Cognitive dissonance: how self-protective distortions can undermine clinical judgement.

CONTEXT: When errors occur in clinical settings, it is important that they are recognised without defensiveness so that prompt corrective action can be taken and learning can occur. Cognitive dissonance - the uncomfortable tension we experience when we hold two or more inconsistent beliefs - can hinder our ability to respond optimally to error. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper is to describe the effects of cognitive dissonance, a construct developed and tested in social psychology. We discuss the circumstances under which dissonance is most likely to occur, provide examples of how it may influence clinical practice, discuss potential remedies and suggest future research to test these remedies in the clinical context. METHODS: We apply research on cognitive dissonance from social psychology to clinical settings. We examine the factors that make dissonance most likely to occur. We illustrate the power of cognitive dissonance through two medical examples: one from history and one that is ongoing. Finally, we explore moderators at various stages of the dissonance process to identify potential remedies. RESULTS: We show that there is great opportunity for cognitive dissonance to distort judgements, delay optimal responses and hinder learning in clinical settings. We present a model of the phases of cognitive dissonance, and suggestions for preventing dissonance, reducing the distortions that can arise from dissonance and inhibiting dissonance-induced escalation of commitment. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive dissonance has been studied for decades in social psychology but has not had much influence on medical education research. We argue that the construct of cognitive dissonance is very relevant to the clinical context and to medical education. Dissonance has the potential to interfere with learning, to hinder the process of coping effectively with error, and to make the accepting of change difficult. Fortunately, there is the potential to reduce the negative impact of cognitive dissonance in clinical practice.

Screening and Prophylaxis to Prevent Hepatitis B Reactivation: Introduction and Immunology.

Current recommendations concerning hepatitis C virus (HBV) reactivation are limited, with nearly all guidelines focused on its occurrence in patients with hematological malignancies or some solid tumors, who are treated with immunosuppressive therapies. Few of the guidelines address reactivation in patients receiving immunosuppression with organ transplants or treatment with any of the many immunosuppressive agents in use today for the treatment of multiple different diseases, or in patients receiving the direct-acting antivirals used in the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV). This article covers the immunology of HBV reactivation, mechanisms of viral clearance, and recommendations for screening and prophylaxis.

Screening and Prophylaxis to Prevent Hepatitis B Reactivation: Transplant Recipients.

Organ transplantation is a lifesaving procedure for many patients. To prevent rejection or graft-versus-host disease, recipients require long-term immunosuppression. In patients who have ever been exposed to hepatitis B, it is possible for reactivation to occur; this includes patients who are anti-hepatitis B core antibody-positive only or both anti-hepatitis B core antibody-positive and hepatitis B surface antibody-positive. The susceptibility to this varies with the nature of the transplant. Hepatitis B can be transmitted from donor to recipient. It is important to assess the hepatitis B status and formulate a strategy to prevent transmission and prevent reactivation.

Screening and Prophylaxis to Prevent Hepatitis B Reactivation: Patients with Hematological and Solid Tumor Malignancies.

Patients with malignancies require chemotherapy and other immunosuppressive therapies for treatment. Because of this immunosuppression, in patients who have ever been exposed to hepatitis B it is possible for reactivation to occur. This reactivation can be fatal. Reactivation is particularly likely in patients who receive B cell-active agents such as rituximab. The occurrence of reactivation flares may also delay further chemotherapy, which can negatively affect the outcome of the underlying malignancy. Accordingly, it is important to screen patients for markers of hepatitis B and institute antiviral prophylaxis to prevent reactivation.

Screening and Prophylaxis to Prevent Hepatitis B Reactivation: Other Populations and Newer Agents.

Because of the relatively high prevalence of both hepatitis B infection and various forms of autoimmune inflammatory diseases treated with aggressive immunotherapy, reactivation of hepatitis B occurs in a substantial number of patients. The risk of reactivation depends on the degree and duration of immunosuppression. A large number of drug treatments have resulted in reactivation of hepatitis B virus infection and, based on the mechanisms and extent of immunosuppression, recommendations for some of the newer classes of immunosuppressive drugs are provided.

An Economic Evaluation of Stopping Versus Continuing Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients With Disease Remission or Low Disease Activity: Results From a Pragmatic Open-Label Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, from a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness of withdrawing tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment compared to continuation of these drugs within a 1-year, randomized trial among rheumatoid arthritis patients with longstanding, stable disease activity or remission. METHODS: Data were collected from a pragmatic, open-label trial. Cost-utility analysis was performed using the nonparametric bootstrapping method, and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was constructed using the net-monetary benefit framework, where a willingness-to-accept threshold (WTA) was defined as the minimal cost saved that a patient accepted for each quality-adjusted life year (QALY) lost. RESULTS: A total of 531 patients were randomized to the stop group and 286 patients to the continuation group. Withdrawal of TNFi treatment resulted in a >60% reduction of the total drug cost, but led to an increase of ∼30% in other health care expenditures. Compared to continuation, stopping TNFi resulted in a mean yearly cost saving of €7,133 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] €6,071, €8,234]) and was associated with a mean loss of QALYs of 0.02 (95% CI 0.002, 0.040). Mean saved cost per QALY lost and per extra flare incurred in the stop group compared to the continuation group was €368,269 (95% CI €155,132, €1,675,909) and €17,670 (95% CI €13,650, €22,721), respectively. At a WTA of €98,438 per QALY lost, the probability that stopping TNFi treatment is cost-effective was 100%. CONCLUSION: Although an official WTA is not defined, the mean saved cost of €368,269 per QALY lost seems acceptable in The Netherlands, given existing data on willingness to pay.

A pilot randomized trial comparing CD34-selected versus unmanipulated hemopoietic stem cell transplantation for severe, refractory rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Evidence from animal studies, case reports, and phase I studies suggests that hemopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) can be effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It is unclear, however, if depletion of T cells in the stem cell product infused after high-dose chemotherapy is beneficial in prolonging responses by reducing the number of infused autoreactive T cells. This pilot multicenter, randomized trial was undertaken to obtain feasibility data on whether CD34 selection (as a form of T cell depletion) of an autologous stem cell graft is of benefit in the HSCT procedure in patients with severe, refractory RA. METHODS: Thirty-three patients with severe RA who had been treated unsuccessfully with methotrexate and at least 1 other disease-modifying agent were enrolled in the trial. The patients received high-dose immunosuppressive treatment with 200 mg/kg cyclophosphamide followed by an infusion of autologous stem cells that were CD34 selected or unmanipulated. Safety, efficacy (based on American College of Rheumatology [ACR] response criteria), and time to recurrence of disease were assessed on a monthly basis for up to 12 months. RESULTS: All patients were living at the end of the study, with no major unexpected toxicities. Overall, on an intent-to-treat basis, ACR 20% response (ACR20) was achieved in 70% of the patients. An ACR70 response was attained in 27.7% of the 18 patients who had received CD34-selected cells and 53.3% of the 15 who had received unmanipulated cells (P = 0.20). The median time to disease recurrence was 147 days in the CD34-selected cell group and 201 days in the unmanipulated cell group (P = 0.28). There was no relationship between CD4 lymphopenia and response, but 72% of rheumatoid factor (RF)-positive patients had an increase in RF titer prior to recurrence of disease. CONCLUSION: HSCT can be performed safely in patients with RA, and initial results indicate significant responses in patients with severe, treatment-resistant disease. Similar outcomes were observed in patients undergoing HSCT with unmanipulated cells and those receiving CD34-selected cells. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.