data safety monitoring board
Recently Published Documents
TOTAL DOCUMENTS
H-INDEX
The Design and Rationale of a Phase 2b, Randomized, Double-Blinded, and Placebo-Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Lomecel-B in Older Adults with Frailty
Background: Frailty in older adults is a rapidly growing unmet medical need. It is an aging-related syndrome characterized by physical decline leading to higher risk of adverse health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of Lomecel-B, an allogeneic medicinal signaling cell (MSC) formulation, in older adults with frailty. DESIGN: This multicenter, randomized, parallel-arm, double-blinded, and placebo-controlled phase 2b trial is designed to evaluate dose-range effects of Lomecel-B for frailty on physical functioning, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), frailty status, and biomarkers. SETTING: Eight enrolling clinical research centers, including the Miami Veterans Affairs Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: Target enrollment is 150 subjects aged 70-85 years of any race, ethnicity, or gender. Enrollment criteria include a Clinical Frailty Score of 5 (“mild”) or 6 (“moderate”), a 6MWT of 200-400 m, and serum tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) ≥2.5 pg/mL. INTERVENTION: A single intravenous infusion of Lomecel-B (25, 50, 100, or 200 million cells) or placebo (N=30/arm). Patients are followed for 365 days for safety, and the efficacy assessments performed at 90, 180, and 270 days. MEASUREMENTS: The primary endpoint is change in 6MWT in the Lomecel-B-treated arms versus placebo at 180 days post-infusion. Secondary and exploratory endpoints include change in: 6MWT and other physical function measures at all time points; PROs; frailty status; cognitive status; and an inflammatory biomarkers panel. A pre-specified sub-study examines vascular/endothelial biomarkers. Safety is evaluated throughout the trial. RESULTS: The trial is conducted under a Food and Drug Administration Investigational New Drug (IND), with Institutional Review Board approval, and monitoring by an NIH-appointed independent Data Safety Monitoring Board. CONCLUSION: This clinical trial investigates the use of a regenerative medicine strategy for frailty in older adults. The results will further the understanding of the potential for Lomecel-B in the geriatric condition of frailty.
Abstract Background Neonatal sepsis is a global public health problem. There is no consensus regarding the optimum duration of antibiotics for culture-proven neonatal sepsis. Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing shorter versus longer courses of antibiotics provide low-quality evidence with serious risk of bias. We hypothesized that among neonates with uncomplicated culture-proven sepsis, antibiotic duration of 7 days is not inferior to 14 days. Methods This is a multi-centric, parallel-group, stratified, block-randomized, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial with outcome assessment blinded. Stratification is by center and birth weight. Neonates weighing ≥1000 g at birth, with blood-culture-proven sepsis (barring Staphylococcus aureus and fungi), without conditions warranting > 14 days antibiotics, and who clinically remit, are enrolled in the RCT on day 7 of administration of sensitive antibiotics. They are randomly allocated to no further antibiotics (intervention arm: total 7 days) or 7 more days of the same antibiotics (control arm: total 14 days). Allocation is concealed by opaque, sealed envelopes. The primary outcome is “definite or probable relapse” within 21 days after antibiotic completion. Secondary outcomes include definite and probable relapses at various timepoints until day 35 post-randomization, secondary infections, and adverse events. The neonatologist adjudicating probable relapses and lab personnel are blinded. Three hundred fifty subjects will be recruited in each arm, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 7%, one-sided alpha error 5%, and power of 90%. Analysis will be per protocol and by intention-to-treat. An independent Data Safety Monitoring Board monitors adverse events and will perform one interim analysis when 50% of expected primary outcomes have occurred or 50% of subjects have completed follow-up, whichever is earlier. O’Brien-Fleming criteria will be used to stop for mid-term benefit and Pocock’s to stop for mid-term harm. A priori subgroup analyses are planned by birth weight categories, gram-stain status of pathogens, and radiological pneumonia. Discussion This trial will provide evidence to guide practice regarding optimum duration of antibiotics for culture-proven neonatal bacterial sepsis. If a 7-day regime is proved to be non-inferior to a 14-day regime, it is likely to reduce hospital stay, costs, adverse effects of drugs, and nosocomial infections. Trial registration Clinical Trials Registry India CTRI/2017/09/009743. Registered on 13 September 2017.
Abstract Alpha granules in megakaryocytes contain a mixture of endogenously expressed proteins as well as proteins taken up from the intramedullar fluid. Both pools are thought to be found in all alpha granules in the megakaryocytes and released platelets. We have been studying the ectopic expression of urokinase (uPA) in platelets as a targeting strategy for fibrinolysis of nascent thrombi without causing fibrinolysis of established thrombi. These studies also demonstrated that there are two distinct pools of alpha granules, an endogenous cargo pool of granules and an exogenous uptake cargo pool of granules. Using in vitro grown megakaryocytes from two sources (1) CD34+-hematopoietic progenitor cells and (2) induced-pluripotent stem cell derived line imMKCL kindly provided by Dr. Koji Eto at Kyoto University, we demonstrated that urokinase can be localized within alpha granules in the megakaryocytes by either adding urokinase to the media or by ectopically expressing the protein using a lentiviral strategy. We observed that both a human single-chain uPA (scuPA) or a plasmin-insensitive but thrombin-activatable truncated human uPA mutant (uPA-T) in the media were internalized into granules distinct from granules containing ectopically expressed mouse scuPA following lentiviral transduction. Endocytosed uPA showed no co-localization with endogenous von Willebrand Factor (vWF), but significant colocalization with endocytosed Factor V or plasminogen (PLG) on confocal immunofluorescent microscopy. Further, Factor V competed with both uPA variants for uptake from the media. Uptake of these proteins was inhibited by the LRP1 antagonist receptor-associated protein (RAP) and by anti-LRP1 antibodies. This suggests that both proteins use the same endocytic receptor pathway and share this pathway with other proteins taken up from the media, including Factor V. We found that in vitro-generated CD34+ megakaryocytes pre-loaded with exogenously added PLG and co-incubated thereafter with recombinant scuPA and FV significantly degraded FV; however, no vWF degradation was observed in CD34+-derived megakaryocytes that had endocytosed or ectopically expressed scuPA with exogenously added PLG, suggesting that only the proteins which are endocytosed by in vitro-generated megakaryocytes are degraded by uPA-generated plasmin, whereas endogenous alpha-granular proteins remain intact. We then asked whether uPA localized in these two distinct pools can be released at sites of nascent thrombus formation and be effective in preventing nascent thrombus growth. We infused CD34+-derived MKs into NOD-scid IL2rγnull (NSG) mice homozygous for VWF R1326H (a mutation switching binding VWF specificity from mouse to human GPIb/IX). NSG/VWF R1326H mice have impaired clotting after vascular injury compared to NSG mice unless infused with human platelets or MKs . Significantly less post-injury clotting was seen upon infusion of either endogenous or exogenous scuPA-containing MK infusion. Further studies to define relative efficacy at the same levels of scuPA are being pursued. These studies show that there are two sets of alpha granules that remain separate during megakaryopoiesis in vitro: granules with endogenously expressed cargo and granules with endocytosed cargo with limited mixing between the two pools by confocal microscopy studies and following PLG uptake studies. The extent of mixing that occurs subsequently in released platelets was not studied nor has these finding been done with primary MKs not grown in culture; however, we believe that these studies extend our understanding of the nature of alpha granules and offer new insights into how to manipulate their cargo. Disclosures Cines: Dova: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Treeline: Consultancy; Arch Oncol: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy; Taventa: Consultancy; Principia: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board.
Abstract Background: Hydroxyurea (HU) is the primary medication used to prevent the significant medical and neurologic morbidities of pediatric sickle cell disease (SCD; HbSS or HbSB0 thalassemia). Despite the benefits of HU, it remains under-utilized likely due to lack of clinician knowledge/training and negative caregiver perceptions. Thus, we developed the Engage-HU randomized controlled trial (NCT03442114) as a novel approach to address HU utilization barriers. Engage-HU is designed to assess how clinicians can engage caregivers in a shared discussion that considers their values, preferences, and scientific evidence about HU. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant changes to healthcare delivery for children with SCD, as they are at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 infection. Given their risk status, it was recommended that patients with SCD complete telehealth visits when possible. Some families also chose to delay care because they feared their child would get infected at hospitals/healthcare clinics that care for COVID-19 positive patients. Since the lives of all families enrolled in the Engage-HU trial have been affected to some extent, we incorporated measures to capture the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the usability of telemedicine implementation and services. Methods: Engage-HU is a randomized control trial comparing two dissemination methods for clinicians to facilitate shared decision-making with caregivers of young children with SCD. Study outcomes include caregiver confidence in decision-making and perceptions of experiencing shared decision-making as well as HU uptake and child health outcomes. Eligible children are 0 to 5 years, candidates for HU, and their caregiver has not decided about HU in the past 3 months. The trial is being conducted at 9 sites in the United States and uses a unidirectional crossover design. The primary endpoints are caregiver decisional uncertainty and caregiver perception of shared decision-making measured using validated tools. Data will be analyzed using the intent-to-treat principle, and all participants will remain in the arm to which they were randomized. A multiple group comparison analysis will be performed to assess significant response variable differences by group randomization. The Engage-HU study aims to recruit 174 caregivers who are considering initiating HU. The trial is being conducted at 9 sites in the United States. Data collection is ongoing, and 160 caregiver-participants have been enrolled to date. Since May 2020, caregiver-participants have completed the COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Scales (CEFIS), which contain 2 subscales (exposure to potentially traumatic aspects of the pandemic, impact on families), and the COVID-19 telemedicine use survey during a study visit. Results: Currently, 8 of the 9 sites have collected data from 48 caregivers (93.8% mothers), most of whom (93.8%) identify as African American/Black (see Figure 1). Correlations indicated that older caregivers experienced greater exposure (Mean = 7.0, SD = 4.1, range = 1-19) to potentially traumatic aspects of the pandemic (r = .31, p = .04). Distress related to COVID-19 varied widely across the sample, for both caregivers (Mean = 5.9, SD = 2.9, range = 1-10) and children (Mean = 4.1, SD = 3.4, range = 1-10). Scores on the telemedicine usability survey were generally high, indicating that caregivers are happy with the quality of care delivered via telehealth. However, caregivers (r = .30, p = .09) and children (r = .32, p = .07) experiencing more pandemic-related distress reported less satisfaction with telehealth. Conclusion: Although Engage-HU has resumed research operations, recruitment has not reached pre-pandemic targets, as fewer eligible patients are scheduled for routine care visits at SCD clinics. Our preliminary analyses suggest a significant continued impact of the pandemic on families and general satisfaction with the quality of healthcare delivered via telemedicine. These findings indicate that targeted screenings to identify and intervene for those who demonstrate more COVID-19 pandemic-related distress are needed. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Quinn: Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy; Aruvant: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; Emmaus Medical: Research Funding. Yates: Agios Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment. Badawy: Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio Inc: Consultancy. Thompson: bluebird bio, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Baxalta: Research Funding; Biomarin: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding; Vertex: Research Funding; Editas: Research Funding; Graphite Bio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy; Beam: Consultancy; Global Blood Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Smith-Whitley: Global Blood Therapeutics: Current Employment. King: National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: Research Funding; Health Resources and Services Administration: Research Funding; Global Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding. Meier: CVS Caremark: Consultancy; Forma Therapeutic: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NovoNordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis,: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board membership; NHLBI: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board membership; Global Blood Therapeutics: Other: Steering Committee membership, grant funding; CDC,: Other: grant funding; Indiana Department of Health: Other: grant funding . Tubman: Global Blood Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Forma Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Perkin Elmer: Honoraria. Crosby: Forma Therapeutics: Honoraria; PCORI: Research Funding; HRSA: Research Funding; Global Blood Therapeutics Panel: Honoraria; Children's Hospital of Philadelphia: Honoraria; Professional Resource Exchange: Patents & Royalties: $30-$60 every other year; SCDAA: Honoraria; NHLBI: Other: Payment for review of LRP Proposals, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Hydroxyurea has been FDA approved for the treatment of sickle cell disease for patients ages 2 years and above but NHLBI and ASH Guidelines recommend it be offered to children as young as age 9 months.
Abstract Background: A recent study from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of EBMT demonstrated that outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have improved significantly over time and that total body irradiation (TBI) should be considered as the preferable type of myeloablative conditioning (MAC). This study, however, did not compare outcomes of allo-HCT in patients with CNS involvement (CNS-pos) vs. those without CNS disease (CNS-neg). Study population: Here, we evaluate post allo-HCT outcomes of 547 patients (CNS-pos at initial presentation=96, CNS-neg=451) who underwent the procedure in first complete remission (CR1) between 2009 and 2019 at an EBMT participating transplant center. The distribution of ALL subtypes were as follows: CNS-pos (Ph-neg B ALL=28%, Ph-pos B ALL=27%, and T-cell ALL=45%) and for CNS-neg (Ph-neg B ALL=21%, Ph-pos B ALL=44%, and T-cell ALL=35%), p=0.01. The primary endpoint was leukemia-free survival (LFS). Results: The median follow up was not statistically different between the CNS-pos (78.7 months) and the CNS-neg group (67.2 months), p=0.58. Patients in the CNS-pos group were younger (median age 31.3 vs. 39.7 years, p=0.004), received the procedure more recently (median year 2012 vs. 2010, p=0.003), were less likely to have a Karnofsky score of equal or higher than 90 (70.8% vs. 81.9%, p=0.017), or to have received peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) (61.5% vs. 72.7%, p=0.028). The groups did not differ in regards to donor source (URD, 50% vs. 56.5%, p=0.24) or the intensity of the preparative regimen (MAC, 82.3% vs. 85.6%, p=0.41). In multivariate analysis, CNS-pos were associated with higher cumulative incidence of relapse (HR=1.58 (95%CI=1.06-2.35), P=0.025) and a trend for an inferior leukemia-free survival (LFS) (HR=1.38 (95%CI=0.99-1.92), p=0.057), but did not adversely impact overall survival (OS) (HR=1.28 (95%CI=0.89-1.85), p=0.18). A subgroup multivariate analysis limited to patients with CNS-pos showed that prescribing a TBI MAC regimen (vs. others) results in a lower cumulative incidence of relapse (HR=0.35 (95%CI=0.15-0.79), p=0.012) and better LFS (HR=0.43 (95%CI=0.22-0.83), p=0.01) and OS (HR=0.44 (95%CI=0.21-0.92), p=0.03). Use of PBSC (vs. BM) was also independently associated with better OS (HR=0.53 (95%CI=0.29-0.99), p=0.046). Conclusion: Notwithstanding the inherent limitations of registry data, particularly ascertaining the absence of CNS involvement in the CNS-neg group, our results show CNS involvement as an independent risk factor for relapse following allo-HCT. Our data support, nonetheless, the choice of a TBI-based MAC regimen in this group of patients but stresses the need for close monitoring of relapse after allo-HCT. Disclosures Labopin: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Bazarbachi: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Hikma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mielke: Immunicum: Other: Data safety monitoring board; DNA Prime SA: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/KITE: Other: Travel support, Expert panel ; Miltenyi: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau. Socie: Alexion: Research Funding. Huynh: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Yakoub-Agha: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Giebel: Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Peric: Therakos, Servier, MSD, Astellas, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer: Honoraria. Mohty: Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria.
Abstract Patient selection becomes crucial for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), to identify those who may benefit the most from specific treatments. This is particularly important for patients for whom evidence of current treatment options remains very limited. One such subgroup is MM with extramedullary disease (EMD), especially those with organ manifestation. Maintenance therapy after autologous transplantation improves outcome for eligible NDMM patients, but randomized trials only included a small proportion of EMD patients, and to date, no adequate data exist on maintenance in this cohort. Here, we aimed to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of NDMM with or without EMD after autologous transplant and maintenance therapy. Cohorts were identified from NDMM patients undergoing first autologous transplant between 2008 and 2018. Involvement had to be documented as absent or present. Maintenance treatment was defined as single-agent treatment within 6 months after first autologous transplant without relapse. Outcomes were calculated from the start of maintenance therapy. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary end point was cumulative incidence of relapse. In total, 830 NDMM patients with or without EMD were eligible, receiving either thalidomide (n=287), lenalidomide (n=446), bortezomib (n=75), or daratumumab (n=22; results for these patients will be presented at the meeting). 107 had EMD (n=83 paraskeletal and n=24 organ involvement). Maintenance drug distribution did not differ between NDMM with or without EMD (P=0.69) and is shown in Table 1. Fewer patients with organ involvement had IgA MM (23% vs 21% for no EMD and paraskeletal involvement, respectively). Patients with organ involvement more frequently were ISS stage III (50% vs 24% for no EMD and 15% for paraskeletal involvement). The median follow-up of the entire cohort was 44 months (95% CI, 40-48 months). According to involvement, 3-year PFS was 52% (48-57%) for patients without EMD, 56% (44-69%) for paraskeletal involvement, and 45% (22-68%) for organ involvement (P=0.15). Of note, early outcome after maintenance start appeared to be significantly worse for organ involvement, with 1-year PFS of 58% vs 81% for paraskeletal involvement and 82% for no EMD. 3-year OS was 81% (77-84%) for no EMD, 88% (80-96%) for paraskeletal involvement, and 68% (47-89%) for organ involvement (p=0.06). Survival curves are depicted in Figure 1. Regarding relapse, organ involvement showed worse early 1-year cumulative incidence, with 42% vs 19% for paraskeletal involvement and 16% for no EMD. In terms of maintenance therapy in patients without EMD, 3-year PFS was 45% (38-52%) for thalidomide, 59% (52-65%) for lenalidomide, 45% (31-59%) for bortezomib (P=0.005). 3-year OS was 79% (73-85%), 83% (78-88%), and 74% (61-87%; P=0.30). Relapse incidence was also significantly different showing lower relapse rates for lenalidomide (P=0.002). In terms of maintenance therapy in patients with EMD, 3-year PFS was 52% (36-67%) for thalidomide, 43% (27-60%) for lenalidomide, 65% (32-97%) for bortezomib (P=0.90). Overall survival was 81% (69-93%) for thalidomide, 86% (76-97%) for lenalidomide, and 89% (68-100%) for bortezomib (P=0.70). In multivariable analysis on PFS (including ISS, performance score, age, remission status) adjusting for early events at 1 year, organ involvement was significantly associated with worse early outcome (hazard ratio, 3.35; P=0.002) and showed no significant difference vs patients with no EMD after 1 year of follow-up. Paraskeletal involvement was not associated with different PFS. Lenalidomide was associated with significantly reduced risk for death or relapse/progression (hazard ratio, 0.69; P=0.003) vs thalidomide, and no difference was seen for bortezomib vs thalidomide. For OS, organ involvement appeared to be associated with worse outcome (hazard ratio 1.71; P=0.17), while no difference was seen for paraskeletal and no EMD. Lenalidomide (hazard ratio 0.72; P=0.05) and bortezomib (hazard ratio, 0.56; P=0.06) appeared to be associated with better OS. In conclusion, organ involvement was associated with worse early PFS, despite maintenance treatment. Different maintenance treatment did not seem to affect outcome in EMD. For patients without EMD, lenalidomide showed significantly higher PFS compared with thalidomide. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures McDonald: BioCryst Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kobbe: Celgene: Research Funding. Anagnostopoulos: Abbvie: Other: clinical trials; Sanofi: Other: clinical trials ; Ocopeptides: Other: clinical trials ; GSK: Other: clinical trials; Incyte: Other: clinical trials ; Takeda: Other: clinical trials ; Amgen: Other: clinical trials ; Janssen: Other: clinical trials; novartis: Other: clinical trials; Celgene: Other: clinical trials; Roche: Other: clinical trials; Astellas: Other: clinical trials . Deconinck: Stemline Therapetutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imunogen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Travel Grants, Research Funding; Abbevie: Research Funding. Delforge: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Thurner: Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Other: Travel support; Janssen: Other: Travel support; EUSA-Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Astra-Zeneca: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria. Mielke: Immunicum: Other: Data safety monitoring board; DNA Prime SA: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/KITE: Other: Travel support, Expert panel ; Miltenyi: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau. Beksac: Amgen,Celgene,Janssen,Takeda,Oncopeptides,Sanofi: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Schönland: Pfizer: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Other: Travel grants; Sanofi: Research Funding. Yakoub-Agha: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria.
Abstract Background. Polycythemia vera (PV) patients are treated with periodic therapeutic phlebotomy (TP) alone or in combination with either hydroxyurea (HU), ruxolitinib (RUX) or interferon (IFN) to maintain hematocrit (HCT) levels below 45% as per NCCN guidelines. Since patients are seen periodically, PV patients may spend significant time with HCT levels above 45%, thereby increasing their risk of thrombosis [Marchioli NEJM 2013]. PV is associated with systemic symptoms with fatigue. These fatigue-related symptoms are found to be the most prevalent and severe as reported in an international survey among PV patients [Scherber Cancer 2016]. Symptomatic iron deficiency represents an unaddressed clinical challenge to PV patients as most PV patients have iron deficiency at diagnosis due to increased iron utilization [Ginzburg Leukemia 2018]. The iron deficiency worsens after repeated TP. We have demonstrated in a phase 2 study that rusfertide (PTG-300) has a good tolerability profile and achieves HCT control in PV patients with improvement in iron deficiency. Methods. This is a Phase 3, multicenter, global, randomized trial that compares the efficacy and safety of rusfertide compared to placebo when added on to current therapy for PV (Figure 1). The study population is PV subjects who require frequent phlebotomies to control their hematocrit with or without concurrent therapy. This is a three-part study in subjects with polycythemia vera: - Part 1a: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on parallel-group period for 32 weeks. Subjects will be stratified by their ongoing PV treatment and randomized 1:1 to rusfertide or placebo added-on to their ongoing PV treatment. - Part 1b: open-label treatment phase during which all subjects who complete Part 1a successfully will receive rusfertide for 20 weeks (Week 32 through Week 52). - Part 2: Long term extension (LTE) phase during which all subjects who complete Part 1b will continue to receive rusfertide for 32 weeks (Week 52 to Week 84). Inclusion Criteria: Approximately 250 subjects will be randomized. Eligibility criteria include PV diagnosis (by 2016 WHO criteria) and frequent phlebotomies with or without concurrent cytoreductive therapy to maintain HCT below 45% in the 6 months prior to enrollment in Part 1. Eligible subjects will continue to receive their therapy at screening for PV (phlebotomy alone (TP) or cytoreductive therapy + TP) and must have a hematocrit <45% at Week 0 prior to randomization. Subjects who meet the eligibility criteria will be stratified by ongoing PV therapy (TP only, TP+hydroxyurea, TP+ruxolitinib, TP+interferon, TP+other) and randomized 1:1 to treatment with rusfertide or placebo added on to the subject's ongoing PV therapy at Week 0. The "add on" design allows subjects to receive standard cytoreductive therapy to control WBC and/or platelets and to receive rusfertide/placebo. The dose of cytoreductive therapy in Part 1a and Part 1b may be decreased for safety but may not be increased for efficacy including control of hematocrit, elevated platelets and/or WBC. Primary endpoint: Proportion of subjects achieving a response starting at Week 20 through Week 32 (inclusive) who receive rusfertide compared to placebo. A response is defined as absence of phlebotomy eligibility defined as either: 1. a confirmed hematocrit ≥45% and that is at least 3% higher than the baseline hematocrit (value immediately prior to randomization at Week 0); confirmation required within 1 to 7 days, or 2. a hematocrit ≥48%. Key words: Hepcidin, Hematocrit, Rusfertide, PTG-300, Polycythemia Vera, PV, Therapeutic Phlebotomy Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Verstovsek: Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Ital Pharma: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Constellation: Consultancy; Pragmatist: Consultancy. Kuykendall: Pharmaessentia: Honoraria; Protagonist: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Blueprint: Honoraria. Hoffman: AbbVie Inc.: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy; Kartos Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Pemmaraju: Incyte: Consultancy; HemOnc Times/Oncology Times: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Research Support, Research Funding; Abbvie Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; MustangBio: Consultancy, Other; Stemline Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; DAVA Oncology: Consultancy; Dan's House of Hope: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy; Roche Diagnostics: Consultancy; LFB Biotechnologies: Consultancy; ASCO Leukemia Advisory Panel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Plexxicon: Other, Research Funding; Samus: Other, Research Funding; Sager Strong Foundation: Other; Aptitude Health: Consultancy; Affymetrix: Consultancy, Research Funding; CareDx, Inc.: Consultancy; Springer Science + Business Media: Other; ASH Communications Committee: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellectis S.A. ADR: Other, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.: Other, Research Funding; Clearview Healthcare Partners: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; ImmunoGen, Inc: Consultancy; Pacylex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Valone: Protagonist Therapeutics: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Modi: Protagonist Therapeutics: Current Employment. Khanna: Protagonist: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. O'Connor: Protagonist Therapeutics: Current Employment. Gupta: Protagonist Therapeutics: Current Employment. Kiladjian: Taiho Oncology, Inc.: Research Funding; 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; Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PharmaEssentia: Other: Personal fees; AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.
Abstract Background: Treosulfan has been increasingly used in reduced toxicity regimens, especially in older or frail patients. Different doses of treosulfan plus fludarabine have shown an advantage over reduced intensity regimens, confirmed by a randomized phase 3 trial utilizing treosulfan 30 g/m² (or FT10) in the majority of patients. However, data comparing fludarabine with higher doses of treosulfan (FT14) to fludarabine combined with myeloablative doses of busulfan are limited. Aims: We compared outcomes between treatment alternatives of similar conditioning intensity: FT14 (fludarabine 150 or 160 mg/m 2 and treosulfan 42g/m 2, or FT14) over FB4 (fludarabine 150 or 160 mg/m 2 and busulfan 12.8 mg/kg). Methods: We retrospectively studied consecutive patients from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) registry, meeting the following inclusion criteria: a) adults diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), b) recipients of first allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) from a matched unrelated or sibling donor between 2010-2020, c) HSCT at first or second complete remission (CR), d) conditioning regimen with either FT14 or FB4. Patients with ex vivo manipulated grafts were excluded. A sub-group analysis was performed according to age (<55 years or ≥55 years). Results: In total, 2703 patients were included in the analysis comprising 2025 (75%) transplanted with FB4, and 678 (25%) with FT14. In the sub-group of patients younger than 55 years (n=1676), FT14 recipients (n=236) had a significantly increased age (p<0.001), higher rates of secondary AML (p<0.0001), unrelated donors (p<0.0001), and peripheral blood grafts (p=0.026), but a lower percentage of female donors to male recipients (p=0.008), compared to FB4 recipients (n=1440). Cumulative incidence (CI) of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) grade III-IV was higher in FT14 (9.3% versus 5.8%, p=0.044), but rates of chronic GVHD were similar. With a median follow-up of 24.4 months (range 23.4-25.6), 2-year CI of relapse was higher in FT14 (35.9% versus 27.5%, p=0.025, Figure 1A), while non-relapse mortality was similar between groups (NRM 11.9% versus 7.7%, p=0.28, 1B). This led to lower 2-year leukemia-free survival (LFS 52.2% versus 62.4%, p=0.002, 1C), overall survival (OS 63.2% versus 72.9%, p=0.038, 1D), and GVHD free, relapse free survival (GRFS 41.3% versus 50%, p=0.004) in FT14. In Cox-regression multivariate analysis, conditioning regimen remained an independent predictor of CI of relapse (p=0.011), and LFS (p=0.03). Similar differences in patient characteristics were observed in patients aged ≥55 years (n=1027). FT14 recipients (n=442) had a significantly increased age (p<0.001), higher rates of secondary AML (p<0.0001), unrelated donors (p<0.0001), adverse cytogenetics (p<0.0001), peripheral blood grafts (p=0.026), but a lower percentage of female to male combinations (p=0.008) compared to FB4 (n=585). Cumulative incidence (CI) of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) grade II-IV was higher in FT14 (7.6% versus 6.5%, p=0.001), with similar rates of chronic GVHD. Nevertheless, with a median follow-up of 29.6 months (range 23.9-34.1), 2-year CI of relapse, NRM, as well as LFS, OS and GFRS were similar between groups. Conclusion: With the limitations of a retrospective analysis, our large real-world multicenter study suggests that FB4 is associated with better outcomes compared to FT14 in younger patients with AML transplanted in first or second CR. The same was not true for older patients (≥55 years). It should also be noted that FT14 has been selected by treating physicians for higher risk HSCT, including patients who are older, have secondary disease, adverse cytogenetics, and unrelated donors. Therefore, further studies are needed to determine the optimal conditioning regimen for such patient populations. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Gavriilaki: Alexion, Omeros, Sanofi Corporation: Consultancy; Gilead Corporation: Honoraria; Pfizer Corporation: Research Funding. Labopin: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Yakoub-Agha: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Hilgendorf: Novartis: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Celgene: Other: Travel Support; SanofiGenzyme: Other: Travel Support. Kröger: Novartis: Research Funding; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Pharma: Honoraria. Mielke: Gilead/KITE: Other: Travel support, Expert panel ; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Immunicum: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Miltenyi: Other: Data safety monitoring board; DNA Prime SA: Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau. Zuckerman: AbbVie: Honoraria; Orgenesis Inc.: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BioSight Ltd: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Cellect Biotechnology: Honoraria. Giebel: Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Bazarbachi: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Hikma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Spyridonidis: Menarini: Current Employment. Mohty: Astellas: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria.
Abstract Despite significantly improved preventive measures, acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) remains as one of the most frequent complications after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). Its clinical grading is determined by the evaluation of its primarily affected organs, namely skin, liver and the gastro-intestinal tract. A number of existing grading systems, of which the 'Keystone Consensus' (Przepiorka D et al. BMT 1994) and MAGIC grading systems (Harris AC et al. BBMT 2016) are the most customary, have been proposed over the years to evaluate aGVHD severity based on the extent of aGVHD organ involvement. However, limitations remain regarding its association with clinical outcome. In the current era, particularly consensus grades I and II aGVHD are hardly distinguishable with respect to overall survival (OS). Given the discrepancies in aGVHD grading, we hypothesized that a data-driven approach would support the understanding and classification of aGVHD with respect to organ involvement, clinical outcome and risk cohorts. Here, we validated on a large, multi-national EBMT cohort a novel data-driven grading system for aGVHD that was previously developed by unsupervised learning applying principal component analysis on aGVHD organ stages (Turki AT et al. EHA 2020). The resulting Machine Learning (ML) aGVHD grading had 12 stages that were divided into 4 balanced ML-aGVHD grades to assess the severity of aGVHD, different from conventional grading. Our study included 19,617 adult patients with first HCT for hematologic malignancies between 2009 and 2018 and evidence of aGVHD. All donors except cord blood HCT were included. Detailed aGVHD organ involvement were required for the calculation of the ML-aGVHD score. Exclusion criteria were missing information on aGVHD organ involvement or follow up and very late onset aGVHD (> d+180). The baseline characteristics of this cohort reflect current HCT practice, with acute myeloid leukemia (55.3%) as predominant disease and a majority of unrelated donor HCT recipients (63.7%). Myeloablative conditioning was used in 46.7% of patients. In addition to baseline calcineurin inhibitors, 60.6% of patients received in-vivo T cell depletion with ATG or Campath. The ML-aGVHD grading distinguished 12 ML stages with significantly different clinical outcomes for OS (Figure 1a), non-relapse mortality (NRM) and relapse. The 4 ML-aGVHD grades (ML-I, stages 1-3; ML-II stages 4-6; ML-III, stages 7-9; ML-IV stages 10-12) revealed highly significant and clinically relevant differences for OS and NRM (p<0.0001). Utilizing the ML-aGVHD grading, 71.3% of patients were categorized ML-I, 18.3% ML-II, 7.98% ML-III and 2.38% ML-IV. The 6-month and 12-month OS probability from the diagnosis of aGVHD were 85.4% and 75.3% for ML-I, 72,7% and 61.5% for ML-II, 41.5% and 31% for ML-III and 14.8% and 9.1% for ML-IV, respectively (Figure 1b). We also analyzed the impact of covariates from the EBMT database on clinical outcome by Cox regression. All significant variables from univariate Cox regression were integrated into multivariate models for OS and NRM. Confounding factors for multivariate analysis for OS included patient age, gender, performance status, remission at HCT, HCT period, donor constellation and CMV status. The analysis confirmed the significant differences for OS as revealed by the ML-aGVHD grading system (p<0.0001), independent of these confounders. Also for NRM, the multivariate analysis confirmed the distinction as by the ML-aGVHD grading (p<0.0001). Finally, we compared the performance of the ML-aGVHD algorithm to the keystone consensus grading. Here 35.2% of patients were diagnosed with grade I aGVHD, 39.4% with grade II, 17.3 with grade III and 8.1% with grade IV aGVHD. In short, the ML-aGVHD grading system was successfully validated on an independent multi-national EBMT cohort. It integrated multi-organ aGVHD involvement different from conventional aGVHD grading by accounting for each affected organ. Our findings support the additional use of the ML-aGVHD grading system for the assessment of aGVHD severity in patients after HCT, in order to identify patients at risk for high NRM and reduced OS. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Turki: CSL Behring: Consultancy; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Penack: Omeros: Consultancy; Shionogi: Consultancy; Priothera: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Therakos: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Neovii: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria. Schoemans: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CIBMTR: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: personal fees , Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel grants and personal fees; Gilead: Other: travel grants; BHS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants and personal fees , Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: personal fees; Takeda: Other: personal fees. Socie: Alexion: Research Funding. Reinhardt: Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Vertex: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; CDL Therapeutics: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Blaise: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Kröger: Novartis: Research Funding; Riemser: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Neovii: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Pharma: Honoraria. Mielke: DNA Prime SA: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/KITE: Other: Travel support, Expert panel ; Miltenyi: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau; Immunicum: Other: Data safety monitoring board. Yakoub-Agha: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Forcade: MSD: Other: Travel Support; Jazz: Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel Support, Speakers Bureau. Basak: Saventic Health: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Perić: therakos: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria.
Abstract Patients with myeloproliferative neoplasm-blast phase (MPN-BP) have a particularly dismal prognosis with a median survival of less than 6 months with currently available therapies (Mesa Blood 2015). Decitabine is the standard of care for MPN-BP. Recently, using xenotransplantation assays, we have shown that MPN-BP originates at the hematopoietic stem cell (SC) level (Wang Blood 2018) and that MPN-BP CD34 + cells contain higher levels of MDM2 protein compared with their normal counterparts (% of MDM2 + CD34 + cells: MPN-BP: 76.4±3.3; Normal: 17.5±6.4. P <0.05). MDM2 negatively regulates p53 activity and MDM2 inhibitors can activate p53 and induce apoptosis of TP53 WT cancer cells. As mutations or deletions of TP53 occur infrequently in MPN-BP, we examined the effects of a potent MDM2 inhibitor, navtemadlin (KRT-232; Canon Mol. Cancer Ther. 2015) and decitabine as monotherapy or in combination on the depletion or elimination of MPN-BP cells in a patient derived xenograft (PDX) model. We firstestablished the dynamics of leukemia cell recovery following a single cycle of navtemadlin treatment. Spleen cells with wild type (WT) TP53 and mutations in KRAS, RAD21, KMT2A and ASXL1 were collected from the 4 th generation of MPN-BP PDX mice. Forty days after injection of these spleen cells (4×10 5/mouse) into sublethally irradiated NSG mice, peripheral blood (PB) leukemic burden (hCD34 + cells: 0.39±0.09%) was demonstrated by flow cytometric analysis. Mice were treated with vehicle alone (n=3) or high doses of navtemadlin (100 mg/kg, n=4) by daily oral gavage on day (D) 1-7. Without navtemadlin treatment, leukemia engraftment and leukemic burden continued to increase until the mice died on D15-D23. By contrast, hCD34 + leukemic blasts were almost undetectable on D8 and remained at significantly lower levels in PB of mice treated with navtemadlin on D15, than were detected in mice receiving vehicle alone (D8: Vehicle: 1.8±1.3%; Navtemadlin: 0.1±0.1%. D15: Vehicle: 19.9±6.0%; Navtemadlin: 0.5±0.1%). These findings suggest that navtemadlin monotherapy has the potential to deplete MPN-BP blast cells and prolong survival in MPN-BP PDX mice. To achieve long-term remission and to prevent relapse, we treated MPN-BP PDX mice with multiple cycles of low (50 mg/kg, n=4) and high dose navtemadlin (100 mg/kg, n=5) at three-week intervals based on the dynamics of leukemia cell recovery following a single cycle of navtemadlin treatment. hCD34 + cells, which contain MPN-BP SCs, and hCD45 dimCD33 + leukemic blasts were reduced in the spleen, but not in the marrows of mice during 3 cycles of 100 mg/kg navtemadlin treatment. However, reduced leukemia cell burden in PB persisted during 3 cycles of navtemadlin treatment and was associated with a prolongation in survival, which was dose-dependent (Mean survival after transplantation: Vehicle: 64.0 days; 50mg/kg navtemadlin: 86.0 days; 100mg/kg navtemadlin: 98.3 days). We then examined if a combination of navtemadlin and decitabine is more effective than single agent therapy in depleting MPN-BP SCs. Again, navtemadlin at 100 mg/kg significantly reduced the leukemia cell burden in mouse PB on C1D8 (hCD34 + cells: Vehicle: 4.1±0.8%; Navtemadlin: 0.6±0.2%, an 85% decrease. hCD45 dimCD33 + cells: Vehicle: 1.4±0.3%; Navtemadlin: 0.04±0.03%, a 97% decrease. P <0.001 for both), which persisted during 2 cycles of treatment. By contrast, multiple cycles of decitabine monotherapy (2.5mg/kg, IP, 3 times/week in 21-day cycles) resulted in a modest reduction in hCD34 + cells and hCD45 dimCD33 + cells (11.4% and 30.1% decrease, respectively) in PB of MPN-BP PDX mice, and did not reduce these cells in either the spleen or bone marrow on C1D8. Finally, addition of decitabine to navtemadlin did not further deplete either MPN-BP SCs or leukemia cells and did not improve survival of MPN-BP PDX mice, as compared to treatment with navtemadlin alone. Mean survival after transplantation in the combination study was: Vehicle: 55.5 days; navtemadlin: 70.3 days; Decitabine: 56.3 days; Combination: 64.0 days. Furthermore, toxicity (body weight loss, intestinal pathology) was observed in mice receiving high dose of navtemadlin and decitabine simultaneously, but not when either drug was administered alone. In conclusion, navtemadlin monotherapy, which activates p53, depletes leukemia cell counts and prolongs survival of MPN-BP PDX mice and is a promising agent for patients with WT TP53 MPN-BP. Disclosures Krejsa: Kartos Therapeutics, Inc.: Current Employment. Hoffman: AbbVie Inc.: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding.
