Somatic mutational landscape of hereditary hematopoietic malignancies caused by germline variants in <i>RUNX1</i>, <i>GATA2</i>, and <i>DDX41</i>

Individuals with germ line variants associated with hereditary hematopoietic malignancies (HHMs) have a highly variable risk for leukemogenesis. Gaps in our understanding of premalignant states in HHMs have hampered efforts to design effective clinical surveillance programs, provide personalized preemptive treatments, and inform appropriate counseling for patients. We used the largest known comparative international cohort of germline RUNX1, GATA2, or DDX41 variant carriers without and with hematopoietic malignancies (HMs) to identify patterns of genetic drivers that are unique to each HHM syndrome before and after leukemogenesis. These patterns included striking heterogeneity in rates of early-onset clonal hematopoiesis (CH), with a high prevalence of CH in RUNX1 and GATA2 variant carriers who did not have malignancies (carriers-without HM). We observed a paucity of CH in DDX41 carriers-without HM. In RUNX1 carriers-without HM with CH, we detected variants in TET2, PHF6, and, most frequently, BCOR. These genes were recurrently mutated in RUNX1-driven malignancies, suggesting CH is a direct precursor to malignancy in RUNX1-driven HHMs. Leukemogenesis in RUNX1 and DDX41 carriers was often driven by second hits in RUNX1 and DDX41, respectively. This study may inform the development of HHM-specific clinical trials and gene-specific approaches to clinical monitoring. For example, trials investigating the potential benefits of monitoring DDX41 carriers-without HM for low-frequency second hits in DDX41 may now be beneficial. Similarly, trials monitoring carriers-without HM with RUNX1 germ line variants for the acquisition of somatic variants in BCOR, PHF6, and TET2 and second hits in RUNX1 are warranted

Significant benefits of AIP testing and clinical screening in familial isolated and young-onset pituitary tumors

Context Germline mutations in the aryl hydrocarbon receptor-interacting protein (AIP) gene are responsible for a subset of familial isolated pituitary adenoma (FIPA) cases and sporadic pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs). Objective To compare prospectively diagnosed AIP mutation-positive (AIPmut) PitNET patients with clinically presenting patients and to compare the clinical characteristics of AIPmut and AIPneg PitNET patients. Design 12-year prospective, observational study. Participants & Setting We studied probands and family members of FIPA kindreds and sporadic patients with disease onset ≤18 years or macroadenomas with onset ≤30 years (n = 1477). This was a collaborative study conducted at referral centers for pituitary diseases. Interventions & Outcome AIP testing and clinical screening for pituitary disease. Comparison of characteristics of prospectively diagnosed (n = 22) vs clinically presenting AIPmut PitNET patients (n = 145), and AIPmut (n = 167) vs AIPneg PitNET patients (n = 1310). Results Prospectively diagnosed AIPmut PitNET patients had smaller lesions with less suprasellar extension or cavernous sinus invasion and required fewer treatments with fewer operations and no radiotherapy compared with clinically presenting cases; there were fewer cases with active disease and hypopituitarism at last follow-up. When comparing AIPmut and AIPneg cases, AIPmut patients were more often males, younger, more often had GH excess, pituitary apoplexy, suprasellar extension, and more patients required multimodal therapy, including radiotherapy. AIPmut patients (n = 136) with GH excess were taller than AIPneg counterparts (n = 650). Conclusions Prospectively diagnosed AIPmut patients show better outcomes than clinically presenting cases, demonstrating the benefits of genetic and clinical screening. AIP-related pituitary disease has a wide spectrum ranging from aggressively growing lesions to stable or indolent disease course

A Delphi-method-based consensus guideline for definition of treatment-resistant depression for clinical trials.

Criteria for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and partially responsive depression (PRD) as subtypes of major depressive disorder (MDD) are not unequivocally defined. In the present document we used a Delphi-method-based consensus approach to define TRD and PRD and to serve as operational criteria for future clinical studies, especially if conducted for regulatory purposes. We reviewed the literature and brought together a group of international experts (including clinicians, academics, researchers, employees of pharmaceutical companies, regulatory bodies representatives, and one person with lived experience) to evaluate the state-of-the-art and main controversies regarding the current classification. We then provided recommendations on how to design clinical trials, and on how to guide research in unmet needs and knowledge gaps. This report will feed into one of the main objectives of the EUropean Patient-cEntric clinicAl tRial pLatforms, Innovative Medicines Initiative (EU-PEARL, IMI) MDD project, to design a protocol for platform trials of new medications for TRD/PRD

A Delphi-method-based consensus guideline for definition of treatment-resistant depression for clinical trials

Criteria for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and partially responsive depression (PRD) as subtypes of major depressive disorder (MDD) are not unequivocally defined. In the present document we used a Delphi-method-based consensus approach to define TRD and PRD and to serve as operational criteria for future clinical studies, especially if conducted for regulatory purposes. We reviewed the literature and brought together a group of international experts (including clinicians, academics, researchers, employees of pharmaceutical companies, regulatory bodies representatives, and one person with lived experience) to evaluate the state-of-the-art and main controversies regarding the current classification. We then provided recommendations on how to design clinical trials, and on how to guide research in unmet needs and knowledge gaps. This report will feed into one of the main objectives of the EUropean Patient-cEntric clinicAl tRial pLatforms, Innovative Medicines Initiative (EU-PEARL, IMI) MDD project, to design a protocol for platform trials of new medications for TRD/PRD

Anti-interleukin-21 antibody and liraglutide for the preservation of β-cell function in adults with recent-onset type 1 diabetes: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND: Type 1 diabetes is characterised by progressive loss of functional beta-cell mass, necessitating insulin treatment. We aimed to investigate the hypothesis that combining anti-interleukin (IL)-21 antibody (for low-grade and transient immunomodulation) with liraglutide (to improve beta-cell function) could enable beta-cell survival with a reduced risk of complications compared with traditional immunomodulation.METHODS: This randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-dummy, double-blind, phase 2 trial was done at 94 sites (university hospitals and medical centres) in 17 countries. Eligible participants were adults aged 18-45 years with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes and residual beta-cell function. Individuals with unstable type 1 diabetes (defined by an episode of severe diabetic ketoacidosis within 2 weeks of enrolment) or active or latent chronic infections were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1), with stratification by baseline stimulated peak C-peptide concentration (mixed-meal tolerance test [MMTT]), to the combination of anti-IL-21 and liraglutide, anti-IL-21 alone, liraglutide alone, or placebo, all as an adjunct to insulin. Investigators, participants, and funder personnel were masked throughout the treatment period. The primary outcome was the change in MMTT-stimulated C-peptide concentration at week 54 (end of treatment) relative to baseline, measured via the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) over a 4 h period for the full analysis set (intention-to-treat population consisting of all participants who were randomly assigned). After treatment cessation, participants were followed up for an additional 26-week off-treatment observation period. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02443155.FINDINGS: Between Nov 10, 2015, and Feb 27, 2019, 553 adults were assessed for eligibility, of whom 308 were randomly assigned to receive either anti-IL-21 plus liraglutide, anti-IL-21, liraglutide, or placebo (77 assigned to each group). Compared with placebo (ratio to baseline 0·61, 39% decrease), the decrease in MMTT-stimulated C-peptide concentration from baseline to week 54 was significantly smaller with combination treatment (0·90, 10% decrease; estimated treatment ratio 1·48, 95% CI 1·16-1·89; p=0·0017), but not with anti-IL-21 alone (1·23, 0·97-1·57; p=0·093) or liraglutide alone (1·12, 0·87-1·42; p=0·38). Despite greater insulin use in the placebo group, the decrease in HbA1c (a key secondary outcome) at week 54 was greater with all active treatments (-0·50 percentage points) than with placebo (-0·10 percentage points), although the differences versus placebo were not significant. The effects diminished upon treatment cessation. Changes in immune cell subsets across groups were transient and mild (&lt;10% change over time). The most frequently reported adverse events included gastrointestinal disorders, in keeping with the known side-effect profile of liraglutide. The rate of hypoglycaemic events did not differ significantly between active treatment groups and placebo, with an exception of a lower rate in the liraglutide group than in the placebo group during the treatment period. No events of diabetic ketoacidosis were observed. One participant died while on liraglutide (considered unlikely to be related to trial treatment) in connection with three reported adverse events (hypoglycaemic coma, pneumonia, and brain oedema).INTERPRETATION: The combination of anti-IL-21 and liraglutide could preserve beta-cell function in recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes. The efficacy of this combination appears to be similar to that seen in trials of other disease-modifying interventions in type 1 diabetes, but with a seemingly better safety profile. Efficacy and safety should be further evaluated in a phase 3 trial programme.FUNDING: Novo Nordisk