Building the foundation for a community-generated national research blueprint for inherited bleeding disorders: facilitating research through infrastructure, workforce, resources and funding.

BACKGROUND: The National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF) conducted extensive, inclusive community consultations to guide prioritization of research in coming decades in alignment with its mission to find cures and address and prevent complications enabling people and families with blood disorders to thrive. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: With the American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network, NHF recruited multidisciplinary expert working groups (WG) to distill the community-identified priorities into concrete research questions and score their feasibility, impact, and risk. WG6 was charged with identifying the infrastructure, workforce development, and funding and resources to facilitate the prioritized research. Community input on conclusions was gathered at the NHF State of the Science Research Summit. RESULTS: WG6 detailed a minimal research capacity infrastructure threshold, and opportunities to enable its attainment, for bleeding disorders centers to participate in prospective, multicenter national registries. They identified challenges and opportunities to recruit, retain, and train the diverse multidisciplinary care and research workforce required into the future. Innovative collaborative approaches to trial design, resource networking, and funding to surmount obstacles facing research in rare disorders were elucidated. CONCLUSIONS: The innovations in infrastructure, workforce development, and resources and funding proposed herein may contribute to facilitating a National Research Blueprint for Inherited Bleeding Disorders.

Research is critical to advancing the diagnosis and care of people with inherited bleeding disorders (PWIBD). This research requires significant infrastructure, including people and resources. Hemophilia treatment centers (HTC) need many different skilled care professionals including doctors, nurses, and other providers; also statisticians, data managers, and other experts to process patients' clinical information into research. Attracting diverse qualified professionals to the clinical and research work requires long-term planning, recruiting individuals in training programs and retaining them as they become experts. Research infrastructure includes physical servers running database software, networks that link them, and the environment in which these components function. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network (ATHN) coordinate and fund data collection at HTCs on the health and well-being of thousands of PWIBD into a registry used in research studies.National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF) and ATHN asked our group of health care professionals, technology experts, and lived experience experts (LEE) to identify the infrastructure, workforce, and resources needed to do the research most important to PWIBD. We identified the types of CDC/ATHN studies all HTCs should be able to perform, and the physical and human infrastructure this requires. We prioritized finding the best clinical trial designs to study inherited bleeding disorders, identifying ways to share personnel and tools between HTCs, and innovating how research is governed and funded. Involving LEEs in designing, managing, and carrying out research will be key in conducting research to improve the lives of PWIBD.

Building the foundation for a community-generated national research blueprint for inherited bleeding disorders: research priorities in health services; diversity, equity, and inclusion; and implementation science.

BACKGROUND: The National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF) conducted extensive all-stakeholder inherited bleeding disorder (BD) community consultations to inform a blueprint for future research. Sustaining and expanding the specialized and comprehensive Hemophilia Treatment Center care model, to better serve all people with inherited BDs (PWIBD), and increasing equitable access to optimal health emerged as top priorities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: NHF, with the American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network (ATHN), convened multidisciplinary expert working groups (WG) to distill priority research initiatives from consultation findings. WG5 was charged with prioritizing health services research (HSR); diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); and implementation science (IS) research initiatives to advance community-identified priorities. RESULTS: WG5 identified multiple priority research themes and initiatives essential to capitalizing on this potential. Formative studies using qualitative and mixed methods approaches should be conducted to characterize issues and meaningfully investigate interventions. Investment in HSR, DEI and IS education, training, and workforce development are vital. CONCLUSIONS: An enormous amount of work is required in the areas of HSR, DEI, and IS, which have received inadequate attention in inherited BDs. This research has great potential to evolve the experiences of PWIBD, deliver transformational community-based care, and advance health equity.

Research into how people get their health care, called health services research, is important to understand if care is being delivered equitably and efficiently. This research figures out how to provide the best care at the lowest cost and finds out if everyone gets equally good care. Diversity and inclusion research focuses on whether all marginalized and minoritized populations (such as a given social standing, race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexuality, age, income, disability status, language, culture, faith, geographic location, or country of birth) receive equitable care. This includes checking whether different populations are all getting the care they need and looking for ways to improve the care. Implementation science studies how to make a potential improvement work in the real world. The improvement could be a new way to diagnose or treat a health condition, a better way to deliver health care or do research, or a strategy to remove barriers preventing specific populations from getting the best available care. The National Hemophilia Foundation focuses on improving the lives of all people with bleeding disorders (BD). They brought BDs doctors, nurses, physical therapists, social workers, professors, and government and industry partners together with people and families living with BDs to discuss research in the areas described above. The group came up with important future research questions to address racism and other biases, and other changes to policies, procedures, and practices to make BD care equitable, efficient, and effective.

Understanding the Pain Management Landscape Within the US Bleeding Disorder Community: A Multi-Center Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Pain is a known complication in persons with hemophilia (PWH) as a result of muscle and joint bleeding. Little is known regarding national Hemophilia Treatment Center (HTC) practice patterns related to pain management. The aim of this study was to: 1) Describe pain management practice patterns of HTC providers, 2) Identify gaps and areas of alignment with the CDC pain guidelines, and 3) Address educational opportunities for pain management. This survey is the first extensive description of multidisciplinary practice patterns of pain management for PWH. METHODS: This descriptive study involved physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, physical therapists, and social workers from federally funded Hemophilia Treatment Centers (HTC) eligible to complete an online survey exploring pain management practice patterns within the CDC pain guidelines. RESULTS: Results of this survey shed light on areas of strength and cohesiveness between HTC providers, including the following: dedication to effective pain management, utilization of non-pharmacological pain options, trial of non-opioid medications first before opioids, maintaining follow-up with patients after opioid prescription initiation, recognizing and utilizing clinically important findings before prescribing opioids, and counseling their patients regarding potential risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: There remain opportunities to incorporate into clinical practice consistent use of tools such as formal screening questionnaires, opioid use agreements, written measurable goals, ongoing prescription monitoring, and written plans for discontinuation of opioid therapy. These results provide opportunities for improvement in education of HTC team members thus optimizing pain management in persons with bleeding disorders.

Burden of illness: direct and indirect costs among persons with hemophilia A in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the direct and indirect costs of hemophilia care among persons with hemophilia A in the US. METHODS: Observational data were obtained from HUGS-Va, a multi-center study from six federally supported hemophilia treatment centers (HTCs). Eligible individuals completed a standardized initial questionnaire and were followed regularly for 2 years to obtain information on work or school absenteeism, time spent arranging hemophilia care, and unpaid hemophilia-related support from caregivers. Data from 1-year healthcare utilization records and 2-year clotting factor dispensing records measured direct medical costs. Indirect costs were imputed using the human capital approach, which uses wages as a proxy measure of work time output. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients with complete data were included in the analysis. Two-thirds had severe hemophilia and the mean age was 21.1 years. The use of prophylaxis in severe hemophilia patients is associated with statistically significant reduction in the numbers of emergency department (ED) visits and bleeding episodes compared with those who were treated episodically. From the societal perspective, mild hemophilia costs $59,101 (median: $7519) annually per person, $84,363 (median: $61,837) for moderate hemophilia, $201,471 (median: $143,431) for severe hemophilia using episodic treatment, and $301,392 (median: $286,198) for severe hemophilia receiving prophylaxis. Clotting factor contributed from 54% of total costs in mild hemophilia to a maximum of 94% for patients with severe hemophilia receiving prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Hemophilia is a costly disorder not only because of its high medical expenses, but also due to the high indirect costs incurred.

Self-reported barriers to hemophilia care in people with factor VIII deficiency.

BACKGROUND: In 1975, a national network of hemophilia treatment centers (HTCs) was created to increase access to healthcare services for individuals with hemophilia. Studies demonstrate that care in HTCs improves outcomes and reduces costs. PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to assess the association of demographic, insurance, and clinical characteristics with self-reported barriers to HTC utilization. METHODS: Data were collected from six HTCs from 2005 through 2007. Adult participants and parents of children aged <18 years were interviewed. Barriers were assessed by asking whether it was difficult to obtain care in the past 12 months. Chi-square test and logistic regression were used to assess factors associated with self-reported barriers to care. All analyses were performed in 2010-2011. RESULTS: Data for 327 participants (50% adult, 64% severe hemophilia) were analyzed in 2010-2011. Most participants/parents did not report barriers to HTC utilization. However, 46 participants/parents (14%) reported one to six barriers, and 23 reported one barrier. Most frequently reported barriers were "distance to the clinic" for children (44%) and "insurance coverage" for adults (40%). Factors significantly associated with self-reported barriers were: lower income (<$20,000; OR=3.11, 95% CI=1.14-8.45), difficulty finding insurance or obtaining full-year coverage (OR=5.71, 95% CI=2.63-12.41), and decreased state Medicaid coverage for low-income, non-elderly individuals (OR=0.93, 95% CI=0.89-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that, although few people with hemophilia have barriers to care at HTCs, those with lower income, difficulty finding or maintaining adequate insurance coverage, or living in states with lower Medicaid generosity are more likely to report barriers. Identifying and resolving such barriers may improve care access and patient-reported outcomes.