Search

Objectives. To compare the severity of inpatient hospitalizations between undocumented immigrants and Medi-Cal patients in a large safety-net hospital in Los Angeles, California. Methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of all 2019 inpatient stays at a Los Angeles hospital (n = 22 480), including patients of all races/ethnicities. We examined 3 measures by using insurance status to approximate immigration status: illness severity, length of hospital stay, and repeat hospitalizations. We calculated group differences between undocumented and Medi-Cal patients by using inverse probability weighted regression adjustment separately for patients aged 18 to 64 years and those aged 65 years and older. Results. Younger undocumented patients had less severe illness and shorter lengths of stay than their Medi-Cal counterparts. Older undocumented immigrants also had less severe illness, but had similar lengths of stay and were more likely to have repeated hospitalizations. Conclusions. While existing work suggests that undocumented immigrants could have more severe health care needs on account of their poorer access to medical care, we did not see clear health disadvantages among hospitalized undocumented immigrants, especially younger patients. There were fewer differences between undocumented and Medi-Cal patients who were older. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(11):2019–2026. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306485 )

BACKGROUND: The fatigue of a muscle or muscle group can produce global responses to a variety of systems (i.e., cardiovascular, endocrine, and others). There are also reported strength and endurance impairments of non-exercised muscles following the fatigue of another muscle; however, the literature is inconsistent.OBJECTIVE: To examine whether non-local muscle fatigue (NLMF) occurs following the performance of a fatiguing bout of exercise of a different muscle(s).DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.SEARCH AND INCLUSION: A systematic literature search using a Boolean search strategy was conducted with PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in April 2020, and was supplemented with additional 'snowballing' searches up to September 2020. To be included in our analysis, studies had to include at least one intentional performance measure (i.e., strength, endurance, or power), which if reduced could be considered evidence of muscle fatigue, and also had to include the implementation of a fatiguing protocol to a location (i.e., limb or limbs) that differed to those for which performance was measured. We excluded studies that measured only mechanistic variables such as electromyographic activity, or spinal/supraspinal excitability. After search and screening, 52 studies were eligible for inclusion including 57 groups of participants (median sample = 11) and a total of 303 participants.RESULTS: The main multilevel meta-analysis model including all effects sizes (278 across 50 clusters [median = 4, range = 1 to 18 effects per cluster) revealed a trivial point estimate with high precision for the interval estimate [- 0.02 (95% CIs = - 0.14 to 0.09)], yet with substantial heterogeneity (Q(277) = 642.3, p CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the findings do not support the existence of a general NLMF effect; however, when examining specific types of performance outcomes, there may be an effect specifically upon endurance-based outcomes (i.e., time to task failure). However, there are relatively fewer studies that have examined endurance effects or mechanisms explaining this possible effect, in addition to fewer studies including women or younger and older participants, and considering causal effects of prior training history through the use of longitudinal intervention study designs. Thus, it seems pertinent that future research on NLMF effects should be redirected towards these still relatively unexplored areas.

INTRODUCTION: Transplant eligibility for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is determined by the imaging identification of tumor burden within Milan criteria. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS) reduce portal hypertension but may impact HCC visualization. It was hypothesized that the presence of pre-transplant TIPS would correlate with occult HCC and reduced survival. METHODS: A single-center retrospective case control study was performed among liver transplant recipients with HCC (2000–2017). The primary endpoint was occult disease on explant pathology. Backward stepwise elimination of candidate variables was modeled with logistic regression (LR). Secondary endpoints included disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), evaluated with Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: 40 of 640 patients had TIPS and more frequently exhibited occult disease (80.0% vs. 43.1%, p

Behm, DG, Alizadeh, S, Hadjizadeh Anvar, S, Mahmoud, MMI, Ramsay, E, Hanlon, C, and Cheatham, S. Foam rolling prescription: a clinical commentary. J Strength Cond Res 34(11): 3301-3308, 2020-Although the foam rolling and roller massage literature generally reports acute increases in range of motion (ROM) with either trivial or small performance improvements, there is little information regarding appropriate rolling prescription. The objective of this literature review was to appraise the evidence and provide the best prescriptive recommendations for rolling to improve ROM and performance. The recommendations represent studies with the greatest magnitude effect size increases in ROM and performance. A systematic search of the rolling-related literature found in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted using related terms such as foam rolling, roller massage, ROM, flexibility, performance, and others. From the measures within articles that monitored ROM (25), strength (41), jump (41), fatigue (67), and sprint (62) variables; regression correlations and predictive quadratic equations were formulated for number of rolling sets, repetition frequency, set duration, and rolling intensity. The analysis revealed the following conclusions. To achieve the greatest ROM, the regression equations predicted rolling prescriptions involving 1-3 sets of 2-4-second repetition duration (time for a single roll in one direction over the length of a body part) with a total rolling duration of 30-120-second per set. Based on the fewer performance measures, there were generally trivial to small magnitude decreases in strength and jump measures. In addition, there was insufficient evidence to generalize on the effects of rolling on fatigue and sprint measures. In summary, relatively small volumes of rolling can improve ROM with generally trivial to small effects on strength and jump performance.

Both hormone therapy (HT) and antiretroviral therapy (ART) can be lifesaving for transgender women (TW) living with HIV, but each has side effects and potential drug-drug interactions (DDI). We assessed how concerns about HT-ART interactions affect treatment adherence.This study used a cross-sectional survey of TW (n = 87) in Los Angeles, CA.Fifty-four percent were living with HIV; 64% used HT. Only 49% of TW living with HIV discussed ART-HT DDI with their provider; 40% reported not taking ART (12%), HT (12%), or both (16%) as directed due to DDI concerns.Imperfect HT/ART use and limited provider communication suggests a need for improved HT-ART integration.

Primary biliary cholangitis, formerly known as primary biliary cirrhosis, is a chronic, autoimmune, and cholestatic disease ameliorating the biliary epithelial system causing fibrosis and end-stage liver disease, over time. Patients range from an asymptomatic phase early in the disease course, to symptoms of decompensated cirrhosis later in its course. This review focuses on the current consensus on the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of patients with primary biliary cholangitis. We also discuss established medical management as well as novel and investigational therapeutics in the pipeline for management of PBC.

Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a progressive autoimmune liver disease that can result in cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease. We aim to evaluate hospitalization burden and in-hospital mortality among PBC patients in the USA. Using data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2007 to 2014, hospitalizations among US adults with PBC were stratified by sex, age, and race/ethnicity. Overall in-hospital mortality was stratified by these variables and adjusted multivariate regression models evaluated for predictors of in-hospital mortality. From 2007 to 2014, there were 18,279 hospitalizations among adults with PBC (15.0% male, mean age 63.8 years, 41.3% cirrhosis). Among non-Hispanic whites, the proportion of total PBC hospitalizations increased from 57.8% in 2007 to 71.2% in 2014, compared to 4.1–6.3% for African-Americans, 8.6–10.9% for Hispanics, and 1.7–2.8% for Asians (p

Hepatic angiosarcoma is a rare and heterogeneous neoplasm that carries with it an especially poor prognosis. Diagnosis is challenging given that patients often present with vague, nonspecific complaints, and early multiorgan dysfunction has the potential to produce a number of unique clinical syndromes. Here, we present a case of a patient with hepatic angiosarcoma who developed cryptogenic cirrhosis, Kasabach-Merritt Syndrome (consumptive thrombocytopenia), and bone marrow fibrosis as a result of her malignant lesions. While parenchymal biopsy ultimately remains the gold standard for diagnosis, careful review of enhancement patterns on imaging may suggest malignant features in need of further investigation.

Syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease that can affect multiple organ systems, with central nervous system involvement at any stage. We present a 53-year-old woman with an unusual truncal rash with painful anogenital lesions, accompanied by patchy alopecia, oral lesions, photophobia and hoarseness. She was found to have positive serological tests for syphilis with cerebrospinal fluid findings suggestive of neurosyphilis. She underwent a 14-day course of intravenous penicillin G and exhibited successful resolution of painful anogenital lesions as well as marked improvement in dermatological, oropharyngeal, laryngeal, and neurological symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine the safety and activity of plerixafor (CXCR4 inhibitor) in combination with bortezomib as a chemosensitization strategy in multiple myeloma (MM). The phase I portion of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The phase II portion was designed to assess the toxicity profile and the proportion of overall confirmed response (CR + PR). This was based on preclinical studies demonstrating that plerixafor (Mozobil, Sanofi Corporation, MA) induces de-adhesion of MM cells and sensitization to bortezomib in preclinical animal models. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included: 1) patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory MM with 1–5 prior lines of therapy including bortezomib (unless patients were refractory to bortezomib), 2) measurable disease, 3) not receiving chemotherapy < 3 weeks, or biological therapy for MM < 2 weeks prior to study treatment. Phase I included eight cohorts with different doses and two treatment schedules. In cohorts 1–5, patients received plerixafor at the recommended dose subcutaneously (sq) on days 1–6 of each cycle and bortezomib at the recommended dose twice a week on days 3, 6, 10, and 13 every 21 days. Cohort 5b–7 plerixafor was given at the recommended dose sq on days 1, 3, 6, 10, and 13 and bortezomib was given at the recommended dose twice a week on days 3, 6, 10, and 13 every 21 days. For the phase II portion patients received plerixafor at the MTD, 320 mcg/kg sq on days 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, and 13. Bortezomib was given 1.3 mg/m2 IV or sq twice a week on days 3, 6, 10, 13, every 21 days. Dexamethasone was given at 40mg on days of Bortezomib. Patients who had a response or stable disease went on to receive a total of 8 cycles followed by maintenance therapy. Peripheral blood samples were obtained from the patients in the phase I portion of trial at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 24 hours post-dose on days 1 and 3, and time points 0, 2, and 4 hours post-dose on days 6, 10 and 13 of cycle 1. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled in the phase I portion of trial and 23 patients in the phase II study. In the phase I study, the median age was 60 years (range, 44–85) and median lines of prior therapy were 2 (range, 1–4) with all but 3 patients receiving prior bortezomib. The median number of cycles on therapy was 3 (1–11). Dose limiting toxicities including insomnia, restlessness, and psychosis were observed in two patients at dose level 6 (plerixafor 0.40 mg/kg and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2). To further explore the safety of maximum tolerated dose, three additional patients were enrolled at dose level 5b. There were no grade 4 toxicities. Grade 3 toxicities included lymphopenia (40%), hypophosphatemia (20%), anemia (10%), hyponatremia (10%), hypercalcemia (10%), and bone fracture due to myeloma bone disease (10%). In the phase II portion, twenty-three patients have been treated to date. The median age was 70 (56-83), the median lines of prior therapy were 3 (1-5). The median number of cycles on therapy was 7 (1-12). Grade 4 toxicities include lymphopenia (9%), thrombocytopenia (17%) and pneumonia (4%). Grade 3 toxicities included anemia (9%), thrombocytopenia (17%), neutropenia (4%), lymphopenia (13%), hyperglycemia (9%), hypophosphatemia (9%), elevated ALT, AST and Lipase (4%). In the phase I study, 23 patients were evaluable for response, including 1 (4%) complete response (CR), 1 (4%) very good partial response (VGPR) and 3 (13%) MR. In addition, 15 (65%) patients achieved stable disease (SD). For the phase II study, the response rate of PR or better was 13/23 (43%) including 4 (17%) VGPR and 6 (26%) PR in this relapsed/refractory population. In addition, 7 (39%) patients had stable disease (SD), and 3 (13%) had progressive disease (PD). We also examined in vivo mobilization of plasma cells, CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells and other accessory bone marrow cells. Analysis of these samples showed rapid mobilization of plasma cells at 2 hours post-plerixafor with a rapid return to normal levels at 4 and 24 hours post plerixafor. Similar results were observed on days 1 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of plerixafor and bortezomib was very active in this study, with minimal neuropathy or other toxicities seen to date, and the regimen was generally well tolerated. The responses observed are encouraging, with 43% PR or better in this relapsed and refractory population, including patients with significant exposure to prior bortezomib therapy. Disclosures Ghobrial: Sanofi: Research Funding; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Noxxon: Research Funding; BMS: Advisory board, Advisory board Other, Research Funding; Onyx: Advisory board Other. Off Label Use: Plerixafor is not FDA approved for relapsed myeloma. Laubach:Novartis: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Schlossman:Millennium: Consultancy. Anderson:Celgene: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Acetylon: Scientific Founder, Scientific Founder Other; Oncoprep: Scientific Founder Other; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy.

Background: Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia is a distinct lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Several clinical trials have shown high rates of response in patients with relapsed WM using bortezomib and rituximab combinations. In addition, the TORC1 inhibitor everolimus has previously shown a high response rate of 70% in this patient population. In this trial, we aimed to examine the safety and activity of the combination of everolimus with bortezomib and rituximab (RVR) and to determine whether a deep response can be achieved with a triple combination of targeted therapeutic agents in WM. Methods: The phase I portion of the study evaluated the maximum tolerated dose of everolimus, rituximab combination or RVR combination, while the phase II portion evaluated the depth of responses to the RVR combination. Patients were eligible for this trial if they had relapsed or refractory WM. There was no limit on the number of prior therapies. Patients were required to be ≥18 years old and have measurable and symptomatic disease. For the phase I, patients were assigned to a dose level in the order of study entry. In the dose-escalation scheme, everolimus was given at 5 or 10 mg PO with rituximab, or with bortezomib at 1.3 or 1.6 mg/m2 and rituximab. Rituximab was given at a fixed dose of 375 mg/m2 IV. In the phase II, patients received everolimus 10 mg flat dose PO daily, Bortezomib IV 1.6mg/m2 weekly on days 1, 8, 15 q 28 days and rituximab IV 375 mg/ m2 weekly on days 1, 8, 15 22 q 28 days on cycles 1 and 4 only. Treatment was daily and 4 weeks (28 days) was considered one cycle. Patients received a total of 6 cycles followed by maintenance therapy with everolimus 10 mg PO daily until progression. Dexamethasone was not permitted. Patients were assessed every cycle while on combination therapy, and every 3 months while on maintenance therapy. Patients with stable disease (SD) or responding disease could continue therapy until progression. Results: From April 2010 to July 2013, a total of 46 patients were enrolled on this trial; of these, 23 patients were in the phase I study and 23 patients in the phase II study. The median number of prior treatments was 2 (range 1-9) Prior therapies received included bortezomib-based therapy (26, 56%) and rituximab (45, 98%). Median treatment duration was 10 months (range, 3 weeks to 41 months) for all patients. There were no DLTs observed and no deaths occurred on this study. The most common toxicities in all patients on study were fatigue (29 patients, 63%); anemia and leukopenia (each in 24 patients, 52%); neutropenia (22, 48%); diarrhea (20, 43%); and neuropathy, pneumonitis/pulmonary infiltrates (each in 19 patients, 41%). The overall response rate (ORR) which includes patients with minor response (MR) or better in the phase II study (N=23) was 91% (95% CI, 72-99%) with 1 CR, 1 VGPR, 16 PR, and 3 MR. When all 36 patients on the phase I and phase II studies who received full dose of RVR were combined, the ORR was 89% (95% CI 74 – 97%), with 2 CR, 3 VGPR, 21 PR, and 6 MR. Conclusions: The RVR regimen is safe and well tolerated. RVR led to an overall response rate of 89% with PR or better achieved in 72% making this a highly effective regimen even in patients previously treated with bortezomib and/or rituximab. This study represents one of the first combination efforts of novel agents targeting the PI3K signaling pathway with a proteasome inhibitor. Disclosures Ghobrial: Sanofi: Research Funding; Noxxon: Research Funding; BMS: Advisory board, Advisory board Other, Research Funding; Onyx: Advisory board Other; Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Bortezomib and everolimus are not approved for WM. Laubach:Novartis: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Anderson:Celgene: Consultancy; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Acetylon: Scientific Founder, Scientific Founder Other; Oncoprep: Scientific Founder Other; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy.

Introduction This study aimed to determine the safety and activity of plerixafor (CXCR4 inhibitor) in combination with bortezomib as a chemosensitization strategy in multiple myeloma (MM). The phase I portion of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The phase II portion was designed to assess the toxicity profile and the proportion of overall confirmed response (CR + PR). This was based on preclinical studies demonstrating that plerixafor (Mozobil, Sanofi Corporation, MA) induces de-adhesion of MM cells and sensitization to bortezomib in preclinical animal models. Methods Eligibility criteria included: 1) patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory MM with 1–5 prior lines of therapy including bortezomib (unless patients were refractory to bortezomib), 2) measurable disease, 3) not receiving chemotherapy > 3 weeks, or biological therapy for MM > 2 weeks prior to study treatment. Phase I included eight cohorts with different doses and two treatment schedules. In cohorts 1–5, patients received plerixafor at the recommended dose subcutaneously (sq) on days 1–6 of each cycle and bortezomib at the recommended dose twice a week on days 3, 6, 10, and 13 every 21 days. Cohort 5b–7 plerixafor was given at the recommended dose sq on days 1, 3, 6, 10, and 13 and bortezomib was given at the recommended dose twice a week on days 3, 6, 10, and 13 every 21 days. For the phase II portion patients received plerixafor at the MTD, 320 mcg/kg sq on days 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, and 13. Bortezomib was given 1.3 mg/m2 sq twice a week on days 3, 6, 10, 13, every 21 days. Dexamethasone was given at 40mg on days of Bortezomib. Patients in both cohorts were assessed after every cycle by IMWG criteria. Patients who had a response or stable disease went on to receive a total of 8 cycles with maintenance therapy for patients with at least a minimal response (MR). Peripheral blood samples were obtained from the patients in the phase I portion of trial at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 24 hours post-dose on days 1 and 3, and time points 0, 2, and 4 hours post-dose on days 6, 10 and 13 of cycle 1. Results Twenty-five patients were enrolled in the phase I portion of trial from June 2009 to May 2011. Median age was 60 years (range, 44–85) and median lines of prior therapy were 2 (range, 1–4) with all but 3 patients receiving prior bortezomib. The median number of cycles on therapy was 3 (1–11). Dose limiting toxicities including insomnia, restlessness, and psychosis were observed in two patients at dose level 6 (plerixafor 0.40 mg/kg and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2). To further explore the safety of maximum tolerated dose, three additional patients were enrolled at dose level 5b (plerixafor 0.32 mg/kg and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2). There were no grade 4 toxicities. Grade 3 toxicities included lymphopenia (40%), hypophosphatemia (20%), anemia (10%), hyponatremia (10%), hypercalcemia (10%), and bone fracture due to myeloma bone disease (10%). In the phase II portion, eleven patients have been treated to date. The median age is 65 (56-80), the median lines of prior therapy were 2 (1-4). The median number of cycles on therapy was 4 (1-8). Grade 4 toxicities include lymphopenia (10%) and thrombocytopenia (20%). Grade 3 toxicities include anemia (10%), thrombocytopenia (10%), lymphopenia (20%), hyperglycemia (10%), and hypophosphatemia (10%). Ten patients are evaluable for response, including 1(10%) very good partial response (VGPR) and 3 (30%) partial response (PR), with an overall response rate (VGPR + PR) of 4 (40%) in this relapsed/refractory population. In addition, 4 (40%) patients had stable disease (SD), and 2 (20%) had progressive disease (PD). We also examined in vivo mobilization of plasma cells, CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells and other accessory bone marrow cells. Analysis of these samples showed rapid mobilization of plasma cells at 2 hours post-plerixafor with a rapid return to normal levels at 4 and 24 hours post plerixafor. Similar results were observed on days 1 and 3. Conclusions The combination of plerixafor and bortezomib was generally well tolerated in this study, with minimal neuropathy or other toxicities seen to date. The responses observed are encouraging with 40% PR or better in this relapsed and refractory population including prior bortezomib therapy. This study was supported by R01CA133799-01, and by Sanofi and Millennium/Takeda Corporations. Disclosures: Ghobrial: Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Munshi:Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy. Anderson:celgene: Consultancy; onyx: Consultancy; gilead: Consultancy; sanofi aventis: Consultancy; oncopep: Equity Ownership; acetylon: Equity Ownership. Richardson:Millenium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy.

Background In multiple myeloma (MM) mouse models, diseased animals demonstrate a marked expansion of areas of hypoxia in the bone marrow, suggesting that hypoxia may be a therapeutically meaningful target in this disease. TH-302 is an investigational 2-nitroimidazole prodrug of the DNA alkylator bromo-isophosphoramide (Br-IPM) designed to be selectively activated in hypoxia. TH-302 exhibited anti-tumor activity in preclinical MM models in vitro and in vivo (Hu et al, Blood 2010; Chesi et al, Blood 2012), and synergism was seen when combined with the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib (Hu et al, Mol Cancer Ther 2013). Based on these findings, a Phase 1/2 study of TH-302 plus dexamethasone was initiated for patients with relapsed/refractory MM. Methods Eligible patients in the study (NCT01522872) had ECOG PS ≤ 2, receipt of at least 2 prior therapies, and acceptable hepatorenal function and hematologic status. A standard 3+3 dose escalation design was used with a fixed oral 40 mg dose of dexamethasone (dex) and 40% dose increments of TH-302. TH-302 was administered IV with dex on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of a 21-day cycle. The objectives were to determine dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD); assess the safety, tolerability and preliminary clinical activity of TH-302 plus dex; and study the relationship between hypoxia within the bone marrow and response to TH-302. Results As of August 2013, 13 patients have been treated: 8 males/5 females with a median age of 59 years (range: 53 – 86) and 6 prior therapies (range: 3 – 10). All had previously received both bortezomib and lenalidomide/thalidomide containing regimens as well as an alkylating agent. TH-302 was dosed at 240 (n=5), 340 (n=6), and 480 (n=2) mg/m² for a median of 5 cycles (range: 1 – 18). No DLTs were reported at 240 or 340 mg/m². Two patients treated at 480 mg/m² had DLTs of grade 3 mucositis, exceeding the definition of MTD. Four patients had serious adverse events (SAEs) related to TH-302 (pneumonia (n=2), proctalgia (n=1), anemia (n=1)). Three patients continue on study after a median of 17 cycles (range: 7 – 18). Twelve patients have had efficacy evaluations: 2 patients with partial responses (PRs), 3 patients with minimal responses (MRs), and 7 patients with stable disease (SD), for a clinical benefit rate (MR or better) of 42%. Conclusions TH-302 can be administered at 340 mg/m2 biweekly together with dex, with dose limiting mucositis seen at higher doses. Initial clinical activity has been noted with a clinical benefit rate of 42% in heavily pretreated MM patients who are relapsed/refractory to both bortezomib and lenalidomide. Disclosures: Ghobrial: BMS: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Noxxon: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding. Raje:Celgene: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Acetylon: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding. Handisides:Threshold Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kroll:Threshold Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership. Anderson:Celgene: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Sanofi Aventis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Acetylon: Equity Ownership; Oncopep: Equity Ownership. Richardson:Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson&Johnson: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction The phase I aimed to determine the safety and maximum tolerated dose of the combination of everolimus and rituximab, or everolimus, bortezomib, and rituximab and the phase II study aimed to examine response and safety of the combination of all 3 agents in relapsed and/or relapsed/refractory Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia. This trial was based on our preclinical studies that demonstrated synergistic activity of everolimus and bortezomib with rituximab in WM. Methods Eligibility criteria include: 1) patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory WM with any number of prior lines of therapy, including everolimus and bortezomib 2) not completely refractory to rituximab 3) measurable disease by monoclonal IgM protein in the serum and lymphoplasmacytic cells in the bone marrow, 4) Not receiving chemotherapy > 3 weeks, or biological/novel therapy for WM > 2 weeks. A cycle is 28 days and a total of 6 cycles are given, followed by everolimus maintenance until Progression. The phase I trial included two stages with a total of four dose levels. In stage A, patients received everolimus at the recommended dose orally daily for 28 days and rituximab at the recommended dose IV on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 every 28 days at cycle 1 and 4 only. In stage B, patients received everolimus at the recommended dose orally daily for 28 days, bortezomib at the recommended dose IV on days 1, 8, 15 every 28 days, and rituximab at the recommended dose IV on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 every 28 days at cycle 1 and 4 only. For the phase II study, patients received everolimus 10 mg daily, bortezomib IV 1.6mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 every 28 days, and rituximab 375mg/m2 IV on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 every 28 days at cycle 1 and 4 only. Patients were assessed for response after every cycle. Subjects who had a response continued on therapy for a total of 6 cycles, and then continued on to maintenance therapy with everolimus alone until progression Results Forty-Six patients were enrolled in this phase I/II clinical trial from April 2009 to July 2013. The median age is 65 (range, 47–84) yrs and the median lines of prior therapy is 5 (range, 1–9) with 45 (98%) patients receiving prior rituximab and 23 (50%) receiving prior bortezomib. The median number of cycles on therapy was 19.5 (range, 0–39). Overall, this combination therapy is very well tolerated. Grade 4 toxicities included: neutropenia (4.3%), leukopenia (2.2%), thrombocytopenia (13%), lymphopenia (2.2%) and hypertriglyceridemia (2.2%). Grade 3 toxicities included: neutropenia (13%), leukopenia (13%), anemia (10.9%), lymphopenia (8.7%), pneumonitis (4.3%), SGPT (4.3%), neuropathy (4.3%), Herpes zoster reactivation (4.3%), (2.2%) bacterial endocarditis, (2.2%) congestive heart failure, (2.2%) hearing loss, hyperglycemia (4.3%) hypernatremia (4.3%) and 1(2.2%) subject had an incarcerated inguinal hernia with small bowel obstruction. Two patients discontinued therapy due to grade 3 anemia. For the phase II study, sixteen patients are currently evaluable for response, including 2 (13%) complete response (CR), 11 (68%) partial response and 1 (6%) minimal response (MR), for an overall response rate including MR of 14/16 (88%) in this relapsed/refractory population. Furthermore, overall response including MR in phase I was 1/23 (4%) complete response, 7/23 (30%) partial response and 10/23 (43%) minimal response. In phase II 1/23 (4%) complete response, 14/23 (61%) partial response and 2/23 (9%) minimal response. Additionally, 8 (17%) patients achieved stable disease. Conclusions The combination of everolimus, bortezomib, and rituximab is generally well tolerated, and importantly no grade 3/4 neuropathy was seen. The responses observed to date indicate that this combination is highly effective in this relapsed/refractory population. This study was supported from the FDA Office of Orphan Products Development and by Millennium/Takeda and Novartis Inc. Disclosures: Ghobrial: Onyx: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Richardson:Millennium: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Treon:Millennium: Consultancy. Matous:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

8602 Background: TH-302 is an investigational 2-nitroimidazole prodrug of the DNA alkylator Br-IPM designed to be selectively activated in hypoxia. In multiple myeloma (MM) mouse models, diseased animals demonstrate a marked expansion of areas of hypoxia in the bone marrow. TH-302 exhibited anti-tumor activity against MM in vitro and in vivo and synergism was seen when combined with bortezomib (Hu et al, Blood 2010; Chesi et al, Blood 2012). Based on these findings, a phase I/II study of TH-302 plus dexamethasone (dex) was initiated for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory MM. Methods: Eligible pts in the study (NCT01522872) had ECOG PS ≤ 2, receipt of at least two prior therapies, and acceptable hepatorenal function and hematologic status. A standard 3+3 dose escalation design was used with a fixed oral 40 mg dose of dex and 40% dose increments of TH-302. TH-302 was administered IV with dex on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of a 21-day cycle. The objectives were to determine DLTs and the MTD; assess the safety, tolerability and preliminary clinical activity of TH-302 plus dex; and study the relationship between hypoxia within the bone marrow and response to TH-302. Results: Eleven pts have been treated: 7M/4F with a median age 61 years (range: 53 – 86) and 6 prior therapies (range: 3 – 10). All received both bortezomib and lenalidomide/thalidomide containing regimens. TH-302 was dosed at 240 (n=5), 340 (n=4), and 480 (n=2) mg/m² for a median of 5 cycles. No DLTs were reported at 240 or 340 mg/m². Two pts treated at 480 mg/m² had DLTs of grade 3 mucositis, exceeding the definition of MTD. A dose expansion is thus ongoing at 340 mg/m2. Two patients had SAEs related to TH-302 (pneumonia). Five pts continue on study after a median of 7 cycles (range: 2–11). Nine pts have had efficacy evaluations: 2 pts with partial responses, 2 pts with minimal responses, and 5 pts with stable disease, for an overall response rate (of MR or better) of 44%. Conclusions: TH-302 can be administered at 340 mg/m2 biweekly + dex, with dose limiting mucositis seen at higher doses. Initial clinical activity has been noted with an ORR of 44% in heavily pretreated MM pts who are relapsed/refractory to both bortezomib and lenalidomide. Clinical trial information: NCT01522872.

Abstract 1874 INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine the safety and activity of plerixafor (CXCR4 inhibitor) in combination with bortezomib as a chemosensitization strategy in multiple myeloma (MM). This was based on our preclinical studies showing that plerixafor (Mozobil, Genzyme Corporation, MA) induces de-adhesion of MM cells and sensitization to bortezomib in preclinical animal models. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included: 1) patients with relapsed or relapsed/refractory MM with 1–5 prior lines of therapy including bortezomib (unless patients were refractory to bortezomib), 2) measurable disease, 3) not receiving chemotherapy > 3 weeks, or biological therapy for MM > 2 weeks prior to study treatment. Eight cohorts with different doses and two treatment schedules were planned. In cohorts 1–5, patients received plerixafor at the recommended dose sq on days 1–6 of each cycle and bortezomib at the recommended dose twice a week on days 3, 6, 10, and 13 every 21 days. To test the hypothesis that higher doses and a different schedule might induce better chemosensitization, in cohort 5b–7 plerixafor was given at the recommended dose sq on days 1, 3, 6, 10, and 13 and bortezomib was given at the recommended dose twice a week on days 3, 6, 10, and 13 every 21 days. Bortezomib was given 60–90 minutes after plerixafor. Patients were assessed after every cycle by modified EBMT/UC criteria. Patients who had a response or stable disease went on to receive a total of 8 cycles with maintenance therapy for patients with at least a minimal response (MR). To examine the in vivo effect of plerixafor and bortezomib on de-adhesion of MM cells and other accessory cells of the bone marrow, peripheral blood samples were obtained from the patients at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 24 hours post-dose on days 1 and 3, and time points 0, 2, and 4 hours post-dose on days 6, 10 and 13 of cycle 1. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled in this phase I trial from June 2009 to May 2011. Median age was 60 years (range, 44–85) and median lines of prior therapy were 2 (range, 1–4) with all but 3 patients receiving prior bortezomib. The median number of cycles on therapy was 3 (1–11). Dose limiting toxicities including insomnia, restlessness, and psychosis were observed in two patients at dose level 6 (plerixafor 0.40 mg/kg and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2). To further explore the safety of maximum tolerated dose, three additional patients were enrolled at dose level 5b (plerixafor 0.32 mg/kg and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2). Overall, the combination proved to be well tolerated. There were no grade 4 toxicities. Grade 3 toxicities included lymphopenia (40%), hypophosphatemia (20%), anemia (10%), hyponatremia (10%), hypercalcemia (10%), and bone fracture due to myeloma bone disease (10%). One patient came off treatment due to grade 2 painful neuropathy at cycle 5. Twenty-three patients were evaluable for response, including 1 (4%) complete response (CR), 1 (4%) very good partial response (VGPR) and 3 (13%) MR, with an overall response rate (including MR) of 5 (22%) in this relapsed and refractory population. In addition, 15 (65%) patients achieved stable disease (SD), with just 3 (13%) having progressive disease (PD) as their best response. We also examined in vivo mobilization of plasma cells, CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells and other accessory bone marrow cells. Analysis of these samples showed rapid mobilization of plasma cells at 2 hours post-plerixafor with a rapid return to normal levels at 4 and 24 hours post plerixafor. Similar results were observed on days 1 and 3, but less mobilization occurred on the following days. Hematopoietic stem cell mobilization occurred at 4 hours on days 1 and 3, and was less observed with subsequent doses of plerixafor consistent with prior studies. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of plerixafor and bortezomib is generally well tolerated with minimal neuropathy or other toxicities seen to date. The responses observed are encouraging in this relapsed and refractory population. The ability to demonstrate transient de-adhesion of MM cells and accessory cells in vivo in most of the patients indicates that chemosensitization can potentially be achieved in patients with MM using this approach. Further studies are warranted and a phase 2 trial is underway. This study was supported by R01CA133799-01, and by Genzyme Corporation. Disclosures: Ghobrial: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Noxxon: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Noxxon: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Off Label Use: Plerixafor in myeloma. Munshi:Millennium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Schlossman:Millennium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Anderson:Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acetylon: Equity Ownership. Richardson:Millennium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Johnson & Johnson: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.