Evaluating the impact of a year-long external mentorship pilot program in classical hematology.

Effective mentorship is a pivotal factor in shaping the career trajectory of trainees interested in classical hematology (CH), which is of critical importance due to the anticipated decline in the CH workforce. However, there is a lack of mentorship opportunities within CH compared with medical oncology. To address this need, a year-long external mentorship program was implemented through the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Medical Educators Institute (MEI). Thirty-five hematology/oncology (H/O) fellows interested in CH and 34 academically productive faculty mentors from different institutions across North America were paired in a meticulous process that considered individual interests, experiences, and background. Pairs were expected to meet virtually once a month. Participation in a scholarly project was optional. A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design was used to evaluate the program using mentee and mentor surveys, a mentee interview, and a mentee focus group. Thirty-three (94.2%) mentee-mentor pairs completed the program. Sixty-three percent of mentee respondents worked on a scholarly project with their mentor; several mentees earned publications, grants, and awards. Mentee perception that their assigned mentor was a good match was associated with a perceived positive impact on confidence (p=0.0423), career development (p=0.0423), and professional identity (p=0.0302). Furthermore, twenty-three (66%) mentees accepted CH faculty positions after fellowship. All mentor respondents believed that this program would increase retention in CH. This mentorship program demonstrates a productive, beneficial way of connecting mentees and mentors from different institutions to improve the careers of CH trainees, with the ultimate goal of increasing retention in CH.

Trainees' perspectives on sickle cell education: a qualitative needs assessment.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) exemplifies many of the social, racial, and healthcare equity issues in the United States. Despite its high morbidity, mortality, and cost of care, SCD has not been prioritized in research and clinical teaching, resulting in under-trained clinicians and a poor evidence base for managing complications of the disease. This study aimed to perform a needs assessment, examining the perspectives of medical trainees pursuing hematology/oncology subspecialty training regarding SCD-focused education and clinical care. METHOD: Inductive, iterative thematic analysis was used to explore qualitative interviews of subspecialty hematology-oncology trainees' attitudes and preferences for education on the management of patients with SCD. Fifteen trainees from six programs in the United States participated in 4 focus groups between April and May 2023. RESULTS: Thematic analysis resulted in 3 themes: 1. Discomfort caring for patients with SCD. 2. Challenges managing complications of SCD, and 3. Desire for SCD specific education. Patient care challenges included the complexity of managing SCD complications, limited evidence to guide practice, and healthcare bias. Skill-building challenges included lack of longitudinal exposure, access to expert clinicians, and didactics. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in exposure, limited formal didactics, and a lack of national standardization for SCD education during training contributes to trainees' discomfort and challenges in managing SCD, which in turn, contribute to decreased interest in entering the SCD workforce. The findings underscore the need for ACGME competency amendments, dedicated SCD rotations, and standardized didactics to address the gaps in SCD education.

Factor VIII Levels and ISTH Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation Scores Do Not Distinguish Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation from the Coagulopathy of Liver Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Distinguishing disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) from the coagulopathy of liver disease represents a common clinical challenge. Here, we evaluated the utility of two diagnostic tools frequently used to differentiate between these conditions: factor VIII (FVIII) levels and the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) DIC score. METHODS: To this end, we conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with DIC, liver disease, or both. Multiple logistic regression was performed, and receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to calculate the area under curve (AUC) for distinguishing DIC in the setting of liver disease. RESULTS: Among 123 patients with DIC, liver disease, or liver disease plus DIC, FVIII levels did not differ significantly. ISTH scores were lower in patients with DIC than in liver disease with or without DIC. Addition of several laboratory parameters to the ISTH score, including mean platelet volume, FV, FVIII, international normalized ratio, and activated partial thromboplastin time, improved AUC for distinguishing DIC in liver disease from liver disease alone (AUC = 0.76; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: We conclude that FVIII levels do not distinguish DIC from liver disease, and ISTH DIC scores are not predictive of DIC in patients with liver disease. Inclusion of additional lab variables within the ISTH DIC score may aid in identifying DIC in patients with liver disease.

Cost-effectiveness of sutimlimab in cold agglutinin disease.

Primary cold agglutinin disease (CAD) is a rare autoimmune hemolytic anemia caused by cold-reactive antibodies that bind to red blood cells and lead to complement-mediated hemolysis. Patients with primary CAD experience the burden of increased health resource utilization and reduced quality of life. The standard-of-care (SOC) in patients with primary CAD has included cold avoidance, transfusion support, and chemoimmunotherapy. The use of sutimlimab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits C1-mediated hemolysis, was shown to reduce transfusion-dependence and improve quality of life across two pivotal phase 3 studies, further supported by 2-year extension data. Using data from the transfusion-dependent patient population that led to sutimlimab's initial FDA approval, we performed the first-ever cost-effectiveness analysis in primary CAD. The projected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in our Markov model was $2 340 000/QALY, significantly above an upper-end conventional US willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY. These results are consistent across scenarios of higher body weight and a pan-refractory SOC patient phenotype (i.e., treated sequentially with bendamustine-rituximab, bortezomib, ibrutinib, and eculizumab). No parameter variations in deterministic sensitivity analyses changed our conclusion. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, SOC was favored over sutimlimab in 100% of 10 000 iterations. Exploratory threshold analyses showed that significant price reduction (>80%) or time-limited treatment (<18 months) followed by lifelong clinical remission off sutimlimab would allow sutimlimab to become cost-effective. The impact of sutimlimab on health system costs with longer term follow-up data merits future study and consideration through a distributional cost-effectiveness framework.