Hyperleukocytosis in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with inferior outcomes. There is limited high quality evidence to support the benefits of leukapheresis. We retrospectively collected data from patients with newly-diagnosed AML who presented with a white cell count (WBC) >50×10 9 /L to 12 centers in the United States and Europe from 2006–2017 and received intensive chemotherapy. Logistic regression models estimated odds ratios for 30-day mortality and achievement of composite complete remission (CRc). Cox proportional hazard models estimated hazard ratios for overall survival (OS). Among 779 patients, clinical leukostasis was reported in 27%, and leukapheresis was used in 113 patients (15%). Thirty-day mortality was 16.7% (95%CI:13.9–19.3%). Median OS was 12.6 months (95%CI:11.5–14.9) among all patients, and 4.5 months (95%CI: 2.7–7.1) among those ≥65 years. Use of leukapheresis did not significantly impact 30-day mortality, achievement of CRc, or OS in multivariate analysis based on available data or in analysis based on multiple imputation. Among patients with investigator-adjudicated clinical leukostasis, there were statistically significant improvements in 30-day mortality and OS with leukapheresis in unadjusted analysis, but not in multivariate analysis. Given the significant resource use, cost, and potential complications of leukapheresis, randomized studies are needed to evaluate its value.

Summary Axon loss determines persistent disability in multiple sclerosis patients. Here, we use in vivo calcium imaging in a multiple sclerosis model to show that cytoplasmic calcium levels determine the choice between axon loss and survival. We rule out the endoplasmic reticulum, glutamate excitotoxicity, and the reversal of the sodium-calcium exchanger as sources of intra-axonal calcium accumulation and instead identify nanoscale ruptures of the axonal plasma membrane as the critical path of calcium entry.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a global public health crisis. Multiple observations indicate poorer post-infection outcomes for patients with cancer than for the general population. Herein, we highlight the challenges in caring for patients with acute leukaemias and myeloid neoplasms amid the COVID-19 pandemic. We summarise key changes related to service allocation, clinical and supportive care, clinical trial participation, and ethical considerations regarding the use of lifesaving measures for these patients. We recognise that these recommendations might be more applicable to high-income countries and might not be generalisable because of regional differences in health-care infrastructure, individual circumstances, and a complex and highly fluid health-care environment. Despite these limitations, we aim to provide a general framework for the care of patients with acute leukaemias and myeloid neoplasms during the COVID-19 pandemic on the basis of recommendations from international experts.

No abstract

Epigenetics refers to the regulation of gene expression mainly by changes in DNA methylation and modifications of histone proteins without altering the actual DNA sequence. While epigenetic modifications are essential for normal cell differentiation, several driver mutations in leukemic pathogenesis have been identified in genes that affect epigenetic processes, such as DNA methylation and histone acetylation. Several therapeutic options to target epigenetic alterations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have been successfully tested in preclinical studies and various drugs have already been approved for use in clinical practice. Among these already approved therapeutics are hypomethylating agents (azacitidine and decitabine) and isocitrate dehydrogenase inhibitors (ivosidenib, enasidenib). Other agents such as bromodomain-containing epigenetic reader proteins and histone methylation (e.g. DOT1L) inhibitors are currently in advanced clinical testing. As several epigenetic therapies have only limited efficacy when used as single agents, combination therapies that target AML pathogenesis at different levels and exploit synergistic mechanisms are also in clinical trials. Combinations of either epigenetic therapies with conventional chemotherapy, different forms of epigenetic therapies, or epigenetic therapies with immunotherapy are showing promising early results. In this review we summarize the underlying pathophysiology and rationale for epigenetically-based combination therapies, review current preclinical and clinical data and discuss the future directions of epigenetic therapy combinations in AML.

The hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine and decitabine have been the de facto standard of care for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are unfit for intensive therapy. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, we identified 2263 older adults (age ≥66 years) diagnosed with AML during 2005-2015 who received a first-line HMA; 1154 (51%) received azacitidine, and 1109 (49%) received decitabine. Median survival from diagnosis was 7.1 and 8.2 months (P < .01) for azacitidine- and decitabine-treated patients, respectively. Mortality risk was higher with azacitidine vs decitabine (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.21; P = .02). The findings were similar when evaluating only patients completing ≥4 cycles (42% of patients treated with either azacitidine or decitabine). These findings lost significance when evaluating those completing a standard 7-day schedule of azacitidine (34%) vs 5-day schedule for decitabine (66%) (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.08; P = .43). Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion independence (TI) was achieved in one-third of patients with no difference between the 2 HMAs. In conclusion, the majority of older AML patients did not receive the minimum of 4 cycles of HMA often needed to elicit clinical benefit. We observed no clinically meaningful differences between azacitidine- and decitabine-treated patients in their achievement of RBC TI or survival.

ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to identify covariates associated with 28-day mortality in septic patients admitted to the emergency department and derive and validate a score that stratifies mortality risk utilizing parameters that are readily available.MethodsPatients with an admission diagnosis of suspected or confirmed infection and fulfilling at least two criteria for severe inflammatory response syndrome were included in this study. Patients’ characteristics, vital signs, and laboratory values were used to identify prognostic factors for mortality. A scoring system was derived and validated. The primary outcome was the 28-day mortality rate.ResultsA total of 440 patients were included in the study. The 28-day hospital mortality rate was 32.4 and 25.2% for the derivation (293 patients) and validation (147 patients) sets, respectively. Factors associated with a higher mortality were immune-suppressed state (odds ratio 4.7; 95% confidence interval 2.0–11.4), systolic blood pressure on arrival less than 90 mmHg (3.8; 1.7–8.3), body temperature less than 36.0°C (4.1; 1.3–12.9), oxygen saturation less than 90% (2.3; 1.1–4.8), hematocrit less than 0.38 (3.1; 1.6–5.9), blood pH less than 7.35 (2.0; 1.04–3.9), lactate level more than 2.4 mmol/l (2.27; 1.2–4.2), and pneumonia as the source of infection (2.7; 1.5–5.0). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81 (0.75–0.86) in the derivation and 0.81 (0.73–0.90) in the validation set. The SPEED (sepsis patient evaluation in the emergency department) score performed better (P=0.02) than the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis score when applied to the complete study population with an area under the curve of 0.81 (0.76–0.85) as compared with 0.74 (0.70–0.79).ConclusionThe SPEED score predicts 28-day mortality in septic patients. It is simple and its predictive value is comparable to that of other scoring systems.

Recent clinical data have shown a synergistic effect of venetoclax in combination with the hypomethylating agents (HMA) azacitidine and decitabine (complete remission [CR]/CR with incomplete cell count recovery [CRi]: 73%, median overall survival [OS] of 17.5 months) as well as low-dose cytarabine (LDAC; CR/CRi: 54%; median OS of 10.1 months) in the frontline setting in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and those ineligible for intensive chemotherapy leading to approval of both combinations in the US. 1,2 However, data on relapsed/refractory (R/R)-AML are scarce and heterogenous. Outcomes of patients with R/R-AML are dismal with a median OS of 3-7 months and there is no approved standard of care. 3 Multiple clinical trials combining either venetoclax alone, venetoclax + HMA or venetoclax + LDAC as the backbone of therapy with other novel agents in R/R-AML are ongoing. As many of these trials are not randomized, it is vital to understand the response rate to venetoclax alone and venetoclax + HMA/LDAC in R/R-AML to use it as a benchmark for comparison.Therefore, we performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to objectively assess overall response rates (ORR), and rates of CR/CRi for R/R-AML patients treated with venetoclax or venetoclax + HMA/LDAC. MEDLINE via PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, the COCHRANE registry of clinical trials (CENTRAL), Scopus and the Web of Science electronic databases were