RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In order to eliminate tuberculosis (TB) in the USA, primary care providers must take on an expanded role in the diagnosis and management of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). Clinical practice guidelines and recommendations exist for LTBI management, but there is a need for innovative tools to improve medical students' and residents' knowledge of evidence-based practices for LTBI testing and treatment. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of LTBI-ASSIST, a free online decision support aid, as a novel educational tool and mechanism of delivering clinical practice guidelines for medical trainees. DESIGN: A single site, randomized controlled trial of trainees delivered by electronic survey. INTERVENTIONS: Medical students and Internal Medicine residents at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive the US clinical practice guidelines and recommendations for Latent TB management (control arm) or the guidelines plus an introduction to LTBI-ASSIST (LTBI-ASSIST arm) as they completed a case-based knowledge assessment and reported confidence with domains of LTBI care. MAIN MEASURES: (1) Proportion of questions answered correctly on a case-based knowledge assessment; (2) change in reported confidence with domains of LTBI care. KEY RESULTS: One hundred and thirty participants completed the knowledge assessment. Those randomized to receive the LTBI-ASSIST Tool performed better on the case-based knowledge assessment with a mean score of 75.9% (95% CI: 70.6-81.1), compared to 57.4% (52.8-62.0) in the group that received the guidelines only (p <0.001). Similarly, the LTBI-ASSIST group reported a higher change in confidence (measured as post-assessment confidence minus pre-assessment confidence), compared to the control group, in six of the seven domains of LTBI care. CONCLUSIONS: LTBI-ASSIST can be an effective supplement to existing guidelines in educating medical trainees and helping providers find evidence-based, guideline-supported answers for questions encountered in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NIH Clinical Trial Registry No. NCT05772065.
RESUMO
Background: HIV clinical practice guidelines outline broad treatment principles but offer less explicit recommendations by permutations of encountered viral resistance. We hypothesize that there is variability in antiretroviral (ARV) regimen decision making among providers when considering HIV drug resistance (HIVDR). Methods: US HIV providers provided ARV regimen recommendations for case vignettes in a series of electronic surveys encompassing variations of HIVDR. Responses were characterized by drugs and classes selected and anticipated activity based on genotypic susceptibility. Heterogeneity was defined as the proportion of unique ARV regimens from total responses. Results: An overall 119 providers from the United States participated. Among case vignettes with isolated M184V and viremia, 85.9% selected a regimen with 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) + integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI); 9.9% selected regimens with >3 ARVs. Alternatively, in scenarios of viremia with moderate to high-level NRTI resistance, >50% of providers selected an NRTI-sparing regimen, while a minority recommended 2 NRTIs + INSTI (21/123, 17%). In moderate to high-level INSTI resistance, there was response heterogeneity, with no common unifying approach to management (127 unique regimens/181 responses, 70% heterogeneity). Providers used cabotegravir/rilpivirine for treatment simplification in suppressed cases, despite a history of treatment failure (37/205, 36%). Conclusions: Our national survey of US HIV providers revealed a consensus to management of HIV resistance with potential alternative options in cases with low heterogeneity. Providers selected cabotegravir/rilpivirine as a viable treatment simplification strategy in suppressed cases with a history of treatment failure. The responses to the case vignettes could be used an education tool for ARV decision making in HIVDR.