Key clinical point: Pyrotinib+capecitabine significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs. lapatinib+capecitabine with manageable toxicity in women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after treatment with trastuzumab and taxanes.

Major finding: Median PFS was significantly longer in the pyrotinib+capecitabine vs. lapatinib+capecitabine group (12.5 vs. 6.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.39; one-sided P less than .0001). Serious adverse events were reported by 10% vs. 8% of patients in the pyrotinib vs. lapatinib group.

Study details: Findings are from an interim analysis of the phase 3 PHOEBE trial including 267 patients with HER2+ MBC previously treated with trastuzumab and taxanes randomly allocated to receive either pyrotinib+capecitabine (n=134) or lapatinib+capecitabine (n=132).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and the National Key R&D Program of China. The lead author reported ties with Hengrui, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Eisai. Some other investigators also reported employment or receiving grants and fees from various pharmaceutical companies including Hengrui.

Source: Xu B et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Feb 11. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30702-6.

Key clinical point: Pyrotinib+capecitabine significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs. lapatinib+capecitabine with manageable toxicity in women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after treatment with trastuzumab and taxanes.

Major finding: Median PFS was significantly longer in the pyrotinib+capecitabine vs. lapatinib+capecitabine group (12.5 vs. 6.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.39; one-sided P less than .0001). Serious adverse events were reported by 10% vs. 8% of patients in the pyrotinib vs. lapatinib group.

Study details: Findings are from an interim analysis of the phase 3 PHOEBE trial including 267 patients with HER2+ MBC previously treated with trastuzumab and taxanes randomly allocated to receive either pyrotinib+capecitabine (n=134) or lapatinib+capecitabine (n=132).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and the National Key R&D Program of China. The lead author reported ties with Hengrui, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Eisai. Some other investigators also reported employment or receiving grants and fees from various pharmaceutical companies including Hengrui.

Source: Xu B et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Feb 11. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30702-6.

Key clinical point: Pyrotinib+capecitabine significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs. lapatinib+capecitabine with manageable toxicity in women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after treatment with trastuzumab and taxanes.

Major finding: Median PFS was significantly longer in the pyrotinib+capecitabine vs. lapatinib+capecitabine group (12.5 vs. 6.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.39; one-sided P less than .0001). Serious adverse events were reported by 10% vs. 8% of patients in the pyrotinib vs. lapatinib group.

Study details: Findings are from an interim analysis of the phase 3 PHOEBE trial including 267 patients with HER2+ MBC previously treated with trastuzumab and taxanes randomly allocated to receive either pyrotinib+capecitabine (n=134) or lapatinib+capecitabine (n=132).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine and the National Key R&D Program of China. The lead author reported ties with Hengrui, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Eisai. Some other investigators also reported employment or receiving grants and fees from various pharmaceutical companies including Hengrui.

Source: Xu B et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Feb 11. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30702-6.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has expanded the criteria for lung cancer screening. The updated final recommendations have lowered the age at which screening starts from 55 to 50 years and have reduced the criterion regarding smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years.

“This is great news because it means that nearly twice as many people are eligible to be screened, which we hope will allow clinicians to save more lives and help people remain healthy longer,” commented John Wong, MD, chief science officer, vice chair for clinical affairs, and chief of the Division of Clinical Decision Making at USPSTF.

The updated final recommendations were published online on March 9 in JAMA.

The USPSTF recommends annual screening with low-dose CT for adults aged 50-80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

This updates guidance issued in 2013, which recommended annual screening for lung cancer for adults aged 55-80 years who had a 30 pack-year smoking history and who were either current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years.

The move will nearly double the number of people are now eligible for screening, up to 14.5 million individuals – an increase of 81% (6.4 million adults) from the 2013 recommendations.

The expanded criteria may help increase screening among Black individuals and women. Data show that both groups tend to smoke fewer cigarettes than White men and that Black persons are at higher risk for lung cancer than White persons. In addition, research has shown that about one-third of Black patients with lung cancer were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening under the previous guidelines.

Uptake has been limited

To date, uptake of lung cancer screening has been very limited, from 6% to 18% of individuals who meet the eligibility criteria.

The new recommendations will open up screening to many more people, but challenges to implementation remain.

“The science is clear that lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives,” Dr. Wong told this news organization. “We recognize that there are existing barriers to screening everyone who is eligible, but clinicians and patients both deserve to know that screening can detect lung cancer early, when treatment has the best chance of being beneficial.”

He added that the hope is that these recommendations will encourage clinicians to examine the barriers to effective lung cancer screening in their communities and to do what they can to improve implementation. “We also hope to encourage patients to have conversations with their clinicians about whether they are eligible for screening and to discuss smoking cessation treatments if they are still smoking,” Dr. Wong added.

In an accompanying editorial, Louise M. Henderson, PhD, M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, and Ethan Basch, MD, all from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, address some of the current challenges in implementation.

They note that reimbursement for lung cancer screening by Medicare requires submission of data to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–approved registry, and this can present problems for facilities serving less affluent communities or that have limited resources.

Medicaid coverage is also uneven. As of September 2020, lung cancer screening was covered by 38 Medicaid programs, but not by 9. For three programs, data on coverage were not available.

“With the new recommendations lowering the screening-eligible age to 50 years, many eligible individuals who are uninsured or who are receiving Medicaid and living in states that do not cover screening will have financial barriers to undergo screening,” they write.

In addition, many individuals in at-risk populations lack adequate geographic access to comprehensive lung cancer screening programs.

Expanding eligibility criteria is important, the editorialists point out, but barriers to screening, which include lack of insurance coverage and limited physical access to high-quality screening programs, highlight the complex problems with implementation that need to be addressed.

“A concerted effort to increase the reach of lung cancer screening is needed,” they write. “The 2021 USPSTF recommendation statement represents a leap forward in evidence and offers promise to prevent more cancer deaths and address screening disparities. But the greatest work lies ahead to ensure this promise is actualized.”

Advocacy needed

When approached for comment, Jianjun Zhang, MD, PhD, from the department of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said he supports the new guidelines, and they will lower mortality. “The data are pretty strong overall,” he said in an interview.

Although the uptake of screening is currently very low, he pointed out that, even if uptake remains the same, more lives will be saved because eligibility has been expanded. “More people will be getting screened, so it’s a start,” he said.

Aside from factors such as insurance and access, another problem involves primary care. “Time is very limited in primary care,” he said. “You have about 15 minutes, and it can be really hard to fit everything into a visit. Screening may get left out or may only get a brief mention.”

Advocacy is needed, Dr. Zhang pointed out. “Breast cancer has strong voices and advocacy, and people are more aware of mammography,” he said. “The information is disseminated out into the community. We need the same for lung cancer.”

Dr. Zhang emphasized that, even with the expanded criteria, many individuals will still be missed. “There are other risk factors besides smoking,” he said. “About 10% of lung cancers occur in never-smokers.”

Other risk factors include a family history of lung cancer, exposure to certain materials and chemicals, working in the mining industry, and genetics.

“We will move on to more personalized screening at some point,” he said. “But right now, we can’t make it too complicated for patients and doctors. We need to concentrate on increasing screening rates within these current criteria.”

The updated guidelines have been given a B recommendation, meaning the USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide the service to eligible patients, there is at least fair evidence that this service improves important health outcomes, and benefits outweigh harms.

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. The original article lists relevant financial relationships of task force members. Dr. Zhang has received grants from Johnson & Johnson and Merck, and adversary/consulting/honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenePlus, Innovent, OrigMed, and Roche.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has expanded the criteria for lung cancer screening. The updated final recommendations have lowered the age at which screening starts from 55 to 50 years and have reduced the criterion regarding smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years.

“This is great news because it means that nearly twice as many people are eligible to be screened, which we hope will allow clinicians to save more lives and help people remain healthy longer,” commented John Wong, MD, chief science officer, vice chair for clinical affairs, and chief of the Division of Clinical Decision Making at USPSTF.

The updated final recommendations were published online on March 9 in JAMA.

The USPSTF recommends annual screening with low-dose CT for adults aged 50-80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

This updates guidance issued in 2013, which recommended annual screening for lung cancer for adults aged 55-80 years who had a 30 pack-year smoking history and who were either current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years.

The move will nearly double the number of people are now eligible for screening, up to 14.5 million individuals – an increase of 81% (6.4 million adults) from the 2013 recommendations.

The expanded criteria may help increase screening among Black individuals and women. Data show that both groups tend to smoke fewer cigarettes than White men and that Black persons are at higher risk for lung cancer than White persons. In addition, research has shown that about one-third of Black patients with lung cancer were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening under the previous guidelines.

Uptake has been limited

To date, uptake of lung cancer screening has been very limited, from 6% to 18% of individuals who meet the eligibility criteria.

The new recommendations will open up screening to many more people, but challenges to implementation remain.

“The science is clear that lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives,” Dr. Wong told this news organization. “We recognize that there are existing barriers to screening everyone who is eligible, but clinicians and patients both deserve to know that screening can detect lung cancer early, when treatment has the best chance of being beneficial.”

He added that the hope is that these recommendations will encourage clinicians to examine the barriers to effective lung cancer screening in their communities and to do what they can to improve implementation. “We also hope to encourage patients to have conversations with their clinicians about whether they are eligible for screening and to discuss smoking cessation treatments if they are still smoking,” Dr. Wong added.

In an accompanying editorial, Louise M. Henderson, PhD, M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, and Ethan Basch, MD, all from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, address some of the current challenges in implementation.

They note that reimbursement for lung cancer screening by Medicare requires submission of data to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–approved registry, and this can present problems for facilities serving less affluent communities or that have limited resources.

Medicaid coverage is also uneven. As of September 2020, lung cancer screening was covered by 38 Medicaid programs, but not by 9. For three programs, data on coverage were not available.

“With the new recommendations lowering the screening-eligible age to 50 years, many eligible individuals who are uninsured or who are receiving Medicaid and living in states that do not cover screening will have financial barriers to undergo screening,” they write.

In addition, many individuals in at-risk populations lack adequate geographic access to comprehensive lung cancer screening programs.

Expanding eligibility criteria is important, the editorialists point out, but barriers to screening, which include lack of insurance coverage and limited physical access to high-quality screening programs, highlight the complex problems with implementation that need to be addressed.

“A concerted effort to increase the reach of lung cancer screening is needed,” they write. “The 2021 USPSTF recommendation statement represents a leap forward in evidence and offers promise to prevent more cancer deaths and address screening disparities. But the greatest work lies ahead to ensure this promise is actualized.”

Advocacy needed

When approached for comment, Jianjun Zhang, MD, PhD, from the department of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said he supports the new guidelines, and they will lower mortality. “The data are pretty strong overall,” he said in an interview.

Although the uptake of screening is currently very low, he pointed out that, even if uptake remains the same, more lives will be saved because eligibility has been expanded. “More people will be getting screened, so it’s a start,” he said.

Aside from factors such as insurance and access, another problem involves primary care. “Time is very limited in primary care,” he said. “You have about 15 minutes, and it can be really hard to fit everything into a visit. Screening may get left out or may only get a brief mention.”

Advocacy is needed, Dr. Zhang pointed out. “Breast cancer has strong voices and advocacy, and people are more aware of mammography,” he said. “The information is disseminated out into the community. We need the same for lung cancer.”

Dr. Zhang emphasized that, even with the expanded criteria, many individuals will still be missed. “There are other risk factors besides smoking,” he said. “About 10% of lung cancers occur in never-smokers.”

Other risk factors include a family history of lung cancer, exposure to certain materials and chemicals, working in the mining industry, and genetics.

“We will move on to more personalized screening at some point,” he said. “But right now, we can’t make it too complicated for patients and doctors. We need to concentrate on increasing screening rates within these current criteria.”

The updated guidelines have been given a B recommendation, meaning the USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide the service to eligible patients, there is at least fair evidence that this service improves important health outcomes, and benefits outweigh harms.

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. The original article lists relevant financial relationships of task force members. Dr. Zhang has received grants from Johnson & Johnson and Merck, and adversary/consulting/honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenePlus, Innovent, OrigMed, and Roche.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has expanded the criteria for lung cancer screening. The updated final recommendations have lowered the age at which screening starts from 55 to 50 years and have reduced the criterion regarding smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years.

“This is great news because it means that nearly twice as many people are eligible to be screened, which we hope will allow clinicians to save more lives and help people remain healthy longer,” commented John Wong, MD, chief science officer, vice chair for clinical affairs, and chief of the Division of Clinical Decision Making at USPSTF.

The updated final recommendations were published online on March 9 in JAMA.

The USPSTF recommends annual screening with low-dose CT for adults aged 50-80 years who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years.

This updates guidance issued in 2013, which recommended annual screening for lung cancer for adults aged 55-80 years who had a 30 pack-year smoking history and who were either current smokers or had quit within the past 15 years.

The move will nearly double the number of people are now eligible for screening, up to 14.5 million individuals – an increase of 81% (6.4 million adults) from the 2013 recommendations.

The expanded criteria may help increase screening among Black individuals and women. Data show that both groups tend to smoke fewer cigarettes than White men and that Black persons are at higher risk for lung cancer than White persons. In addition, research has shown that about one-third of Black patients with lung cancer were diagnosed before the age of 55 years, which means they would not have been recommended for screening under the previous guidelines.

Uptake has been limited

To date, uptake of lung cancer screening has been very limited, from 6% to 18% of individuals who meet the eligibility criteria.

The new recommendations will open up screening to many more people, but challenges to implementation remain.

“The science is clear that lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives,” Dr. Wong told this news organization. “We recognize that there are existing barriers to screening everyone who is eligible, but clinicians and patients both deserve to know that screening can detect lung cancer early, when treatment has the best chance of being beneficial.”

He added that the hope is that these recommendations will encourage clinicians to examine the barriers to effective lung cancer screening in their communities and to do what they can to improve implementation. “We also hope to encourage patients to have conversations with their clinicians about whether they are eligible for screening and to discuss smoking cessation treatments if they are still smoking,” Dr. Wong added.

In an accompanying editorial, Louise M. Henderson, PhD, M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, and Ethan Basch, MD, all from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, address some of the current challenges in implementation.

They note that reimbursement for lung cancer screening by Medicare requires submission of data to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–approved registry, and this can present problems for facilities serving less affluent communities or that have limited resources.

Medicaid coverage is also uneven. As of September 2020, lung cancer screening was covered by 38 Medicaid programs, but not by 9. For three programs, data on coverage were not available.

“With the new recommendations lowering the screening-eligible age to 50 years, many eligible individuals who are uninsured or who are receiving Medicaid and living in states that do not cover screening will have financial barriers to undergo screening,” they write.

In addition, many individuals in at-risk populations lack adequate geographic access to comprehensive lung cancer screening programs.

Expanding eligibility criteria is important, the editorialists point out, but barriers to screening, which include lack of insurance coverage and limited physical access to high-quality screening programs, highlight the complex problems with implementation that need to be addressed.

“A concerted effort to increase the reach of lung cancer screening is needed,” they write. “The 2021 USPSTF recommendation statement represents a leap forward in evidence and offers promise to prevent more cancer deaths and address screening disparities. But the greatest work lies ahead to ensure this promise is actualized.”

Advocacy needed

When approached for comment, Jianjun Zhang, MD, PhD, from the department of thoracic/head and neck medical oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said he supports the new guidelines, and they will lower mortality. “The data are pretty strong overall,” he said in an interview.

Although the uptake of screening is currently very low, he pointed out that, even if uptake remains the same, more lives will be saved because eligibility has been expanded. “More people will be getting screened, so it’s a start,” he said.

Aside from factors such as insurance and access, another problem involves primary care. “Time is very limited in primary care,” he said. “You have about 15 minutes, and it can be really hard to fit everything into a visit. Screening may get left out or may only get a brief mention.”

Advocacy is needed, Dr. Zhang pointed out. “Breast cancer has strong voices and advocacy, and people are more aware of mammography,” he said. “The information is disseminated out into the community. We need the same for lung cancer.”

Dr. Zhang emphasized that, even with the expanded criteria, many individuals will still be missed. “There are other risk factors besides smoking,” he said. “About 10% of lung cancers occur in never-smokers.”

Other risk factors include a family history of lung cancer, exposure to certain materials and chemicals, working in the mining industry, and genetics.

“We will move on to more personalized screening at some point,” he said. “But right now, we can’t make it too complicated for patients and doctors. We need to concentrate on increasing screening rates within these current criteria.”

The updated guidelines have been given a B recommendation, meaning the USPSTF recommends that clinicians provide the service to eligible patients, there is at least fair evidence that this service improves important health outcomes, and benefits outweigh harms.

The USPSTF is an independent, voluntary body. The U.S. Congress mandates that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality support the operations of the USPSTF. All members of the USPSTF receive travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in USPSTF meetings. The original article lists relevant financial relationships of task force members. Dr. Zhang has received grants from Johnson & Johnson and Merck, and adversary/consulting/honoraria fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GenePlus, Innovent, OrigMed, and Roche.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s been a banner year for treatment advances in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with two drugs gaining approval for lupus nephritis while other promising molecules with novel mechanisms of action advanced smartly through the developmental pipeline, speakers agreed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think the most important thing in rheumatology in the last year is where we are now with lupus. With two drugs being approved for lupus nephritis, I think that’s really huge as we talk about treat-to-target,” said Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

Martin Bergman, MD, concurred.

“Lupus has been blowing up in the past year. We have two new medications for lupus nephritis, we have two or three new mechanisms of action for therapy. I think that was one of the biggest things in rheumatology in the past year,” said Dr. Bergman, a rheumatologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Together with Roy Fleischmann, MD, Dr. Wells spotlighted promising new molecules for the treatment of SLE, giant cell arteritis, vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis.
 

SLE

The two drugs approved in recent months specifically for lupus nephritis are voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), which has been approved for lupus for a decade. Voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, is a modification of cyclosporine offering significant advantages over the older drug: It’s more potent, requires no dose titration, has a better safety profile, and is metabolized more quickly.

“A safer and easier-to-use calcineurin inhibitor is going to be huge,” Dr. Wells predicted.

Up for Food and Drug Administration review in the coming year on the basis of the positive phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials is anifrolumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1d. At 52 weeks in the pooled analysis, one or more SLE flares occurred in 33.6% of patients on anifrolumab and 42.9% of placebo-treated controls.

“This is not a blockbuster, but it’s a worthwhile addition, like belimumab,” according to Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas, Dallas.

Dr. Wells concurred, with a reservation: In a subgroup analysis of the TULIP trials, anifrolumab wasn’t significantly better than placebo in black patients, who tend to have more severe and tough-to-treat renal disease.

“Anifrolumab doesn’t look as effective as some other agents, and I’d be disinclined to give it to my black patients,” the rheumatologist said.

Dr. Fleischmann was far more enthusiastic about obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A humanized monoclonal antibody known for now as BIIB059 demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in the phase 2 LILAC trial. BIIB059 binds to blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2), a receptor specific to plasmacytoid dendritic cells, resulting in decreased production of type 1 interferon and other inflammatory cytokines. The LILAC trial included 132 SLE patients with active arthritis and skin disease who received subcutaneous injections of BIIB059 at 450 mg or placebo every 4 weeks, with an extra dose at week 2. The primary endpoint was met, with an absolute 15-joint reduction in the total number of tender or swollen joints from baseline to week 24 in the BIIB059 group, compared to an 11.6-joint reduction with placebo. In addition, the likelihood of an SRI-4 response at week 24 was 3.49-fold greater with BIIB059 than with placebo.

Dr. Wells noted that the BIIB059 group showed continued improvement from week 12 to week 24, unlike the response pattern seen with many biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, where a plateau is reached by 8-12 weeks.

Vasculitis

The positive results for the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan for treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis in the phase-3 ADVOCATE trial have been hailed by some rheumatologists as a major breakthrough, but Dr. Fleischmann isn’t so sure.

The trial randomized 331 patients to oral avacopan at 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone, with all patients on either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. Avacopan was noninferior to prednisone in terms of remission at week 26, but superior to prednisone for sustained taper at week 52. The rate of serious adverse events was 45.1% with prednisone and 42.2% in the avacopan arm.

“This is a drug that’s going to be much, much more expensive than prednisone. There were people in our group who were ecstatic that this drug is going to come, but how much it’s going to be used, I don’t know,” Dr. Fleischmann said.

Dr. Wells said cost-benefit analyses will be needed in order to learn if avacopan’s anticipated high sticker price is offset by the cost of serious corticosteroid side effects such as avascular necrosis.
 

Giant cell arteritis

Mavrilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits human granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha. It demonstrated impressive efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 70 patients with biopsy-confirmed giant cell arteritis. Participants were on corticosteroids until they went into remission and were then randomized to mavrilimumab or placebo, with the steroids stopped. By week 26, 19% of patients in the mavrilimumab arm had flared, as compared to 46.4% of controls.

“This is a game changer,” Dr. Wells declared. “I struggle with these patients because I can’t get the IL-6 drugs approved for them. I need something else.”

Dr. Fleischmann has a good idea how he’ll use mavrilimumab, if it wins approval: “I think this is clearly a drug you would use in a patient you can’t get off steroids and you’re having all the steroid toxicity. I don’t know that you’d use it right away.”

Osteoarthritis

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, will win FDA approval in 2021 for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to standard-of-care NSAIDs and opioids. But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect too much from the biologic, which has a long and checkered developmental history.

“It works better than placebo. It does not work better than an NSAID or an opioid. So it should be reasonable in patients who cannot take an NSAID or cannot or will not take an opioid,” he said.

There are safety issues to be aware of with tanezumab, he added: clinically significant increased risks of peripheral neuropathy and joint space narrowing.
 

Rheumatoid arthritis

Dr. Wells thought one of the most interesting novel therapies for RA in the past year didn’t involve a pharmaceutical, but rather noninvasive auricular branch stimulation of the vagus nerve. He cited an open-label, 12-week, uncontrolled study in 27 patients with active RA who wore an ear clip for vagal nerve stimulation for 12 weeks. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) – the primary study endpoint – improved from 6.30 at baseline to 3.76 at week 12. The number of tender joints dropped from 12.17 to 4.7, while the swollen joint count went from 7.0 to 3.44. Pain scores improved from 75.23 to 43.3. Scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index improved from 1.59 to 1.05. There was no significant change in CRP. All in all, a modest clinical effect achieved noninvasively.

“The thing that did it for me was the effect on MRI from baseline: decreased synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion scores,” Dr. Wells said. “This is noninvasive, so patients who want to do medical marijuana or CBD can put an earring on their auricular nerve.”

Dr. Fleischmann scoffed. “An open-label study, 27 patients? Let me see the real study,” he quipped.

Dr. Fleischmann reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wells serves as a consultant to MiCare Path.

[email protected]

It’s been a banner year for treatment advances in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with two drugs gaining approval for lupus nephritis while other promising molecules with novel mechanisms of action advanced smartly through the developmental pipeline, speakers agreed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think the most important thing in rheumatology in the last year is where we are now with lupus. With two drugs being approved for lupus nephritis, I think that’s really huge as we talk about treat-to-target,” said Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

Martin Bergman, MD, concurred.

“Lupus has been blowing up in the past year. We have two new medications for lupus nephritis, we have two or three new mechanisms of action for therapy. I think that was one of the biggest things in rheumatology in the past year,” said Dr. Bergman, a rheumatologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Together with Roy Fleischmann, MD, Dr. Wells spotlighted promising new molecules for the treatment of SLE, giant cell arteritis, vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis.
 

SLE

The two drugs approved in recent months specifically for lupus nephritis are voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), which has been approved for lupus for a decade. Voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, is a modification of cyclosporine offering significant advantages over the older drug: It’s more potent, requires no dose titration, has a better safety profile, and is metabolized more quickly.

“A safer and easier-to-use calcineurin inhibitor is going to be huge,” Dr. Wells predicted.

Up for Food and Drug Administration review in the coming year on the basis of the positive phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials is anifrolumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1d. At 52 weeks in the pooled analysis, one or more SLE flares occurred in 33.6% of patients on anifrolumab and 42.9% of placebo-treated controls.

“This is not a blockbuster, but it’s a worthwhile addition, like belimumab,” according to Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas, Dallas.

Dr. Wells concurred, with a reservation: In a subgroup analysis of the TULIP trials, anifrolumab wasn’t significantly better than placebo in black patients, who tend to have more severe and tough-to-treat renal disease.

“Anifrolumab doesn’t look as effective as some other agents, and I’d be disinclined to give it to my black patients,” the rheumatologist said.

Dr. Fleischmann was far more enthusiastic about obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A humanized monoclonal antibody known for now as BIIB059 demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in the phase 2 LILAC trial. BIIB059 binds to blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2), a receptor specific to plasmacytoid dendritic cells, resulting in decreased production of type 1 interferon and other inflammatory cytokines. The LILAC trial included 132 SLE patients with active arthritis and skin disease who received subcutaneous injections of BIIB059 at 450 mg or placebo every 4 weeks, with an extra dose at week 2. The primary endpoint was met, with an absolute 15-joint reduction in the total number of tender or swollen joints from baseline to week 24 in the BIIB059 group, compared to an 11.6-joint reduction with placebo. In addition, the likelihood of an SRI-4 response at week 24 was 3.49-fold greater with BIIB059 than with placebo.

Dr. Wells noted that the BIIB059 group showed continued improvement from week 12 to week 24, unlike the response pattern seen with many biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, where a plateau is reached by 8-12 weeks.

Vasculitis

The positive results for the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan for treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis in the phase-3 ADVOCATE trial have been hailed by some rheumatologists as a major breakthrough, but Dr. Fleischmann isn’t so sure.

The trial randomized 331 patients to oral avacopan at 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone, with all patients on either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. Avacopan was noninferior to prednisone in terms of remission at week 26, but superior to prednisone for sustained taper at week 52. The rate of serious adverse events was 45.1% with prednisone and 42.2% in the avacopan arm.

“This is a drug that’s going to be much, much more expensive than prednisone. There were people in our group who were ecstatic that this drug is going to come, but how much it’s going to be used, I don’t know,” Dr. Fleischmann said.

Dr. Wells said cost-benefit analyses will be needed in order to learn if avacopan’s anticipated high sticker price is offset by the cost of serious corticosteroid side effects such as avascular necrosis.
 

Giant cell arteritis

Mavrilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits human granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha. It demonstrated impressive efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 70 patients with biopsy-confirmed giant cell arteritis. Participants were on corticosteroids until they went into remission and were then randomized to mavrilimumab or placebo, with the steroids stopped. By week 26, 19% of patients in the mavrilimumab arm had flared, as compared to 46.4% of controls.

“This is a game changer,” Dr. Wells declared. “I struggle with these patients because I can’t get the IL-6 drugs approved for them. I need something else.”

Dr. Fleischmann has a good idea how he’ll use mavrilimumab, if it wins approval: “I think this is clearly a drug you would use in a patient you can’t get off steroids and you’re having all the steroid toxicity. I don’t know that you’d use it right away.”

Osteoarthritis

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, will win FDA approval in 2021 for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to standard-of-care NSAIDs and opioids. But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect too much from the biologic, which has a long and checkered developmental history.

“It works better than placebo. It does not work better than an NSAID or an opioid. So it should be reasonable in patients who cannot take an NSAID or cannot or will not take an opioid,” he said.

There are safety issues to be aware of with tanezumab, he added: clinically significant increased risks of peripheral neuropathy and joint space narrowing.
 

Rheumatoid arthritis

Dr. Wells thought one of the most interesting novel therapies for RA in the past year didn’t involve a pharmaceutical, but rather noninvasive auricular branch stimulation of the vagus nerve. He cited an open-label, 12-week, uncontrolled study in 27 patients with active RA who wore an ear clip for vagal nerve stimulation for 12 weeks. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) – the primary study endpoint – improved from 6.30 at baseline to 3.76 at week 12. The number of tender joints dropped from 12.17 to 4.7, while the swollen joint count went from 7.0 to 3.44. Pain scores improved from 75.23 to 43.3. Scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index improved from 1.59 to 1.05. There was no significant change in CRP. All in all, a modest clinical effect achieved noninvasively.

“The thing that did it for me was the effect on MRI from baseline: decreased synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion scores,” Dr. Wells said. “This is noninvasive, so patients who want to do medical marijuana or CBD can put an earring on their auricular nerve.”

Dr. Fleischmann scoffed. “An open-label study, 27 patients? Let me see the real study,” he quipped.

Dr. Fleischmann reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wells serves as a consultant to MiCare Path.

[email protected]

It’s been a banner year for treatment advances in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with two drugs gaining approval for lupus nephritis while other promising molecules with novel mechanisms of action advanced smartly through the developmental pipeline, speakers agreed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think the most important thing in rheumatology in the last year is where we are now with lupus. With two drugs being approved for lupus nephritis, I think that’s really huge as we talk about treat-to-target,” said Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

Martin Bergman, MD, concurred.

“Lupus has been blowing up in the past year. We have two new medications for lupus nephritis, we have two or three new mechanisms of action for therapy. I think that was one of the biggest things in rheumatology in the past year,” said Dr. Bergman, a rheumatologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Together with Roy Fleischmann, MD, Dr. Wells spotlighted promising new molecules for the treatment of SLE, giant cell arteritis, vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis.
 

SLE

The two drugs approved in recent months specifically for lupus nephritis are voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), which has been approved for lupus for a decade. Voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, is a modification of cyclosporine offering significant advantages over the older drug: It’s more potent, requires no dose titration, has a better safety profile, and is metabolized more quickly.

“A safer and easier-to-use calcineurin inhibitor is going to be huge,” Dr. Wells predicted.

Up for Food and Drug Administration review in the coming year on the basis of the positive phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials is anifrolumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1d. At 52 weeks in the pooled analysis, one or more SLE flares occurred in 33.6% of patients on anifrolumab and 42.9% of placebo-treated controls.

“This is not a blockbuster, but it’s a worthwhile addition, like belimumab,” according to Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas, Dallas.

Dr. Wells concurred, with a reservation: In a subgroup analysis of the TULIP trials, anifrolumab wasn’t significantly better than placebo in black patients, who tend to have more severe and tough-to-treat renal disease.

“Anifrolumab doesn’t look as effective as some other agents, and I’d be disinclined to give it to my black patients,” the rheumatologist said.

Dr. Fleischmann was far more enthusiastic about obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A humanized monoclonal antibody known for now as BIIB059 demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in the phase 2 LILAC trial. BIIB059 binds to blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2), a receptor specific to plasmacytoid dendritic cells, resulting in decreased production of type 1 interferon and other inflammatory cytokines. The LILAC trial included 132 SLE patients with active arthritis and skin disease who received subcutaneous injections of BIIB059 at 450 mg or placebo every 4 weeks, with an extra dose at week 2. The primary endpoint was met, with an absolute 15-joint reduction in the total number of tender or swollen joints from baseline to week 24 in the BIIB059 group, compared to an 11.6-joint reduction with placebo. In addition, the likelihood of an SRI-4 response at week 24 was 3.49-fold greater with BIIB059 than with placebo.

Dr. Wells noted that the BIIB059 group showed continued improvement from week 12 to week 24, unlike the response pattern seen with many biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, where a plateau is reached by 8-12 weeks.

Vasculitis

The positive results for the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan for treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis in the phase-3 ADVOCATE trial have been hailed by some rheumatologists as a major breakthrough, but Dr. Fleischmann isn’t so sure.

The trial randomized 331 patients to oral avacopan at 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone, with all patients on either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. Avacopan was noninferior to prednisone in terms of remission at week 26, but superior to prednisone for sustained taper at week 52. The rate of serious adverse events was 45.1% with prednisone and 42.2% in the avacopan arm.

“This is a drug that’s going to be much, much more expensive than prednisone. There were people in our group who were ecstatic that this drug is going to come, but how much it’s going to be used, I don’t know,” Dr. Fleischmann said.

Dr. Wells said cost-benefit analyses will be needed in order to learn if avacopan’s anticipated high sticker price is offset by the cost of serious corticosteroid side effects such as avascular necrosis.
 

Giant cell arteritis

Mavrilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits human granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha. It demonstrated impressive efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 70 patients with biopsy-confirmed giant cell arteritis. Participants were on corticosteroids until they went into remission and were then randomized to mavrilimumab or placebo, with the steroids stopped. By week 26, 19% of patients in the mavrilimumab arm had flared, as compared to 46.4% of controls.

“This is a game changer,” Dr. Wells declared. “I struggle with these patients because I can’t get the IL-6 drugs approved for them. I need something else.”

Dr. Fleischmann has a good idea how he’ll use mavrilimumab, if it wins approval: “I think this is clearly a drug you would use in a patient you can’t get off steroids and you’re having all the steroid toxicity. I don’t know that you’d use it right away.”

Osteoarthritis

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, will win FDA approval in 2021 for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to standard-of-care NSAIDs and opioids. But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect too much from the biologic, which has a long and checkered developmental history.

“It works better than placebo. It does not work better than an NSAID or an opioid. So it should be reasonable in patients who cannot take an NSAID or cannot or will not take an opioid,” he said.

There are safety issues to be aware of with tanezumab, he added: clinically significant increased risks of peripheral neuropathy and joint space narrowing.
 

Rheumatoid arthritis

Dr. Wells thought one of the most interesting novel therapies for RA in the past year didn’t involve a pharmaceutical, but rather noninvasive auricular branch stimulation of the vagus nerve. He cited an open-label, 12-week, uncontrolled study in 27 patients with active RA who wore an ear clip for vagal nerve stimulation for 12 weeks. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) – the primary study endpoint – improved from 6.30 at baseline to 3.76 at week 12. The number of tender joints dropped from 12.17 to 4.7, while the swollen joint count went from 7.0 to 3.44. Pain scores improved from 75.23 to 43.3. Scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index improved from 1.59 to 1.05. There was no significant change in CRP. All in all, a modest clinical effect achieved noninvasively.

“The thing that did it for me was the effect on MRI from baseline: decreased synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion scores,” Dr. Wells said. “This is noninvasive, so patients who want to do medical marijuana or CBD can put an earring on their auricular nerve.”

Dr. Fleischmann scoffed. “An open-label study, 27 patients? Let me see the real study,” he quipped.

Dr. Fleischmann reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wells serves as a consultant to MiCare Path.

[email protected]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over The Counter Use (Cue OTC Test, Cue Health).

The Cue OTC Test is the first molecular diagnostic test available to consumers without a prescription.

The test detects genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 present in the nostrils and delivers results in about 20 minutes to the user’s mobile smart device via the Cue Health app.

In testing, the Cue OTC Test correctly identified 96% of positive nasal swab samples from individuals known to have symptoms and correctly identified 100% of positive samples from individuals without symptoms.

The test is intended for use in people aged 2 years and older with and without symptoms.

“With this authorization, consumers can purchase and self-administer one of the easiest, fastest, and most accurate tests without a prescription,” Clint Sever, cofounder and chief product officer of Cue Health, said in a news release.

“This FDA authorization will help us improve patient outcomes with a solution that provides the accuracy of central lab tests, with the speed and accessibility required to address emergent global health issues,” he said.

Cue Health expects to produce more than 100,000 single-use test kits per day by this summer. Dena Cook, the company’s chief communications officer, told this news organization that the company hasn’t announced pricing information yet, but the price will be “comparable” to other price points and other products on the market.  

“The FDA continues to prioritize the availability of more at-home testing options in response to the pandemic,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over-the-Counter Use provides access to accurate and reliable testing at home, without a prescription. The FDA will continue to work collaboratively with test developers to advance effective testing options for doctors, clinicians, and the public,” he said.

In June, the FDA granted an EUA to Cue Health’s COVID-19 test for use in clinical and point-of-care settings.

The test is currently being used in hospitals, physicians’ offices, and dental clinics, as well as schools, essential businesses, nursing homes, and other congregate-care facilities. The test is also being distributed through a program led by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services across several states.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over The Counter Use (Cue OTC Test, Cue Health).

The Cue OTC Test is the first molecular diagnostic test available to consumers without a prescription.

The test detects genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 present in the nostrils and delivers results in about 20 minutes to the user’s mobile smart device via the Cue Health app.

In testing, the Cue OTC Test correctly identified 96% of positive nasal swab samples from individuals known to have symptoms and correctly identified 100% of positive samples from individuals without symptoms.

The test is intended for use in people aged 2 years and older with and without symptoms.

“With this authorization, consumers can purchase and self-administer one of the easiest, fastest, and most accurate tests without a prescription,” Clint Sever, cofounder and chief product officer of Cue Health, said in a news release.

“This FDA authorization will help us improve patient outcomes with a solution that provides the accuracy of central lab tests, with the speed and accessibility required to address emergent global health issues,” he said.

Cue Health expects to produce more than 100,000 single-use test kits per day by this summer. Dena Cook, the company’s chief communications officer, told this news organization that the company hasn’t announced pricing information yet, but the price will be “comparable” to other price points and other products on the market.  

“The FDA continues to prioritize the availability of more at-home testing options in response to the pandemic,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over-the-Counter Use provides access to accurate and reliable testing at home, without a prescription. The FDA will continue to work collaboratively with test developers to advance effective testing options for doctors, clinicians, and the public,” he said.

In June, the FDA granted an EUA to Cue Health’s COVID-19 test for use in clinical and point-of-care settings.

The test is currently being used in hospitals, physicians’ offices, and dental clinics, as well as schools, essential businesses, nursing homes, and other congregate-care facilities. The test is also being distributed through a program led by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services across several states.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over The Counter Use (Cue OTC Test, Cue Health).

The Cue OTC Test is the first molecular diagnostic test available to consumers without a prescription.

The test detects genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 present in the nostrils and delivers results in about 20 minutes to the user’s mobile smart device via the Cue Health app.

In testing, the Cue OTC Test correctly identified 96% of positive nasal swab samples from individuals known to have symptoms and correctly identified 100% of positive samples from individuals without symptoms.

The test is intended for use in people aged 2 years and older with and without symptoms.

“With this authorization, consumers can purchase and self-administer one of the easiest, fastest, and most accurate tests without a prescription,” Clint Sever, cofounder and chief product officer of Cue Health, said in a news release.

“This FDA authorization will help us improve patient outcomes with a solution that provides the accuracy of central lab tests, with the speed and accessibility required to address emergent global health issues,” he said.

Cue Health expects to produce more than 100,000 single-use test kits per day by this summer. Dena Cook, the company’s chief communications officer, told this news organization that the company hasn’t announced pricing information yet, but the price will be “comparable” to other price points and other products on the market.  

“The FDA continues to prioritize the availability of more at-home testing options in response to the pandemic,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over-the-Counter Use provides access to accurate and reliable testing at home, without a prescription. The FDA will continue to work collaboratively with test developers to advance effective testing options for doctors, clinicians, and the public,” he said.

In June, the FDA granted an EUA to Cue Health’s COVID-19 test for use in clinical and point-of-care settings.

The test is currently being used in hospitals, physicians’ offices, and dental clinics, as well as schools, essential businesses, nursing homes, and other congregate-care facilities. The test is also being distributed through a program led by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services across several states.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk of perioperative stroke in noncardiac, nonneurologic, nonvascular surgery ranges from 0.1 to 1.9% and is associated with increased mortality.^1,2 Stroke mechanisms include both ischemia (large and small vessel occlusion, cardioembolism, anemic-tissue hypoxia, cerebral hypoperfusion) and hemorrhage.¹ Risk factors for perioperative stroke include prior cerebral vascular accident (CVA), hypertension, aged > 62 years, acute renal insufficiency, dialysis, and recent myocardial infarction (MI).²

Introduction

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020.³ COVID-19 has certainly affected the veteran population; between February and May 2020, more than 60,000 veterans were tested for COVID-19 with a positive rate of about 9%.⁴ While primarily affecting the respiratory system, there are increasing reports of COVID-19 neurologic manifestations: headache, hypogeusia, hyposomia, seizure, encephalitis, and acute stroke.⁵ In an early case series from Wuhan, China, 36% of 214 patients with COVID-19 reported neurologic complications, and acute CVAs were more common in patients with severe (compared to milder) viral disease presentations (5.7% vs 0.8%).⁶ Large vessel stroke was a presenting feature in another report of 5 patients aged < 50 years.⁷

The mechanism of ischemic stroke in the setting of COVID-19 is unclear.⁸ Indeed, stroke and COVID-19 share similar risk factors (eg, hypertension, diabetes mellitus [DM], older age), and immobile critically ill patients may already be prone to developing stroke.^5,9 However, COVID-19 is associated with arterial and venous thromboembolism, elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, and antiphospholipid antibody production. This prothrombotic state may be linked to cytokine-induced endothelial damage, mononuclear cell activation, tissue factor expression, and ultimately thrombin propagation and platelet activation.⁸

The rates of perioperative stroke may change as more patients with COVID-19 present for surgery, and the anesthesiology care team must prioritize mitigation efforts in high-risk patients, including veterans. Reducing the elevated stroke burden within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a public health priority.¹⁰ We present the case of a veteran with prior CVA and recent positive COVID-19 testing who experienced transient weakness and dysarthria following plastic surgery. The patient discussed provided written Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act consent for publication of this report.

Case Presentation 

A 75-year-old male veteran presented to the Minneapolis VA Medical Center in Minnesota with chronic left foot ulceration necessitating debridement and flap coverage. His medical history was significant for hypertension, type 2 DM, anemia of chronic disease, and coronary artery disease (left ventricular ejection fraction, 50%). Additionally, he had prior ischemic strokes in the oculomotor nucleus (in 2004 with internuclear ophthalmoplegia) and left ventral medulla (in 2019 with right hemiparesis). During his 2019 poststroke rehabilitation, he was diagnosed with mild neurocognitive deficit not attributable to his strokes. The patient’s medications included amlodipine, lisinopril, atorvastatin, clopidogrel (lifelong for secondary stroke prevention), metformin, and glipizide. The debridement procedure was initially delayed 3 weeks due to positive routine preoperative COVID-19 nasopharyngeal testing, though he reported no respiratory symptoms or fever. During the delay, the primary team prescribed daily oral rivaroxaban for thrombosis prophylaxis in addition to clopidogrel. One week prior to surgery, his repeat COVID-19 test was negative and prophylactic anticoagulation stopped.

On the day of surgery, the patient was hemodynamically stable: heart rate 86 beats/min, blood pressure 167/93 mm Hg (baseline 120-150 mm Hg systolic pressure), respiratory rate 16 breaths/min, oxygen saturation 99% without supplemental oxygen, temperature 97.1 °F. He received amlodipine and clopidogrel, but not lisinopril, that morning. No focal neurologic deficits were appreciated on preoperative examination, and resolution of symptoms related to the 2 prior MIs was confirmed. Preoperative glucose was 163 mg/dL. Femoral and sciatic peripheral nerve blocks were done for postoperative analgesia. A preinduction arterial line was placed and 2 mg of midazolam was administered for anxiolysis. Induction of general anesthesia with oral endotracheal intubation proceeded uneventfully; he was positioned prone.

Given his stroke risk factors, mean arterial pressure was maintained > 70 mm Hg for the duration of surgery. No vasoactive infusions were necessary and no β-blocking agents were administered. Insulin infusion was required; the maximum-recorded glucose was 219 mg/dL. Arterial blood gas samples were routinely drawn; acid-base balance was well maintained, PaO₂ was > 185 mm Hg, and PaCO₂ ranged from 29.4 to 38.5 mm Hg. The patient received 2 units of packed red blood cells for nadir hemoglobin of 7.5 mg/dL. At surgery end, we fully reversed neuromuscular blockade with suggamadex. The patient was returned to a supine position and extubated uneventfully after demonstrating the ability to follow commands.

During postanesthesia care unit (PACU) handoff, the patient exhibited acute speech impairment. He was able to state his name on repetition but seemed confused and sedated. Prompt formal neurology evaluation (stroke code) was sought. Initial National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale score was 8 (1 for level of consciousness, 1 for minor right facial droop, 1 for right arm drift, 3 for right leg with no effort against gravity, 1 for right partial sensory loss, and 1 for mild dysarthria). The patient was oriented only to self. Other findings included mild right facial droop and dysarthria. On a 5-point strength scale, he scored 4 for the right deltoid, biceps, triceps, wrist extensors, right knee flexion, right dorsiflexion, and plantarflexion, 2 for right hip flexion, and ≥ 4 for right knee extension. Positive sensory findings were notable for decreased pin prick sensation on the right limbs.

We obtained emergent head computed tomography (CT) that was negative for acute abnormalities; CT angiography was negative for large vessel occlusion or clinically significant stenosis (Figure). On returning to the PACU from the CT scanner, the patient regained symmetric strength in both arms, right leg was antigravity, and his speech had normalized. Prior to PACU discharge 2 hours later, the patient was back to his prehospitalization neurologic function and NIH stroke scale was 0. Given this rapid clinical resolution, no acute stroke interventions were done, though permissive hypertension was recommended by the neurologist during PACU recovery.

Discussion

We report a veteran with prior stroke and COVID-19 who experienced postoperative speech and motor deficit despite deliberate risk factor mitigation. This case calls for increased vigilance by anesthesia providers to employ proper perioperative stroke management and anticoagulation strategies, and to be prepared for prompt intervention with COVID-19-sensitive practices should the need for advanced airway management or thrombectomy arises.

The exact etiology of the postoperative neurologic deficit in our patient is unknown. The most likely possibility is that this represents poststroke recrudescence (PSR), knowing he had a previous left medullary infarct that presented similarly.¹¹ PSR is a phenomenon in which prior stroke symptoms recur acutely and transiently in the setting of physiologic stressors—also known as locus minoris resistantiae.¹² Triggers include γ aminobutyric acid (GABA) mediating anesthetic agents such as midazolam, opioids (eg, fentanyl or hydromorphone), infection, or relative cerebral hypoperfusion.^11,13,14 The focality of our patient’s presentation favors PSR in the context of brief POD; of note, these entities share similar risk factors.¹⁵ Our patient did indeed receive low-dose preoperative midazolam in the context of mild preoperative neurocognitive deficit, which may have predisposed him to POD.

Conclusions

We discuss a surgical patient with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection at elevated stroke risk that experienced recurrence of neurologic deficits postoperatively. This case informs anesthesia providers of the broad differential diagnosis for focal neurological deficits to include PSR and the possible contribution of COVID-19 to elevated acute stroke risk. Perioperative physicians, including VHA practitioners, with knowledge of current COVID-19 practices are primed to coordinate multidisciplinary efforts during stroke codes and ensuring appropriate anticoagulation.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank perioperative care teams across the world caring for COVID-19 patients safely.

The risk of perioperative stroke in noncardiac, nonneurologic, nonvascular surgery ranges from 0.1 to 1.9% and is associated with increased mortality.^1,2 Stroke mechanisms include both ischemia (large and small vessel occlusion, cardioembolism, anemic-tissue hypoxia, cerebral hypoperfusion) and hemorrhage.¹ Risk factors for perioperative stroke include prior cerebral vascular accident (CVA), hypertension, aged > 62 years, acute renal insufficiency, dialysis, and recent myocardial infarction (MI).²

Introduction

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020.³ COVID-19 has certainly affected the veteran population; between February and May 2020, more than 60,000 veterans were tested for COVID-19 with a positive rate of about 9%.⁴ While primarily affecting the respiratory system, there are increasing reports of COVID-19 neurologic manifestations: headache, hypogeusia, hyposomia, seizure, encephalitis, and acute stroke.⁵ In an early case series from Wuhan, China, 36% of 214 patients with COVID-19 reported neurologic complications, and acute CVAs were more common in patients with severe (compared to milder) viral disease presentations (5.7% vs 0.8%).⁶ Large vessel stroke was a presenting feature in another report of 5 patients aged < 50 years.⁷

The mechanism of ischemic stroke in the setting of COVID-19 is unclear.⁸ Indeed, stroke and COVID-19 share similar risk factors (eg, hypertension, diabetes mellitus [DM], older age), and immobile critically ill patients may already be prone to developing stroke.^5,9 However, COVID-19 is associated with arterial and venous thromboembolism, elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, and antiphospholipid antibody production. This prothrombotic state may be linked to cytokine-induced endothelial damage, mononuclear cell activation, tissue factor expression, and ultimately thrombin propagation and platelet activation.⁸

The rates of perioperative stroke may change as more patients with COVID-19 present for surgery, and the anesthesiology care team must prioritize mitigation efforts in high-risk patients, including veterans. Reducing the elevated stroke burden within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a public health priority.¹⁰ We present the case of a veteran with prior CVA and recent positive COVID-19 testing who experienced transient weakness and dysarthria following plastic surgery. The patient discussed provided written Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act consent for publication of this report.

Case Presentation 

A 75-year-old male veteran presented to the Minneapolis VA Medical Center in Minnesota with chronic left foot ulceration necessitating debridement and flap coverage. His medical history was significant for hypertension, type 2 DM, anemia of chronic disease, and coronary artery disease (left ventricular ejection fraction, 50%). Additionally, he had prior ischemic strokes in the oculomotor nucleus (in 2004 with internuclear ophthalmoplegia) and left ventral medulla (in 2019 with right hemiparesis). During his 2019 poststroke rehabilitation, he was diagnosed with mild neurocognitive deficit not attributable to his strokes. The patient’s medications included amlodipine, lisinopril, atorvastatin, clopidogrel (lifelong for secondary stroke prevention), metformin, and glipizide. The debridement procedure was initially delayed 3 weeks due to positive routine preoperative COVID-19 nasopharyngeal testing, though he reported no respiratory symptoms or fever. During the delay, the primary team prescribed daily oral rivaroxaban for thrombosis prophylaxis in addition to clopidogrel. One week prior to surgery, his repeat COVID-19 test was negative and prophylactic anticoagulation stopped.

On the day of surgery, the patient was hemodynamically stable: heart rate 86 beats/min, blood pressure 167/93 mm Hg (baseline 120-150 mm Hg systolic pressure), respiratory rate 16 breaths/min, oxygen saturation 99% without supplemental oxygen, temperature 97.1 °F. He received amlodipine and clopidogrel, but not lisinopril, that morning. No focal neurologic deficits were appreciated on preoperative examination, and resolution of symptoms related to the 2 prior MIs was confirmed. Preoperative glucose was 163 mg/dL. Femoral and sciatic peripheral nerve blocks were done for postoperative analgesia. A preinduction arterial line was placed and 2 mg of midazolam was administered for anxiolysis. Induction of general anesthesia with oral endotracheal intubation proceeded uneventfully; he was positioned prone.

Given his stroke risk factors, mean arterial pressure was maintained > 70 mm Hg for the duration of surgery. No vasoactive infusions were necessary and no β-blocking agents were administered. Insulin infusion was required; the maximum-recorded glucose was 219 mg/dL. Arterial blood gas samples were routinely drawn; acid-base balance was well maintained, PaO₂ was > 185 mm Hg, and PaCO₂ ranged from 29.4 to 38.5 mm Hg. The patient received 2 units of packed red blood cells for nadir hemoglobin of 7.5 mg/dL. At surgery end, we fully reversed neuromuscular blockade with suggamadex. The patient was returned to a supine position and extubated uneventfully after demonstrating the ability to follow commands.

During postanesthesia care unit (PACU) handoff, the patient exhibited acute speech impairment. He was able to state his name on repetition but seemed confused and sedated. Prompt formal neurology evaluation (stroke code) was sought. Initial National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale score was 8 (1 for level of consciousness, 1 for minor right facial droop, 1 for right arm drift, 3 for right leg with no effort against gravity, 1 for right partial sensory loss, and 1 for mild dysarthria). The patient was oriented only to self. Other findings included mild right facial droop and dysarthria. On a 5-point strength scale, he scored 4 for the right deltoid, biceps, triceps, wrist extensors, right knee flexion, right dorsiflexion, and plantarflexion, 2 for right hip flexion, and ≥ 4 for right knee extension. Positive sensory findings were notable for decreased pin prick sensation on the right limbs.

We obtained emergent head computed tomography (CT) that was negative for acute abnormalities; CT angiography was negative for large vessel occlusion or clinically significant stenosis (Figure). On returning to the PACU from the CT scanner, the patient regained symmetric strength in both arms, right leg was antigravity, and his speech had normalized. Prior to PACU discharge 2 hours later, the patient was back to his prehospitalization neurologic function and NIH stroke scale was 0. Given this rapid clinical resolution, no acute stroke interventions were done, though permissive hypertension was recommended by the neurologist during PACU recovery.

Discussion

We report a veteran with prior stroke and COVID-19 who experienced postoperative speech and motor deficit despite deliberate risk factor mitigation. This case calls for increased vigilance by anesthesia providers to employ proper perioperative stroke management and anticoagulation strategies, and to be prepared for prompt intervention with COVID-19-sensitive practices should the need for advanced airway management or thrombectomy arises.

The exact etiology of the postoperative neurologic deficit in our patient is unknown. The most likely possibility is that this represents poststroke recrudescence (PSR), knowing he had a previous left medullary infarct that presented similarly.¹¹ PSR is a phenomenon in which prior stroke symptoms recur acutely and transiently in the setting of physiologic stressors—also known as locus minoris resistantiae.¹² Triggers include γ aminobutyric acid (GABA) mediating anesthetic agents such as midazolam, opioids (eg, fentanyl or hydromorphone), infection, or relative cerebral hypoperfusion.^11,13,14 The focality of our patient’s presentation favors PSR in the context of brief POD; of note, these entities share similar risk factors.¹⁵ Our patient did indeed receive low-dose preoperative midazolam in the context of mild preoperative neurocognitive deficit, which may have predisposed him to POD.

Conclusions

We discuss a surgical patient with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection at elevated stroke risk that experienced recurrence of neurologic deficits postoperatively. This case informs anesthesia providers of the broad differential diagnosis for focal neurological deficits to include PSR and the possible contribution of COVID-19 to elevated acute stroke risk. Perioperative physicians, including VHA practitioners, with knowledge of current COVID-19 practices are primed to coordinate multidisciplinary efforts during stroke codes and ensuring appropriate anticoagulation.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank perioperative care teams across the world caring for COVID-19 patients safely.

The risk of perioperative stroke in noncardiac, nonneurologic, nonvascular surgery ranges from 0.1 to 1.9% and is associated with increased mortality.^1,2 Stroke mechanisms include both ischemia (large and small vessel occlusion, cardioembolism, anemic-tissue hypoxia, cerebral hypoperfusion) and hemorrhage.¹ Risk factors for perioperative stroke include prior cerebral vascular accident (CVA), hypertension, aged > 62 years, acute renal insufficiency, dialysis, and recent myocardial infarction (MI).²

Introduction

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020.³ COVID-19 has certainly affected the veteran population; between February and May 2020, more than 60,000 veterans were tested for COVID-19 with a positive rate of about 9%.⁴ While primarily affecting the respiratory system, there are increasing reports of COVID-19 neurologic manifestations: headache, hypogeusia, hyposomia, seizure, encephalitis, and acute stroke.⁵ In an early case series from Wuhan, China, 36% of 214 patients with COVID-19 reported neurologic complications, and acute CVAs were more common in patients with severe (compared to milder) viral disease presentations (5.7% vs 0.8%).⁶ Large vessel stroke was a presenting feature in another report of 5 patients aged < 50 years.⁷

The mechanism of ischemic stroke in the setting of COVID-19 is unclear.⁸ Indeed, stroke and COVID-19 share similar risk factors (eg, hypertension, diabetes mellitus [DM], older age), and immobile critically ill patients may already be prone to developing stroke.^5,9 However, COVID-19 is associated with arterial and venous thromboembolism, elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen levels, and antiphospholipid antibody production. This prothrombotic state may be linked to cytokine-induced endothelial damage, mononuclear cell activation, tissue factor expression, and ultimately thrombin propagation and platelet activation.⁸

The rates of perioperative stroke may change as more patients with COVID-19 present for surgery, and the anesthesiology care team must prioritize mitigation efforts in high-risk patients, including veterans. Reducing the elevated stroke burden within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a public health priority.¹⁰ We present the case of a veteran with prior CVA and recent positive COVID-19 testing who experienced transient weakness and dysarthria following plastic surgery. The patient discussed provided written Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act consent for publication of this report.

Case Presentation 

A 75-year-old male veteran presented to the Minneapolis VA Medical Center in Minnesota with chronic left foot ulceration necessitating debridement and flap coverage. His medical history was significant for hypertension, type 2 DM, anemia of chronic disease, and coronary artery disease (left ventricular ejection fraction, 50%). Additionally, he had prior ischemic strokes in the oculomotor nucleus (in 2004 with internuclear ophthalmoplegia) and left ventral medulla (in 2019 with right hemiparesis). During his 2019 poststroke rehabilitation, he was diagnosed with mild neurocognitive deficit not attributable to his strokes. The patient’s medications included amlodipine, lisinopril, atorvastatin, clopidogrel (lifelong for secondary stroke prevention), metformin, and glipizide. The debridement procedure was initially delayed 3 weeks due to positive routine preoperative COVID-19 nasopharyngeal testing, though he reported no respiratory symptoms or fever. During the delay, the primary team prescribed daily oral rivaroxaban for thrombosis prophylaxis in addition to clopidogrel. One week prior to surgery, his repeat COVID-19 test was negative and prophylactic anticoagulation stopped.

On the day of surgery, the patient was hemodynamically stable: heart rate 86 beats/min, blood pressure 167/93 mm Hg (baseline 120-150 mm Hg systolic pressure), respiratory rate 16 breaths/min, oxygen saturation 99% without supplemental oxygen, temperature 97.1 °F. He received amlodipine and clopidogrel, but not lisinopril, that morning. No focal neurologic deficits were appreciated on preoperative examination, and resolution of symptoms related to the 2 prior MIs was confirmed. Preoperative glucose was 163 mg/dL. Femoral and sciatic peripheral nerve blocks were done for postoperative analgesia. A preinduction arterial line was placed and 2 mg of midazolam was administered for anxiolysis. Induction of general anesthesia with oral endotracheal intubation proceeded uneventfully; he was positioned prone.

Given his stroke risk factors, mean arterial pressure was maintained > 70 mm Hg for the duration of surgery. No vasoactive infusions were necessary and no β-blocking agents were administered. Insulin infusion was required; the maximum-recorded glucose was 219 mg/dL. Arterial blood gas samples were routinely drawn; acid-base balance was well maintained, PaO₂ was > 185 mm Hg, and PaCO₂ ranged from 29.4 to 38.5 mm Hg. The patient received 2 units of packed red blood cells for nadir hemoglobin of 7.5 mg/dL. At surgery end, we fully reversed neuromuscular blockade with suggamadex. The patient was returned to a supine position and extubated uneventfully after demonstrating the ability to follow commands.

During postanesthesia care unit (PACU) handoff, the patient exhibited acute speech impairment. He was able to state his name on repetition but seemed confused and sedated. Prompt formal neurology evaluation (stroke code) was sought. Initial National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale score was 8 (1 for level of consciousness, 1 for minor right facial droop, 1 for right arm drift, 3 for right leg with no effort against gravity, 1 for right partial sensory loss, and 1 for mild dysarthria). The patient was oriented only to self. Other findings included mild right facial droop and dysarthria. On a 5-point strength scale, he scored 4 for the right deltoid, biceps, triceps, wrist extensors, right knee flexion, right dorsiflexion, and plantarflexion, 2 for right hip flexion, and ≥ 4 for right knee extension. Positive sensory findings were notable for decreased pin prick sensation on the right limbs.

We obtained emergent head computed tomography (CT) that was negative for acute abnormalities; CT angiography was negative for large vessel occlusion or clinically significant stenosis (Figure). On returning to the PACU from the CT scanner, the patient regained symmetric strength in both arms, right leg was antigravity, and his speech had normalized. Prior to PACU discharge 2 hours later, the patient was back to his prehospitalization neurologic function and NIH stroke scale was 0. Given this rapid clinical resolution, no acute stroke interventions were done, though permissive hypertension was recommended by the neurologist during PACU recovery.

Discussion

We report a veteran with prior stroke and COVID-19 who experienced postoperative speech and motor deficit despite deliberate risk factor mitigation. This case calls for increased vigilance by anesthesia providers to employ proper perioperative stroke management and anticoagulation strategies, and to be prepared for prompt intervention with COVID-19-sensitive practices should the need for advanced airway management or thrombectomy arises.

The exact etiology of the postoperative neurologic deficit in our patient is unknown. The most likely possibility is that this represents poststroke recrudescence (PSR), knowing he had a previous left medullary infarct that presented similarly.¹¹ PSR is a phenomenon in which prior stroke symptoms recur acutely and transiently in the setting of physiologic stressors—also known as locus minoris resistantiae.¹² Triggers include γ aminobutyric acid (GABA) mediating anesthetic agents such as midazolam, opioids (eg, fentanyl or hydromorphone), infection, or relative cerebral hypoperfusion.^11,13,14 The focality of our patient’s presentation favors PSR in the context of brief POD; of note, these entities share similar risk factors.¹⁵ Our patient did indeed receive low-dose preoperative midazolam in the context of mild preoperative neurocognitive deficit, which may have predisposed him to POD.

Conclusions

We discuss a surgical patient with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection at elevated stroke risk that experienced recurrence of neurologic deficits postoperatively. This case informs anesthesia providers of the broad differential diagnosis for focal neurological deficits to include PSR and the possible contribution of COVID-19 to elevated acute stroke risk. Perioperative physicians, including VHA practitioners, with knowledge of current COVID-19 practices are primed to coordinate multidisciplinary efforts during stroke codes and ensuring appropriate anticoagulation.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank perioperative care teams across the world caring for COVID-19 patients safely.

Veterans with upper limb amputation (ULA) are a small, but important population, who have received more attention in the past decade due to the increased growth of the population of veterans with conflict-related amputation from recent military engagements. Among the 808 veterans with ULA receiving any care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2010 to 2015 who participated in our national study, an estimated 28 to 35% had a conflict-related amputation.¹ The care of these individuals with ULA is highly specialized, and there is a recognized shortage of experienced professionals in this area.^2,3 The provision of high-quality prosthetic care is increasingly complex with advances in technology, such as externally powered devices with multiple functions.

The VA is a comprehensive, integrated health care system that serves more than 8.9 million veterans each year. Interdisciplinary amputation care is provided within the VA through a traditional clinic setting or by using one of several currently available virtual care modalities.^4,5 In consultation with the veteran, VA health care providers (HCPs) prescribe prostheses and services based on the clinical needs and furnish authorized items and services to eligible veterans. Prescribed items and/or services are furnished either by internal VA resources or through a community-based prosthetist who is an authorized vendor or contractor. Although several studies have reported that the majority of veterans with ULA utilize VA services for at least some aspects of their health care, little is known about: (1) prosthetic limb care satisfaction or the quality of care that veterans receive; or (2) how care within the VA or Department of Defense (DoD) compares with care provided in the civilian sector.^6-8

Earlier studies that examined the amputation rehabilitation services received by veterans with ULA pointed to quality gaps in care and differences in satisfaction in the VA and DoD when compared with the civilian sector but were limited in their scope and methodology.^7,8 A 2008 study of veterans of the Vietnam War, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) compared satisfaction by location of care receipt (DoD only, VA only, private only, and multiple sources). That study dichotomized response categories for items related to satisfaction with care (satisfied/not), but did not estimate degree of satisfaction, calculate summary scores of the items, or utilize validated care satisfaction metrics. That study found that a greater proportion of Vietnam War veterans (compared with OIF/OEF veterans receiving care in the private sector) agreed that they “had a role in choosing prosthesis” and disagreed that they wanted to change their current prosthesis to another type.⁷ The assumption made by the authors is that much of this private sector care was actually VA-sponsored care prescribed and procured by the VA but delivered in the community. However, no data were collected to confirm or refute this assumption, and it is possible that some care was both VA sponsored and delivered, some was VA sponsored but commercially delivered, and in some cases, care was sponsored by other sources and delivered in still other facilities.

A 2012 VA Office of the Inspector General study of OIF, OEF, and Operation New Dawn (OND) veterans reported lower prosthetic satisfaction for veterans with upper limb when compared with lower limb amputation and described respondents concerns about lack of VA prosthetic expertise, difficulty with accessing VA services, and dissatisfaction with the sometimes lengthy approval process for obtaining fee-basis or VA contract care.⁸ Although this report suggested that there were quality gaps and areas for improvement, it did not employ validated metrics of prosthesis or care satisfaction and instead relied on qualitative data collected through telephone interviews.

Given the VA effort to enhance the quality and consistency of its amputation care services through the formal establishment of the Amputation System of Care, which began in 2008, further evaluation of care satisfaction and quality of care is warranted. In 2014 the VA and DoD released the first evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the rehabilitation of persons with ULA.² The CPG describes care paths to improve outcomes and basic tenets of amputation rehabilitation care and can be used to identify process activities that are essential aspects of quality care. However, the extent to which the CPG has impacted the quality and timeliness of care for veterans with ULA are presently unclear.

Thus, the purposes of this study were to: (1) measure veteran satisfaction with prosthetic limb care and identify factors associated with service satisfaction; (2) assess quality indicators that potentially reflect CPG) adoption; (3) compare care satisfaction and quality for those who received care in or outside of the VA or DoD; and (4) evaluate change in satisfaction over time.

Methods

The study was approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Study #16-20) and Human Research Protection Office, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. The sampling frame consisted of veterans with major ULA who received care in the VA between 2010 and 2015 identified in VA Corporate Data Warehouse. We sent recruitment packages to nondeceased veterans who had current addresses and phone numbers. Those who did not opt out or inform us that they did not meet eligibility criteria were contacted by study interviewers. A waiver of documentation of written informed consent was obtained from the VA Central IRB. When reached by the study interviewer, Veterans provided oral informed consent. At baseline, 808 veterans were interviewed for a response rate of 47.7% as calculated by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) methodology.⁹ Follow-up interviews approximately 1 year later (mean [SD] 367 [16.8] days), were conducted with 585 respondents for a 72.4% response rate (Figure).

Survey Content

Development and pilot testing of the survey instrument previously was reported.¹ The content of the survey drew from existing survey items and metrics, and included new items specifically designed to address patterns of amputation care, based on care goals within the CPG. All new and modified items were tested and refined through cognitive interviews with 10 participants, and tested with an additional 13 participants.

The survey collected data on demographics, amputation characteristics (year of amputation, level, laterality, and etiology), current prosthesis use, and type of prosthesis. This article focused on the sections of the survey pertaining to satisfaction with prosthetic care and indicators of quality of care. A description of the content of the full survey and a synopsis of overall findings are reported in a prior publication.¹ The key independent, dependent, and other variables utilized in the analyses reported in this manuscript are described below.

Primary Independent Variables

In the follow-up survey, we asked respondents whether they had any amputation care in the prior 12 months, and if so to indicate where they had gone for care. We categorized respondents as having received VA/DoD care if they reported any care at the VA or DoD, and as having received non-VA/DoD care if they did not report care at the VA or DoD but indicated that they had received amputation care between baseline and follow-up.

Two primary outcomes were utilized; the Orthotics and Prosthetics User’s Survey (OPUS), client satisfaction with services scale (CSS), and a measure of care quality specifically developed for this study. The CSS is a measure developed specifically for orthotic and prosthesis users.¹⁰ This 11-item scale measures satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and contains items evaluating facets of care such as courtesy received from prosthetists and clinical staff, care coordination, appointment wait time, willingness of the prosthetist to listen to participant concerns, and satisfaction with prosthesis training. Items are rated on a 4-point scale (strongly agree [1] to strongly disagree [4]), thus higher CSS scores indicate worse satisfaction with services. The CSS was administered only to prosthesis users.

The Quality of Care assessment developed for this study contained items pertaining to amputation related care receipt and care quality. These items were generated by the study team in consultation with representatives from the VA/DoD Extremity Amputation Center of Excellence after review of the ULA rehabilitation CPG. Survey questions asked respondents about the clinicians visited for amputation related care in the past 12 months, whether they had an annual amputation-related checkup, whether any clinician had assessed their function, worked with them to identify goals, and/or to develop an amputation-related care plan. Respondents were also asked whether there had been family/caregiver involvement in their care and care coordination, whether a peer visitor was involved in their initial care, whether they had received information about amputation management in the prior year, and whether they had amputation-related pain. Those that indicated that they had amputation-related pain were subsequently asked whether their pain was well managed, whether they used medication for pain management, and whether they used any nonpharmaceutical strategies.

Quality of Care Index

We initially developed 15 indicator items of quality of care. We selected 7 of the items to create a summary index. We omitted 3 items about pain management, since these items were completed only by participants who indicated that they had experienced pain; however, we examined the 3 pain items individually given the importance of this topic. We omitted an additional 2 items from the summary index because they would not be sensitive to change because they pertained to the care in the year after initial amputation. One of these items asked whether caregivers were involved in initial amputation management and the other asked whether a peer visit occurred after amputation. Another 3 items were omitted because they only were completed by small subsamples due to intentional skip patterns in the survey. These items addressed whether clinical HCPs discussed amputation care goals in the prior year, worked to develop a care plan in the prior year, or helped to coordinate care after a move. Completion rates for all items considered for the index are shown in eAppendix 1 (Available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). After item selection, we generated an index score, which was the number of reported “yes” responses to the seven relevant items.

Other Variables

We created a single variable called level/laterality which categorized ULA as unilateral or bilateral. We further categorized respondents with unilateral amputation by their amputation level. We categorized respondents as transradial for wrist joint or below the elbow amputations; transhumeral for at or above the elbow amputations; and shoulder for shoulder joint or forequarter amputations. Participants indicated the amputation etiology using 7 yes/no variables: combat injury, accident, burn, cancer, diabetes mellitus, and infection. Participants could select ≥ 1 etiology.

Primary prosthesis type was categorized as body powered, myoelectric/hybrid, cosmetic, other/unknown, or nonuser. The service era was classified based on amputation date as Before Vietnam, Vietnam War, After Vietnam to Gulf War, After Gulf War to September 10, 2001, and September 11, 2001 to present. For race, individuals with > 1 race were classified as other. We classified participants by region, using the station identification of the most recent VA medical center that they had visited between January 1, 2010 and December 30, 2015.

The survey also employed 2 measures of satisfaction with the prosthesis, the Trinity Amputation and Prosthetic Experience Scale (TAPES) satisfaction scale and the OPUS Client Satisfaction with Devices (CSD). TAPES consists of 10 items addressing color, shape, noise, appearance, weight, usefulness, reliability, fit, comfort and overall satisfaction.¹¹ Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5). An 8-item version of the CSD scale was created for this study, after conducting a Rasch analysis (using Winsteps version 4.4.2) of the original 11-item CSD. The 8 items assess satisfaction with prosthesis fit, weight, comfort, donning ease, appearance, durability, skin contact, and pain. Items are rated on a 4-point scale from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (4); higher CSD scores indicate less satisfaction with devices. Psychometric analysis of the revised CSD score was reported in a prior publication.¹² We also reported on the CSS using the original 10-item measure.

Data Analyses

We described characteristics of respondents at baseline and follow-up. We used baseline data to calculate CSS scores and described scores for all participants, for subgroups of unilateral and bilateral amputees, and for unilateral amputees stratified by amputation level. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare the CSS item and total scores of 461 prosthesis users with unilateral amputation and 29 with bilateral amputation. To identify factors that we hypothesized might be associated with CSS scores at baseline, we developed separate bivariate linear regression models. We added those factors that were associated with CSS scores at P ≤ .1 in bivariate analyses to a multivariable linear regression model of factors associated with CSS score. The P ≤ .1 threshold was used to ensure that relevant confounders were controlled for in regression models. We excluded 309 participants with no reported prosthesis use (who were not asked to complete the CSS), 20 participants with other/unknown prosthesis types, and 106 with missing data on amputation care in the prior year or on satisfaction metrics. We used baseline data for this analysis to maximize the sample size.

We compared CSS scores for those who reported receiving care within or outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year, using Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney rank tests. We also compared scores of individual quality of care items for these groups using Fisher exact tests. We chose to examine individual items rather than the full Index because several items specified care receipt within the VA and thus would be inappropriate to utilize in comparisons by site location; however, we described responses to all items. In these analyses, we excluded 2 respondents who had conflicting information regarding location of care. We used follow-up data for this analysis because it allowed us to identify location of care received in the prior year.

We also described the CSS scores, the 7-item Quality of Care Index and responses to other items related to quality of care at baseline and follow-up. To examine whether satisfaction with prosthetic care or aspects of care quality had changed over time, we compared baseline and follow-up CSS and quality of care scores for respondents who had measures at both times using Wilcoxon signed ranks tests. Individual items were compared using McNemar tests.

Results

Respondents were 97.4% male and included 776 unilateral amputees and 32 bilateral amputees with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (14.1) years (Table 1). Respondents had lost their limbs a mean (SD) 31.4 (14.1) years prior, and half were transradial, 34.2% transhumeral, and 11.6% shoulder amputation. At baseline 185 (22.9%) participants received amputation-related care in the prior year and 118 (20.2%) participants received amputation-related care within 1 year of follow-up. Of respondents, 113 (19.3%) stated that their care was between baseline and follow-up and 89 (78.8%) of these received care at either the VA, the DoD or both; just 16 (14.2%) received care elsewhere.

Mean (SD) CSS scores were highest (lower satisfaction) for those with amputation at the shoulder and lowest for those with transhumeral amputation: 42.2 (20.0) vs 33.4 (20.8). Persons with bilateral amputation were less satisfied in almost every category when compared with those with unilateral amputation, although the total CSS score was not substantially different. Wilcoxon rank sum analyses revealed statistically significant differences in wait time satisfaction: bilateral amputees were less satisfied than unilateral amputees. Factors associated with overall CSS score in bivariate analyses were CSD score, TAPES score, amputation care receipt, prosthesis type, race, and region of care (eAppendix 2, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096).

Discussion

Our longitudinal study provides insights into the experiences of veterans with major ULA related to satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and receipt of amputation-related care. We reported on the development and use of a new summary measure of amputation care quality, which we designed to capture some of the key elements of care quality as provided in the VA/DoD CPG.²

We used baseline data to identify factors independently associated with prosthetic limb care satisfaction as measured by a previously validated measure, the OPUS CSS. The CSS addresses satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and does not reflect satisfaction with other amputation care services. We found that persons who received amputation care in the prior year had CSS scores that were a mean 5.1 points better than those who had not received recent care. Although causality cannot be determined with this investigation, this finding highlights an important relationship between frequency of care and satisfaction, which can be leveraged by the VA in future care initiatives. Care satisfaction was also better by 0.7 points for every 1-point decrease (indicating higher satisfaction) in the OPUS CSD prosthetic satisfaction scale. This finding isn’t surprising, given that a major purpose of prosthetic limb care services is to procure and fit a satisfactory device. To determine whether these same relationships were observed in the smaller, longitudinal cohort data at follow-up, we repeated these models and found similar relationships between recent care receipt and prosthesis satisfaction and satisfaction with services. We believe that these findings are meaningful and emphasize the importance of both service and device satisfaction to the veteran with an ULA. Lower service satisfaction scores among those with amputations at the shoulder and those with bilateral limb loss suggest that these individuals may benefit from different service delivery approaches.

We did observe a difference in satisfaction scores by geographic region in the follow-up (but not the baseline) data with satisfaction higher in the Western vs the Southern region (data not shown). This finding suggests a need for continued monitoring of care satisfaction over time to determine whether differences by region persist. We grouped respondents into geographic region based on the location where they had received their most recent VA care of any type. Many veterans receive care at multiple VA locations. Thus, it is possible that some veterans received their amputation care at a non-VA facility or a VA facility in a different region.

Our findings related to prosthetic limb care services satisfaction are generalizable to veteran prosthesis users. Findings may not be generalizable to nonusers, because in our study, the CSS only was administered to prosthesis users. Thus, we were unable to identify factors associated with care satisfaction for persons who were not current users of an upper limb prosthesis.

The study findings confirmed that most veterans with ULA receive amputation-related care in the VA or DoD. We compared CSS and Quality of Care item scores for those who reported receiving care at the VA or DoD vs elsewhere. Amputation care within the VA is complex. Some services are provided at VA facilities and some are ordered by VA clinicians but provided by community-based HCPs. However, we found that better (though not statistically significantly different) CSS scores and several Quality of Care items were endorsed by a significantly more of those reporting care in the VA or DoD as compared to elsewhere. Given the dissemination of a rehabilitation of upper limb amputees CPG, we hypothesized that VA and DoD HCPs would be more aware of care guidelines and would provide better care. Overall, our findings supported this hypothesis while also suggesting that areas such as caregiver involvement and peer visitation may benefit from additional attention and program improvement.

We used longitudinal data to describe and compare CSS and Quality of Care Index scores. Our analyses did not detect any statistically significant differences between baseline and follow-up. This finding may reflect that this was a relatively stable population with regard to amputation experiences given the mean time since amputation was 31.4 years. However, we also recognize that our measures may not have captured all aspects of care satisfaction or quality. It is possible that there were other changes that had occurred over the course of the year that were not captured by the CSS or by the Quality of Care Index. It is also possible that some implementation and adoption of the CPG had happened prior to our baseline survey. Finally, it is possible that some elements of the CPG have not yet been fully integrated into clinical care. We believe that the latter is likely, given that nearly 80% of respondents did not report receiving any amputation care within the past year at follow-up, though the CPGs recommend an annual visit.

Aside from recall bias, 2 explanations must be considered relative to the low rate of adherence to the CPG recommendation for an annual follow-up. The first is that the CPG simply may not be widely adopted. The second is that the majority of patients with ULA who use prostheses use a body-powered system. These tend to be low maintenance, long-lasting systems and may ultimately not need annual maintenance and repair. Further, if the veteran’s body-powered system is functioning properly and health status has not changed, they may simply be opting out of an annual visit despite the CPG recommendation. Nonetheless, this apparent low rate of annual follow-up emphasizes the need for additional process improvement measures for the VA.

Strengths and Limitations

The VA provides a unique setting for a nationally representative study of amputation rehabilitation because it has centralized data sources that can be used to identify veterans with ULA. Our study had a strong response rate, and its prosthetic limb care satisfaction findings are generalizable to all veterans with major ULA who received VA care from 2010 to 2015. However, there are limits to generalizability outside of this population to civilians or to veterans who do not receive VA care. To examine possible nonresponse bias, which could limit generalizability, we compared the baseline characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents to the follow-up study (eAppendix 4 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). There were no significant differences in satisfaction, quality of care, or receipt of amputation-related care between those lost to follow-up and those with follow-up data. Although, we did find small differences in gender, race, and service era (defined by amputation date). We do not believe that these differences threaten the interpretation of findings at follow-up, but there may be limits to generalizability of these findings to the full baseline sample. The data were from a telephone survey of veterans. It is possible that some veterans did not recall their care receipt or did not understand some of the questions and thus may not have accurately answered questions related to type of care received or the timing of that care.

Our interpretation of findings comparing care received within the VA and DoD or elsewhere is also limited because we cannot say with certainty whether those who indicated no care in the VA or DoD actually had care that was sponsored by the VA or DoD as contract or fee-basis care. Just 8 respondents indicated that they had received care only outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year. There were also some limitations in the collection of data about care location. We asked about receipt of amputation care in the prior year and about location of any amputation care received between baseline and follow-up, and there were differences in responses. Thus, we used a combination of these items to identify location of care received in the prior year.

Despite these limitations, we believe that our study provides novel, important findings about the satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation rehabilitation care for veterans. Findings from this study can be used to address amputation and prosthetic limb care satisfaction and quality weaknesses highlighted and to benchmark care satisfaction and CPG compliance. Other studies evaluating care guideline compliance have used indicators obtained from clinical records or data repositories.^13-15 Future work could combine self-reported satisfaction and care quality measures with indicators obtained from clinical or repository sources to provide a more complete snapshot of care delivery.

Conclusions

We reported on a national survey of veterans with major upper limb loss that assessed satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation care. Satisfaction with prosthetic limb care was independently associated with satisfaction with the prosthesis, and receipt of care within the prior year. Most of the veterans surveyed received care within the VA or DoD and reported receiving higher quality of care, when compared with those who received care outside of the VA or DoD. Satisfaction with care and quality of care were stable over the year of this study. Data presented in this study can serve to direct VA amputation care process improvement initiatives as benchmarks for future work. Future studies are needed to track satisfaction with and quality of care for veterans with ULA.

Veterans with upper limb amputation (ULA) are a small, but important population, who have received more attention in the past decade due to the increased growth of the population of veterans with conflict-related amputation from recent military engagements. Among the 808 veterans with ULA receiving any care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2010 to 2015 who participated in our national study, an estimated 28 to 35% had a conflict-related amputation.¹ The care of these individuals with ULA is highly specialized, and there is a recognized shortage of experienced professionals in this area.^2,3 The provision of high-quality prosthetic care is increasingly complex with advances in technology, such as externally powered devices with multiple functions.

The VA is a comprehensive, integrated health care system that serves more than 8.9 million veterans each year. Interdisciplinary amputation care is provided within the VA through a traditional clinic setting or by using one of several currently available virtual care modalities.^4,5 In consultation with the veteran, VA health care providers (HCPs) prescribe prostheses and services based on the clinical needs and furnish authorized items and services to eligible veterans. Prescribed items and/or services are furnished either by internal VA resources or through a community-based prosthetist who is an authorized vendor or contractor. Although several studies have reported that the majority of veterans with ULA utilize VA services for at least some aspects of their health care, little is known about: (1) prosthetic limb care satisfaction or the quality of care that veterans receive; or (2) how care within the VA or Department of Defense (DoD) compares with care provided in the civilian sector.^6-8

Earlier studies that examined the amputation rehabilitation services received by veterans with ULA pointed to quality gaps in care and differences in satisfaction in the VA and DoD when compared with the civilian sector but were limited in their scope and methodology.^7,8 A 2008 study of veterans of the Vietnam War, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) compared satisfaction by location of care receipt (DoD only, VA only, private only, and multiple sources). That study dichotomized response categories for items related to satisfaction with care (satisfied/not), but did not estimate degree of satisfaction, calculate summary scores of the items, or utilize validated care satisfaction metrics. That study found that a greater proportion of Vietnam War veterans (compared with OIF/OEF veterans receiving care in the private sector) agreed that they “had a role in choosing prosthesis” and disagreed that they wanted to change their current prosthesis to another type.⁷ The assumption made by the authors is that much of this private sector care was actually VA-sponsored care prescribed and procured by the VA but delivered in the community. However, no data were collected to confirm or refute this assumption, and it is possible that some care was both VA sponsored and delivered, some was VA sponsored but commercially delivered, and in some cases, care was sponsored by other sources and delivered in still other facilities.

A 2012 VA Office of the Inspector General study of OIF, OEF, and Operation New Dawn (OND) veterans reported lower prosthetic satisfaction for veterans with upper limb when compared with lower limb amputation and described respondents concerns about lack of VA prosthetic expertise, difficulty with accessing VA services, and dissatisfaction with the sometimes lengthy approval process for obtaining fee-basis or VA contract care.⁸ Although this report suggested that there were quality gaps and areas for improvement, it did not employ validated metrics of prosthesis or care satisfaction and instead relied on qualitative data collected through telephone interviews.

Given the VA effort to enhance the quality and consistency of its amputation care services through the formal establishment of the Amputation System of Care, which began in 2008, further evaluation of care satisfaction and quality of care is warranted. In 2014 the VA and DoD released the first evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the rehabilitation of persons with ULA.² The CPG describes care paths to improve outcomes and basic tenets of amputation rehabilitation care and can be used to identify process activities that are essential aspects of quality care. However, the extent to which the CPG has impacted the quality and timeliness of care for veterans with ULA are presently unclear.

Thus, the purposes of this study were to: (1) measure veteran satisfaction with prosthetic limb care and identify factors associated with service satisfaction; (2) assess quality indicators that potentially reflect CPG) adoption; (3) compare care satisfaction and quality for those who received care in or outside of the VA or DoD; and (4) evaluate change in satisfaction over time.

Methods

The study was approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Study #16-20) and Human Research Protection Office, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. The sampling frame consisted of veterans with major ULA who received care in the VA between 2010 and 2015 identified in VA Corporate Data Warehouse. We sent recruitment packages to nondeceased veterans who had current addresses and phone numbers. Those who did not opt out or inform us that they did not meet eligibility criteria were contacted by study interviewers. A waiver of documentation of written informed consent was obtained from the VA Central IRB. When reached by the study interviewer, Veterans provided oral informed consent. At baseline, 808 veterans were interviewed for a response rate of 47.7% as calculated by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) methodology.⁹ Follow-up interviews approximately 1 year later (mean [SD] 367 [16.8] days), were conducted with 585 respondents for a 72.4% response rate (Figure).

Survey Content

Development and pilot testing of the survey instrument previously was reported.¹ The content of the survey drew from existing survey items and metrics, and included new items specifically designed to address patterns of amputation care, based on care goals within the CPG. All new and modified items were tested and refined through cognitive interviews with 10 participants, and tested with an additional 13 participants.

The survey collected data on demographics, amputation characteristics (year of amputation, level, laterality, and etiology), current prosthesis use, and type of prosthesis. This article focused on the sections of the survey pertaining to satisfaction with prosthetic care and indicators of quality of care. A description of the content of the full survey and a synopsis of overall findings are reported in a prior publication.¹ The key independent, dependent, and other variables utilized in the analyses reported in this manuscript are described below.

Primary Independent Variables

In the follow-up survey, we asked respondents whether they had any amputation care in the prior 12 months, and if so to indicate where they had gone for care. We categorized respondents as having received VA/DoD care if they reported any care at the VA or DoD, and as having received non-VA/DoD care if they did not report care at the VA or DoD but indicated that they had received amputation care between baseline and follow-up.

Two primary outcomes were utilized; the Orthotics and Prosthetics User’s Survey (OPUS), client satisfaction with services scale (CSS), and a measure of care quality specifically developed for this study. The CSS is a measure developed specifically for orthotic and prosthesis users.¹⁰ This 11-item scale measures satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and contains items evaluating facets of care such as courtesy received from prosthetists and clinical staff, care coordination, appointment wait time, willingness of the prosthetist to listen to participant concerns, and satisfaction with prosthesis training. Items are rated on a 4-point scale (strongly agree [1] to strongly disagree [4]), thus higher CSS scores indicate worse satisfaction with services. The CSS was administered only to prosthesis users.

The Quality of Care assessment developed for this study contained items pertaining to amputation related care receipt and care quality. These items were generated by the study team in consultation with representatives from the VA/DoD Extremity Amputation Center of Excellence after review of the ULA rehabilitation CPG. Survey questions asked respondents about the clinicians visited for amputation related care in the past 12 months, whether they had an annual amputation-related checkup, whether any clinician had assessed their function, worked with them to identify goals, and/or to develop an amputation-related care plan. Respondents were also asked whether there had been family/caregiver involvement in their care and care coordination, whether a peer visitor was involved in their initial care, whether they had received information about amputation management in the prior year, and whether they had amputation-related pain. Those that indicated that they had amputation-related pain were subsequently asked whether their pain was well managed, whether they used medication for pain management, and whether they used any nonpharmaceutical strategies.

Quality of Care Index

We initially developed 15 indicator items of quality of care. We selected 7 of the items to create a summary index. We omitted 3 items about pain management, since these items were completed only by participants who indicated that they had experienced pain; however, we examined the 3 pain items individually given the importance of this topic. We omitted an additional 2 items from the summary index because they would not be sensitive to change because they pertained to the care in the year after initial amputation. One of these items asked whether caregivers were involved in initial amputation management and the other asked whether a peer visit occurred after amputation. Another 3 items were omitted because they only were completed by small subsamples due to intentional skip patterns in the survey. These items addressed whether clinical HCPs discussed amputation care goals in the prior year, worked to develop a care plan in the prior year, or helped to coordinate care after a move. Completion rates for all items considered for the index are shown in eAppendix 1 (Available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). After item selection, we generated an index score, which was the number of reported “yes” responses to the seven relevant items.

Other Variables

We created a single variable called level/laterality which categorized ULA as unilateral or bilateral. We further categorized respondents with unilateral amputation by their amputation level. We categorized respondents as transradial for wrist joint or below the elbow amputations; transhumeral for at or above the elbow amputations; and shoulder for shoulder joint or forequarter amputations. Participants indicated the amputation etiology using 7 yes/no variables: combat injury, accident, burn, cancer, diabetes mellitus, and infection. Participants could select ≥ 1 etiology.

Primary prosthesis type was categorized as body powered, myoelectric/hybrid, cosmetic, other/unknown, or nonuser. The service era was classified based on amputation date as Before Vietnam, Vietnam War, After Vietnam to Gulf War, After Gulf War to September 10, 2001, and September 11, 2001 to present. For race, individuals with > 1 race were classified as other. We classified participants by region, using the station identification of the most recent VA medical center that they had visited between January 1, 2010 and December 30, 2015.

The survey also employed 2 measures of satisfaction with the prosthesis, the Trinity Amputation and Prosthetic Experience Scale (TAPES) satisfaction scale and the OPUS Client Satisfaction with Devices (CSD). TAPES consists of 10 items addressing color, shape, noise, appearance, weight, usefulness, reliability, fit, comfort and overall satisfaction.¹¹ Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5). An 8-item version of the CSD scale was created for this study, after conducting a Rasch analysis (using Winsteps version 4.4.2) of the original 11-item CSD. The 8 items assess satisfaction with prosthesis fit, weight, comfort, donning ease, appearance, durability, skin contact, and pain. Items are rated on a 4-point scale from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (4); higher CSD scores indicate less satisfaction with devices. Psychometric analysis of the revised CSD score was reported in a prior publication.¹² We also reported on the CSS using the original 10-item measure.

Data Analyses

We described characteristics of respondents at baseline and follow-up. We used baseline data to calculate CSS scores and described scores for all participants, for subgroups of unilateral and bilateral amputees, and for unilateral amputees stratified by amputation level. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare the CSS item and total scores of 461 prosthesis users with unilateral amputation and 29 with bilateral amputation. To identify factors that we hypothesized might be associated with CSS scores at baseline, we developed separate bivariate linear regression models. We added those factors that were associated with CSS scores at P ≤ .1 in bivariate analyses to a multivariable linear regression model of factors associated with CSS score. The P ≤ .1 threshold was used to ensure that relevant confounders were controlled for in regression models. We excluded 309 participants with no reported prosthesis use (who were not asked to complete the CSS), 20 participants with other/unknown prosthesis types, and 106 with missing data on amputation care in the prior year or on satisfaction metrics. We used baseline data for this analysis to maximize the sample size.

We compared CSS scores for those who reported receiving care within or outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year, using Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney rank tests. We also compared scores of individual quality of care items for these groups using Fisher exact tests. We chose to examine individual items rather than the full Index because several items specified care receipt within the VA and thus would be inappropriate to utilize in comparisons by site location; however, we described responses to all items. In these analyses, we excluded 2 respondents who had conflicting information regarding location of care. We used follow-up data for this analysis because it allowed us to identify location of care received in the prior year.

We also described the CSS scores, the 7-item Quality of Care Index and responses to other items related to quality of care at baseline and follow-up. To examine whether satisfaction with prosthetic care or aspects of care quality had changed over time, we compared baseline and follow-up CSS and quality of care scores for respondents who had measures at both times using Wilcoxon signed ranks tests. Individual items were compared using McNemar tests.

Results

Respondents were 97.4% male and included 776 unilateral amputees and 32 bilateral amputees with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (14.1) years (Table 1). Respondents had lost their limbs a mean (SD) 31.4 (14.1) years prior, and half were transradial, 34.2% transhumeral, and 11.6% shoulder amputation. At baseline 185 (22.9%) participants received amputation-related care in the prior year and 118 (20.2%) participants received amputation-related care within 1 year of follow-up. Of respondents, 113 (19.3%) stated that their care was between baseline and follow-up and 89 (78.8%) of these received care at either the VA, the DoD or both; just 16 (14.2%) received care elsewhere.

Mean (SD) CSS scores were highest (lower satisfaction) for those with amputation at the shoulder and lowest for those with transhumeral amputation: 42.2 (20.0) vs 33.4 (20.8). Persons with bilateral amputation were less satisfied in almost every category when compared with those with unilateral amputation, although the total CSS score was not substantially different. Wilcoxon rank sum analyses revealed statistically significant differences in wait time satisfaction: bilateral amputees were less satisfied than unilateral amputees. Factors associated with overall CSS score in bivariate analyses were CSD score, TAPES score, amputation care receipt, prosthesis type, race, and region of care (eAppendix 2, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096).

Discussion

Our longitudinal study provides insights into the experiences of veterans with major ULA related to satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and receipt of amputation-related care. We reported on the development and use of a new summary measure of amputation care quality, which we designed to capture some of the key elements of care quality as provided in the VA/DoD CPG.²

We used baseline data to identify factors independently associated with prosthetic limb care satisfaction as measured by a previously validated measure, the OPUS CSS. The CSS addresses satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and does not reflect satisfaction with other amputation care services. We found that persons who received amputation care in the prior year had CSS scores that were a mean 5.1 points better than those who had not received recent care. Although causality cannot be determined with this investigation, this finding highlights an important relationship between frequency of care and satisfaction, which can be leveraged by the VA in future care initiatives. Care satisfaction was also better by 0.7 points for every 1-point decrease (indicating higher satisfaction) in the OPUS CSD prosthetic satisfaction scale. This finding isn’t surprising, given that a major purpose of prosthetic limb care services is to procure and fit a satisfactory device. To determine whether these same relationships were observed in the smaller, longitudinal cohort data at follow-up, we repeated these models and found similar relationships between recent care receipt and prosthesis satisfaction and satisfaction with services. We believe that these findings are meaningful and emphasize the importance of both service and device satisfaction to the veteran with an ULA. Lower service satisfaction scores among those with amputations at the shoulder and those with bilateral limb loss suggest that these individuals may benefit from different service delivery approaches.

We did observe a difference in satisfaction scores by geographic region in the follow-up (but not the baseline) data with satisfaction higher in the Western vs the Southern region (data not shown). This finding suggests a need for continued monitoring of care satisfaction over time to determine whether differences by region persist. We grouped respondents into geographic region based on the location where they had received their most recent VA care of any type. Many veterans receive care at multiple VA locations. Thus, it is possible that some veterans received their amputation care at a non-VA facility or a VA facility in a different region.

Our findings related to prosthetic limb care services satisfaction are generalizable to veteran prosthesis users. Findings may not be generalizable to nonusers, because in our study, the CSS only was administered to prosthesis users. Thus, we were unable to identify factors associated with care satisfaction for persons who were not current users of an upper limb prosthesis.

The study findings confirmed that most veterans with ULA receive amputation-related care in the VA or DoD. We compared CSS and Quality of Care item scores for those who reported receiving care at the VA or DoD vs elsewhere. Amputation care within the VA is complex. Some services are provided at VA facilities and some are ordered by VA clinicians but provided by community-based HCPs. However, we found that better (though not statistically significantly different) CSS scores and several Quality of Care items were endorsed by a significantly more of those reporting care in the VA or DoD as compared to elsewhere. Given the dissemination of a rehabilitation of upper limb amputees CPG, we hypothesized that VA and DoD HCPs would be more aware of care guidelines and would provide better care. Overall, our findings supported this hypothesis while also suggesting that areas such as caregiver involvement and peer visitation may benefit from additional attention and program improvement.

We used longitudinal data to describe and compare CSS and Quality of Care Index scores. Our analyses did not detect any statistically significant differences between baseline and follow-up. This finding may reflect that this was a relatively stable population with regard to amputation experiences given the mean time since amputation was 31.4 years. However, we also recognize that our measures may not have captured all aspects of care satisfaction or quality. It is possible that there were other changes that had occurred over the course of the year that were not captured by the CSS or by the Quality of Care Index. It is also possible that some implementation and adoption of the CPG had happened prior to our baseline survey. Finally, it is possible that some elements of the CPG have not yet been fully integrated into clinical care. We believe that the latter is likely, given that nearly 80% of respondents did not report receiving any amputation care within the past year at follow-up, though the CPGs recommend an annual visit.

Aside from recall bias, 2 explanations must be considered relative to the low rate of adherence to the CPG recommendation for an annual follow-up. The first is that the CPG simply may not be widely adopted. The second is that the majority of patients with ULA who use prostheses use a body-powered system. These tend to be low maintenance, long-lasting systems and may ultimately not need annual maintenance and repair. Further, if the veteran’s body-powered system is functioning properly and health status has not changed, they may simply be opting out of an annual visit despite the CPG recommendation. Nonetheless, this apparent low rate of annual follow-up emphasizes the need for additional process improvement measures for the VA.

Strengths and Limitations

The VA provides a unique setting for a nationally representative study of amputation rehabilitation because it has centralized data sources that can be used to identify veterans with ULA. Our study had a strong response rate, and its prosthetic limb care satisfaction findings are generalizable to all veterans with major ULA who received VA care from 2010 to 2015. However, there are limits to generalizability outside of this population to civilians or to veterans who do not receive VA care. To examine possible nonresponse bias, which could limit generalizability, we compared the baseline characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents to the follow-up study (eAppendix 4 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). There were no significant differences in satisfaction, quality of care, or receipt of amputation-related care between those lost to follow-up and those with follow-up data. Although, we did find small differences in gender, race, and service era (defined by amputation date). We do not believe that these differences threaten the interpretation of findings at follow-up, but there may be limits to generalizability of these findings to the full baseline sample. The data were from a telephone survey of veterans. It is possible that some veterans did not recall their care receipt or did not understand some of the questions and thus may not have accurately answered questions related to type of care received or the timing of that care.

Our interpretation of findings comparing care received within the VA and DoD or elsewhere is also limited because we cannot say with certainty whether those who indicated no care in the VA or DoD actually had care that was sponsored by the VA or DoD as contract or fee-basis care. Just 8 respondents indicated that they had received care only outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year. There were also some limitations in the collection of data about care location. We asked about receipt of amputation care in the prior year and about location of any amputation care received between baseline and follow-up, and there were differences in responses. Thus, we used a combination of these items to identify location of care received in the prior year.

Despite these limitations, we believe that our study provides novel, important findings about the satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation rehabilitation care for veterans. Findings from this study can be used to address amputation and prosthetic limb care satisfaction and quality weaknesses highlighted and to benchmark care satisfaction and CPG compliance. Other studies evaluating care guideline compliance have used indicators obtained from clinical records or data repositories.^13-15 Future work could combine self-reported satisfaction and care quality measures with indicators obtained from clinical or repository sources to provide a more complete snapshot of care delivery.

Conclusions

We reported on a national survey of veterans with major upper limb loss that assessed satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation care. Satisfaction with prosthetic limb care was independently associated with satisfaction with the prosthesis, and receipt of care within the prior year. Most of the veterans surveyed received care within the VA or DoD and reported receiving higher quality of care, when compared with those who received care outside of the VA or DoD. Satisfaction with care and quality of care were stable over the year of this study. Data presented in this study can serve to direct VA amputation care process improvement initiatives as benchmarks for future work. Future studies are needed to track satisfaction with and quality of care for veterans with ULA.

Veterans with upper limb amputation (ULA) are a small, but important population, who have received more attention in the past decade due to the increased growth of the population of veterans with conflict-related amputation from recent military engagements. Among the 808 veterans with ULA receiving any care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2010 to 2015 who participated in our national study, an estimated 28 to 35% had a conflict-related amputation.¹ The care of these individuals with ULA is highly specialized, and there is a recognized shortage of experienced professionals in this area.^2,3 The provision of high-quality prosthetic care is increasingly complex with advances in technology, such as externally powered devices with multiple functions.

The VA is a comprehensive, integrated health care system that serves more than 8.9 million veterans each year. Interdisciplinary amputation care is provided within the VA through a traditional clinic setting or by using one of several currently available virtual care modalities.^4,5 In consultation with the veteran, VA health care providers (HCPs) prescribe prostheses and services based on the clinical needs and furnish authorized items and services to eligible veterans. Prescribed items and/or services are furnished either by internal VA resources or through a community-based prosthetist who is an authorized vendor or contractor. Although several studies have reported that the majority of veterans with ULA utilize VA services for at least some aspects of their health care, little is known about: (1) prosthetic limb care satisfaction or the quality of care that veterans receive; or (2) how care within the VA or Department of Defense (DoD) compares with care provided in the civilian sector.^6-8

Earlier studies that examined the amputation rehabilitation services received by veterans with ULA pointed to quality gaps in care and differences in satisfaction in the VA and DoD when compared with the civilian sector but were limited in their scope and methodology.^7,8 A 2008 study of veterans of the Vietnam War, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) compared satisfaction by location of care receipt (DoD only, VA only, private only, and multiple sources). That study dichotomized response categories for items related to satisfaction with care (satisfied/not), but did not estimate degree of satisfaction, calculate summary scores of the items, or utilize validated care satisfaction metrics. That study found that a greater proportion of Vietnam War veterans (compared with OIF/OEF veterans receiving care in the private sector) agreed that they “had a role in choosing prosthesis” and disagreed that they wanted to change their current prosthesis to another type.⁷ The assumption made by the authors is that much of this private sector care was actually VA-sponsored care prescribed and procured by the VA but delivered in the community. However, no data were collected to confirm or refute this assumption, and it is possible that some care was both VA sponsored and delivered, some was VA sponsored but commercially delivered, and in some cases, care was sponsored by other sources and delivered in still other facilities.

A 2012 VA Office of the Inspector General study of OIF, OEF, and Operation New Dawn (OND) veterans reported lower prosthetic satisfaction for veterans with upper limb when compared with lower limb amputation and described respondents concerns about lack of VA prosthetic expertise, difficulty with accessing VA services, and dissatisfaction with the sometimes lengthy approval process for obtaining fee-basis or VA contract care.⁸ Although this report suggested that there were quality gaps and areas for improvement, it did not employ validated metrics of prosthesis or care satisfaction and instead relied on qualitative data collected through telephone interviews.

Given the VA effort to enhance the quality and consistency of its amputation care services through the formal establishment of the Amputation System of Care, which began in 2008, further evaluation of care satisfaction and quality of care is warranted. In 2014 the VA and DoD released the first evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the rehabilitation of persons with ULA.² The CPG describes care paths to improve outcomes and basic tenets of amputation rehabilitation care and can be used to identify process activities that are essential aspects of quality care. However, the extent to which the CPG has impacted the quality and timeliness of care for veterans with ULA are presently unclear.

Thus, the purposes of this study were to: (1) measure veteran satisfaction with prosthetic limb care and identify factors associated with service satisfaction; (2) assess quality indicators that potentially reflect CPG) adoption; (3) compare care satisfaction and quality for those who received care in or outside of the VA or DoD; and (4) evaluate change in satisfaction over time.

Methods

The study was approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Study #16-20) and Human Research Protection Office, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command. The sampling frame consisted of veterans with major ULA who received care in the VA between 2010 and 2015 identified in VA Corporate Data Warehouse. We sent recruitment packages to nondeceased veterans who had current addresses and phone numbers. Those who did not opt out or inform us that they did not meet eligibility criteria were contacted by study interviewers. A waiver of documentation of written informed consent was obtained from the VA Central IRB. When reached by the study interviewer, Veterans provided oral informed consent. At baseline, 808 veterans were interviewed for a response rate of 47.7% as calculated by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) methodology.⁹ Follow-up interviews approximately 1 year later (mean [SD] 367 [16.8] days), were conducted with 585 respondents for a 72.4% response rate (Figure).

Survey Content

Development and pilot testing of the survey instrument previously was reported.¹ The content of the survey drew from existing survey items and metrics, and included new items specifically designed to address patterns of amputation care, based on care goals within the CPG. All new and modified items were tested and refined through cognitive interviews with 10 participants, and tested with an additional 13 participants.

The survey collected data on demographics, amputation characteristics (year of amputation, level, laterality, and etiology), current prosthesis use, and type of prosthesis. This article focused on the sections of the survey pertaining to satisfaction with prosthetic care and indicators of quality of care. A description of the content of the full survey and a synopsis of overall findings are reported in a prior publication.¹ The key independent, dependent, and other variables utilized in the analyses reported in this manuscript are described below.

Primary Independent Variables

In the follow-up survey, we asked respondents whether they had any amputation care in the prior 12 months, and if so to indicate where they had gone for care. We categorized respondents as having received VA/DoD care if they reported any care at the VA or DoD, and as having received non-VA/DoD care if they did not report care at the VA or DoD but indicated that they had received amputation care between baseline and follow-up.

Two primary outcomes were utilized; the Orthotics and Prosthetics User’s Survey (OPUS), client satisfaction with services scale (CSS), and a measure of care quality specifically developed for this study. The CSS is a measure developed specifically for orthotic and prosthesis users.¹⁰ This 11-item scale measures satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and contains items evaluating facets of care such as courtesy received from prosthetists and clinical staff, care coordination, appointment wait time, willingness of the prosthetist to listen to participant concerns, and satisfaction with prosthesis training. Items are rated on a 4-point scale (strongly agree [1] to strongly disagree [4]), thus higher CSS scores indicate worse satisfaction with services. The CSS was administered only to prosthesis users.

The Quality of Care assessment developed for this study contained items pertaining to amputation related care receipt and care quality. These items were generated by the study team in consultation with representatives from the VA/DoD Extremity Amputation Center of Excellence after review of the ULA rehabilitation CPG. Survey questions asked respondents about the clinicians visited for amputation related care in the past 12 months, whether they had an annual amputation-related checkup, whether any clinician had assessed their function, worked with them to identify goals, and/or to develop an amputation-related care plan. Respondents were also asked whether there had been family/caregiver involvement in their care and care coordination, whether a peer visitor was involved in their initial care, whether they had received information about amputation management in the prior year, and whether they had amputation-related pain. Those that indicated that they had amputation-related pain were subsequently asked whether their pain was well managed, whether they used medication for pain management, and whether they used any nonpharmaceutical strategies.

Quality of Care Index

We initially developed 15 indicator items of quality of care. We selected 7 of the items to create a summary index. We omitted 3 items about pain management, since these items were completed only by participants who indicated that they had experienced pain; however, we examined the 3 pain items individually given the importance of this topic. We omitted an additional 2 items from the summary index because they would not be sensitive to change because they pertained to the care in the year after initial amputation. One of these items asked whether caregivers were involved in initial amputation management and the other asked whether a peer visit occurred after amputation. Another 3 items were omitted because they only were completed by small subsamples due to intentional skip patterns in the survey. These items addressed whether clinical HCPs discussed amputation care goals in the prior year, worked to develop a care plan in the prior year, or helped to coordinate care after a move. Completion rates for all items considered for the index are shown in eAppendix 1 (Available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). After item selection, we generated an index score, which was the number of reported “yes” responses to the seven relevant items.

Other Variables

We created a single variable called level/laterality which categorized ULA as unilateral or bilateral. We further categorized respondents with unilateral amputation by their amputation level. We categorized respondents as transradial for wrist joint or below the elbow amputations; transhumeral for at or above the elbow amputations; and shoulder for shoulder joint or forequarter amputations. Participants indicated the amputation etiology using 7 yes/no variables: combat injury, accident, burn, cancer, diabetes mellitus, and infection. Participants could select ≥ 1 etiology.

Primary prosthesis type was categorized as body powered, myoelectric/hybrid, cosmetic, other/unknown, or nonuser. The service era was classified based on amputation date as Before Vietnam, Vietnam War, After Vietnam to Gulf War, After Gulf War to September 10, 2001, and September 11, 2001 to present. For race, individuals with > 1 race were classified as other. We classified participants by region, using the station identification of the most recent VA medical center that they had visited between January 1, 2010 and December 30, 2015.

The survey also employed 2 measures of satisfaction with the prosthesis, the Trinity Amputation and Prosthetic Experience Scale (TAPES) satisfaction scale and the OPUS Client Satisfaction with Devices (CSD). TAPES consists of 10 items addressing color, shape, noise, appearance, weight, usefulness, reliability, fit, comfort and overall satisfaction.¹¹ Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from very dissatisfied (1) to very satisfied (5). An 8-item version of the CSD scale was created for this study, after conducting a Rasch analysis (using Winsteps version 4.4.2) of the original 11-item CSD. The 8 items assess satisfaction with prosthesis fit, weight, comfort, donning ease, appearance, durability, skin contact, and pain. Items are rated on a 4-point scale from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (4); higher CSD scores indicate less satisfaction with devices. Psychometric analysis of the revised CSD score was reported in a prior publication.¹² We also reported on the CSS using the original 10-item measure.

Data Analyses

We described characteristics of respondents at baseline and follow-up. We used baseline data to calculate CSS scores and described scores for all participants, for subgroups of unilateral and bilateral amputees, and for unilateral amputees stratified by amputation level. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare the CSS item and total scores of 461 prosthesis users with unilateral amputation and 29 with bilateral amputation. To identify factors that we hypothesized might be associated with CSS scores at baseline, we developed separate bivariate linear regression models. We added those factors that were associated with CSS scores at P ≤ .1 in bivariate analyses to a multivariable linear regression model of factors associated with CSS score. The P ≤ .1 threshold was used to ensure that relevant confounders were controlled for in regression models. We excluded 309 participants with no reported prosthesis use (who were not asked to complete the CSS), 20 participants with other/unknown prosthesis types, and 106 with missing data on amputation care in the prior year or on satisfaction metrics. We used baseline data for this analysis to maximize the sample size.

We compared CSS scores for those who reported receiving care within or outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year, using Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney rank tests. We also compared scores of individual quality of care items for these groups using Fisher exact tests. We chose to examine individual items rather than the full Index because several items specified care receipt within the VA and thus would be inappropriate to utilize in comparisons by site location; however, we described responses to all items. In these analyses, we excluded 2 respondents who had conflicting information regarding location of care. We used follow-up data for this analysis because it allowed us to identify location of care received in the prior year.

We also described the CSS scores, the 7-item Quality of Care Index and responses to other items related to quality of care at baseline and follow-up. To examine whether satisfaction with prosthetic care or aspects of care quality had changed over time, we compared baseline and follow-up CSS and quality of care scores for respondents who had measures at both times using Wilcoxon signed ranks tests. Individual items were compared using McNemar tests.

Results

Respondents were 97.4% male and included 776 unilateral amputees and 32 bilateral amputees with a mean (SD) age of 63.3 (14.1) years (Table 1). Respondents had lost their limbs a mean (SD) 31.4 (14.1) years prior, and half were transradial, 34.2% transhumeral, and 11.6% shoulder amputation. At baseline 185 (22.9%) participants received amputation-related care in the prior year and 118 (20.2%) participants received amputation-related care within 1 year of follow-up. Of respondents, 113 (19.3%) stated that their care was between baseline and follow-up and 89 (78.8%) of these received care at either the VA, the DoD or both; just 16 (14.2%) received care elsewhere.

Mean (SD) CSS scores were highest (lower satisfaction) for those with amputation at the shoulder and lowest for those with transhumeral amputation: 42.2 (20.0) vs 33.4 (20.8). Persons with bilateral amputation were less satisfied in almost every category when compared with those with unilateral amputation, although the total CSS score was not substantially different. Wilcoxon rank sum analyses revealed statistically significant differences in wait time satisfaction: bilateral amputees were less satisfied than unilateral amputees. Factors associated with overall CSS score in bivariate analyses were CSD score, TAPES score, amputation care receipt, prosthesis type, race, and region of care (eAppendix 2, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096).

Discussion

Our longitudinal study provides insights into the experiences of veterans with major ULA related to satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and receipt of amputation-related care. We reported on the development and use of a new summary measure of amputation care quality, which we designed to capture some of the key elements of care quality as provided in the VA/DoD CPG.²

We used baseline data to identify factors independently associated with prosthetic limb care satisfaction as measured by a previously validated measure, the OPUS CSS. The CSS addresses satisfaction with prosthetic limb services and does not reflect satisfaction with other amputation care services. We found that persons who received amputation care in the prior year had CSS scores that were a mean 5.1 points better than those who had not received recent care. Although causality cannot be determined with this investigation, this finding highlights an important relationship between frequency of care and satisfaction, which can be leveraged by the VA in future care initiatives. Care satisfaction was also better by 0.7 points for every 1-point decrease (indicating higher satisfaction) in the OPUS CSD prosthetic satisfaction scale. This finding isn’t surprising, given that a major purpose of prosthetic limb care services is to procure and fit a satisfactory device. To determine whether these same relationships were observed in the smaller, longitudinal cohort data at follow-up, we repeated these models and found similar relationships between recent care receipt and prosthesis satisfaction and satisfaction with services. We believe that these findings are meaningful and emphasize the importance of both service and device satisfaction to the veteran with an ULA. Lower service satisfaction scores among those with amputations at the shoulder and those with bilateral limb loss suggest that these individuals may benefit from different service delivery approaches.

We did observe a difference in satisfaction scores by geographic region in the follow-up (but not the baseline) data with satisfaction higher in the Western vs the Southern region (data not shown). This finding suggests a need for continued monitoring of care satisfaction over time to determine whether differences by region persist. We grouped respondents into geographic region based on the location where they had received their most recent VA care of any type. Many veterans receive care at multiple VA locations. Thus, it is possible that some veterans received their amputation care at a non-VA facility or a VA facility in a different region.

Our findings related to prosthetic limb care services satisfaction are generalizable to veteran prosthesis users. Findings may not be generalizable to nonusers, because in our study, the CSS only was administered to prosthesis users. Thus, we were unable to identify factors associated with care satisfaction for persons who were not current users of an upper limb prosthesis.

The study findings confirmed that most veterans with ULA receive amputation-related care in the VA or DoD. We compared CSS and Quality of Care item scores for those who reported receiving care at the VA or DoD vs elsewhere. Amputation care within the VA is complex. Some services are provided at VA facilities and some are ordered by VA clinicians but provided by community-based HCPs. However, we found that better (though not statistically significantly different) CSS scores and several Quality of Care items were endorsed by a significantly more of those reporting care in the VA or DoD as compared to elsewhere. Given the dissemination of a rehabilitation of upper limb amputees CPG, we hypothesized that VA and DoD HCPs would be more aware of care guidelines and would provide better care. Overall, our findings supported this hypothesis while also suggesting that areas such as caregiver involvement and peer visitation may benefit from additional attention and program improvement.

We used longitudinal data to describe and compare CSS and Quality of Care Index scores. Our analyses did not detect any statistically significant differences between baseline and follow-up. This finding may reflect that this was a relatively stable population with regard to amputation experiences given the mean time since amputation was 31.4 years. However, we also recognize that our measures may not have captured all aspects of care satisfaction or quality. It is possible that there were other changes that had occurred over the course of the year that were not captured by the CSS or by the Quality of Care Index. It is also possible that some implementation and adoption of the CPG had happened prior to our baseline survey. Finally, it is possible that some elements of the CPG have not yet been fully integrated into clinical care. We believe that the latter is likely, given that nearly 80% of respondents did not report receiving any amputation care within the past year at follow-up, though the CPGs recommend an annual visit.

Aside from recall bias, 2 explanations must be considered relative to the low rate of adherence to the CPG recommendation for an annual follow-up. The first is that the CPG simply may not be widely adopted. The second is that the majority of patients with ULA who use prostheses use a body-powered system. These tend to be low maintenance, long-lasting systems and may ultimately not need annual maintenance and repair. Further, if the veteran’s body-powered system is functioning properly and health status has not changed, they may simply be opting out of an annual visit despite the CPG recommendation. Nonetheless, this apparent low rate of annual follow-up emphasizes the need for additional process improvement measures for the VA.

Strengths and Limitations

The VA provides a unique setting for a nationally representative study of amputation rehabilitation because it has centralized data sources that can be used to identify veterans with ULA. Our study had a strong response rate, and its prosthetic limb care satisfaction findings are generalizable to all veterans with major ULA who received VA care from 2010 to 2015. However, there are limits to generalizability outside of this population to civilians or to veterans who do not receive VA care. To examine possible nonresponse bias, which could limit generalizability, we compared the baseline characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents to the follow-up study (eAppendix 4 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0096). There were no significant differences in satisfaction, quality of care, or receipt of amputation-related care between those lost to follow-up and those with follow-up data. Although, we did find small differences in gender, race, and service era (defined by amputation date). We do not believe that these differences threaten the interpretation of findings at follow-up, but there may be limits to generalizability of these findings to the full baseline sample. The data were from a telephone survey of veterans. It is possible that some veterans did not recall their care receipt or did not understand some of the questions and thus may not have accurately answered questions related to type of care received or the timing of that care.

Our interpretation of findings comparing care received within the VA and DoD or elsewhere is also limited because we cannot say with certainty whether those who indicated no care in the VA or DoD actually had care that was sponsored by the VA or DoD as contract or fee-basis care. Just 8 respondents indicated that they had received care only outside of the VA or DoD in the prior year. There were also some limitations in the collection of data about care location. We asked about receipt of amputation care in the prior year and about location of any amputation care received between baseline and follow-up, and there were differences in responses. Thus, we used a combination of these items to identify location of care received in the prior year.

Despite these limitations, we believe that our study provides novel, important findings about the satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation rehabilitation care for veterans. Findings from this study can be used to address amputation and prosthetic limb care satisfaction and quality weaknesses highlighted and to benchmark care satisfaction and CPG compliance. Other studies evaluating care guideline compliance have used indicators obtained from clinical records or data repositories.^13-15 Future work could combine self-reported satisfaction and care quality measures with indicators obtained from clinical or repository sources to provide a more complete snapshot of care delivery.

Conclusions

We reported on a national survey of veterans with major upper limb loss that assessed satisfaction with prosthetic limb care services and quality of amputation care. Satisfaction with prosthetic limb care was independently associated with satisfaction with the prosthesis, and receipt of care within the prior year. Most of the veterans surveyed received care within the VA or DoD and reported receiving higher quality of care, when compared with those who received care outside of the VA or DoD. Satisfaction with care and quality of care were stable over the year of this study. Data presented in this study can serve to direct VA amputation care process improvement initiatives as benchmarks for future work. Future studies are needed to track satisfaction with and quality of care for veterans with ULA.

Evaluation of oral antineoplastic agent (OAN) adherence patterns have identified correlations between nonadherence or over-adherence and poorer disease-related outcomes. Multiple studies have focused on imatinib use in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) due to its continuous, long-term use. A study by Ganesan and colleagues found that nonadherence to imatinib showed a significant decrease in 5-year event-free survival between 76.7% of adherent participants compared with 59.8% of nonadherent participants.¹ This study found that 44% of patients who were adherent to imatinib achieved complete cytogenetic response vs only 26% of patients who were nonadherent. In another study of imatinib for CML, major molecular response (MMR) was strongly correlated with adherence and no patients with adherence < 80% were able to achieve MMR.² Similarly, in studies of tamoxifen for breast cancer, < 80% adherence resulted in a 10% decrease in survival when compared to those who were more adherent.^3,4

In addition to the clinical implications of nonadherence, there can be a significant cost associated with suboptimal use of these medications. The price of a single dose of OAN medication may cost as much as $440.⁵

The benefits of multidisciplinary care teams have been identified in many studies.^6,7 While studies are limited in oncology, pharmacists provide vital contributions to the oncology multidisciplinary team when managing OANs as these health care professionals have expert knowledge of the medications, potential adverse events (AEs), and necessary monitoring parameters.⁸ In one study, patients seen by the pharmacist-led oral chemotherapy management program experienced improved clinical outcomes and response to therapy when compared with preintervention patients (early molecular response, 88.9% vs 54.8%, P = .01; major molecular response, 83.3% vs 57.6%, P = .06).⁹ During the study, 318 AEs were reported, leading to 235 pharmacist interventions to ameliorate AEs and improve adherence.

The primary objective of this study was to measure the impact of a pharmacist-driven OAN renewal clinic on medication adherence. The secondary objective was to estimate cost-savings of this new service.

Methods

Prior to July 2014, several limitations were identified related to OAN prescribing and monitoring at the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana (RLRVAMC). The prescription ordering process relied primarily on the patient to initiate refills, rather than the prescriber OAN prescriptions also lacked consistency for number of refills or quantities dispensed. Furthermore, ordering of antineoplastic products was not limited to hematology/oncology providers. Patients were identified with significant supply on hand at the time of medication discontinuation, creating concerns for medication waste, tolerability, and nonadherence.

As a result, opportunities were identified to improve the prescribing process, recommended monitoring, toxicity and tolerability evaluation, medication reconciliation, and medication adherence. In July of 2014, the RLRVAMC adopted a new chemotherapy order entry system capable of restricting prescriptions to hematology/oncology providers and limiting dispensed quantities and refill amounts. A comprehensive pharmacist driven OAN renewal clinic was implemented on September 1, 2014 with the goal of improving long-term adherence and tolerability, in addition to minimizing medication waste.

Study Design and Setting

This was a pre/post retrospective cohort, quality improvement study of patients enrolled in the RLRVAMC OAN pharmacist renewal clinic. The study was deemed exempt from institutional review board (IRB) by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Research and Development Department.

Study Population

Patients were included in the preimplementation group if they had received at least 2 prescriptions of an eligible OAN. Therapy for the preimplementation group was required to be a monthly duration > 21 days and between the dates of September 1, 2013 and August 31, 2014. Patients were included in the postimplementation group if they had received at least 2 prescriptions of the studied OANs between September 1, 2014 and January 31, 2015. Patients were excluded if they had filled < 2 prescriptions of OAN; were managed by a non-VA oncologist or hematologist; or received an OAN other than those listed in Table 1.

Data Collection

For all patients in both the pre- and postimplementation cohorts, a standardized data collection tool was used to collect the following via electronic health record review by a PGY2 oncology resident: age, race, gender, oral antineoplastic agent, refill dates, days’ supply, estimated unit cost per dose cancer diagnosis, distance from the RLRVAMC, copay status, presence of hospitalizations/ED visits/dosage reductions, discontinuation rates, reasons for discontinuation, and total number of current prescriptions. The presence or absence of dosage reductions were collected to identify concerns for tolerability, but only the original dose for the preimplementation group and dosage at time of clinic enrollment for the postimplementation group was included in the analysis.

Outcomes and Statistical Analyses

The primary outcome was medication adherence defined as the median medication possession ratio (MPR) before and after implementation of the clinic. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who were adherent from before implementation to after and estimated cost-savings of this clinic after implementation. MPR was used to estimate medication adherence by taking the cumulative day supply of medication on hand divided by the number of days on therapy.¹² Number of days on therapy was determined by taking the difference on the start date of the new medication regimen and the discontinuation date of the same regimen. Patients were grouped by adherence into one of the following categories: < 0.8, 0.8 to 0.89, 0.9 to 1, and > 1.1. Patients were considered adherent if they reported taking ≥ 90% (MPR ≥ 0.9) of prescribed doses, adopted from the study by Anderson and colleagues.¹² A patient with an MPR > 1, likely due to filling prior to the anticipated refill date, was considered 100% adherent (MPR = 1). If a patient switched OAN during the study, both agents were included as separate entities.

A conservative estimate of cost-savings was made by multiplying the RLRVAMC cost per unit of medication at time of initial prescription fill by the number of units taken each day multiplied by the total days’ supply on hand at time of therapy discontinuation. Patients with an MPR < 1 at time of therapy discontinuation were assumed to have zero remaining units on hand and zero cost savings was estimated. Waste, for purposes of cost-savings, was calculated for all MPR values > 1. Additional supply anticipated to be on hand from dose reductions was not included in the estimated cost of unused medication.

Descriptive statistics compared demographic characteristics between the pre- and postimplementation groups. MPR data were not normally distributed, which required the use of nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests to compare pre- and postMPRs. Pearson χ² compared the proportion of adherent patients between groups while descriptive statistics were used to estimate cost savings. Significance was determined based on a P value < .05. IBM SPSS Statistics software was used for all statistical analyses. As this was a complete sample of all eligible subjects, no sample size calculation was performed.

Results

In the preimplementation period, 246 patients received an OAN and 61 patients received an OAN in the postimplementation period (Figure 1). Of the 246 patients in the preimplementation period, 98 were eligible and included in the preimplementation group. Similarly, of the 61 patients in the postimplementation period, 35 patients met inclusion criteria for the postimplementation group. The study population was predominantly male with an average age of approximately 70 years in both groups (Table 3). More than 70% of the population in each group was White. No statistically significant differences between groups were identified. The most commonly prescribed OAN in the preimplementation group were abiraterone, imatinib, and enzalutamide (Table 3). In the postimplementation group, the most commonly prescribed agents were abiraterone, imatinib, pazopanib, and dasatinib. No significant differences were observed in prescribing of individual agents between the pre- and postimplementation groups or other characteristics that may affect adherence including patient copay status, number of concomitant medications, and driving distance from the RLRVAMC.

Thirty-six (36.7%) patients in the preimplementation group were considered nonadherent (MPR < 0.9) and 18 (18.4%) had an MPR < 0.8. Fifteen (15.3%) patients in the preimplementation clinic were considered overadherent (MPR > 1.1). Forty-seven (47.9%) patients in the preimplementation group were considered adherent (MPR 0.9 - 1.1) while all 35 (100%) patients in the postimplementation group were considered adherent (MPR 0.9 - 1.1). No non- or overadherent patients were identified in the postimplementation group (Figure 2). The median MPR for all patients in the preimplementation group was 0.94 compared with 1.06 (P < .001) in the postimplementation group.

Discussion

OANs are widely used therapies, with more than 25 million doses administered per year in the United States alone.¹² The use of these agents will continue to grow as more targeted agents become available and patients request more convenient treatment options. The role for hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy services must adapt to this increased usage of OANs, including increasing pharmacist involvement in medication education, adherence and tolerability assessments, and proactive drug interaction monitoring.However, additional research is needed to determine optimal management strategies.

Our study aimed to compare OAN adherence among patients at a tertiary care VA hospital before and after implementation of a renewal clinic. The preimplementation population had a median MPR of 0.94 compared with 1.06 in the postimplementation group (P < .001). Although an ideal MPR is 1.0, we aimed for a slightly higher MPR to allow a supply buffer in the event of prescription delivery delays, as more than 90% of prescriptions are mailed to patients from a regional mail-order pharmacy. Importantly, the median MPRs do not adequately convey the impact from this clinic. The proportion of patients who were considered adherent to OANs increased from 47.9% in the preimplementation to 100% in the postimplementation period. These finding suggest that the clinical pharmacist role to assess and encourage adherence through monitoring tolerability of these OANs improved the overall medication taking experience of these patients.

Upon initial evaluation of adherence pre- and postimplementation, median adherence rates in both groups appeared to be above goal at 0.94 and 1.06 respectively. Patients in the postimplementation group intentionally received a 5- to 7-day supply buffer to account for potential prescription delivery delays due to holidays and inclement weather. This would indicate that the patients in the postimplementation group would have 15% oversupply due to the 5-day supply buffer. After correcting for patients with confounding reasons for excess (dose reductions, breaks in treatment, etc.), the median MPR in the prerefill clinic group decreased to 0.9 and the MPR in the postrefill clinic group increased slightly to 1.08. Although the median adherence rate in both the pre- and postimplementation groups were above goal of 0.90, 36% of the patients in the preimplementation group were considered nonadherent (MPR < 0.9) compared with no patients in the postimplementation group. Therefore, our intervention to improve patient adherence appeared to be beneficial at our institution.

In addition to improving adherence, one of the goals of the renewal clinic was to minimize excess supply at the time of therapy discontinuation. This was accomplished by aligning medication fills with medical visits and objective monitoring, as well as limiting supply to no more than 30 days. Of the patients in the postimplementation group, only 1 patient had remaining medication at the time of therapy discontinuation compared with 14 patients in the preimplementation group. The estimated cost savings from excess supply was $36,335. Limiting the amount of unused supply not only saves money for the patient and the institution, but also decreases opportunity for improper hazardous waste disposal and unnecessary exposure of hazardous materials to others.

Our results show the pharmacist intervention in the coordination of renewals improved adherence, minimized medication waste, and saved money. The cost of pharmacist time participating in the refill clinic was not calculated. Each visit was completed in approximately 5 minutes, with subsequent documentation and coordination taking an additional 5 to 10 minutes. During the launch of this service, the oncology pharmacy resident provided all coverage of the clinic. Oversite of the resident was provided by hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy specialists. We have continued to utilize pharmacy resident coverage since that time to meet education needs and keep the estimated cost per visit low. Another option in the case that pharmacy residents are not available would be utilization of a pharmacy technician, intern, or professional student to conduct the adherence and tolerability phone assessments. Our escalation protocol allows intervention by clinical pharmacy specialist and/or other health care providers when necessary. Trainees have only required basic training on how to use the protocol.

Limitations

Due to this study’s retrospective design, an inherent limitation is dependence on prescriber and refill records for documentation of initiation and discontinuation dates. Therefore, only the association of impact of pharmacist intervention on medication adherence can be determined as opposed to causation. We did not take into account discrepancies in day supply secondary to ‘held’ therapies, dose reductions, or doses supplied during an inpatient admission, which may alter estimates of MPR and cost-savings data. Patients in the postimplementation group intentionally received a 5 to 7-day supply buffer to account for potential prescription delivery delays due to holidays and inclement weather. This would indicate that the patients in the postimplementation group would have 15% oversupply due to the 5-day supply buffer, thereby skewing MPR values. This study did not account for cost avoidance resulting from early identification and management of toxicity. Finally, the postimplementation data only spans 4 months and a longer duration of time is needed to more accurately determine sustainability of renewal clinic interventions and provide comprehensive evaluation of cost-avoidance.

Conclusion

Implementation of an OAN renewal clinic was associated with an increase in MPR, improved proportion of patients considered adherent, and an estimated $36,335 cost-savings. However, prospective evaluation and a longer study duration are needed to determine causality of improved adherence and cost-savings associated with a pharmacist-driven OAN renewal clinic.

Evaluation of oral antineoplastic agent (OAN) adherence patterns have identified correlations between nonadherence or over-adherence and poorer disease-related outcomes. Multiple studies have focused on imatinib use in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) due to its continuous, long-term use. A study by Ganesan and colleagues found that nonadherence to imatinib showed a significant decrease in 5-year event-free survival between 76.7% of adherent participants compared with 59.8% of nonadherent participants.¹ This study found that 44% of patients who were adherent to imatinib achieved complete cytogenetic response vs only 26% of patients who were nonadherent. In another study of imatinib for CML, major molecular response (MMR) was strongly correlated with adherence and no patients with adherence < 80% were able to achieve MMR.² Similarly, in studies of tamoxifen for breast cancer, < 80% adherence resulted in a 10% decrease in survival when compared to those who were more adherent.^3,4

In addition to the clinical implications of nonadherence, there can be a significant cost associated with suboptimal use of these medications. The price of a single dose of OAN medication may cost as much as $440.⁵

The benefits of multidisciplinary care teams have been identified in many studies.^6,7 While studies are limited in oncology, pharmacists provide vital contributions to the oncology multidisciplinary team when managing OANs as these health care professionals have expert knowledge of the medications, potential adverse events (AEs), and necessary monitoring parameters.⁸ In one study, patients seen by the pharmacist-led oral chemotherapy management program experienced improved clinical outcomes and response to therapy when compared with preintervention patients (early molecular response, 88.9% vs 54.8%, P = .01; major molecular response, 83.3% vs 57.6%, P = .06).⁹ During the study, 318 AEs were reported, leading to 235 pharmacist interventions to ameliorate AEs and improve adherence.

The primary objective of this study was to measure the impact of a pharmacist-driven OAN renewal clinic on medication adherence. The secondary objective was to estimate cost-savings of this new service.

Methods

Prior to July 2014, several limitations were identified related to OAN prescribing and monitoring at the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana (RLRVAMC). The prescription ordering process relied primarily on the patient to initiate refills, rather than the prescriber OAN prescriptions also lacked consistency for number of refills or quantities dispensed. Furthermore, ordering of antineoplastic products was not limited to hematology/oncology providers. Patients were identified with significant supply on hand at the time of medication discontinuation, creating concerns for medication waste, tolerability, and nonadherence.

As a result, opportunities were identified to improve the prescribing process, recommended monitoring, toxicity and tolerability evaluation, medication reconciliation, and medication adherence. In July of 2014, the RLRVAMC adopted a new chemotherapy order entry system capable of restricting prescriptions to hematology/oncology providers and limiting dispensed quantities and refill amounts. A comprehensive pharmacist driven OAN renewal clinic was implemented on September 1, 2014 with the goal of improving long-term adherence and tolerability, in addition to minimizing medication waste.

Study Design and Setting

This was a pre/post retrospective cohort, quality improvement study of patients enrolled in the RLRVAMC OAN pharmacist renewal clinic. The study was deemed exempt from institutional review board (IRB) by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Research and Development Department.

Study Population

Patients were included in the preimplementation group if they had received at least 2 prescriptions of an eligible OAN. Therapy for the preimplementation group was required to be a monthly duration > 21 days and between the dates of September 1, 2013 and August 31, 2014. Patients were included in the postimplementation group if they had received at least 2 prescriptions of the studied OANs between September 1, 2014 and January 31, 2015. Patients were excluded if they had filled < 2 prescriptions of OAN; were managed by a non-VA oncologist or hematologist; or received an OAN other than those listed in Table 1.

Data Collection

For all patients in both the pre- and postimplementation cohorts, a standardized data collection tool was used to collect the following via electronic health record review by a PGY2 oncology resident: age, race, gender, oral antineoplastic agent, refill dates, days’ supply, estimated unit cost per dose cancer diagnosis, distance from the RLRVAMC, copay status, presence of hospitalizations/ED visits/dosage reductions, discontinuation rates, reasons for discontinuation, and total number of current prescriptions. The presence or absence of dosage reductions were collected to identify concerns for tolerability, but only the original dose for the preimplementation group and dosage at time of clinic enrollment for the postimplementation group was included in the analysis.

Outcomes and Statistical Analyses

The primary outcome was medication adherence defined as the median medication possession ratio (MPR) before and after implementation of the clinic. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who were adherent from before implementation to after and estimated cost-savings of this clinic after implementation. MPR was used to estimate medication adherence by taking the cumulative day supply of medication on hand divided by the number of days on therapy.¹² Number of days on therapy was determined by taking the difference on the start date of the new medication regimen and the discontinuation date of the same regimen. Patients were grouped by adherence into one of the following categories: < 0.8, 0.8 to 0.89, 0.9 to 1, and > 1.1. Patients were considered adherent if they reported taking ≥ 90% (MPR ≥ 0.9) of prescribed doses, adopted from the study by Anderson and colleagues.¹² A patient with an MPR > 1, likely due to filling prior to the anticipated refill date, was considered 100% adherent (MPR = 1). If a patient switched OAN during the study, both agents were included as separate entities.

A conservative estimate of cost-savings was made by multiplying the RLRVAMC cost per unit of medication at time of initial prescription fill by the number of units taken each day multiplied by the total days’ supply on hand at time of therapy discontinuation. Patients with an MPR < 1 at time of therapy discontinuation were assumed to have zero remaining units on hand and zero cost savings was estimated. Waste, for purposes of cost-savings, was calculated for all MPR values > 1. Additional supply anticipated to be on hand from dose reductions was not included in the estimated cost of unused medication.

Descriptive statistics compared demographic characteristics between the pre- and postimplementation groups. MPR data were not normally distributed, which required the use of nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests to compare pre- and postMPRs. Pearson χ² compared the proportion of adherent patients between groups while descriptive statistics were used to estimate cost savings. Significance was determined based on a P value < .05. IBM SPSS Statistics software was used for all statistical analyses. As this was a complete sample of all eligible subjects, no sample size calculation was performed.

Results

In the preimplementation period, 246 patients received an OAN and 61 patients received an OAN in the postimplementation period (Figure 1). Of the 246 patients in the preimplementation period, 98 were eligible and included in the preimplementation group. Similarly, of the 61 patients in the postimplementation period, 35 patients met inclusion criteria for the postimplementation group. The study population was predominantly male with an average age of approximately 70 years in both groups (Table 3). More than 70% of the population in each group was White. No statistically significant differences between groups were identified. The most commonly prescribed OAN in the preimplementation group were abiraterone, imatinib, and enzalutamide (Table 3). In the postimplementation group, the most commonly prescribed agents were abiraterone, imatinib, pazopanib, and dasatinib. No significant differences were observed in prescribing of individual agents between the pre- and postimplementation groups or other characteristics that may affect adherence including patient copay status, number of concomitant medications, and driving distance from the RLRVAMC.

Thirty-six (36.7%) patients in the preimplementation group were considered nonadherent (MPR < 0.9) and 18 (18.4%) had an MPR < 0.8. Fifteen (15.3%) patients in the preimplementation clinic were considered overadherent (MPR > 1.1). Forty-seven (47.9%) patients in the preimplementation group were considered adherent (MPR 0.9 - 1.1) while all 35 (100%) patients in the postimplementation group were considered adherent (MPR 0.9 - 1.1). No non- or overadherent patients were identified in the postimplementation group (Figure 2). The median MPR for all patients in the preimplementation group was 0.94 compared with 1.06 (P < .001) in the postimplementation group.

Discussion

OANs are widely used therapies, with more than 25 million doses administered per year in the United States alone.¹² The use of these agents will continue to grow as more targeted agents become available and patients request more convenient treatment options. The role for hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy services must adapt to this increased usage of OANs, including increasing pharmacist involvement in medication education, adherence and tolerability assessments, and proactive drug interaction monitoring.However, additional research is needed to determine optimal management strategies.

Our study aimed to compare OAN adherence among patients at a tertiary care VA hospital before and after implementation of a renewal clinic. The preimplementation population had a median MPR of 0.94 compared with 1.06 in the postimplementation group (P < .001). Although an ideal MPR is 1.0, we aimed for a slightly higher MPR to allow a supply buffer in the event of prescription delivery delays, as more than 90% of prescriptions are mailed to patients from a regional mail-order pharmacy. Importantly, the median MPRs do not adequately convey the impact from this clinic. The proportion of patients who were considered adherent to OANs increased from 47.9% in the preimplementation to 100% in the postimplementation period. These finding suggest that the clinical pharmacist role to assess and encourage adherence through monitoring tolerability of these OANs improved the overall medication taking experience of these patients.

Upon initial evaluation of adherence pre- and postimplementation, median adherence rates in both groups appeared to be above goal at 0.94 and 1.06 respectively. Patients in the postimplementation group intentionally received a 5- to 7-day supply buffer to account for potential prescription delivery delays due to holidays and inclement weather. This would indicate that the patients in the postimplementation group would have 15% oversupply due to the 5-day supply buffer. After correcting for patients with confounding reasons for excess (dose reductions, breaks in treatment, etc.), the median MPR in the prerefill clinic group decreased to 0.9 and the MPR in the postrefill clinic group increased slightly to 1.08. Although the median adherence rate in both the pre- and postimplementation groups were above goal of 0.90, 36% of the patients in the preimplementation group were considered nonadherent (MPR < 0.9) compared with no patients in the postimplementation group. Therefore, our intervention to improve patient adherence appeared to be beneficial at our institution.

In addition to improving adherence, one of the goals of the renewal clinic was to minimize excess supply at the time of therapy discontinuation. This was accomplished by aligning medication fills with medical visits and objective monitoring, as well as limiting supply to no more than 30 days. Of the patients in the postimplementation group, only 1 patient had remaining medication at the time of therapy discontinuation compared with 14 patients in the preimplementation group. The estimated cost savings from excess supply was $36,335. Limiting the amount of unused supply not only saves money for the patient and the institution, but also decreases opportunity for improper hazardous waste disposal and unnecessary exposure of hazardous materials to others.

Our results show the pharmacist intervention in the coordination of renewals improved adherence, minimized medication waste, and saved money. The cost of pharmacist time participating in the refill clinic was not calculated. Each visit was completed in approximately 5 minutes, with subsequent documentation and coordination taking an additional 5 to 10 minutes. During the launch of this service, the oncology pharmacy resident provided all coverage of the clinic. Oversite of the resident was provided by hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy specialists. We have continued to utilize pharmacy resident coverage since that time to meet education needs and keep the estimated cost per visit low. Another option in the case that pharmacy residents are not available would be utilization of a pharmacy technician, intern, or professional student to conduct the adherence and tolerability phone assessments. Our escalation protocol allows intervention by clinical pharmacy specialist and/or other health care providers when necessary. Trainees have only required basic training on how to use the protocol.

Limitations

Due to this study’s retrospective design, an inherent limitation is dependence on prescriber and refill records for documentation of initiation and discontinuation dates. Therefore, only the association of impact of pharmacist intervention on medication adherence can be determined as opposed to causation. We did not take into account discrepancies in day supply secondary to ‘held’ therapies, dose reductions, or doses supplied during an inpatient admission, which may alter estimates of MPR and cost-savings data. Patients in the postimplementation group intentionally received a 5 to 7-day supply buffer to account for potential prescription delivery delays due to holidays and inclement weather. This would indicate that the patients in the postimplementation group would have 15% oversupply due to the 5-day supply buffer, thereby skewing MPR values. This study did not account for cost avoidance resulting from early identification and management of toxicity. Finally, the postimplementation data only spans 4 months and a longer duration of time is needed to more accurately determine sustainability of renewal clinic interventions and provide comprehensive evaluation of cost-avoidance.

Conclusion

Implementation of an OAN renewal clinic was associated with an increase in MPR, improved proportion of patients considered adherent, and an estimated $36,335 cost-savings. However, prospective evaluation and a longer study duration are needed to determine causality of improved adherence and cost-savings associated with a pharmacist-driven OAN renewal clinic.

Evaluation of oral antineoplastic agent (OAN) adherence patterns have identified correlations between nonadherence or over-adherence and poorer disease-related outcomes. Multiple studies have focused on imatinib use in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) due to its continuous, long-term use. A study by Ganesan and colleagues found that nonadherence to imatinib showed a significant decrease in 5-year event-free survival between 76.7% of adherent participants compared with 59.8% of nonadherent participants.¹ This study found that 44% of patients who were adherent to imatinib achieved complete cytogenetic response vs only 26% of patients who were nonadherent. In another study of imatinib for CML, major molecular response (MMR) was strongly correlated with adherence and no patients with adherence < 80% were able to achieve MMR.² Similarly, in studies of tamoxifen for breast cancer, < 80% adherence resulted in a 10% decrease in survival when compared to those who were more adherent.^3,4

In addition to the clinical implications of nonadherence, there can be a significant cost associated with suboptimal use of these medications. The price of a single dose of OAN medication may cost as much as $440.⁵

The benefits of multidisciplinary care teams have been identified in many studies.^6,7 While studies are limited in oncology, pharmacists provide vital contributions to the oncology multidisciplinary team when managing OANs as these health care professionals have expert knowledge of the medications, potential adverse events (AEs), and necessary monitoring parameters.⁸ In one study, patients seen by the pharmacist-led oral chemotherapy management program experienced improved clinical outcomes and response to therapy when compared with preintervention patients (early molecular response, 88.9% vs 54.8%, P = .01; major molecular response, 83.3% vs 57.6%, P = .06).⁹ During the study, 318 AEs were reported, leading to 235 pharmacist interventions to ameliorate AEs and improve adherence.

The primary objective of this study was to measure the impact of a pharmacist-driven OAN renewal clinic on medication adherence. The secondary objective was to estimate cost-savings of this new service.

Methods

Prior to July 2014, several limitations were identified related to OAN prescribing and monitoring at the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana (RLRVAMC). The prescription ordering process relied primarily on the patient to initiate refills, rather than the prescriber OAN prescriptions also lacked consistency for number of refills or quantities dispensed. Furthermore, ordering of antineoplastic products was not limited to hematology/oncology providers. Patients were identified with significant supply on hand at the time of medication discontinuation, creating concerns for medication waste, tolerability, and nonadherence.

As a result, opportunities were identified to improve the prescribing process, recommended monitoring, toxicity and tolerability evaluation, medication reconciliation, and medication adherence. In July of 2014, the RLRVAMC adopted a new chemotherapy order entry system capable of restricting prescriptions to hematology/oncology providers and limiting dispensed quantities and refill amounts. A comprehensive pharmacist driven OAN renewal clinic was implemented on September 1, 2014 with the goal of improving long-term adherence and tolerability, in addition to minimizing medication waste.

Study Design and Setting

This was a pre/post retrospective cohort, quality improvement study of patients enrolled in the RLRVAMC OAN pharmacist renewal clinic. The study was deemed exempt from institutional review board (IRB) by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Research and Development Department.

Study Population

Patients were included in the preimplementation group if they had received at least 2 prescriptions of an eligible OAN. Therapy for the preimplementation group was required to be a monthly duration > 21 days and between the dates of September 1, 2013 and August 31, 2014. Patients were included in the postimplementation group if they had received at least 2 prescriptions of the studied OANs between September 1, 2014 and January 31, 2015. Patients were excluded if they had filled < 2 prescriptions of OAN; were managed by a non-VA oncologist or hematologist; or received an OAN other than those listed in Table 1.

Data Collection

For all patients in both the pre- and postimplementation cohorts, a standardized data collection tool was used to collect the following via electronic health record review by a PGY2 oncology resident: age, race, gender, oral antineoplastic agent, refill dates, days’ supply, estimated unit cost per dose cancer diagnosis, distance from the RLRVAMC, copay status, presence of hospitalizations/ED visits/dosage reductions, discontinuation rates, reasons for discontinuation, and total number of current prescriptions. The presence or absence of dosage reductions were collected to identify concerns for tolerability, but only the original dose for the preimplementation group and dosage at time of clinic enrollment for the postimplementation group was included in the analysis.

Outcomes and Statistical Analyses

The primary outcome was medication adherence defined as the median medication possession ratio (MPR) before and after implementation of the clinic. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who were adherent from before implementation to after and estimated cost-savings of this clinic after implementation. MPR was used to estimate medication adherence by taking the cumulative day supply of medication on hand divided by the number of days on therapy.¹² Number of days on therapy was determined by taking the difference on the start date of the new medication regimen and the discontinuation date of the same regimen. Patients were grouped by adherence into one of the following categories: < 0.8, 0.8 to 0.89, 0.9 to 1, and > 1.1. Patients were considered adherent if they reported taking ≥ 90% (MPR ≥ 0.9) of prescribed doses, adopted from the study by Anderson and colleagues.¹² A patient with an MPR > 1, likely due to filling prior to the anticipated refill date, was considered 100% adherent (MPR = 1). If a patient switched OAN during the study, both agents were included as separate entities.

A conservative estimate of cost-savings was made by multiplying the RLRVAMC cost per unit of medication at time of initial prescription fill by the number of units taken each day multiplied by the total days’ supply on hand at time of therapy discontinuation. Patients with an MPR < 1 at time of therapy discontinuation were assumed to have zero remaining units on hand and zero cost savings was estimated. Waste, for purposes of cost-savings, was calculated for all MPR values > 1. Additional supply anticipated to be on hand from dose reductions was not included in the estimated cost of unused medication.

Descriptive statistics compared demographic characteristics between the pre- and postimplementation groups. MPR data were not normally distributed, which required the use of nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests to compare pre- and postMPRs. Pearson χ² compared the proportion of adherent patients between groups while descriptive statistics were used to estimate cost savings. Significance was determined based on a P value < .05. IBM SPSS Statistics software was used for all statistical analyses. As this was a complete sample of all eligible subjects, no sample size calculation was performed.

Results

In the preimplementation period, 246 patients received an OAN and 61 patients received an OAN in the postimplementation period (Figure 1). Of the 246 patients in the preimplementation period, 98 were eligible and included in the preimplementation group. Similarly, of the 61 patients in the postimplementation period, 35 patients met inclusion criteria for the postimplementation group. The study population was predominantly male with an average age of approximately 70 years in both groups (Table 3). More than 70% of the population in each group was White. No statistically significant differences between groups were identified. The most commonly prescribed OAN in the preimplementation group were abiraterone, imatinib, and enzalutamide (Table 3). In the postimplementation group, the most commonly prescribed agents were abiraterone, imatinib, pazopanib, and dasatinib. No significant differences were observed in prescribing of individual agents between the pre- and postimplementation groups or other characteristics that may affect adherence including patient copay status, number of concomitant medications, and driving distance from the RLRVAMC.

Thirty-six (36.7%) patients in the preimplementation group were considered nonadherent (MPR < 0.9) and 18 (18.4%) had an MPR < 0.8. Fifteen (15.3%) patients in the preimplementation clinic were considered overadherent (MPR > 1.1). Forty-seven (47.9%) patients in the preimplementation group were considered adherent (MPR 0.9 - 1.1) while all 35 (100%) patients in the postimplementation group were considered adherent (MPR 0.9 - 1.1). No non- or overadherent patients were identified in the postimplementation group (Figure 2). The median MPR for all patients in the preimplementation group was 0.94 compared with 1.06 (P < .001) in the postimplementation group.

Discussion

OANs are widely used therapies, with more than 25 million doses administered per year in the United States alone.¹² The use of these agents will continue to grow as more targeted agents become available and patients request more convenient treatment options. The role for hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy services must adapt to this increased usage of OANs, including increasing pharmacist involvement in medication education, adherence and tolerability assessments, and proactive drug interaction monitoring.However, additional research is needed to determine optimal management strategies.

Our study aimed to compare OAN adherence among patients at a tertiary care VA hospital before and after implementation of a renewal clinic. The preimplementation population had a median MPR of 0.94 compared with 1.06 in the postimplementation group (P < .001). Although an ideal MPR is 1.0, we aimed for a slightly higher MPR to allow a supply buffer in the event of prescription delivery delays, as more than 90% of prescriptions are mailed to patients from a regional mail-order pharmacy. Importantly, the median MPRs do not adequately convey the impact from this clinic. The proportion of patients who were considered adherent to OANs increased from 47.9% in the preimplementation to 100% in the postimplementation period. These finding suggest that the clinical pharmacist role to assess and encourage adherence through monitoring tolerability of these OANs improved the overall medication taking experience of these patients.

Upon initial evaluation of adherence pre- and postimplementation, median adherence rates in both groups appeared to be above goal at 0.94 and 1.06 respectively. Patients in the postimplementation group intentionally received a 5- to 7-day supply buffer to account for potential prescription delivery delays due to holidays and inclement weather. This would indicate that the patients in the postimplementation group would have 15% oversupply due to the 5-day supply buffer. After correcting for patients with confounding reasons for excess (dose reductions, breaks in treatment, etc.), the median MPR in the prerefill clinic group decreased to 0.9 and the MPR in the postrefill clinic group increased slightly to 1.08. Although the median adherence rate in both the pre- and postimplementation groups were above goal of 0.90, 36% of the patients in the preimplementation group were considered nonadherent (MPR < 0.9) compared with no patients in the postimplementation group. Therefore, our intervention to improve patient adherence appeared to be beneficial at our institution.

In addition to improving adherence, one of the goals of the renewal clinic was to minimize excess supply at the time of therapy discontinuation. This was accomplished by aligning medication fills with medical visits and objective monitoring, as well as limiting supply to no more than 30 days. Of the patients in the postimplementation group, only 1 patient had remaining medication at the time of therapy discontinuation compared with 14 patients in the preimplementation group. The estimated cost savings from excess supply was $36,335. Limiting the amount of unused supply not only saves money for the patient and the institution, but also decreases opportunity for improper hazardous waste disposal and unnecessary exposure of hazardous materials to others.

Our results show the pharmacist intervention in the coordination of renewals improved adherence, minimized medication waste, and saved money. The cost of pharmacist time participating in the refill clinic was not calculated. Each visit was completed in approximately 5 minutes, with subsequent documentation and coordination taking an additional 5 to 10 minutes. During the launch of this service, the oncology pharmacy resident provided all coverage of the clinic. Oversite of the resident was provided by hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy specialists. We have continued to utilize pharmacy resident coverage since that time to meet education needs and keep the estimated cost per visit low. Another option in the case that pharmacy residents are not available would be utilization of a pharmacy technician, intern, or professional student to conduct the adherence and tolerability phone assessments. Our escalation protocol allows intervention by clinical pharmacy specialist and/or other health care providers when necessary. Trainees have only required basic training on how to use the protocol.

Limitations

Due to this study’s retrospective design, an inherent limitation is dependence on prescriber and refill records for documentation of initiation and discontinuation dates. Therefore, only the association of impact of pharmacist intervention on medication adherence can be determined as opposed to causation. We did not take into account discrepancies in day supply secondary to ‘held’ therapies, dose reductions, or doses supplied during an inpatient admission, which may alter estimates of MPR and cost-savings data. Patients in the postimplementation group intentionally received a 5 to 7-day supply buffer to account for potential prescription delivery delays due to holidays and inclement weather. This would indicate that the patients in the postimplementation group would have 15% oversupply due to the 5-day supply buffer, thereby skewing MPR values. This study did not account for cost avoidance resulting from early identification and management of toxicity. Finally, the postimplementation data only spans 4 months and a longer duration of time is needed to more accurately determine sustainability of renewal clinic interventions and provide comprehensive evaluation of cost-avoidance.

Conclusion

Implementation of an OAN renewal clinic was associated with an increase in MPR, improved proportion of patients considered adherent, and an estimated $36,335 cost-savings. However, prospective evaluation and a longer study duration are needed to determine causality of improved adherence and cost-savings associated with a pharmacist-driven OAN renewal clinic.

Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are integral to the comprehensive treatment of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), yet the evaluation and treatment options they offer may not be known to all primary care providers (PCPs). As the research on the management and treatment of mTBI continues to evolve, the PCPs role in referring patients with mTBI to the appropriate resources becomes imperative.

mTBI is a common injury in both military and civilian settings, but it can be difficult to diagnose and is not always well understood. Long-term debilitating effects have been associated with mTBI, with literature linking it to an increased risk of developing Alzheimer disease, motor neuron disease, and Parkinson disease.¹ In addition, mTBI is a strong predictor for the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Among returning Iraq and Afghanistan service members, the incidence of mTBI associated mental health conditions have been reported to be as high as 22.8%, affecting > 320,000 veterans.^2-5

The US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) health care system offers these returning veterans a comprehensive, multidisciplinary treatment strategy. The care is often coordinated by the veteran’s patient aligned care team (PACT) that consists of a PCP, nurses, and a medical support associate. The US Department of Defense (DoD) and VA also facilitated the development of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) that can be used by the PACT and other health care providers to support evidence based patient-centered care. This CPG is extensive and has recommendations for evaluation and treatment of mTBI and the symptoms associated such as impaired memory and alterations in executive function.⁶

The following hypothetical case is based on an actual patient. This case illustrates the role of speech pathology in caring for patients with mTBI.

Case Presentation

A 25-year-old male combat veteran presented to his VA PACT team for a new patient visit. As part of the screening of his medical history, mTBI was fully defined for the patient to include “alteration” in consciousness. This reminded the patient of an injury that occurred 1 year prior to presentation during a routine convoy mission. He was riding in the back of a Humvee when it hit a large pothole slamming his head into the side of the vehicle. He reported that he felt “dazed and dizzy” with “ringing” in his ears immediately following the event, without an overt loss of consciousness. He was unable to seek medical attention secondary to the urgency of the convoy mission, so he “shook it off” and kept going. Later that week he noted headache and insomnia. He was seen and evaluated by his health care provider for insomnia, but when questioned he reported no head trauma as he had forgotten the incident. Upon follow-up with his PCP, he reported his headaches were manageable, and his insomnia was somewhat improved with recommended life-style modifications and good sleep hygiene.

He still had frequent headaches, dizziness, and some insomnia. However, his chief concern was that he was struggling with new schoolwork. He noted that he was a straight-A student prior to his military service. A review of his medical history in his medical chart showed that a previous PCP had treated his associated symptoms of insomnia and headache without improvement. In addition, he had recently been diagnosed with PTSD. As his symptoms had lasted > 90 days, not resolved with initial treatment in primary care, and were causing a significant impact on his activities of daily living, his PCP placed a consult to Speech Pathology for cognitive-linguistic assessment and treatment, if indicated, noting that he may have had a mTBI.⁶ Although not intended to be comprehensive, Table 1 describes several clinical areas where a speech pathology referral may be appropriate.

The Role of the Speech-Language Pathologist

The speech-language pathologist takes an additional history of the patient. This better quantifies specific details of the veteran’s functional concerns pertaining to possible difficulty with attention, memory, executive function, visuospatial awareness, etc. Examples might include difficulty with attention/memory, including not remembering what to get at the store, forgetting to take medications, forgetting appointments, and difficulty in school, among many others. Reports of feeling “stupid” also are common. Assessment varies by clinician, but it is not uncommon for the SLP to administer a battery of evaluations to help identify a range of possible impairments. Choosing testing that is sensitive to even mild impairment is important and should be used in combination with subjective complaints. Mild deficits can sometimes be missed in those with average performance, but whose premorbid intelligence was above average. One combination of test batteries sometimes utilized is the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR), the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), the Ruff Figural Fluency Test (RFFT), the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT), and Trails A and B (Table 2).

The initial testing results are discussed with the veteran. If patient concerns and/or testing reveal impairment that is amenable to treatment and the veteran wishes to proceed, subsequent treatment sessions are scheduled. The first treatment session is spent establishing and prioritizing functional goals specific to that individual and their needs (eg, for daily life, work, school). In a case of subacute or older mTBI, as is often seen in veterans coming to the VA, intervention often targets strategies and techniques that can help the individual compensate for current deficits.

Many patients already own a smartphone, so this device often is used functionally as a cognitive prosthetic as early as the first treatment session. In an effort to immediately start addressing important issues like medication management and attending appointments, the veteran is educated to the benefit of entering important information into the calendar and/or reminder apps on their phone and setting associated alarms that would serve as a reminder for what was entered. Patients are often encouraged by the positive impact of these initial strategies and look forward to future treatment sessions to address compensation for their functional deficits.

If a veteran with TBI has numerous needs, it can be beneficial for the care team to discuss the care plan at an interdisciplinary team meeting. It is not uncommon for veterans like the one discussed above to be referred to neurology (persistent headaches and further neurological evaluation); mental health (PTSD treatment and family support/counseling options); occupational therapy (visuospatial needs); and audiology (vestibular concerns). Social work involvement is often extremely beneficial for coordination of care in more complex cases. If patient is having difficulty making healthy eating choices or with meal preparation, a consult to a dietitian may prove invaluable. Concerns related to trouble with medication adherence (beyond memory-related adherence issues that speech pathology would address) or polypharmacy can be directed to a clinical pharmacy specialist, who could prepare a medication chart, review optimal medication timing, and provide education on adverse effects. A veteran's communication with the team can be facilitated through secure messaging (a method of secure emailing) and encouraging use of the My HealtheVet portal. With this modality, patients could review chart notes and results and share them with non-VA health care providers and/or family members as indicated.

A whole health approach also may appeal to some mTBI patients. This approach focuses on the totality of patient needs for healthy living and on patient-centered goal setting. Services provided may differ at various VA medical centers, but the PACT team can connect the veteran to the services of interest.

Conclusions

A team approach to veterans with mTBI provides a comprehensive way to treat the various problems associated with the condition. Further research into the role of multidisciplinary teams in the management of mTBI was recommended in the 2016 CPG.⁶ The unique role that the speech-language pathologist plays as part of this team has been highlighted, as it is important that PCP’s be aware of the extent of evaluation and treatment services they offer. Beyond mTBI, speech pathologists evaluate and treat patients with several conditions that are seen regularly in primary care.

Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are integral to the comprehensive treatment of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), yet the evaluation and treatment options they offer may not be known to all primary care providers (PCPs). As the research on the management and treatment of mTBI continues to evolve, the PCPs role in referring patients with mTBI to the appropriate resources becomes imperative.

mTBI is a common injury in both military and civilian settings, but it can be difficult to diagnose and is not always well understood. Long-term debilitating effects have been associated with mTBI, with literature linking it to an increased risk of developing Alzheimer disease, motor neuron disease, and Parkinson disease.¹ In addition, mTBI is a strong predictor for the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Among returning Iraq and Afghanistan service members, the incidence of mTBI associated mental health conditions have been reported to be as high as 22.8%, affecting > 320,000 veterans.^2-5

The US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) health care system offers these returning veterans a comprehensive, multidisciplinary treatment strategy. The care is often coordinated by the veteran’s patient aligned care team (PACT) that consists of a PCP, nurses, and a medical support associate. The US Department of Defense (DoD) and VA also facilitated the development of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) that can be used by the PACT and other health care providers to support evidence based patient-centered care. This CPG is extensive and has recommendations for evaluation and treatment of mTBI and the symptoms associated such as impaired memory and alterations in executive function.⁶

The following hypothetical case is based on an actual patient. This case illustrates the role of speech pathology in caring for patients with mTBI.

Case Presentation

A 25-year-old male combat veteran presented to his VA PACT team for a new patient visit. As part of the screening of his medical history, mTBI was fully defined for the patient to include “alteration” in consciousness. This reminded the patient of an injury that occurred 1 year prior to presentation during a routine convoy mission. He was riding in the back of a Humvee when it hit a large pothole slamming his head into the side of the vehicle. He reported that he felt “dazed and dizzy” with “ringing” in his ears immediately following the event, without an overt loss of consciousness. He was unable to seek medical attention secondary to the urgency of the convoy mission, so he “shook it off” and kept going. Later that week he noted headache and insomnia. He was seen and evaluated by his health care provider for insomnia, but when questioned he reported no head trauma as he had forgotten the incident. Upon follow-up with his PCP, he reported his headaches were manageable, and his insomnia was somewhat improved with recommended life-style modifications and good sleep hygiene.

He still had frequent headaches, dizziness, and some insomnia. However, his chief concern was that he was struggling with new schoolwork. He noted that he was a straight-A student prior to his military service. A review of his medical history in his medical chart showed that a previous PCP had treated his associated symptoms of insomnia and headache without improvement. In addition, he had recently been diagnosed with PTSD. As his symptoms had lasted > 90 days, not resolved with initial treatment in primary care, and were causing a significant impact on his activities of daily living, his PCP placed a consult to Speech Pathology for cognitive-linguistic assessment and treatment, if indicated, noting that he may have had a mTBI.⁶ Although not intended to be comprehensive, Table 1 describes several clinical areas where a speech pathology referral may be appropriate.

The Role of the Speech-Language Pathologist

The speech-language pathologist takes an additional history of the patient. This better quantifies specific details of the veteran’s functional concerns pertaining to possible difficulty with attention, memory, executive function, visuospatial awareness, etc. Examples might include difficulty with attention/memory, including not remembering what to get at the store, forgetting to take medications, forgetting appointments, and difficulty in school, among many others. Reports of feeling “stupid” also are common. Assessment varies by clinician, but it is not uncommon for the SLP to administer a battery of evaluations to help identify a range of possible impairments. Choosing testing that is sensitive to even mild impairment is important and should be used in combination with subjective complaints. Mild deficits can sometimes be missed in those with average performance, but whose premorbid intelligence was above average. One combination of test batteries sometimes utilized is the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR), the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), the Ruff Figural Fluency Test (RFFT), the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT), and Trails A and B (Table 2).

The initial testing results are discussed with the veteran. If patient concerns and/or testing reveal impairment that is amenable to treatment and the veteran wishes to proceed, subsequent treatment sessions are scheduled. The first treatment session is spent establishing and prioritizing functional goals specific to that individual and their needs (eg, for daily life, work, school). In a case of subacute or older mTBI, as is often seen in veterans coming to the VA, intervention often targets strategies and techniques that can help the individual compensate for current deficits.

Many patients already own a smartphone, so this device often is used functionally as a cognitive prosthetic as early as the first treatment session. In an effort to immediately start addressing important issues like medication management and attending appointments, the veteran is educated to the benefit of entering important information into the calendar and/or reminder apps on their phone and setting associated alarms that would serve as a reminder for what was entered. Patients are often encouraged by the positive impact of these initial strategies and look forward to future treatment sessions to address compensation for their functional deficits.

If a veteran with TBI has numerous needs, it can be beneficial for the care team to discuss the care plan at an interdisciplinary team meeting. It is not uncommon for veterans like the one discussed above to be referred to neurology (persistent headaches and further neurological evaluation); mental health (PTSD treatment and family support/counseling options); occupational therapy (visuospatial needs); and audiology (vestibular concerns). Social work involvement is often extremely beneficial for coordination of care in more complex cases. If patient is having difficulty making healthy eating choices or with meal preparation, a consult to a dietitian may prove invaluable. Concerns related to trouble with medication adherence (beyond memory-related adherence issues that speech pathology would address) or polypharmacy can be directed to a clinical pharmacy specialist, who could prepare a medication chart, review optimal medication timing, and provide education on adverse effects. A veteran's communication with the team can be facilitated through secure messaging (a method of secure emailing) and encouraging use of the My HealtheVet portal. With this modality, patients could review chart notes and results and share them with non-VA health care providers and/or family members as indicated.

A whole health approach also may appeal to some mTBI patients. This approach focuses on the totality of patient needs for healthy living and on patient-centered goal setting. Services provided may differ at various VA medical centers, but the PACT team can connect the veteran to the services of interest.

Conclusions

A team approach to veterans with mTBI provides a comprehensive way to treat the various problems associated with the condition. Further research into the role of multidisciplinary teams in the management of mTBI was recommended in the 2016 CPG.⁶ The unique role that the speech-language pathologist plays as part of this team has been highlighted, as it is important that PCP’s be aware of the extent of evaluation and treatment services they offer. Beyond mTBI, speech pathologists evaluate and treat patients with several conditions that are seen regularly in primary care.

Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are integral to the comprehensive treatment of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), yet the evaluation and treatment options they offer may not be known to all primary care providers (PCPs). As the research on the management and treatment of mTBI continues to evolve, the PCPs role in referring patients with mTBI to the appropriate resources becomes imperative.

mTBI is a common injury in both military and civilian settings, but it can be difficult to diagnose and is not always well understood. Long-term debilitating effects have been associated with mTBI, with literature linking it to an increased risk of developing Alzheimer disease, motor neuron disease, and Parkinson disease.¹ In addition, mTBI is a strong predictor for the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Among returning Iraq and Afghanistan service members, the incidence of mTBI associated mental health conditions have been reported to be as high as 22.8%, affecting > 320,000 veterans.^2-5

The US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) health care system offers these returning veterans a comprehensive, multidisciplinary treatment strategy. The care is often coordinated by the veteran’s patient aligned care team (PACT) that consists of a PCP, nurses, and a medical support associate. The US Department of Defense (DoD) and VA also facilitated the development of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) that can be used by the PACT and other health care providers to support evidence based patient-centered care. This CPG is extensive and has recommendations for evaluation and treatment of mTBI and the symptoms associated such as impaired memory and alterations in executive function.⁶

The following hypothetical case is based on an actual patient. This case illustrates the role of speech pathology in caring for patients with mTBI.

Case Presentation

A 25-year-old male combat veteran presented to his VA PACT team for a new patient visit. As part of the screening of his medical history, mTBI was fully defined for the patient to include “alteration” in consciousness. This reminded the patient of an injury that occurred 1 year prior to presentation during a routine convoy mission. He was riding in the back of a Humvee when it hit a large pothole slamming his head into the side of the vehicle. He reported that he felt “dazed and dizzy” with “ringing” in his ears immediately following the event, without an overt loss of consciousness. He was unable to seek medical attention secondary to the urgency of the convoy mission, so he “shook it off” and kept going. Later that week he noted headache and insomnia. He was seen and evaluated by his health care provider for insomnia, but when questioned he reported no head trauma as he had forgotten the incident. Upon follow-up with his PCP, he reported his headaches were manageable, and his insomnia was somewhat improved with recommended life-style modifications and good sleep hygiene.

He still had frequent headaches, dizziness, and some insomnia. However, his chief concern was that he was struggling with new schoolwork. He noted that he was a straight-A student prior to his military service. A review of his medical history in his medical chart showed that a previous PCP had treated his associated symptoms of insomnia and headache without improvement. In addition, he had recently been diagnosed with PTSD. As his symptoms had lasted > 90 days, not resolved with initial treatment in primary care, and were causing a significant impact on his activities of daily living, his PCP placed a consult to Speech Pathology for cognitive-linguistic assessment and treatment, if indicated, noting that he may have had a mTBI.⁶ Although not intended to be comprehensive, Table 1 describes several clinical areas where a speech pathology referral may be appropriate.

The Role of the Speech-Language Pathologist

The speech-language pathologist takes an additional history of the patient. This better quantifies specific details of the veteran’s functional concerns pertaining to possible difficulty with attention, memory, executive function, visuospatial awareness, etc. Examples might include difficulty with attention/memory, including not remembering what to get at the store, forgetting to take medications, forgetting appointments, and difficulty in school, among many others. Reports of feeling “stupid” also are common. Assessment varies by clinician, but it is not uncommon for the SLP to administer a battery of evaluations to help identify a range of possible impairments. Choosing testing that is sensitive to even mild impairment is important and should be used in combination with subjective complaints. Mild deficits can sometimes be missed in those with average performance, but whose premorbid intelligence was above average. One combination of test batteries sometimes utilized is the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR), the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), the Ruff Figural Fluency Test (RFFT), the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT), and Trails A and B (Table 2).

The initial testing results are discussed with the veteran. If patient concerns and/or testing reveal impairment that is amenable to treatment and the veteran wishes to proceed, subsequent treatment sessions are scheduled. The first treatment session is spent establishing and prioritizing functional goals specific to that individual and their needs (eg, for daily life, work, school). In a case of subacute or older mTBI, as is often seen in veterans coming to the VA, intervention often targets strategies and techniques that can help the individual compensate for current deficits.

Many patients already own a smartphone, so this device often is used functionally as a cognitive prosthetic as early as the first treatment session. In an effort to immediately start addressing important issues like medication management and attending appointments, the veteran is educated to the benefit of entering important information into the calendar and/or reminder apps on their phone and setting associated alarms that would serve as a reminder for what was entered. Patients are often encouraged by the positive impact of these initial strategies and look forward to future treatment sessions to address compensation for their functional deficits.

If a veteran with TBI has numerous needs, it can be beneficial for the care team to discuss the care plan at an interdisciplinary team meeting. It is not uncommon for veterans like the one discussed above to be referred to neurology (persistent headaches and further neurological evaluation); mental health (PTSD treatment and family support/counseling options); occupational therapy (visuospatial needs); and audiology (vestibular concerns). Social work involvement is often extremely beneficial for coordination of care in more complex cases. If patient is having difficulty making healthy eating choices or with meal preparation, a consult to a dietitian may prove invaluable. Concerns related to trouble with medication adherence (beyond memory-related adherence issues that speech pathology would address) or polypharmacy can be directed to a clinical pharmacy specialist, who could prepare a medication chart, review optimal medication timing, and provide education on adverse effects. A veteran's communication with the team can be facilitated through secure messaging (a method of secure emailing) and encouraging use of the My HealtheVet portal. With this modality, patients could review chart notes and results and share them with non-VA health care providers and/or family members as indicated.

A whole health approach also may appeal to some mTBI patients. This approach focuses on the totality of patient needs for healthy living and on patient-centered goal setting. Services provided may differ at various VA medical centers, but the PACT team can connect the veteran to the services of interest.

Conclusions

A team approach to veterans with mTBI provides a comprehensive way to treat the various problems associated with the condition. Further research into the role of multidisciplinary teams in the management of mTBI was recommended in the 2016 CPG.⁶ The unique role that the speech-language pathologist plays as part of this team has been highlighted, as it is important that PCP’s be aware of the extent of evaluation and treatment services they offer. Beyond mTBI, speech pathologists evaluate and treat patients with several conditions that are seen regularly in primary care.