Background Serious infections are a major concern for patients considering treatmentsfor rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Evidence is inconsistent on whether biologicsare associated with an increased risk of serious infection compared to traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Methods A systematic literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and www.clinicaltrials.gov from inception through February 11, 2014. Search terms included biologics, rheumatoid arthritis and their synonyms. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they included any of the biologics and reported serious infections. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis,using a binomial likelihood model, of published trials to assess the risk of serious infections of biologics in RA patients, compared to traditional DMARDs. Findings The systematic review identified 106 trials that included RA patients on biologic and reported on serious infections. Compared to traditional DMARDs, standard-dose biologic (odds ratio [OR],1.31; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.09 to 1.58) andhigh-dose biologic (OR, 1.90; 95% Crl, 1.50 to 2.39) were associated with an increased risk of serious infections, while low-dose biologics (OR, 0.93; 95% CrI, 0.65 to 1.33) were not. The risk was lower in patients who are methotrexate naïve compared withtraditional DMARD- or anti-TNF-biologic-experienced. The absolute increase in the number of serious infectionsper 1000 patients treated each year compared to traditional DMARDs ranged from 6 for standard-dose biologic to 55 for combination biologic therapy. Interpretation Standard-dose and high-dose biologics (with/without traditional DMARDs) are associated with an increase in serious infections compared to traditional DMARDs in RA, while low-dose biologics are not.Clinicians should discuss the balance between benefit and harm with the individual RA patient before initiating biologic therapy. Funding Rheumatology division at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Background Patients with cancer may be at high risk of adverse outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection. We analyzed a cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) to identify prognostic clinical factors, including laboratory measurements and anti-cancer therapies. Patients and Methods Patients with active or historical cancer and a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis recorded between March 17-November 18, 2020 were included. The primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on an ordinal scale (uncomplicated, hospitalized, admitted to intensive care unit, mechanically ventilated, died within 30 days). Multivariable regression models included demographics, cancer status, anti-cancer therapy and timing, COVID-19-directed therapies, and laboratory measurements (among hospitalized patients). Results 4,966 patients were included (median age 66 years, 51% female, 50% non-Hispanic white); 2,872 (58%) were hospitalized and 695 (14%) died; 61% had cancer that was present, diagnosed, or treated within the year prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Older age, male sex, obesity, cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities, renal disease, diabetes mellitus, non-Hispanic Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, worse ECOG performance status, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and hematologic malignancy were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Among hospitalized patients, low or high absolute lymphocyte count, high absolute neutrophil count, low platelet count, abnormal creatinine, troponin, LDH, and CRP were associated with higher COVID-19 severity. Patients diagnosed early in the COVID-19 pandemic (January-April 2020) had worse outcomes than those diagnosed later. Specific anti-cancer therapies (e.g. R-CHOP, platinum combined with etoposide, and DNA methyltransferase inhibitors) were associated with high 30-day all-cause mortality. Conclusions Clinical factors (e.g. older age, hematological malignancy, recent chemotherapy) and laboratory measurements were associated with poor outcomes among patients with cancer and COVID-19. Although further studies are needed, caution may be required in utilizing particular anti-cancer therapies.

IMPORTANCE COVID-19 is a life-threatening illness for many patients. Prior studies have established hematologic cancers as a risk factor associated with particularly poor outcomes from COVID-19. To our knowledge, no studies have established a beneficial role for anti-COVID-19 interventions in this at-risk population. Convalescent plasma therapy may benefit immunocompromised individuals with COVID-19, including those with hematologic cancers.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association of convalescent plasma treatment with 30-day mortality in hospitalized adults with hematologic cancers and COVID-19 from a multi-institutional cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis retrospective cohort study using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry with propensity score matching evaluated patients with hematologic cancers who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Data were collected between

BackgroundLow-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1b (encoded by LRP1B) is a putative tumor suppressor, and preliminary evidence suggests LRP1B-mutated cancers may have improved outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI).MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, retrospective pan-cancer analysis of patients with LRP1B alterations treated with ICI at Duke University, Johns Hopkins University (JHU) and University of Michigan (UM). The primary objective was to assess the association between overall response rate (ORR) to ICI and pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) LRP1B alterations compared with LRP1B variants of unknown significance (VUS). Secondary outcomes were the associations with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by LRP1B status.ResultsWe identified 101 patients (44 Duke, 35 JHU, 22 UM) with LRP1B alterations who were treated with ICI. The most common tumor types by alteration (P/LP vs VUS%) were lung (36% vs 49%), prostate (9% vs 7%), sarcoma (5% vs 7%), melanoma (9% vs 0%) and breast cancer (3% vs 7%). The ORR for patients with LRP1B P/LP versus VUS alterations was 54% and 13%, respectively (OR 7.5, 95% CI 2.9 to 22.3, p=0.0009). P/LP LRP1B alterations were associated with longer PFS (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, p=0.0003) and OS (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01, p=0.053). These results remained consistent when excluding patients harboring microsatellite instability (MSI) and controlling for tumor mutational burden (TMB).ConclusionsThis multicenter study shows significantly better outcomes with ICI therapy in patients harboring P/LP versus VUS LRP1B alterations, independently of TMB/MSI status. Further mechanistic and prospective validation studies are warranted.

Anti-EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) antibody based treatment strategies have been successfully implemented in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Unfortunately, predicting an accurate and reliable therapeutic response remains a challenge on a per-patient basis. Although significant efforts have been invested in understanding EGFR-mediated changes in cell signaling related to treatment efficacy, the delivery and histological localization in (peri-)tumoral compartments of antibody-based therapeutics in human tumors is poorly understood nor ever made visible. In this first in-human study of a systemically administered near-infrared (NIR) fluorescently labeled therapeutic antibody, cetuximab-IRDye800CW (2.5 mg/m2, 25 mg/m2, and 62.5 mg/m2), we show that by optical molecular imaging (i.e. denominated as In vivo Fluorescence Immunohistochemistry) we were able to evaluate localization of fluorescently labeled cetuximab. Clearly, optical molecular imaging with fluorescently labeled antibodies correlating morphological (peri-)tumoral characteristics to levels of antibody delivery, may improve treatment paradigms based on understanding true tumoral antibody delivery.