The Journal of pediatrics · 2022
Variation of Diagnostic Approaches and Treatment Practices for Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis/Macrophage Activation Syndrome Among Pediatric Subspecialists.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Carter-Febres Maria, Lozano-Chinga Michell, Thomsen William, Treemarcki Erin B, James Karen E, Fluchel Mark
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic and treatment practices among a variety of subspecialists at pediatric institutions in the US.
STUDY DESIGN: Using a web-based survey, we assessed the consultation, diagnostic, and treatment preferences of providers from the different pediatric subspecialties who care for pediatric patients with hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH)/macrophage activating syndrome (MAS). Domains included demographics, provider training level and specialty, experience and comfort level with the diagnosis and treatment of HLH/MAS, and institutional approaches toward the diagnosis and management of HLH/MAS. Participants also were given 2 case scenarios: one describing Epstein-Barr virus-associated HLH and another describing an underlying rheumatologic condition with MAS.
RESULTS: Of 263 respondents, 23%, 29%, 39%, and 7% identified as hematology/oncology, rheumatology, general pediatrics/critical care/hospitalist, and allergy/immunology, respectively. For Epstein-Barr virus/HLH, hematology/oncology was the preferred first consultant by most respondents other than rheumatologists, of whom only 47% agreed. For MAS, 92% of respondents from all specialties favored a rheumatology consultation. Preferred diagnostic tests varied by subspecialty, with hematology/oncology more likely than rheumatology to order an infectious workup, natural killer cell function, soluble interleukin-2 receptor, bone marrow biopsy, and genetic testing. First-line therapy also varied, with hematology/oncology preferring dexamethasone and etoposide and rheumatology more often preferring methylprednisolone and anakinra. One-half of respondents were unaware of institutional algorithms for diagnosis and treatment of HLH/MAS. Most (85.6%) favored the development of treatment algorithms for HLH/MAS, and 90% supported a multidisciplinary approach.
CONCLUSIONS: Current consulting patterns, diagnostic workup, and treatment approaches of HLH/MAS vary by specialty, highlighting the need for standardized management algorithms and institutional multidisciplinary HLH/MAS teams.
STUDY DESIGN: Using a web-based survey, we assessed the consultation, diagnostic, and treatment preferences of providers from the different pediatric subspecialties who care for pediatric patients with hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH)/macrophage activating syndrome (MAS). Domains included demographics, provider training level and specialty, experience and comfort level with the diagnosis and treatment of HLH/MAS, and institutional approaches toward the diagnosis and management of HLH/MAS. Participants also were given 2 case scenarios: one describing Epstein-Barr virus-associated HLH and another describing an underlying rheumatologic condition with MAS.
RESULTS: Of 263 respondents, 23%, 29%, 39%, and 7% identified as hematology/oncology, rheumatology, general pediatrics/critical care/hospitalist, and allergy/immunology, respectively. For Epstein-Barr virus/HLH, hematology/oncology was the preferred first consultant by most respondents other than rheumatologists, of whom only 47% agreed. For MAS, 92% of respondents from all specialties favored a rheumatology consultation. Preferred diagnostic tests varied by subspecialty, with hematology/oncology more likely than rheumatology to order an infectious workup, natural killer cell function, soluble interleukin-2 receptor, bone marrow biopsy, and genetic testing. First-line therapy also varied, with hematology/oncology preferring dexamethasone and etoposide and rheumatology more often preferring methylprednisolone and anakinra. One-half of respondents were unaware of institutional algorithms for diagnosis and treatment of HLH/MAS. Most (85.6%) favored the development of treatment algorithms for HLH/MAS, and 90% supported a multidisciplinary approach.
CONCLUSIONS: Current consulting patterns, diagnostic workup, and treatment approaches of HLH/MAS vary by specialty, highlighting the need for standardized management algorithms and institutional multidisciplinary HLH/MAS teams.