Citations

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.

AbstractBackgroundClinical picture and outcome of incidental pulmonary embolism (iPE) compared to symptomatic pulmonary embolism (sPE) remain unclear.MethodsDemographics, recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), mortality, major bleeding, and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) were compared between iPE and sPE patients who were followed prospectively at Mayo Thrombophilia Clinic (March 1, 2013 to August 1, 2020).ResultsOut of 3576 VTE patients, 1417 (39.6%) had PE: 562 (39.7%) iPE and 855 sPE. Patients with cancer were more likely to have iPE (400 iPE vs. 314 sPE) compared to those without cancer (162 iPE vs. 541 sPE). VTE recurrence rate (all per 100 person‐years) was similar in all iPE and sPE patients (3.34 vs. 3.68, p = .50), with cancer (4.16 vs. 4.89, p = .370), and without cancer patients (0.89 vs. 2.80, p = .25). Higher mortality observed in all patients with iPE compared to sPE (46.45 vs. 23.47, p < .001) and with cancer (56.41 vs. 45.77, p = .03) became not significant after adjustment for age, antiplatelet therapy, metastases, and cancer location. Noncancer iPE patients had higher mortality (15.95 vs. 7.18, p = .006) even after adjustment (p = .05). The major bleeding rate was also higher in all patients iPE compared to sPE (7.10 vs. 3.68, p = .03), but not after adjustment (p = .974); higher major bleeding rate in noncancer patients (6.49 vs. 1.25, p = .007) remained significant after adjustment (.02). CRNMB rate was similar to iPE and sPE patients.ConclusioniPE represents a more serious clinical condition compared to sPE as indicated by the higher mortality and major bleeding but these differences reflect underlying comorbidities rather than the seriousness of the embolic event.

10588 Background: Detection of pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) has implications for cancer screening, prognostication, treatment selection, clinical trial enrollment and family testing. Published guidelines provide indications for PGV testing, determined by clinical and demographic factors, but these leave a significant number of cases missed by guideline-directed testing (incremental PGV). We have previously shown that 50% of patients with PVGs would not have been detected with guideline-based testing alone. In this project, we aimed to determine the feasibility and generalizability of this approach within a more racially/ethnically diverse cohort from a community cancer practice. Methods: We completed a prospective study of proactive germline genetic sequencing among patients with solid tumor malignancies at a community-based oncology practice in downtown Jacksonville, FL between June 2020, and September 2021. The patients were unselected for cancer type, stage, family history, race/ethnicity, and age. PGVs identified using an 84-gene NGS platform were stratified by penetrance. National Comprehensive Cancer Networks (NCCN) guidelines were used to determine incremental PGV rates. Results: 221 patients were enrolled, median age 63.0 years, 21.7% male. 56.6% of patients were white (non-Hispanic), 32.6% were black/African American, 5.4% were Hispanic. 39.8% of patients were commercially insured, 52.4% insured by Medicare/Medicaid and 2.7% uninsured. The cohort was comprised predominantly of breast cancer (61.5%), lung cancer (10.4%) and colon cancer (7.2%) patients. A total of 27 PGVs were identified in 23 patients. We found no significant difference in the rate of PGVs based on race/ethnicity. The overall rate of variants of uncertain significance (VUS) was numerically higher in black/African American patients (61.1%) compared with other ancestry (45%). 13 of 23 (56.5%) patients with detected PGVs did not meet NCCN guidelines for germline genetic screening (incremental PGVs). Conclusions: This prospective study found that universal multi-gene panel testing among patients from a racially/ethnically diverse cohort from a community cancer practice was associated with an increased detection of heritable variants with treatment implications over the predicted yield of targeted testing based on guidelines. This study is the first to evaluate this approach in an exclusively community-based practice. Clinical trial information: NCT04456140.

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.

Background: Incidental pulmonary embolism (PE) is not infrequently found on CT scans with highest incidence reported in patients with cancer. It is unclear whether patients with symptomatic pulmonary embolism (iPE) have different clinical profile or outcomes compared to patients with symptomatic PE (sPE) and whether this is affected by the presence or type of malignancy. Objective: Compare baseline characteristics of patients diagnosed with iPE to patients with sPE with attention to cancer-specific risk factors as well as evaluate clinical outcomes. Methods: Consecutive patients enrolled in the Mayo Thrombophilia Clinic VTE Registry between March 1, 2013 and December 31st, 2018 with PE were followed prospectively. Outcomes of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) and mortality data were collected every 3 months. Clinical outcomes were analyzed with specific focus on patients with cancer. Information was collected and managed using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) and data analysis was performed using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina). Results: Out of a total of 1033 patients with PE in VTE registry, there were 655 patients with PE (284 with incidental and 363 symptomatic) who completed at least 3 months of anticoagulation and were started on treatment within 14 days of diagnosis. Apixaban was used in 220 (34 %), Rivaroxaban 175 (27 %), Enoxaparin 179 (27%), and Warfarin in 81 (12 %) patients. Overall cancer was present in 61% of patients and was more common in patients with iPE compared to sPE (80.2% vs 45.2%, p<0.001). Patients with iPE were less likely to have previous VTE (8.2% vs 25.5%, p< 0.0001) and tended to have lower BMI (mean 28.8 vs 31.4, p<0.0001) Characteristics of the subgroup of only cancer patients with PE are summarized in the Table. Of note, pancreatic and GI cancers were more common in patients with iPE. There were no differences in recurrent VTE, major bleeding and CRNMB in patients with iPE compared to sPE. This also held true for patients with underlying malignancies. Mortality rates were significantly higher in all patients with iPE even when adjusting for presence of malignancy (p=0.03). When adjusting for presence of metastatic malignancy though the difference was no longer present (p=0.33). Conclusion: Patients with iPE were more likely to have an underlying malignancy, potentially due to higher likelihood of undergoing staging imaging studies. Additionally, patients with iPE more often had metastatic disease which was associated with higher mortality. Recurrent VTE and bleeding outcomes were similar in patients with iPE and sPE, this was independent of the presence of underlying malignancy. Disclosures McBane: BMS: Research Funding.