Aim The study aimed to collect retrospective data to investigate the association between elevated glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, including in-hospital mortality and 90-day mortality. Methods This is an observational retrospective study using electronic health records of patients with diabetes admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 across the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) in Central PA Hospitals. Our retrospective analysis was performed on patients admitted to the ICU between May 1 st , 2021, to May 1 st , 2022. The HbA1c level obtained within three months before their admission was evaluated and stratified to show their association with clinical outcomes, including in-hospital mortality and 90-day mortality. Additionally, the need for insulin drip and ICU and hospital length of stay were compared among these patients. Results We analyzed 384 patients, which were distributed in three groups. The majority of the patients (183 patients or 47.66%) had an HbA1c below 7%, 113 patients (29.43%) had an HbA1c between 7-9%, and 88 patients (22.92%) had an HbA1c above 9%. The group with an HbA1c<7% had a mortality rate of 54.1% during the hospital stay, with a median stay of 13 days. The patients with an HbA1c between 7-9% had a higher mortality rate of 65.49% with a median stay of 12 days. The patients with HbA1c>9% had a mortality rate of 43.18% with a median stay of 11.5 days. Conclusion This retrospective study found that there was no linear association between higher HbA1c levels and a higher risk of mortality during hospitalization. The 90-day mortality rate was not statistically different among the three HbA1c groups. The need for insulin drip was higher in patients with higher HbA1c levels. The majority of patients in all three groups were classified as low-risk based on their BMI, and there were no significant differences in the distribution of patients across BMI categories in the HbA1c groups.

Patient: Female, 74-year-old Final Diagnosis: Metastatic melanoma • pseudo progression Symptoms: Lump in her chest Clinical Procedure: — Specialty: Oncology Objective: Unusual clinical course Background: Melanoma is an aggressive skin cancer that can be difficult to manage. Its treatment has been transformed by immunotherapy. Melanoma cells frequently have mutations that make them vulnerable to attack by the immune system, and this is how immunotherapy can fight this cancer. Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors targets mechanisms that malignant cells use to evade immune system detection, blocking proteins produced by the tumor, and allowing the immune system to identify and attack cancerous cells. Case Report: A 74-year-old woman presented with a lump on the right side of her chest. Tests revealed a metastatic malignant tumor with melanocytic differentiation. Stage IV melanoma was diagnosed, and the patient started therapy with nivolumab/ipilimumab for palliative intent, which she tolerated without adverse effects. However, she was hospitalized for Clostridioides difficile colitis after 3 treatment cycles, and computed tomography (CT) scan findings suggested disease progression. Positron emission tomography (PET)-CT obtained after her discharge from the hospital showed a complete metabolic response at all disease sites, indicating the initial progression was most likely a pseudo-progression from the use of immunotherapy. The patient continued with nivolumab as a single agent and has been doing well. Conclusions: This case highlights the importance of careful evaluation of immunotherapy response in patients with melanoma. The initial progression noted in this patient was most likely pseudo-progression, which resolved with further immunotherapy. Clinicians should consider PET-CT imaging in cases of suspected pseudo-progression to avoid unnecessary changes in therapy. Patient response to immunotherapy demonstrates the effectiveness of immunotherapy in treating advanced melanoma.

22 Background: The American Society of Hematology (ASH) Choosing Wisely campaign have created thoughtful conversations between providers and patients in recommending care that is supported by evidence to reduce duplicative testing. However, some have raised concerns regarding the impact on patient care. We provide our institutional experience in exploring the clinical feasibility of the recommendation on reducing unnecessary inpatient thrombophilia testing. Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients admitted with a diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) across the 3 hospitals in Central PA from September 2021 to December 2021. Pregnancy was an exclusion criterion. Thrombophilia workup included tests for factor V Leiden mutation, activated protein C resistance, protein S activity, antithrombin deficiency, prothrombin gene mutation, anti-cardiolipin antibodies, dilute Russell viper venom time, lupus anticoagulant, anti-beta2-glycoprotein antibodies. The cost of testing was extrapolated by institutional hospital cost reports. Descriptive statistics included reporting the categorical variables as number and percent. The categorical variables were compared between groups with the use of Fisher’s exact test or the chi-square test. Results: During our study period, 310 patients had new VTE. Of those, 47.9% had pulmonary embolism, 33.7% upper or lower extremities deep vein thrombosis (DVT), 1.6% splanchnic DVT, 14.6% multiple DVTs, and 2.2% DVTs in other locations. The median age was 64. Provoked factors were found in 269 patients (86.7%) and 41 patients (13.2%) had unprovoked VTE. Overall, 33 out of 310 patients (10%) underwent thrombophilia workup with a total of 175 tests performed. More thrombophilia testing was ordered in unprovoked group (29.3% vs 7.8%, p = 0.0003) compared to provoked. There was no difference between the amount of inpatient hematology consults in both groups (33.83% vs 47.50%, p = 0.0920). Of the hematology consult, 19 out of 118 patients (16%) had thrombophilia testing recommended by hematologist. The cost of all tests ordered outside of hematology recommendation was $34,083 (avg $344 per person). Of the group that got tested regardless of provoking factors, there was no difference between hospital length of stay (2-12 days vs 3-12 days, p = 0.0665). Anticoagulation choice was also not affected by thrombophilia testing between the two groups. Conclusions: Our experience found that many thrombophilia work up were costly and did not impact quality patient care. Despite the relatively low frequency of inpatient workup (10%), eliminating testing could save our health system approximately $136,332 per year ($34,083 per quarter). Therefore, we support ASH’s campaign in reducing inpatient thrombophilia testing. We aim to work with our administration to provide education in reducing unnecessary testing.