Objective:
This study assessed current clinical practices of clinicians related to hemophilia treatment guidelines to identify knowledge, competency, practice gaps and barriers to optimal care of patients with inhibitors.
Methods:
A continuing medical education (CME)-certified clinical practice assessment survey was developed comprising 24 knowledge- and case-based, multiple-choice questions. The survey assessed knowledge, attitudes, and confidence with regard to newly-developed hemophilia treatment guidelines emphasizing integrated care for patients with inhibitors, and the application of these guideline-based recommendations. The survey launched on the Medscape Education website on December 5, 2016 with participant responses collected through January 26, 2017. The data sample includes responses from 170 physicians who participated during the study period.
Summary of Results (n=170 physicians):
Responses to questions on the screening for, and management of, inhibitor formation in patients with hemophilia undergoing prophylaxis, showed that: the majority of hematologists/oncologists correctly identified the factors that increase risk of inhibitor formation (71%), while less than half of pediatricians did so (46%); when asked regarding exposure days (EDs) and the formation of inhibitors, half of hematologists/oncologists correctly identified within 50 EDs, while only 25% of pediatricians did so; and both hematologists/oncologists (21%) and pediatricians (28%) incorrectly identified how often a patient should be tested for inhibitors. When surveyed specifically regarding immune tolerance induction (ITI), a slight majority of hematologists/oncologists and pediatricians correctly chose the time frame during which to initiate ITI (55% and 51%, respectively), and 50% of hematologists/oncologists knew the most powerful predictor of ITI success, while only 42% of pediatricians did so; only 14% of hematologists/oncologists and 4% of pediatricians knew that there is no optimal rFVIII to initiate for ITI; only 10% of hematologists/oncologists and 8% of pediatricians knew that there is not optimal dose of rFVIII to initiate for ITI.
Conclusions:
The need for further education was observed for the following topics: best practices in the integrative care of patients using evidence-based guidelines and recommendations; current and emerging clinical data guiding acute and prophylactic management; risk factors for the development of inhibitors during prophylaxis; screening and management of inhibitor formation, including ITI. Further educational efforts tailored to address these gaps are warranted.