Padmanabhan, Anand

Abstract Background: Heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a rare immune mediated complication that is triggered in a subset of patients temporal to therapeutic heparin exposure. Laboratory testing is based on screening for the presence of serum anti-PF4 antibodies using sensitive solid-phase immunoassays. If antibodies are detected, functional testing to demonstrate the platelet activating properties and heparin dependence of these immune complexes is then performed. Previous studies have reported possible clinical utility in identifying non heparin dependent platelet activating antibodies using a buffer control with zero heparin in the serotonin release functional assay (SRA). These reports suggested a correlation between reactivity in the zero heparin buffer control and pathogenicity of HIT antibodies which may define a subtype of HIT, referred to as autoimmune HIT. We aimed to investigate the utility of zero heparin buffer control as a part of an inhouse validation study of a mass spectrometry-coupled SRA (Mayo-SRA). Methods: Three hundred archived serum samples were tested using anti-PF4 IgG antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA; Immucor Diagnostics, GA, USA). SRA was preformed on all samples using Mayo-SRA and reference 14C SRA methods. Zero heparin control buffer was included in the Mayo-SRA assay. Serotonin release >20% in the low dose heparin (0.1U/mL, LDH) and ELISA optical density (OD) >0.4 were considered positive. Drug interference studies were performed by spiking known SRA-positive samples with increasing concentrations of unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or fondaparinux in the LDH and zero heparin SRA. The clinical 4T score was calculated retrospectively calculated for all patients. Results: Of the 300 tested samples, 57 were anti-PF4 ELISA positive. 33 of the 57 samples were positive using the reference 14C SRA method. Whereas 43 samples were positive by Mayo-SRA assay. Three additional samples were positive by Mayo-SRA, but negative by both screening anti-PF4 ELISA and the reference SRA method (Fig- 1A). Lastly, 13 samples were anti-PF4 ELISA positive, but SRA negative by both methods in comparison. Interestingly, 44 of 46 (95%) samples interpreted positive by LDH were also interpreted positive (serotonin release >20%) under zero heparin conditions. These included the 3 samples that were positive by Mayo-SRA but negative by both screening anti-PF4 ELISA and the reference SRA. The overall % serotonin release using zero heparin control was significantly lower (P= 0.003, paired Student T-test) compared to LDH (Fig-1B). In addition, zero heparin followed a similar pattern as LDH, with highest levels at ELISA OD units >2 (Fig-1C). Strikingly, drug interference studies showed artifactual serotonin release in the zero heparin reaction, which was not detected in the absence of spiked drugs. For UFH, serotonin release in zero heparin control occurred at very low spiked concentrations, ≥0.063 U/mL. LMWH and fondaparinux spiking experiments also displayed similar zero heparin serotonin release patterns (Fig-1D). Of note, none of these interferences were detected in UFH spiked SRA-negative samples (data not shown). Conclusion: Contrary to prior results suggesting that less than 50% of LDH SRA positive samples are also positive in the zero heparin SRA, our results show high zero heparin SRA positivity rate of >95%. Zero heparin SRA showed a pattern with highest levels at ELISA OD units >2 suggesting that reactivity in this condition is a function of antibody strength rather than a qualitative difference (i.e. "autoimmune" HIT antibodies vs "non-autoimmune" HIT antibodies). In addition, contamination of patient sera with small amounts of remnant heparin can significantly impact platelet activation in the zero heparin SRA test. Thus, zero heparin SRA positive results may be artifactual and represent residual heparin contained in the patient sample. Figure legend: Fig-1A. Scatter plots of SRA positive samples grouped by 4T scores. Red dots are Mayo-SRA only positive samples. Fig-1B and Fig-1C. Scatter plots of % serotonin release of Mayo-SRA positive samples at LDH (circles) vs. zero heparin buffers (squares), and grouped by ELISA OD values, respectively. Fig-1D. % Serotonin release of known SRA-positive samples spiked with increasing concentrations of UFH, LMWH, or fondaparinux at LDH (white) or zero heparin buffers (red). Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Pruthi: CSL Behring: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare AG: Honoraria; HEMA Biologics: Honoraria; Instrumentation Laboratory: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria. Padmanabhan: Veralox Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Introduction: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a potentially life-threatening condition that could occur following exposure to heparin. Accurate and timely diagnosis is critical for appropriate clinical management. Laboratory testing for suspected cases is based on screening for the presence of serum anti-PF4/heparin antibodies using solid-phase enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELSIA) which is known to be sensitive but less specific. A positive ELISA test is followed by functional testing to demonstrate the platelet activating properties and heparin dependence of the pathogenic antibodies. Serotonin release assay (SRA) is considered the gold standard functional test for the diagnosis of HIT. In most anti-PF4/heparin ELISA assays, a high-dose heparin buffer (100U/mL) confirmation step is recommended to demonstrate heparin dependence of detected antibodies and increase the specificity of the assay. The necessity of this confirmation step is controversial with some reports suggesting it could lead to misinterpreting positive ELISA results as negative or indeterminate, especially in cases of very strong and high titer HIT activating antibodies. We hence aimed to investigate the utility of applying this confirmation step as part of an inhouse validation study of a mass spectrometry-coupled SRA (Mayo-SRA). Materials: Three hundred archived serum samples were tested using anti-PF4/heparin IgG antibody ELISA (Immucor Diagnostics, GA, USA). High-dose heparin (100U/mL) confirmation step was performed on all samples with OD units ≥0.4 as recommended by the manufacturer. Samples with OD ≥ 0.4 and ≥50% OD inhibition in the high dose heparin confirmation step are interpreted positive. Mayo-SRA results were compared to a reference 14C SRA method. The 4T clinical score was retrospectively calculated for all patient (range 0-8 points). Results: Of the 300 tested samples, 57 samples were interpreted positive by the anti-PF4/heparin screening ELISA. 33 of the 57 samples were positive using the reference 14C SRA method, whereas 43 samples were positive by Mayo-SRA assay (≥20% serotonin release). Three additional samples were positive by Mayo-SRA, but negative by both screening ELISA and the reference 14C SRA method. All samples with OD units ≥0.4 displayed >50% inhibition in the high-dose heparin regardless of the intensity of the initial OD value or the HIT 4T score, with the exception of one that was negative by both SRA methods and of 1.35 OD value and 6 4T HIT score (Fig-1A). Importantly, thirteen samples were anti-PF4/heparin positive, but SRA negative (by Mayo-SRA and reference method). These samples also displayed positive %heparin inhibition (≥50% OD inhibition) (Fig-1B). Lastly, there were no differences in the degree of %inhibition in samples positive by both reference and Mayo-SRA or Mayo-SRA only (Fig-1B). Conclusion: In our patient cohort, addition of the high dose heparin inhibition confirmation step to the screening anti-PF4/heparin ELISA assay was of no additional diagnostic utility. We hence propose eliminating the heparin inhibition step which would improve laboratory turnaround time, reduce costs, and importantly speed up urgent clinical management decisions. Figure Legend: Fig-1A. No correlation between initial OD values and %OD inhibition using high dose heparin. Scatter plot of all ELISA positive samples (OD ≥0.4) grouped according to OD values. Samples include all SRA-positive and thirteen SRA-negative ELISA-positive samples. Fig-1B. Scatter plot of %OD inhibition comparing samples positive by Mayo-SRA and reference SRA method, positive by Mayo-SRA only, and ELISA-positive SRA-negative by both methods. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Pruthi: Bayer Healthcare AG: Honoraria; CSL Behring: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; HEMA Biologics: Honoraria; Instrumentation Laboratory: Honoraria. Padmanabhan: Veralox Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract VITT is an immune-based complication of adenoviral-based vaccines used to immunize against SARS_CoV2. The antibodies in VITT have been described as directed at the platelet-specific chemokine PF4 (CXCL4). While the clinical course and target chemokine in VITT has much in common with the better-known thrombocytopenic/prothrombotic disorder, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), which involves antibodies directed against PF4 bound to the polyanion heparin, the specific loci where VITT and PF4/polyanion HIT antibodies bind appear to differ in studies using alanine-scanning mutations of PF4 (Nature, 2021. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-03744-4). The VITT antigenic site localizes to a heparin-binding domain. Unlike the dominant HIT locus, the VITT locus is conserved not only between human and mouse PF4, but also between PF4 and the related platelet-specific chemokine NAP2 (CXCL7). NAP2 is also expressed and stored in platelet alpha-granules and is present in equimolar concentrations to PF4. Unlike PF4, NAP2 avidly binds the chemokine receptor CXCR2 and strongly activates neutrophils. We now show that antibodies from patients who developed VITT after both AstraZeneca (AZ) or Johnson and Johnson (JJ) adenoviral vaccines, unlike HIT antibodies, recognize mouse PF4 (Figure 1A). More importantly, both AZ and JJ VITT antibodies bound NAP2, while none of the HIT antibodies tested bound PF4 or NAP2 in the absence of heparin (Figure 1A). These results are consistent with the alanine-scanning studies that distinguish the HIT and VITT binding sites. Dynamic light scattering (DLS) showed that NAP2 and PF4 bind to the adenoviral vectors, including Ad5 and the AZ vector ChAdOx5, which leads to expression of SARS_CoV2 spike protein. ChAdOx2 vaccine and CsCl 2-purified ChAdOx2 bound to both proteins, but form larger complexes with NAP2 than with PF4 even at lower concentrations of this chemokine (Figure 1C). Removal of anti-PF4 antibodies by hPF4-Sepharose abrogated PF4-dependent binding, but did not significantly reduce binding to NAP2 (not shown), indicating that VITT plasma contains discrete pools of anti-PF4 and anti-NAP2 antibodies that may have distinct functional properties. Sandwich ELISA (not shown) and Western blot analysis of purified VITT IgG demonstrates the presence of hPF4-IgG and NAP2-IgG immune complexes in purified patient's IgG (Figure 2A). Functional studies show that both PF4 and NAP2 can activate platelets in the presence of VITT antibodies. Anti-PF4-depleted VITT IgG fraction retains the ability to activate platelets in the presence of NAP2 (Figure 2B). Thus, unlike HIT, VITT appears to target a shared antigenic site on the related chemokines PF4 and NAP2. This raises the question as to whether NAP2, as one the most abundant platelet chemokines released from activated platelets, is involved in the initiation and propagation of the immunothrombotic response. Additional studies are needed to see whether NAP2, which can potently and specifically activate neutrophils via CXCLR2, contributes to the specific thromboinflammatory phenotype seen in VITT. We propose using FcgammaRIIA+ mice that concurrently express human PF4 and NAP2 and specific knockout of each chemokine, available in our group, to further understand the pathogenesis of VITT and its thrombocytopenic/ prothrombotic phenotype. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Padmanabhan: Veralox Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cines: Dova: Consultancy; Rigel: Consultancy; Treeline: Consultancy; Arch Oncol: Consultancy; Jannsen: Consultancy; Taventa: Consultancy; Principia: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board.

Abstract Background: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca) and Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen Johnson & Johnson) vaccines against COVID-19 have been associated with thrombotic thrombocytopenic reactions referred to as vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) characterized by the presence of platelet-activating, anti-PF4 antibodies. While VITT shares key clinical features with a similar but separate entity, Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), there appear to be important differences: 1) VITT patients have extremely high thrombosis rates and are very strongly positive in PF4-polyanion ELISAs, and 2) Many patients with VITT frequently present with refractoriness to therapy or have disease recurrence that suggests distinct antibody characteristics due to a strong autoimmune anti-PF4 response. Aims: The goal of this study was to characterize anti-PF4 antibodies in VITT. Methods: Five VITT patients were studied, one after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination and four after Ad26.COV2. Reactivity of VITT anti-PF4 antibodies to uncomplexed PF4, PF4-Polyvinyl sulfonate (PVS), and PF4-heparin targets was evaluated, and the platelet-activating ability of these antibodies was examined in the PF4-dependent P-selectin Expression assay (PEA). Anti-PF4 antibodies were isolated from patient blood samples using PF4-treated heparin sepharose beads, and isolated antibodies were subject to mass spectrometric evaluation (Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry [LC-ESI-QTOF MS]). Results: Antibodies from all VITT patients recognized both uncomplexed and complexed PF4 (Fig. 1A). Interestingly, recognition of PF4 by VITT antibodies was lower if PF4 targets were complexed with polyanions, PVS, or heparin (Fig. 1A). These results contrasted with those obtained in a "classical" HIT patient which showed reactivity to PF4/polyanion complexes, but not to uncomplexed PF4 (Fig 1A). All samples activated platelets in the PEA (data not shown). Mass spectrometric evaluation of anti-PF4 antibodies isolated from VITT patients demonstrated monoclonal anti-PF4 antibodies in three patients, and bi- and tri-clonal antibodies in one patient each (a representative monoclonal antibody anti-PF4 antibody is shown in Fig 1B). Consistent with current dogma, polyclonal anti-PF4/polyanion antibodies were seen in "classical" HIT (Fig 1C). Evaluation of anti-PF4 antibodies in spontaneous HIT, a type of autoimmune HIT seen in pro-inflammatory milieus such as orthopedic surgery and infectious prodromes also demonstrated monoclonal anti-PF4 antibodies (Fig 1D). Eluates from control heparin-sepharose beads did not reveal any immunoglobulins (data not shown). Conclusion: Although development of platelet-activating anti-PF4 antibodies and the thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome seen after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination resembles HIT, these findings demonstrate that clonally restricted anti-PF4 antibodies mediate VITT while polyclonal anti-PF4 antibodies mediate HIT. In addition, we noted clonally-restricted anti-PF4 antibodies in another condition that does not require proximate heparin exposure, spontaneous ("autoimmune") HIT. In VITT, the strong immune response after vaccine administration may result in the activation of a single or few pre-existing anti-PF4 reactive clones, and development of clonally restricted anti-PF4 antibodies with a similar pathophysiology to Spontaneous HIT. It is also likely that high levels of monoclonal/oligoclonal anti-PF4 antibodies cause the severe thrombotic phenotypes seen in VITT and Spontaneous HIT. The high mortality rate and reports of disease refractoriness to therapy in VITT may warrant consideration of additional therapeutic modalities like rituximab and therapeutic plasma exchange in select cases. Figure Legends: (A): VITT (Patient 1-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; Patients 2-5, Ad26.COV2.S) patient samples were tested in ELISA against uncomplexed PF4 (white), and PF4 in complex with polyvinyl sulfonate (light grey), or unfractionated heparin (dark gray). (B-D) Mass spectrometric evaluation of anti-PF4 antibodies isolated from VITT (B), HIT (C) and spontaneous HIT patient sera (D). "Relative Intensity" refers to abundance of the Ig light chain relative to the polyclonal background. Numbers above Ig light chain peaks depict mass/charge ratios. NC- Normal control. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Murray: Mayo Clinic: Other: Has received patents for the Mass-Fix technology which has been licensed to the Binding Site with potential royalties.. Padmanabhan: Veralox Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Background: COVID-19 vaccinations in the United States (Janssen, Moderna, and Pfizer) have been deemed generally safe and effective. Rare thrombotic events, now termed vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), have been reported after the Janssen and Moderna vaccinations. With millions of vaccinations being administered to adults, it is expected that some deep vein thrombosis (DVT) will occur coincidentally with vaccination. Whether COVID-19 vaccinations may contribute to DVT risk more generally (outside of VITT) has not been well studied outside of the initial clinical trials. Aims: Evaluate trends in DVT diagnosis before and after COVID-19 vaccination Methods: Vaccinated patients ≥ 18 years between 11/6/2020 through 6/1/2021 were analyzed using electronic medical records across the Mayo Clinic enterprise. Upper and lower DVT venous Duplex ultrasound (DUS) reports occurring 90 days before and after vaccination date (first dose for Pfizer and Moderna vaccines) were extracted and analyzed with a highly accurate, previously validated, Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithm for acute DVT. Results: 382,527 patients with at least 1 COVID-19 vaccination were identified. The median age was 61 (IQR 44-72) and 55.3% were male. Pfizer was the most common vaccine administered (n=245,572, 64.2%), followed by Moderna (n=120,683, 31.6%) and Janssen (n=16,272, 4.3%). Most patients (91.5%) receiving vaccinations were from states with Mayo Clinic health services (Minnesota, n=197,834; Wisconsin, n=80,720; Florida, n=42,391; Arizona, n=28,882). The mean age at vaccination was 61.0 (SD 17.7), 56.5 (SD 19.1), and 54.7 (SD 16.3) for Moderna, Pfizer, and Janssen vaccines respectively. Women were most likely to receive the Pfizer (56.3%) compared to Moderna (54.1%) and Janssen (49.5%) vaccines. Non-white patients were most likely to receive Janssen (21%) compared to Moderna (7.7%) and Pfizer (8.2%) vaccines. Among all patients, 7,265 upper and lower venous DUS were performed in 5,960 patients. Figure 1 shows the utilization of DUS before and after COVID-19 vaccination and shows that more patients underwent DUS in the 90 days after vaccination compared to 90 days pre-vaccination. Acute DVT was identified by the NLP algorithm in 808 (714 patients) ultrasounds (11.1%); 656 out of 6136 lower extremity DUS (10.7%) and 152 out of 1129 upper extremity DUS (13.5%). The overall rate of acute DVT (upper and lower) was 1.86 per 1000 patients, consistent with the expected background epidemiologic rate. Figure 2 shows the daily probability of acute DVT by ultrasound report in the 90 days before and after vaccination with a linear regression best fit line showing no overall correlation (R 2 = 0.0). Overall acute DVT post-vaccination occurred on 10.8% of DUS compared to 11.6% pre-vaccination (p=0.28). Among ultrasound reports in Janssen vaccinated patients, 7.0% of post-vaccination compared to 18.0% of pre-vaccination were positive for acute DVT (p=0.003). Among ultrasound reports in Moderna vaccinated patients, 11.0% of post-vaccination compared to 12.7% of pre-vaccination were positive for acute DVT (p=0.15). Among ultrasound reports in Pfizer vaccinated patients, 11.0% of post-vaccination compared to 10.4% of pre-vaccination were positive for acute DVT (p=0.56). Using a Cox proportional hazard model, pre vs post-vaccination time among the same patient cohort was compared for each vaccine. The hazard ratio for DVT post-vaccination was 0.68 (95% CI 0.34-1.38) for Janssen, 1.08 (95% CI 0.86-1.35) for Moderna, and 1.20 (95% CI 0.99-1.46) for Pfizer. After adjusting for age and sex, Pfizer and Janssen's vaccines did not have different risks for DVT compared to Moderna in the 90 days post-vaccination (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.98-1.25 and HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.42-1.32 respectively). Conclusions: In this large cohort of COVID-19 vaccinated patients, no increased risk for acute DVT post-vaccination was identified for any of the approved vaccinations in the United States. Additionally, no significant difference was seen in the risk for DVT post-vaccination when comparing each vaccine to each other. The probability of acute DVT on ultrasounds in the 90 days post-vaccination was lower than the pre-vaccination period with the Janssen vaccine possibly indicating over-testing in this group. These results provide additional reassurance of the safety of approved COVID-19 vaccines. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Padmanabhan: Veralox Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pruthi: HEMA Biologics: Honoraria; CSL Behring: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; Instrumentation Laboratory: Honoraria; Bayer Healthcare AG: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an immune complication of heparin therapy caused by antibodies to complexes of platelet factor 4 (PF4) and heparin. Pathogenic antibodies to PF4/heparin bind and activate platelets to propagate a hypercoagulable state culminating in life-threatening thrombosis. The serotonin-release assay (SRA) is considered the gold-standard test to diagnose HIT. However, the sensitivity of the SRA was questioned with reported cases of clinical diagnosis of HIT and negative SRA. Herein, we present the utility of platelet factor 4-dependent P-selectin expression assay (PEA) in diagnosing HIT in a patient with thrombocytopenia and recurrent thrombosis who repeatedly tested negative with SRA.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is an immune-mediated disorder caused by antibodies that recognize complexes of platelet factor 4 and heparin. Thrombosis is a central and unpredictable feature of this syndrome. Despite optimal management, disease morbidity and mortality from thrombosis remain high. The hypercoagulable state in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is biologically distinct from other thrombophilic disorders in that clinical complications are directly attributable to circulating ultra-large immune complexes. In some individuals, ultra-large immune complexes elicit unchecked cellular procoagulant responses that culminate in thrombosis. To date, the clinical and biologic risk factors associated with thrombotic risk in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia remain elusive. This review will summarize our current understanding of thrombosis in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia with attention to its clinical features, cellular mechanisms, and its management.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a serious reaction to heparin treatment characterized by antibodies that recognize a complex formed between heparin and platelet factor 4 (PF4/H) and are capable of activating platelets and inducing a pro-thrombotic state. Although a high percentage of heparin-treated patients produce antibodies to PF4/H, only a subset of these antibodies are platelet-activating (pathogenic) and capable of causing HIT. We previously reported that we cloned B cells from six patients experiencing HIT and identified two types of PF4/H-binding antibodies: seven platelet-activating (PA) and 48 non-activating (NA). Comparison of the structural features in the PA, NA, and non PF4/H-binding (NB) clones showed that the length and the number of basic amino acid and tyrosine residue in the heavy chain complementarity determining region 3 (HCDR3) were significantly different, and was in the order of PA>NA>NB. Most significantly, the seven platelet-activating antibodies each have one of the two pathogenic motifs: RX1-2 R/KX1-2 R/H and YYYYY in an unusually long HCDR3 (≥ 20 residues). In the current study, we attempt to understand the origin of the B cells that produce the PA and NA antibodies and the nature of the immune response in HIT through analyzing somatic hypermutation and biological property of such antibodies. Longer HCDR3 and more basic Aas and Tyr residues in the HCDR3 are features of autoreactive and polyreactive antibodies. With this in mind, we tested PA and NA clones in a standard antinuclear antibody (ANA) assay and found that these clones were significantly more reactive than NB antibodies, and the plasma of HIT patients were significantly more reactive than normal plasma (Figure1). We then compared reactions of PA, NA and NB clones against a group of self and foreign antigens commonly used in polyreactivity assays: dsDNA, ssDNA, LPS, insulin, and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH). About 90% of PA and NA clones were reactive to at least two antigens, this was true of only 20% of the NB clones, and the latter is consistent with the frequency of polyreactive clones in the IgG+ B cells (Figure2). Taken together, these data indicate that PA and NA antibodies are largely polyreactive. We then investigated the development of the PA and NA B cells through analyzing somatic hypermutation in the antibodies. Through analyzing the HCDR3 nucleotide insertion, trimming and VDJ segment usage, we found that longer HCDR3 typical of PF4/H-binding clones and the RKH and Y5 motifs identified in PA clones were the result of original recombination not somatic hypermutation. Consistently, the average number of nucleotide mutations in the VH genes of the binding clones was lower (PA and NA, 9.4 ± 9.5) compared to that of peripheral blood IgG+ memory B cells in healthy subjects (~18) (Figure3). Total mutation frequency in the VH and Vk CDRs of the PF4/H-binding PA and NA clones was comparable to that of the framework regions. This finding contrasts with findings made in peripheral blood IgG+ memory B cells of healthy subjects showing that the mutation frequencies are much higher in the CDRs than in the FRs of VH. Taken together, these findings suggest that affinity maturation plays a limited role in the evolution PF4/H-binding antibodies during the immune response that leads to HIT. In this study, we showed thay PF4/H-binding PA and NA IgGs are largely polyreactive antibodies and contain lower levels of mutations compared to IgG+ memory B cells. B1 and MZ B cells are innate B cells that are main producers of polyreactive natural antibodies and can respond to toll-like receptor signaling, quickly differentiate into antibody-secreting cells, and undergo IgG class switch extrafollicularly. Polyreactivity identified in the PF4/H-binding PA and NA IgGs supports the possibility that human B cells producing PF4/H-binding antibodies are innate B cells akin to MZ B cells shown to be a source of PF4/H antibodies in mice. A mutation rate lower than that of IgG+ memory cells in the PF4/H-binding IgGs is also consistent with an extrafollicular response typical of innate B cells. These observations would help to improve our understanding of the immunological responses and B cell origin in HIT patients. Disclosures Padmanabhan: Retham Technologies: Current equity holder in private company; Veralox Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Versiti Blood Research Institute: Patents & Royalties.