Effect of desire for pregnancy on decisions to escalate treatment in multiple sclerosis care: Differences between MS specialists and non-MS specialists.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic inertia (TI) is a worldwide phenomenon that affects 60 to 90% of neurologists and up to 25% of daily treatment decisions during management of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. A large volume of MS patients are women of childbearing age, and desire for pregnancy is a complex variable often affecting MS care. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of desire for pregnancy on decisions to escalate treatment during management of MS patients. METHODS: 300 neurologists with expertise in MS from 20 countries were invited to participate in the study. Participants were presented with 12 pairs of simulated MS patient profiles reflective of case scenarios encountered in clinical practice. Participants were asked to select the ideal candidate for treatment escalation from modest to higher-efficacy therapies. Disaggregated discrete choice experiments were used to estimate the weight of factors and attributes affecting physicians' decisions when considering treatment selection. An excel calculator that provides estimates as the percentage of participants that would escalate treatment for a simulated case-scenario was constructed. RESULTS: 229 (76.3%) completed the study. The mean age (SD) of study participants was 44 (±10) years. The mean (SD) number of MS patients seen per month by each neurologist was 18 (±16). Non-MS specialists were significantly less likely to escalate treatment than MS specialists across mild, moderate, and severe patient cases. These differences were accentuated when case scenarios introduced a desire for pregnancy. The findings were consistent when MRI-lesions, severity of symptoms, and number of relapses were included. CONCLUSIONS: Desire for pregnancy differentially influences decisions to escalate treatment, suggesting knowledge-to-action gaps between MS and non-MS specialists. Our findings indicate the need for educational strategies to overcome these gaps and improve clinical outcomes for MS patients who desire pregnancy.

Endovascular Therapy or Alteplase in Patients with Comorbidities: Insights from UNMASK EVT.

OBJECTIVE: Decisions to treat large-vessel occlusion with endovascular therapy (EVT) or intravenous alteplase depend on how physicians weigh benefits against risks when considering patients' comorbidities. We explored EVT/alteplase decision-making by stroke experts in the setting of comorbidity/disability. METHODS: In an international multi-disciplinary survey, experts chose treatment approaches under current resources and under assumed ideal conditions for 10 of 22 randomly assigned case scenarios. Five included comorbidities (cancer, cardiac/respiratory/renal disease, mild cognitive impairment [MCI], physical dependence). We examined scenario/respondent characteristics associated with EVT/alteplase decisions using multivariable logistic regressions. RESULTS: Among 607 physicians (38 countries), EVT was chosen less often in comorbidity-related scenarios (79.6% under current resources, 82.7% assuming ideal conditions) versus six "level-1A" scenarios for which EVT/alteplase was clearly indicated by current guidelines (91.1% and 95.1%, respectively, odds ratio [OR] [current resources]: 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.47). However, EVT was chosen more often in comorbidity-related scenarios compared to all other 17 scenarios (79.6% versus 74.4% under current resources, OR: 1.34, 1.17-1.54). Responses favoring alteplase for comorbidity-related scenarios (e.g. 75.0% under current resources) were comparable to level-1A scenarios (72.2%) and higher than all others (60.4%). No comorbidity independently diminished EVT odds when considering all scenarios. MCI and dependence carried higher alteplase odds; cancer and cardiac/respiratory/renal disease had lower odds. Being older/female carried lower EVT odds. Relevant respondent characteristics included performing more EVT cases/year (higher EVT-, lower alteplase odds), practicing in East Asia (higher EVT odds), and in interventional neuroradiology (lower alteplase odds vs neurology). CONCLUSION: Moderate-to-severe comorbidities did not consistently deter experts from EVT, suggesting equipoise about withholding EVT based on comorbidities. However, alteplase was often foregone when respondents chose EVT. Differences in decision-making by patient age/sex merit further study.

Time of day and endovascular treatment decision in acute stroke with relative endovascular treatment indication: insights from UNMASK EVT international survey.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The decision to proceed with endovascular thrombectomy should ideally be made independent of inconvenience factors, such as daytime. We assessed the influence of patient presentation time on endovascular therapy decision making under current local resources and assumed ideal conditions in acute ischemic stroke with level 2B evidence for endovascular treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In an international cross sectional survey, 607 stroke physicians from 38 countries were asked to give their treatment decisions to 10 out of 22 randomly assigned case scenarios. Eleven scenarios had level 2B evidence for endovascular treatment: 7 daytime scenarios (7:00 am-5:00 pm) and four night time cases (5:01 pm- 6:59 am). Participants provided their treatment approach assuming (A) there were no practice constraints and (B) under their current local resources. Endovascular treatment decisions in the 11 scenarios were analyzed according to presentation time with adjustment for patient and physician characteristics. RESULTS: Participants selected endovascular therapy in 74.2% under assumed ideal conditions, and 70.7% under their current local resources of night time scenarios, and in 67.2% and 63.8% of daytime scenarios. Night time presentation did not increase the probability of a treatment decision against endovascular therapy under current local resources or assumed ideal conditions. CONCLUSION: Presentation time did not influence endovascular treatment decision making in stroke patients in this international survey.

Endovascular treatment decision in acute stroke: does physician gender matter? Insights from UNMASK EVT, an international, multidisciplinary survey.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Differences in the treatment practice of female and male physicians have been shown in several medical subspecialties. It is currently not known whether this also applies to endovascular stroke treatment. The purpose of this study was to explore whether there are differences in endovascular treatment decisions made by female and male stroke physicians and neurointerventionalists. METHODS: In an international survey, stroke physicians and neurointerventionalists were randomly assigned 10 case scenarios and asked how they would treat the patient: (A) assuming there were no external constraints and (B) given their local working conditions. Descriptive statistics were used to describe baseline demographics, and the adjusted OR for physician gender as a predictor of endovascular treatment decision was calculated using logistic regression. RESULTS: 607 physicians (97 women, 508 men, 2 who did not wish to declare) participated in this survey. Physician gender was neither a significant predictor for endovascular treatment decision under assumed ideal conditions (endovascular therapy was favored by 77.0% of female and 79.3% of male physicians, adjusted OR 1.03, P=0.806) nor under current local resources (endovascular therapy was favored by 69.1% of female and 76.9% of male physicians, adjusted OR 1.03, P=0.814). CONCLUSION: Endovascular therapy decision making between male and female physicians did not differ under assumed ideal conditions or under current local resources.

Factors Associated With the Decision-Making on Endovascular Thrombectomy for the Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke.

Background and Purpose- Little is known about the real-life factors that clinicians use in selection of patients that would receive endovascular treatment (EVT) in the real world. We sought to determine patient, practitioner, and health system factors associated with therapeutic decisions around endovascular treatment. Methods- We conducted a multinational cross-sectional web-based study comprising of 607 clinicians and interventionalists from 38 countries who are directly involved in acute stroke care. Participants were randomly allocated to 10 from a pool of 22 acute stroke case scenarios. Each case was classified as either Class I, Class II, or unknown evidence according to the current guidelines. We used logistic regression analysis applying weight of evidence approach. Main outcome measures were multilevel factors associated with EVT, adherence to current EVT guidelines, and practice gaps between current and ideal practice settings. Results- Of the 1330 invited participants, 607 (45.6%) participants completed the study (53.7% neurologists, 28.5% neurointerventional radiologists, 17.8% other clinicians). The weighed evidence approach revealed that National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (34.9%), level of evidence (30.2%), ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score) or ischemic core volume (22.4%), patient's age (21.6%), and clinicians' experience in EVT use (19.3%) are the most important factors for EVT decision. Of 2208 responses that met Class I evidence for EVT, 1917 (86.8%) were in favor of EVT. In case scenarios with no available guidelines, 1070 of 1380 (77.5%) responses favored EVT. Comparison between current and ideal practice settings revealed a small practice gap (941 of 6070 responses, 15.5%). Conclusions- In this large multinational survey, stroke severity, guideline-based level of evidence, baseline brain imaging, patients' age and physicians' experience were the most relevant factors for EVT decision-making. The high agreement between responses and Class I guideline recommendations and high EVT use even when guidelines were not available reflect the real-world acceptance of EVT as standard of care in patients with disabling acute ischemic stroke.

Factors influencing the decision to perform carotid endarterectomy.

Various interpretations of the indications for carotid endarterectomy exist. Physician knowledge as it relates to the decision to proceed or recommend carotid endarterectomy was investigated, using disaggregate discrete choice analysis. Canadian neurologists, neurosurgeons, vascular surgeons, and internists were surveyed. The degree of stenosis was most important, followed by symptoms, comorbid illness, and arterial imaging modality. No differences existed by specialty. Canadian physicians in four specialties are knowledgeable about results of randomized clinical trials for carotid endarterectomy.