nab-Paclitaxel–Based Therapy in Underserved Patient Populations: The ABOUND.PS2 Study in Patients With NSCLC and a Performance Status of 2

IntroductionThe phase II ABOUND.PS2 study (NCT02289456) assessed safety/tolerability of a first-line modified nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin regimen for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 2.MethodsChemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC and ECOG PS 2 received four cycles of nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve 5 day 1 q3w (induction). Patients without progression received nab-paclitaxel monotherapy (100 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 q3w) until progression/unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint: percentage of patients discontinuing induction due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).Results11/40 treated patients (27.5%; 95% CI, 14.60–43.89) discontinued chemotherapy induction due to TEAEs; 16/40 (40.0%) continued nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. Median progression-free and overall survival were 4.4 (95% CI, 2.99–7.00) and 7.7 (95% CI, 4.93–13.17) months. Grade 3/4 TEAEs during induction included neutropenia (22.5%), anemia (17.5%), thrombocytopenia (5.0%), and peripheral neuropathy (2.5%).ConclusionThis nab-paclitaxel–based regimen was tolerable in patients with advanced NSCLC and ECOG PS 2, with efficacy comparable to historical chemotherapy data

Comparative Omics-Driven Genome Annotation Refinement: Application across Yersiniae

Genome sequencing continues to be a rapidly evolving technology, yet most downstream aspects of genome annotation pipelines remain relatively stable or are even being abandoned. The annotation process is now performed almost exclusively in an automated fashion to balance the large number of sequences generated. One possible way of reducing errors inherent to automated computational annotations is to apply data from omics measurements (i.e. transcriptional and proteomic) to the un-annotated genome with a proteogenomic-based approach. Here, the concept of annotation refinement has been extended to include a comparative assessment of genomes across closely related species. Transcriptomic and proteomic data derived from highly similar pathogenic Yersiniae (Y. pestis CO92, Y. pestis Pestoides F, and Y. pseudotuberculosis PB1/+) was used to demonstrate a comprehensive comparative omic-based annotation methodology. Peptide and oligo measurements experimentally validated the expression of nearly 40% of each strain's predicted proteome and revealed the identification of 28 novel and 68 incorrect (i.e., observed frameshifts, extended start sites, and translated pseudogenes) protein-coding sequences within the three current genome annotations. Gene loss is presumed to play a major role in Y. pestis acquiring its niche as a virulent pathogen, thus the discovery of many translated pseudogenes, including the insertion-ablated argD, underscores a need for functional analyses to investigate hypotheses related to divergence. Refinements included the discovery of a seemingly essential ribosomal protein, several virulence-associated factors, a transcriptional regulator, and many hypothetical proteins that were missed during annotation

Abstract 192: Stroke in the WARCEF Trial

Background The Warfarin vs. Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial found no difference between warfarin and aspirin in heart failure patients in sinus rhythm for the outcome of first to occur of 84 ischemic strokes (IS), 7 intracerebral hemorrhages or 531 deaths. Pre-specified secondary analysis showed a 48% HR reduction (p=0.005) in IS risk for warfarin vs. aspirin. We examined this IS benefit for warfarin in post-hoc analyses. Methods We used the Wilcoxon rank sum test, stratified by prior IS or TIA, to compare the distributions of mRS among warfarin and aspirin IS patients in WARCEF. Median (md) scores and interquartile ranges (IQR) are shown for warfarin and aspirin arms, respectively. We used Fisher’s exact test to compare the effect of warfarin vs. aspirin on fatal IS; a stratified exact test to compare proportions of severe (mRS 3-5) IS; and stratified Poisson regression to compare IS subtypes. Results Twenty-nine (2.5%) of 1142 patients on warfarin and 55 (4.7%) of 1163 on aspirin had IS. The warfarin IS rate (0.72 per 100 patient years [/100PY]) was lower than for aspirin (1.36/100PY). There were no differences between warfarin and aspirin IS patients in baseline mRS (md 1, IQR, 2, N=29 vs. md 1, IQR 2, N=55); fatal IS (3/29, 10.3% vs. 6/55, 10.9%, p=1.0), or post-IS (after 90+30 days) mRS (md 2, IQR 3, n=23 vs. md 2, IQR 3, n=48, p=0.437). There were also no differences between warfarin and aspirin in change from baseline to post-IS mRS (md 1, IQR 3, n=23 vs. md 1, IQR 3, n=48, p=0.884). Cardioembolic IS was significantly less frequent on warfarin than on aspirin (9 [0.22/100PY] vs. 22 [0.55/100PY], p=0.012). The warfarin arm showed trends to fewer severe (mRS 3-5) IS (3/23 [13.0%] vs. 16/48 [33.3%], p=0.086) and a lower rate of IS of potential cardioembolic etiology (15 [0.37/100PY] vs. 27 [0.67/100PY] p=0.063). There was no difference between warfarin and aspirin in rate of non-cardioembolic IS (5 [0.12/100PY] vs. 6 [0.15/100PY], p=0.768). Conclusions Warfarin appears superior to aspirin in reducing the frequency of cardioembolic IS in heart failure patients in sinus rhythm. This is supported by trends to lower frequencies of severe IS and potentially cardioembolic IS in patients on warfarin compared to aspirin

Nab-paclitaxel-based therapy in underserved patient populations: The aboundPs2 study in patients with nsclc and a performance status of 2

Introduction: The phase II ABOUND.PS2 study (NCT02289456) assessed safety/tolerability of a first-line modified Methods: Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC and ECOG PS 2 received four cycles of Results: 11/40 treated patients (27.5%; 95% CI, 14.60-43.89) discontinued chemotherapy induction due to TEAEs; 16/40 (40.0%) continued Conclusion: Thi

Stroke in Heart Failure in Sinus Rhythm: The Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction Trial

BACKGROUND: The Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction trial found no difference between warfarin and aspirin in patients with low ejection fraction in sinus rhythm for the primary outcome: first to occur of 84 incident ischemic strokes (IIS), 7 intracerebral hemorrhages or 531 deaths. Prespecified secondary analysis showed a 48% hazard ratio reduction (p = 0.005) for warfarin in IIS. Cardioembolism is likely the main pathogenesis of stroke in heart failure. We examined the IIS benefit for warfarin in more detail in post hoc secondary analyses. METHODS: We subtyped IIS into definite, possible and noncardioembolic using the Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation method. Statistical tests, stratified by prior ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, were the conditional binomial for independent Poisson variables for rates, the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for stroke subtype and the van Elteren test for modified Rankin Score (mRS) and National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) distributions, and an exact test for proportions. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 1,142 warfarin and 55 of 1,163 aspirin patients had IIS. The warfarin IIS rate (0.727/100 patient-years, PY) was lower than for aspirin (1.36/100 PY, p = 0.003). Definite cardioembolic IIS was less frequent on warfarin than aspirin (0.22 vs. 0.55/100 PY, p = 0.012). Possible cardioembolic IIS tended to be less frequent on warfarin than aspirin (0.37 vs. 0.67/100 PY, p = 0.063) but noncardioembolic IIS showed no difference: 5 (0.12/100 PY) versus 6 (0.15/100 PY, p = 0.768). Among patients experiencing IIS, there were no differences by treatment arm in fatal IIS, baseline mRS, mRS 90 days after IIS, and change from baseline to post-IIS mRS. The warfarin arm showed a trend to a lower proportion of severe nonfatal IIS [mRS 3–5; 3/23 (13.0%) vs. 16/48 (33.3%), p = 0.086]. There was no difference in NIHSS at the time of stroke (p = 0.825) or in post-IIS mRS (p = 0.948) between cardioembolic, possible cardioembolic and noncardioembolic stroke including both warfarin and aspirin groups. CONCLUSIONS: The observed benefits in the reduction of IIS for warfarin compared to aspirin are most significant for cardioembolic IIS among patients with low ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. This is supported by trends to lower frequencies of severe IIS and possible cardioembolic IIS in patients on warfarin compared to aspirin

Stroke in Heart Failure in Sinus Rhythm: The Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction Trial

BackgroundThe Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction trial found no difference between warfarin and aspirin in patients with low ejection fraction in sinus rhythm for the primary outcome: first to occur of 84 incident ischemic strokes (IIS), 7 intracerebral hemorrhages or 531 deaths. Prespecified secondary analysis showed a 48% hazard ratio reduction (p = 0.005) for warfarin in IIS. Cardioembolism is likely the main pathogenesis of stroke in heart failure. We examined the IIS benefit for warfarin in more detail in post hoc secondary analyses.MethodsWe subtyped IIS into definite, possible and noncardioembolic using the Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation method. Statistical tests, stratified by prior ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, were the conditional binomial for independent Poisson variables for rates, the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for stroke subtype and the van Elteren test for modified Rankin Score (mRS) and National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) distributions, and an exact test for proportions.ResultsTwenty-nine of 1,142 warfarin and 55 of 1,163 aspirin patients had IIS. The warfarin IIS rate (0.727/100 patient-years, PY) was lower than for aspirin (1.36/100 PY, p = 0.003). Definite cardioembolic IIS was less frequent on warfarin than aspirin (0.22 vs. 0.55/100 PY, p = 0.012). Possible cardioembolic IIS tended to be less frequent on warfarin than aspirin (0.37 vs. 0.67/100 PY, p = 0.063) but noncardioembolic IIS showed no difference: 5 (0.12/100 PY) versus 6 (0.15/100 PY, p = 0.768). Among patients experiencing IIS, there were no differences by treatment arm in fatal IIS, baseline mRS, mRS 90 days after IIS, and change from baseline to post-IIS mRS. The warfarin arm showed a trend to a lower proportion of severe nonfatal IIS [mRS 3-5; 3/23 (13.0%) vs. 16/48 (33.3%), p = 0.086]. There was no difference in NIHSS at the time of stroke (p = 0.825) or in post-IIS mRS (p = 0.948) between cardioembolic, possible cardioembolic and noncardioembolic stroke including both warfarin and aspirin groups.ConclusionsThe observed benefits in the reduction of IIS for warfarin compared to aspirin are most significant for cardioembolic IIS among patients with low ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. This is supported by trends to lower frequencies of severe IIS and possible cardioembolic IIS in patients on warfarin compared to aspirin

image_3_nab-Paclitaxel–Based Therapy in Underserved Patient Populations: The ABOUND.PS2 Study in Patients With NSCLC and a Performance Status of 2.jpg

Introduction<p>The phase II ABOUND.PS2 study (NCT02289456) assessed safety/tolerability of a first-line modified nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin regimen for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 2.</p>Methods<p>Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC and ECOG PS 2 received four cycles of nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m² days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve 5 day 1 q3w (induction). Patients without progression received nab-paclitaxel monotherapy (100 mg/m² days 1 and 8 q3w) until progression/unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint: percentage of patients discontinuing induction due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).</p>Results<p>11/40 treated patients (27.5%; 95% CI, 14.60–43.89) discontinued chemotherapy induction due to TEAEs; 16/40 (40.0%) continued nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. Median progression-free and overall survival were 4.4 (95% CI, 2.99–7.00) and 7.7 (95% CI, 4.93–13.17) months. Grade 3/4 TEAEs during induction included neutropenia (22.5%), anemia (17.5%), thrombocytopenia (5.0%), and peripheral neuropathy (2.5%).</p>Conclusion<p>This nab-paclitaxel–based regimen was tolerable in patients with advanced NSCLC and ECOG PS 2, with efficacy comparable to historical chemotherapy data.</p

Benefit of Warfarin Compared With Aspirin in Patients With Heart Failure in Sinus Rhythm A Subgroup Analysis of WARCEF, a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: The Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial found no difference in the primary outcome between warfarin and aspirin in 2305 patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. However, it is unknown whether any subgroups benefit from warfarin or aspirin. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used a Cox model stepwise selection procedure to identify subgroups that may benefit from warfarin or aspirin on the WARCEF primary outcome. A secondary analysis added major hemorrhage to the outcome. The primary efficacy outcome was time to the first to occur of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death. Only age group was a significant treatment effect modifier (P for interaction, 0.003). Younger patients benefited from warfarin over aspirin on the primary outcome (4.81 versus 6.76 events per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48–0.84; P=0.001). In older patients, therapies did not differ (9.91 versus 9.01 events per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.88–1.35; P=0.44). With major hemorrhage added, in younger patients the event rate remained lower for warfarin than aspirin (5.41 versus 7.25 per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.52–0.89; P=0.005), but in older patients it became significantly higher for warfarin (11.80 versus 9.35 per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.02–1.53; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients <60 years, warfarin improved outcomes over aspirin with or without inclusion of major hemorrhage. In patients ≥60 years, there was no treatment difference, but the aspirin group had significantly better outcomes when major hemorrhage was included. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00041938

Benefit of Warfarin Compared With Aspirin in Patients With Heart Failure in Sinus Rhythm

BackgroundThe Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial found no difference in the primary outcome between warfarin and aspirin in 2305 patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. However, it is unknown whether any subgroups benefit from warfarin or aspirin.Methods and resultsWe used a Cox model stepwise selection procedure to identify subgroups that may benefit from warfarin or aspirin on the WARCEF primary outcome. A secondary analysis added major hemorrhage to the outcome. The primary efficacy outcome was time to the first to occur of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death. Only age group was a significant treatment effect modifier (P for interaction, 0.003). Younger patients benefited from warfarin over aspirin on the primary outcome (4.81 versus 6.76 events per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.84; P=0.001). In older patients, therapies did not differ (9.91 versus 9.01 events per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.35; P=0.44). With major hemorrhage added, in younger patients the event rate remained lower for warfarin than aspirin (5.41 versus 7.25 per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.89; P=0.005), but in older patients it became significantly higher for warfarin (11.80 versus 9.35 per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.53; P=0.03).ConclusionsIn patients &lt;60 years, warfarin improved outcomes over aspirin with or without inclusion of major hemorrhage. In patients ≥60 years, there was no treatment difference, but the aspirin group had significantly better outcomes when major hemorrhage was included

The first prognostic model for stroke and death in patients with systolic heart failure

Background Patients with systolic heart failure (HF) are at increased risk of both ischemic stroke and death. Currently, no risk scores are available to identify HF patients at high risk of stroke or death. The Warfarin vs. Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial studied 2305 HF patients, in sinus rhythm, followed for up to 6 years (3.5 ± 1.5 years). This trial showed no overall difference in those treated with warfarin vs aspirin with regard to death or stroke. The present study develops the first prognostic model to identify patients at higher risk of stroke or death based on their overall risk profile. Methods and results A scoring algorithm using 8 readily obtainable clinical characteristics as predictors, age, gender, hemoglobin, blood urea nitrogen, ejection fraction, diastolic blood pressure, diabetes status, and prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (C-index = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.613–0.681), was developed. It was validated internally using a bootstrap method. In predicting 1-year survival for death alone, our 8-predictor model had an AUC of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.579–0.678) while the 14-predictor Seattle model had an AUC of 0.72. The Seattle model did not report stroke. Conclusions This novel prognostic model predicts the overall risk of ischemic stroke or death for HF patients. This model compares favorably for death with the Seattle model and has the added utility of including stroke as an endpoint. Use of this model will help identify those patients in need of more intensive monitoring and therapy and may help identify appropriate populations for trials of new therapies