This phase I study (CO‐338‐044; NCT02740712), conducted in patients with advanced solid tumors, evaluated the effect of the poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of caffeine 200 mg, warfarin 10 mg, omeprazole 40 mg, and midazolam 2 mg (cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP3A substrates; dosed as a cocktail) and digoxin 0.25 mg (P‐glycoprotein (P‐gp) substrate; dosed separately) without rucaparib and following oral rucaparib 600 mg b.i.d. Geometric mean (GM) ratios (90% confidence interval (CI)) of area under the concentration‐time curve (AUC) from time zero to last quantifiable measurement with and without rucaparib were: caffeine, 2.26 (1.93–2.65); S‐warfarin, 1.49 (1.40–1.58); omeprazole, 1.55 (1.32–1.83); midazolam, 1.39 (1.14–1.68); and digoxin, 1.20 (1.12–1.29). There was limited effect on peak concentration of the substrates (GM ratios, 0.99–1.13). At steady state, rucaparib 600 mg b.i.d. moderately inhibited CYP1A2, weakly inhibited CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP3A, and marginally increased digoxin exposure.

Background Clinical complexity is increasingly prevalent among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The ‘Atrial fibrillation Better Care’ (ABC) pathway approach has been proposed to streamline a more holistic and integrated approach to AF care; however, there are limited data on its usefulness among clinically complex patients. We aim to determine the impact of ABC pathway in a contemporary cohort of clinically complex AF patients. Methods From the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry, we analysed clinically complex AF patients, defined as the presence of frailty, multimorbidity and/or polypharmacy. A K-medoids cluster analysis was performed to identify different groups of clinical complexity. The impact of an ABC-adherent approach on major outcomes was analysed through Cox-regression analyses and delay of event (DoE) analyses. Results Among 9966 AF patients included, 8289 (83.1%) were clinically complex. Adherence to the ABC pathway in the clinically complex group reduced the risk of all-cause death (adjusted HR [aHR]: 0.72, 95%CI 0.58–0.91), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; aHR: 0.68, 95%CI 0.52–0.87) and composite outcome (aHR: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.58–0.85). Adherence to the ABC pathway was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death (aHR: 0.74, 95%CI 0.56–0.98) and composite outcome (aHR: 0.76, 95%CI 0.60–0.96) also in the high-complexity cluster; similar trends were observed for MACEs. In DoE analyses, an ABC-adherent approach resulted in significant gains in event-free survival for all the outcomes investigated in clinically complex patients. Based on absolute risk reduction at 1 year of follow-up, the number needed to treat for ABC pathway adherence was 24 for all-cause death, 31 for MACEs and 20 for the composite outcome. Conclusions An ABC-adherent approach reduces the risk of major outcomes in clinically complex AF patients. Ensuring adherence to the ABC pathway is essential to improve clinical outcomes among clinically complex AF patients.

Assessment of thromboembolic risk is crucial for proper management of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Currently used risk score base only on scarce clinical data and do not take into consideration parameters including echocardiographic findings. The aim of this study was to evaluate if left atrium (LA) enlargement is associated with higher thromboembolic risk assessed by CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores in a cohort of unselected non-valvular AF patients. Data from 582 AF hospitalizations occurring between November 2012 and January 2014 were analyzed. All patients underwent a standard transthoracic echocardiography and had their thromboembolic risk assessed in both CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores. In 494 enrolled patients (48.5 % male; mean age 73.4 ± 11.5 years) AF was classified as paroxysmal in 233 (47.3 %), as persistent in 109 (22.1 %), and as permanent in 151 (30.6 %) patients. LA was enlarged in 426 (86.2 %) patients. Enlargement was classified as mild in 99 (20.0 %) patients, as moderate in 130 (26.3 %) patients, and as severe in 196 (39.7 %) patients. Patients with enlarged LA had higher mean CHADS2 score (2.0 ± 1.5 vs. 2.6 ± 1.3; p = 0.0005) and CHA2DS2-VASc (3.8 ± 2.0 vs. 4.4 ± 1.8; p = 0.02) score than patients with normal LA. The both mean scores rose along with rising LA diameter. LA enlargement is highly prevalent in AF patients. Higher thromboembolic risk assessed by both CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores is associated with presence of LA enlargement. Echocardiographically assessed LA size may be an additional parameter useful in thromboembolic risk stratification of AF patients.

Aims The 4S-AF classification scheme comprises of four domains: stroke risk (St), symptoms (Sy), severity of atrial fibrillation (AF) burden (Sb), and substrate (Su). We sought to examine the implementation of the 4S-AF scheme in the EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry and compare outcomes in AF patients according to the 4S-AF-led decision-making process. Methods and results  Atrial fibrillation patients from 250 centres across 27 European countries were included. A 4S-AF score was calculated as the sum of each domain with a maximum score of 9. Of 6321 patients, 8.4% had low (St), 47.5% EHRA I (Sy), 40.5% newly diagnosed or paroxysmal AF (Sb), and 5.1% no cardiovascular risk factors or left atrial enlargement (Su). Median follow-up was 24 months. Using multivariable Cox regression analysis, independent predictors of all-cause mortality were (St) [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 8.21, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.60–25.9], (Sb) (aHR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.08–1.35), and (Su) (aHR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.14–1.41). For CV mortality and any thromboembolic event, only (Su) (aHR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.45–2.06) and (Sy) (aHR 1.29, 95% CI: 1.00–1.66) were statistically significant, respectively. None of the domains were independently linked to ischaemic stroke or major bleeding. Higher 4S-AF score was related to a significant increase in all-cause mortality, CV mortality, any thromboembolic event, and ischaemic stroke but not major bleeding. Treatment of all 4S-AF domains was associated with an independent decrease in all-cause mortality (aHR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55–0.92). For each 4S-AF domain left untreated, the risk of all-cause mortality increased substantially (aHR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.16–1.56). Conclusion  Implementation of the novel 4S-AF scheme is feasible, and treatment decisions based on this scheme improve mortality rates in AF.

Background: MGD013 is an investigational, first-in-class, Fc-bearing bispecific tetravalent DART molecule designed to bind PD-1 and LAG-3 and sustain/restore the function of exhausted T cells (1). MGD013 demonstrates in vitro ligand blocking properties and improved T-cell responses beyond that observed with anti-PD-1 and anti-LAG-3 benchmark antibodies alone or in combination. PD-1 targeted therapy with nivolumab in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has yielded modest efficacy (2). LAG-3, highly expressed in DLBCL (3), has emerged as another therapeutic target of interest in this population with continued unmet need. Methods: This study characterizes the safety, tolerability, dose-limiting toxicities, maximum tolerated dose, PK/PD, and antitumor activity of MGD013 in pts with advanced solid and hematologic malignancies. R/R DLBCL pts are being treated at the recommended Phase 2 dose of 600 mg every two weeks in Cohort Expansion. Results: At data-cutoff, 17 DLBCL pts received MGD013 (2.5 median prior lines of therapy, 41.2% with prior CAR-T therapy). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 11/17 (64.7%) pts, with no same TRAE occurring in > 1 patient except pyrexia (n=3). One grade ≥ 3 TRAE occurred (pneumonia), and no events of tumor lysis syndrome were observed. Among 11 response-evaluable pts (i.e. received at least one on-treatment scan), 1 complete response (CR) and 3 partial responses (PRs) per the Lugano Classification were observed. Analyses of available pre-treatment tumor biopsy samples corresponding to responding pts demonstrated relatively high levels of LAG-3, PD-1, and PD-L1 by IHC. More comprehensive translational analyses were undertaken for the pt with CR, observed after a single MGD013 infusion in a 28-year-old male in relapse 6 months after CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy. In contrast to a pre-CAR T biopsy specimen demonstrating no LAG-3 or PD-1 expression, IHC analysis of a lymph node specimen biopsied post-CAR T and prior to MGD013 treatment revealed high levels of both LAG-3 and PD-1 on both infiltrating T-cells and malignant B-cells. Consistent with CD19 CAR T resistance, no CD19 expression was evident. MHC class II and PD-L1 expression were observed, which when bound to LAG-3 and PD-1, respectively, form immune checkpoints that can decrease T cell function. Following MGD013 treatment, serum IFN-γ markedly increased to >140-fold above baseline. No significant changes were observed for IL-6 or IL-2. Expansion of circulating CD3+CD8+ and CD3+CD4-CD8- T-cell subsets and associated cytolytic markers (i.e., perforin, granzyme B) were observed following MGD013 treatment. The patient underwent allogeneic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT) and remains in remission 14 months post-MGD013 and 12 months post-allo-SCT. Further correlative biomarker analyses are underway in the ongoing clinical trial. Conclusion: MGD013, a novel molecule designed to coordinately block PD-1 and LAG-3, has preliminarily demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and encouraging early evidence of anti-tumor activity in R/R DLBCL pts with and without prior treatment with CAR T. Biomarker analyses confirmed expression of both PD-1 and LAG-3 axes in responding pts with evidence of pharmacodynamic responses consistent with the ability of MGD013 to enhance T-cell function. References: 1. Luke JJ, Patel MR, Hamilton E, et al. A phase I, first-in-human, open-label, dose-escalation study of MGD013, a bispecific DART molecule binding PD-1 and LAG-3, in patients with unresectable or metastatic neoplasms. J Clin Oncol 38: 2020 (suppl; abstr 3004). 2. Keane C, Law SC, Gould C, et al. LAG3: a novel immune checkpoint expressed by multiple lymphocyte subsets in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood Adv. 2020;4(7):1367-1377. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2019001390 3. Ansell SM, Minnema MC, Johnson P, et al., Nivolumab for Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in Patients Ineligible for or Having Failed Autologous Transplantation: A Single-Arm, Phase II Study. J Clin Oncol, 2019. 37(6): p. 481-489. Disclosures Wang: Verastem Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curio Science: Honoraria; Putnam LLC: Honoraria. Asch:Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Cartesian: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; MacroGenics: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Patents & Royalties: Provisional patent submitted (I), Research Funding. Hamad:Novartis: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Weickhardt:Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Ipsen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ulahannan:Merck Co. Inc: Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; ArQule, Inc.: Research Funding; Evelo Biosciences, Inc.: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Klus Pharma, Inc.: Research Funding; Isofol: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline GSK: Research Funding; Mersana Therapeutics: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Array: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ciclomed LLC: Research Funding; AbbVie, Inc.: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Exelxis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Koucheki:MacroGenics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sun:MacroGenics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Li:MacroGenics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Chen:MacroGenics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zhang:MacroGenics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Muth:MacroGenics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kaminker:MacroGenics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Moore:MacroGenics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sumrow:MacroGenics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

Purpose This study aimed at evaluating the effect of rucaparib on the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin and oral contraceptives in patients with advanced solid tumors and the safety of rucaparib with and without coadministration of rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives. Methods Patients received single doses of oral rosuvastatin 20 mg (Arm A) or oral contraceptives ethinylestradiol 30 µg + levonorgestrel 150 µg (Arm B) on days 1 and 19 and continuous doses of rucaparib 600 mg BID from day 5 to 23. Serial blood samples were collected with and without rucaparib for pharmacokinetic analysis. Results Thirty-six patients (n = 18 each arm) were enrolled and received at least 1 dose of study drug. In the drug–drug interaction analysis (n = 15 each arm), the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of maximum concentration (Cmax) with and without rucaparib was 1.29 for rosuvastatin, 1.09 for ethinylestradiol, and 1.19 for levonorgestrel. GMR of area under the concentration–time curve from time zero to last quantifiable measurement (AUC0–last) was 1.34 for rosuvastatin, 1.43 for ethinylestradiol, and 1.56 for levonorgestrel. There was no increase in frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) when rucaparib was given with either of the probe drugs. In both arms, most TEAEs were mild in severity and considered unrelated to study treatment. Conclusion Rucaparib 600 mg BID weakly increased the plasma exposure to rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives. Rucaparib safety profile when coadministered with rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives was consistent with that of rucaparib monotherapy. Dose adjustments of rosuvastatin and oral contraceptives are not necessary when coadministered with rucaparib. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03954366; Date of registration May 17, 2019.

Purpose The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib is approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; however, limited data are available on its use in patients with hepatic dysfunction. This study investigated whether hepatic impairment affects the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of rucaparib in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods Patients with normal hepatic function or moderate hepatic impairment according to the National Cancer Institute Organ Dysfunction Working Group (NCI-ODWG) criteria were enrolled and received a single oral dose of rucaparib 600 mg. Concentrations of rucaparib and its metabolite M324 in plasma and urine were measured. Pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between hepatic function groups, and safety and tolerability were assessed. Results Sixteen patients were enrolled (n = 8 per group). Rucaparib maximum concentration (Cmax) was similar, while the area under the concentration–time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0–inf) was mildly higher in the moderate hepatic impairment group than in the normal control group (geometric mean ratio, 1.446 [90% CI 0.668–3.131]); similar trends were observed for M324. Eight (50%) patients experienced ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); 2 had normal hepatic function and 6 had moderate hepatic impairment. Conclusion Patients with moderate hepatic impairment showed mildly increased AUC0–inf for rucaparib compared to patients with normal hepatic function. Although more patients with moderate hepatic impairment experienced TEAEs, only 2 TEAEs were considered treatment related. These results suggest no starting dose adjustment is necessary for patients with moderate hepatic impairment; however, close safety monitoring is warranted.

Background Frailty is a medical syndrome characterised by reduced physiological reserve and increased vulnerability to stressors. Data regarding the relationship between frailty and atrial fibrillation (AF) are still inconsistent. Objectives We aim to perform a comprehensive evaluation of frailty in a large European cohort of AF patients. Methods A 40-item frailty index (FI) was built according to the accumulation of deficits model in the AF patients enrolled in the ESC-EHRA EORP-AF General Long-Term Registry. Association of baseline characteristics, clinical management, quality of life, healthcare resources use and risk of outcomes with frailty was examined. Results Among 10,177 patients [mean age (standard deviation) 69.0 (11.4) years, 4,103 (40.3%) females], 6,066 (59.6%) were pre-frail and 2,172 (21.3%) were frail, whereas only 1,939 (19.1%) were considered robust. Baseline thromboembolic and bleeding risks were independently associated with increasing FI. Frail patients with AF were less likely to be treated with oral anticoagulants (OACs) (odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.55–0.89), especially with non-vitamin K antagonist OACs and managed with a rhythm control strategy, compared with robust patients. Increasing frailty was associated with a higher risk for all outcomes examined, with a non-linear exponential relationship. The use of OAC was associated with a lower risk of outcomes, except in patients with very/extremely high frailty. Conclusions In this large cohort of AF patients, there was a high burden of frailty, influencing clinical management and risk of adverse outcomes. The clinical benefit of OAC is maintained in patients with high frailty, but not in very high/extremely frail ones.