Physician knowledge about and perceptions of obesity management.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 35% of US adults are obese. The purpose of this study was to assess the knowledge and practice patterns of primary care physicians (PCPs), endocrinologists (ENDOs), cardiologists (CARDs) and bariatricians (BARIs) regarding obesity. METHODS: A case vignette survey was distributed to 1625 US-based PCPs, ENDOs, CARDs, and BARIs via email and fax in February 2013. Results were analysed with PASW Statistics 18. RESULTS: Respondents included 100 PCPs, 100 ENDOs, 70 CARDs, and 30 BARIs. The majority agreed obesity is a disease as defined by the AMA, however, half of PCPs, ENDOs, and CARDs also agreed obesity results from a lack of self-control. Familiarity with select obesity guidelines was low. Nearly all respondents used body mass index for obesity screening. No consensus as to when to initiate weight-loss medication was observed. Many physicians expected a larger weight loss with pharmacotherapy than is realistic (∼ 30%) or were unsure (∼ 22%). A majority of PCPs, ENDOs and CARDs expected less excess weight loss with gastric bypass surgery than is realistic, BARIs had a more reasonable expectation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, respondents demonstrated knowledge gaps for obesity guidelines and pathophysiology and generally lacked understanding of obesity medication efficacy, safety and MOA.

Current Practice Patterns and Educational Needs of Rheumatologists Who Manage Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: As the therapeutic landscape for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) continues to change, it is relevant to examine current treatment patterns among rheumatologists. The purpose of this study was to identify attitudes and practices of US rheumatologists with respect to RA. METHODS: Nine-hundred and one US-practicing rheumatologists were sent electronic invites (via email or fax) to participate in a case-vignette survey in April 2013. All respondents were currently practicing rheumatology and seeing at least one RA patient per week. The survey examined current attitudes, existing knowledge, management choices and perceived barriers in the management of RA. Data collection stopped once 125 responses were received. RESULTS: Approximately half of the 125 respondents were very familiar with current clinical practice guidelines for RA diagnosis and management. There was no consensus on which validated tools to use when assessing RA severity, with 54% using Physician Global Assessment and 34% using Disease Activity Score 28 at initial assessment. Most respondents (74%) used methotrexate (MTX) as initial therapy for a newly diagnosed RA patient. Eighty-six percent of respondents would add a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) when MTX alone could not control RA. There was no consensus on which treatment should be used when a TNFi is ineffective. The majority of respondents (66% of respondents) would prescribe TNFis indefinitely in patients with continued response. If a patient was in stable remission on MTX and a TNFi, respondents were most likely to maintain this regimen (53% of respondents); a notable minority (43%) would lower the MTX dose. When prescribing biologics, respondents were most concerned with infection; infection was considered a very significant barrier to biologic use. Although 98% of respondents indicated that they personally educate patients about RA, only 42% provide written material. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of consistency in responses suggests that rheumatologists may benefit from continuing medical education on; clinical practice guidelines; the most recent evidence for management of patients in remission; the use of biologic agents after infection; and management of patients with RA and comorbidities.

Current pathology practices in and barriers to MDS diagnosis.

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are a heterogeneous group of hematopoietic stem cell malignancies that represent a diagnostic challenge for pathologists. Accurate classification and prognostic scoring are essential to treating MDS. To understand factors that affect MDS management, a case-based survey was distributed to hematopathologists (n=53) and general pathologists (n=72) to identify perceived barriers, attitudes, and practices in MDS diagnosis. Results demonstrated confidence and practice gaps. Only 33% of general pathologists are confident in diagnosing MDS. Neither general pathologists nor hematopathologists are comfortable using the International Prognostic Scoring System to characterize risk. Thirty percent of general pathologists and 22% of hematopathologists would not include bone marrow aspirate and cytogenetics in initial testing of a neutropenic patient. Most practitioners tested appropriately for disease classification and prognosis; discrepancies were identified in testing to differentiate MDS from acute myeloid leukemia and testing in post treatment specimens. These results have implications in the management of MDS.

Assessing the effectiveness of a Grand Rounds CME activity for health-care professionals.

The Lymphoma Research Foundation offers Grand Rounds continuing medical education (CME) activities on specific issues related to advances in the management of patients with lymphoma. The 2012 activity comprised interactive case studies presented by local lymphoma experts. A case-based survey was designed to assess whether the management choices of program participants are consistent with the evidence-based content of the CME activity. This survey was administered to participants 1 month after completion of the CME activity and also to a control group who did not participate in the educational program. Participants were more aware of the epidemiology of CD20-positive tumors than were controls and were more likely to appropriately diagnose primary mediastinal large B cell lymphoma (PMBCL), use evidence-based second-line therapy for PMBCL, and properly manage a patient with classic Hodgkin lymphoma that did not respond to standard therapy. Participants were also more confident than controls in their ability to interpret histology and cytogenetic testing for selecting an optimal treatment.