Zumberg, Marc

Abstract Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) results in recurrent severe epistaxis, chronic gastrointestinal bleeding, and other morbid manifestations. Pomalidomide was recently demonstrated to be efficacious for bleeding in HHT in the landmark PATH-HHT trial. Given that the vascular remodeling that results in bleeding improvement may require several months, characteristics associated with treatment response would be invaluable to plan treatment. Using data from PATH-HHT (NCT03910244), we identified characteristics associated with change from baseline in Epistaxis Severity Score (ESS; a well-validated 10-point HHT bleeding scale and the trial’s primary end point) using multivariable-adjusted repeated-measures models. Characteristics associated with a better response to pomalidomide at weeks 16 to 24 of the trial included a higher (more severe) baseline ESS (change from baseline, −0.76 [95% confidence interval (CI), −0.99 to −0.54] points per 1-point higher baseline score, P< .001) and concomitant antifibrinolytic therapy (−0.73 [95% CI, −1.48 to 0.01] vs no therapy, P = .05). Characteristics associated with a less robust response were older age (0.29 [95% CI, 0.05-0.53] per 10 years older, P = .02) and underlying ACVRL1 germ line mutation (0.62 [95% CI, −0.04 to 1.27] vs ENG, SMAD4, or mutation not known, P = .06]. Characteristics notably associated with placebo response (placebo effect) were patient-reported outcome measures, such that those experiencing more severe disease at baseline had less placebo effect. In conclusion, several baseline patient and disease characteristics were associated with pomalidomide response, findings that may help guide patient selection for the use of pomalidomide in HHT. This trial was registered at www.Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03910244.

Abstract Systems-based hematology (SBH) is an emerging discipline focused on optimizing care delivery for patients with hematologic disorders within complex health care systems. Despite its growing importance, the field lacks a formal definition, standardized curriculum, and clear career pathway, hindering widespread adoption and training of future SBH experts. We sought to define core principles, competencies, challenges, and future directions of SBH to identify foundational components for a potential educational curriculum. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 8 SBH experts. Expert participants were identified through their committee involvement with the American Society of Hematology. Five overarching themes emerged: (1) The accidental expert: SBH careers have developed organically and reactively in response to pressing institutional needs, not through formal training; (2) Defining the unseen: experts define the field pragmatically by its function and roles; (3) The SBH toolkit: success requires a hybrid skillset combining clinical hematology expertise with health systems science (HSS) principles; (4) The architect's dilemma: the field's growth is hindered by interdependent challenges of building a curriculum, awareness, and securing resources; and (5) Charting the future: the discipline is poised for growth, driven by increasing health care complexity and specialization. SBH represents the nexus of HSS principles and hematology care. Formalizing SBH requires a multipronged approach, including developing a standardized curriculum that equips learners with a hybrid skillset, creating clear value for health systems and patients, and fostering a community of practice through professional societies. These findings provide a foundational framework for developing educational resources and institutional support necessary to continue advancing SBH.

Introduction: Systems-based hematology (SBH) is an emerging field focused on improving hematology care delivery through quality improvement (QI) and health systems science (HSS). However, a universal definition and standardized training curriculum are lacking. This study aimed to explore experts' perspectives on defining SBH, identify core knowledge and skills, and discuss challenges and opportunities in developing a curriculum. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight hematologists who have expertise in SBH through practical experience, scientific publications, and serve on related committees for the American Society of Hematology. These interviews were automatically transcribed through Microsoft Teams. Thematic analysis, using both inductive and deductive coding, was employed to identify themes and subthemes from the verbatim interview transcripts. This was accomplished with a large language model (LLM; Google Gemini Advanced, June 2024). Results: In combination, these semi-structured interviews lasted approximately 400 minutes and generated 231 pages of transcript text with 63117 words for analysis. Five main themes and associated subthemes were identified. (1) Defining SBH: experts highlighted the lack of a universal definition for SBH, emphasizing the reason it is often defined by its functions, such as improving healthcare delivery, ensuring appropriate use of resources, and addressing disparities in care. They often compared SBH to other fields like antimicrobial stewardship or implementation science to illustrate its expansive role and scope. (2) The Role and Scope of SBH: experts described SBH as encompassing a broad range of activities, including improving healthcare delivery, implementing QI initiatives, conducting pragmatic research, and advocating for policy changes at various levels. They emphasized the importance of data-driven approaches and collaboration with other healthcare professionals. (3) Training and Education in SBH: the lack of formal training programs and curricula for SBH was a recurring theme. Experts suggested that a comprehensive curriculum should include QI methodologies, implementation science, clinical informatics, health economics, leadership skills, and hematology-specific examples and case studies. They proposed various delivery methods, including asynchronous online modules, virtual workshops, and in-person sessions, targeting hematology fellows, junior faculty, and other healthcare professionals involved in hematology care. They unanimously agreed that a SBH curriculum could borrow heavily from an established HSS curriculum but should incorporate hematology-specific examples. (4) Challenges and Barriers to Implementing SBH: experts identified several challenges, including the lack of awareness and recognition of SBH among healthcare professionals and administrators, resource constraints, and the need for institutional buy-in. They also highlighted the technical difficulty of measuring and demonstrating the value of SBH interventions, particularly in terms of cost savings and improved patient outcomes. (5) The Future of SBH: despite the challenges, experts expressed optimism about the future of SBH, predicting its growing importance and expanding scope, including malignant hematology, community practice, and pediatrics. They envisioned SBH playing a crucial role in addressing rising healthcare costs, quality concerns, and disparities in care. They also anticipated the integration of new technologies like artificial intelligence, “virtual” care delivery, and molecular genetics into SBH practice. Conclusions: This study provides valuable insights into the current state of SBH and the need for a standardized curriculum. The findings can inform the development of educational resources and training programs to equip future practitioners with the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively practice SBH and improve hematology care delivery. This study also sheds light on the utility of qualitative research within SBH and the emerging analytical tools that will require further exploration and standardization (e.g., LLM prompt engineering).

Introduction Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT), the second most common bleeding disorder worldwide, affects 1 in 5000 people and is characterized by extensive formation of telangiectasia and arteriovenous malformations (AVM) in mucosa, lung, brain, and liver. The primary clinical manifestation is recurrent, often severe epistaxis which commonly results in iron deficiency anemia, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and reduced quality of life (QOL). Though non-randomized and/or underpowered studies have suggested that systemic bevacizumab or thalidomide may be effective in treating HHT, there have been no pivotal studies and therefore no FDA or EMA approved therapies. Methods PATH-HHT was an NHLBI-funded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted at 13 centers in the US to determine the safety and efficacy of pomalidomide for bleeding in HHT. Pomalidomide was supplied by Celgene and Bristol Myers Squibb. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive pomalidomide 4 mg daily or matching placebo for 6 months. Dose reductions were allowed for toxicity. The primary endpoint was the change in the Epistaxis Severity Score (ESS), a well-validated bleeding score in HHT, from baseline (randomization) to the end of the six-month treatment period, analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures with adjustment for baseline value, center, treatment, visit, and treatment by visit interaction. Key secondary endpoints included 1) change in the average daily self-reported epistaxis duration from the four weeks preceding the baseline visit to weeks 20-24 of treatment, 2) amount of parenteral iron infused or blood transfused, and 3) change in QOL measurements, including an HHT-specific QOL score. Results PATH-HHT opened in November 2019 and was closed to enrollment by the NHLBI in June 2023 after a planned 75% interim analysis met a prespecified threshold for efficacy. A total of 144 patients were randomized and treated (95 pomalidomide, 49 placebo). Early study discontinuation was 25% in pomalidomide: 14% AE, 11% withdrawn, 1 unrelated death, compared with placebo (4% withdrawn). Across groups, 8% were terminated after 12 weeks for early study closure. Participants included 48% females, 11% non-white race; mean (± SD) age was 58.8±12.2 years. The mean ESS at baseline was 5.0±1.5 (4.9 pomalidomide, 5.2 placebo), consistent with moderate to severe epistaxis. At 24 weeks, the ESS in patients treated with pomalidomide decreased by a mean [95% CI] of -1.84 [-2.24, -1.44] and in the placebo group decreased by -0.89 [-1.39, -0.39] (mean difference -0.95 [-1.58, -0.32], p = 0.003) (Figure, Panel A). Difference between groups was apparent by 12 weeks (mean difference -0.52, 95% CI [-1.04, -0.01], p = 0.045). The HHT-specific QOL score, which ranges from 0 to 16 with higher scores indicating more limitations, also decreased more in the pomalidomide (mean -2.6, 95% CI [-3.3, -1.9]) vs the placebo group at 24 weeks (mean -1.2, 95% CI [-2.1, -0.3], p = 0.015) (Figure, Panel B). Adverse events that occurred more in the pomalidomide group included mild to moderate neutropenia (45% vs. 10%), constipation/diarrhea (60% vs. 37%), and rash (36% vs. 10%). Venous thrombosis occurred in 2% of patients in each group. Conclusion PATH-HHT is the largest and the first adequately powered, randomized trial of systemic therapy in HHT. The study demonstrated a significant and highly clinically relevant reduction in epistaxis in pomalidomide-treated patients as well as an improvement in the HHT-specific QOL score. Pomalidomide may offer a novel approach to management of HHT. Since plasma was collected from patients in this study before and at the end of treatment, additional studies may identify biomarkers predicting pomalidomide responses.