Abstract: The progressive ageing of the population is leading to an increase in multimorbidity and polypharmacy, which in turn may increase the risk of hospitalization and mortality. The enhancement of care with information and communications technology (ICT) can facilitate the use of prescription evaluation tools and support system for decision-making (DSS) with the potential of optimizing the healthcare delivery process. Objective To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the complex intervention MULTIPAP Plus, compared to usual care, in improving prescriptions for young-old patients (65-74 years old) with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care. Methods/design This is a pragmatic cluster-randomized clinical trial with a follow-up of 18 months in health centres of the Spanish National Health System. Unit of randomization: family physician. Unit of analysis: patient. Population Patients aged 65–74 years with multimorbidity (≥ 3 chronic diseases) and polypharmacy (≥ 5 drugs) during the previous 3 months were included. Sample size n = 1148 patients (574 per study arm). Intervention Complex intervention based on the ARIADNE principles with three components: (1) family physician (FP) training, (2) FP-patient interview, and (3) decision-making support system. Outcomes The primary outcome is a composite endpoint of hospital admission or death during the observation period measured as a binary outcome, and the secondary outcomes are number of hospital admission, all-cause mortality, use of health services, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), functionality (WHODAS), falls, hip fractures, prescriptions and adherence to treatment. Clinical and sociodemographic factors will be explanatory variables. Statistical analysis The main result is the difference in percentages in the final composite endpoint variable at 18 months, with its corresponding 95% CI. Adjustments by the main confounding and prognostic factors will be performed through a multilevel analysis. All analyses will be carried out in accordance to the intention-to-treat principle. Discussion It is important to prevent the cascade of negative health and health care impacts attributable to the multimorbidity-polypharmacy binomial. ICT-enhanced routine clinical practice could improve the prescription process in patient care. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04147130 . Registered on 22 October 2019

Abstract: SARS-CoV-2 infection can impact survival of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). International experts recommend considering delaying or stopping AML treatment, test patients who need intensive induction and s prioritizing outpatient treatment. However there is little published evidence in AML. Objective To analyze the clinical futures and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in AML patients. Methods and patients Observational multicenter study between March and May 2020; 117 patients reported from 47 Spanish centers, but 13 had no PCR or antibody test documented, finally including 104 patients from 45 hospitals. Results The median age was 68 years, men (56.7% vs 43.3%), and the median time from AML diagnosis to SARS-CoV-2 was 4 months. The mean of comorbidities was 1.2, high blood pressure (40.4%), heart disease (17.3%), diabetes (13.5%), smoking (8.8%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or emphysema (7.7%), renal failure (6.7%) and liver dysfunction (1.9%). Cytogenetic risk was low in 16.9%, intermediate in 57.1% and high in 26.0%; 55.7% had active disease, 39.2% complete remission and 5.1% partial response. 29.4% were off-therapy and 70.6% under antileukemic treatment at the time of SARS-CoV-2: induction chemotherapy (25.3%), hypomethylating (19.3%), clinical trial (17.0%), consolidation chemotherapy (14.8%), venetoclax (3.4%), FLT3 inhibitors (3.4%) and/or maintenance (1.1%). Overall 3.7% were newly diagnosed (no prior therapy), 77.8% had received one line of treatment, 14.8% two and 3.7% four. 15.4% had prior allogeneic transplantation. Only 4.0% of the patients were asymptomatic, while the main signs and symptoms were fever (77.8%), pneumonia (75.0%), cough (65.3%), dyspnea (52.0%), diarrhea (20.4%), nausea and/or vomiting (12.2%), rhinorrhea (10.2%) and headache (7.4%). Analytical parameters were: neutrophils 3112 cells/µL (1900-7300), lymphocytes 1090 cells/µL (1000-3000), interleukin 6 118 pg/mL (0-100), ferritin 4505 ng/mL (15-150) and D-dimer 2823 ng/mL (20-500), with liver enzymes altered in 23.9% of cases. 84.2% received specific treatment for coronavirus infection: chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine (82.2%), lopinavir/ritonavir (54.0%), corticosteroids (39.6%), azithromycin (33.0%), tocilizumab (15.8%), plasma convalescent (3.0%), clinical trial medication (3.0%), remdesivir (2.0%) and/or anakinra (1.0%). The course was mild in 14.7% (no hospitalization), moderate in 32.0% and severe in 53.3%. The implementation of intensive measures was assessed in 48.2%(14.9% admitted to the ICU and the remaining 33.3% rejected). The mean time to negativization was 20.5 days, duration of symptoms 17.6 days and the hospital stay 11.1 days. In 48.1% of the cases treatment for AML was maintained, in 26.6% delayed and in 25.3% modified due to coronavirus disease.47.5% died, establishing an association between mortality and age over 60 years (58.3% vs 36.4%, p=0.043), ≥2 lines of treatment (72.7% vs 44.3%, p=0.020), active disease (62.5% vs 29.4%, p=0.002) and pneumonia (61.2% versus 22.7%, p=0.002). Overall 47.5% overcame the infection, and in 5.0% SARS-CoV-2 genetic material was still detected at the time of analysis. A non-significant lower mortality rate was observed among: previous transplantation (45.7% vs 64.3%, p=0.19), neutrophil & gt;1900 cells/µL (41.1% vs 60.0%, p=0.09), lymphocyte & gt;1000 cells/µL (42.9% vs 63.6%, p = 0.09) and hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine plus azithromycin (35.3% vs 60.0%, p=0.10). Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 infection produces high mortality among AML patients. Mortality was correlated with age, active disease and pneumonia. Disclosures Martinez-Lopez: Janssen-cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract: Introduction In the first weeks of the Covid-19 pandemic when healthcare systems in many areas were overstretched, we documented that hospital mortality in multiple myeloma (MM) patients infected by Sars-Cov-2 was 50% higher than in age matched Covid-19 patients without cancer. In the following months, the pressure on healthcare systems in Spain continued although it did not reach the extreme levels of the first weeks of the pandemic. In this study, we proposed to determine if the severity of Covid-19 outcomes in MM patients has changed over the first year of the pandemic. Patients and methods The Spanish MM Collaborative Group (Pethema-GEM) conducted a survey at national level on plasma cell disorder patients infected by SARS-Cov-2 between March 2020 and February 2021. Sixty-six (69%) out of 96 contacted healthcare centers, from all 17 regions in Spain, reported 502 patients. Data on Covid-19 acute and post-acute phase outcomes (hospitalization, oxygen requirements, severity of symptoms and mortality) were reported first in May 2020 (Martinez-Lopez et al, BCJ 2021) and updated in February 2021. In this study, we compared outcome occurrence between two study periods: P1, a period of extreme stress for the healthcare system in Spain, from March to mid-June 2020; and a second period, P2, up to mid-February 2021 with a sustained but lower burden on the national health care system. Results Among the 451 patients with plasma cell disorders and a Sars-Cov-2 infection documented with an rRT-PCR positive test, 377 (84%) were MM patients, 15 SMM (3%), 40 MGUS (9%) and 19 amyloidosis (4%). The number of MM weekly reported cases was 57% (95%CI, 48-65) lower in P2 (188 cases in 35 weeks) compared to P1 (189 cases in 15 weeks), p & lt;0.001. The mean (SD) age and the proportion of men did not differ between P1 and P2, respectively 69.8 (10.9) vs 68.6 (11.0) years, p=0.6, and 53.3% vs 59.6%, p=0.2. MM patients with active or progressive disease at time of Covid-19 diagnosis were 24% in P1 and 34% in P2, p=0.05; patients on active treatment were more frequent in P1, 89%, than in P2, 79%, p=0.01. MM treatment was withheld in 78% and 82% of patients, p=0.4. Covid-19 treatment changed over time: MM inpatients received more remdesivir and corticoids in the second period (3% vs 31% p & lt;0.001, and 49% vs 73%, p & lt;0.001, respectively). In P1, 90% of the reported MM patients were hospitalized compared to 71% in P2, p & lt;0.001. Thirty-one and 41% of patients did not require oxygen support during P1 and P2, respectively; non-invasive ventilation in 19% and 14%, and mechanical ventilation in 7% and 8%, p=0.12. Overall, acute clinical Covid-19 severity was reduced from P1 to P2: 75% to 51%, p & lt;0.001: moderate/severe pneumonia was reduced from 68% to 36%, p & lt;0.001 but severe distress syndrome increased from 7% to 15%, p=0.03. However, mortality in all reported patients was 30.7% in P1 vs 26.1% in P2, p=0.3; and no differences in mortality were observed in hospitalized patients, 32.2% in P1 and 35.3% in P2, p=0.6. We performed a multivariable adjustment with the predictors identified in our previous study (BCJ 2021) and confirmed that inpatient mortality was similar in both study periods, odds ratio (OR) 0.99 (95%CI 0.59-1.66). Independently of the study period, an increased mortality was observed in men (OR 1.81, 1.08-3.05), patients over 65 (OR 2.40, 1.33-4.36), and patients with active or progressive disease (OR 2.12, 1.24-3.62). The severity of Covid-19 clinical outcomes -besides mortality, was associated with increased age but not with active or progressive disease. Conclusions Although COVID-19 clinical severity has decreased over the first year of the pandemic in multiple myeloma patients, mortality remains high with no change between the initial weeks of the pandemic and the following months. Prevention and vaccination strategies should be strengthened in this vulnerable population, particularly in patients with active or progressive disease at time of Covid-19 diagnosis. Disclosures Martínez-López: Janssen, BMS, Novartis, Incyte, Roche, GSK, Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche, Novartis, Incyte, Astellas, BMS: Research Funding. Mateos: Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Regeneron: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sea-Gen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene - Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird bio: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. López-Muñoz: Amgen: Consultancy. Sureda: GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Bluebird: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rosinol: Janssen, Celgene, Amgen and Takeda: Honoraria. Lahuerta: Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Janssen and Sanofi: Consultancy; Celgene: Other: Travel accomodations and expenses. San-Miguel: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Karyopharm, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, SecuraBio, Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Advisory board.

Abstract: Introduction The prognosis of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (RR-AML) is very poor, and treatment options are very limited. The exciting results of venetoclax (VEN) in untreated AML have led to its off-label use in RR-AML. However, evidence in RR-AML is still scarce and the available data are mostly from retrospective and single-center studies. The aim of our study was to analyze the effectiveness of VEN use in patients with RR-AML reported to the PETHEMA AML epidemiological registry. Initial results were presented previously (Labrador J, et al. ASH 2020). Here, we report an updated analysis. Methods We conducted a retrospective, multicenter, observational study of a cohort of patients with AML-RR who were treated with venetoclax in the hospitals of the PETHEMA group. We evaluated efficacy, CR/CRi rate and overall survival (OS). We performed a descriptive analysis. Overall survival (OS) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results Fifty-one patients were included, 33 men and 18 women, with a median age of 68 years (25-82). The main characteristics of the included patients are shown in Table 1. With a median follow-up of 167 days, 10/51 patients (19%) continued to receive VEN at the time of analyses. Patients received a median of 2 cycles (0-8). VEN was administered with azacitidine (AZA) in 59%, with decitabine (DEC) in 29% and with low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) in 12% of patients, respectively. The CR/CRi and partial response (PR) rates were 12.4% and 10.4%, respectively. The CR/RCi and overall response (ORR, CR/CRi+PR) was higher in patients receiving VEN+AZA (17.9% and 32.1%) than in those receiving DEC + VEN (6.7% and 13.3%) or LDAC + VEN (0%). The presence of NPM1 or CEBPA variants were the only two variables associated with increased CR/CRi with VEN in RR-AML. Median OS was 104 days (95% CI: 56 - 151) (Figure 1A), 120 days in combination with AZA, 104 days with DEC, and 69 days with LDAC; p=0.875. Treatment response (Figure 1B) and ECOG 0 were the only variables that influenced OS in a multivariate model adjusted for age and sex (Table 2). VEN-resistant patients who received subsequent salvage therapy had superior median OS (98 vs. 5 days, p=0.004).Twenty-eight percent of patients required discontinuation of VEN due to toxicity. Sixty-one percent of patients required admission, mainly due to infections (45%), 10% due to bleeding and other causes in 12%. One case of tumor lysis syndrome was described. Conclusions Our real-life series depicts a marginal probability of CR/CRi and poor OS after venetoclax-based salvage. Patients treated with this regimen had very poor-risk features, and were heavily pre-treated, which could explain in part the observed poor outcomes. Although follow-up is still short, the small proportion of responders did not reach the median OS. Further studies will help to identify those patients potentially benefiting from venetoclax-based salvage regimens. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Belén Vidriales: Roche: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Pérez-Encinas: Janssen: Consultancy. Tormo: Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Montesinos: Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Stemline/Menarini: Consultancy; Tolero Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas Pharma, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Advisory board, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax for Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Abstract: To assess whether Mediterranean Diet (MedDiet)-based medical nutrition therapy facilitates near-normoglycemia in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDMw) and observe the effects on adverse pregnancy outcomes. Research design and methods This is a secondary analysis of the St Carlos GDM Prevention Study, conducted between January and December 2015 in Hospital Clínico San Carlos (Madrid, Spain). One thousand consecutive women with normoglycemia were included before 12 gestational weeks (GWs), with 874 included in the final analysis. Of these, 177 women were diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and 697 had normal glucose tolerance. All GDMw received MedDiet-based medical nutrition therapy with a recommended daily extra virgin olive oil intake ≥40 mL and a daily handful of nuts. The primary goal was comparison of hemoglobin A1c (HbA 1c ) levels at 36–38 GWs in GDMw and women with normal glucose tolerance (NGTw). Results GDMw as compared with NGTw had higher HbA 1c levels at 24–28 GWs (5.1%±0.3% (32±0.9 mmol/mol) vs 4.9%±0.3% (30±0.9 mmol/mol), p=0.001). At 36–38 GWs values were similar between the groups. Similarly, fasting serum insulin and homeostatic model assessment insulin resitance (HOMA-IR) were higher in GDMw at 24–28 GWs (p=0.001) but became similar at 36–38 GWs. 26.6% of GDMw required insulin for glycemic control. GDMw compared with NGTw had higher rates of insufficient weight gain (39.5% vs 22.0%, p=0.001), small for gestational age (6.8% vs 2.6%, p=0.009), and neonatal intensive care unit admission (5.6% vs 1.7%, p=0.006). The rates of macrosomia, large for gestational age, pregnancy-induced hypertensive disorders, prematurity and cesarean sections were comparable with NGTw. Conclusions Using a MedDiet-based medical nutrition therapy as part of GDM management is associated with achievement of near-normoglycemia, subsequently making most pregnancy outcomes similar to those of NGTw.