Godby, Richard

9021 Background: Home call is an expected trainee responsibility in many hematology-oncology (HO) training programs although the specific duties and frequency vary. Home call is associated with sleep deprivation and burnout . The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) outlines that home call should not prevent adequate rest or personal time and that the clinical time spent must be counted toward duty hours. However, little is known about the educational value or impact of home call. We sought to analyze the volume, perceived value, and effects of oncology home call on HO fellows. Methods: We completed a review of the pager log of the outpatient/after hours oncology pager (OP) at a single 2059 bed tertiary medical center from 1/1/23-12/31/24. The HO fellow carries the OP afterhours and on weekends except for 7am-12pm on Saturday/Sunday. The pager receives all consult calls from the emergency department and inpatient teams requesting verbal communication (in addition to the electronic order), critical results, and outpatient patient calls on matters related to oncology (hematology not included). Patient calls are not triaged and are routed through the hospital operator directly to the OP. Overnight home call is maximum 3 times per week without a post call day. An optional survey was distributed to fellows in May 2024 to assess fellows’ experiences with the OP using a 5-point Likert scale and free response. Results: There were 80,672 and 87,605 oncology patient visits in 2023 and 2024 respectively at the analyzed institution. The OP received a total of 7,239 pages over the analyzed period. Fellows received a mean of 5.8 pages per weeknight call shift and 8.8 pages per weekend call shift. The survey response rate was 19/33 (42%) HO fellows. Respondents were 58% male and included first (42%), second (26%), and third year (32%) fellows. 89% of respondents reported that most pages overnight were from outpatients and 0 respondents felt that answering patient calls required a physician. Most fellows (79%) did not report educational value from holding the OP and 63% of fellows felt that holding the OP negatively impacted their performance at work the next day. For nights that received more than 3 calls, 95% fellows reported feeling not well rested. In addition, a majority of negative impact on their wellness including anxiety and inability to exercise or socialize when holding the OP. Conclusions: The results from our single-institution study indicate that home call could represent a major opportunity to improve the wellness of trainees without negatively impacting their education. More research is needed to understand what the primary contributors are for the negative experiences and perceptions while developing sustainable systems and approaches for efficiently handling oncology pager traffic.

Abstract Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma involving the brain, cerebrospinal fluid, or retina/vitreous without systemic involvement. Induction with high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) followed by consolidation with autologous stem cell transplant (auto-SCT) has become the standard treatment paradigm for most patients. However, limited data are available regarding the efficacy of a maintenance approach with HD-MTX. Herein, we retrospectively reviewed the characteristics and outcomes of 148 patients diagnosed with PCNSL between October 2010 and June 2022, who underwent HD-MTX–based induction therapy followed by either auto-SCT consolidation (n = 70) or HD-MTX maintenance therapy (n = 37). At a median follow-up time of 4.5 years, the progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.3 years and the overall survival (OS) was not reached. Compared to patients who underwent auto-SCT, patients who received maintenance HD-MTX had a higher median age at diagnosis of 72 vs 62 years and a trend toward higher proportion of patients being Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 2 or higher (41% vs 29%). At 5-years postinduction treatment initiation, the PFS rates in the auto-SCT cohort and HD-MTX maintenance cohort were 74.6% and 72.6%, respectively, and the OS rates were 76.0% and 82.4%, respectively. Overall, there was no significant difference in PFS or OS based on postinduction management strategy. Our data suggest that maintenance HD-MTX may be a reasonable, time-limited treatment strategy for patients with PCNSL responding to initial induction therapy.

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).

Introduction: There are discrepant definitions of both iron deficiency and anemia in pregnancy. It is recognized that iron requirements increase during pregnancy, particularly in the third trimester, and that deficiencies should be corrected to avoid adverse maternal-fetal outcomes. While low dose iron supplementation is recommended for all pregnant persons (ACOG Bulletin 233), dosing through prenatal vitamins varies widely. Additionally, despite the epidemic of iron deficiency in reproductive-age females globally and availability of high-value biomarkers (e.g., ferritin), current guidelines only recommend screening for iron deficiency during pregnancy in the presence of anemia. As anemia is the terminal manifestation of iron deficiency and reference ranges vary by organization, these guidelines and practices warrant further investigation and discussion. Methods: Retrospective review and analysis of the electronic health record at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) was performed for obstetric deliveries between June 2022 and May 2023. Iron deficiency was defined as a ferritin <50 mcg/L and anemia was defined as a hemoglobin <11 g/dL. Results: A total of 2,141 unique deliveries were identified. The median age at delivery was 31 years old (range: 15 - 45) with 82% identifying as white. Anemia was documented in 42% (n=904) of pregnancies at least once throughout gestation, with an increasing frequency of 2% (n=43) in the first trimester, 11% (n=230) in the second trimester, 17% (n=361) in the third trimester, and 38% (n=803) from admission for delivery through the peri-partum period. There were five documented pRBC transfusions prior to admission for delivery; however, from admission for delivery through the peri-partum period, there were a total of 102 documented pRBC transfusions. In total, 15% (n=318) of pregnancies were screened for iron deficiency through ferritin testing. Ferritin levels were measured 415 times with 23% (n=96) occurring between the last menstrual period and 12 weeks gestational age (WGA), 24% (n=100) occurring between 13-27 WGA, 40% (n=164) occurring between 28-40 WGA, and 13% (n=55) occurring post-partum. Iron deficiency was found in 70% (n=67), 79% (n=79), 80% (n=164), and 78% (n=43) of measured ferritin levels, respectively. Despite the paucity of screening, prescriptions for oral iron increased throughout gestation with supplementation in pregnancy for 8% (n=170) prior to 12 WGA, 14% (n=290) for those 13-27 WGA, and 23% (n=489) for those 28-40 WGA. Similarly, intravenous iron infusions increased throughout gestation with supplementation in pregnancy for 0.3% (n=7) prior to 12 WGA, 0.7% (n=16) for those 13-27 WGA, and 4% (n=95) for those 28-40 WGA. Prenatal vitamins were documented in over 90% of pregnancies throughout gestation, although the majority were non-prescription and contained variable amounts of elemental iron. Conclusions: Iron deficiency in pregnancy is underrecognized and undertreated. It follows that the accuracy of current reference ranges for anemia in pregnancy are suspect without rigorous verification of replete iron stores in the reference population. Given potential implications for blood product utilization and prenatal care, additional studies are warranted to better characterize iron deficiency in pregnancy as well as clinical sequelae for both mothers and infants. Simultaneously, discussions are needed around current guidelines and recommendations for both screening and treating iron deficiency in pregnancy. Providers, institutions, and professional societies should pursue pragmatic quality improvement initiatives and equitable healthcare delivery efforts to optimize care for this vulnerable patient population at high risk of iron deficiency.

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: Traditional home-call, or the practice of holding a pager at home overnight to manage questions regarding patient care and direct patient calls, is a common component of hematology fellowship. Depending on the institution and training program, the frequency and expectations of home-call may vary. Home-call in fellowship is often performed overnight between two days of work without a “post-call” day to recover. As a field, medicine has entered the digital era, accompanied by changes in patient interactions and expectations involving after-hours calls. Little is known about modern non-digital interactions with patients such as after-hours calls in hematology practices and their effects on trainees. This project aims to evaluate the home-call pager burden and subjective experience in fellows. Methods: We analyzed Hematology Pager (HP) data from 7/1/19 - 4/14/23. The HPs for Mayo Clinic Rochester are covered by hematology fellows, including the weekend and after hours (6PM - 7AM) pagers. Those of interest were the Consults Pager (CP; covers new inpatient consults if discussion initiated outside of electronic order) and the Outpatient Pager (OP; covers direct patient calls as well as critical result communications for weekends and after-hours). The frequency of home-call varies based on each rotation but can require home-call up to 3-4 times per week with the expectation to occasionally present to the hospital overnight in the setting of a hematologic emergency. An optional survey was distributed to the fellowship in May 2024 with the intent to support trainee wellness and assess perceptions and attitudes toward the home-call experience. We allowed for free-text responses and used a 5-point Likert scale for structured responses. Results: The CP received a total of 5,304 pages during the analyzed period for a mean of 3.8 pages per day. Of those, 975 pages (18%) occurred after-hours and 1,250 (24%) during weekends. The OP received a total of 3,964 pages during the analyzed period, definitionally during weekends and/or after-hours, for a mean of 2.9 pages per day. The OP had the highest relative activity on weekends, which ranged from 1-18 calls per day. The survey captured 19/33 (58%) hematology/oncology fellows, which were comprised of 58% males and 42% females representing all levels of training with 42% PGY4s, 26% PGY5s, and 32% PGY6s. Over 85% felt that holding the HP was not an educational experience and that they did not learn about hematology while managing it. Moreover, 85% of respondents felt that they did not help patients get time-sensitive care when holding the HP. Only 5% felt that the majority of care provided through the HP required a Medical Degree and 32% agreed that the majority of calls were due to an acute clinical status change warranting immediate medical attention. If immediate medical attention was possibly required, 95% of fellows reported a recommendation of evaluation in the nearest emergency room. Over 85% of fellows felt that the HP affected other individuals (e.g., significant other) in their households. No respondents (0%) agreed that they could maintain their exercise schedule while holding the HP and only 16% reported no effect on their social life. Nearly all fellows reported not feeling well rested after a home call shift, regardless of whether the level of pager activity was low (≤2 calls), average (3-5 calls), or high (≥6 calls). Up to 95% of fellows reported feeling anxiety when holding the pagers. The free responses outlined concerns about sleep deprivation from call multiple times per week, the impact of home-call on learning, and the desire for a process that triaged patient calls at night that did not require physician resource utilization. Conclusions: Home-call is a long-standing tradition that gives hospital teams and patients access to specialty care after standard business hours. However, home-call can impact wellness, contribute to fatigue, and affect learning. To our knowledge, this is the first analysis evaluating call pager volumes and hematology fellows' perceptions and attitudes toward the home-call experience. Hematology is a dynamic field that requires empathy, critical thinking, and physician wellness to provide the best possible care to patients. In the digital era, the current structure of this long-standing tradition may warrant reevaluation and optimization to prioritize a system beneficial for both patient care and physician wellness.

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.

9018 Background: Comprehensive hematology education during fellowship is paramount for providing high-quality care, especially in busy practices. Variability in fellow educational experiences is expected. However, fellowship programs must ensure a well-rounded, equitable educational experience for all fellows to prepare them for practice and board exams in the increasingly dynamic field of hematology. Methods: We administered an e-mail survey to hematology/oncology fellows (n=30) at Mayo (Rochester) to explore inpatient hematology education experiences and the Fellow Hematology Curriculum (FHC) during 2021-2022. Based on results, we designed a fellow-led, consultant-supervised quality improvement (QI) initiative to improve FHC. Responses were in a five-point Likert scale and open-ended format. Results: Twenty fellows completed the survey (66% response rate). Respondents were well distributed (35% PGY4, 25% PGY5, 40% PGY6). Resources most used for self-education were ASH SAP (85%), UpToDate (80%), and NCCN guidelines (50%). 100% of respondents agreed/strongly agreed that the FHC could be improved. 95% agreed/strongly agreed that there is a high degree of variability among consultants regarding engagement in fellows’ education. 45% agreed that education is adequately paired with relevant clinical duties to reinforce key concepts. 25% agreed that FHC had well-defined structure and objectives. In the open-ended responses, a structured curriculum covering a set list of topics paired with the relevant rotation was the most common recommendation by the fellows for improving the FHC and the inpatient hematology educational experience. This prompted a QI initiative to implement a structured, evidence-based curriculum covering essential topics required for hematology practice. Each week of a four-week rotation has a relevant theme (eg, “Marrow Failure week” during the inpatient leukemia service). Fellows selected a topic of interest and created a lecture to be used by all faculty and learners during the relevant rotation (eg, “Aplastic Anemia” during the Marrow Failure). Consultants and pharmacists in respective disease groups reviewed the topics and presentations. These lectures are now provided to fellows and faculty via e-mail prior to relevant rotations. Conclusions: Our survey demonstrated that trainees’ individual educational experiences on inpatient hematology services are widely variable and largely unsatisfying without some form of structured, relevant learning. We identified the need for deliberate, coordinated education as a gap to bridge toward achieving the goal of equitable, comprehensive learning. We intend to perform a post-implementation survey after one year of practicing a structured, relevantly paired FHC. This assessment will be used to make improvements in subsequent iterations of the FHC using the Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology.

Background: Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies were first approved by the FDA in 2017, and multiple commercial products are currently available. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is another treatment strategy often utilized for patients with advanced and/or relapsed hematologic malignancies. Both CAR-T and HSCT require significant, overlapping resources for their collection, storage, and processing. Understanding the impact of evolving standards of care in clinical practice is necessary in the planning of resource allocation and laboratory expansion. We aimed to characterize the trends of CAR-T and HSCT infusions over a five-year period. Methods: The processing lab database was reviewed to compile a list of patients that received either CAR-T or HSCT (autologous or allogeneic) infusions, between 01/01/2018 and 12/12/2022. The number of individual HSCTs and CAR-T infusions were plotted over time. We also calculated the percent contribution of both HSCT and CAR-T to the total number of products infused per year. We subsequently examined these parameters, within the specific diagnoses of diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma/large cell lymphoma (DLBCL/LCL, including double and triple hit DLBCL and High-Grade lymphoma) and multiple myeloma (MM), including MM with amyloid and MM with plasma cell leukemia/plasmacytoma. Simple linear regression was used to calculate statistical significance to determine if the slopes were non-zero, and the direction of change over time. Results: Overall, our study included 210 CAR-T infusions and 2366 HSCTs. 89/210 (42%) patients who received a CAR-T product also received HSCT between 2018 and 2022, with 85/89 receiving HSCT prior to CAR-T infusion and 4/89 receiving CAR-T prior to HSCT, including two patients who received HSCT before and after CAR-T. The median interval between the most recent HSCT and subsequent CAR-T was 37 months. DLBCL/LCL and MM were the disease indications for which CAR-T was most utilized, accounting for 87.6% of the 210 procedures. The total number of CAR-T procedures increased significantly over the five-year period, from 24 in 2018 to 74 in 2022 (Slope=13.8; p=0.02), accompanied by a marked decrease in the number of HSCT from 502 in 2018 to 393 in 2022 (Slope=-26.6; p=0.06). The overall number of infusions (calculated as number of HSCT + number of CAR-T) declined slightly, though this was not statistically significant (mean 511 + 30.6 per year; Slope=-12.8; p=0.22). When expressed as a percentage of the total number of infusions, we observed a significant increase in the proportion of CAR-T, from 4.6% in 2018 to 15.8 % in 2022, (Slope=2.98; p=0.02), and a significant decrease in the proportion of infusions that were HSCT, from 95.4% in 2018 to 84.2% in 2022 (Slope=-2.98; p=0.02). In DLBCL, we observed a slight decrease in the number of overall infusions, from 71 in 2018 to 58 in 2022 (Slope=-3.5; p=0.18) and a significant decrease in HSCT from 47 in 2018 to 26 in 2022 (Slope=-6.0; p=0.0172), while the number of CAR-T infusions remained stable (mean=27.4 + 5.3 per year; Slope=2.5; p=0.14). In MM, we observed a marked increase in CAR-T infusions, from none in 2018 to 33 in 2022 (p=0.0544), while the total number of infusions remained stable (Mean 231.8 + 16.54; slope=-3.5; p=0.58) and HSCT slightly decreased, from 228 in 2018 to 184 in 2022, though this was not statistically significant (Slope=-11.5; p=0.18). We observed a non-significant increase in the percent contribution of CAR-T to the total number of infusions performed for MM, from 0% in 2018 to 15.3% in 2022 (Slope=3.62; p=0.06) while in DLBCL we observed a significant increase, from 33.8% in 2018 to 55.2% in 2022 (slope=6.42; p=0.017). Conclusion: The findings from this study suggest a gradual trend in the clinical utilization of human cellular therapy products over time. Since many of the resources and personnel involved in the collection, storage, and processing of these products are shared, an increase in CAR-T is an important observation. These findings underscore key issues in lab management for cell manufacturing facilities when considering resource allocation and infrastructure development. More analysis is needed to determine if the decrease in HSCT and the increase in CART are related.

Introduction: Intravenous (IV) iron is routinely used throughout various medical specialties in addition to hematology, including nephrology, cardiology, obstetrics, gastroenterology, and neurology. While all formulations are considered safe, those with iron dextran (ID) are reported to have a relatively higher incidence of anaphylaxis, often prompting a test-dose prior to full administration. Recently, there has been an ongoing national shortage of ID, leading to higher usage of alternate formulations and need for further characterization of usage and safety. Methods: The Epic electronic health record was searched using the Slicer Dicer function to obtain information regarding intravenous iron administrations from 01/01/2021 to 08/31/2022 at the various Mayo Clinic sites throughout the United States. Adverse events were evaluated through the internal patient safety reporting system for adverse drug reactions. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were defined as those events requiring epinephrine administration, anaphylaxis, hypotension, tachycardia, or an allergic reaction (hives, rash, chest tightness, eye swelling) within 24 hours of IV iron infusion. Non-serious adverse events (NSAEs) were defined as those events requiring administration of an antihistamine, steroid, or reported gastrointestinal disturbance within 24 hours of IV iron infusion. Results: A total of 49,310 infusions were administered during the analyzed period and included the use of five formulations: ID, iron sucrose (IS), ferumoxytol (FM), ferric carboxymaltose (FC), and ferric gluconate (FG). Infusions were distributed amongst Rochester (n=23,899; 16%ID, 77%IS, 5%FM, 2%FC, 0%FG), Florida (n=5,755; 6%ID, 43%IS, 34%FM, 9%FC, 8%FG), Arizona (n=5,123; 4%ID, 81%IS, 3%FM, 11%FC, 1%FG), and the Health System (n=14,533; 3%ID, 85%IS, 9%FM, 2%FC, 1%FG). A total of 49 AEs were reported (59% SAEs; 41% NSAEs), representing 0.099% of all infusions. Most AEs were from IS (n=20; 41%), with ID (19; 39%), FM (9; 18%), and FC (1; 2%) accounting for the remainder. Both SAEs (n=13) and NSAEs (n=7) were reported with IS, with most SAEs occurring on the first dose (85%) and classified as hypotension (39%), allergic (31%), anaphylaxis requiring epinephrine (15%), and tachycardia (15%); no pre-medications were given. These IS AEs were dose independent (Table 1). The incidence of AEs for all IV iron formulations was less than 0.01% (Table 2). Conclusions: While ID was found to have a relatively higher incidence of AEs, all IV iron formulations were found to be safe. The most frequently used formulation was IS, which had a low incidence of AEs even at higher doses, suggesting feasibility for minimizing the number of infusions required to achieve therapeutic levels. Although all formulations demonstrated safety, each institution will likely individualize formulary preferences based upon location of administration (inpatient vs. outpatient), input from the various medical specialties, patient comorbidities, reimbursement patterns, and logistical constraints such as infusion chair time.