Search

Introduction Multiple myeloma (MM) patients with renal impairment (RI), especially dialysis-dependent (DD) RI, have poorer outcomes than MM patients with normal renal function. Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) is a treatment option, but there is concern at a perceived higher risk of complications which may be limiting consideration of the use of ASCT in this population. The evidence is inconsistent among studies and interpretation is complicated by heterogeneous datasets, some dating to before the availability of novel agents. Finally, the reversibility of RI following ASCT is an important prognostic factor for both survival and quality of life. Aim To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ASCT in MM patients with DD RI transplanted in EBMT centres between 1997 and 2017. Methods Baseline characteristics at diagnosis, patient treatment regimens and clinical outcomes were collected using standardised report forms. OS was defined as the period between the date of ASCT and the date of death or the date of last observation. PFS was defined as the period between the date of ASCT and date of progression/relapse or death of any causes or the date of the last observation. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was applied to assess risk factors for progression and death. Survival curves were plotted by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test. P Results A total of 109,959 adult MM patients are registered in the EBMT database as having undergone ASCT between 1997 and 2017. We further analysed 118 DD MM patients who had a first ASCT during this period. The median (range) age was 57 (27-71) years. Seventy (59%) patients were males. Forty nine patients (49/94 patients, 52%) had Karnofsky score ≥90. One hundred and ten patients were treated with hemodialysis and eight with peritoneal dialysis. A total of 68 (58%) patients had Light Chain MM, 43 kappa and 25 Lambda. In first-line induction therapy, 47/76 (62%) patients received bortezomib-based regimens. Forty-four (37%) patients achieved at least VGPR pre-ASCT. The median time from diagnosis to ASCT was 0.7 years (0.3-4.9). Melphalan doses were as follows: 140 mg/m2 (n=55, 67%), 70-100 mg/m2 (n=15, 18%), and >140 mg/m2 (n=12, 15%). The times to Neutrophil (>0.5) and Platelet (>20) engraftment were 12 (10-37) and 14 (4-128) days, respectively. The 30-day and 100-day transplant-related mortality (TRM) rates were 0.0% and 0.9%, respectively. ASCT was associated with a significant deepening of response (at least VGPR pre- vs post-ASCT: 36/93 (39%) vs 48/93 (52%), p < 0.001). The median PFS was 37 months (95% CI: 24-43) and 5-year PFS was 31% (95% CI: 20-41). The median OS was 102 months (95% CI: 67-129). Five-year OS post-ASCT was 62% (52-72) and 10-year OS 36% (17-55). Thirty-one (26%) DD MM patients achieved dialysis independence. There were no differences in PFS or OS when comparing the 1997-2007 and 2008-2017 cohorts: 5-year PFS - 28% (6-49) vs 31% (19-43) (p=0.7) and 5-year OS - 61% (38-84) vs 63% (51-74) (p=0.9), respectively. On univariate analysis of factors affecting PFS, achievement of an Overall Response Rate (ORR) (CR+VGPR+PR vs. Other) pre-ASCT was associated with a lower risk (HR 0.467, p=0.032) and older age (>55 years) with a higher risk (HR 1.786, p=0.035) of post-ASCT progression. Age higher than 55 (HR 2.033, 95%CI: 0.992 - 4.166, p=0.053) increased and achievement of at least VGPR pre-transplant (HR 0.494, 95%CI: 0.224 - 1.091, p=0.081, on the verge of statistical significance) decreased the risk of death. Conclusion To the best of our knowledge, the DIADEM study is the largest analysis of ASCT in DD MM pts to date. This cohort of 118 unselected patients had an OS comparable to patients without RI. This may reflect patient selection based on younger age, Karnofsky scores and pre-ASCT response. The low TRM and excellent outcomes support consideration of the use of ASCT in pts with DD RI. Notably, more than a quarter of patients became dialysis independent, an outcome likely to confer an improved Quality-of-Life.. These results can also inform the debate around the role of renal transplantation in younger DD MM patients who do not achieve dialysis independence. Disclosures Snowden: IDMC: Honoraria; Kiadis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; Mallinckrodt: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Dreger:MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Sponsoring of Symposia; AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Riemser, Roche: Consultancy; AbbVie, Gilead, Novartis, Riemser, Roche: Speakers Bureau; Neovii, Riemser: Research Funding. Illés:Takeda, Seattle: Research Funding; Janssen, Celgene, Novartis, Takeda, Roche, Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Basak:Teva: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Gyan:Pfizer: Honoraria. Hayden:Alnylam: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Beksac:Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen&Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Schönland:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Medac: Other: Travel Grant; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Whittington, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Synnott and Lin received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary. In addition, Synnott reports support from Biogen for the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, which is maintained by the Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens for hepatitis C virus (HCV) have varying potentials for drug-drug interactions (DDIs). OBJECTIVES: To (1) identify prevalence of potential DDI with glecaprevir-pibrentasvir (GLE-PIB) and sofosbuvir-velpatasvir (SOF-VEL) and (2) describe health care provider actions in response to pharmacist recommendations based on potential interactions with GLE-PIB or SOF-VEL, using 2 complementary data sources. METHODS: Possible interacting drugs were identified among adult patients in a United States electronic medical record database covering 21 health care organizations and 26 million patients in 2018. DDIs were categorized as potential weak interaction (Level 1), potential interaction (Level 2), or contraindicated (Level 3). Real-world recommendations and resultant actions regarding DDIs with GLE-PIB and SOF-VEL were obtained from a specialty pharmacy database. Categorical variable comparisons were done via chi-square analysis with subsequent z-tests of column proportions. RESULTS: DDI prevalence was higher for patients prescribed GLE-PIB (317/769 [41%]) compared with those prescribed SOF-VEL (170/633 [27%]), and the prevalence of a Level 3 (contraindicated) interaction was higher with GLE-PIB than SOF-VEL (61/769 [8%] vs 2/633 [< 1%]). Across all DDI levels, analgesics (139/317 [44%]), proton-pump inhibitors (129/317 [41%]), and lipid-lowering agents (59/317 [19%]) were the top drug classes for the GLE-PIB group with potential for DDI. For SOF-VEL prescribed patients, the top drug classes were proton-pump inhibitors (83/170 [49%]), histamine-2 blockers (42/170[25%]), and lipid-lowering agents (42/170 [25%]). In real-world care management, the overall prevalence of pharmacist recommendations regarding DDIs was significantly lower for SOF-VEL (28/419 [7%]) relative to GLE-PIB (151/1,216 [12%]). Recommended guidance from pharmacists was not followed for 39% (69/179) of patients, 36% (54/151) for GLE-PIB, and 54% (15/28) for SOF-VEL. CONCLUSIONS: The potential for DDIs with pangenotypic HCV DAAs is frequent and may be more frequent with GLE-PIB than SOF-VEL. Physician responses to pharmacist alerts regarding potential interaction can be highly variable, even in cases of contraindication. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by Gilead Sciences, Inc. Trio Health Analytics received funding from Gilead Sciences, Inc., to conduct research for this study. Tsai consults for and has received grants and honoraria from Gilead, AbbVie, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb; he has also received lecture fees from Gilead and AbbVie. Curry consults for Trio Health Analytics and Gilead and has also consulted for and received grants from Mallinckrodt. Flamm consults for and has received lecture fees from Gilead and AbbVie; he has also received grants from Gilead and AbbVie. Milligan and Wick are employed by Trio Health Analytics and have received research support from Gilead, Merck, and AbbVie. Younossi has received grants from Gilead, Intercept, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novo Nordisk. Afdhal is a paid consultant/advisory board member for Gilead, Echosens, Ligand, Shionogi, and Trio Health; owns stock in Spring-Bank and Allurion and has stock options in SpringBank; receives royalty income from UpToDate; and is on the board of directors for the nonprofit Liver Institute for Education and Research. Data from this study were presented at the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) Liver Meeting 2019; November 8-12, 2019; Boston, MA, and the European Association for Study of the Liver (EASL) International Liver Congress 2020; August 27-29, 2020; virtual.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Beinfeld, Fluetsch, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Ollendorf received funding from ICER for work on this summary and reports consulting and other personal fees from EMD Serono, Amgen, Analysis Group, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, GalbraithWight, Cytokinetics, Executive Insight, Sunovion, University of Colorado, World Health Organization, and Eli Lilly, unrelated to this work. Lee and McQueen received funding from ICER for work on this summary.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, McKenna, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Lin and Kazi received funding from ICER for work on this report.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Beinfeld, McKenna, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette received funding from ICER for work on this report and has also received fees from Monument Analytics and AstraZeneca, unrelated to this work. The University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) and Touchette hold a patent for the model described in this report. The model is included in ICER's Interactive Modeler, for which a fee is paid to UIC and Touchette. Atlas also received funding from ICER for work on this report.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Rind, Herron-Smith, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Walton and Quach, through the University of Illinois at Chicago, received funding from ICER for development of the economic model described in this report.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide is the first oral formulation of a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist to be approved in the United States for glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). While oral semaglutide is not indicated for reduction of cardiovascular event risk, its label does include evidence of no increase in cardiovascular risk in people who received oral semaglutide. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental value of oral semaglutide added to existing antihyperglycemic treatment for people with T2DM with additional risk for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We estimated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment for T2DM using a microsimulation model based primarily on the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model 2 (OM2) equations. Oral semaglutide added to current antihyperglycemic treatment was separately compared with (a) ongoing background antihyperglycemic treatment, (b) sitagliptin, (c) empagliflozin, and (d) liraglutide. Comparators sitagliptin, empagliflozin, and liraglutide were added to ongoing antihyperglycemic treatment. We applied hazard ratios derived from a network meta-analysis for cardiovascular and renal outcomes to the UKPDS OM2 estimated baseline rates. Health state utilities and costs were derived from the published literature. We estimated total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), clinical events, and cost per major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) avoided, over a lifetime time horizon using discount rates of 3% for costs and outcomes. RESULTS: The lifetime total cost for people treated with oral semaglutide was $311,300, with costs for the other comparators ranging from $262,800 (background treatment alone) to $287,800 (liraglutide). Oral semaglutide resulted in the fewest MACE, including the fewest cardiovascular deaths. Among the 5 modeled treatment strategies, oral semaglutide had the highest LYs gained (8.43 vs. 7.76 [background treatment alone] to 8.29 [empagliflozin and liraglutide]) and the highest QALYs gained (4.11 vs. 3.70 [background treatment alone] to 4.03 [empagliflozin]). Oral semaglutide would likely be considered cost-effective compared with liraglutide (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $40,100), and moderately cost-effective versus background treatment alone ([ICER] = $117,500/QALY) and sitagliptin (ICER = $145,200/QALY). The ICER for oral semaglutide compared with empagliflozin was approximately $458,400 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: As modeled, oral semaglutide as an add-on therapy to background antihyperglycemic treatment produced incremental benefits in MACE avoided, along with greater QALYs compared with background antihyperglycemic treatment alone. Oral semaglutide use resulted in better outcomes than background treatment alone or sitagliptin, and similar outcomes to liraglutide or empagliflozin with overlapping 95% confidence ranges for QALYs. Oral semaglutide was estimated to be cost-effective compared with liraglutide and to have incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between $100,000 and $150,000 per QALY versus sitagliptin and background therapy alone, but it did not meet these thresholds compared with empagliflozin. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER reports grants from Laura and John Arnold Foundation, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Rind, Fazioli, Chapman, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Guzauskas and Hansen have nothing to disclose. Study results were presented at the New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (New England CEPAC), November 14, 2019, at Brown University, Providence, RI.

Views on what is important in training for psychologists are evolving, reflecting a broadening understanding of the role psychologists can and should play in societal change. Since the development of the scientist-practitioner model after World War II, arguments around training have focused on the appropriate balance between training in the practice of psychology versus training in research related to psychology. Recent calls reflect more radical change to include an advocacy emphasis within the formal coursework of psychology doctoral programs, well articulated by Mallinckrodt, Miles, and Levy (2014) as the tripartite model of Scientist-Practitioner-Advocate. In this paper, we present the argument for expanding a model that incorporates advocacy training into clinical psychology internships and postdoctoral programs and describe why we believe voices for advocacy have been largely silent in public-sector clinical psychology training and practices. We outline how this may be accomplished in public sector training settings, and we articulate a call to action for public servants to speak out so their voice can ignite a passion for advocacy within public sector psychology service and training. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory condition of the large intestine and rectum. Several targeted immune modulators (TIMs) have demonstrated effectiveness for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis and are approved by the FDA. Patients may try multiple TIMs, and currently there are no biomarkers or prognostic factors to guide choice of treatment sequence. In 2020, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) conducted a review of TIMs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis as individual agents relative to conventional treatment but did not address the relative ranking of various treatment sequences to each other. OBJECTIVE: To extend the ICER framework to identify the optimal treatment sequence as informed by metrics such as maximizing incremental net health benefit (NHB), minimizing incremental total cost, or maximizing incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). METHODS: The model was developed as a Markov model with 8-week cycles over a lifetime time horizon from a US payer perspective, including only direct health care costs. Health states consisted of active moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, clinical response without achieving remission, clinical remission, and death. Efficacy of TIMs were informed by the ICER-conducted network meta-analysis. Up to 3 treatments were modeled in a sequence that consisted of 2 different TIMs followed by conventional treatment. Sequences were ranked according to each objective. NHB was calculated using a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was undertaken to estimate the probability of each sequence having the highest NHB rank under each objective. RESULTS: 21 possible sequences were evaluated in the base case. Two attempts at conventional treatment represented the lowest cost option and, while yielding the fewest QALYs, resulted in the highest NHB. None of the sequences had an incremental cost per QALY below $150,000 relative to 2 attempts with conventional treatment, so the resulting NHB was negative for all sequences. The sequence with the highest NHB was infliximab-dyyb followed by tofacitinib (-0.116). This regimen also had the lowest incremental costs ($37,266). For orally and subcutaneously administered TIMs, the sequence of golimumab-tofacitinib had the highest NHB (-0.344). Ustekinumab-vedolizumab was the top-ranked sequence as measured by QALY maximization (0.172 incremental QALYs) but also had the highest total incremental cost ($166,094). Results of the PSA were consistent with deterministic rankings for the top-ranking sequences but also showed that the top 2 or 3 regimens were often close together. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this analysis, the optimal sequence of TIMs as measured by NHB and cost minimization was infliximab or biosimilars as first-line treatment, then moving to tofacitinib, adalimumab, or vedolizumab. Sequences that generated the most QALYs began with ustekinumab, followed by vedolizumab, tofacitinib, and adalimumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was based on an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation sponsored by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Pandey and Fazioli are employees of ICER. Bloudek reports grants from ICER during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Astellas, Akcea, Dermira, GlaxoSmithKline, Sunovion, Seattle Genetics, and TerSera Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Pandey reports grants from California Healthcare Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and the Donoghue Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and other support from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithSline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, uniQure, Evolve Pharmacy Solutions, and Humana, outside the submitted work. Fazioli reports grants from Arnold Ventures, California Healthcare Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and The Donaghue Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and other support from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-lngelheim, uniQure, Evolve Phamacy Solutions, and Humana, outside the submitted work. Ollendorf reports grants from ICER, during the conduct of the study, along with other support from CEA Registry sponsors and personal fees from EMD Serono, Amgen, Analysis Group, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, GalbraithWight, Cytokinetics, Sunovion, University of Colorado, Center for Global Development, and Neurocrine, outside the submitted work. Carlson reports grants from ICER, during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Allergan, outside the submitted work. The inputs and model framework that were leveraged for this analysis were presented as part of the ICER assessment of TIMs for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

PurposeWe sought to exploit the heterogeneity afforded by patient-derived tumor xenografts (PDX) to optimize robust radiomic features associated with response to therapy in the context of a co-clinical trial and implement PDX-optimized image features in the corresponding clinical study to predict and assess response to therapy using machine-learning (ML) algorithms.MethodsTNBC patients and subtype-matched PDX were recruited into a co-clinical FDG-PET imaging study to predict response to therapy. One hundred thirty-one imaging features were extracted from PDX and human segmented tumors. Robust image features were identified based on reproducibility, cross-correlation, and volume independence. A rank importance of predictors using ReliefF was used to identify predictive radiomic features in the preclinical PDX trial in conjunction with ML algorithms: classification and regression tree (CART), Naïve Bayes (NB), and support vector machines (SVM). The top four PDX-optimized image features, defined as radiomic signatures (RadSig), from each task were then used to predict or assess response to therapy. Performance of RadSig in predicting/assessing response was compared to SUVmean, SUVmax, and lean body mass normalized SULpeak measures.ResultsSixty-four out of 131 preclinical imaging features were identified as robust. NB-RadSig performed highest in predicting and assessing response to therapy in the preclinical PDX trial. In the clinical study, the performance of SVM-RadSig and NB-RadSig to predict and assess response was practically identical and superior to SUVmean, SUVmax, and SULpeak, measures.ConclusionsWe optimized robust FDG-PET radiomic signatures (RadSig) to predict and assess response to therapy in a context of a co-clinical imaging trial.DECLARATIONSFundingThis work was supported by NCI grants U24CA209837, U24CA253531, and U54CA224083; U2CCA233303, and K12CA167540; Siteman Cancer Center (SCC) Support Grant P30CA091842; and Internal funds provided by Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology.Conflicts of interest/Competing interests.None.Availability of data and materialAll the co-clinical data will be available for download through the Washington University School of Medicine Co-Clinical Imaging Research Resource web portal at https://c2ir2.wustl.edu/, co-clinical database (CCDB).Code availabilityNot applicable.Authors’ contributionsConceptualization: SR, FOA, KIS; Methodology: SR, TDW, SL, KIS; Formal analysis and investigation: SR, KIS; Writing - original draft preparation: SR; Writing - review and editing: RLW, FD, KIS; Funding acquisition: RWL, FOA, SL, KIS; Resources: SL; Supervision: FD, KIS. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.Ethics approvalAll studies were performed with approval from the Washington University Humans subjects research committee and animal studies committee.Consent to participateInformed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants.Consent for publicationNot applicable.

Background:Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The safety and efficacy of UPA has been evaluated across a spectrum of patients (pts) with RA in the phase 3 SELECT clinical program.1,2Objectives:To describe long-term laboratory profiles (cutoff date: June 30, 2020) associated with exposure to UPA, adalimumab (ADA), and methotrexate (MTX) in pts with RA treated in the SELECT trials.Methods:Data were analyzed from 6 randomized controlled UPA RA trials.1,2 The proportions of pts experiencing potentially clinically significant laboratory changes at a single time point were summarized for the following groups: pooled UPA 15 mg once daily (QD; UPA15; 6 trials), pooled UPA 30 mg QD (UPA30; 4 trials), ADA 40 mg every other week (EOW; 1 trial), and MTX monotherapy (1 trial). Pts received UPA with/without background conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Treatment-emergent adverse events are reported as exposure-adjusted event rates (events/100 pt-years [E/100 PY]). Toxicity was graded per OMERACT criteria, or NCI CTCAE for creatine phosphokinase (CPK) and creatinine.Results:4413 pts received ≥1 dose of UPA (UPA15, n=3209; UPA30, n=1204). Exposures were comparable between treatment groups (Table). Proportions of pts with Grade (Gr) 3 and 4 decreases in hemoglobin were highest with UPA30 and MTX (Table). Rates of anemia, as reported by the investigator, were comparable between UPA15, ADA, and MTX groups (Figure); the frequency of UPA-treated pts who discontinued due to anemia was low in all arms. Gr 3 and 4 decreases in neutrophils and lymphocytes with UPA were dose-dependent and higher vs ADA or MTX. Discontinuations due to neutropenia and lymphopenia were rare (Table 1.Pts with potentially clinically significant laboratory changesVariable, n (%)MTX monotherapy (n=314; 637.4 PY)ADA 40 mg EOW (n=579; 1051.8 PY)UPA 15 mg QD (n=3209; 7023.8 PY)UPA 30 mg QD (n=1204; 3091.6 PY)Mean (SD) exposure, weeks106 (67)95 (70)114 (64)134 (66)Median (range) exposure, weeks144 (1, 221)118 (2, 231)136 (0, 232)160 (0, 231)Hemoglobin, g/LGr 3 (70–28a (9.0)24b (4.2)254d (7.9)169f (14.2)Gr 4 (16a (5.1)16b (2.8)101d (3.2)78f (6.5)Neutrophils, 109/LGr 3 (0.5–3a (1.0)3b (0.5)40d (1.2)37g (3.1)Gr 4 (1a (0.3)1b (0.2)10d (0.3)5g (0.4)Lymphocytes, 109/LGr 3 (0.5–74a (23.7)53b (9.2)802d (25.1)423g (35.5)Gr 4 (5a (1.6)3b (0.5)75d (2.3)47g (3.9)ALT, U/LGr 3 (3.0–8.0 × ULN)26a (8.3)13c (2.3)152e (4.8)71h (5.9)Gr 4 (>8.0 × ULN)5a (1.6)4c (0.7)26e (0.8)10h (0.8)AST, U/LGr 3 (3.0–8.0 × ULN)15a (4.8)9c (1.6)101e (3.2)36h (3.0)Gr 4 (>8.0 × ULN)1a (0.3)5c (0.9)18e (0.6)8h (0.7)CPK, U/LGr 3 (>5.0–10.0 × ULN)2a (0.6)3c (0.5)65e (2.0)36i (3.0)Gr 4 (>10.0 × ULN)0a (0)3c (0.5)27e (0.8)15i (1.3)Creatinine, μmol/LGr 3 (>3.0–6.0 × ULN)0a (0)1c (0.2)3e (2j (0.2)Gr 4 (>6.0 × ULN)0a (0)4c (0.7)8e (0.3)1j (an=312. bn=576. cn=577. dn=3201. en=3199. fn=1193. gn=1192. hn=1195. in=1196. jn=1197ULN, upper limit of normalConclusion:This long-term analysis of UPA-treated pts with RA showed dose-dependent relationships for several laboratory abnormalities. Incidences of these with UPA15 were typically higher than with ADA but similar to MTX, except for increased CPK elevations. Treatment discontinuations due to laboratory abnormalities were infrequent and similar across all treatment groups.References:[1]Tanaka Y. Mod Rheumatol 2020;30:779–87; 2. Rubbert-Roth A, et al. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1511–21.Acknowledgements:AbbVie funded this study; contributed to its design; participated in data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and participated in the writing, review, and approval of the abstract. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Russell Craddock, PhD, of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.Disclosure of Interests:Christina Charles-Schoeman Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Regeneron, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer, Jon T Giles Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Nancy Lane Consultant of: Amgen, Mallinckrodt, Pfizer, and Roche, Ernest Choy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biocon, Biogen, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, R-Pharm, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Bio-Cancer, Biogen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Daniel Furst Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Continuing Medical Education, and Novartis, Consultant of: Actelion, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corbus, Galapagos, Novartis, and Pfizer, Grant/research support from: Actelion, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corbus, Galapagos, GSK, NIH, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi, Jiří Vencovský Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Biogen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Gilead, and Octapharma, Anthony G Wilson: None declared, Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Tim Shaw Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Heidi Camp Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Nasser Khan Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jillian Yee Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Samuel Anyanwu Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB

Both sarcoidosis and chronic beryllium disease (CBD) are granulomatous diseases with overlapping clinical features, however, their clinical courses differ. CBD may have slow clinical progression and rarely resolves while sarcoidosis has variable progression and may resolve depending on the stage of the disease [1]. These commonalities and differences imply differences in antigen(s), and potentially clearance and persistence. Alveolar macrophages play an important role in this process driving innate [2] and adaptive immune responses [3]. Furthermore, subpopulations of macrophages may promote granulomatous inflammation and resolution of lung injury [4], key aspects of sarcoidosis and CBD. Using single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), we explored the common and unique pathways between progressive (SarcP) and remitting (SarcR) sarcoidosis as well as CBD and sarcoidosis, focusing on macrophages and macrophages subpopulations (recruited versus resident). Footnotes This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the European Respiratory Journal . It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJ online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article. Conflict of interest: Dr. Lindner has nothing to disclose. Conflict of Interest: Dr. Liao has nothing to disclose. Conflict of Interest: Dr. Atif has nothing to disclose. Conflict of Interest: Dr. Mould has nothing to disclose. Conflict of Interest: Dr. Konigsberg has nothing to disclose. Conflict of Interest: Dr. Fu has nothing to disclose. Conflict of Interest: Dr. Davidson has nothing to disclose. Conflict of Interest: Dr. Li has nothing to disclose. Conflict of Interest: Dr. Fontenot reports grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH), during the conduct of the study. Conflict of Interest: Dr. Maier reports grants from National Institutes of Health, during the conduct of the study; grants from National Institutes of Health, grants from University of Cincinnati under a Mallinckrodt Foundation, grants from MNK14344100, grants from ATYR1923-C-002, outside the submitted work; and Dr. Maier is a member of the FSR Scientific Advisory Board. She does not receive any compensation for this activity. Conflict of Interest: Dr. Yang reports grants from NIH, during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Eleven P15, outside the submitted work. In addition, Dr. Yang has a patent Circulating Biomarkers of Preclinical Pulmonary Fibrosis pending.

Background:Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor engineered to have greater selectivity for JAK1 vs JAK2, JAK3, and tyrosine kinase 2, and is approved for the treatment of RA. Across 2 double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled Phase 3 studies of UPA in patients with RA, after an initial increase through Week 8, lipid levels remained stable up to Week 24.1,2 Previous studies of JAK or IL-6 receptor inhibitors have reported a negative correlation between changes in lipid levels and RA disease activity.3,4Objectives:To determine the relationship between changes in lipid levels and disease activity outcomes in patients with RA treated with UPA.Methods:Patients with RA and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic/biologic DMARDs (cs/bDMARD-IR) from SELECT-NEXT/SELECT-BEYOND, respectively, were randomized to receive UPA 15 mg once daily (QD), UPA 30 mg QD, or PBO for 12 weeks followed by an extension of up to 5 years; patients randomized to PBO switched to UPA 15 or 30 mg after 12 weeks. Spearman correlations of maximum changes from baseline (BL) through Week 12 in fasting-state lipid levels (low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C; HDL-C], and total cholesterol [TC]) with clinical disease activity outcomes measured by change from BL in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), DAS of 28 joints using CRP (DAS28[CRP]), tender/swollen joint count in 28 joints (TJC28/SJC28), and pain by visual analog scale (VAS) at Weeks 12 and 24, were determined. Spearman correlations of maximum changes from BL in lipid levels and CRP through Week 12 were also determined.Results:Available fasting samples from 1,160 pooled patients (UPA 15 mg, n=386; UPA 30 mg, n=384; PBO, n=390) were included. Modest, but statistically significant, negative correlations were observed between maximum changes from BL in TC through Week 12 and change from BL in CDAI, DAS28(CRP), SJC28, and pain (VAS) at Week 12 with UPA 15 or 30 mg (Figure 1); similar trends were observed at Week 24. Significant correlations between changes in LDL-C and HDL-C and disease activity outcomes were also observed, but were not consistent across UPA doses and time points. No significant correlations were noted between changes in lipid levels and disease activity outcomes in the PBO group. Statistically significant weak negative relationships were observed between maximum changes from BL in lipid levels and CRP levels through Week 12 with UPA 15 mg (HDL-C and TC) or UPA 30 mg (LDL-C and TC) (Table 1).Conclusion:In this large pooled data set of patients receiving UPA, increases in lipid levels showed modest, but statistically significant, correlations with improvement in clinical disease activity outcomes in patients with cs/bDMARD-IR RA. These results add to evidence suggesting a relationship between systemic inflammation and lipid metabolism in patients with RA, which is modifiable with effective interventions, and reinforce the importance of monitoring for hyperlipidemia in these patients.References:[1]Burmester GR, et al. Lancet 2018;391:2503–12.[2]Genovese MC, et al. Lancet 2018;391:2513–24.[3]Kremer JM, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2017;69:943–52.[4]Cacciapaglia F, et al. Mediators Inflamm 2018;2018:2453265.Table 1.Spearman correlation of maximum changes from BL in lipid levels through Week 12 with maximum change from BL in CRP through Week 12UPA 15 mg QDUPA 30 mg QDPBOLDL-C-0.099 (n=303)-0.174** (n=302)-0.053 (n=303)HDL-C-0.184** (n=305)-0.087 (n=304)-0.024 (n=303)TC-0.189*** (n=305)-0.236*** (n=304)-0.056 (n=303)**pHDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, low-density lipoproteincholesterol; PBO, placebo; QD, once daily; TC, total cholesterol; UPA, upadacitinibAcknowledgements:AbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing assistance was provided by Frances Smith, PhD, of 2 the Nth, which was funded by AbbVie.Disclosure of Interests:Christina Charles-Schoeman Consultant of: AbbVie, Gilead, Pfizer, and Regeneron-Sanofi., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer, Jon T Giles Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Gilead, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Nancy Lane Speakers bureau: Amgen and Mallinckrodt, Consultant of: Amgen, Mallinckrodt, Pfizer, and Roche, Ernest Choy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bio-Cancer, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospira, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Napp, Novimmune, Novartis, ObsEva, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, R-Pharm, Sanofi, SynAct Pharma, Synovate, Tonix, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bio-Cancer, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai Pharma, Eli Lilly, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Hospira, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Napp, Novimmune, Novartis, ObsEva, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, R-Pharm, Sanofi, SynAct Pharma, Synovate, Tonix, and UCB, Heidi Camp Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Samuel Anyanwu Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., Roche, and UCB

Introduction IgA nephropathy (IgAN) is the most common glomerulonephritis with high risk of progression to end-stage renal disease in patients with proteinuria >1 g/24 hours. There are no known effective treatments in patients with IgAN. Methods We conducted a prospective open-label pilot study in patients with IgAN using adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) (Acthar Gel, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Bedminster, NJ) at a dosage of 80 units subcutaneously twice weekly for a total of 6 months and followed patients for a total of 12 months. Patients had to have urinary protein >1 g/24 hours despite adequate renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) >30 ml/min at enrollment. Results A total of 19 patients were recruited and followed for 1 year. At baseline, the mean age was 34.9 ± 10.5 years with 11 men and 8 women, and 14 Caucasian and 5 Asian individuals. At 12 months, there was a statistically significant decline in 24-hour urinary protein from 2.6 to 1.3 g (P = 0.007) and significant increase in serum albumin (3.79 to 3.93, P = 0.02). There was no significant change in eGFR (65.5 to 61.1 ml/min, P = 0.1). There were 0 complete remissions and 8 partial remissions (42%). There were a total of 6 infections: 2 were viral and 4 required antibiotic therapy (2 sinusitis, 1 pneumonia, 1 otitis media). The most common adverse events included acne, hot flashes, soreness, and anxiety. Conclusion In summary, patients with IgAN with >1 g/24-hour urinary protein and eGFR >30 ml/min had a significant reduction in 24-hour urinary protein with stable eGFR at 12-month follow-up after being treated with 6 months of ACTH., Graphical abstract

Introduction Timely and effective resolution of multiple sclerosis (MS) relapse is critical to minimizing residual deficits, which can result in neurologic disability. Oral corticosteroids (OCS) and intravenous corticosteroids [intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP)] are earlier line treatments; alternatives include repository corticotropin injection (RCI; H.P. Acthar® Gel), plasmapheresis (PMP), and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Contemporary insight into the use of relapse treatments and their effectiveness is needed. Objective To evaluate relapse rates, frequency of treatments used, and treatment effectiveness (i.e., relapse resolution). Methods A retrospective analysis of patients ages 18–89 years experiencing MS relapse from 1 January 2008 to 30 June 2015 was conducted using administrative claims data. MS relapse was defined based on established claims-based methodology. The first claim for relapse treatment (i.e., prescription or administration) was used to designate the treatment group and relapse date, respectively. Relapses occurring ≤ 30 days were considered an episode. The first relapse episode was identified for every patient. Treatment was deemed effective in resolving the relapse if no additional relapses followed within the episode; otherwise, the relapse was considered unresolved. A 5-day OCS taper following IVMP administration, designated IVMP ± OCS, was allowed. Relapse frequency, treatment use, and relapse resolution were quantified. Relapse resolution was likewise evaluated in patients continuously enrolled for 12 months before and after first treatment with RCI or PMP/IVIG, with PMP/IVIG administrations within 7 days of each other being considered a single course of therapy. Results During the study period, 9574 patients experienced ≥ 1 relapse; 26.0% of patients had ≥ 2 relapses/year. The mean number of relapse episodes was 2.6 over a mean follow-up of 2.7 years for an annualized relapse rate of 1.0. Corticosteroids were the first treatment used in 90.4% of relapses (OCS = 51.8%, IVMP = 38.6%), followed by IVIG (6.0%), RCI (2.2%) and PMP (1.5%). The proportion of patients achieving relapse resolution with their first treatment was 90.5% with OCS (n = 5710), 47.8% with IVMP ± OCS (n = 3425), 96.9% with RCI (n = 195), 50.7% with PMP (n = 73), and 43.9% with IVIG (n = 171). Among continuously enrolled patients (n = 373), relapse resolution was 95.7% with RCI (n = 232) and 66.0% with PMP/IVIG (n = 141); significant cohort differences were observed. Conclusions As demonstrated in other studies, OCS were generally effective. However, real-world effectiveness varied with other treatments. Relapse resolution of the first treatment with OCS was higher than with IVMP ± OCS; similarly, relapse resolution was higher with RCI as the first treatment than with PMP/IVIG. Results demonstrate RCI’s effectiveness in appropriate patients. Limitations pertaining to claims-based research apply. Funding Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals (Bedminster, NJ).

Intravenous administration of acetaminophen is an alternative to the oral and rectal routes, which may be contraindicated in particular clinical settings. This randomized, placebo‐controlled study of intravenous acetaminophen (Ofirmev, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Bedminster, New Jersey) in neonate and infant patients with acute postoperative pain assessed pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety, in addition to efficacy and pharmacodynamics of repeated doses administered over 24 hours. Neonate and infant patients (

Despite little evidence supporting its superiority to glucocorticoid therapy, use and expenditures for repository corticotropin (rACTH) injection (H.P. Acthar Gel; Mallinckrodt) have increased dramatically in the last 5 years, particularly among a small number of nephrologists, rheumatologists, and neurologists. Recently, the manufacturer justified the extremely high and rapidly increasing cost of rACTH by citing the ongoing need to generate clinical data to support its use. We test this assertion by investigating the quality and provenance of the evidence likely to emerge in the foreseeable future. We identified all completed, in-progress, and proposed studies of rACTH registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. 75 studies representing 2,953 participants met inclusion criteria. Studies addressed primarily nephrologic (n = 23), rheumatologic (n = 28), and neurologic (n =22) indications. Of the 23 studies proposed for renal indications (enrollment, 33 ± 49 [mean ± SD]), 11 were not randomized, 8 compared only different rACTH treatment regimens, and 4 compared rACTH to placebo. No studies of rACTH proposed for renal indications included an rACTH-free arm receiving active treatment (ie, another form of immunosuppression). We conclude that evidence emerging in the foreseeable future is unlikely to broadly support rACTH use over lower-cost glucocorticoid-based alternatives for renal indications.

Introduction: Belumosudil (KD025) is a novel oral selective rho-associated coiled-coil kinase 2 (ROCK2) inhibitor specifically designed for the treatment of cGVHD, an immune-mediated inflammatory and fibrotic disorder. In a previous dose-finding study (KD025-208, N=54), two-thirds of patients, including those with fibrotic and inflammatory manifestations, achieved a partial or complete response with belumosudil. Herein, we report on the top-line results (6 months after the last patient in) from the pivotal phase 2 trial (ROCKstar [KD025-213], N=132). Methods: This phase 2, open-label, randomized, multicenter study evaluated belumosudil 200 mg QD (n=66) and BID (n=66) in patients with cGVHD who received 2 to 5 prior lines of therapy (LOT). Treatment continued until clinically significant progression of cGVHD. The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR), defined per the 2014 National Institutes of Health Consensus Criteria. Additional end points included duration of response (DOR), Lee Symptom Scale (LSS) score, failure-free survival (FFS), corticosteroid (CS) dose reductions and overall survival. The study was powered such that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (CI) excludes 30%, with appropriate multiplicity adjustment. Results: At enrollment, the median age was 56 years, the median time from cGVHD diagnosis to enrollment was 29 months, 67% of patients had severe cGVHD, 52% had ≥4 organs involved, 72% had received ≥3 prior LOT (including ibrutinib [n=46] or ruxolitinib [n=38]) and 73% were refractory to their last LOT. The baseline characteristics of both arms were well balanced. With a median follow-up of 8 months, the ORR (95% CI) with belumosudil 200 mg QD and BID was 73% (60%-83%) and 74% (62%-84%), respectively (Table 1). In patients who previously received ruxolitinib (29%), the ORR with belumosudil 200 mg QD and BID was 65% (41%-85%) and 72% (47%-90%), respectively. In patients who previously received ibrutinib (35%), the ORR with belumosudil 200 mg QD and BID was 73% (50%-89%) and 71% (49%-87%), respectively. High ORRs were seen in all patient subgroups, regardless of length of time from diagnosis to treatment, including those with severe cGVHD, involvement of ≥4 organs and a refractory response to prior LOT (Figure 1). The response rate was similar across all affected organs. The median time to response was 4 weeks. Of responders, 49% have maintained response for ≥20 weeks. The median DOR has not yet been reached. Clinically meaningful improvement (≥7-point reduction) in LSS score on consecutive assessments was observed in 39% and 33% of patients in the QD and BID groups, respectively. Both responders (43%) and nonresponders (17%) experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in LSS score. FFS was 77% (69%-84%) at 6 months. CS and calcineurin inhibitor discontinuations were seen in 18% and 13% of patients, respectively. Belumosudil was well tolerated, with >95% relative dose intensity in 83% of patients. Drug discontinuation occurred in 10% of patients due to possible drug-related adverse events (AEs), 3% due to progression of underlying disease and 12% due to progression of cGVHD. AEs were consistent with those expected in patients with cGVHD receiving CS and other immunosuppressants (Table 2). Common AEs included fatigue (32%), diarrhea (29%), nausea (26%), cough (24%), dyspnea (24%), upper respiratory tract infection (23%), peripheral edema (21%) and headache (20%). At least 1 serious AE occurred in 34% of patients. Twenty-three percent of patients had at least 1 liver-related investigation; the most common was increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (11%), and only 1 patient showed an increase in bilirubin. Eight patients died during the study; 5 due to AEs (1 possibly related to belumosudil) and 3 during long-term follow-up (>28 days after last dose). There were no reports of cytomegalovirus reactivation or infection. Conclusion: Treatment with belumosudil at both doses resulted in high ORRs across key subgroups, meeting the primary end point of this pivotal randomized trial in cGVHD. Responses were durable and clinically meaningful, irrespective of patient and cGVHD characteristics, and were seen in patients who previously received ruxolitinib and ibrutinib. Belumosudil was well tolerated, with limited and manageable AEs. Further studies will evaluate its use earlier in disease management. The 12-month data analysis will be presented at ASH 2020. Download : Download high-res image (508KB) Download : Download full-size image Disclosures Cutler: Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kadmon: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medsenic: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Generon: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mesoblast: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lee: Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kadmon: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding. Rotta: Merck: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Speakers Bureau. Ramakrishnan: Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Cigna: Honoraria. Eiznhamer: Kadmon Corporation, LLC: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Schueller: Kadmon Corporation, LLC: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yang: Kadmon Corporation, LLC: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Green: Kadmon Corporation, LLC: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Aggarwal: Kadmon Corporation, LLC: Consultancy; Angiocrine Bioscience, Inc: Current Employment, Other: stock options. Blazar: BlueRock Therapeutics: Research Funding; BlueRock Therapeuetic: Consultancy; Fate Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy; Childrens' Cancer Research Fund: Research Funding; KidsFirst Fund: Research Funding; Tmunity: Other: Co-founder. Jagasia: Ocugen: Other; Mallinckrodt: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding.

RC is a consultant for Kyowa Kirin and served on an advisory board for Helsinn. JJS is a consultant for Kyowa Kirin, Takeda, Recordat, 4SC, Innate Pharma and Helsinn. She received a 1-year educational grant from Kyowa Kirin for work on quality of life in CTCL. She also has membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees for Kyowa Kirin, Takeda, 4SC, Innate Pharma, Miragen and Helsinn. PLZ has received honoraria from MSD, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen-Cilag, BMS and TG Therapeutics. He is also a consultant for MSD, EUSA Pharma, Sanofi and Verastem. He also has membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees for MSD, Eusa Pharma, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen-Cilag, BMS, Servier, Sandoz, Immune Design, Celgene, Portola, Roche, Kyowa Kirin, TG Therapeutics, and Verastem. He has also been on a Speakers Bureau for MSD, EUSA Pharma, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen-Cilag, BMS, Servier, Immune Design, Celgene, Portola, Roche, Kyowa Kirin and Verastem. JPN has received honoraria from Pharmaceutical Industries, TEVA, Novartis AG, Biogen GmbH, Almirall Hermal AG, Actelion Pharmaceuticals, UCB Pharma, LaRoche Posay, Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Kyowa Kirin. He is also a consultant for Novartis AG, Biogen GmbH, Almirall Hermal AG, Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Innate Pharma, Kyowa Kirin and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. He has also received grants and personal fees from Pharmaceutical Industries outside of the submitted work. LS is a consultant for Dren Bio and served on an advisory board for Kyowa Kirin, Kymera Therapeutics and EUSA Pharma. LP-B has been an advisory board for Epizyme, Morphosys, Helsinn, Verastem and Actelion. She is also a consultant for Acrotech. PQ has received honoraria from Actelion, Innate Pharma, Takeda, Kyowa Kirin, Helsinn and Therakos. He also been on an advisory board for Actelion, Innate Pharma, Takeda, Kyowa Kirin, Helsinn and Therakos. LI has served as a consultant and/or paid speaker for and/or participated in clinical trials sponsored by AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Centocor, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB. RD is a consultant for Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Amgen, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Catalym and Second Genome. AM is an investigator for Menlo, Soligenix, Pfizer, Elorac and miRagen. She has also received honoraria from Kyowa Kirin. She also has a membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees for Helsinn. FF has received honoraria from Seagen, Mallinckrodt and Kyowa Kirin. She is also a consultant for Miragen. She had also served on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Celgene. She was also the President of the US Cutaneous Lymphoma Consortium. TI is an employee of Kyowa Kirin, Inc. J-PR is an employee of Kyowa Kirin, Inc. MCM is an employee of Kyowa Kirin, Inc.

Background: Sick neonates may require transport high frequency ventilation (HFV) with inhaled nitric oxide (iNO). Hospital based HFV-iNO systems are not transport capable. The neonatal transport HFPFV (Percussionaire, Sandpoint, ID) and the AeroNOx iNO system (International Biomedical, Austin, TX) are transport capable. The iNOmaxDSIR iNO system (Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Bedminster, NJ) is not approved with HFPFV. In-line iNOMaxDSIR alters the HFPFV clinical performance. One iNO delivery system for intra- and inter-hospital use has advantages: (1) lower costs and (2) single system maintenance. Primary Hypothesis: Effective iNO delivery can be achieved using side-stream iNOmaxDSIR injection into HFPFV. Secondary Hypothesis: The side-stream delivery will not clinically alter …

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are slow-growing malignancies, expressing somatostatin receptors on their cell membranes. These receptors can be targets for therapy with 111In-labeled somatostatin analogues. In 1996 Eric Krenning injected for the first time intravenously 111In-Octreotide (OctreoScan®, Mallinckrodt, Petten, the Netherlands) as a new treatment approach to confrontate particularly unresectable neuroendocrine tumors. In our Institution, we started treating this rare category of neoplasms exclusively injecting intra-arterially 111In-Octreotide, in high activities, focused our interest on liver metastases after catheterization of the hepatic artery (“Aretaieion Protocol”). The radiopeptide was infused in repeated doses ranging from 4.070 GBq (110 mCi) to 5.920 GBq (160 mCi) with a time interval between the sessions of 6–8 weeks. It was aimed to achieve a tumor-absorbed dose according to the dosimetry followed, over 70 Gy and tumoricidal results due to the effect of the Auger and Internal Conversion 111Indium’s Electron Emission. Follow-up at bi-monthly intervals was performed by means of ultrasonography (U/S) and every 6 months by contrast material-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This therapeutic procedure is described in detail in this chapter, based on the follow-up experience in more than 80 patients exceeding in total 800 intra-arterial catheterizations, in a time period of more than a decade. Advantages and limitations as a first-line treatment scheme for the management of this rare category of tumors are analyzed. In parallel with other authors tightly working in the field using 90Y- and/or 117Lu-labeled peptides, we predicted the dynamic of PRRT with 111In-Octreotide plus best supportive care (30 mg Octreotide LAR) as first-line therapy in progressive neuroendocrine tumors, 20 years before its final establishment as such in 2017, after Netter-1 study publication.

BACKGROUND: Flare activity or worsening symptoms are not well defined for myositis. OBJECTIVES: To (a) characterize dermatomyositis (DM) and polymyositis (PM) flares from the patient perspective and (b) report the corresponding disability and rate of unplanned medical encounters. METHODS: Online survey data were collected from volunteer patients from The Myositis Association and Johns Hopkins Myositis Center. Flare frequency; Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), HAQ-Pain Index, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) scales; emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits; and hospital admissions during the past year were examined. RESULTS: 564 individuals with selfreported diagnoses of DM/PM were surveyed between December 2017 and May 2018. Recall of symptom flares was reported by 524 respondents (78.1% were female, mean age of 55 years). Among the respondents, 378 (72.1%) reported ≥ 1 flare in the past year. The pattern of flare frequency was similar for DM and PM respondents. The most common symptoms were muscle weakness (83%), extreme fatigue (78%), and muscle pain/discomfort (64%). Increasing flare frequency was associated with significantly (P < 0.01) greater mean HAQ-DI and HAQ-Pain scores, myositis-related ED/UC visits, hospital admissions, WPAI work productivity loss (among those employed), and WPAI nonwork activity impairment. CONCLUSIONS: DM/PM-related flares are common with exacerbations of muscle weakness and fatigue being the most common flare symptoms. Flare frequency was associated with greater disability, pain, work productivity loss, nonwork activity impairment, and increased ED/UC utilization. Higher frequency of patient-reported flares may serve as a marker of worsening physical functioning and intensifying health care needs and, therefore, suggests their importance in the clinical assessment of patients with DM/PM. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals (Bedminster, NJ) via grants to Vedanta Research and The Myositis Association. Christopher-Stine has received compensation from previous Mallinckrodt Advisory Board meetings, unrelated to this subject matter. Wan is an employee of Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals and is a stockholder of the company. Reed and Bostic received grant support from Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals for data collection and analysis. McGowan is an employee of The Myositis Foundation, which received grant funding to support study data collection. Kelly has no conflicts to disclose. This study was presented, in part or full, at the 2019 Annual American College of Rheumatology and Association of Rheumatology Professional Meeting (November 8-13, 2018; Atlanta, GA) and at the Third Global Conference on Myositis (March 27, 2019; Berlin, Germany).

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), including its severe form known as steatohepatitis or NASH, are increasingly common in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and can progress to cirrhosis. However, there is limited information on their comorbid medical conditions in “real world” practice. Thus, the disease characteristics of patients with NASH or NASH-cirrhosis (cirrhosis), with or without T2DM, was evaluated in TARGET-NASH, an ongoing longitudinal observational study of patients with NAFLD, who are managed according to local standards at 60 community and academic hepatology and endocrinology practices in the United States. Among 3085 patients enrolled with NASH or cirrhosis, 1645 had NASH (47% T2DM) and 1440 had cirrhosis (72% T2DM). Patients with T2DM were older (median 61 vs. 56 years) and had a higher median BMI (34.0 vs. 32.0 kg/m2, p In conclusion, patients with type 2 diabetes and NASH or cirrhosis had more advanced liver disease compared to those without type 2 diabetes. Patients with type 2 diabetes had more than twice the risk of cirrhosis compared to those without type 2 diabetes. These results support a strong link of type 2 diabetes and metabolic risk factors with advanced NASH. Disclosure K. Cusi: Consultant; Self; Allergan plc., AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Inc., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc. Research Support; Self; Cirius Therapeutics, Echosens, Eli Lilly and Company, Inventiva Pharma, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novo Nordisk Inc., Poxel SA, Zydus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. M. Roden: Advisory Panel; Self; Servier. Board Member; Self; Poxel SA. Consultant; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Inc., ProSciento, TARGET PharmaSolutions. Research Support; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Novartis Pharma K.K., Sanofi US. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. A.S. Barritt: Consultant; Self; GENFIT, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., TARGET PharmaSolutions. R.J. Firpi: None. V. Clark: Research Support; Self; GENFIT, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc. S. Klein: Advisory Panel; Self; Danone Nutricia, Merck & Co., Inc. Research Support; Self; Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer Inc. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Aspire Bariatrics. A. Lok: None. P. Newsome: Research Support; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. K. Corbin: None. M.B. Vos: Advisory Panel; Self; TARGET PharmaSolutions. Consultant; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Immuron, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk A/S. Research Support; Self; Bristol Myers Squibb. R. Reddy: Advisory Panel; Self; Ambys, Epigenomics AG, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co., Inc. Research Support; Self; Conatus Pharmaceuticals, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co., Inc. C. Schoen: None. A.R. Mospan: Employee; Self; TARGET PharmaSolutions. J.L. Taunk: None. K. Wyne: Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc. Research Support; Self; Sanofi. B. Neuschwander-Tetri: Advisory Panel; Self; 89Bio, Allysta, ARTham, Blade, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gelesis, GENFIT, Histoindex, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Medpace, Merck & Co., Inc., Sagimet, Siemens Corporation. Consultant; Self; Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Axcella, DURECT Corporation, Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Fortress, Indalo, Innovo, Lipocine, Mundipharma International, pH-Pharma, TARGET PharmaSolutions. A. Sanyal: Consultant; Self; Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novo Nordisk A/S, Pfizer Inc. Stock/Shareholder; Self; DURECT Corporation, GENFIT, HemoShear, Sanyal Bio, Tiziana Life Sciences plc. Funding TARGET-NASH

Wolfram Syndrome (WFS) is a rare, genetic, neurodegenerative disorder with associated features of diabetes mellitus (DM), diabetes insipidus, deafness, and optic atrophy. In order to design intervention studies, concrete markers of disease progression are required. DM in WFS is believed to be due to endoplasmic reticulum stress-induced failure of insulin secretion. Therefore, progressive loss of insulin production may be a viable marker of disease progression. The purpose of this study was to examine progression of DM, measured by beta-cell function, in WFS patients over time. N=44 (25F/19M) participants with genetically confirmed WFS attended the Washington University Wolfram Research Clinic from 2010-2019. A mixed meal tolerance test was administered to assess beta cell function (i.e., C-peptide). A hierarchical random coefficients model was used to relate C-peptide as a function of DM duration. Most patients (91%) had DM at time of study enrollment (N=39) or developed DM during the study (N=1). There was a significant association between C-peptide and DM duration, such that C-peptide decreased over time (F= 39.44, p= Disclosure M. Ray: None. T. Hershey: None. L. Chen: None. N.H. White: None. B.A. Marshall: None. Funding Washington University (HD070855, U54HD087011); Clinical and Translational Science Award (UL1RR024992); National Institute on Drug Abuse (5T32DA007261-27); Diabetes Research Center (DK020579); Snow Foundation, George Decker and Julio V. Santiago Pediatric Diabetes Research Fund; Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology; McDonnell Center for Systems Neuroscience

Background: Six million adults in the U.S. are living with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) and current treatments are ineffective for many. Preliminary data suggest 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) relieves pain and may improve sensation in refractory patients. Methods: Prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SENZA-PDN) with 216 subjects assigned 1:1 to 10 kHz SCS (Nevro Corp.) combined with conventional medical management (CMM) or CMM alone. Patients with PDN symptoms ≥12 months, lower limb pain intensity ≥5cm (0-10cm visual analog scale [VAS]), hemoglobin A1c ≤10%, and upper limb pain intensity Results: Randomization of 113 subjects to 10 kHz SCS+CMM and 103 to CMM resulted in groups well-matched at baseline. There were 2 procedure-related infections in the 10 kHz SCS+CMM group (1.8%). At 3-month follow-up, there were clear differences in lower limb pain scores (Fig 1A) and Diabetes Quality of Life (Fig 1B). Patients in the 10 kHz SCS+CMM group demonstrated improvements in sensation on physical examination (Fig 1C) and by patient report of numbness (Fig 1D). In addition, differences between treatment groups were observed in 6-minute walk test distance (Fig 1E) and sleep (Fig 1F). Conclusion: SENZA-PDN is the largest RCT to-date of SCS management of PDN and will inform the treatment continuum. Disclosure E. Petersen: Consultant; Self; Abbott, Medtronic, Neuros Medical, Nevro. Research Support; Self; Medtronic, Neuros Medical, Nevro, ReNeuron. T. Stauss: None. J.L. White: Research Support; Self; Allergan plc., Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Fitbit, Inc., Nevro, NovMetaPharma Co. Ltd., Theracos, Inc. S.M. Sills: None. K. Amirdelfan: Consultant; Self; Biotronik, Medtronic, Nevro Corporation, Saluda. M. Guirguis: Consultant; Self; Boston Scientific, nevro incop, spr. J. Xu: None. C. Yu: None. A. Nairizi: None. D.G. Patterson: Research Support; Self; Nevro Corporation. V. Galan: None. N. Mehta: Advisory Panel; Self; Nevro. Research Support; Self; Nevro. S.P. Lad: None. D. DiBenedetto: None. P.W. Wu: None. C.E. Nasr: Other Relationship; Self; Exilxis, Neurogastrx, Nevro Corp. R. Taylor: Consultant; Self; Nevro. E.S. Brooks: Employee; Self; Nevro. J. Subbaroyan: Employee; Self; Nevro Corp. B. Gliner: Employee; Self; Nevro Corp. D.L. Caraway: Employee; Self; Nevro. N. Mekhail: Consultant; Self; Boston Scientific, Nevro, Nuvectra, Relievant, Saluda, Sollis Therapeutics, Vertos Medical. Research Support; Self; Halyard, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Mesoblast, Neuros Medical. Funding Nevro Corp.

Dr Sola has disclosed that he is the Vice President of Medical Affairs with Masimo Corporation. Drs Farina and Mir have disclosed no financial relationships relevant to the article. Dr Golombek has disclosed that he is on the speakers’ bureau with Mallinckrodt and a consultant with Prolacta. This commentary does not contain a discussion of an unapproved/investigative use of a commercial product/device. El Dr Sola es VP de Medical Affairs de Masimo Corporation. Los Dres. Farina y Mir declaran ausencia de conflicto de interes. El Dr Golombek pertenece al Speakers’ Bureau de Mallinckrodt, y es Consultor de Prolacta. Este articulo no contiene una discusion sobre el uso no aprobado / investigativo de un producto / dispositivo comercial. En este Consenso participaron 48 profesionales de 12 paises de Latinoamerica y Espana. La coordinacion y revision estuvo a cargo de los investigadores principales Dres. Farina, Mir y Sola quienes han condensado todo el material trabajado. Los participantes del Consenso por orden alfabetico fueron: Amparo del Socorro Acosta Polo, Aldana Avila, Hernando Baquero, Elizabeth Cespedes, Judith Dachesky, Carmen Davila, Patricia Fernandez, Rosana Fonseca, Maria del Carmen Fontal, Ines Garcia Fiorini, Flora Josefina Garcia, Larisa Genes, Gustavo Goldsmit, Zandra Grosso, Cecilia Juarez, Jose Lacarrubba, Gabriel Lara, Lourdes Lemus, Victoria Lima, Irama Lopez, Luciano Macias, Elvira Mendieta, Marcela Montano, Monica Morgues, Teresa Murguia, Diego Natta, Francisco Navarro, Sandra Navarrete, Ada Nidia Oviedo Barrantes, Anabel Pereira, Jorge Pleitez, Veronica Puga, Noemi Ruiz Lavado, Alejandro Rossi, Cristina Segovia, Lorena Velandia, Maria Elena Venegas, Federico Villafane, Dan Waisman, Alejandro Young. In 2003, a group of physicians in Latin America noted the painful and regrettable discrepancy between neonatal delivery of care and outcomes in the Latin American region. They formed SIBEN, the Ibero-American Society of Neonatology, a not-for-profit public charitable organization (501\[c\]\[3\]) committed to advancing positive change for improving …

Although the “printed matter doctrine” has a long history in U.S. patent law, until recently it has played a relatively minor role in policing patent-ability, so much so that an article published in 1994 essentially wrote it off as nothing more than an “archaic common law has-been.” Although the doctrine is rooted in the concept of patent eligibility, it is never mentioned in recent patent eligibility decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court such as Mayo and Alice, and patent law treatises and casebooks tend to give the doctrine little if any coverage. At its core, the printed matter doctrine has traditionally functioned to prevent the patenting of a product in situations where the sole purported basis for patent-ability resides in novel and non-obvious information appended to a product that is otherwise unpatentable in view of the prior art. Historically, the doctrine has been invoked with respect to physical products paired with literally printed material, i.e., printed information on a physical substrate such as paper or a computer-readable medium. Recent judicial decisions have, however, expanded the doctrine to encompass method claims, as well as information that is not embodied in any physical medium, such as advice orally provided by a physician to a patient. In the Federal Circuit’s most recent printed matter case, Praxair v. Mallinckrodt, decided in May 2018, the court expanded the doctrine still further, holding that a limitation in a method claim reciting a step of merely thinking about information, i.e., a mental step, constitutes printed matter. The printed matter doctrine is increasingly being applied in the life sciences, particularly with respect to new methods of using known drugs for known indications.

Currently, there is a concern at the national level of the overuse of both prescription and nonprescription opioid use. The purpose of this study was to identify whether the use of the intravenous (IV) formulation of acetaminophen (Ofirmev; Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Staines-upon-Thames, United Kingdom) is an effective tool in the reduction of postoperative pain, with a secondary goal of reduction of postoperative narcotic use.A total of 72 patients with previously diagnosed either partial bony or complete bony impacted third molars were selected with care to avoid long-acting local anesthetics or dissociative anesthetic agents. The patients' postoperative pain scores at 4 and 24 hours were collected via a verbal rating scale by the primary investigator. The exclusion criteria included administration of bupivacaine or ketamine, hepatic or renal impairment, pregnancy, or allergy to any of the normally administered sedation medications.At all postoperative increments (immediately, 4 hours, and 24 hours), there was no significant difference at P .05 between scores for either the IV acetaminophen or placebo group. Although there was a recorded difference in reduction of pain at both 4 and 24 hours postoperatively, these were not statistically significant variables.The use of IV acetaminophen showed no statistically significant decrease in patient pain at either 4 or 24 hours postoperatively. Although there are not representative data suggesting the routine use of IV acetaminophen, on the basis of the abundance of literature on the treatment of pain for other procedures, this medication should not be discarded as ineffective.