Ashrani, Aneel A.

ABSTRACT Background Platelet factor 4‐polyanion enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are considered highly sensitive for diagnosing heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), such that current practice guidelines recommend use of ELISA‐negative results to exclude HIT. Once HIT is ruled out, alternative, non‐heparin‐based anticoagulant treatments are ceased, and heparin reintroduction frequently occurs. Methods Antigen‐based and PF4‐dependent functional testing were used to study PF4/polyvinylsulfonate ELISA‐negative platelet‐activating antibodies in HIT‐suspected patients. Results Three patients with clinical presentations consistent with HIT tested negative in an ELISA using PF4‐polyvinylsulfonate (PF4/PVS), an antigenic target very commonly used for HIT antibody screening. All three patients demonstrated PF4‐dependent platelet activation in functional testing that was sensitive to blockade of platelet FcγRIIa receptors and inhibited by high concentrations of heparin, consistent with pathogenic HIT antibodies. Functional testing‐based screening of 500 ELISA‐negative patients identified three additional patients whose sera activated platelets in a PF4‐ and FcγRIIa‐dependent manner and had clinical histories consistent with HIT. Five of the six ELISA‐negative HIT patients were re‐exposed to heparin, which precipitated a decrease in platelet counts in all re‐exposed patients, and one patient developed a new thrombus. Conclusions Recognition of ELISA‐negative HIT is critical to avoid harm due to the cessation of alternative anticoagulation therapy and re‐exposure of these patients to heparin.

Abstract Introduction: Only 30% of patients (pts) presenting with abnormal bleeding symptoms receive a clear diagnosis, with many classified as having bleeding disorder of unknown cause, or BDUC (Baker et al. 2021). Currently, the recommended diagnostic workup for BDUC by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) includes plasmatic assays for coagulation factors, von Willebrand factor (vWF) antigen/activity, and platelet function testing (PFT), specifically platelet function analyzer-100 (PFA-100) and light transmission aggregometry (LTA). However, PFTs are not widely available and cannot be mailed to reference laboratories. We studied the diagnostic yield of an expanded testing panel which includes quantitative platelet glycoprotein flow cytometry (GpFL) and platelet electron microscopy (PTEM), which we have optimized for specimen mailing. Methods: We conducted a minimal risk, retrospective study by reviewing the electronic health records of pts (18 years and older) who were seen in the Coagulation Clinic of a tertiary academic medical center for evaluation of a bleeding disorder between October 2017 and June 2025. Testing included plasma-based assays including PT, APTT, vWF assay, FVIII, FIX, FXIII screen, and thrombin time (and additional reflex assays as needed). At the discretion of the treating clinician, PFTs (PFA-100 and LTA), GpFL, PTEM, and fibrinolysis assays (plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 antigen [PAI-1 Ag] and alpha-2 plasmin inhibitor) were included. We abstracted clinical data on pt demographics, ISTH bleeding scores, and the results of coagulation testing. Pts with an established diagnosis of a bleeding disorder, underlying malignancy, and those who did not have plasma-based coagulation testing were excluded from this study. Results: 109 pts met study criteria, and 82.6% were females (n = 90) with a median age of 45 years (range = 18-88 years). The median ISTH-BAT score was 7 (range: 2-21). About half of the pts, 49.5% (n = 54), had normal coagulation profiles and PFTs. All 54 had PTEM performed, of which 14.8% (n = 8) were abnormal (alpha and/or dense granule deficiencies). 85.2% (n = 46) had GpFL testing performed, with one showing reduced Gp2b/CD42 and Gp3a/CD61 expression, four showing reduced Gp1a/CD49b expression, and three showing reduced GpVI expression. Half of the pts, 50.5% (n = 55) had an abnormal coagulation profile from plasma and/or PFTs, of which 20% (n = 11) had a clinically significant coagulation factor deficiency (FV, FVII, FX). Roughly 9.1% (n = 5) had type 1 vWD of which 1 also had PAI-1 deficiency. One pt had isolated PAI-1 deficiency. Abnormal coagulation profiles were noted in 53 pts who had PFA-100 and LTA done, and both tests were normal in 22.6% (n = 12). Within the abnormal coagulation profile group, 10.9% (n = 6) had ultrastructural abnormalities on PTEM (dense and alpha granule abnormalities). Majority of the pts (n = 46) had GpFL done, and one had abnormal reductions in Gp1b-aCD42b, three in Gp1aCD49b, and seven in GPVI. Comparison of the ISTH BAT score between the normal and abnormal coagulation profiles/PFTs groups by non-parametric (Mann-Whitney U test) and parametric (Welch's t-test) showed no significant difference (p = 0.56 and p = 0.87) respectively. Conclusion: In this cohort of pts with abnormal bleeding, standard recommended testing resulted in a diagnosis in 66.4% pts. The remainder would have been classified as BDUC. The addition of GpFL and PTEM resulted in establishing a diagnosis that explains the bleeding phenotype in 14.8% of pts with an otherwise normal coagulation profile and PFT. Although abnormal PFTs indicate a platelet function defect, GpFL and PTEM may further define the abnormalities particularly differentiating syndromic from non-syndromic inherited platelet disorders. Additional studies are needed to confirm our findings and explore the possibility of addition of GpFL and PTEM for patients with BDUC.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Platelet factor 4-polyanion enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are considered highly sensitive for diagnosing heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), such that current practice guidelines recommend use of ELISA-negative results to exclude HIT. Once HIT is ruled out, alternative, non-heparin-based anticoagulant treatments are ceased, and heparin reintroduction frequently occurs. METHODS Antigen-based and PF4-dependent functional testing were used to study PF4/polyvinyl sulfonate ELISA-negative platelet-activating antibodies in HIT-suspected patients and mice immunized with PF4/heparin. RESULTS Three patients with clinical presentations consistent with HIT tested negative in an ELISA using PF4-polyvinylsulfonate (PF4/PVS), an antigenic target very commonly used for HIT antibody detection. All three patients demonstrated PF4-dependent platelet activation in functional testing that was sensitive to blockade of platelet FcγRIIa receptors and inhibited by high concentrations of heparin, consistent with pathogenic HIT antibodies. Functional testing-based screening of 500 ELISA-negative patients identified three patients whose sera activated platelets in a PF4- and FcγRIIa-dependent manner, and had clinical histories consistent with HIT. Five of the six ELISA-negative HIT patients were re-exposed to heparin, which precipitated a decrease in platelet counts in all re-exposed patients, and one patient developed a new thrombus. To advance the study of ELISA-negative HIT antibodies, mice were immunized with PF4/heparin, and functional and antigenic assays were simultaneously used to successfully identify an ELISA-negative, PF4-dependent platelet-activating murine monoclonal antibody that recapitulated the serological characteristics of ELISA-negative HIT patients. CONCLUSIONS Recognition of ELISA-negative HIT is critical to avoid harm due to the cessation of alternative anticoagulation therapy and re-exposure of these patients to heparin.

Abstract Objectives Fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET)–based ADAMTS13 activity assays are critical for the diagnosis of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. However, these assays are susceptible to interference. As iodide has been suggested to interfere in laboratory testing via fluorophore quenching or promotion, we aimed to determine whether iodinated contrast (Omnipaque) interferes with the ATS-13 ADAMTS13 Activity Assay 2.0. Methods We evaluated the excitation, emission, and absorbance spectrum of Omnipaque alone and spiked in patient plasma with known ADAMTS13 activity and ADAMTS13 activity on Omnipaque alone, an abnormal control of patient plasma previously observed to display elevated baseline relative fluorescent units, and variable concentrations of patient plasma with known ADAMTS13 activity spiked with Omnipaque. Results No atypical fluorescent peaks were observed on any sample (Omnipaque alone or spiked in plasma) between 250 and 700 nm. There was no difference in the mean ADAMTS13 activity among the various concentrations of plasma spiked with Omnipaque or plasma spiked with saline. Conclusions Iodinated contrast does not appear to interfere—either via spectral overlap of the fluorophore or through physiologic inhibition of the ADAMTS13 enzyme—with ADAMTS13 activity FRET-based assays based on the findings from this in vitro analysis. Delaying sample collection for ADAMTS13 activity testing from suspected patients with thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura following administration of iodinated radiocontrast agents is not necessary, and recent contrast administration should not yield erroneous ADAMTS13 activity results.

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.

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.