Padrnos, Leslie

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.

Classical hematological disorders encompass a broad array of congenital and acquired blood conditions, ranging from thrombotic and hemorrhagic disorders, hemoglobinopathies such as sickle cell disease/thalassemia, abnormalities in blood counts, disorders of iron metabolism, obstetric hematologic conditions, and rare genetic hematologic diseases. The past decade has seen a revolution in research and therapeutic development for these disorders. It has led to FDA approval of novel therapies such as gene therapies for hemophilia and hemoglobinopathies, targeted therapies for coagulation and complement disorders, factor VIII mimetics, new immunotherapeutic targets for cytopenia and genomic-directed diagnosis and therapy for a wide range of blood disorders. Between January 2018 and July 2023, 34 new drugs have been approved for different classical hematological disorders, and several more have received approval for new or expanded indications. This is changing how we treat patients with classical hematological conditions. Most classical hematological disorders have an impact on patients' quality of life as well as life span, and for decades, many of these disorders were managed with limited therapy options with variable efficacy. Rare hemolytic disorders such as cold agglutinin disease, paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, sickle cell disease, thalassemia, porphyria all have expanded options. Newer agents for the management of anemia, thrombocytopenia and leukopenia in different clinical settings are available. Lastly, management of hemophilia is being revolutionized by extended half-life products, non-factor options and gene therapy. Hemophilia care has always been deemed to be costly, but gene therapy is getting additional attention due to the high price tag. We have compiled the list of all new drugs that got FDA approval for classical hematological disorders over past 5 years and plan to present this in the form of an infographic providing details on the drug along with its indication, trial leading to approval and cost implications of each therapy. Our intention is to summarize the drug development for classical hematology and highlight “not so benign” nature of these disorders and related therapy particularly in terms of financial toxicity for the patients.

Introduction: Telemedicine has been widely utilized in the healthcare marketplace since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the last 3 years, virtual care has been widely employed in the care of patients with polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and myelofibrosis (MF) at Mayo Clinic. These rare disorders have few experts; therefore, telemedicine becomes an optimal approach for patients receive expert care even when they are not close to the medical center. 1 Additionally, telemedicine reduces financial burden for the patients. We aim to estimate potential cost savings to patients utilizing telemedicine. Methods: We identified patients with MPN seen at Mayo Clinic, Arizona who have had at least 2 visits (1 or more virtual visits) between March 2020 and June 2022. We extracted retrospective data from electronic medical records (EMR) including sociodemographic data, disease related data and number of visits - both virtual and in person - of the patients identified. The address recorded from the EMR was assumed to be the patient's location at the time of virtual visit. Driving distances were determined using zip codes in Google Maps and the patients were stratified into quartiles based on round trip travel distances. Patients in quartiles 1 through 3 were assumed to have driven while patients in quartile 4 were assumed to have traveled by plane. Patients in quartile 1 were assumed to have 1 travel day including the follow-up visit and no accommodation, patients in quartile 2 were assumed to have 2 travel days including the follow up visit and 1 night of accommodation whereas patients in quartiles 3 and 4 were assumed to have 2 travel days, 1 day for the follow up visit and 2 nights of accommodation. Mileage rate costs were based on US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) standard mileage rates for medical or moving purposes for 2021. 2 Owing to extreme variability in flight costs, flying costs were assumed to be equal to the driving costs. Per diem costs for accommodation and meals and incidentals were based on the US General Services Administration (GSA) 2021 rates for Phoenix 3 with the cost being 75% of the full per diem rate on traveling days via GSA formulaic approach. Results: One hundred and eight patients having 282 virtual visits were identified. Patients ranged from 30 - 87 years with the mean and median age of 65 years and 67 years respectively. Majority of the patients were female (62%) and white (98%) with gender distribution varying by distance. Descriptive statistics of the estimated out-of-pocket costs for patients by distance quartiles are summarized in Table 1a. Mean estimated cost savings ranged from $46.8 to $877.3 with the savings of $43.8 - $1372.2 at extremes. The total cost savings by all patients was $90,306.7. The breakdown of costs by category for each quartile is shown in Table 1b which shows that the majority of costs saved by patients in quartile 1 were due to avoiding costs spent on meals and incidentals (~90% of mean costs) whereas costs saved due to meals and incidentals for patients in quartile 4 were only ~16% of the mean costs. Conclusions: Our research highlighted telemedicine as a cost-effective approach for patients with MPN who received virtual care from March 2020 - June 2022. Study limitations included not weighing costs for childcare or accompanying individuals and using driving costs instead of flying costs, however, these considerations potentially underestimate the actual cost savings to the patient. Additionally, since the median age of this population was 65, we didn't include loss of wages to the analysis, which may further underestimate the costs. Despite concerns over billing, reimbursement, and state licensure, virtual care is being established as a critical part of medicine moving forward. 1. Doolittle, G.C. and A.O. Spaulding, Providing Access to Oncology Care for Rural Patients via Telemedicine. Journal of Oncology Practice, 2006. 2(5): p. 228-230. 2. Internal Revenue Service. Standard mileage rates for 2021. Available at: https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/standard-mileage-rates 3. US General Services Administration. Per diem rates. Available at: https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates/per-diem-rates-results?action=perdiems_report&fiscal_year=2021&state=AZ&city=&zip=85054

Abstract This manuscript describes a novel approach for treating patients with long‐term sequelae from hemoglobin Evans (Hb Evans). After instituting conservative therapies for approximately 2 years, our patient's symptoms continually worsened. Therefore, we performed red blood cell exchange (RBCx) to reduce his Hb Evans percentage and his co‐existing elevation of methemoglobin. Our assumptions of clinical benefit were based on our collective experience performing RBCx for patients with sickle cell disease. After the first exchange, pre‐ and post‐laboratory results supported our approach and the patient experienced marked improvement in his clinical signs and symptoms. This report provides preliminary proof of principle for the use of RBCx to treat Hb Evans and other non‐Hb S hemoglobinopathies.

ImportancePatterns of clinical utilization and comparative effectiveness of anticoagulants for cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) remain largely unexplored.ObjectivesTo assess patterns of and factors associated with anticoagulant use and to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of contemporary anticoagulants in patients with active cancer in a clinical setting.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study obtained deidentified OptumLabs electronic health record claims data from January 1, 2012, to September 30, 2019. Adult patients (≥18 years of age) with a primary cancer diagnosis (except skin cancer) during at least 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient visits within 6 months before the venous thromboembolism (VTE) date were included. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to September 2021.ExposuresThe patients were grouped according to the anticoagulant prescribed: (1) direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), (2) low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and (3) warfarin.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOdds ratios (ORs) were used to present the association between factors of interest and utilization of anticoagulants. Main efficacy outcomes included risk of VTE recurrence and all-cause mortality. Main safety outcomes included the risk of hospitalization due to major bleeding. Relative treatment effect estimates were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs.ResultsThis study included 5100 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.3 [12.3] years; 2670 [52.4%] women; 799 [15.7%] Black, 389 [7.6%] Hispanic, and 3559 [69.8%] White individuals). Overall, 2512 (49.3%), 1488 (29.2%), and 1460 (28.6%) filled prescriptions for DOACs, LMWH, and warfarin, respectively. The median (IQR) treatment duration was 3.2 (1.0-6.5) months for DOACs, 3.1 (1.0-6.8) months for warfarin, and 1.8 (0.9-3.8) months for LWMH. Patients with lung (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.12-3.65), urological (OR, 1.94; 95% CI,1.08-3.49), gynecological (OR, 4.25; 95% CI, 2.31-7.82), and colorectal (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.20-4.32) cancer were associated with increased prescriptions for LMWH compared with DOACs. LMWH (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.14-1.90) and warfarin (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.87) were associated with an increased risk of VTE recurrences compared with DOACs. LMWH was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.62-3.20) and higher all-cause mortality (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.15-2.25) compared with DOACs.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this comparative effectiveness study of claims-based data, patients with CAT received anticoagulation for a remarkably short duration in clinical settings. DOACs was associated with a lower risk of VTE recurrence, major bleeding, and mortality. Warfarin may still be considered for patients with contraindications to DOACs and those with poor persistence on LMWH.

AbstractPatients with thrombophilia remain concerned about venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk with COVID‐19 vaccinations. The aim of this study was to examine VTE outcomes in patients with inherited or acquired thrombophilia who were vaccinated for COVID‐19. Vaccinated patients ≥18 years between November 1, 2020 and November 1, 2021 were analyzed using electronic medical records across the Mayo Clinic enterprise. The primary outcome was imaging confirmed acute VTE occurring 90 days before and after the date of the first vaccine dose. Thrombophilia patients were identified through laboratory testing results and ICD‐10 codes. A total of 792 010 patients with at least one COVID‐19 vaccination were identified. Six thousand sixty‐seven of these patients were found to have a thrombophilia, among whom there was a total of 39 VTE events after compared to 51 VTE events before vaccination (0.64% vs. 0.84%, p = .20). In patients with Factor V Leiden or prothrombin gene mutation, VTE occurred in 27 patients before and in 29 patients after vaccination (0.61 vs. 0.65%, p = .79). In patients with antiphospholipid syndrome, VTE occurred in six patients before and four patients after vaccination (0.59% vs. 0.39%, p = .40). No difference was observed in the overall VTE rate when comparing the postvaccination 90 days to the prevaccination 90 days, adjusted hazard ratio 0.81 (95% confidence interval: 0.53–1.23). In this subgroup of COVID‐19 vaccinated patients with thrombophilia, there was no increased risk for acute VTE postvaccination compared to the prevaccination timeframe. These results are consistent with prior studies and should offer additional reassurance to patients with inherited or acquired thrombophilia.