Shah, Surbhi

Abstract Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) carries an increased risk of thrombosis, which may be further amplified by splenectomy and thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs). Although each intervention has been individually studied for its thrombotic risk, data are lacking on the safety of postsplenectomy TPO-RA use. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with ITP who underwent splenectomy between 2011 and 2024. Patients were stratified on the basis of postsplenectomy TPO-RA use. The primary outcome was incidence of thrombosis. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, mortality, and hematologic response. Time-to-event analyses and multivariate Cox regression were performed. Among 88 patients, 37 (42%) patients received TPO-RAs after splenectomy. Thrombosis occurred in 17 patients in the TPO-RA group vs 14 patients in the non–TPO-RA group (P = .07). The 10-year cumulative incidence of thrombosis was numerically higher in the TPO-RA group (57% vs 36%), with clustering of events within the 3 months of postsplenectomy TPO-RA initiation. Venous events predominated; arterial events were rare. No significant differences were observed in bleeding or mortality rates between groups. Platelet counts alone did not independently affect bleeding or thrombosis. TPO-RA use after splenectomy was not significantly associated with increased thrombosis risk. However, early initiation may coincide with a high-risk period, and the sustained numerical difference in cumulative incidence throughout follow-up highlights potential clinical relevance. These findings support the need for individualized thromboprophylaxis and prospective evaluation of TPO-RA safety in this setting.

Background The optimal timing and type of venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis (VTEp) for adults with acute traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains unknown. This systematic review synthesized evidence on the timing and type of VTEp in adults with TBI and highlights evidence gaps. Methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through November 4, 2024 for English language, randomized or non-randomized studies with a comparator that reported VTEp timing or agent in adults with acute TBI, and reported intracranial hemorrhage progression (ICHP), VTE, pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), neurosurgical intervention (NSI), adverse events (AEs), length of stay (LOS), function, or mortality. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed with ROBINS-I as low, moderate, serious, or critical risk in studies that used advanced analytic methods (AAMs) to control selection bias; all other studies were deemed critical risk. We qualitatively synthesized evidence and focused text reporting on studies with AAM. Results From 738 citations, 21 non-randomized studies met criteria (1 moderate, 20 critical ROB): 16 on VTEp timing, 7 on agents. Seven studies used AAM. For VTEp timing (five AAM studies), one study of adults with mostly mild TBI found no significant difference between Early and Late VTEp on ICHP (moderate ROB); no timing studies with AAM reported ICHP for adults with moderate or severe TBI. Findings were mixed for VTE timing on NSI and PE. Early VTEp was associated with fewer DVTs. There was no difference in mortality or serious AEs by VTEp timing. For VTEp agents, three studies with AAM found no significant difference between low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UH) on ICHP, PE, DVT, and serious or overall AEs. Results were mixed for LMWH versus UH effects on NSI after VTEp, VTE, LOS and mortality. TBI severity labeling varied across studies and within measures, reducing comparability. Conclusions Clinical evidence on the timing and type of VTEp for adults with acute TBI is of insufficient quality for clinical decision-making. Prospective research designs, standardization of TBI severity labeling, and improved reporting of interventions and outcomes would advance the field. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023421534 Level of evidence Systematic Review, Level IV

Introduction: Systems-based hematology (SBH) is an emerging field focused on improving hematology care delivery through quality improvement (QI) and health systems science (HSS). However, a universal definition and standardized training curriculum are lacking. This study aimed to explore experts' perspectives on defining SBH, identify core knowledge and skills, and discuss challenges and opportunities in developing a curriculum. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight hematologists who have expertise in SBH through practical experience, scientific publications, and serve on related committees for the American Society of Hematology. These interviews were automatically transcribed through Microsoft Teams. Thematic analysis, using both inductive and deductive coding, was employed to identify themes and subthemes from the verbatim interview transcripts. This was accomplished with a large language model (LLM; Google Gemini Advanced, June 2024). Results: In combination, these semi-structured interviews lasted approximately 400 minutes and generated 231 pages of transcript text with 63117 words for analysis. Five main themes and associated subthemes were identified. (1) Defining SBH: experts highlighted the lack of a universal definition for SBH, emphasizing the reason it is often defined by its functions, such as improving healthcare delivery, ensuring appropriate use of resources, and addressing disparities in care. They often compared SBH to other fields like antimicrobial stewardship or implementation science to illustrate its expansive role and scope. (2) The Role and Scope of SBH: experts described SBH as encompassing a broad range of activities, including improving healthcare delivery, implementing QI initiatives, conducting pragmatic research, and advocating for policy changes at various levels. They emphasized the importance of data-driven approaches and collaboration with other healthcare professionals. (3) Training and Education in SBH: the lack of formal training programs and curricula for SBH was a recurring theme. Experts suggested that a comprehensive curriculum should include QI methodologies, implementation science, clinical informatics, health economics, leadership skills, and hematology-specific examples and case studies. They proposed various delivery methods, including asynchronous online modules, virtual workshops, and in-person sessions, targeting hematology fellows, junior faculty, and other healthcare professionals involved in hematology care. They unanimously agreed that a SBH curriculum could borrow heavily from an established HSS curriculum but should incorporate hematology-specific examples. (4) Challenges and Barriers to Implementing SBH: experts identified several challenges, including the lack of awareness and recognition of SBH among healthcare professionals and administrators, resource constraints, and the need for institutional buy-in. They also highlighted the technical difficulty of measuring and demonstrating the value of SBH interventions, particularly in terms of cost savings and improved patient outcomes. (5) The Future of SBH: despite the challenges, experts expressed optimism about the future of SBH, predicting its growing importance and expanding scope, including malignant hematology, community practice, and pediatrics. They envisioned SBH playing a crucial role in addressing rising healthcare costs, quality concerns, and disparities in care. They also anticipated the integration of new technologies like artificial intelligence, “virtual” care delivery, and molecular genetics into SBH practice. Conclusions: This study provides valuable insights into the current state of SBH and the need for a standardized curriculum. The findings can inform the development of educational resources and training programs to equip future practitioners with the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively practice SBH and improve hematology care delivery. This study also sheds light on the utility of qualitative research within SBH and the emerging analytical tools that will require further exploration and standardization (e.g., LLM prompt engineering).

Background The vitamin K antagonist, warfarin, is the preferred anticoagulant in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use in APS is associated with inferior outcomes, including significantly increased odds of arterial thrombotic events, particularly cerebrovascular accidents (CVA). Despite growing evidence supporting warfarin as the preferred first-line agent, DOACs continue to be utilized by providers in the management of APS. The primary aim of this analysis was to scrutinize the patients with a diagnosis of APS and their anticoagulant choices, to identify quality gaps such as unconfirmed diagnosis (with the need for further testing), lack of awareness of the evidence by the prescribing provider or inadequate documentation of risk benefit conversation, versus patient preference and then systematically intervene to reduce the utilization of DOACS in this patient population. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 100 patients with an ICD code diagnosis of APS documented in the electronic health record (EHR) who were recently prescribed a DOAC within Mayo Clinic enterprise. These cases were assessed for appropriateness of the diagnosis (defined as having at least one clinical manifestation of APS, including venous/arterial thrombosis and/or adverse pregnancy outcome in the setting of persistent antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) positivity by Sapporo criteria). aPL positivity was defined as having positive tests on two occasions with a minimum of 12 weeks apart. Antiphospholipid antibody testing included anticardiolipin (aCL) antibodies (IgG and IgM), anti-beta2 glycoprotein I antibodies (IgG and IgM) and lupus anticoagulant (LA). If the patient met diagnostic criteria, they were then risk stratified to identify high-risk cases. High-risk profile was defined as persistently positive levels of all three aPL (triple-positive). Following review for the appropriate diagnosis, intervention gaps were identified, including the need for additional diagnostic testing, provider education, documenting risk-benefits discussion, and removal of APS from the patient's problem list in the EHR. Clinical intervention was done by sending an EHR message to the prescribing provider which included reason for communication, intervention and recommendation. Reminders were sent every 2 weeks to providers who did not respond, with maximum of 3 messages per provider. Results Of the 100 patients, 60/100 (60%) did not meet criteria for APS, as either initial or repeat aPL testing was negative, and therefore were excluded from this project. Within the remaining 40 patients, 17/100 (17%) had thrombotic APS and 23/100 (23%) had unconfirmed diagnosis Reasons for no intervention (20/40) included not meeting criteria for APS, no longer on a DOAC, and risk versus benefits discussion documented. After adjudication only 20 patients qualified for intervention, 10/20 (50%) patients required additional testing due to lack of repeat testing or referral to a specialist, 7/20 (35%) required removal of APS from problem list, and 3/20 (15%) needed provider. Only 12/20 (65%) of providers accepted the recommendation, 7/20 (35%) did not, and 1/20 (5%) did not respond. Conclusions Despite syndrome-defining criteria, APS remains a commonly misdiagnosed condition. Our QI analysis found that more than half of patients in our cohort with HER documented diagnosis of APS did not meet the Sapporo diagnostic criteria. The tested intervention was time-intensive and prospective, which may have contributed to limited provider acceptance. We propose a robust system-based intervention to remedy this quality issue, which will leverage the EHR to create smart tools in the form of order sets and a passive Our Best Practice Advisory alert to highlight incomplete testing or suggest follow up lab testing at 12 weeks. We will also integrate just in time provider education resources and material embedded in the orders. Our future goal is to assess the impact of this intervention with a similarly sampled cohort.

Background: The term classical hematology (CH), referring to a subspecialty focusing on non-cancer blood disorders, was officially adopted by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) in 2022. There is a perceived shortage of classical hematologists, although data are limited (Winter JN, Hematologist 2022). Prior studies have shown that <6% of hematology-oncology fellows pursue a practice subspecializing in CH after training (Todd RF, Blood 2004; Marshall Al, Blood Adv 2018). Moreover, mentorship is consistently cited as the most important factor guiding fellows' career decisions (Sharma D, Blood Adv 2019; Masselink LE, Blood Adv 2019). To help bridge the CH workforce gap, ASH has supported additional hematology-focused fellowship programs (HFFP) within select hematology-oncology fellowship programs. CH constitutes a large proportion of consults in US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers (West CV, JCO Oncol Pract 2024). The goals of our study were: 1) to determine the proportion of adult hematologist-oncologists within NCI cancer centers who practice CH; and 2) to describe the physician characteristics of cancer centers with HFFP and compare these centers to those without HFFP. Methods: We included all NCI-designated cancer centers with a clinical program as of April 1, 2024. The only exception was St Jude Children's Hospital due to its pediatric focus. We obtained the practice profile of each internal medicine-trained adult hematologist-oncologist (henceforth, physician) as well as the availability of HFFP from the respective cancer center websites. We also searched the corresponding department of medicine and division of hematology at each affiliated academic institution to ensure inclusion of all physicians practicing CH. Each physician was classified into one of the following categories: classical hematologist (attending to only non-cancer conditions), general hematologist-oncologist (cancer and non-cancer conditions), and oncologist (cancer only). The number of hematology-oncology fellowship programs in the US was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Results: We included 64 NCI-designated cancer centers, 55 of which were considered as comprehensive cancer centers. There was a total of 4,616 physicians (3,891 oncologists [84.3%], 487 hematologists-oncologists [10.6%], and 238 classical hematologists [5.1%]). The median numbers of physicians, oncologists, general hematologist-oncologists, and classical hematologists per center were 55 (range, 16-275), 45 (range, 12-270), 5 (range, 0-48), and 3 (range, 0-13), respectively. The median proportions of classical hematologists and physicians practicing CH (general hematologist-oncologists plus classical hematologists) were 5.1% (range, 0-20.0) and 14.9% (range, 0-55.6%), respectively. There were 12 HFFP within NCI-designated cancer centers (18.8%). Most (11/12) centers with HFFP had >50 physicians (median 95 [range, 38-185]) and >5% classical hematologists (median 6% [range, 3.8-13.5%]); 11 centers with similar characteristics did not have HFFP. Centers with HFFP have significantly higher numbers of physicians (median 95.0 [range, 38-185] vs 49.5 [range, 16-275]; P=0.001) and classical hematologists (median 6.0 [range, 3-13] vs 2.0 [range, 0-11]; P<0.001) but similar proportions of classical hematologists (median 6.0% [range, 3.8-13.5] vs 4.5% [range, 0-20.0]; P=0.078) and physicians practicing CH (median 12.3% [range, 6.5-47.7] vs 15.7% [range, 0-55.6]; P=0.402) compared to those without HFFP. Conclusions: Among adult hematologist-oncologists at NCI-designated cancer centers, only 1 in 20 are classical hematologists, although 1 in 7 have CH as part of their practice. Within NCI-designated cancer centers, only 1 in 5 have an HFFP. These findings suggest that there is an opportunity for NCI-designated cancer centers to encourage and recruit physicians subspecializing in CH and a rationale to create additional HFFPs. These measures may help further alleviate CH workforce shortages and expand CH mentorship to meet the needs of an increasingly complex subspecialty within hematology.

Introduction Clonal hematopoiesis (CH) in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients can lead to impaired tolerance to immunosuppressive therapy, increased risk for complications, and potentially compromise graft and patient outcomes. The impact of mutational profile in CH on risk for hematological transformation and patient/graft outcomes for kidney transplant (KT) recipients is largely unknown. Our aim was to assess the prevalence of CH and progression of CH in KT, evaluate the impact of CH on allograft function, assess patient outcomes and determine Clonal Hematopoietic Risk Score status. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the CH profile of patients 18+ years of age who received a kidney transplant at Mayo Clinic Enterprise between 01/01/1994-12-31/2022 and underwent bone marrow biopsy with aspirate pre- and/or post-transplant. Bone marrow biopsies were primarily performed post-transplant in the workup for cytopenias. Transplant database was used to collect our variables of interest including post-transplant malignancy and outcomes. CH was ascertained through next-generation sequencing (NGS) on bone marrow samples. A 47-gene panel was utilized in our study. CH was defined by presence of somatic mutation with a variant allele frequency of > 2.0%. CH in absence of cytopenias was classified as CHIP while CH in individuals with one or more cytopenias was classified as clonal cytopenias of undetermined significant (CCUS). The Clonal Hematopoiesis Risk Score (CHRS) was utilized for CHIP and CCUS risk stratification We excluded the patients who had a prior hematologic malignancy. Results 305 kidney transplant recipients met our study criteria. The median time to follow up, defined as time from transplant until first bone marrow biopsy with evidence of CH, was 46.1 months. The frequency of CH in kidney recipients was 27/305 (9.0%), of these 14/27 (52%) patients were found to have CCUS and 10/27 (37%) were found to have evidence of post-transplant myeloid malignancy. Of these cases, 5/10 (50%) developed acute myeloid leukemia while 5/10 (50%) developed myelodysplastic syndrome. Both CCUS and myeloid neoplasms were more common in female patients, accounting for 8/14 (57%) and 7/13 (54%) of each cohort, respectively. Amongst CCUS, the most frequent mutations were seen in ASXL1, DNMT3A and TET2. More than half of patients with CH, 14/27 (52%), exhibited mutations in 2 or more genes. Meanwhile, in cases of myeloid malignancy, the commonly mutated genes were ASXL1 and TP53, seen in 3/10 and 3/10 cases, respectively. The CCUS risk status was intermediate, with median score of 11.8 (range 9.5-14). One CCUS patient transformed to myelodysplastic syndrome. The time to progression from CCUS to myelodysplastic syndrome was 14.3 months and their respective CHRS status was determined to be high-risk. Infectious complications, including viral and opportunistic infections, were seen in 12/27 (44%) recipients with CH, with CMV viremia being the most common, followed by BK viremia. In this cohort, post-transplant cardiovascular events and venous thromboembolic events occurred in 2/27 (7.0%) and 7/27 (26%) patients, respectively. Allograft failure was seen in 17/27 (63%) recipients at a median of 93.4 months post-transplant. After a median of 122 months, there were 14/27 (52%) deaths at a median duration of 93.4 months post-transplant. Causes of mortality included myeloid malignancy, infection, cardiovascular complications, end-stage renal disease or were unknown. Conclusions Renal transplant recipients carry mutations in epigenetic regulators resulting in adverse outcomes. Similar to the general population, DNMT3A, TET2 and ASXL1 mutations were the most common mutations in post-transplant CCUS. Infections, cardiovascular events, and allograft failure were frequent. Prospective studies in a larger cohort are needed to evaluate the impact of CCUS in survival and myeloid malignancy transformation risk.

Background The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) launched the Diversity in Oncology initiative in 2017 to address the need for increased minority representation in the hematology-oncology workforce. A recent series of reports, titled “State of the Oncology Workforce in America,” published in JCO Oncology Practice in 2021 and 2022, focused on this issue. Notably, these reports did not include any data regarding the representation of Asian minorities in the field. Therefore, our objective was to assess the proportion of Asian professionals within the hematology-oncology workforce, encompassing both practitioners and trainees. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search for publicly available data regarding Asian representation among US hematology-oncology practitioners and trainees in both adult and pediatric fields. Our primary data sources included the 2020 US Census, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, and various professional societies. We defined practitioners to include hematologist-oncologists, gynecologic oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgical oncologists, hematopathologists, hematology-oncology nurse practitioners, hematology-oncology physician assistants, and nurses specializing in hematology-oncology. Trainees encompassed fellows and residents. Additionally, we gathered comparable data on the US population, medical students, adult internal medicine residents, gynecology residents, pediatric residents, pathology residents, surgery residents, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. To provide a comprehensive overview of the hematology-oncology workforce, we utilized data from 2020 to 2022, and whenever possible, we collected longitudinal data on trainees over the years. Results As of 2020, Asians represented 6.2% of the US population. Among hematology-oncology physician practitioners, the percentage of Asian individuals ranges from 14.7% to 32.1%, including 32.1% of adult hematologist-oncologists, 20.4% of pediatric hematologist-oncologists, 25.9% of radiation oncologists, 14.7% of gynecologic oncologists, and 7.0% of hematology-oncology physician assistants. In the realm of physician trainees, Asian representation is between 17.9% and 35.3%, with 35.3% of adult hematology-oncology fellows, 20.0% of pediatric hematology-oncology fellows, 26.4% of radiation oncology residents, and 17.9% of gynecologic oncology fellows. Additionally, the proportion of Asian residents from which hematology-oncology fellows are drawn ranges from 14.9% to 35.9%. Specifically, 35.9% of internal medicine residents, 22.0% of pediatric residents, 14.9% of gynecology residents, 26.6% of pathology residents, and 19.2% of surgical residents are Asian. Furthermore, 26.7% of medical students identify as Asian. Notably, the proportions of Asian hematology-oncology trainees and medical students have remained relatively stable from 2005 to 2022. Data on hematopathologists, surgical oncologists, and non-physician practitioners are limited, although Asian representation among hematology-oncology physician assistants is 7.0% and among nurses is 7.2%. Conclusions Asians comprise a large segment of the hematology-oncology workforce in the US. While only 1 in 20 people in the US are Asians, between 1 in 3 and 1 in 5 hematology-oncology physician practitioners and trainees, are Asians. Data are limited for non-physician practitioners. Asian minority representation should be highlighted and considered as an example of success in diversity in hematology-oncology workforce. This framework should be embraced moving forward to continue advancing minority representation throughout the field of hematology-oncology.