Evaluation of hypercholesterolemia management in at-risk patients by cardiologists in France: a case vignette-based study.

Aim: This online interactive survey investigated lipid-lowering approaches of French cardiologists in high- and very high-cardiovascular risk patients with hypercholesterolemia. Materials & methods: Physicians assessed three hypothetical patients at three clinic visits, and selected the patients' cardiovascular risk category, target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and treatment. Results: A total of 162 physicians completed 480 risk assessments; 58% of assessments correctly categorized the hypothetical patients. Most physicians chose the correct LDL-C target for one of the very high-risk patients, but higher-than-recommended targets were selected for the other very high-risk patient and the high-risk patient. Statins were the most commonly chosen treatment. Conclusion: French cardiologists often underestimate cardiovascular risk in patients with hypercholesterolemia, select a higher-than-recommended LDL-C target and prescribe less intensive treatment than that recommended by guidelines.

Chatbot-based serious games: A useful tool for training medical students? A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Chatbots, conversational agents that walk medical students (MS) though a clinical case, are serious games that seem to be appreciated by MS. Their impact on MS's performance in exams however was not yet evaluated. Chatprogress is a chatbot-based game developed at Paris Descartes University. It contains 8 pulmonology cases with step-by-step answers delivered with pedagogical comments. The CHATPROGRESS study aimed to evaluate the impact of Chatprogress on students' success rate in their end-term exams. METHODS: We conducted a post-test randomized controlled trial held on all fourth-year MS at Paris Descartes University. All MS were asked to follow the University's regular lectures, and half of them were randomly given access to Chatprogress. At the end of the term, medical students were evaluated on pulmonology, cardiology and critical care medicine. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary aim was to evaluate an increase in scores in the pulmonology sub-test for students who had access to Chatprogress, compared to those who didn't. Secondary aims were to evaluate an increase in scores in the overall test (Pulmonology, Cardiology and Critical care medicine test (PCC)) and to evaluate the correlation between access to Chatprogress and overall test score. Finally, students' satisfaction was assessed using a survey. RESULTS: From 10/2018 to 06/2019, 171 students had access to Chatprogress (the Gamers) and among them, 104 ended up using it (the Users). Gamers and Users were compared to 255 Controls with no access to Chatprogress. Differences in scores on the pulmonology sub-test over the academic year were significantly higher among Gamers and Users vs Controls (mean score: 12.7/20 vs 12.0/20, p = 0.0104 and mean score: 12.7/20 vs 12.0/20, p = 0.0365 respectively). This significant difference was present as well in the overall PCC test scores: (mean score: 12.5/20 vs 12.1/20, p = 0.0285 and 12.6/20 vs 12.1/20, p = 0.0355 respectively). Although no significant correlation was found between the pulmonology sub-test's scores and MS's assiduity parameters (number of finished games among the 8 proposed to Users and number of times a User finished a game), there was a trend to a better correlation when users were evaluated on a subject covered by Chatprogress. MS were also found to be fans of this teaching tool, asking for more pedagogical comments even when they got the questions right. CONCLUSION: This randomised controlled trial is the first to demonstrate a significant improvement in students' results (in both the pulmonology subtest and the overall PCC exam) when they had access to Chatbots, and even more so when they actually used it.

Elicitation of Rheumatologist Preferences for the Treatment of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After the Failure of a First Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Agent.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical guidelines do not provide strong recommendations for the choice of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX), and only limited evidence is available on factors influencing rheumatologist treatment decisions. We aimed to describe therapeutic preferences after the failure of a first-line strategy of MTX in simulated cases of patients with RA. METHODS: Fictional but realistic case-vignettes (n = 64) of patients with RA and an inadequate response to MTX were developed with a combination of RA-poor prognostic factors and comorbidities. Physicians were presented with eight vignettes and chose the most and least appropriate therapeutic option from the following six options randomly proposed 3 by 3: (1) replacing MTX with another csDMARD; (2) combining MTX with one or more csDMARDs; (3) adding a bDMARD of either TNF inhibitors (TNFi), tocilizumab (TCZ), abatacept (ABA), or rituximab (RTZ). A total of 1605 complete case vignettes were produced and randomly assigned to a representative sample of French rheumatologists. For each vignette, whenever a treatment was preferred, one point was incremented for this treatment; if this treatment was the least desired, one point was removed. Preferences were elicited using a normalized best-worst score. RESULTS: Two hundred and four French rheumatologists participated in the study with each vignette being assessed 20-28 times for a completion rate of 94%. TNFi was the first-choice strategy (80% of vignettes), except in cases with a history of infection and pulmonary comorbidity, where ABA was the first preference (85%). TCZ came third in 83% of the cases. Other options were never preferred and repeatedly yielded negative scores. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a conservative trend with TNFi as the main therapeutic choice for patients with RA and inadequate response to MTX. Preference for bDMARD-based strategies increased with the number of RA-poor prognosis factors, whereas an increase in the number of comorbidities resulted in an increased preference for ABA. Understanding clinical decision-making will be particularly important as the therapeutic landscape for RA continues to evolve.