Search

Objective: There is growing evidence that genetic data are of benefit in the rheumatology outpatient setting by aiding early diagnosis. A genetic probability tool (G‐PROB) has been developed to aid diagnosis has not yet been tested in a real‐world setting. Our aim was to assess whether G‐PROB could aid diagnosis in the rheumatology outpatient setting using data from the Norfolk Arthritis Register (NOAR), a prospective observational cohort of patients presenting with early inflammatory arthritis. Methods: Genotypes and clinician diagnoses were obtained from patients from NOAR. Six G‐probabilities (0%–100%) were created for each patient based on known disease‐associated odds ratios of published genetic risk variants, each corresponding to one disease of rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthropathy, gout, or "other diseases." Performance of the G‐probabilities compared with clinician diagnosis was assessed. Results: We tested G‐PROB on 1,047 patients. Calibration of G‐probabilities with clinician diagnosis was high, with regression coefficients of 1.047, where 1.00 is ideal. G‐probabilities discriminated clinician diagnosis with pooled areas under the curve (95% confidence interval) of 0.85 (0.84–0.86). G‐probabilities <5% corresponded to a negative predictive value of 96.0%, for which it was possible to suggest >2 unlikely diseases for 94% of patients and >3 for 53.7% of patients. G‐probabilities >50% corresponded to a positive predictive value of 70.4%. In 55.7% of patients, the disease with the highest G‐probability corresponded to clinician diagnosis. Conclusion: G‐PROB converts complex genetic information into meaningful and interpretable conditional probabilities, which may be especially helpful at eliminating unlikely diagnoses in the rheumatology outpatient setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treatment options for relapsed and refractory acute myeloid leukemia patients (R/R AML) are limited. This retrospective cohort study compares safety and efficacy of fludarabine, cytarabine, and idarubicin (FLA-IDA) without or with venetoclax (FLAVIDA) in patients with R/R AML. Thirty-seven and 81 patients received one course FLA-IDA with or without a 7-day course of venetoclax, respectively. The overall response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in FLAVIDA compared to FLAIDA- treated patients (78% vs. 47%; P=0.001), while measurable residual disease was negative at a similar proportion in responding patients (50% vs. 57%), respectively. Eighty-one percent and 79% of patients proceeded to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation or donor lymphocyte infusion after FLAVIDA and FLA-IDA, respectively. Event-free and overall survival were similar in FLAVIDA- and FLA-IDA-treated patients. Refractory patients could be salvaged more successfully after FLA-IDA compared to FLAVIDA pretreatment. Neutrophil and platelet recovery times were similar in the venetoclax and the control group. In conclusion, short-term venetoclax in combination with FLA-IDA represents an effective treatment regimen in R/R AML identifying chemosensitive patients rapidly and inducing measurable residual disease-negative remission in a high proportion of R/R AML patients.