ABSTRACT
Introduction: Cases of de novo immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), including a fatality following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in a previously healthy recipient, led to studying its impact in pre-existing ITP. Published reports are limited but suggest that most patients with ITP tolerate the COVID-19 vaccines well without frequent ITP exacerbations (Kuter, BJH, 2021). Data regarding risk factors for exacerbation and relationship of response to first dose to that of second dose are limited. Methods: Data for patients with pre-existing ITP were obtained via 3 sources. First, via a ten-center retrospective study of adults with ITP who received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine between December 2020 and March 2021 and had a post-vaccination platelet count (n=117);9 centers were in the United States. Eighty-nine percent of patients received mRNA-based vaccines. The second and third sources of data were surveys distributed by the Platelet Disorder Support Association (PDSA) and the United Kingdom ITP Support Association. A 'stable platelet count' was defined as a post-vaccination platelet count within 20% of the pre-vaccination level. ITP exacerbation was defined as any one or more of: platelet decrease ≥ 50% compared to pre-vaccination baseline, platelet decrease by >20% compared to prevaccination baseline with platelet nadir < 30x10 9/L, receipt of rescue therapy for ITP. Continuous variables were described as mean ±SD or median [interquartile range];categorical variables were described as n (%). Relative risks and 95% confidence interval were calculated to estimate strength of association. Results: Among 117 patients with pre-existing ITP from 10 centers who received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, mean age was 63±17 years, 62% were female, with median 12 [4-23] years since diagnosis of ITP;patients had received a median of 3 [2-4] prior medical treatments. Sixtynine patients were on ITP treatment at the time of vaccination (Table 1). There was an almost even distribution of platelet count response following each vaccine dose. In 109 patients with data for dose 1, platelet counts increased in 32 (29%), were stable in 43 (39%), and decreased in 34 (31%);in 70 patients following dose 2, platelet counts increased in 24 (34%), were stable in 25 (36%), and decreased in 21 (30%) (Figure 1). Nineteen (17%) patients experienced an ITP exacerbation following the first dose and 14 (20%) of 70 after a second dose. In total, fifteen patients received and responded to rescue treatments (n = 6 after dose 1, n = 8 after dose 2, n = 1 after both doses). Of 7 patients who received rescue treatment after dose 1, 5 received dose 2 and only 1/5 received rescue treatment again. Rescue consisted of increased dose of ongoing medication, steroids, IVIG, and rituximab. Splenectomized persons and those who received 5 or more prior lines of medical therapy were at highest risk of ITP exacerbation. Only 1 of 47 patients who had neither undergone splenectomy nor received 5 or more lines of therapy developed ITP exacerbation after dose 1. There were 14 patients offtreatment at the time of dose 1 and 7 patients at time of dose 2;1 patient in each group developed ITP exacerbation with both these having had normal counts prior to vaccination and having undergone splenectomy. In 43 patients whose platelet counts were stable or increased after dose 1 and received dose 2, only 6 (14%) had platelet decreases to <50 x10 9/L after dose 2. Age, gender, vaccine type, and concurrent autoimmune disease did not impact post-vaccine platelet counts. In surveys of 57 PDSA and 43 U.K. ITP patients, similar rates of platelet change were seen (33% of participants reported decreased platelet count in both surveys) and prior splenectomy was significantly associated with worsened thrombocytopenia in each. Conclusions: Thrombocytopenia may worsen in pre-existing ITP post-SARS-CoV2-vaccination but when ITP exacerbation occurred, it responded well to rescue treatment. No serious bleeding events were noted. Rescue treatment was needed in 13% of patients. Proactive vaccination surveillance of patien s with known ITP, especially those post-splenectomy and with more refractory disease, is indicated. These findings should encourage patients with ITP to not only be vaccinated, but to receive the second dose when applicable to ensure optimal immunization. Rituximab interferes with vaccination response and ideally would be held until a minimum of 2 weeks after completion of vaccination.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND. COVID-19 is a prothrombotic disease, characterized by endotheliopathy, hypercoagulability, and thromboembolic complications. We hypothesized that the pathogenesis of thromboembolism associated with COVID-19 might differ from thromboembolism in patients without COVID-19. In this study, we sought to evaluate the proteomic signatures of plasma from patients with venous thromboembolism with and without COVID-19. METHODS. Between December 17, 2020 and February 25, 2021 blood was collected from 48 hospitalized patients. Of these 24 had a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 infection (COVID+) and radiologic confirmation of arterial or venous thromboembolism (TE+);17 had COVID-19 infection with absence of arterial thrombosis clinically and absence of venous thromboembolism on lower extremity Doppler ultrasound or chest CT angiography (COVID+/TE-), while 7 were arterial or venous thromboembolism in the absence of COVID-19 (COVID-/TE+). Blood was collected in sodium citrate tubes and centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 20 minutes, with resulting plasma supernatant used for protein profiling performed at Eve Technologies (Calgary, Alberta, Canada). Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this study. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism (v9.1, GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA) and R (v4, R Core Team). P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. A heatmap was generated using Heatmapper (heatmapper.ca) to represent the concentrations of proteins. RESULTS. The median age was 63 years;overall 25 (52%) were men (13 [54%] among COVID+/TE+, 11 [65%] among COVID+/TE-, and 1 [14%] among COVID-/TE+). In COVID-19 patients who developed thromboembolic events, several proteins associated with inflammation, complement activation, and hemostasis were present at higher levels than in non-COVID-19 patients who developed thromboembolic events (Fig. 1). These included complement factors C2 and C5a, pentraxin-3 (PTX-3), lipocalin-2 (LCN2), resistin (RETN), platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule-1 (Pecam1), serum amyloid A (SAA), and tissue factor (TF). The heatmap indicates relative protein levels detected in each subject (columns) for proteins (rows) that had statistically significant differences between groups (Fig. 2). Heatmap revealed relatively lower levels of all proteins in patients with thromboembolism without COVID-19 and relatively higher levels of proteins in patients with COVID-19, and especially in ICU patients with COVID-19 and thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS. Thromboembolic complications in patients with COVID-19 are associated with increased levels of various proteins involved in complement activation and immunothrombotic cascades, compared to thrombotic events in the absence of COVID-19. Activation of the classical complement pathway as evidenced by a relative increase in complement factor C2 may lead to increased TF activation, reflecting more substantial endothelial damage in COVID-19 patients. Higher levels of Pecam1, SAA, LCN2, and RETN all point to increased endotheliopathy, inflammation, and tissue damage in COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 thrombosis. These findings may offer insights into novel therapeutic strategies to treat immunothrombotic complications of COVID-19. [Formula presented] Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
ABSTRACT
Background The American Society of Hematology and researchers at the Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity at the George Washington University are conducting a 3-year study of the hematology workforce to understand factors that influence the supply of hematology services in the U.S. The Survey of Practicing Hematologists and Oncologists focuses on practicing hematology/oncology physicians' practice activities and experiences, compensation, job satisfaction and burnout. While the prevalence and predictors of burnout in the oncology workforce have been studied in detail previously, less is known about factors associated with burnout in the hematology or combined hematology/oncology workforce–or whether these differ across academic and community practice settings. This study seeks to examine factors associated with severe burnout for hematology/oncology physicians in academic and community practice settings using data from a large-scale, comprehensive survey of hematology/oncology physicians. Methods We collected survey data via mail and online survey (using Qualtrics, an online survey tool) in April through June 2019. The survey included questions about hematology/oncology physicians' work hours, practice activities, compensation, job satisfaction and burnout. This analysis uses data from a single validated question examining respondents’ level of burnout: “Overall, based on your definition of burnout, how would you rate your level of burnout?” The question asks respondents to rank their burnout on a 5-point Likert scale. We collapsed responses into a dichotomous variable indicating severe burnout (=4 or 5 on the Likert scale). We used two weighted multiple logistic regression models to examine associations between severe burnout and work hours, practice characteristics and activities, and type of compensation for respondents in academic and community practice in Stata 15, controlling for demographics and type of practice (p<0.05=statistically significant). Results A total of 675 hematologists/oncologists completed the survey (27% response rate). Of these, 427 respondents reported working in academic or community practice and had complete data to be included in the analysis: 162 (38%) in academic practice settings and 265 (62%) in community practice settings. Respondents in academic practice settings were slightly less likely to report experiencing severe burnout than those in community practice settings (9% [15/162] vs. 12% [34/265], p=0.26). In the logistic regression models, we found statistically significant and positive association between severe burnout and Relative Value Unit or RVU-based compensation (vs. salaried or other compensation models) for both academic (OR=18.42, p<0.01) and community practice respondents (OR=3.05, p<0.01). We also found a significant and positive association between severe burnout and being female for respondents in academic practice only (OR=6.07, p<0.01). We found a significant and negative association between severe burnout and often working with advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners and/or physician assistants) for respondents in community practice only (OR=0.32, p<0.01). Conclusions Study findings suggest that severe burnout rates are similar for hematology/oncology physicians in academic and community practice settings. Severe burnout appears to be related to use of RVU-based compensation systems in both academic and community practices, suggesting that these models may require major revision to reduce burnout and support the health and longevity in practice of hematology/oncology physicians. Improving access to advanced practice providers may mitigate severe burnout, especially in community practice settings. Higher levels of burnout among women in academic hematology/oncology practices suggest an area for further research into possible explanations and solutions. These findings merit further exploration, particularly given the increased pressures on physicians in the era of COVID-19. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare