Efficacy and Safety of Ensovibep for Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ensovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multinational, multicenter trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Intravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Ensovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90. RESULTS: An independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR < 1 would favor ensovibep). LIMITATION: The trial was prematurely stopped because of futility, limiting power for the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, ensovibep did not improve clinical outcomes for hospitalized participants with COVID-19 receiving standard care, including remdesivir; no safety concerns were identified. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Three years of clinical experience with a genome-wide cfDNA screening test for aneuploidies and copy-number variants.

PURPOSE: Pregnant women have unprecedented choices for prenatal screening and testing. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) offers the option to screen for aneuploidy of all chromosomes and genome-wide copy-number variants (CNVs), expanding screening beyond the common trisomies ("traditional" cfDNA). We sought to review the utilization trends and clinical performance characteristics of a commercially available genome-wide cfDNA test, with a subset having available diagnostic testing outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 55,517 samples submitted for genome-wide cfDNA screening at a commercial laboratory, assessing indications, demographics, results, and performance. The cohort was broken into three "testing years"' to compare trends. RESULTS: Indications shifted over time, with a decrease in referrals for ultrasound findings (22.0% to 12.0%) and an increase in no known high-risk indication (3.0% to 16.6%). Of the positive results, 25% would be missed with traditional cfDNA screening. High sensitivity and specificity were observed with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 72.6% for genome-wide CNVs and 22.4% for rare autosomal trisomies (RATs). CONCLUSION: A broader patient population is utilizing genome-wide cfDNA, yet positivity rates and the contribution of genome-wide events have remained stable at approximately 5% and 25%, respectively. Test performance in a real-world clinical population shows high PPVs in those CNVs tested, with diagnostic outcomes in over 40% of positive cases.

Genome-wide cell-free DNA screening: a focus on copy-number variants.

PURPOSE: Of 86,902 prenatal genome-wide cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening tests, 4,121 were positive for a chromosome abnormality. This study examines 490 cases screen-positive for one or more subchromosomal copy-number variants (CNV) from genome-wide cfDNA screening. METHODS: Cases positive for one or more subchromosomal CNV from genome-wide cfDNA screening and diagnostic outcomes were compiled. Diagnostic testing trends were analyzed, positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated, and the type of chromosomal abnormalities ultimately confirmed by diagnostic testing were described. RESULTS: CNVs were identified in 0.56% of screened specimens. Of the 490 cases screen-positive for one or more CNV, diagnostic outcomes were available for 244 cases (50%). The overall PPV among the cases with diagnostic outcomes was 74.2% (95% CI: 68.1-79.5%) and 71.8% (95% CI: 65.5-77.4%) for "fetal-only" events. Overall, isolated CNVs showed a lower PPV of 61.0% (95% CI: 52.5-68.8%) compared to complex CNVs at 93.9% (95% CI: 86.6-97.5%). Isolated deletions/duplications and unbalanced structural rearrangements were the most common diagnostic outcomes when isolated and complex CNVs were identified by cfDNA screening, respectively. CONCLUSION: Genome-wide cfDNA screening identifies chromosomal abnormalities beyond the scope of traditional cfDNA screening, and the overall PPV associated with subchromosomal CNVs in cases with diagnostic outcomes was >70%.

Not all low fetal fraction cell-free DNA screening failures are at increased risk for aneuploidy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cell-free DNA (cfDNA) redraws and pregnancy outcomes following low fetal fraction (FF) cfDNA failures, as it has been suggested that a failed cfDNA screen due to insufficient FF carries increased risk for fetal aneuploidy. METHODS: Here >200,000 consecutive samples were reviewed and >1,100 patients were identified with a failed cfDNA due to low FF using genome-wide massively parallel sequencing. Redraw results following the initial low FF failure were analyzed, as well as pregnancy outcomes for patients with repeated low FF failure on redraw. RESULTS: Upon redraw 84.2% of samples yielded a reportable result with no enrichment of aneuploidy observed (p = 0.332). Higher maternal weights and multifetal pregnancy rates were observed in samples with insufficient FF. In patients with repeated low FF failure on redraw, almost all pregnancies resulted in apparently healthy liveborns. CONCLUSION: Insufficient FF was not an indicator of aneuploidy risk or adverse pregnancy outcomes in this study. Caution should be taken in generalizing aneuploidy risk to all low FF cfDNA failures. Redrawing may be an appropriate next step, as proceeding directly with diagnostic testing for aneuploidy may be unwarranted for most patients.

Impact of mosaicism ratio on positive predictive value of cfDNA screening.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between the fraction of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) affected by aneuploidy compared to the overall fetal fraction of a prenatal screening specimen and its effect on positive predictive value (PPV). METHOD: CfDNA specimens positive for trisomy 13, 18, and 21 with diagnostic outcomes were analysed over a 22-month period in one clinical laboratory. For each positive specimen, a "mosaicism ratio" (MR) was calculated by dividing the fraction of cfDNA affected by aneuploidy by the overall fetal fraction of the specimen. PPVs were calculated and analyzed based on various MR ranges. RESULTS: Trisomy 13 was the aneuploidy most commonly seen in mosaic form, followed by trisomy 18 and trisomy 21. Significant differences in positive predictive values were noted for all three trisomies between samples with an MR in the "mosaic" versus "non-mosaic" range, as well as between results classified as "low-mosaic" versus "high-mosaic." CONCLUSION: PPVs may be influenced, in part, by the mosaicism ratio associated with a particular result. The data generated from this study may be useful in providing more personalized risk assessments for patients with positive cfDNA screening results.

Cell-free DNA screening in twin pregnancies: A more accurate and reliable screening tool.

OBJECTIVE: Outcome data from cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening in twin gestations are limited. This study adds an appreciable number of confirmed outcomes to the literature, and assesses performance of cfDNA screening in twins over a 4.5-year period at one large clinical laboratory. METHOD: Prenatal cytogenetic and SNP microarray results were cross-referenced with cfDNA results for twin pregnancies, yielding 422 matched cases. Using diagnostic results as truth, performance of cfDNA screening in this population was assessed. RESULTS: Of the 422 twin pregnancies with both cfDNA and diagnostic results, 3 specimens failed amniocyte analysis, and 48 samples (11.5%) were nonreportable from the initial cfDNA draw. Analysis of the 371 reportable samples demonstrated a collective sensitivity of 98.7% and specificity of 93.2% for trisomies 21/18/13. Positive predictive values (PPVs) in this study population, which is enriched for aneuploidy, were 78.7%, 84.6%, and 66.7% for trisomy 21, 18, and 13, respectively. CONCLUSION: CfDNA screening in a cohort of twin pregnancies with matched diagnostic results showed superior performance compared to traditional serum biochemical screening in twins. This study adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that cfDNA is an accurate and reliable screening tool for the major trisomies in twin pregnancies.

Incidental Detection of Maternal Neoplasia in Noninvasive Prenatal Testing.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) uses cell-free DNA (cfDNA) as an analyte to detect copy-number alterations in the fetal genome. Because maternal and fetal cfDNA contributions are comingled, changes in the maternal genome can manifest as abnormal NIPT results. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) present in cases of maternal neoplasia has the potential to distort the NIPT readout to a degree that prevents interpretation, resulting in a nonreportable test result for fetal aneuploidy. METHODS: NIPT cases that showed a distortion from normal euploid genomic representation were communicated to the caregiving physician as nonreportable for fetal aneuploidy. Follow-up information was subsequently collected for these cases. More than 450000 pregnant patients who submitted samples for clinical laboratory testing >3 years are summarized. Additionally, in-depth analysis was performed for >79000 research-consented samples. RESULTS: In total, 55 nonreportable NIPT cases with altered genomic profiles were cataloged. Of these, 43 had additional information available to enable follow-up. A maternal neoplasm was confirmed in 40 of these cases: 18 malignant, 20 benign uterine fibroids, and 2 with radiological confirmation but without pathological classification. CONCLUSIONS: In a population of pregnant women who submitted a blood sample for cfDNA testing, an abnormal genomic profile not consistent with fetal abnormalities was detected in about 10 out of 100000 cases. A subset of these observations (18 of 43; 41.9%) was attributed to maternal malignant neoplasms. These observational results suggest the need for a controlled trial to evaluate the potential of using cfDNA as an early biomarker of cancer.

Genome-wide cfDNA screening: clinical laboratory experience with the first 10,000 cases.

PurposeInvasive diagnostic prenatal testing can provide the most comprehensive information about the genetic status of a fetus. Noninvasive prenatal screening methods, especially when using cell-free DNA (cfDNA), are often limited to reporting only on trisomies 21, 18, and 13 and sex chromosome aneuploidies. This can leave a significant number of chromosomal and subchromosomal copy-number variations undetected. In 2015, we launched a new genome-wide cfDNA screening test that has the potential to narrow this detection gap.MethodsHere, we review the results from the first 10,000 cases submitted to the Sequenom clinical laboratory for genome-wide cfDNA screening.ResultsThe high-risk indication for this cohort differed compared with standard cfDNA screening. More samples were submitted with ultrasound indications (25% compared with 13% for standard cfDNA screening) and fewer for advanced maternal age (51% for genome-wide screening versus 68% for standard cfDNA screening). A total of 554 positive calls were made, of which 164 were detectable only via genome-wide analysis.ConclusionThis reports indicates a difference in utilization compared with standard cfDNA screening, where positivity rates are higher and a large subset of positive calls could not have been made using standard cfDNA screening.

Clinical validation of a noninvasive prenatal test for genomewide detection of fetal copy number variants.

BACKGROUND: Current cell-free DNA assessment of fetal chromosomes does not analyze and report on all chromosomes. Hence, a significant proportion of fetal chromosomal abnormalities are not detectable by current noninvasive methods. Here we report the clinical validation of a novel noninvasive prenatal test (NIPT) designed to detect genomewide gains and losses of chromosomal material ≥7 Mb and losses associated with specific deletions <7 Mb. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to provide a clinical validation of the sensitivity and specificity of a novel NIPT for detection of genomewide abnormalities. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective, blinded study included maternal plasma collected from 1222 study subjects with pregnancies at increased risk for fetal chromosomal abnormalities that were assessed for trisomy 21 (T21), trisomy 18 (T18), trisomy 13 (T13), sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCAs), fetal sex, genomewide copy number variants (CNVs) ≥7 Mb, and select deletions <7 Mb. Performance was assessed by comparing test results with findings from G-band karyotyping, microarray data, or high coverage sequencing. RESULTS: Clinical sensitivity within this study was determined to be 100% for T21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.6-100%), T18 (95% CI, 84.4-100%), T13 (95% CI, 74.7-100%), and SCAs (95% CI, 84-100%), and 97.7% for genomewide CNVs (95% CI, 86.2-99.9%). Clinical specificity within this study was determined to be 100% for T21 (95% CI, 99.6-100%), T18 (95% CI, 99.6-100%), and T13 (95% CI, 99.6-100%), and 99.9% for SCAs and CNVs (95% CI, 99.4-100% for both). Fetal sex classification had an accuracy of 99.6% (95% CI, 98.9-99.8%). CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that genomewide NIPT for fetal chromosomal abnormalities can provide high resolution, sensitive, and specific detection of a wide range of subchromosomal and whole chromosomal abnormalities that were previously only detectable by invasive karyotype analysis. In some instances, this NIPT also provided additional clarification about the origin of genetic material that had not been identified by invasive karyotype analysis.

Factors affecting levels of circulating cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma and their implications for noninvasive prenatal testing.

OBJECTIVE: Sufficient fetal DNA in a maternal plasma sample is required for accurate aneuploidy detection via noninvasive prenatal testing, thus highlighting a need to understand the factors affecting fetal fraction. METHOD: The MaterniT21™ PLUS test uses massively parallel sequencing to analyze cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma and detect chromosomal abnormalities. We assess the impact of a variety of factors, both maternal and fetal, on the fetal fraction across a large number of samples processed by Sequenom Laboratories. RESULTS: The rate of increase in fetal fraction with increasing gestational age varies across the duration of the testing period and is also influenced by fetal aneuploidy status. Maternal weight trends inversely with fetal fraction, and we find no added benefit from analyzing body mass index or blood volume instead of weight. Strong correlations exist between fetal fractions from aliquots taken from the same patient at the same blood draw and also at different blood draws. CONCLUSION: While a number of factors trend with fetal fraction across the cohort as a whole, they are not the sole determinants of fetal fraction. In this study, the variability for any one patient does not appear large enough to justify postponing testing to a later gestational age.

Stress cardiomyopathy as a cardiovascular manifestation of COVID-19.

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may present with a broad spectrum of clinical manifestations, affecting several organ systems. Predominant cardiac manifestations include myocardial injury, heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and arrhythmias. Stress (takotsubo) cardiomyopathy, characterized by apical ballooning of the heart leading to acute left ventricular dysfunction, is rarely seen in patients with COVID-19. We present a case of COVID-19-associated stress cardiomyopathy in a female in her sixties.

Positive cfDNA screening results for 22q11.2 deletion syndrome-Clinical and laboratory considerations.

Introduction: Non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS) via cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screens for fetal chromosome disorders using maternal plasma, including 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS). While it is the commonest microdeletion syndrome and has potential implications for perinatal management, prenatal screening for 22q11.2DS carries some inherent technical, biological, and counseling challenges, including varying deletion sizes/locations, maternal 22q11.2 deletions, confirmatory test choice, and variable phenotype. Materials and methods: This study addresses these considerations utilizing a retrospective cohort of 307 samples with screen-positive 22q11.2 NIPS results on a massively parallel sequencing (MPS) platform. Results: Approximately half of the cases reported ultrasound findings at some point during pregnancy. In 63.2% of cases with diagnostic testing, observed positive predictive values were 90.7%-99.4%. cfDNA identified deletions ranging from <1 Mb to 3.55 Mb, with significant differences in confirmed fetal versus maternal deletion sizes; estimated cfDNA deletion size was highly concordant with microarray findings. Mosaicism ratio proved useful in predicting the origin of a deletion (fetal versus maternal). Prediction of deletion size, location, and origin may help guide confirmatory testing. Discussion: The data shows that MPS-based NIPS can screen for 22q11.2DS with a high PPV, and that collaboration between the laboratory and clinicians allows consideration of additional metrics that may guide diagnostic testing and subsequent management.

Laboratory performance of genome-wide cfDNA for copy number variants as compared to prenatal microarray.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) allows for screening of fetal aneuploidy and copy number variants (CNVs) from cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in maternal plasma. Professional societies have not yet embraced NIPT for fetal CNVs, citing a need for additional performance data. A clinically available genome-wide cfDNA test screens for fetal aneuploidy and CNVs larger than 7 megabases (Mb). RESULTS: This study reviews 701 pregnancies with "high risk" indications for fetal aneuploidy which underwent both genome-wide cfDNA and prenatal microarray. For aneuploidies and CNVs considered 'in-scope' for the cfDNA test (CNVs ≥ 7 Mb and select microdeletions), sensitivity and specificity was 93.8% and 97.3% respectively, with positive and negative predictive values of 63.8% and 99.7% as compared to microarray. When including 'out-of-scope' CNVs on array as false negatives, the sensitivity of cfDNA falls to 48.3%. If only pathogenic out-of-scope CNVs are treated as false negatives, the sensitivity is 63.8%. Of the out-of-scope CNVs identified by array smaller than 7 Mb, 50% were classified as variants of uncertain significance (VUS), with an overall VUS rate in the study of 2.29%. CONCLUSIONS: While microarray provides the most robust assessment of fetal CNVs, this study suggests that genome-wide cfDNA can reliably screen for large CNVs in a high-risk cohort. Informed consent and adequate pretest counseling are essential to ensuring patients understand the benefits and limitations of all prenatal testing and screening options.

Intravenous aviptadil and remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the USA (TESICO): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. METHODS: TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.

Assessing CAR T-Cell Therapy Response Using Genome-Wide Sequencing of Cell-Free DNA in Patients With B-Cell Lymphomas.

Methods that enable monitoring of therapeutic efficacy of autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy will be clinically useful. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of blood-derived cell-free DNA (cfDNA) to predict CAR T-cell therapy response in patients with refractory B-cell lymphomas. Whole blood was collected before and throughout CAR T-cell therapy until day 154. Low-coverage (∼0.4×), genome-wide cfDNA sequencing, similar to that established for noninvasive prenatal testing, was performed. The genomic instability number (GIN) was used to quantify plasma copy number alteration level. Twelve patients were enrolled. Seven (58%) patients achieved a complete response (CR); 2 (25%), a partial response. Median progression-free survival was 99 days; median overall survival was not reached (median follow-up, 247 days). Altogether, 127 blood samples were analyzed (median, 10 samples/patient [range 8-13]). All 5 patients who remained in CR at the time of last measurement had GIN <170 (threshold). Two patients who attained CR, but later relapsed, and all but one patient who had best response other than CR had last GIN measurement of >170. In 5 of 6 patients with relapsed or progressive disease, increasing GIN was observed before the diagnosis by imaging. The abundance of CAR T-cell construct (absolute number of construct copies relative to the number of human genome equivalents) also showed a trend to correlate with outcome (day 10, P = .052). These data describe a proof-of-concept for the use of multiple liquid biopsy technologies to monitor therapeutic response in B-cell lymphoma patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy.

Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Application of mosaicism ratio to multifetal gestations.

Mosaicism ratio, or MR, is a laboratory metric that can be calculated using massively parallel sequencing data from cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening. MR compares the amount of cfDNA present from a particular chromosome or chromosomal region to the overall fetal fraction of the specimen. In singleton gestations, MR may be used to refine the positive predictive value of an abnormal cfDNA screening result by identifying cases that could be impacted by various biological factors, such as placental mosaicism or prior co-twin demise. The current study was designed to examine the behavior of mosaicism ratio (MR) in multifetal gestations. Multifetal cfDNA specimens with positive results for trisomies 21, 18, or 13 and confirmed diagnostic outcomes were compiled to examine MR of the aneuploid chromosome based on the number of affected fetuses/placentas. A second multifetal cohort was assembled to analyze the MR of the Y chromosome in cases with at least one male fetus. For aneuploid cases, the average MR of affected singletons (used as a biological proxy for two affected twins) was significantly higher than the average MR for twins in which one fetus was affected. The average MR of the aneuploid chromosome for one affected twin was 52%, 42%, and 48% of that of singleton gestations for trisomy 21, 18, and 13 cases, respectively. MR cutoffs of 0.7 for trisomy 21, and 0.5 for trisomies 18 and 13 may help predict whether one versus both twins are affected with aneuploidy when clinical concern arises. For male cases, the Y MR of XX/XY gestations was 48% of the Y MR for XY/XY gestations. Using a Y MR cutoff of 0.8 allowed determination of XX/XY versus XY/XY gestations with 92.3-94.9% accuracy. Based on the data presented, MR may have utility in the analysis and interpretation of cfDNA data from multifetal gestations.

Genome-wide Sequencing of Cell-free DNA Enables Detection of Copy-number Alterations in Patients with Cancer Where Tissue Biopsy is Not Feasible.

When tissue biopsy is not medically prudent or tissue is insufficient for molecular testing, alternative methods are needed. Because cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has been shown to provide a representative surrogate for tumor tissue, we sought to evaluate its utility in this clinical scenario. cfDNA was isolated from the plasma of patients and assayed with low-coverage (∼0.3×), genome-wide sequencing. Copy-number alterations (CNA) were identified and characterized using analytic methods originally developed for noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) and quantified using the genomic instability number (GIN), a metric that reflects the quantity and magnitude of CNAs across the genome. The technical variability of the GIN was first evaluated in an independent cohort comprising genome-wide sequencing results from 27,754 women who consented to have their samples used for research and whose NIPT results yielded no detected CNAs to establish a detection threshold. Subsequently, cfDNA sequencing data from 96 patients with known cancers but for whom a tissue biopsy could not be obtained are presented. An elevated GIN was detected in 35% of patients and detection rates varied by tumor origin. Collectively, CNAs covered 96.6% of all autosomes. Survival was significantly reduced in patients with an elevated GIN relative to those without. Overall, these data provide a proof of concept for the use of low-coverage, genome-wide sequencing of cfDNA from patients with cancer to obtain relevant molecular information in instances where tissue is difficult to access. These data may ultimately serve as an informative complement to other molecular tests.