Von Willebrand Factor (VWF) multiplex activity assay differentiation of type 1 von Willebrand Disease (VWD) and variant VWD.

INTRODUCTION: VWD diagnosis is challenging requiring multiple VWF activity tests using many individual assays. We have developed an ELISA-based VWF Multiplex Activity Assay (VWF-MAA) to address this concern; however, the ability of the VWF-MAA to discriminate between type 1 VWD, variant VWD, and normal subjects has not been evaluated. AIM: To evaluate the VWF-MAA and its ability to differentiate between type 1 VWD, variant VWD and normal subjects in individuals undergoing an initial laboratory evaluation for bleeding. METHODS: A total of 177 plasma samples from the Zimmerman Program: Comparative Effectiveness in the Diagnosis of VWD were evaluated from 11 centres across the US and Canada. The VWF-MAA was compared to Versiti Blood Research Institute (VBRI) and Local Center (LC) assigned VWD diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 129/177 (72.9%) were correctly assigned as normal (non-VWD), type 1, or variant VWD compared to the VBRI assigned diagnosis. VWF-MAA assigned non-VWD accurately in 29/57 (50.9%) samples, and type 1 VWD accurately in 93/110 (84.6%) samples. Considering LC diagnosis where there was agreement with VWF-MAA and not VBRI diagnosis, type 1 VWD was accurate in 105/110 (95.5%) samples. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated good correlation between laboratory methods. VWD, types 2A, 2B, 1C VWD were also assigned by the VWF-MAA. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that the VWF-MAA has utility in differentiating type 1 VWD, variant VWD and normal subjects in individuals undergoing an initial laboratory evaluation for bleeding.

Incorporating the patient voice and patient engagement in GOAL-Hem: Advancing patient-centric hemophilia care.

BACKGROUND: Goal Attainment Scaling for Hemophilia (GOAL-Hem) is a novel, hemophilia-specific, validated patient engagement tool and patient-reported outcome instrument. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the degree to which the language of GOAL-Hem was patient-centric and the content valuable and relevant for people with hemophilia (PWH) and/or their caregivers. PATIENTS/METHODS: Patients and caregivers participated in one of three investigations: an online survey, one-on-one patient interviews, or a focus group. The survey and interviews assessed the clarity and relevance of the GOAL-Hem menu items. Interviews were semistructured, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Feedback from interviews was coded as "clear," "unclear," "remove," or "add." The focus group explored participants' experience of GOAL-Hem and elicited recommendations for implementation. Quotations from focus group and interview transcripts were indexed and charted to emergent themes for analysis. RESULTS: Participants comprised 19 adults with hemophilia and 19 caregivers of children with hemophilia (survey, n = 20; interview, n = 12; focus group, n = 6). After their feedback, 32% (15/48) of goals were retained unchanged. Further feedback resulted in the removal of 45% (286/635) of the goal descriptors, and 30% (193/635) of the retained descriptors were modified. Three new (total = 38) goals and 42 descriptors (total = 368) were added to the menu. Thematic analysis indicated that participants were enthusiastic about patient-centric language, empowered through the goal-setting process, and recognized GOAL-Hem could measure clinically meaningful change. CONCLUSION: By listening closely to patients and caregivers, we refined GOAL-Hem to better capture the experiences of PWH, enhance content validity, and augment implementation strategies. Incorporating the patient voice is integral to developing patient-centered outcome measures.

Understanding constraints on integrated care for people with HIV and multimorbid cardiovascular conditions: an application of the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: People with HIV (PWH) experience increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Many PWH in the USA receive their primary medical care from infectious disease specialists in HIV clinics. HIV care teams may not be fully prepared to provide evidence-based CVD care. We sought to describe local context for HIV clinics participating in an NIH-funded implementation trial and to identify facilitators and barriers to integrated CVD preventive care for PWH. METHODS: Data were collected in semi-structured interviews and focus groups with PWH and multidisciplinary healthcare providers at three academic medical centers. We used template analysis to identify barriers and facilitators of CVD preventive care in three HIV specialty clinics using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). RESULTS: Six focus groups were conducted with 37 PWH. Individual interviews were conducted with 34 healthcare providers and 14 PWH. Major themes were captured in seven TDF domains. Within those themes, we identified nine facilitators and 11 barriers to CVD preventive care. Knowledge gaps contributed to inaccurate CVD risk perceptions and ineffective self-management practices in PWH. Exclusive prioritization of HIV over CVD-related conditions was common in PWH and their providers. HIV care providers assumed inconsistent roles in CVD prevention, including for PWH with primary care providers. HIV providers were knowledgeable of HIV-related CVD risks and co-located health resources were consistently available to support PWH with limited resources in health behavior change. However, infrequent medical visits, perceptions of CVD prevention as a primary care service, and multiple co-location of support programs introduced local challenges to engaging in CVD preventive care. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to screening and treatment of cardiovascular conditions are common in HIV care settings and highlight a need for greater primary care integration. Improving long-term cardiovascular outcomes of PWH will likely require multi-level interventions supporting HIV providers to expand their scope of practice, addressing patient preferences for co-located CVD preventive care, changing clinic cultures that focus only on HIV to the exclusion of non-AIDS multimorbidity, and managing constraints associated with multiple services co-location. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03643705.

Why Do People Living with HIV Adhere to Antiretroviral Therapy and Not Comorbid Cardiovascular Disease Medications? A Qualitative Inquiry.

BACKGROUND: After achieving viral suppression, it is critical for persons living with HIV (PLWH) to focus on prevention of non-AIDS comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease (CVD) in order to enhance their quality of life and longevity of life. Despite PLWH elevated risk of developing CVD compared to individuals without HIV, PLWH do not often meet evidence-based treatment goals for CVD prevention; the reasons for PLWH not meeting guideline recommendations are poorly understood. The objective of this study was to identify the factors associated with adherence to CVD medications for PLWH who have achieved viral suppression. METHODS: Qualitative data were obtained from formative research conducted to inform the adaptation of a nurse-led intervention trial to improve cardiovascular health at three large academic medical centers in the United States. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis guided by principles drawn from grounded theory. RESULTS: Fifty-one individuals who had achieved viral suppression (<200 copies/mL) participated: 37 in 6 focus groups and 14 in individual semi-structured interviews. Mean age was 57 years (SD: 7.8); most were African Americans (n=31) and majority were male (n=34). Three main themes were observed. First, participants reported discordance between their healthcare providers' recommendations and their own preferred strategies to reduce CVD risk. Second, participants intentionally modified frequency of CVD medication taking which appeared to be related to low CVD risk perception and perceived or experienced side effects with treatment. Finally, participants discussed the impact of long-term experience with HIV care on adherence to CVD medication and motivational factors that enhanced adherence to heart healthy behaviors. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that future research should focus on developing interventions to enhance patient-provider communication in order to elicit beliefs, concerns and preferences for CVD prevention strategies. Future research should seek to leverage and adapt established evidence-based practices in HIV care to support CVD medication adherence.