Search

Introduction: By August 1, 2020 in the United States, more than 3 million cases of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had been reported with more than 150,000 deaths due to this disease. Growing evidence suggests that individuals with the pre-existing conditions of hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and obesity are at a higher risk of more serious COVID-19 illness. However, the impact of COVID-19 on individuals with sickle cell disease and sickle cell trait as compared to those without sickle cell disease or trait is not known. The objective of this study was to determine the rate of hospitalization, disease symptoms and deaths due to COVID-19, in patients with sickle cell disease and sickle cell trait compared to Blacks without sickle cell disease or trait. Methods: We leveraged existing electronic health record (EHR) data from multiple sites that contribute data to a research network, TriNetX. TriNetX query platform was used to identify patients with COVID-19 infection based on ICD diagnoses codes or a positive COVID-19 result from a nucleic acid amplification with probe-based detection test, present any time after January 20, 2020 (this is when the first COVID-19 case was detected in the United States) within the patients' EHR data. We report rates of specific COVID-19 related outcomes among individuals with sickle cell disease and trait, calculated as % of patients in cohort with the particular outcome. Our outcomes of interest included COVD-19 related symptoms, hospitalization, and death, which occurred within 2 weeks of COVID diagnosis. We used propensity score matching (greedy nearest-neighbor matching algorithm with a caliper of 0.1 pooled standard deviations) to create balanced cohorts for comparing outcomes between individuals with sickle cell disease or trait and Blacks without sickle cell disease or trait. Risk ratios and risk differences are reported along with 95% confidence intervals. Given multiple outcomes of interest, we considered a more stringent two-sided alpha of less than Results: As of July 15, 2020, there were 122 COVID-19 patients who had sickle cell disease and 172 COVID-19 patients who had sickle cell trait. Our comparator groups included 15,762 Blacks who were diagnosed with COVID-19 but did not have sickle cell trait/disease. COVID-19 patients with sickle cell disease were significantly younger and a higher proportion had asthma, type 1 diabetes and pre-existing liver conditions compared to Blacks without sickle cell trait/disease (Table 1). COVID-19 patients with sickle cell trait were significantly younger, a higher proportion were females, overweight/obese, and a higher proportion had asthma or type 1 diabetes compared to Blacks without sickle cell trait/disease (Table 1). The rate of respective outcomes for the three groups is shown in Figure 1. Propensity score matching yielded a cohort of patients such that there were no significant differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between patients with sickle cell disease/trait compared to Blacks without sickle cell trait/disease. After matching, COVID patients with sickle cell disease remained at a higher risk of hospitalization, pneumonia and pain compared to Blacks without sickle cell trait/disease (Table 2). The case fatality rates were not significantly different between those with sickle cell disease compared to Blacks. There were no significant differences in COVID outcomes between sickle cell trait and Blacks without sickle cell trait/disease, within the matched cohort. Conclusions: These data provide evidence that sickle cell disease imposes additional risk of severe COVID-19 illness and hospitalization, after balancing for age, gender and other preexisting conditions. The death rate between sickle cell disease and Blacks without sickle cell trait/disease was not significantly different. There are no significant differences in COVID-19 outcomes between sickle cell trait and Blacks without sickle cell trait/disease, after balancing for age, gender and other pre-existing conditions. Disclosures Brandow: NIH / NHLBI: Research Funding; Greater Milwaukee Foundation: Research Funding. Panepinto:HRSA: Research Funding; NINDS: Research Funding; NINDS: Research Funding; NHLBI: Research Funding.

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) outbreak is upending current life and generating much anxiety and uncertainty. The effects of home confinement, social isolation, cancelled schools, closed businesses, and negative economic impacts have had serious consequences. Hematologic patients (HP) are a subset of highly vulnerable population with increased risk of developing severe COVID-19 symptoms due to their immunocompromised status. These risks have been augmented during the COVID outbreak because of deviations from current standards of care, e.g., reduced visits, treatment supply and access to routine exams. This study investigated the impact of the current pandemic on HP assessing demographics, medical information, mental health and caregiver practical management. In collaboration with AIL (Italian Association against Leukemia) and CNR (National Research Council), a survey was generated and distributed to Italian HP. The general population (GP) were used as controls. The assessment used the DASS-21 questionnaire, a self-reported, 21 item screening instrument that provides independent measures of depression, stress and anxiety with recommended severity thresholds subscales. The survey was self-administered between April and August, 2020. The questionnaires' reliability was verified based on an analysis of its internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha. As of 30 June 2020, 1113 HP and 1125 GP completed the survey from 20 Italian Regions. The two population groups were homogeneous by age, gender and distribution and included regions at both high (CHP) and low (CLP) prevalence of infections at the time of the survey. HP and GP median age was 50 years (range: HP 11- 93; GP 13-85). 61% HP and 68% GP were female; the rest were male. The year of diagnosis of hematological disease ranged from 1965 to 2020; 21.9% had chronic myeloid leukemia, followed by Hodgkin (15.7%) and non-Hodgkin (15.9%) lymphomas, chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms (15.9%), multiple myeloma (8.9%), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (4.9%), acute myeloid (5.6%) and lymphoblastic (3.25%) leukemias, other (7%). 1071 HP and 1125 GP responded about their occupation as follows: employed full/part time (38.7% HP , 47.7% GP), retired (19.2% HP,10.8% GP), freelancer (9.2% HP, 12.2% GP), unemployed (6.2% HP, 3.4% GP) , students (4.6% HP, 3.2% GP), company executive (4.1% HP, 4.8% GP), manager (2% HP, 4.7 % GP), cooperative member (0.7% HP , 0.7% GP), housewife (8.5% HP 4.8% GP), other (6.8% HP,7.7% GP). During the pandemic 63.7% HP didn't work and 36.3% did work compared to the GP group (33.8% didn't; 66.2 % did). Where specified, the reasons for not working were: layoffs (10.9% HP, 15.9% GP), lack of work (8.1%HP, 15.6 % GP), vacation/ parental leave (4.4% HP, 3.5% GP), reduced business activity for economic reasons (2.2% HP, 3.3% GP), occasional work (2.1% HP, 5.7% GP), seasonal employment, (0.6% HP,1.1 % GP). 625/1073 HP (58.2%) were in active treatment. Of these, 40.1% were in Day Hospital, 56.4% were outpatient; and 3.5% inpatients. The remaining HP were off therapy (448/1073; 41.8%). 1105 HP and 1127 GP responded to the DASS questionnaire. Extremely severe depression was found in 12.9% HP vs 7% GP; 18.1% HP expressed severe anxiety vs 9.6% GP and extremely severe stress was present in 7.1% HP and 5.3% GP. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the internal homogeneity of the questionnaire was 0.95, confirming the cohorts correctness (0.8 or greater, indicates a very good level of reliability). Providing care to HP during the pandemic has been challenging for both patients and doctors. Restrictions on visits and lab/instrumental exams, reduced equipment supply and a paucity of personal protection equipment (PPEs) for health care providers and patients have penalized normal routine care. As a result, 38.2% HP postponed or did not attend scheduled therapy and >50% had difficulty obtaining PPEs through normal sources; 57% in CHP and 36% in CLP regions had to buy them themselves. To our knowledge this is the first report of the impact of the pandemic on psychological distress, work consequences and illness management in HP. Most of HP in this study are outpatients in active treatment. Interesting data emerged from job losses, which is more common among HP. The DASS-21 instrument revealed higher anxiety and depression levels in HP. Detailed results including longitudinal analysis and high versus low geographic prevalence of COVID-19 infections will be presented. Figure 1 Disclosures Abruzzese: Incyte: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bms: Honoraria.

Background: The COVID pandemic has resulted in significant changes many aspects of daily living. To understand the impact that COVID-19 has had on the myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) patient population, we conducted an internet based survey. Methods: Survey: This survey was hosted Mayo Clinic's secured REDCap system for online surveys with a link to the survey alongside a brief description posted via the www.mpnqol.com website, as well as other MPN organizational partners. Survey responses were completely anonymous. Questions included MPN-Total symptom score (TSS), NCCN distress thermometer (NCCN-DT), questions regarding impact on medical care, and questions from CDC COVID-19 community survey question bank regarding the impact of social distancing as well as changes in health behaviors. Distress thermometer, MPN-TSS, and/or questions related to the impact of COVID-19 on MPN treatment were analyzed by: MPN diagnosis, among those with ET, PV, or MF diagnoses; medication status; stay at home order; community spread; and country. Associations were tested using Kruskal-Wallis or Wilcoxon rank sum tests (for continuous variables) or Fisher Exact tests (for categorical variables). Analysis: Results: Patient Demographics (Table 1): 1560 people responded to the survey, 1217 were eligible for analysis. Median age was 62 (range: 21-93), and 298 (24.6%) respondents were male. There were respondents from USA, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Ireland, and UK. 233 patients (19.2%) have myelofibrosis, 419 (34.6%) polycythemia vera and 543 (44.8%) essential thrombocythemia. At the time of the COVID outbreak, 1026 (84.3%) were on MPN directed medical therapy, including ruxolitinib (15.3%), interferon (14.7%), hydroxyurea (42.7%) and ASA (47.7%). 165 (13.6%) respondents received COVID testing, of which 5 had positive tests. Impact on MPN Care (Table 2): We sought to understand how patient's clinical care changed. Over half respondents who spoke to their MPN doctor had a telemedicine visit after COVID19 (57.1%). 422 (36.5%) patients spaced out visits, of which 99 (22.7%) felt there were consequences. A change in therapy due to COVID-1 occurred in only 5.4% of patients. MPN Symptom Burden and QoL: Data captured on the NCCN-DT had a median of 4 (0-10). MPN-SAF-TSS composite score was collected in 1150 respondents, median score was 26 (0-90). These scores are higher than those previously reported. Pandemic Impact on Lifestyle (Table 1): 595 (49.5%) of patients report living in a community where there is significant COVID-19 spread. 946 (78.9%) reported that COVID-19 has impacted their day to day life. 198 (17.2%) of patients agreed, or strongly agreed that COVID had a significant impact on their finances. 799 (67.8%) had a stay at home order. Of those who quarantined (112), the median duration was 30d (1-120). The majority of people increased hand-washing, and cleaning habits. 954 (81.7%) respondents reported wearing masks in public. 908 (76.8%) reported increased stress from social distancing. The majority of respondents report using healthy coping habits, such as reaching out to friends/loved ones, breathing and relaxation, as well as healthy diet. Less than 15% of patients report unhealthy coping strategies, such as use of opioids, benzodiazepines, alcohol, or cannabis Factors associated with response: There were no differences in responses based on type of MPN. If a patient was on medication, they were more likely to have spoken to their provider (p Conclusions: In our survey of MPN patients, there were many changes noted in clinical care. The use of telemedicine was common, and at least a third had significant changes in their care. Most experienced increased stress, however, employed healthy coping strategies. Only a minority of patients had a COVID test, and only 5 were positive, further data will be needed to understand the impact of COVID infection. Figure 1 Disclosures Harrison: Roche: Honoraria; Incyte Corporation: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sierra Oncology: Honoraria; Promedior: Honoraria; Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AOP Orphan Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; CTI Biopharma Corp: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Pemmaraju:Affymetrix: Other: Grant Support, Research Funding; Plexxikon: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria; Roche Diagnostics: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; SagerStrong Foundation: Other: Grant Support; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MustangBio: Honoraria; LFB Biotechnologies: Honoraria; Pacylex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Blueprint: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Gupta:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol MyersSquibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy. Mascarenhas:Celgene, Prelude, Galecto, Promedior, Geron, Constellation, and Incyte: Consultancy; Incyte, Kartos, Roche, Promedior, Merck, Merus, Arog, CTI Biopharma, Janssen, and PharmaEssentia: Other: Research funding (institution). Shimoda:Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd.: Research Funding; Pfizer Inc.: Research Funding; Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Perseus Proteomics: Research Funding; PharmaEssentia Japan: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc.: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Merck & Co.: Research Funding; CHUGAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Shire plc: Honoraria; Asahi Kasei Medical: Research Funding; Japanese Society of Hematology: Research Funding; The Shinnihon Foundation of Advanced Medical Treatment Research: Research Funding. Kiladjian:AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Komatsu:AbbVie: Other: member of safety assessment committee in M13-834 clinical trial.; Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Shire Japan KK, Novartis Pharma KK, PharmaEssentia Japan KK, Fuso Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Fujifilm Wako Pure Chemical Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutica: Research Funding; Meiji Seika Pharma Co., Ltd.: Patents & Royalties: PCT/JP2020/008434, Research Funding; PPMX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., PharmaEssentia Japan KK, AbbVie GK, Celgene KK, Novartis Pharma KK, Shire Japan KK, Japan Tobacco Inc: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Novartis Pharma KK, Shire Japan KK: Speakers Bureau. Abello:Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gomez-Almaguer:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Scherber:Incyte Corporation: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mauro:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Sun Pharma/SPARC: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodation, Expenses, Research Funding. Mesa:Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; LaJolla Pharmaceutical Company: Consultancy; Promedior: Research Funding.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. This novel virus can cause a rapid progression from cough to acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. Cancer patients infected with COVID-19 were reported to have a 39% incidence of severe events, including admission to intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, or death. Patients with hematologic malignancies, especially those undergoing treatment, are a particularly at-risk population due to disease-related impairment of the immune system and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. The goal of this study is to analyze outcomes of COVID-19 infected patients with hematologic malignancies in order to better understand the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on this vulnerable population. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis on 26 COVID-19 positive patients with hematologic malignancies identified at our center. On July 22, 2020, there were 264 COVID-19 positive patients with hematologic malignancies (including our center's 26 patients) reported to the American Society of Hematology Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry (ASH RC), a global public reference tool. We extracted our patient's data from each category reported to the ASH RC and compared hospitalization, ICU admissions, and mortality rates between our cohort and the remaining 238 cases. Chi-square test was used for analyses. We also performed a subgroup analysis comparing demographics; type and status of hematologic malignancy, as well as COVID-19 directed treatments between our center's patients and the patients reported to the ASH RC. Results Between March and June 2020, a total of 1265 COVID-19 positive patients were hospitalized at our institution. A significantly higher percentage of COVID-19 patients with hematologic malignancies were hospitalized at our institution compared to the ASH RC (61.5% versus 35.3%, P=. 009). There was no difference in ICU admission rate at our center compared to the ASH RC (23.1% versus 30.2%, P=.45). Significantly less COVID-19 directed therapies were administered at our center compared to the ASH RC (46.2% versus 66.4%, P=.041). Our patients received: 7.7% Remdesivir, 11.5% Tocilizumab, 15.4% hydroxychloroquine, 11.5% azithromycin, 0% convalescent plasma, compared to the ASH RC: 1.7% Remdesivir, 5.5% Tocilizumab, 30.3% hydroxychloroquine, 25.6% azithromycin, 4.6% convalescent plasma. Lastly, our institution had a significantly decreased mortality rate compared to the ASH RC (11.5% versus 29.8%, P=.049). Demographics as well as type and status of hematologic malignancy comparing the two cohorts are shown in Table 1. Conclusions In our comparative analysis, we found that our center's patients were hospitalized significantly more than the ASH RC cohort yet had lower mortality rates. These differences were seen despite similar distribution of malignancy types between the two groups. It should be noted that more patients in our cohort were in remission and none presented at initial cancer diagnosis at the time of infection, which may have contributed to better outcomes. The difference in mortality rates may also be attributed to variance in provider experience, higher percentage of patients >80 years of age reported to the ASH RC, and closer patient monitoring at our center due to a higher hospitalization rate. Differences in ICU admissions were not significant, suggesting a similar rate of severe COVID-19 infection between the two cohorts. Our demographics reflect the urban population we serve with more African Americans and Hispanics compared to the ASH RC. The greater number of COVID-19 directed therapies in the ASH RC cohort compared to ours is likely attributed to the use of convalescent plasma, which was not commonly used as COVID-19 directed treatment at our institution. Limitations of our study include a restricted time frame, small sample size, and the possibility of incomplete datasets within the ASH RC, as stated on the registry's website. In conclusion, we recommend close monitoring and a lower threshold for hospitalizing patients with hematologic malignancies in the setting of COVID-19 infection; however, additional prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings, and further investigate the complications and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 on this at-risk population. Disclosures Ustun: Kadmon: Honoraria. Shammo:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Onconova: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Apellis: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Abbive: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Baxter: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Takeda: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alexion: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction: Youth with sickle cell disease (SCD) and their families are susceptible to stress and depression associated with chronic illness and social factors disproportionately affecting under-resourced U.S. communities. The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely impacted psychosocial and economic well-being, especially in some of these same communities. Our concurrent HABIT multi-site randomized trial aims to improve hydroxyurea adherence in youth with SCD ages 10-18 years through an intervention led by community health workers(NCT03462511). Subjects enrolled as youth-primary caretaker dyads; adults were mostly parents. We hypothesized that some HABIT subjects had depressive symptoms at baseline, and many had additional stressors during the pandemic. Methods: Two self-reported assessment tools were used, with options of English or Spanish: 1) PROMIS® pediatric (8a, v1.0) or adult (4a, v1.0) depression measures, completed at HABIT enrollment, nearly all between May 2018 - March 2020 ("baseline"); 2) A pandemic-related open-access survey originated by Johns Hopkins University on established core adult mental health assessed risks and behaviors.[1] Questions were closely adapted for use by youth. The pandemic survey assessed recent mental health symptoms and substance or domestic abuse. Two validated food insecurity screening questions were added.[2] Of 92 HABIT subjects, 84 were offered survey participation between May - July, 2020. Participants completed both assessment tools via electronic linkage to REDCap data capture. Analyses used chi square or Fisher exact test. Results: In all, 75% (63 of 84) responded to the pandemic survey; 31 were youth-parent dyads and one unpaired parent. Baseline demographics were: Youth (N=31): mean age 12.9±1.9 years, 48.4% female, 80.6% grade 6-12, 45.3% hospitalized within the prior 12 months; Caretakers (N=32): mean age 44.0±9.6 years, 87.5% Black, 18.8% Latinx, 37.50% married or living with a partner, 59.4% with at least some college education. At baseline, youth mean PROMIS® Depression T-Score was 49.9±10.1 (normal Conclusions: In this sample of subjects from the HABIT Trial, at baseline a higher proportion of youth had depressive symptoms compare to their primary caretakers. During the initial pandemic peak in the Northeast, disrupted work arrangements and especially school cancellation were widespread. Fewer youth but similar proportions of caretakers reported feeling depressed and/or anxious. Both groups commonly reported loneliness or not feeling hopeful for the future. History of mental health conditions, current substance use/abuse or verbal abuse were uncommon. Concordant with concerns for under-resourced communities, a sizeable minority of families reported food insecurity. Under the limitations of using 2 different assessment tools, in this modest sample the majority of youth with SCD but not caretakers were mildly-moderately depressed at baseline and that, during the pandemic, the 2 groups reported similar proportions of mental health symptoms. These findings suggest that screening for mental health symptoms, social disruption and food insecurity may be warranted in this high-risk group overall and during the pandemic. References: 1) COVID-19 and mental health measurement working group, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, March 18, 2020 2) Barnidge E., et al., Screening for Food Insecurity in Pediatric Clinical Settings. J. Community Health 42(1):51-57, 2017 The HABIT Trial is supported by 5R01NR017206-04 (Green, Smaldone). The authors have no conflicts to disclose. Disclosures Smith-Whitley: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Global Blood Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prime: Other: Education material; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Aygun:bluebird bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; National Institute of Nursing Research: Research Funding; Patient-Centered Outsomes Research Institute: Research Funding; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: Research Funding.

Introduction: The current pandemic of COVID 19 had come as guest this new year and has lingered on like an unwelcome rude guest. The greatest stress during this season is the fear of getting infected. Naturally, the ones facing the most stress are the frontline health care workers. India has been under lockdown since March'2020. Lockdown itself has also taken a toll on the mental health of people owing to inability to socialize and go the work.The main stress among the Hematology health care workers is the fear of infection, passing on the virus to family members and death. This study aims at assessing the perception and psychological help seeking behaviour among Hematology healthcare workers during the COVID19 pandemic in India. This study was conducted among 177 hematology related healthcare workers in India and it exposes a significant stress these people are undergoing in this pandemic. This area is one of the least talked during this pandemic but the impact it is going to have in future is humongous. Materials and Methods: We conducted a survey from the month of April'2020 till July 2020 among some of these hematology services related health care workers from different parts of India via electronic media [Survey Monkey]. A simple questionnaire of total thirteen questions was formulated. Questions were framed in simple english language for easy understanding of all participants. Social media was used for distributing this questionnaire. Our target population was hematology service related health care workers. Results and Discussion: We got a total of 177 responses and all the answers were analysed on per question basis. 60% of those who participated were doctors, followed by nurses (32%) and rest were lab personnel and other health care workers. 66% of participants belonged to the age group 31-45 years, followed by 22% belonging to 20-30 years, 11% belonged to 46-60 years and none were above 60 years of age.56% were males and rest were females. 73% were married and rest were single. Among all those who participated in this survey two thirds were not diverted to frontline Covid 19 patient care. Only one third (33.9%) were actually redirected to direct care of Covid 19 patients in their respective set-ups. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 being minimal to 10 being extremely high needing help, anxiety was scored. 48% of all scored themselves with an anxiety level of 4-6. 15% each scored for 1-3 and 7-9. 5% faced extreme anxiety needing help. 36% had moderate fear of infecting their family members. 30% and 18% had mild and severe fear, respectively. When enquired about the type of symptoms experienced by them, the most common reply was that they felt low and were depressed. Many experience sleep disturbances with increase in irritability, restlessness and health anxiety for Covid. Surprisingly, 40% denied any such symptoms at all. Adjustment and adaptability with the changing environment are a deciding factor on the mental well-being of everyone. Most popular method was avoiding frequent news updates (52.5%), followed by learning new skills and connecting with family and friends (47.5%). Least popular modality was resorting to healthy distraction (28%). 17% of all participants felt a need for psychological consultation for themselves, 3.4% wanted consultation for their family members and 3.4% wanted such consultation for both themselves and their family members too. Among those who wanted professional help 58% preferred tele-consultation and rest aspired for personal consultation. Conclusion: The above responses show that work place stress has increased among hematology health care workers in the current pandemic situation which in broad terms is true for any specialty. A mental burnout and fatigue is setting among healthcare workers in this part of the country as COVID19 seems like a chronic story now. It is advisable to keep psychological help ready for all those involved in frontline Covid 19 health care. Its high time hospital administrators start taking notice this aspect of healthcare workers and start working on creating a positive work environment. Figure Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: While the COVID-19 pandemic has affected many aspects of clinical care, research, and medical training, its impact on hematology-oncology trainees and professional development has not been described. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) sought to assess the impact of COVID-19 on fellows enrolled in hematology-oncology programs. Methods: In spring 2020, ASH and ASCO developed and administered a survey by e-mail to active hematology-oncology fellow members. Response formats used both a semi-Likert scale and open-ended text. Questions focused on fellow experiences and how changes in their programs have impacted their personal and professional lives across several domains. Multiple-choice responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and NVivo software was used for qualitative analysis of open-ended questions. Results: Respondent demographics are described in Table 1. Of 2,306 trainees, 620 (27%) responded to the survey. Most respondents continued patient care responsibilities during the pandemic (80%). Almost half of all trainees (47%) reported that they felt less productive than usual. Stress and/or anxiety about the current situation was the most cited factor affecting productivity in the overall cohort (Figure 1). One-third (33%) of respondents had volunteered or were assigned to clinical/non-clinical COVID-19-related efforts. Of the 90 visa holders in our cohort, 30% (N=27) reported experiencing issues with their visa/immigration status. Eight percent of respondents stated their career plans had changed due to COVID-19. Of those who said their plans had changed, 30 respondents were considering careers in academia pre-pandemic and 11 were considering private practice. However, only 14 respondents were considering academia post-pandemic while 19 were interested in private practice. Overall, most respondents had concerns about at least one of the following: salary reductions, availability of networking events, family well-being, mental health and obtaining a job (Figure 2). The prevalence of burnout increased from 22% (N=105) before the pandemic to 33% (N=161) during (p The open-ended responses yielded several consistent themes. Clinical and educational constraints were enumerated: lost learning opportunities due to low patient volumes, unavailability of colleagues to discuss cases, and overall low perceived quality of virtual learning. Trainees also reported reduced motivation to complete work within a stipulated time frame due to lack of robust discussions in the virtual environment and technological challenges in navigating educational resources. Trainee research was also severely impacted as laboratories closed, experimental animal colonies were lost, and many research activities ceased. Respondents also expressed concern that cuts in research training initiatives and budgets would jeopardize faculty positions for graduating fellows and that funding for travel and conferences was suspended. Fellows' recommendations for ASH and ASCO included improved online education, virtual research training and networking opportunities, practical guidance on caring for immune-compromised patients during the pandemic, increased funding resources for trainees, mental health resources, and advocating on behalf of trainee visa holders. Conclusions: Hematology-oncology trainees reported their training experiences have been deeply impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. A majority of trainees are concerned about the negative impact on career opportunities, research funding, financial well-being, and mental health. Burnout increased during COVID-19, especially in trainees who were assigned to specific COVID-related efforts. Training programs and professional societies can support trainees by increasing trainee research funding, online networking and learning opportunities, mental health resources and, support for international trainees. Disclosures Velazquez Manana: Corbus Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership; Midatech: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership. Wun:Glycomimetics, Inc.: Consultancy.

Introduction: The purpose of this survey is to understand the extent of telehealth utilization for persons with sickle cell disease (SCD), while also determining possible barriers patients may have in accessing care and providers using this tool. . Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) in five states (California, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona) obtained feedback directly from patients with SCD on managing their care via telehealth during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Phone calls were made by CBOs in five states, to their specific patient database between May 11 - 29, 2020. A series of 17 questions were asked to obtain information from patients with SCD, parents of children with SCD, or caregivers of a person with SCD. All data was de-identified. CBOs that participated in data collection included the Sickle Cell Disease Foundation (California), Colorado Sickle Cell Association, Sickle Cell Anemia Foundation of Oregon, Sickled Not Broken Foundation of Nevada, and Sickle Cell Foundation of Arizona. Results: A total of 199 patients or caregivers of patients living with sickle cell disease were surveyed. Of these individuals, 121 (61%) were female and 78 (39%) were male. The most prevalent SCD hemoglobinopathy reported among patients was Hgb SS (68%) followed by Hgb SC disease at (20%). Hgb SB or other variants were surveyed at (9%), while (3%) were unknown. Participants with Hgb SS disease at (46%) were female while (22%) were male. Overall, the majority of patients fell within the age range of 18-35 (50%). Female patients were 18-35 yrs (30%), 0-17 yrs (18%) or > 36 yrs (13%). Male patients ranged from 18-35 years (20%), 0-17 yrs (12%), and 36 or older (7%). When surveying patients about their primary languages, the majority of participants spoke English (92%), while others spoke Spanish (5%), French (1%), Somali (1%), and Creole (1%). Individuals, who were not fluent in English, desired translated material to assist them in better understanding their disease and managing their care. To understand patient access to care via telehealth platforms during a global pandemic, we asked questions with the following themes: familiarity with telehealth services, the willingness or ability to access services and healthcare utilization patterns during COVID-19. Of those surveyed, 55% indicated that they have heard of or have participated in telehealth services. Importantly, 85% reported familiarity or the ability to download Zoom, and 80% reported interest in connecting with a provider via telehealth services. When asked about access to WiFi and to tools used to navigate online systems, the majority of patients indicated they had access to WiFi (95%) and would access telehealth services through any of the following devices: mobile phones (71%), computers (59%) or tablets (17%). Survey respondents also indicated they had assistance at home with accessing telehealth sessions (64%) while the remaining (46%) indicated that they would be interested in having a Community Health Worker provide them with support in getting started with telehealth services. When asking patients about health care utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic only 35% of patients indicated they went to an emergency room for care while the remaining 65% did not. Of note, 53% of those surveyed reported managing their SCD crisis at home, with 52% of all patients reporting that they reached out to SCD providers (hematologists with expertise in treating patients with sickle cell disease) for advice and care recommendations rather than risking exposure to COVID in the ER. In addition, patients indicated that they had difficulty getting prescriptions refilled or were unable to afford their medications (16%). Lastly, almost all patients indicated an interest in having access to a 24-hour hotline for SCD care (94%). Conclusion: The utilization of CBOs to provide ancillary support services is necessary to continue to understand patient needs, not only during a global crisis but after for routine health care. Our survey demonstrated that most patients have access to the technology needed to connect to their healthcare teams. However, access to a knowledgeable provider should be strengthened to ensure patient competence and comfort with self-management while utilizing telehealth resources. Finally, clinical care teams are recommended to enhance access to telehealth services and provide additional community resources to improve access to care. Figure Disclosures Fields: Imara Inc.: Consultancy. Brown:Novartis: Consultancy; Global Blood Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: The most common complication of sickle cell disease (SCD) in adults is vaso-occlusive crisis that is characterized by severe pain. These events can often be managed at home with oral analgesics, but if the pain is not controlled or the patient develops other associated problems, they seek care in an emergency department (ED). In the ED, they receive initial treatment with pain medications and are assessed for other complications such as infection and acute chest syndrome. If an individual's pain is not controlled in a short period of time, the majority of these patients are admitted to the hospital for inpatient management or placed in an observation unit (OBs) for 6-47 hours. The COVID-19 pandemic affected the Greater Newark community starting in mid March with the majority of all inpatient admissions (Ads) being COVID related through the end of May. It has been observed both at our medical center and nationally that during this time period and even afterwards, the number of ED visits and Ads had significantly fallen. The reasons for this finding may include fear of contracting COVID infection at the hospital, regular telemedicine (TM) calls to facilitate outpatient management, and an increase in the number of prescriptions of home pain medications. The purpose of this analysis was to examine patterns of ED visits, Ads, outpatient visits, prescription renewals and nurse (RN) and social worker (MSW) calls in order to determine the impact of COVID-19 infection on the local SCD community. Methodology: A retrospective review was undertaken of billing data and the EMR of all patients with SCD treated at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center (a 450 bed community-based academic tertiary care medical center) between January 2020 and June 2020. Data collected included the number of and reason for ED and OBs, Ads, the number of TM and outpatient visits, and MSW and RN telephone contacts. All patients 18 years of age and older were included. Overall, 100 adults with SCD received care between January and June. Results: Peak hospital COVID Ads, ED and OBs for all patients (SCD and non-SCD) occurred during the weeks between March 25 and May 24, 2020 with a daily inpatient census over 200 between April 7 and 24. SCD Ads at peak COVID (April-May) were significantly lower at 26±2/month compared to 64±11/month pre-COVID (January-February) (p= 0.04). ED and OBs were unchanged. During the peak of COVID, 10/93 (11%) SCD Ads (1 death) were COVID related with 80/96 (86%) for uncomplicated pain crises. MSW and RN called all patients proactively to offer support at onset of COVID pandemic. During this same time period, the number of MSW telephone contacts increased from 138±37/month pre-COVID to 372±21/month during COVID (p=0.02). RN contacts with SCD patients were stable and mostly were for pain prescription renewals. TM was initiated in March 2020 and an increase in these visits correlated with a fall in face to face physician visits: 83.5±11/month pre-COVID to 39.5±8/month peak COVID (p= 0.04), and TM 0/month pre-COVID and 31±4/month peak COVID (0.01). Conclusion: The outbreak of COVID-19 in the community reduced the number of Ads for patients with SCD without an increase in ED and OBs visits. MD face-to-face encounters were reduced but outpatient care continued with the initiation of TM, regular RN contact with maintenance of pain medication prescriptions and a greater numbers of MSW calls for psychosocial support. Further investigation and understanding of the use of Ads for SCD care, and the reduction during COVID, may have implications for current SCD management. Disclosures Cohen: GBT: Speakers Bureau.

Introduction Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19) has shown higher mortality in patients with comorbidities, including cancer. First reports from China, Italy, and US showed mortality comprised between 20% and 40% in this specific population. However, the number of patients in these studies was limited and the percentage of hematological patients was underrepresented. In our study, we present a prospective evaluation of patients affected by solid and liquid tumors who were affected by COVID19 from the same geographical area and time period. Survival outcomes, prognostic risk factors, and effects of oncological treatments received were analyzed. Methods WAll consecutive oncological patients with age > 18 years old affected by COVID19 (confirmed by pharyngeal PCR test) who were hospitalized in 5 tertiary oncological referral centers in the Catalonia region were included in the study. The recruitment period started from 13/03/2020 to 24/04/2020. Two-hundred thirty-one patients were recruited. Thirty-three percent had hematological malignancies and 67% had solid tumors. The median age was 65 years (range 58-75 years). Female patients were 41%. Twenty-six percent of patients were not considered candidates to intensive care treatments (tracheal intubation) due to their advanced oncological status. Of the hematological cohort, lymphoid malignancies represented 36% of the population, multiple myeloma 20%; acute leukemias 15%; chronic lymphoproliferative diseases 12% and other malignancies 17%. At the time of infection, 11% of patients were receiving steroids (more than 0.5mg/kg/24 hours >15 days), 4% were on active immunosuppressive therapy (calcineurin inhibitors, sirolimus or mycophenolate mofetil) and 5% had grade >3 neutropenia. Most importantly, 61% were on active oncological treatment, 18% were on follow-up, 10% had been diagnosed without having received any treatment. Results At COVID19 diagnosis, 75% of patients had a fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) < 24% and 63% had fever. Only 16% had cough,16 % had mucous secretion and 12% had dyspnea. All the other symptoms (myalgia, diarrhea, anosmia, ageusia, fatigue, headache) had an incidence < 10%. Chest X-ray was abnormal in 60% of cases. Regarding in-hospital treatments, 85% received antibiotics, 76% hydroxychloroquine, 12% tocilizumab, 30% corticoids, 70% prophylactic anticoagulation and 55% oxygen support. The median duration of hospitalization was 9.00 days (range 5-16 days). WThe overall mortality rate was 26% with a non-significant difference between hematological (32%) and oncological (23%) patients (p-value = 0.23, figure 1). A significant difference was observed between patients who were candidates to intensive care treatments (21.5%) and not candidates (42.6%)(p-value = 0.0038, figure 1). The following risk factors were associated with decreased survival on multivariate analysis: having the oncological disease in progression (HR 3.33, 95%Confidence Interval (CI)= 1.73-6-41, p0.5mg/kg/24 hours) in the last 15 days (HR 3.76; 95%CI=1.69-8.40, p Severe respiratory insufficiency (defined as use of >50% FiO2 as oxygen support) was present or developed in 46% of patients. On multivariate analysis, the following factors were associated with a higher risk of developing severe respiratory insufficiency: use of steroids (>0.5mg/kg/24 hours) in the last 15 days (HR 2.36; 95%CI=1.12-4.97, p=0.023); age (HR 1.05, 95%CI= 1.01-1-08, p=0.009) and dyspnea at diagnosis (HR 3.95; 95%CI=1.77-8.78, p=0.001). Conclusion WCOVID19 is associated to increased mortality in patients affected by solid and liquid tumors. Being a candidate for intensive care treatments could improve survival while having progressive disease, older age and grade >3 neutropenia were considered negative factors. Interestingly, the use of steroids was associated to reduced survival if received within 15 days before COVID19 diagnosis, while it has protective effect when used as part of COVID19 therapy. Disclosures Mussetti: Novartis, Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sureda Balari:Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Tocilizumab for COVID19

Background Even before the US upswing of the current COVID pandemic, the number of sickle cell disease (SCD) patients coming to hospitals and EDs appeared to fall drastically. This happened despite SCD patients having often been heavy utilizers of the ED and hospital for their iconic vaso-occlusive crises (VOC). Though ambulatory SCD clinics quick converted largely to telehealth in order to comply with stay-at-home orders designed to suppress person-to-person transmission, some SCD patients appeared to avoid care, delay care, or refuse doctors' invitations for care. Presumably patients did so out of COVID fears, but this has not been confirmed in the literature. Further, whether these patients had COVID symptoms but stayed at home has not been studied. As part of quality improvement (QI) to conduct COVID surveillance in an adult sickle cell program, we sought to explain and predict SCD health care utilization patterns we were observing, as well as to determine urgent physical and mental health needs of patients who appeared to be avoiding care. Methods Fifteen staff in the Adult Sickle Cell Medical Home at Virginia Commonwealth University, a large urban academic medical center, conducted a telephone survey ("wellness check"was used when we talked to patients) of all known adults with SCD over 19 days in 2020. A staff member confirmed the patient had SCD, asked permission to proceed, then asked about symptoms consistent with COVID-19. At the end of the telephone survey, respondents wer invited to complete an email survey of sickle cell and COVID-19 utilization attitudes (19-33 items, depending on the response pattern, either drawn from the National Health Interview Survey, from the Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life Measurement quality of care survey, or drafted by the authors), the Sickle Cell Stress Survey-Adult (SCSS-A, a 10-item previously validated survey), and anxiety and depression (PHQ9 of the PRIME-MD). Results Of 622 adults approached by phone call, 353 responded to the following yes/no screening questions regarding the prior 14 days: fever over 100 F 0/353 (0.00%); cough 3/353(0.01%); difficulty breathing 0/353(0.00%); unexplained shortness of breath 2/353(0.01%); sore throat 2/353 (0.01%); unexplained muscle soreness 2/353(0.01%);contact with anyone who tested positive for COVID-19 2/353(0.01%); testing for COVID 19 6/353(0.02%). For QI purposes, we set a threshold of three or more COVID-associated symptoms or the presence of fever as criteria requiring intense telephone or in-person staff monitoring for the following week. Only three patients met criteria. A total of 219/353 had email surveys sent. Of 63 patients (28.8%) who returned email surveys by June 10, 2020, 35.9% had already managed a "pain attack" at home 4 or more times in the prior 12 months, and 45.5% of these said their bad ER experiences were very or somewhat important in that decision. In the prior 14 days, although 30/64 reported a crisis for at least one day, only 4/64 had visited the Emergency Department for pain. On a 0-10 scale, 21/61 patients endorsed "0" for worry that they would be COVID-infected by going for medical care (weighted mean 3.9), but 18/59 endorsed "10" for worry they were more at risk of COVID because of SCD (weighted mean 6.31), and 22/60 endorsed "10" for worry they would fare worse than others if COVID infected (weighted mean 6.97). Many patients forwent "needed" care (16/62) or delayed "needed" care by at least a day (36/61). Eleven patients met criteria for moderately severe to severe depression on the PHQ-9, and 28/63 somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement "death is always on the back of my mind" on the SCSS-A. Conclusions In adolescents and adults with SCD, many were already reticent to come to the ED for pain, but a significant portion reported delays or avoidance of needed care during the early stages of the US COVID pandemic, and few reported using the ED despite over half reporting at least one crisis day in 14. Patients nonetheless reported very few COVID-associated symptoms. Fears of COVID infection/susceptibility may limit visits for needed sickle cell care among adults. Acknowledgements: Mica Ferlis RN, FNP, Caitlin McManus, RN, FNP, Emily Sushko, RN, FNP, Justin West, RN, Kate Osborne, RN, Stefani Vaughan-Sams, Marla Brannon, BS, Nakeiya Williams, BS Disclosures Smith: GlycoMimetics, Inc.: Consultancy; Emmaeus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis, Inc.: Consultancy, Other: Investigator, Research Funding; Global Blood Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire, Inc.: Other: Investigator, Research Funding; NHLBI: Research Funding; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: Other: Investigator, Research Funding; Health Resources and Services Administration: Other: Investigator, Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Investigator; Pfizer: Consultancy; Ironwood: Consultancy; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; Imara: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding.

Introduction :The emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and subsequent coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted hematologic malignancies (HM) care worldwide. Reported risk factors for severe COVID-19 presentation include older age, medical comorbidities, and cardiac disease - many of which apply to patients with HM (Guan et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020). Additionally, patients with HM may be at even higher risk of infections with or complications from SARS-CoV-2 due to immune dysfunction from their underlying disease or treatment (He et al., 2020). However, data regarding rates of infection and outcomes in this population are limited. Here we describe the demographic characteristics, coexisting conditions, presenting symptoms, treatment, and outcomes of a cohort of patients with HM and COVID-19 infection at network sites across the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center- Jefferson Health. Methods : We created an HM-specific COVID-19 database within our health system. Patients were identified for inclusion in the database by physician referral and query of the electronic medical record. Epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory data, therapy details, and outcomes on patients were obtained by accessing electronic medical records. A retrospective study of patients with a diagnosis of a HM- within 5 years of COVID-19 diagnosis-and a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 were was conducted using this database. A confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 was defined as a positive result on a real-time RT-PCR assay of a specimen collected by nasopharyngeal swab. Results: More than 3,000 telehealth or in-person patient visits were conducted for patients with HM in the Jefferson Health Network between March 9, 2020 and July 15, 2020. During that period, 21 patients with HM had a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. Median age was 67 years (range 21-89). The majority of patients (86%) had at least 1 comorbid medical condition, and 76% had a history of tobacco use. The most common HM was multiple myeloma (7/21, 33%), followed by diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (3/21, 14%). 12/21 (52%) patients were on active cancer treatment at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, and patients had received a median of 2 lines of cancer therapy (range 0-6). All 12 patients who were on active therapy at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis experienced a treatment interruption. Two patients had undergone prior autologous stem cell transplant (SCT) and 1 had undergone prior allogeneic SCT. Details on HM diagnosis and treatment are presented in Table 1. Twenty patients required hospital admission at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, 7/21 were admitted to the ICU, and 6/21 required intubation. The most common presenting symptoms were fever (48%), cough (43%), and shortness of breath (43%), and lymphopenia (absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) Conclusion : In contrast to published reports, we found that the number of confirmed COVID-19 in patients with HM at our center was surprisingly low, with only 21 cases in 4 months. Furthermore, the mortality rate of 14% was lower than expected when compared to published cohorts of similar patients, which have shown mortality rates as high as 40% (He et al., 2020; Malard et al., 2020; Martín-Moro et al., 2020). Postulated reasons for the low number of infections include the early adoption of universal masking and robust utilization of telehealth to promote social distancing. In our small cohort, multiple myeloma was the most frequent HM diagnosis associated with COVID-19 infection, but this may be related to the prevalence of MM in our geographic area. The vast majority of HM patients with symptomatic COVID-19 were former smokers. Disclosures Binder: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy. Alpdogan:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Kiowa Kirin: Consultancy. Kasner:Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Martinez-Outschoorn:Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Research Funding. Palmisiano:Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Flomenberg:Tevogen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Porcu:Cell Medica: Research Funding; Daiichi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Galderma: Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kiowa Kirin: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Viracta Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding.

Background: Patients with hematologic conditions have a high mortality rate when infected with SARS-CoV-2 (Williamson, Nature 2020). Protection of this group from severe COVID-19 is therefore important. However, according to available vaccination guidelines, one should consider to postpone vaccination of patients on or early after chemotherapy, hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation (HCT) or with graft versus host disease, because of anticipated poor efficacy. Based on previous (non-COVID-19) vaccination studies among hematology patients, we hypothesized that a significant group of patients may acquire sufficient protection following COVID-19 vaccination, despite disease and therapy related immunodeficiencies. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study with 17 cohorts of hematology patients of particular risk for severe COVID-19 who are considered to have no or limited benefit from vaccination. We evaluated humoral immune responses following 2 doses (28 days apart) of the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna/Spikevax) in 722 patients, at baseline and 28 days after each vaccination as SARS-COV-2 S1- (spike)-specific serum IgG antibody concentrations by bead-based multiplex immune assay. The threshold for adequate antibody response is set at ≥300 binding antibody units (BAU)/ml according to the international WHO standard, and is associated with virus plaque reducing neutralization test titers of ≥40 PRNT 50. This study is registered as EudraCT 2021-001072-41, NL76768.029.21. Results: Patient cohorts and corresponding vaccine responses are depicted in Table 1. Vaccine efficacy, as measured by antibody concentration, 4 weeks after the 2 nd mRNA-1273 vaccination was available for 691 out of 722 participants. The majority of patients (389/691; 56%) obtained an S1 antibody titer that is considered adequate (≥300 BAU/ml). Twenty-nine percent of patients (198/691) did not seroconvert (S1 antibody titer Conclusion: Vaccination with mRNA-1273 had significant efficacy in severely immunocompromised hematology patients. Adequate humoral immune responses after two dose vaccination were reached in the majority of patients receiving therapy for sickle cell disease, MPD, MM, CML and AML, in patients early after HCT and in patients with GvHD. We are currently evaluating clinical and immunologic parameters that correlate with sufficient antibody responses, pseudovirus neutralization and SARS-COV-2-specific B and T cell numbers, phenotype and function. Per study design, all participants with absent or insufficient antibody responses ( Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Mutsaers: AstraZeneca: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Van Meerten: Janssen: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria. Kater: BMS, Roche/Genentech: Other: Ad Board, , Research Funding; Janssen, AstraZeneca: Other: Ad Board, steering committee, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Other: Ad Board, Research Funding; Genmab, LAVA: Other: Ad Board, Steering Committee. Zweegman: Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Nijhof: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

INTRODUCTION Vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC), hallmark of sickle-cell disease (SCD), is the first cause of patients' emergency room (ER) admissions and hospitalizations. Acute chest syndrome (ACS) is a life-threatening complication that can occur during VOC and prolong hospitalization and is one of the main causes of death in SCD patients. The PRESEV score, established by team members and colleagues, assesses the risk of developing ACS (Bartolucci et al., 2016). In addition, the score has been validated by an international multicenter study, involving 13 centers, distributed in five different countries (PRESEV 2 - ASH 2020). Throughout the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic, VOC management for SCD patients was a major concern. Our sickle cell referral center set up a hotline to monitor patients suffering from VOC daily, and organized the deployment of home-care services when required. The success of this system during the first wave of the pandemic led to the establishment of DREPADOM, a home-care and hospitalization protocol for VOC management in patients who are at a low risk of developing ACS, as standard care. DESCRIPTION OF SETTING Patients eligible for DREPADOM are patients that arrive at the ER for a VOC with a low PRESEV score, meaning low risk of developing ACS; or patients that are discharged early following hospitalization for VOC. After physical examination and calculation of the PRESEV score, DREPADOM home hospitalization is systematically offered to patients arriving to the ER with a PRESEV score ≤ 5. If the patient agrees, the DREPADOM nurse coordinator then acts as a link between the pharmacist, the oxygen supplier, the homecare provider, and the DREPADOM medical platform to activate the home hospitalization protocol. This entails the delivery of oxygen supply at the patient's house, dispatch of a medical prescription of opioids and parenteral treatments, twice/thrice-daily visits from homecare nurses, and an on-call SCD expert. DREPADOM relies on a system of daily telephone calls with three levels of expertise and warning and a decision-making algorithm. This is supervised by SCD experts, who arbitrate according to the evolution of the situation (stopping the follow-up, continuing the follow-up as an outpatient, hospitalization) (Fig.1). Furthermore, nurses enter patient vitals in real-time during their daily visits on a dedicated online platform (Link4Life) that contains an integrated automatic alert system. Additionally, a daily phone update between the DREPADOM coordination and the homecare provider's coordination concerning status and evolution of the patient's global condition takes place. RESULTS Over a 6-month period, 39 patients were included in the DREPADOM home hospitalization protocol, 3 of which were included multiple times for a total of 42 inclusions. Mean age was 40 years old [±9], sex ratio was 14/25 (male/female), ER vs early discharge ratio was 21/22, and mean homecare follow-up was 3 days (±1) for both, patients arriving from the ER and early discharge patients. Throughout the third wave of the pandemic, when hospital saturation was a major concern, patients with PRESEV scores 5 ≤ 11 were also offered DREPADOM. Three patients were hospitalized (7%): one for an ACS, who was included during the 3 rd wave of the pandemic with a PRESEV score of 8; one for pyelonephritis unrelated to the VOC; and one for difficulties with venous access. No death was reported. PERSPECTIVES Preliminary satisfaction surveys show a great enthusiasm for DREPADOM, partly due to the high standard of care received, but also due to the shorter length of hospitalization. In fact, median hospital stay for VOC is 4 [3-7] days (Bartolucci, 2016) whereas median homecare follow-up was 3 [1-6] days. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Bartolucci: Hemanext: Consultancy; Jazz Pharma: Other: Lecture fees; AGIOS: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Emmaus: Consultancy; GBT: Consultancy; INNOVHEM: Other: Co-founder; Bluebird: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Lecture fees, Steering committee, Research Funding; Addmedica: Consultancy, Other: Lecture fees, Research Funding; Fabre Foundation: Research Funding.

Background: Hydroxyurea (HU) is the primary medication used to prevent the significant medical and neurologic morbidities of pediatric sickle cell disease (SCD; HbSS or HbSB0 thalassemia). Despite the benefits of HU, it remains under-utilized likely due to lack of clinician knowledge/training and negative caregiver perceptions. Thus, we developed the Engage-HU randomized controlled trial (NCT03442114) as a novel approach to address HU utilization barriers. Engage-HU is designed to assess how clinicians can engage caregivers in a shared discussion that considers their values, preferences, and scientific evidence about HU. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant changes to healthcare delivery for children with SCD, as they are at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 infection. Given their risk status, it was recommended that patients with SCD complete telehealth visits when possible. Some families also chose to delay care because they feared their child would get infected at hospitals/healthcare clinics that care for COVID-19 positive patients. Since the lives of all families enrolled in the Engage-HU trial have been affected to some extent, we incorporated measures to capture the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the usability of telemedicine implementation and services. Methods: Engage-HU is a randomized control trial comparing two dissemination methods for clinicians to facilitate shared decision-making with caregivers of young children with SCD. Study outcomes include caregiver confidence in decision-making and perceptions of experiencing shared decision-making as well as HU uptake and child health outcomes. Eligible children are 0 to 5 years, candidates for HU, and their caregiver has not decided about HU in the past 3 months. The trial is being conducted at 9 sites in the United States and uses a unidirectional crossover design. The primary endpoints are caregiver decisional uncertainty and caregiver perception of shared decision-making measured using validated tools. Data will be analyzed using the intent-to-treat principle, and all participants will remain in the arm to which they were randomized. A multiple group comparison analysis will be performed to assess significant response variable differences by group randomization. The Engage-HU study aims to recruit 174 caregivers who are considering initiating HU. The trial is being conducted at 9 sites in the United States. Data collection is ongoing, and 160 caregiver-participants have been enrolled to date. Since May 2020, caregiver-participants have completed the COVID-19 Exposure and Family Impact Scales (CEFIS), which contain 2 subscales (exposure to potentially traumatic aspects of the pandemic, impact on families), and the COVID-19 telemedicine use survey during a study visit. Results: Currently, 8 of the 9 sites have collected data from 48 caregivers (93.8% mothers), most of whom (93.8%) identify as African American/Black (see Figure 1). Correlations indicated that older caregivers experienced greater exposure (Mean = 7.0, SD = 4.1, range = 1-19) to potentially traumatic aspects of the pandemic (r = .31, p = .04). Distress related to COVID-19 varied widely across the sample, for both caregivers (Mean = 5.9, SD = 2.9, range = 1-10) and children (Mean = 4.1, SD = 3.4, range = 1-10). Scores on the telemedicine usability survey were generally high, indicating that caregivers are happy with the quality of care delivered via telehealth. However, caregivers (r = .30, p = .09) and children (r = .32, p = .07) experiencing more pandemic-related distress reported less satisfaction with telehealth. Conclusion: Although Engage-HU has resumed research operations, recruitment has not reached pre-pandemic targets, as fewer eligible patients are scheduled for routine care visits at SCD clinics. Our preliminary analyses suggest a significant continued impact of the pandemic on families and general satisfaction with the quality of healthcare delivered via telemedicine. These findings indicate that targeted screenings to identify and intervene for those who demonstrate more COVID-19 pandemic-related distress are needed. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Quinn: Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy; Aruvant: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; Emmaus Medical: Research Funding. Yates: Agios Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment. Badawy: Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio Inc: Consultancy. Thompson: bluebird bio, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Baxalta: Research Funding; Biomarin: Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding; Vertex: Research Funding; Editas: Research Funding; Graphite Bio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy; Beam: Consultancy; Global Blood Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Smith-Whitley: Global Blood Therapeutics: Current Employment. King: National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: Research Funding; Health Resources and Services Administration: Research Funding; Global Blood Therapeutics: Research Funding. Meier: CVS Caremark: Consultancy; Forma Therapeutic: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NovoNordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis,: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board membership; NHLBI: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board membership; Global Blood Therapeutics: Other: Steering Committee membership, grant funding; CDC,: Other: grant funding; Indiana Department of Health: Other: grant funding . Tubman: Global Blood Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Forma Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Perkin Elmer: Honoraria. Crosby: Forma Therapeutics: Honoraria; PCORI: Research Funding; HRSA: Research Funding; Global Blood Therapeutics Panel: Honoraria; Children's Hospital of Philadelphia: Honoraria; Professional Resource Exchange: Patents & Royalties: $30-$60 every other year; SCDAA: Honoraria; NHLBI: Other: Payment for review of LRP Proposals, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Hydroxyurea has been FDA approved for the treatment of sickle cell disease for patients ages 2 years and above but NHLBI and ASH Guidelines recommend it be offered to children as young as age 9 months.

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 evoked immunodysregulation drives inflammation, morbidity, and mortality across COVID-19 presentation spectrum. We sought to identify baseline cell counts and proportions reported with a complete blood count (CBC) that contribute independent information to a model predicting mortality in hospitalized patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Such a model may complement or improve presentation risk stratification informed by putative inflammatory markers. Methods: Our retrospective design, analyses and interpretations followed constructs detailed in the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guideline. Under IRB exemption, discharge medical electronic health records underwent extraction of administrative and clinical data. Demographics, anthropometrics, vital signs, laboratory test and ICD-10-CM-based Elixhauser comorbidity categories were included. Univariate logistic regression was used to identify CBC parameters and attendant ratios associated (p Results: Among patients consecutively discharged between March 14, 2020 through May 31, 2021, 208 (10 %) of 2153 died. Survivor vs. non-survivor patient and clinical characteristics are summarized in Table 1. CBC parameters identified as independently associated with hospital mortality included WBC, lymphocytes, bands, segmented neutrophils, monocytes, and RDW-CV. (Table 2) Ratios of CBC parameters associated with mortality included AMC/ALC and APC/ALC (Table 2). Results of BF EF% modeling including CBC parameters respectively without (Rsquare = 0.65) and with (Rsquare = 0.70) inclusion of putative inflammatory markers are illustrated in Figure 1a and 1b. Inflammatory markers alone exhibited lowest Rsquare (0.52) (Figure 1c). Figure 2 illustrates temporal kinetics of modeled CBC parameters across hospitalization. Intergroup differences at baseline were sustained, save for RDW-CV after 5-days. Conclusions: Machine learning approaches identified several CBC parameters measured at presentation that when modeled with putative COVID-19 inflammatory markers, enhanced early prediction of hospital mortality. CBC parameters are usually more often measured compared to other inflammatory markers that show COVID-19 severity and serve as an easily obtainable source of information to determine which patients may require a higher level of care before clinical symptoms follow. This includes progression to critical illness and hospital mortality. We recommend that CBC parameters, especially bands, APC/ALC ratio and AMC/ALC ratio be considered for baseline risk stratification of COVID-19 severity, as these trends are sustained at least 5-days after hospitalization. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: Starting in March 2020, the coronavirus 19 disease (COVID-19) pandemic affected the United States (US) health care system. Many individuals were afraid to seek medical care due to fear of obtaining COVID-19; therefore, there was a high frequency of adults forgoing medical care. Chronic conditions including diabetes, COPD, mental health, and HTN outcomes worsened due to decrease in routine care during the pandemic. Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a chronic blood disorder that causes numerous complications including but not limited to vaso-occlusive crisis, strokes, and chronic kidney disease. Individuals who have routine follow up with a hematologist have been shown to have decreased hospitalizations, ER visits, length of stay, and opiate usage. The Inland Empire region of Southern California is one of the densest hot spots for patient's living with sickle cell disease in terms of disease burden and health care utilization. Therefore, we evaluated how the COVID-19 pandemic affected health care utilizations with individuals with SCD in this area. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the health care utilization in the inpatient setting was performed at three time points in line with the C.D.C. COVID pandemic declaration (Pre COVID: September 2019 to February 2020, Intra COVID 1: March 2020 to Sept 2020, Intra COVID 2: October 2020 to February 2021). Primary endpoints included emergency room visits, inpatient admissions, and length of stay, blood product utilization, and opioid utilization. Secondary endpoints and analyses included pediatric vs. adult health care utilization disparity and outcomes. Descriptive analysis was done by calculating frequency and percentages for categorical variables and mean and standard deviation for continuous variables. Results: Shown in Result TABLE attached .Patients seeking inpatient care for scheduled procedure's/ transfusion were excluded from this analysis. Patients with SCD diagnoses of acute SCD crises (pan crisis /chest syndrome / COVID infection / Pneumonia) were included in assessment. Absolute number of patients per ED visit, patient per Inpatient admission frequency has been shown in more detail in the bar chart in Figure and will be presented in the oral presentation along with detailed data analysis box plots and charts. Discussion: Fewer patients' sought timely care for acute SCD event leading to fewer but prolonged hospitalizations, a trend seen in our adult and pediatric patient's across the board during intra COVID 1 and 2 time points, likely due to the fear of contracting COVID infection at an acute health care setting in a declared pandemic . Similarly, we found there were less unique sickle cell patients using the ER for both pediatric and adult patients during the pandemic. There was a decrease in the amount of hospital admission related to sickle cell disease, which was similar to results published in the United Kingdom. More sickle cell vaso-occlusive crisis were being managed at home, likely due to avoidance of COVID exposures at health care facilities, likely thus leading to certain individuals having more severe crisis as shown by increased LOS in our adult population. Additionally, only a few individuals with likely more severe crisis needed more RBC transfusions. The general trend for different patients requiring RBCs and IV opiates decreased during the pandemic. Due to more people foregoing medical care especially in the minority populations who had restrictions to access to healthcare, there was an overall decrease in inpatient healthcare utilization in sickle cell population during the pandemic. Additionally care disparities in outcome of pediatric and adult SCD patients were highlighted by our study. Pediatric patients commonly cared at a center of excellence by the dedicated team of sickle cell stakeholders, seemed to do well overall as compared to adult SCD patients who notoriously have has inequitable access to comprehensive Sickle Cell care globally. Infrastructure around better outpatient support, care optimization with sickle cell disease modifying agents and timely access to inpatient care even in a pandemic, that is ongoing could be strategies to reduce stress on the health care systems and better utilization of scarce resources in current times of surge from an International health care crisis such as the SAR CoV2 pandemic. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Jain: GBT: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Consultancy; Blue Bird Bio: Consultancy.

Introduction: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Oregon Health and Science University Blood & Host Defense medical school pre-clinical block was reformatted to a completely online curriculum. In previous years, the curriculum consisted of traditional 1-hour lectures from Monday to Wednesday, with small group review sessions on Thursday prior to weekly assessments on Friday. Changes for the virtual curriculum included shortened, pre-recorded lectures divided into modules by topic, with follow-up questions to test comprehension in real-time. These were followed by live, 1-hour Q&A sessions each day. Weekly, 2-3-hour case-based review sessions were also held virtually in real-time. We aimed to study student performance in this new curriculum, and to learn about the satisfaction of both students and instructors with these changes. Methods: To measure performance, class testing averages across graded components were compared to previous years. To measure satisfaction, first-year medical students and course instructors were polled via anonymous, voluntary Qualtrics® surveys after course completion. Answers were given on a 5-point Likert scale. Students were also asked to answer four free-response questions. Results: Class testing averages were similar to previous years across all graded components of the curriculum. Following remediation, the pass rate for the course was 100%. Fifty eight out of 150 students completed the satisfaction survey, a response rate of 39%. Most students found pre-recorded lectures and weekly live review sessions "useful" or "very useful," but responses were more varied for daily Q&A sessions. Most students either "somewhat preferred" or "greatly preferred" the module-based format over hour-long lectures and indicated they would like a similar format in future virtual blocks. Themes from qualitative questions included a preference for virtual curriculum for its increased flexibility. A small subset of students described a preference for in-person lecture due to increased engagement. Thirteen out of 31 instructors completed the survey, for a response rate of 42%. Six of the respondents indicated that they would prefer the traditional version of the curriculum for the following year, while 5 selected the new virtual-only format. Twelve instructors completed Likert-scale questions comparing the two curriculums. There was no statistically significant difference in satisfaction with lecture format, time and effort to prepare lectures, amount of interaction with students, and overall teaching experience. However, there was a significant increase in dissatisfaction with the quality of student interaction and student engagement with the new virtual curriculum. Conclusions: Students successfully learned in the new, virtual curriculum as demonstrated by summative assessments. Trends that emerged from student feedback included a preference for module-based format over hour-long lectures, and pre-recorded lectures over live sessions. Most respondents enjoyed the weekly live review sessions, but were mixed regarding daily live Q&A sessions. We suspect this mixed feedback for the daily reviews was due to constraints on the schedule and the necessity of viewing all modules each morning prior to the session. From the perspective of instructors, there was perhaps unsurprisingly decreased satisfaction with student engagement in the virtual setting. However, overall, there was no meaningful difference in preference regarding lecture format. When combining this with the diverse needs and preferences of medical students, future versions of the course should consider incorporating more virtual elements. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction Individuals with Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) require regular, and specialized treatment to manage their health. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted in person medical visits for all individuals, with a rapid transition to telemedicine to provide medical care. Emerging data shows that the use of telemedicine may provide easier access to care and remove barriers to clinic attendance and improve access to appropriate medical care. Objective The purpose of this study was to use qualitative methods to understand the patients' experiences with telemedicine, identify patient preferences for type of appointment, and possible suggestions to improve telemedicine care. Methods Patients from the Johns Hopkins Sickle Cell Center for Adults who had at least one telemedicine visit were invited to participate in a semi structured interview via zoom meeting or telephone. The interview asked participants about their satisfaction with telemedicine care, barriers to telemedicine, benefits and risks of telemedicine and possible telemedicine improvements. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded by two independent raters using thematic analyses to understand the experiences of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results Overall, 30 adults with SCD who had at least one telemedicine visit were invited to participate and completed their interview (mean age 41 years ± xx, 67% female, 93% Black/African American, 3% Multi-Race, 3% Other). "...I can't ignore the convenience of not having to worry about transportation ... that there's nothing to stop me from getting there." During a SCD pain crisis it can it challenging to move and receive treatment as one participant reported "Maybe sometimes I might have pain...then moving around makes it difficult. So, getting in the car and finding somebody to drive you to a hospital or to whatever clinic would be difficult". Being able to access specialized SCD care even while in pain is important. Having the option of either having telemedicine or in person visits was important to SCD patients "I could treat my crisis here at home. I don't have to go to the emergency room for it. So, if I can see my doctor in the tele-visit appointment and it's going to be constantly every day ... And when it's getting worse, then I could go to the emergency room more if needed. If it's not needed, I don't even need to go". Another emerging theme amongst participants was despite the benefits from telemedicine, they also wanted to continue having in-person visits when they needed. SCD participants felt due to their SCD they still needed to see their doctor in person but it did not have to be for every visit "Well, I think telemedicine, for me, can be used in a setting where there's no such an emergency. Like if I'm having a routine exam, I don't mind having the telemedicine. But if ... I'm not feeling well ... I don't want to be having a telemedicine". SCD participants felt they needed a physical exam periodically. "The only thing I didn't like about it was if I'm having some discomfort or some pain... there was no way for the physician to physically examine me". Along with the lack of physical exam, there were concerns about the lack of vital signs "... the drawbacks would be the lack of the vitals being taken or there's not the personal touch and stuff". Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic has presented many obstacles for patients to receive care. People living with SCD found telemedicine to be a positive tool to receive treatment. Patients reported the desire to continue with telemedicine even after the COVID -19 pandemic. Telemedicine allows for more accessibility for a group of individuals who already have numerous barriers to treatment. Future research can seek to identify the impact that telemedicine has on no-show rates, health care utilization, and the impact telemedicine has on patient reported quality of life. Disclosures Lanzkron: Teva: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Shire: Research Funding; GBT: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Pfizer: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Imara: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

COVID-19 and its prevention has put considerable strain on health care systems in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). In Uganda, a national lockdown was declared on March 18, 2020, in response to COVID-19 pandemic and concern of spread of cases without aggressive measures to prevent spread. The lockdown consisted of closure of all offices except essential ones, orders to stay at home unless an emergency occurred, school closure, a ban on all meetings of more than 10 people, a ban on public and private transport, closing down of all shops, malls, restaurants, places of worship and other facilities in which group meetings might occur, keeping a distance of at least 2 metres from other people in public places and a 7:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. curfew. Hospitals however remained open and operational. We describe the impact of the lockdown in Uganda in response to the COVID-19 pandemic on the morbidity and mortality in children with sickle cell anaemia (SCA) at a tertiary hospital in Uganda. The number of clinic visits for SCA related complications and death were compared in the pre-lockdown (November 2019 to February 2020) and during COVID-19 lockdown periods (March 2020 to June 2020) in children aged 1- 4.99 years enrolled in a SCA research study [Zinc for Infection Prevention in Sickle cell anaemia (NCT03528434)] at Jinja Hospital, Uganda. In the study, children with SCA are asked to return to the hospital for evaluation whenever they are unwell. Follow up phone calls are made to ascertain the wellbeing of the children and identify any who are unable to come to the hospital. During the lockdown, follow up calls continued and facilitation was provided for caregivers to bring any child who was unwell to the hospital for evaluation. A total of 238 children with a mean (standard deviation) age of 2.7(1.1) years were enrolled and were being followed up when the pandemic started. The incidence of hospital sick visits pre-lockdown and during the lockdown period was 7.7 vs 4.0 person-year, (p= Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Standard of care for individuals with inherited bleeding disorders includes an annual in person multi-disciplinary comprehensive visit at the Hemophilia Treatment Center (HTC). During the COVID-19 pandemic in person visits were restricted, with mandates to only schedule in person urgent visits and to "stay at home." In order to provide annual visits to as many patients as possible, we developed a quality improvement (QI) project to conduct annual visits via telemedicine (TM), including nursing (RN), physician (MD), social work (SW), and physical therapy (PT) assessments. Our aim was to increase annual comprehensive clinic visits conducted by TM for eligible patients from 0 to 50% between April 1 and June 30, 2020, extended through July 31, 2020 due to the prolonged pandemic. Patients due for an annual visit were contacted by medical assistants (MA) to schedule either a TM (through EPIC MyChart) or an in person visit. MAs were trained on which patients were eligible for a TM visit and how to set-up MyChart remotely. Prior to the visit patients were provided verbal, written, and video instructions on how to attend the TM visit. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected at the time of scheduling and during the visit. Forty-eight patients were scheduled for an annual visit during the QI timeframe. TM visits were not offered to 28 patients for a variety of reasons (first comprehensive clinic visit, need to re-establish or transfer care, need for required laboratory testing, or joint disease requiring in person PT evaluation). Out of the 20 patients who were eligible for a TM visit, 14 (70%) accepted. The two main reasons for declining TM visits were personal preference for an in person visit and preference to not use/activate MyChart. Table 1 compares the characteristics of patients who completed their annual visit via TM versus in person. Of the 14 patients who accepted TM visits, 11 completed the visit and 3 were no-shows. All four adolescent patients who attended their TM completed their annual transition questionnaire online prior to the visit. Of the 11 patients who completed TM visits, 4 (36.3%) saw the same providers during both their TM visit and in person visit the year prior. Of those who saw fewer providers during the TM visits, the most commonly missed providers were the dietician and genetic counselor. TM visits were primarily conducted through two-way audio and video communication within MyChart, while 1 was through Zoom and the other by audio only. Eight of the 11 (72.7%) TM visits had technical issues, including difficulty connecting to MyChart and poor internet connection requiring the remainder of the visit to be completed by audio only. Despite the technical issues, the majority of patients (81.8%) stated that they would prefer in person visits over TM visits in the future. The most common reasons for preference of TM visits in the future were convenience and ability to avoid the clinic during the pandemic. The HTC team members also perceived that TM visits ran more efficiently than the in person visits despite the technical issues during the visits. For in person visits, families were pre-screened by phone and at the time of arrival for symptoms of COVID-19, exposures, and travel outside of US. Two patients only reported potential exposure/travel to the providers in the HTC clinic, which required isolation and use of additional personal protective equipment (PPE). Overall, we increased the number of annual comprehensive clinic visits conducted by TM from 0 to 70% for eligible patients between April 1 and July 31, 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although there were technical difficulties with the TM visits, the majority of patients found the TM visit to be convenient and expressed a preference for TM for future visits. TM visits reduced potential exposures and use of PPE. Future interventions to improve TM visits include promoting MyChart utilization, additional education for patients regarding logistics of connecting to a TM visit, and additional education for providers regarding the troubleshooting of technical issues. Future QI measures may include patient satisfaction, duration of TM compared to in person visits, and need for additional care coordination post TM visit. In addition, impact on patient outcomes (such as need for return visits or bleeds) should also be evaluated. Disclosures Thornburg: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Biomarin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; NovoNordisk: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Ironwood Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; National Hemophilia Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network: Research Funding.

Introduction: Current evidence suggests that the COVID-19 related mortality and morbidity is higher in cancer patients due to increased visits to healthcare facilities (e.g., doctor's visits, phlebotomy, imaging, social work, financial consultations, therapy administration, etc) and inherent or therapy-induced immunosuppression. Patients with hematologic malignancies harboring SARS-CoV-2 have the highest mortality compared with other cancer patients. Although COVID-19 is knowingly transmitted person to person via respiratory droplets, there is potential for infection from contact with surfaces (e.g. plastic, metal, cardboard, etc) polluted with fomites that have been shown to have viable virus up to 72 hours in laboratory settings (Van Doremalen et al. NEJM 2020). The risk of nosocomial infections is hypothesized to be due to environmental contact and contamination, but there are no real-world analyses that exist that demonstrate the impact of recently established infection control policies (e.g., strict use of personal protective equipment (PPE), social distancing, hand hygiene, disinfectant protocols, etc) in hematology/oncology patient settings. This study evaluated the frequency of SARS-CoV-2 on a multitude of environmental surfaces in outpatient and inpatient settings in a large tertiary COVID-19 referral cancer center in New Jersey. Methods: IRB approval was obtained to conduct the study in a COVID-19 referral center in 2 large, freestanding outpatient clinics (i.e., malignant hematology and medical oncology) and co-localized infusion suites as well as two physically separated inpatient units (i.e., a leukemia/lymphoma/CART unit and an active COVID-19 floor, the latter housing cancer patients actively infected with SARS-CoV-2 and persons under investigation (PUI) for infection). Surface testing for viral RNA in the outpatient infusions suites included spaces where several patients with recent SARS-CoV-2 infection were receiving cancer treatment in the outpatient setting. High-impact areas were selected based on frequency of use, patient and healthcare provider contact, and risk of contamination from COVID-19 positive subjects (COVID-19+) and PUIs due to virus transmissibility. Surfaces were sampled on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 6/17/20 through 6/29/20 prior to scheduled cleaning and disinfection services, but after patient or staff use, following WHO protocols for COVID-19 surface sampling. Specimens were analyzed with real-time reverse transcriptase PCR analysis. Results: Overall, 204 total environmental samples were collected over the study period. Testing sites were categorized as 1) Public areas (waiting rooms, infusion areas, bathrooms, floors, elevator banks, doors, and exam rooms included designated isolation rooms for known COVID-19+/PUIs); 2) Staff areas (computer equipment, pneumatic tubing stations, pharmacy bench, and medication rooms); and 3) Medical equipment (IV poles, chemotherapy bags, vitals monitor, telemetry stations, and linen carts). Among the 130 surfaces examined from the two outpatient hematology-oncology clinics and 36 tests from the inpatient leukemia/lymphoma/CART cell unit, all 166 surfaces were negative for SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (see Table). Among the inpatient COVID-19+ and PUI units, one of 38 samples were positive (2.6%). The one positive sample was taken from the floor of an elderly patient with multiple medical comorbidities being treated with remdesevir, dexamethasone, and apixaban for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Altogether, the positive test rate for SARS-CoV-2 RNA across all surfaces in the combined outpatient and inpatient hematology/oncology units was 0.5% (1/204). Discussion : This systematic investigation of 'real world' environmental surfaces performed in outpatient and inpatient hematology-oncology units revealed overall negligible detection of active SARS-CoV-2 RNA. It highlights the efficacy of current, detailed infection control policies (e.g., screening, nursing-directed triage for PUIs/COVID-19+ patients, visitor restriction, telehealth, social distancing, and disinfection protocols) and should also mitigate concerns of healthcare providers and patients, particularly those in the healthcare setting with blood disorders. Additionally, the one positive sample from a COVID-19 unit emphasizes the need for physical separation of patients with SARS-CoV-2. Disclosures Evens: Research To Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mylteni: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Introduction Asplenic patients are at high risk of potentially fatal invasive infections, such as sepsis, meningitis, and pneumonia. It has been shown that infection from influenza viruses can precede or increase the risk of bacterial infection and of serious complications of the underlying disease. International and national guidelines recommend annual influenza vaccination in asplenic subjects. Following the Covid-19 pandemic, the major government and medical-scientific institutions in the US and in Europe have been planning how to contain infection during the 2020-2021 influenza season. Extending influenza vaccination is the safest and most effective way to reduce the circulation of influenza virus and to promote the correct diagnosis and management of suspected cases of SARS-CoV-2. Influenza vaccination also reduces complications associated with the underlying disease and visits to Emergency Units. Our study aims to evaluate influenza vaccination in a large population of asplenic patients and explore the main causes for non-vaccination to identify critical areas for improvement in the vaccination programme in these at-risk patients for the 2020-2021 influenza season. Methods The Italian Network of Asplenia (INA) is made up of 88 doctors working in 50 clinical centers in 27 cities and 16 of the 20 regions of Italy. It aims to build a large, prospective cohort of asplenic patients throughout Italy through which to study the interaction between asplenia and its associated underlying conditions, collecting precise, accurate data also in cases of rarer diseases. The study also aims to improve the quality of healthcare for this at-risk population. The number of patients enrolled in the Network who had had at least one dose of influenza vaccine at the time of diagnosis of asplenia was retrieved from the INA database. All participating centers were asked to answer a questionnaire to report the main obstacles for influenza vaccination. Results At 1st August 2020, 1,670 patients had been enrolled in the INA (783 females; 887 males). All underlying causes of asplenia are shown in Table 1. Only 466 (28%) patients had had at least one influenza vaccination, while 1,204 (72%) had never been vaccinated since diagnosis of asplenia. Thirty-five (70%) of the 50 centers answered the questionnaire. Main causes of non-vaccination were physicians' ambivalence concerning vaccination and patients' inadequate awareness or logistical problems. Conclusions These data show very low seasonal influenza vaccination cover even though asplenic patients are considered at-risk of complications associated with infection from influenza viruses. Since the 2020-2021 influenza season could see influenza viruses in circulation with SARS-CoV-2, influenza vaccination must be expanded as widely as possible, in particular to subjects of all ages at high risk. These results reveal important areas of concern in the management of asplenic patients and the need to improve the quality of information to physicians and patients alike. The INA co-ordinating center will launch a campaign to provide information and organize ad hoc meetings to widen influenza vaccination coverage in asplenic patients and reduce the pressure on the national health service during the next influenza season. Disclosures Forni: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Colombatti:Addmedica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Global Blood Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giona:Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding. Ferrero:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Speakers Bureau. Perrotta:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Casale:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected many aspects of healthcare, including medical education and training. Its impact on hematology/oncology (HO) fellowship programs has not yet been characterized. Methods The American Society of Hematology (ASH) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) sent an anonymous survey in June 2020 to all HO program directors (PDs) addressing program changes during the COVID-19 pandemic and their perception of impact on trainees' experience, education, and mental health. The survey included 32 multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Participants who completed the survey received a $10 gift card. Quantitative descriptive analyses of multiple-choice questions were conducted. Open-ended responses were analyzed qualitatively using NVivo software. Results Of 233 invited PDs, 103 (44%) respondents completed the survey; 22 additional surveys were incomplete and not included in the analysis. Table 1 summarizes PDs and program characteristics. In response to the pandemic, 42% (N=43) of programs removed fellows from outpatient clinics and 63% (N=65) changed research location to home (Figure 1). Most PDs reported their fellows were participating in telehealth for HO care (79%, N=81) and 21% (N=22) had their fellows re-deployed to cover medicine and other non-HO services. To support fellows' mental health most programs held additional virtual meetings (76%, N=78) and social events (52%, N=54). Twenty one percent of PDs (N=22) reported their program's professional development funds were completely cut or frozen and 17% (N=17) had funds cut slightly. Most PDs reported the pandemic negatively impacted fellowship overall (67% slight to significant negative impact, N=69), 72% identified clinical education as negatively impacted (72% slight to significant negative impact, N=74), and 35% (N=36) reported significant negative impact on research training/productivity. Twenty three percent (N=24) of PDs thought their fellows were not able to make good use of their time during the pandemic, professionally speaking. One third (33%, N=34) of PDs anticipated the pandemic would lead to lack of fellow clinical preparedness, 24% (N=25) with need to make up clinical rotations, and 15% (N=15) anticipated a negative impact on HO board pass rates. Post-pandemic, most PDs plan to maintain some virtual educational sessions (73%, N=75) and telehealth in fellows' continuity clinic (55%, N=57). Among PDs, the prevalence of burnout increased from 16% (N=16) pre-pandemic to 45% (N=46) during the pandemic (p Several educational and research constraints were identified via qualitative analysis: limited in-person clinical rotations, supervision of telehealth encounters, training year promotion and making up clinical time, limited professional development activities, board exam cancellations, and inability to perform research. Additional PD-identified trainee concerns included: ability to obtain childcare, separation from family, and Visa concerns among international fellows. PDs anticipated that financial constraints leading to cuts or removal of discretionary funds may have negative consequences for fellows' professional development activities and could force PDs to decrease program size in the future. PD recommendations for ASH and ASCO included: reducing or eliminating fellow membership fees, providing free access to educational materials and meetings, eliminating in-training examination fees, providing virtual sessions on career development, telehealth and wellness, virtual journal clubs, PD webinars focused on navigating fellowship issues and virtual interviews, and extending ASCO YIA funding for a second year. Conclusions PDs reported that their fellowship programs' clinical, educational, and research experiences have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. PDs are concerned about the impact of budget cuts on fellows' professional and career development. PD burnout increased during the pandemic and most PDs observed at least mild burnout among their fellows. Professional societies can support fellowship programs by limiting fees and costs associated with membership, exams, and meetings, and increasing virtual opportunities for both fellows and PDs. Disclosures Velazquez Manana: Portola Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership; Midatech: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership; Corbus Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership.

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively impacted the delivery of routine medical care including anticoagulation management. The Veterans Affairs Clinical Pharmacy Practice Office (VA CPPO) has provided guidance to assist anticoagulation clinic providers in developing action plans to determine the risk vs benefit of delaying routine monitoring to reduce patient risk of COVID-19 exposure in the health care system. Frequent laboratory monitoring of the International Normalized Ratio (INR) is needed to reduce the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events for patients on warfarin. The Madison VA standard of care (SOC) includes routine INR monitoring at least every 6 weeks for stable patients taking warfarin. Alternatively, the benefit of routine laboratory monitoring for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is less clear. Currently, the Madison VA recommends a complete blood count (CBC), serum creatinine (SCr), and liver function tests (LFTs) within 30 days prior to DOAC initiation, repeat CBC +/- SCr 1-3 months after DOAC initiation, then CBC/SCr every 6-12 months, monitored via the VA DOAC population management tool (PMT). Per the 2012 American Society of Hematology (ASH) and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) guidelines, for warfarin, 12-week follow-up may be considered in patients with chronically stable INRs (Kearon et. al. Chest 2012). Additionally, the Madison VA completed a prior prospective study of 12-week INR follow-up for patients taking warfarin which demonstrated safety of extended follow-up intervals. However, the number of participants able to achieve (56%) and maintain (34%) a 12-week INR follow-up were lower than anticipated (Porter et. al. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2016). As of 3/30/2020, the Madison VA anticoagulation clinic followed 783 patients for warfarin management and 1742 patients for DOAC management. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS A retrospective chart review to assess practice changes during the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted on anticoagulation patients with visits from 3/16/20 and 6/18/20 who were either on warfarin, transitioned to a DOAC, or newly initiated on DOAC therapy. For patients on warfarin with 2 therapeutic INRs obtained at least 4 weeks apart, follow-up was extended to 8-12 weeks. Conversion to a DOAC was considered for eligible warfarin patients, excluding presence of mechanical heart valves, moderate to severe mitral valve stenosis, significant liver disease (Child Pugh C), or pregnancy/breastfeeding. As there are no accepted standards for DOAC laboratory monitoring, per the VA CPPO, stable baseline labs within the prior 6-12 months were acceptable. Routine laboratory monitoring after initiation could also be deferred and patients were transitioned to the DOAC PMT. The data collected in the retrospective study was analyzed using descriptive statistics. OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to assess patient safety and INR stability using the proposed COVID-19 extended follow-up parameters. If patient safety and stability could be maintained, it may lead to long term practice changes to extend follow-up and improve the anticoagulation clinic workload efficiency. ENDPOINTS The primary endpoint of the warfarin intervention was to determine the percentage of warfarin patients with therapeutic INRs after an extended interval. Secondary endpoints included the average length of the extended interval, bleeding or thromboembolic events during extended interval or within 30 days after the extended INR result. Other secondary endpoints included review of patient misadventures during the extended interval (e.g. patient taking incorrect warfarin doses), the percentage of patients with phone follow-up between extended INRs, and clinic time in therapeutic range (TTR). The primary endpoint of the DOAC transition intervention was to determine the percentage of warfarin patients transitioned to DOACs during the specified timeframe. Secondary endpoints included the average time since last CBC/SCr for those transitioning from warfarin or newly initiating DOAC, percentage of patients without an INR at time of transition, and bleeding or thromboembolic events within 30 days of transition. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction COVID-19 is an ongoing pandemic that has impacted millions of individuals throughout the world. The spectrum of clinical features of COVID-19 can vary from asymptomatic infection to severe multiorgan failure leading to death. There is no single biomarker available that can predict the trajectory of the infected patient. Few clinical reports suggest a correlation between the severity of COVID-19 and elevation of certain hematological and inflammatory markers. We used a novel COVID-19 Prognostic Score (CPS) which included lymphocyte count, elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP) and ferritin levels to predict the outcomes of COVID-19 patients. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of COVID-19 patients admitted to New York Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital between March and April of 2020. Clinical data was extracted manually from electronic medical records. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts. The first cohort included a combination of low lymphocyte count, elevated LDH, CRP and ferritin. The second cohort included normal lymphocyte count, low LDH, CRP and ferritin. Low lymphocyte count was defined as < 20% of white blood cell count (WBC), high LDH as ≥ 300 U/L, high CRP as ≥50mg/L and high ferritin as ≥600 ng/mL. Statistical analysis was performed by computing odds ratio using a p-value of < 0.05 as statistically significant. Results We analyzed 683 hospitalized patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 confirmed via viral PCR resting. The median age was 66.5 years, males were 52.2% and blacks were 47.2%. 16.3% had coronary artery disease (CAD), 38.6% had Diabetes Mellitus (DM), 63.1% had hypertension and 21.6% had pulmonary disease. 181 patients (26.5%) were intubated and transferred to ICU. The median LDH was 438 U/L, the median CRP was 107 mg/L and the median ferritin was 687 ng/mL. 4.6% of patients developed a thromboembolic event. The overall inpatient mortality rate was 32.1%. There were 178 patients in the CPS-High cohort while there were 41 patients who qualified for the CPS-Low cohort. The median age of CPS-High was 65 years and the median age of CPS-Low was 58 years. The percentage of CAD, DM, hypertension, pulmonary disease in CPS-High and CPS-Low were 11.8%, 39.3%, 57.9%, 10.7% and 19.5%, 17.1%, 43.9%, 12.2% respectively. In the CPS-High cohort the overall inpatient mortality was 42% while the inpatient mortality rate for CPS-Low was 7.3%. In univariate analysis, patients who had CPS low had significantly reduced inpatient mortality (Odds ratio 0.108, 95% CI 0.03-0.36, p-value = 0.0003). Discussion Our study suggests that a combination of hematological characteristics and inflammatory markers can be used to assess the severity of illness with COVID-19. This study shows that there is a likelihood of 6-times higher mortality with COVID-19 if all the clinical characteristics are abnormal including lymphocyte count, LDH, CRP, and ferritin. This simple clinical prognostic score can be used at the time of hospital admission to efficiently triage patients, which may likely improve the outcomes of these patients. This prognostic tool needs to be validated in a larger dataset or prospective clinical study. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged anticoagulation providers with providing optimal care while minimizing exposure risk, specifically in the management of patients on chronic warfarin. Here we provide data regarding our experience with managing patients on chronic anticoagulants, including warfarin, within Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), a large integrated healthcare delivery system serving more than 4 million patients. Aim To identify whether being on anticoagulation or antiplatelet agents correlates with an increased risk of contracting COVID-19. Methods We identified patients within KPNC electronic medical records on either warfarin, direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) and/or antiplatelet agents between February 25 and July 3, 2020, as well as a randomly identified control group of patients not taking anticoagulation or antiplatelet. We looked for a correlation between taking anticoagulation and antiplatelets with the risk of testing positive for COVID-19. Results/Conclusions Among 188,438 patients on chronic anticoagulants or antiplatelets and 188,438 controls, 1,029 patients tested positive for COVID-19 during the study period. Being on chronic anticoagulants or antiplatelets was not associated with increased risk for a positive test. Patients on warfarin (N=30,242) also had no increased risk of developing COVID-19 compared to patients not on anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy (odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.64-1.17). The time in the therapeutic range (TTR) of patients on warfarin during the COVID-19 pandemic remained near 72%, consistent with prior TTR, demonstrating persistent efficacy of anticoagulation despite measures to reduce COVID-19 transmission. Our data demonstrates the safety of continuing chronic warfarin in patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS2), is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study is to characterize risk factors and clinical features of COVID-19 disease in an adult cohort in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Methods: A retrospective case control study was conducted at King Abdulaziz University hospital (KAUH) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Clinical and demographic data on patients presenting at KAUH with concern for COVID-19 disease between March 18 and May 18, 2020 were collected and analyzed. Results: Electronic medical records on 297 patients presenting at KAUH were reviewed. Of these, 175 (59%) tested positive for COVID-19 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and 122 (41%) tested negative. COVID-19 positive patients were more likely to be males (OR=1.59; 95% CI=1.22-2.07), and non-health care workers (OR=1.53; 95% CI=1.13-2.08). Hypertension (10%), diabetes (10%), and two or more concurrent co-morbid conditions (54.4%), were more prevalent among COVID-19 positive patients. Patients presenting with fever, cough, and loss of sense of taste or smell were more likely to test positive for COVID-19 (p=0.001, 0.008, 0.008, respectively. Radiological evidence of pneumonia was associated with confirmed COVID-19 disease. Dyspnea, cough and gastrointestinal symptoms were not associated with risk of COVID-19 at presentation. On admission, white blood cells, neutrophils, lymphocytes, eosinophils, basophils, and platelets were significantly lower among COVID-19 positive patients compared to controls. Surprisingly, D-dimer levels were lower among COVID-19 positive patients. Furthermore, only two patients developed thrombosis; one with pulmonary embolism and one with coronary artery thrombosis. Conclusion: Male gender, hypertension and diabetes were associated with risk of COVID-19 disease in this study population. D-dimer levels were not elevated in COVID-19 patients, and venous thromboembolism was not prevalent in cases, compared to controls. This is in contrast to previous reports on the association of COVID-19 disease with venous thromboembolism in other populations. Thus, individual and environmental risk factors may play an important role in the pathophysiology of thrombosis in COVID-19 disease. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.