values decreased by ~50% in subjects in Arm D for the first 24 weeks from the start of DE and were ~0 for weeks 24-48 consistent with the change in the frequency of ABA dosing from EOW to ABA withdrawal (Figure 1 top).

Figure 1:

Mean (SD) ABA Cmin values (top) and Mean Change From Baseline in SDAI (bottom) in Subjects in DE Arm C (ABA QW + MTX), D (ABA EOW + MTX followed by ABA placebo + MTX), and E (ABA QW + MTX placebo)

The incidence of immunogenicity appeared to increase upon withdrawal of ABA in Arm D. ADA formation did not appear to affect ABA Cmin, as ABA Cmin remained consistent between pts with and without ADA.

Upon withdrawal of ABA in Arm D, there appeared to be an increase in the mean change from baseline (Day 1 of DE) in SDAI over time, which followed a similar time course as the washout of ABA (Figure 1 bottom). Similar results were observed for other efficacy endpoints such as HAQ-DI, PhGA, TJC, and SJC.

Conclusion:

The PK data in these early onset, MTX-naive, ACPA+ RA pts correlated well with the maintenance of remission in Arms A and E. Tapering of ABA from EOW to MTX only in Arm D results in a corresponding decrease in ABA Cmin, an increase in positive antibody response, and loss of remission.

References:

[1]Emery et. al. ACR [Abstract L11]. Nov. 2019. Atlanta GA USA

[2]Li et. al. J Clin Pharmacol. Vol 59(2). Feb 2019.

Disclosure of Interests:

Yash Gandhi Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sean Connolly Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kuan-Hsiang Gary Huang Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Robert Wong Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Shannon Chilewski Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bindu Murthy Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb

A New Hope

Immuno-oncology uses the body’s inherent immune system to combat malignancy. […]

What is a clinically meaningful survival benefit in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer?

Assessment of the clinical benefit of cancer treatments can be highly subjective, influenced by both perspective and context. Such assessments are required in regulatory and policy decision-making, but consistency between jurisdictions is often lacking. Clear and consistent standards for determining when a treatment offers a meaningful benefit, relative to the current standard of care, can help to address issues of equity and transparency in health technology assessment. For metastatic colorectal cancer (mcrc), no standardized Canadian definition of clinically meaningful benefit has yet been proposed. Colorectal Cancer Canada therefore convened a group of medical oncologists expert in colorectal cancer to review the literature about clinical significance. The resulting consensus is intended to apply to any therapeutic agent being considered in the setting of chemotherapy-refractory mcrc. It was agreed that overall survival is the appropriate measure of clinical efficacy in chemorefractory mcrc. As quantitative targets for efficacy, an improvement of 2 months or more in median overall survival or a hazard ratio for survival of 0.75 or lower (or both) are proposed as the threshold for clinically meaningful benefit. That threshold could be influenced by a treatment's effect on quality of life. Treatment toxicity is also relevant to the assessment of clinical benefit in this setting, specifically when significant differences in treatment tolerability are evident.

Hypertension as a predictor of advanced colorectal cancer outcome and cetuximab treatment response

Background

Adrenergic receptor stimulation is involved in the development of hypertension (htn) and has been implicated in cancer progression and dissemination of metastases in various tumours, including colon cancer. Adrenergic antagonists such as beta-blockers (bbs) demonstrate inhibition of invasion and migration in colon cancer cell lines and have been associated with decreased mortality in colorectal cancer (crc). We examined the association of baseline htn and bb use with overall (os) and progression-free survival (pfs) in patients with pretreated, chemotherapy refractory, metastatic crc (mcrc). We also examined baseline htn as a predictor of cetuximab efficacy.

Methods

Using data from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group co.17 study [cetuximab vs. best supportive care (bsc)], we coded baseline htn and use of anti-htn medications, including bbs, for 572 patients. The chi-square test was used to assess the associations between those variables and baseline characteristics. Cox regression models were used for univariate and multivariate analyses of os and pfs by htn diagnosis and bb use.

Results

Baseline htn, bb use, and anti-htn medication use were not found to be prognostic for improved os. Baseline htn and bb use were not significant predictors of cetuximab benefit.

Conclusions

In chemorefractory mcrc, neither baseline htn nor bb use is a significant prognostic factor. Baseline htn and bb use are not predictive of cetuximab benefit. Further investigation to determine whether baseline htn or bb use have a similarly insignificant impact on prognosis in patients receiving earlier lines of treatment remains warranted.

Outcomes by treatment modality in elderly patients with localized gastric and esophageal cancer

Background

We aimed to assess current treatment patterns and outcomes in elderly patients with localized gastric and esophageal (ge) cancers.

Methods

This retrospective analysis considered patients 75 years of age or older with ge cancers treated during 2012-2014. Patient demographics and tumour characteristics were collected. Overall survival (os) and disease-free survival were assessed by univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusting for demographics. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine factors affecting treatment choices.

Results

The 110 patients in the study cohort had a median age of 81 years (range: 75-99 years). Primary disease sites were esophageal (55%) and gastric (45%). Treatment received included radiation therapy alone (29%), surgery alone (26%), surgery plus perioperative therapy (14%), chemoradiation alone (10%), and supportive care alone (14%). In multivariable analyses, surgery (hazard ratio: 0.48; 95% confidence interval: 0.26 to 0.90; p = 0.02) was the only independent predictor for improved os. Patients with a good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (p = 0.008), gastric disease site (p = 0.02), and adenocarcinoma histology (p = 0.01) were more likely to undergo surgery.

Conclusions

At our institution, few patients 75 years of age and older received multimodality therapy for localized ge cancers. Outcomes were better for patients who underwent surgery than for those who did not. To ensure optimal treatment selection, comprehensive geriatric assessment should be considered for patients 75 years of age and older with localized ge cancers.