Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated demyelinating disorder. There are 2 broad categories of MS: relapsing, also called active MS; and progressive MS. Unfortunately, there is no cure for MS, but disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) can help prevent relapses and new central nervous system lesions in people living with active MS. For patients with the most common type of MS, relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), DMTs are typically continued for decades while the patient has active disease. RRMS will usually transition to secondary progressive MS (SPMS), which can present as active SPMS or nonactive SPMS. The latter is the type of MS most people with RRMS eventually experience.

A 2019 study estimated that nearly 1 million people in the United States were living with MS.¹ This population estimate indicated the peak age-specific prevalence of MS was 55 to 64 years. Population data demonstrate improved mortality rates for people diagnosed with MS from 1997 to 2012 compared with prior years.² Therefore, the management of nonactive SPMS is an increasingly significant area of need. There are currently no DMTs on the market approved for nonactive SPMS, and lifelong DMTs in these patients are neither indicated nor supported by evidence. Nevertheless, the discontinuation of DMTs in nonactive SPMS has been a long-debated topic with varied opinions on how and when to discontinue.

The 2018 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline recommends that clinicians advise patients with SPMS to discontinue DMT use if they do not have ongoing relapses (or gadolinium-enhanced lesions on magnetic resonance imaging activity) or have not been ambulatory (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] ≥ 7) for ≥ 2 years.³ In recent years, there has been increased research on nonactive SPMS, specifically on discontinuation of DMTs. This clinical review assesses the recent evidence from a variety of standpoints, including the effect of discontinuing DMTs on the MS disease course and quality of life (QOL) and the perspectives of patients living with MS. Based on this evidence, a conversation guide will be presented as a framework to aid with the clinician-patient discussion on discontinuing MS DMTs.

Disease Modifying Therapies

Roos and colleagues used data from 2 large MS cohorts: MSBase and Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques (OFSEP) to compare high-efficacy vs low-efficacy DMT in both active and nonactive SPMS.⁴ In the active SPMS group, the strength of DMTs did not change disability progression, but high-efficacy DMTs reduced relapses better than the low-efficacy DMTs. On the other hand, the nonactive SPMS group saw no difference between DMTs in both relapse risk and disability progression. Another observational study of 221 patients with RRMS who discontinued DMTs noted that there were 2 independent predictors for the absence of relapse following DMT discontinuation: being aged > 45 years and the lack of relapse for ≥ 4 years prior to DMT discontinuation.⁵ Though these patients still may have been classified as RRMS, both these independent predictors for stability postdiscontinuation of DMTs are the typical characteristics of a nonactive SPMS patient.

Pathophysiology may help explain why DMT discontinuation seems to produce no adverse clinical outcomes in people with nonactive SPMS. Nonactive SPMS, which follows after RRMS, is largely correlated with age. In nonactive SPMS, there is less B and T lymphocyte migration across the blood-brain barrier. Furthermore, a lifetime of low-grade inflammation during the RRMS phase results in axonal damage and declined repair capacity, which produces the predominance of neurodegeneration in the nonactive SPMS disease process.⁶ This pathophysiologic difference between active and nonactive disease not only explains the different symptomatology of these MS subtypes, but also could explain why drugs that target the inflammatory processes more characteristic of active disease are not effective in nonactive SPMS.

Other recent studies explored the impact of age on DMT efficacy for patients with nonactive SPMS. A meta-analysis by Weidman and colleagues pooled trial data across multiple DMT classes in > 28,000 patients.⁷ The resulting regression model predicted zero efficacy of any DMT in patients who are aged > 53 years. High-efficacy DMTs only outperformed low-efficacy DMTs in people aged < 40.5 years. Another observational study by Hua and colleagues saw a similar result.⁸ This study included patients who discontinued DMT who were aged ≥ 60 years. The median follow-up time was 5.3 years. Of the 178 patients who discontinued DMTs, only 1 patient had a relapse. In this study, the age for participation provided a higher likelihood that patients included were in nonactive SPMS. Furthermore, the outcome reflects the typical presentation of nonactive SPMS where, despite the continuation or discontinuation of DMT, there was a lack of relapses. When comparing patients who discontinued DMTs with those who continued use, there was no significant difference in their 25-foot walk times, which is an objective marker for a more progressive symptom seen in nonactive MS.

The DISCOMS trial (NCT03073603) has been completed, but full results are not yet published. In this noninferiority trial, > 250 patients aged ≥ 55 years were assessed on a variety of outcomes, including relapses, EDSS score, and QOL. MS subtypes were considered at baseline, and subgroup analysis looking particularly at the SPMS population could provide further insight into its effect on MS course.

Quality of Life

Whether discontinuation of DMTs is worth considering in nonactive SPMS, it is also important to consider the risks and burdens associated with continuation. Medication administration burdens come with all MS DMTs whether there is the need to inject oneself, increased pill burden, or travel to an infusion clinic. The ever-rising costs of DMTs also can be a financial burden to the patient.⁹ All MS DMTs carry risks of adverse effects (AEs). These can range from a mild injection site reaction to severe infection, depending on the DMT used. Many of these severe AEs, such as opportunistic infections and cancer, have been associated with either an increased risk of occurrence and/or worsened outcomes in older adults who remain on DMTs, particularly moderate- to high-efficacy DMTs, such as sphingosine-1- phosphate receptor modulators, fumarates, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, cladribine, and anti-CD20 antibodies.¹⁰ In a 2019 survey of 377 patients with MS, 63.8% of respondents ranked safety as the most important reason they would consider discontinuing their DMTs.¹¹ In addition, a real-world study comparing people with nonactive SPMS who continued DMTs vs those who discontinued found that discontinuers reported better QOL.⁸

Conversation Guide for Discontinuing Therapies

The 2019 survey that assessed reasons for discontinuation also asked people with nonactive SPMS whether they thought they were in a nonactive disease stage, and what was their likelihood they would stop DMTs.¹¹ Interestingly, only 59.4% of respondents self-assessed their MS as nonactive, and just 11.9% of respondents were willing to discontinue DMTs.¹¹ These results suggest that there may be a need for patient education about nonactive SPMS and the rationale to continue or discontinue DMTs. Thus, before broaching the topic of discontinuation, explaining the nonactive SPMS subtype is important.

Even with a good understanding of nonactive SPMS, patients may be hesitant to stop using DMTs that they previously relied on to keep their MS stable. The 2019 survey ranked physician recommendation as the third highest reason to discontinue DMTs.¹¹ Taking the time to explain the clinical evidence for DMT discontinuation may help patients better understand a clinician’s recommendation and inspire more confidence.

Another important aspect of DMT discontinuation decision making is creating a plan for how the patient will be monitored to provide assurance if they experience a relapse. The 2019 survey asked patients what would be most important to them for their management plan after discontinuing DMT; magnetic resonance imaging and neurologic examination monitoring ranked the highest.¹¹ The plan should include timing for follow-up appointments and imaging, providing the patient comfort in knowing their MS will be monitored and verified for the relapse stability that is expected from nonactive SPMS. In the rare case a relapse does occur, having a contingency plan and noting the possibility of restarting DMTs is an integral part of reassuring the patient that their decision to discontinue DMTs will be treated with the utmost caution and individualized to their needs.

Lastly, highlighting which aspects of MS treatment will continue to be a priority in nonactive SPMS, such as symptomatic medication management and nonpharmacologic therapy, is important for the patient to recognize that there are still opportunities to manage this phase of MS. There are many lifestyle modifications that can be considered complementary to medical management of MS at any stage of the disease. Vascular comorbidities, such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes, have been associated with more rapid disability progression in MS.¹² Optimized management of these diseases may slow disability progression, in addition to the benefit of improved outcomes of the vascular comorbidity. Various formats of exercise have been studied in the MS population. A meta-analysis of aerobic, resistance, and combined exercise found benefits in these formats on health-related QOL.¹³

Many dietary strategies have been studied in MS. A recent network meta-analysis reviewed some of the more commonly studied diets, including low-fat, modified Mediterranean, ketogenic, anti-inflammatory, Paleolithic, intermittent fasting, and calorie restriction vs a usual diet.¹⁴ Although the overall quality of evidence was low, the Paleolithic and modified Mediterranean showed greater reductions in fatigue, as well as increased physical and mental QOL compared with a usual diet. The low-fat diet was associated with a reduction in fatigue. Many of these lifestyle modifications may complement optimized vascular comorbidity treatment; however, any exercise regimen or dietary change should be considered with the whole health of the patient in mind.

As with any health care decision, it is important to involve the patient in a joint decision regarding their care. This may mean giving the patient time to think about the information presented, do their own research, talk to family members or other clinicians, etc. The decision to discontinue DMT may not happen at the same appointment it is initially brought up at. It may even be reasonable to revisit the conversation later if discontinuation is not something the patient is amenable to at the time.

Conclusions

There is high-quality evidence that discontinuing DMTs in nonactive SPMS is not a major detriment to the MS disease course. Current literature also suggests that there may be benefits to discontinuation in this MS subtype in terms of QOL and meeting patient values. Additional research particularly in the nonactive SPMS population will continue to improve the knowledge and awareness of this aspect of MS DMT management. The growing evidence in this area may make discontinuation of DMT in nonactive SPMS a less-debatable topic, but it is still a major treatment decision that clinicians must thoroughly discuss with the patient to provide high-quality, patient-centered care.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated demyelinating disorder. There are 2 broad categories of MS: relapsing, also called active MS; and progressive MS. Unfortunately, there is no cure for MS, but disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) can help prevent relapses and new central nervous system lesions in people living with active MS. For patients with the most common type of MS, relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), DMTs are typically continued for decades while the patient has active disease. RRMS will usually transition to secondary progressive MS (SPMS), which can present as active SPMS or nonactive SPMS. The latter is the type of MS most people with RRMS eventually experience.

A 2019 study estimated that nearly 1 million people in the United States were living with MS.¹ This population estimate indicated the peak age-specific prevalence of MS was 55 to 64 years. Population data demonstrate improved mortality rates for people diagnosed with MS from 1997 to 2012 compared with prior years.² Therefore, the management of nonactive SPMS is an increasingly significant area of need. There are currently no DMTs on the market approved for nonactive SPMS, and lifelong DMTs in these patients are neither indicated nor supported by evidence. Nevertheless, the discontinuation of DMTs in nonactive SPMS has been a long-debated topic with varied opinions on how and when to discontinue.

The 2018 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline recommends that clinicians advise patients with SPMS to discontinue DMT use if they do not have ongoing relapses (or gadolinium-enhanced lesions on magnetic resonance imaging activity) or have not been ambulatory (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] ≥ 7) for ≥ 2 years.³ In recent years, there has been increased research on nonactive SPMS, specifically on discontinuation of DMTs. This clinical review assesses the recent evidence from a variety of standpoints, including the effect of discontinuing DMTs on the MS disease course and quality of life (QOL) and the perspectives of patients living with MS. Based on this evidence, a conversation guide will be presented as a framework to aid with the clinician-patient discussion on discontinuing MS DMTs.

Disease Modifying Therapies

Roos and colleagues used data from 2 large MS cohorts: MSBase and Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques (OFSEP) to compare high-efficacy vs low-efficacy DMT in both active and nonactive SPMS.⁴ In the active SPMS group, the strength of DMTs did not change disability progression, but high-efficacy DMTs reduced relapses better than the low-efficacy DMTs. On the other hand, the nonactive SPMS group saw no difference between DMTs in both relapse risk and disability progression. Another observational study of 221 patients with RRMS who discontinued DMTs noted that there were 2 independent predictors for the absence of relapse following DMT discontinuation: being aged > 45 years and the lack of relapse for ≥ 4 years prior to DMT discontinuation.⁵ Though these patients still may have been classified as RRMS, both these independent predictors for stability postdiscontinuation of DMTs are the typical characteristics of a nonactive SPMS patient.

Pathophysiology may help explain why DMT discontinuation seems to produce no adverse clinical outcomes in people with nonactive SPMS. Nonactive SPMS, which follows after RRMS, is largely correlated with age. In nonactive SPMS, there is less B and T lymphocyte migration across the blood-brain barrier. Furthermore, a lifetime of low-grade inflammation during the RRMS phase results in axonal damage and declined repair capacity, which produces the predominance of neurodegeneration in the nonactive SPMS disease process.⁶ This pathophysiologic difference between active and nonactive disease not only explains the different symptomatology of these MS subtypes, but also could explain why drugs that target the inflammatory processes more characteristic of active disease are not effective in nonactive SPMS.

Other recent studies explored the impact of age on DMT efficacy for patients with nonactive SPMS. A meta-analysis by Weidman and colleagues pooled trial data across multiple DMT classes in > 28,000 patients.⁷ The resulting regression model predicted zero efficacy of any DMT in patients who are aged > 53 years. High-efficacy DMTs only outperformed low-efficacy DMTs in people aged < 40.5 years. Another observational study by Hua and colleagues saw a similar result.⁸ This study included patients who discontinued DMT who were aged ≥ 60 years. The median follow-up time was 5.3 years. Of the 178 patients who discontinued DMTs, only 1 patient had a relapse. In this study, the age for participation provided a higher likelihood that patients included were in nonactive SPMS. Furthermore, the outcome reflects the typical presentation of nonactive SPMS where, despite the continuation or discontinuation of DMT, there was a lack of relapses. When comparing patients who discontinued DMTs with those who continued use, there was no significant difference in their 25-foot walk times, which is an objective marker for a more progressive symptom seen in nonactive MS.

The DISCOMS trial (NCT03073603) has been completed, but full results are not yet published. In this noninferiority trial, > 250 patients aged ≥ 55 years were assessed on a variety of outcomes, including relapses, EDSS score, and QOL. MS subtypes were considered at baseline, and subgroup analysis looking particularly at the SPMS population could provide further insight into its effect on MS course.

Quality of Life

Whether discontinuation of DMTs is worth considering in nonactive SPMS, it is also important to consider the risks and burdens associated with continuation. Medication administration burdens come with all MS DMTs whether there is the need to inject oneself, increased pill burden, or travel to an infusion clinic. The ever-rising costs of DMTs also can be a financial burden to the patient.⁹ All MS DMTs carry risks of adverse effects (AEs). These can range from a mild injection site reaction to severe infection, depending on the DMT used. Many of these severe AEs, such as opportunistic infections and cancer, have been associated with either an increased risk of occurrence and/or worsened outcomes in older adults who remain on DMTs, particularly moderate- to high-efficacy DMTs, such as sphingosine-1- phosphate receptor modulators, fumarates, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, cladribine, and anti-CD20 antibodies.¹⁰ In a 2019 survey of 377 patients with MS, 63.8% of respondents ranked safety as the most important reason they would consider discontinuing their DMTs.¹¹ In addition, a real-world study comparing people with nonactive SPMS who continued DMTs vs those who discontinued found that discontinuers reported better QOL.⁸

Conversation Guide for Discontinuing Therapies

The 2019 survey that assessed reasons for discontinuation also asked people with nonactive SPMS whether they thought they were in a nonactive disease stage, and what was their likelihood they would stop DMTs.¹¹ Interestingly, only 59.4% of respondents self-assessed their MS as nonactive, and just 11.9% of respondents were willing to discontinue DMTs.¹¹ These results suggest that there may be a need for patient education about nonactive SPMS and the rationale to continue or discontinue DMTs. Thus, before broaching the topic of discontinuation, explaining the nonactive SPMS subtype is important.

Even with a good understanding of nonactive SPMS, patients may be hesitant to stop using DMTs that they previously relied on to keep their MS stable. The 2019 survey ranked physician recommendation as the third highest reason to discontinue DMTs.¹¹ Taking the time to explain the clinical evidence for DMT discontinuation may help patients better understand a clinician’s recommendation and inspire more confidence.

Another important aspect of DMT discontinuation decision making is creating a plan for how the patient will be monitored to provide assurance if they experience a relapse. The 2019 survey asked patients what would be most important to them for their management plan after discontinuing DMT; magnetic resonance imaging and neurologic examination monitoring ranked the highest.¹¹ The plan should include timing for follow-up appointments and imaging, providing the patient comfort in knowing their MS will be monitored and verified for the relapse stability that is expected from nonactive SPMS. In the rare case a relapse does occur, having a contingency plan and noting the possibility of restarting DMTs is an integral part of reassuring the patient that their decision to discontinue DMTs will be treated with the utmost caution and individualized to their needs.

Lastly, highlighting which aspects of MS treatment will continue to be a priority in nonactive SPMS, such as symptomatic medication management and nonpharmacologic therapy, is important for the patient to recognize that there are still opportunities to manage this phase of MS. There are many lifestyle modifications that can be considered complementary to medical management of MS at any stage of the disease. Vascular comorbidities, such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes, have been associated with more rapid disability progression in MS.¹² Optimized management of these diseases may slow disability progression, in addition to the benefit of improved outcomes of the vascular comorbidity. Various formats of exercise have been studied in the MS population. A meta-analysis of aerobic, resistance, and combined exercise found benefits in these formats on health-related QOL.¹³

Many dietary strategies have been studied in MS. A recent network meta-analysis reviewed some of the more commonly studied diets, including low-fat, modified Mediterranean, ketogenic, anti-inflammatory, Paleolithic, intermittent fasting, and calorie restriction vs a usual diet.¹⁴ Although the overall quality of evidence was low, the Paleolithic and modified Mediterranean showed greater reductions in fatigue, as well as increased physical and mental QOL compared with a usual diet. The low-fat diet was associated with a reduction in fatigue. Many of these lifestyle modifications may complement optimized vascular comorbidity treatment; however, any exercise regimen or dietary change should be considered with the whole health of the patient in mind.

As with any health care decision, it is important to involve the patient in a joint decision regarding their care. This may mean giving the patient time to think about the information presented, do their own research, talk to family members or other clinicians, etc. The decision to discontinue DMT may not happen at the same appointment it is initially brought up at. It may even be reasonable to revisit the conversation later if discontinuation is not something the patient is amenable to at the time.

Conclusions

There is high-quality evidence that discontinuing DMTs in nonactive SPMS is not a major detriment to the MS disease course. Current literature also suggests that there may be benefits to discontinuation in this MS subtype in terms of QOL and meeting patient values. Additional research particularly in the nonactive SPMS population will continue to improve the knowledge and awareness of this aspect of MS DMT management. The growing evidence in this area may make discontinuation of DMT in nonactive SPMS a less-debatable topic, but it is still a major treatment decision that clinicians must thoroughly discuss with the patient to provide high-quality, patient-centered care.

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an immune-mediated demyelinating disorder. There are 2 broad categories of MS: relapsing, also called active MS; and progressive MS. Unfortunately, there is no cure for MS, but disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) can help prevent relapses and new central nervous system lesions in people living with active MS. For patients with the most common type of MS, relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), DMTs are typically continued for decades while the patient has active disease. RRMS will usually transition to secondary progressive MS (SPMS), which can present as active SPMS or nonactive SPMS. The latter is the type of MS most people with RRMS eventually experience.

A 2019 study estimated that nearly 1 million people in the United States were living with MS.¹ This population estimate indicated the peak age-specific prevalence of MS was 55 to 64 years. Population data demonstrate improved mortality rates for people diagnosed with MS from 1997 to 2012 compared with prior years.² Therefore, the management of nonactive SPMS is an increasingly significant area of need. There are currently no DMTs on the market approved for nonactive SPMS, and lifelong DMTs in these patients are neither indicated nor supported by evidence. Nevertheless, the discontinuation of DMTs in nonactive SPMS has been a long-debated topic with varied opinions on how and when to discontinue.

The 2018 American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guideline recommends that clinicians advise patients with SPMS to discontinue DMT use if they do not have ongoing relapses (or gadolinium-enhanced lesions on magnetic resonance imaging activity) or have not been ambulatory (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] ≥ 7) for ≥ 2 years.³ In recent years, there has been increased research on nonactive SPMS, specifically on discontinuation of DMTs. This clinical review assesses the recent evidence from a variety of standpoints, including the effect of discontinuing DMTs on the MS disease course and quality of life (QOL) and the perspectives of patients living with MS. Based on this evidence, a conversation guide will be presented as a framework to aid with the clinician-patient discussion on discontinuing MS DMTs.

Disease Modifying Therapies

Roos and colleagues used data from 2 large MS cohorts: MSBase and Observatoire Français de la Sclérose en Plaques (OFSEP) to compare high-efficacy vs low-efficacy DMT in both active and nonactive SPMS.⁴ In the active SPMS group, the strength of DMTs did not change disability progression, but high-efficacy DMTs reduced relapses better than the low-efficacy DMTs. On the other hand, the nonactive SPMS group saw no difference between DMTs in both relapse risk and disability progression. Another observational study of 221 patients with RRMS who discontinued DMTs noted that there were 2 independent predictors for the absence of relapse following DMT discontinuation: being aged > 45 years and the lack of relapse for ≥ 4 years prior to DMT discontinuation.⁵ Though these patients still may have been classified as RRMS, both these independent predictors for stability postdiscontinuation of DMTs are the typical characteristics of a nonactive SPMS patient.

Pathophysiology may help explain why DMT discontinuation seems to produce no adverse clinical outcomes in people with nonactive SPMS. Nonactive SPMS, which follows after RRMS, is largely correlated with age. In nonactive SPMS, there is less B and T lymphocyte migration across the blood-brain barrier. Furthermore, a lifetime of low-grade inflammation during the RRMS phase results in axonal damage and declined repair capacity, which produces the predominance of neurodegeneration in the nonactive SPMS disease process.⁶ This pathophysiologic difference between active and nonactive disease not only explains the different symptomatology of these MS subtypes, but also could explain why drugs that target the inflammatory processes more characteristic of active disease are not effective in nonactive SPMS.

Other recent studies explored the impact of age on DMT efficacy for patients with nonactive SPMS. A meta-analysis by Weidman and colleagues pooled trial data across multiple DMT classes in > 28,000 patients.⁷ The resulting regression model predicted zero efficacy of any DMT in patients who are aged > 53 years. High-efficacy DMTs only outperformed low-efficacy DMTs in people aged < 40.5 years. Another observational study by Hua and colleagues saw a similar result.⁸ This study included patients who discontinued DMT who were aged ≥ 60 years. The median follow-up time was 5.3 years. Of the 178 patients who discontinued DMTs, only 1 patient had a relapse. In this study, the age for participation provided a higher likelihood that patients included were in nonactive SPMS. Furthermore, the outcome reflects the typical presentation of nonactive SPMS where, despite the continuation or discontinuation of DMT, there was a lack of relapses. When comparing patients who discontinued DMTs with those who continued use, there was no significant difference in their 25-foot walk times, which is an objective marker for a more progressive symptom seen in nonactive MS.

The DISCOMS trial (NCT03073603) has been completed, but full results are not yet published. In this noninferiority trial, > 250 patients aged ≥ 55 years were assessed on a variety of outcomes, including relapses, EDSS score, and QOL. MS subtypes were considered at baseline, and subgroup analysis looking particularly at the SPMS population could provide further insight into its effect on MS course.

Quality of Life

Whether discontinuation of DMTs is worth considering in nonactive SPMS, it is also important to consider the risks and burdens associated with continuation. Medication administration burdens come with all MS DMTs whether there is the need to inject oneself, increased pill burden, or travel to an infusion clinic. The ever-rising costs of DMTs also can be a financial burden to the patient.⁹ All MS DMTs carry risks of adverse effects (AEs). These can range from a mild injection site reaction to severe infection, depending on the DMT used. Many of these severe AEs, such as opportunistic infections and cancer, have been associated with either an increased risk of occurrence and/or worsened outcomes in older adults who remain on DMTs, particularly moderate- to high-efficacy DMTs, such as sphingosine-1- phosphate receptor modulators, fumarates, natalizumab, alemtuzumab, cladribine, and anti-CD20 antibodies.¹⁰ In a 2019 survey of 377 patients with MS, 63.8% of respondents ranked safety as the most important reason they would consider discontinuing their DMTs.¹¹ In addition, a real-world study comparing people with nonactive SPMS who continued DMTs vs those who discontinued found that discontinuers reported better QOL.⁸

Conversation Guide for Discontinuing Therapies

The 2019 survey that assessed reasons for discontinuation also asked people with nonactive SPMS whether they thought they were in a nonactive disease stage, and what was their likelihood they would stop DMTs.¹¹ Interestingly, only 59.4% of respondents self-assessed their MS as nonactive, and just 11.9% of respondents were willing to discontinue DMTs.¹¹ These results suggest that there may be a need for patient education about nonactive SPMS and the rationale to continue or discontinue DMTs. Thus, before broaching the topic of discontinuation, explaining the nonactive SPMS subtype is important.

Even with a good understanding of nonactive SPMS, patients may be hesitant to stop using DMTs that they previously relied on to keep their MS stable. The 2019 survey ranked physician recommendation as the third highest reason to discontinue DMTs.¹¹ Taking the time to explain the clinical evidence for DMT discontinuation may help patients better understand a clinician’s recommendation and inspire more confidence.

Another important aspect of DMT discontinuation decision making is creating a plan for how the patient will be monitored to provide assurance if they experience a relapse. The 2019 survey asked patients what would be most important to them for their management plan after discontinuing DMT; magnetic resonance imaging and neurologic examination monitoring ranked the highest.¹¹ The plan should include timing for follow-up appointments and imaging, providing the patient comfort in knowing their MS will be monitored and verified for the relapse stability that is expected from nonactive SPMS. In the rare case a relapse does occur, having a contingency plan and noting the possibility of restarting DMTs is an integral part of reassuring the patient that their decision to discontinue DMTs will be treated with the utmost caution and individualized to their needs.

Lastly, highlighting which aspects of MS treatment will continue to be a priority in nonactive SPMS, such as symptomatic medication management and nonpharmacologic therapy, is important for the patient to recognize that there are still opportunities to manage this phase of MS. There are many lifestyle modifications that can be considered complementary to medical management of MS at any stage of the disease. Vascular comorbidities, such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes, have been associated with more rapid disability progression in MS.¹² Optimized management of these diseases may slow disability progression, in addition to the benefit of improved outcomes of the vascular comorbidity. Various formats of exercise have been studied in the MS population. A meta-analysis of aerobic, resistance, and combined exercise found benefits in these formats on health-related QOL.¹³

Many dietary strategies have been studied in MS. A recent network meta-analysis reviewed some of the more commonly studied diets, including low-fat, modified Mediterranean, ketogenic, anti-inflammatory, Paleolithic, intermittent fasting, and calorie restriction vs a usual diet.¹⁴ Although the overall quality of evidence was low, the Paleolithic and modified Mediterranean showed greater reductions in fatigue, as well as increased physical and mental QOL compared with a usual diet. The low-fat diet was associated with a reduction in fatigue. Many of these lifestyle modifications may complement optimized vascular comorbidity treatment; however, any exercise regimen or dietary change should be considered with the whole health of the patient in mind.

As with any health care decision, it is important to involve the patient in a joint decision regarding their care. This may mean giving the patient time to think about the information presented, do their own research, talk to family members or other clinicians, etc. The decision to discontinue DMT may not happen at the same appointment it is initially brought up at. It may even be reasonable to revisit the conversation later if discontinuation is not something the patient is amenable to at the time.

Conclusions

There is high-quality evidence that discontinuing DMTs in nonactive SPMS is not a major detriment to the MS disease course. Current literature also suggests that there may be benefits to discontinuation in this MS subtype in terms of QOL and meeting patient values. Additional research particularly in the nonactive SPMS population will continue to improve the knowledge and awareness of this aspect of MS DMT management. The growing evidence in this area may make discontinuation of DMT in nonactive SPMS a less-debatable topic, but it is still a major treatment decision that clinicians must thoroughly discuss with the patient to provide high-quality, patient-centered care.

A duodenocaval fistula (DCF) is seen when a connection exists between the duodenum and the inferior vena cava. It is a rare entity that is commonly missed and presents a diagnostic challenge due to its nonspecific presenting symptoms.^1,2 Patients commonly present with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding or sepsis. Here we present a case of a 37-year-old man who presented to the hospital for a workup related to melena but went into cardiac arrest prior to an esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Unfortunately, on autopsy, the patient was found to have a DCF. We highlight the diagnostic challenge associated with DCF and how in this case the presentation was confused by a diagnosis of possible transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI). To the best of our knowledge, this is also the first description of a case of DCF associated with food embolism to the lungs causing respiratory failure.

Case Presentation

A 37-year-old man with a history significant for bulimia presented to the hospital with a 3-day history of melena and reports of dizziness. The patient did not report being on any prescribed medications but noted that he took 4 aspirin daily to “calm his nerves.” The rest of the patient’s history was unremarkable aside from a reported history of induced emesis 3 to 4 times per week for an extended period up until 2 weeks before admission.

On admission, his vital signs demonstrated tachycardia and orthostatic hypotension. Pertinent findings on physical examination were skin pallor, a normal lung examination, mild epigastric tenderness, and guaiac-positive stools. He was alert and oriented to person, place, and time with no focal deficits. His admission laboratory tests were notable for a hemoglobin (Hb) level of 4.6 g/dL (reference range, 14-17.9), a white blood cell count of 13.5 K/cm (reference range, 4.5-11), an international normalized ratio of 1.21, a blood urea nitrogen of 61 mg/dL (reference range, 10-20), and a creatinine of 2.3 mg/dL (reference range, 0.8-1.4). The patient was placed on 2 L of oxygen via nasal cannula for comfort rather than true hypoxia. A chest X-ray on admission was negative with no signs of infiltrate, edema, or widened mediastinum. An abdominal X-ray was significant for a dilated stomach consistent with bulimia with no abdominal free air or signs of obstruction. The case was discussed with the gastroenterology service who felt that the patient needed to be more hemodynamically stable before pursuing endoscopic evaluation.

He was admitted to the intensive care unit and give a transfusion of 4 units of fresh frozen plasma and 2 packed red blood cells (PRBCs) without any issues. During the infusion of a third PRBC, he developed chills, tachycardia, and hypertension with accompanying respiratory distress characterized by wheezing, decreased breath sounds bilaterally, and a decrease in oxygen saturation to 70% on 2 L supplemental oxygen. He responded to treatment with meperidine, methylprednisolone sodium succinate, albuterol nebulizer, and acetaminophen. A new chest X-ray was read as “development of pulmonary edema vs bilateral pneumonitis.” A transfusion reaction was reported to the blood bank and a diagnosis of TRALI was considered. That evening, he completed a dose of platelets and another PRBC without difficulty after he was premedicated with meperidine, methylprednisolone sodium succinate, and acetaminophen. During the night, the patient spiked a temperature of 40.3 °C that was successfully treated with a cooling blanket and acetaminophen.

The following morning the patient was found to be tachypneic and tachycardic with his face mask off. His symptoms were corrected by replacing his face mask. He claimed he felt anxious about getting more transfusions and that he had breathing problems like this at home in the recent past. The patient requested an aspirin to calm his nerves. Over the course of the day, his Hb level dropped from 6.6 g/dL to 5.9 g/dL, and 2 washed leukopoor PRBCs were ordered.

The first unit was infused uneventfully, but after 125 cc of the second unit, the patient developed respiratory distress, rigors, and hypotension to 70/58 mm Hg despite premedication. He again was treated successfully with increased face mask support. A few rales were noted, but his fluid balance was even. A second transfusion reaction was filed with the blood bank and based on the 2 transfusion-associated events with no other clear explanation for his symptoms, the clinical team favored the TRALI diagnosis. However, the blood bank was suspicious this might not be TRALI as the previous night the patient had 2 episodes of respiratory distress with drops in oxygen saturation unassociated with transfusions. The patient was clinically stable for the remainder of the night.

Early the following morning the patient was scheduled for an esophagogastroduodenoscopy to evaluate for a source of his bleeding. At the beginning of the procedure, a unit of washed leukoreduced PRBCs was hung for a Hb level of 6.9 g/dL. No bleeding source was noted in the stomach, but as the endoscope was passed into the duodenum, and after an infusion of only 25 cc of RBCs, the patient became cyanotic and went into cardiac arrest. Despite advanced resuscitation efforts over 90 minutes, the patient could not be successfully resuscitated and died while in the endoscopy suite. A transfusion reaction workup was initiated but was unremarkable. The transfusion medicine staff was suspicious that something other than TRALI was the cause of the patient’s respiratory distress as he had respiratory distress remote to the transfusions and the unit was prepared correctly before administration. The patient’s family agreed to an autopsy.

Pathology

A full autopsy was performed 22 hours after the patient died. The lungs were congested and of increased weight: The right lung was 800 g, and the left was 750 g. The right lower lobe had a wedge-shaped infarction measuring 6 cm × 5 cm fed by a thrombosed vessel. Multiple small hemorrhagic wedge-shaped areas were noted in the left lung. An ulcer measuring 6 cm × 5 cm was noted just distal to the pylorus. At the base of this ulcer was a 1.5 cm × 0.5 cm tract that communicated with the inferior vena cava (Figure 1).

A postmortem blood culture was positive for Clostridium perfringens (C perfringens) and Candida albicans (C Albicans). Interestingly, one of the collected blood culture vials exploded en route to the laboratory, presumably due to the presence of many gas-forming C perfringens bacteria.

On microscopic examination of the autopsy samples, gram-positive rods were observed in the tissue of multiple organs, including the heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys (Figure 2).

Serology

Fourteen days after the patient’s death, both PRBC units infused during transfusion reactions were positive for granulocyte antibodies by immunofluorescence and agglutination techniques. Human leukocyte antigen antibody testing was also sent but was not found in either the donor or patient.

Discussion

Our case illustrates the unique and challenging diagnosis of DCF given the rarity of presentation and how quickly patients may clinically decompensate. After an extensive search of the medical literature, we were only able to identify about 40 previous cases of DCF, of which 37 were described in one review.¹ DCF, although rare, should be considered at risk for forming in the following settings: migrating inferior vena cava filter, right nephrectomy and radiotherapy, duodenal peptic ulcer, abdominal trauma, and oncologic settings involving metastatic malignancy requiring radiation and/or surgical grafting of the inferior vena cava.^1-4 When the diagnosis is considered, computed tomography (CT) is the best initial imaging modality as it allows for noninvasive evaluation of both the inferior vena cava and nonadjacent structures. A commonality of our case and those described in the literature is the diagnostic mystery and nonspecific symptoms patients present with, thus making CT an appropriate diagnostic modality. Endoscopy is useful for the further workup of GI bleeding and the diagnosis of peptic ulcer disease.⁵ In our case, given the patient’s autopsy findings and history of extensive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, the duodenal peptic ulcer was likely the precipitating factor for his DCF.

The most challenging aspect in diagnosing DCF is that many times patients present with nonspecific symptoms, and given its rarity it is not something that is usually at the forefront of most differentials.² This diagnostic difficulty may elucidate why there is such a relatively high mortality rate—nearly 40%—associated with DCF and why many times accurate diagnosis is not made until autopsy.^1,3 The most common presenting manifestations are sepsis and/or GI bleeding; in less than half the cases described in the literature patients had both sepsis and GI bleeding. In our case, the patient had signs of melena but was not felt to be septic as his presenting signs were felt to be in the setting of blood loss and dehydration (given his history of bulimia), not an acute infectious source.

In retrospect, one of the more confounding aspects of this case is the clinical picture concerning for TRALI. The patient required supplemental oxygen throughout his hospitalization and decompensated while or after receiving a transfusion, thus having TRALI on the differential was not felt inappropriate at that time. However, this case also illustrates the power of an anchoring bias, and perhaps the clinical team anchored on the diagnosis of TRALI too quickly before considering other possible etiologies for the patient’s respiratory distress. TRALI can be one of the most challenging diagnoses to make in the field of transfusion medicine as there are no definitive diagnostic criteria.⁶ It is felt to be a clinical diagnosis of exclusion as there is no pathognomonic sign or diagnostic test to confirm it as the cause of the patient’s respiratory distress, though anti–human leukocyte antigen antibodies commonly are present.^6,7 Considering how quickly the patient decompensated on day 2 of hospitalization and the presence of C perfringens bacteremia, which carries a mortality rate of 27% to 44%, it is likely that further diagnostic workup would not have changed the clinical outcome.⁸

Conclusions

Our investigation reports a case of a DCF in the setting of significant duodenal peptic ulcer disease. We highlight the diagnostic challenge that this commonly lethal etiology presents. We believe ours is the first case in which it was confused for TRALI and associated with food embolism to the lungs causing hypoxic respiratory failure. We want to highlight that DCF, though rare, should be considered for patients who present with GI bleeding and hypoxic respiratory failure.

A duodenocaval fistula (DCF) is seen when a connection exists between the duodenum and the inferior vena cava. It is a rare entity that is commonly missed and presents a diagnostic challenge due to its nonspecific presenting symptoms.^1,2 Patients commonly present with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding or sepsis. Here we present a case of a 37-year-old man who presented to the hospital for a workup related to melena but went into cardiac arrest prior to an esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Unfortunately, on autopsy, the patient was found to have a DCF. We highlight the diagnostic challenge associated with DCF and how in this case the presentation was confused by a diagnosis of possible transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI). To the best of our knowledge, this is also the first description of a case of DCF associated with food embolism to the lungs causing respiratory failure.

Case Presentation

A 37-year-old man with a history significant for bulimia presented to the hospital with a 3-day history of melena and reports of dizziness. The patient did not report being on any prescribed medications but noted that he took 4 aspirin daily to “calm his nerves.” The rest of the patient’s history was unremarkable aside from a reported history of induced emesis 3 to 4 times per week for an extended period up until 2 weeks before admission.

On admission, his vital signs demonstrated tachycardia and orthostatic hypotension. Pertinent findings on physical examination were skin pallor, a normal lung examination, mild epigastric tenderness, and guaiac-positive stools. He was alert and oriented to person, place, and time with no focal deficits. His admission laboratory tests were notable for a hemoglobin (Hb) level of 4.6 g/dL (reference range, 14-17.9), a white blood cell count of 13.5 K/cm (reference range, 4.5-11), an international normalized ratio of 1.21, a blood urea nitrogen of 61 mg/dL (reference range, 10-20), and a creatinine of 2.3 mg/dL (reference range, 0.8-1.4). The patient was placed on 2 L of oxygen via nasal cannula for comfort rather than true hypoxia. A chest X-ray on admission was negative with no signs of infiltrate, edema, or widened mediastinum. An abdominal X-ray was significant for a dilated stomach consistent with bulimia with no abdominal free air or signs of obstruction. The case was discussed with the gastroenterology service who felt that the patient needed to be more hemodynamically stable before pursuing endoscopic evaluation.

He was admitted to the intensive care unit and give a transfusion of 4 units of fresh frozen plasma and 2 packed red blood cells (PRBCs) without any issues. During the infusion of a third PRBC, he developed chills, tachycardia, and hypertension with accompanying respiratory distress characterized by wheezing, decreased breath sounds bilaterally, and a decrease in oxygen saturation to 70% on 2 L supplemental oxygen. He responded to treatment with meperidine, methylprednisolone sodium succinate, albuterol nebulizer, and acetaminophen. A new chest X-ray was read as “development of pulmonary edema vs bilateral pneumonitis.” A transfusion reaction was reported to the blood bank and a diagnosis of TRALI was considered. That evening, he completed a dose of platelets and another PRBC without difficulty after he was premedicated with meperidine, methylprednisolone sodium succinate, and acetaminophen. During the night, the patient spiked a temperature of 40.3 °C that was successfully treated with a cooling blanket and acetaminophen.

The following morning the patient was found to be tachypneic and tachycardic with his face mask off. His symptoms were corrected by replacing his face mask. He claimed he felt anxious about getting more transfusions and that he had breathing problems like this at home in the recent past. The patient requested an aspirin to calm his nerves. Over the course of the day, his Hb level dropped from 6.6 g/dL to 5.9 g/dL, and 2 washed leukopoor PRBCs were ordered.

The first unit was infused uneventfully, but after 125 cc of the second unit, the patient developed respiratory distress, rigors, and hypotension to 70/58 mm Hg despite premedication. He again was treated successfully with increased face mask support. A few rales were noted, but his fluid balance was even. A second transfusion reaction was filed with the blood bank and based on the 2 transfusion-associated events with no other clear explanation for his symptoms, the clinical team favored the TRALI diagnosis. However, the blood bank was suspicious this might not be TRALI as the previous night the patient had 2 episodes of respiratory distress with drops in oxygen saturation unassociated with transfusions. The patient was clinically stable for the remainder of the night.

Early the following morning the patient was scheduled for an esophagogastroduodenoscopy to evaluate for a source of his bleeding. At the beginning of the procedure, a unit of washed leukoreduced PRBCs was hung for a Hb level of 6.9 g/dL. No bleeding source was noted in the stomach, but as the endoscope was passed into the duodenum, and after an infusion of only 25 cc of RBCs, the patient became cyanotic and went into cardiac arrest. Despite advanced resuscitation efforts over 90 minutes, the patient could not be successfully resuscitated and died while in the endoscopy suite. A transfusion reaction workup was initiated but was unremarkable. The transfusion medicine staff was suspicious that something other than TRALI was the cause of the patient’s respiratory distress as he had respiratory distress remote to the transfusions and the unit was prepared correctly before administration. The patient’s family agreed to an autopsy.

Pathology

A full autopsy was performed 22 hours after the patient died. The lungs were congested and of increased weight: The right lung was 800 g, and the left was 750 g. The right lower lobe had a wedge-shaped infarction measuring 6 cm × 5 cm fed by a thrombosed vessel. Multiple small hemorrhagic wedge-shaped areas were noted in the left lung. An ulcer measuring 6 cm × 5 cm was noted just distal to the pylorus. At the base of this ulcer was a 1.5 cm × 0.5 cm tract that communicated with the inferior vena cava (Figure 1).

A postmortem blood culture was positive for Clostridium perfringens (C perfringens) and Candida albicans (C Albicans). Interestingly, one of the collected blood culture vials exploded en route to the laboratory, presumably due to the presence of many gas-forming C perfringens bacteria.

On microscopic examination of the autopsy samples, gram-positive rods were observed in the tissue of multiple organs, including the heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys (Figure 2).

Serology

Fourteen days after the patient’s death, both PRBC units infused during transfusion reactions were positive for granulocyte antibodies by immunofluorescence and agglutination techniques. Human leukocyte antigen antibody testing was also sent but was not found in either the donor or patient.

Discussion

Our case illustrates the unique and challenging diagnosis of DCF given the rarity of presentation and how quickly patients may clinically decompensate. After an extensive search of the medical literature, we were only able to identify about 40 previous cases of DCF, of which 37 were described in one review.¹ DCF, although rare, should be considered at risk for forming in the following settings: migrating inferior vena cava filter, right nephrectomy and radiotherapy, duodenal peptic ulcer, abdominal trauma, and oncologic settings involving metastatic malignancy requiring radiation and/or surgical grafting of the inferior vena cava.^1-4 When the diagnosis is considered, computed tomography (CT) is the best initial imaging modality as it allows for noninvasive evaluation of both the inferior vena cava and nonadjacent structures. A commonality of our case and those described in the literature is the diagnostic mystery and nonspecific symptoms patients present with, thus making CT an appropriate diagnostic modality. Endoscopy is useful for the further workup of GI bleeding and the diagnosis of peptic ulcer disease.⁵ In our case, given the patient’s autopsy findings and history of extensive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, the duodenal peptic ulcer was likely the precipitating factor for his DCF.

The most challenging aspect in diagnosing DCF is that many times patients present with nonspecific symptoms, and given its rarity it is not something that is usually at the forefront of most differentials.² This diagnostic difficulty may elucidate why there is such a relatively high mortality rate—nearly 40%—associated with DCF and why many times accurate diagnosis is not made until autopsy.^1,3 The most common presenting manifestations are sepsis and/or GI bleeding; in less than half the cases described in the literature patients had both sepsis and GI bleeding. In our case, the patient had signs of melena but was not felt to be septic as his presenting signs were felt to be in the setting of blood loss and dehydration (given his history of bulimia), not an acute infectious source.

In retrospect, one of the more confounding aspects of this case is the clinical picture concerning for TRALI. The patient required supplemental oxygen throughout his hospitalization and decompensated while or after receiving a transfusion, thus having TRALI on the differential was not felt inappropriate at that time. However, this case also illustrates the power of an anchoring bias, and perhaps the clinical team anchored on the diagnosis of TRALI too quickly before considering other possible etiologies for the patient’s respiratory distress. TRALI can be one of the most challenging diagnoses to make in the field of transfusion medicine as there are no definitive diagnostic criteria.⁶ It is felt to be a clinical diagnosis of exclusion as there is no pathognomonic sign or diagnostic test to confirm it as the cause of the patient’s respiratory distress, though anti–human leukocyte antigen antibodies commonly are present.^6,7 Considering how quickly the patient decompensated on day 2 of hospitalization and the presence of C perfringens bacteremia, which carries a mortality rate of 27% to 44%, it is likely that further diagnostic workup would not have changed the clinical outcome.⁸

Conclusions

Our investigation reports a case of a DCF in the setting of significant duodenal peptic ulcer disease. We highlight the diagnostic challenge that this commonly lethal etiology presents. We believe ours is the first case in which it was confused for TRALI and associated with food embolism to the lungs causing hypoxic respiratory failure. We want to highlight that DCF, though rare, should be considered for patients who present with GI bleeding and hypoxic respiratory failure.

A duodenocaval fistula (DCF) is seen when a connection exists between the duodenum and the inferior vena cava. It is a rare entity that is commonly missed and presents a diagnostic challenge due to its nonspecific presenting symptoms.^1,2 Patients commonly present with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding or sepsis. Here we present a case of a 37-year-old man who presented to the hospital for a workup related to melena but went into cardiac arrest prior to an esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Unfortunately, on autopsy, the patient was found to have a DCF. We highlight the diagnostic challenge associated with DCF and how in this case the presentation was confused by a diagnosis of possible transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI). To the best of our knowledge, this is also the first description of a case of DCF associated with food embolism to the lungs causing respiratory failure.

Case Presentation

A 37-year-old man with a history significant for bulimia presented to the hospital with a 3-day history of melena and reports of dizziness. The patient did not report being on any prescribed medications but noted that he took 4 aspirin daily to “calm his nerves.” The rest of the patient’s history was unremarkable aside from a reported history of induced emesis 3 to 4 times per week for an extended period up until 2 weeks before admission.

On admission, his vital signs demonstrated tachycardia and orthostatic hypotension. Pertinent findings on physical examination were skin pallor, a normal lung examination, mild epigastric tenderness, and guaiac-positive stools. He was alert and oriented to person, place, and time with no focal deficits. His admission laboratory tests were notable for a hemoglobin (Hb) level of 4.6 g/dL (reference range, 14-17.9), a white blood cell count of 13.5 K/cm (reference range, 4.5-11), an international normalized ratio of 1.21, a blood urea nitrogen of 61 mg/dL (reference range, 10-20), and a creatinine of 2.3 mg/dL (reference range, 0.8-1.4). The patient was placed on 2 L of oxygen via nasal cannula for comfort rather than true hypoxia. A chest X-ray on admission was negative with no signs of infiltrate, edema, or widened mediastinum. An abdominal X-ray was significant for a dilated stomach consistent with bulimia with no abdominal free air or signs of obstruction. The case was discussed with the gastroenterology service who felt that the patient needed to be more hemodynamically stable before pursuing endoscopic evaluation.

He was admitted to the intensive care unit and give a transfusion of 4 units of fresh frozen plasma and 2 packed red blood cells (PRBCs) without any issues. During the infusion of a third PRBC, he developed chills, tachycardia, and hypertension with accompanying respiratory distress characterized by wheezing, decreased breath sounds bilaterally, and a decrease in oxygen saturation to 70% on 2 L supplemental oxygen. He responded to treatment with meperidine, methylprednisolone sodium succinate, albuterol nebulizer, and acetaminophen. A new chest X-ray was read as “development of pulmonary edema vs bilateral pneumonitis.” A transfusion reaction was reported to the blood bank and a diagnosis of TRALI was considered. That evening, he completed a dose of platelets and another PRBC without difficulty after he was premedicated with meperidine, methylprednisolone sodium succinate, and acetaminophen. During the night, the patient spiked a temperature of 40.3 °C that was successfully treated with a cooling blanket and acetaminophen.

The following morning the patient was found to be tachypneic and tachycardic with his face mask off. His symptoms were corrected by replacing his face mask. He claimed he felt anxious about getting more transfusions and that he had breathing problems like this at home in the recent past. The patient requested an aspirin to calm his nerves. Over the course of the day, his Hb level dropped from 6.6 g/dL to 5.9 g/dL, and 2 washed leukopoor PRBCs were ordered.

The first unit was infused uneventfully, but after 125 cc of the second unit, the patient developed respiratory distress, rigors, and hypotension to 70/58 mm Hg despite premedication. He again was treated successfully with increased face mask support. A few rales were noted, but his fluid balance was even. A second transfusion reaction was filed with the blood bank and based on the 2 transfusion-associated events with no other clear explanation for his symptoms, the clinical team favored the TRALI diagnosis. However, the blood bank was suspicious this might not be TRALI as the previous night the patient had 2 episodes of respiratory distress with drops in oxygen saturation unassociated with transfusions. The patient was clinically stable for the remainder of the night.

Early the following morning the patient was scheduled for an esophagogastroduodenoscopy to evaluate for a source of his bleeding. At the beginning of the procedure, a unit of washed leukoreduced PRBCs was hung for a Hb level of 6.9 g/dL. No bleeding source was noted in the stomach, but as the endoscope was passed into the duodenum, and after an infusion of only 25 cc of RBCs, the patient became cyanotic and went into cardiac arrest. Despite advanced resuscitation efforts over 90 minutes, the patient could not be successfully resuscitated and died while in the endoscopy suite. A transfusion reaction workup was initiated but was unremarkable. The transfusion medicine staff was suspicious that something other than TRALI was the cause of the patient’s respiratory distress as he had respiratory distress remote to the transfusions and the unit was prepared correctly before administration. The patient’s family agreed to an autopsy.

Pathology

A full autopsy was performed 22 hours after the patient died. The lungs were congested and of increased weight: The right lung was 800 g, and the left was 750 g. The right lower lobe had a wedge-shaped infarction measuring 6 cm × 5 cm fed by a thrombosed vessel. Multiple small hemorrhagic wedge-shaped areas were noted in the left lung. An ulcer measuring 6 cm × 5 cm was noted just distal to the pylorus. At the base of this ulcer was a 1.5 cm × 0.5 cm tract that communicated with the inferior vena cava (Figure 1).

A postmortem blood culture was positive for Clostridium perfringens (C perfringens) and Candida albicans (C Albicans). Interestingly, one of the collected blood culture vials exploded en route to the laboratory, presumably due to the presence of many gas-forming C perfringens bacteria.

On microscopic examination of the autopsy samples, gram-positive rods were observed in the tissue of multiple organs, including the heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys (Figure 2).

Serology

Fourteen days after the patient’s death, both PRBC units infused during transfusion reactions were positive for granulocyte antibodies by immunofluorescence and agglutination techniques. Human leukocyte antigen antibody testing was also sent but was not found in either the donor or patient.

Discussion

Our case illustrates the unique and challenging diagnosis of DCF given the rarity of presentation and how quickly patients may clinically decompensate. After an extensive search of the medical literature, we were only able to identify about 40 previous cases of DCF, of which 37 were described in one review.¹ DCF, although rare, should be considered at risk for forming in the following settings: migrating inferior vena cava filter, right nephrectomy and radiotherapy, duodenal peptic ulcer, abdominal trauma, and oncologic settings involving metastatic malignancy requiring radiation and/or surgical grafting of the inferior vena cava.^1-4 When the diagnosis is considered, computed tomography (CT) is the best initial imaging modality as it allows for noninvasive evaluation of both the inferior vena cava and nonadjacent structures. A commonality of our case and those described in the literature is the diagnostic mystery and nonspecific symptoms patients present with, thus making CT an appropriate diagnostic modality. Endoscopy is useful for the further workup of GI bleeding and the diagnosis of peptic ulcer disease.⁵ In our case, given the patient’s autopsy findings and history of extensive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, the duodenal peptic ulcer was likely the precipitating factor for his DCF.

The most challenging aspect in diagnosing DCF is that many times patients present with nonspecific symptoms, and given its rarity it is not something that is usually at the forefront of most differentials.² This diagnostic difficulty may elucidate why there is such a relatively high mortality rate—nearly 40%—associated with DCF and why many times accurate diagnosis is not made until autopsy.^1,3 The most common presenting manifestations are sepsis and/or GI bleeding; in less than half the cases described in the literature patients had both sepsis and GI bleeding. In our case, the patient had signs of melena but was not felt to be septic as his presenting signs were felt to be in the setting of blood loss and dehydration (given his history of bulimia), not an acute infectious source.

In retrospect, one of the more confounding aspects of this case is the clinical picture concerning for TRALI. The patient required supplemental oxygen throughout his hospitalization and decompensated while or after receiving a transfusion, thus having TRALI on the differential was not felt inappropriate at that time. However, this case also illustrates the power of an anchoring bias, and perhaps the clinical team anchored on the diagnosis of TRALI too quickly before considering other possible etiologies for the patient’s respiratory distress. TRALI can be one of the most challenging diagnoses to make in the field of transfusion medicine as there are no definitive diagnostic criteria.⁶ It is felt to be a clinical diagnosis of exclusion as there is no pathognomonic sign or diagnostic test to confirm it as the cause of the patient’s respiratory distress, though anti–human leukocyte antigen antibodies commonly are present.^6,7 Considering how quickly the patient decompensated on day 2 of hospitalization and the presence of C perfringens bacteremia, which carries a mortality rate of 27% to 44%, it is likely that further diagnostic workup would not have changed the clinical outcome.⁸

Conclusions

Our investigation reports a case of a DCF in the setting of significant duodenal peptic ulcer disease. We highlight the diagnostic challenge that this commonly lethal etiology presents. We believe ours is the first case in which it was confused for TRALI and associated with food embolism to the lungs causing hypoxic respiratory failure. We want to highlight that DCF, though rare, should be considered for patients who present with GI bleeding and hypoxic respiratory failure.

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, patient encounters with the health care system plummeted.^1-3 The perceived increased risk of contracting COVID-19 while obtaining care was thought to be a contributing factor. In outpatient settings, one study noted a 63% decrease in visits to otolaryngology visits in Massachusetts, and another noted a 33% decrease in dental office visits at the onset of the pandemic in 2020 compared with the same time frame in 2019.^2,4 Along with mask mandates and stay-at-home orders, various institutions sought to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 through different protocols, including the use of social distancing, limitation of visitors, and telehealth. Despite some of these measures, nosocomial infections were not uncommon. For example, one hospital in the United Kingdom reported that 15% of COVID-19 inpatient cases in a 6-week period in 2020 were probably or definitely hospital acquired. These patients had a 36% case fatality rate.⁵

Unlike outpatient treatment centers, however, the emergency department (ED) is mandated by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act to provide a medical screening examination and to stabilize emergency medical conditions to all patients presenting to the ED. Thus, high numbers of undifferentiated and symptomatic patients are forced to congregate in EDs, increasing the risk of transmission of COVID-19. This perception of increased risk led to a 42% decrease in ED visits during March and April 2020 at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ Correspondingly, there was a 20% decrease in code stroke activations at a hospital in Canada and a 38% decrease in ST-elevation myocardial infarction activations across 9 United States hospital systems.^6,7

Limited studies have been conducted to date to determine whether contracting COVID-19 while in the ED is a risk. One retrospective case-control study evaluating 39 EDs in the US showed that ED colocation with known patients with COVID-19 was not associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 transmission.⁵ However, this study also recognized that infection control strategies widely varied by location and date.

In this study, we report the incidence of COVID-19 infections within 21 days after the initial visit for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection to the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS) ED and compared it with that of COVID-19 infections for tests performed within the VAGLAHS.

Program Description

As a quality improvement measure, the VAGLAHS ED instituted multiple protocols to mitigate COVID-19 transmission. Social distancing was instituted in the waiting room to prevent the close congregation of patients, regardless of the reason for visit. A COVID-19 testing tent was located outdoors that was adjacent to the ED and staffed by a dedicated licensed independent practitioner and nurses during business hours. During COVID-19 infection surges, hours were extended to include evenings and weekends to decrease ED exposure of stable but symptomatic patients seeking testing. If patients were felt to require more care, they were referred to the ED.

Patients with specific symptoms noted during triage, such as those associated with COVID-19 diagnosis, respiratory infections, fever, and/or myalgias, were isolated in their own patient room. Electronic tablets were used for persons under investigation and patients with COVID-19 to communicate with family and/or medical staff who did not need to enter the patient’s room. Two-hour disinfection protocols were instituted for high-risk patients who were moved during the course of their treatment (ie, transfer to another bed for admission or discharge). All staff was specifically trained in personal protective equipment (PPE) donning and doffing, and 2-physician airway teams were implemented to ensure proper PPE use and safe COVID-19 intubations.

COVID-19 Infections

Electronic health records of patients who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not related to COVID-19 were reviewed from June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, to determine whether these patients had an increased incidence of confirmed COVID-19 infection within 21 days of the index ED visit. Patients with upper respiratory infection symptoms, such as cough, fever, chills, sore throat, changes to taste or smell, or a confirmed COVID-19 infection on the initial visit were excluded. Patients were considered to have had an ED-acquired COVID-19 infection if they had a positive test within 21 days of visiting the ED for a symptom not related to COVID-19. We report the overall average positivity rate by month of COVID-19 infections 21 days post-ED visit for visits for symptoms not related to COVID-19. 

A total of 8708 patients who came to the ED with symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection and had a COVID-19 test within 21 days of the ED visit met the inclusion criteria. The overall average positivity rate at the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection was 1.1% from June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. The positivity rate by month ranged from 0% to 6.7% for this period (Figure).

Discussion 

Implementing COVID-19 mitigation measures in the VAGLAHS ED helped minimize exposure and subsequent infection of COVID-19 for veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED with symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection. Contextualizing this with the overall average monthly positivity rate of veterans in the VAGLAHS catchment area (10.9%) or Los Angeles County (7.9%) between June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection were less likely to test positive for COVID-19 within 21 days (1.1%), suggesting that the extensive measures taken at the VAGLAHS ED were effective.⁸

Many health care systems in the US and abroad have experimented with different transmission mitigation strategies in the ED. These tactics have included careful resource allocation when PPE shortages occur, incorporation of airway teams with appropriate safety measures to reduce nosocomial spread to health care workers, and use of a cohorting plan to separate persons under investigation and patients with COVID-19 from other patients.^9-15 Additionally, forward screening areas were incorporated similar to the COVID-19 tent that was instituted at the VAGLAHS ED to manage patients who were referred to the ED for COVID-19 testing during the beginning of the pandemic, which prevented symptomatic patients from congregating with asymptomatic patients.^14,15

Encouragingly, some of these studies reported no cases of nosocomial transmission in the ED.^11,13 In a separate study, 14 clusters of COVID-19 cases were identified at one VA health care system in which nosocomial transmission was suspected, including one in the ED.¹⁶ Using contact tracing, no patients and 9 employees were found to have contracted COVID-19 in that cluster. Overall, among all clusters examined within the health care system, either by contact tracing or by whole-genome sequencing, the authors found that transmission from health care personnel to patients was rare. Despite different methodologies, we also similarly found that ED patients in our VA facility were unlikely to become infected with COVID-19.

While the low incidence of positive COVID-19 tests cannot be attributed to any one method, our data provide a working blueprint for enhanced ED precautions in future surges of COVID-19 or other airborne diseases, including that of future pandemics.

Limitations

Notably, although the VA is the largest health care system in the US, a considerable number of veterans may present to non-VA EDs to seek care, and thus their data are not included here; these veterans may live farther from a VA facility or experience higher barriers to care than veterans who exclusively or almost exclusively seek care within the VA. As a result, we are unable to account for COVID-19 tests completed outside the VA. Moreover, the wild type SARS-CoV-2 virus was dominant during the time frame chosen for this assessment, and data may not be generalizable to other variants (eg, omicron) that are known to be more highly transmissible.¹⁷ Lastly, although our observation was performed at a single VA ED and may not apply to other facilities, especially in light of different mitigation strategies, our findings still provide support for approaches to minimizing patient and staff exposure to COVID-19 in ED settings.

Conclusions

Implementation of COVID-19 mitigation measures in the VAGLAHS ED may have minimized exposure to COVID-19 for veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 and did not put one at higher risk of contracting COVID-19. Taken together, our data suggest that patients should not avoid seeking emergency care out of fear of contracting COVID-19 if EDs have adequately instituted mitigation techniques.

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, patient encounters with the health care system plummeted.^1-3 The perceived increased risk of contracting COVID-19 while obtaining care was thought to be a contributing factor. In outpatient settings, one study noted a 63% decrease in visits to otolaryngology visits in Massachusetts, and another noted a 33% decrease in dental office visits at the onset of the pandemic in 2020 compared with the same time frame in 2019.^2,4 Along with mask mandates and stay-at-home orders, various institutions sought to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 through different protocols, including the use of social distancing, limitation of visitors, and telehealth. Despite some of these measures, nosocomial infections were not uncommon. For example, one hospital in the United Kingdom reported that 15% of COVID-19 inpatient cases in a 6-week period in 2020 were probably or definitely hospital acquired. These patients had a 36% case fatality rate.⁵

Unlike outpatient treatment centers, however, the emergency department (ED) is mandated by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act to provide a medical screening examination and to stabilize emergency medical conditions to all patients presenting to the ED. Thus, high numbers of undifferentiated and symptomatic patients are forced to congregate in EDs, increasing the risk of transmission of COVID-19. This perception of increased risk led to a 42% decrease in ED visits during March and April 2020 at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ Correspondingly, there was a 20% decrease in code stroke activations at a hospital in Canada and a 38% decrease in ST-elevation myocardial infarction activations across 9 United States hospital systems.^6,7

Limited studies have been conducted to date to determine whether contracting COVID-19 while in the ED is a risk. One retrospective case-control study evaluating 39 EDs in the US showed that ED colocation with known patients with COVID-19 was not associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 transmission.⁵ However, this study also recognized that infection control strategies widely varied by location and date.

In this study, we report the incidence of COVID-19 infections within 21 days after the initial visit for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection to the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS) ED and compared it with that of COVID-19 infections for tests performed within the VAGLAHS.

Program Description

As a quality improvement measure, the VAGLAHS ED instituted multiple protocols to mitigate COVID-19 transmission. Social distancing was instituted in the waiting room to prevent the close congregation of patients, regardless of the reason for visit. A COVID-19 testing tent was located outdoors that was adjacent to the ED and staffed by a dedicated licensed independent practitioner and nurses during business hours. During COVID-19 infection surges, hours were extended to include evenings and weekends to decrease ED exposure of stable but symptomatic patients seeking testing. If patients were felt to require more care, they were referred to the ED.

Patients with specific symptoms noted during triage, such as those associated with COVID-19 diagnosis, respiratory infections, fever, and/or myalgias, were isolated in their own patient room. Electronic tablets were used for persons under investigation and patients with COVID-19 to communicate with family and/or medical staff who did not need to enter the patient’s room. Two-hour disinfection protocols were instituted for high-risk patients who were moved during the course of their treatment (ie, transfer to another bed for admission or discharge). All staff was specifically trained in personal protective equipment (PPE) donning and doffing, and 2-physician airway teams were implemented to ensure proper PPE use and safe COVID-19 intubations.

COVID-19 Infections

Electronic health records of patients who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not related to COVID-19 were reviewed from June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, to determine whether these patients had an increased incidence of confirmed COVID-19 infection within 21 days of the index ED visit. Patients with upper respiratory infection symptoms, such as cough, fever, chills, sore throat, changes to taste or smell, or a confirmed COVID-19 infection on the initial visit were excluded. Patients were considered to have had an ED-acquired COVID-19 infection if they had a positive test within 21 days of visiting the ED for a symptom not related to COVID-19. We report the overall average positivity rate by month of COVID-19 infections 21 days post-ED visit for visits for symptoms not related to COVID-19. 

A total of 8708 patients who came to the ED with symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection and had a COVID-19 test within 21 days of the ED visit met the inclusion criteria. The overall average positivity rate at the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection was 1.1% from June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. The positivity rate by month ranged from 0% to 6.7% for this period (Figure).

Discussion 

Implementing COVID-19 mitigation measures in the VAGLAHS ED helped minimize exposure and subsequent infection of COVID-19 for veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED with symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection. Contextualizing this with the overall average monthly positivity rate of veterans in the VAGLAHS catchment area (10.9%) or Los Angeles County (7.9%) between June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection were less likely to test positive for COVID-19 within 21 days (1.1%), suggesting that the extensive measures taken at the VAGLAHS ED were effective.⁸

Many health care systems in the US and abroad have experimented with different transmission mitigation strategies in the ED. These tactics have included careful resource allocation when PPE shortages occur, incorporation of airway teams with appropriate safety measures to reduce nosocomial spread to health care workers, and use of a cohorting plan to separate persons under investigation and patients with COVID-19 from other patients.^9-15 Additionally, forward screening areas were incorporated similar to the COVID-19 tent that was instituted at the VAGLAHS ED to manage patients who were referred to the ED for COVID-19 testing during the beginning of the pandemic, which prevented symptomatic patients from congregating with asymptomatic patients.^14,15

Encouragingly, some of these studies reported no cases of nosocomial transmission in the ED.^11,13 In a separate study, 14 clusters of COVID-19 cases were identified at one VA health care system in which nosocomial transmission was suspected, including one in the ED.¹⁶ Using contact tracing, no patients and 9 employees were found to have contracted COVID-19 in that cluster. Overall, among all clusters examined within the health care system, either by contact tracing or by whole-genome sequencing, the authors found that transmission from health care personnel to patients was rare. Despite different methodologies, we also similarly found that ED patients in our VA facility were unlikely to become infected with COVID-19.

While the low incidence of positive COVID-19 tests cannot be attributed to any one method, our data provide a working blueprint for enhanced ED precautions in future surges of COVID-19 or other airborne diseases, including that of future pandemics.

Limitations

Notably, although the VA is the largest health care system in the US, a considerable number of veterans may present to non-VA EDs to seek care, and thus their data are not included here; these veterans may live farther from a VA facility or experience higher barriers to care than veterans who exclusively or almost exclusively seek care within the VA. As a result, we are unable to account for COVID-19 tests completed outside the VA. Moreover, the wild type SARS-CoV-2 virus was dominant during the time frame chosen for this assessment, and data may not be generalizable to other variants (eg, omicron) that are known to be more highly transmissible.¹⁷ Lastly, although our observation was performed at a single VA ED and may not apply to other facilities, especially in light of different mitigation strategies, our findings still provide support for approaches to minimizing patient and staff exposure to COVID-19 in ED settings.

Conclusions

Implementation of COVID-19 mitigation measures in the VAGLAHS ED may have minimized exposure to COVID-19 for veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 and did not put one at higher risk of contracting COVID-19. Taken together, our data suggest that patients should not avoid seeking emergency care out of fear of contracting COVID-19 if EDs have adequately instituted mitigation techniques.

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, patient encounters with the health care system plummeted.^1-3 The perceived increased risk of contracting COVID-19 while obtaining care was thought to be a contributing factor. In outpatient settings, one study noted a 63% decrease in visits to otolaryngology visits in Massachusetts, and another noted a 33% decrease in dental office visits at the onset of the pandemic in 2020 compared with the same time frame in 2019.^2,4 Along with mask mandates and stay-at-home orders, various institutions sought to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 through different protocols, including the use of social distancing, limitation of visitors, and telehealth. Despite some of these measures, nosocomial infections were not uncommon. For example, one hospital in the United Kingdom reported that 15% of COVID-19 inpatient cases in a 6-week period in 2020 were probably or definitely hospital acquired. These patients had a 36% case fatality rate.⁵

Unlike outpatient treatment centers, however, the emergency department (ED) is mandated by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act to provide a medical screening examination and to stabilize emergency medical conditions to all patients presenting to the ED. Thus, high numbers of undifferentiated and symptomatic patients are forced to congregate in EDs, increasing the risk of transmission of COVID-19. This perception of increased risk led to a 42% decrease in ED visits during March and April 2020 at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ Correspondingly, there was a 20% decrease in code stroke activations at a hospital in Canada and a 38% decrease in ST-elevation myocardial infarction activations across 9 United States hospital systems.^6,7

Limited studies have been conducted to date to determine whether contracting COVID-19 while in the ED is a risk. One retrospective case-control study evaluating 39 EDs in the US showed that ED colocation with known patients with COVID-19 was not associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 transmission.⁵ However, this study also recognized that infection control strategies widely varied by location and date.

In this study, we report the incidence of COVID-19 infections within 21 days after the initial visit for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection to the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS) ED and compared it with that of COVID-19 infections for tests performed within the VAGLAHS.

Program Description

As a quality improvement measure, the VAGLAHS ED instituted multiple protocols to mitigate COVID-19 transmission. Social distancing was instituted in the waiting room to prevent the close congregation of patients, regardless of the reason for visit. A COVID-19 testing tent was located outdoors that was adjacent to the ED and staffed by a dedicated licensed independent practitioner and nurses during business hours. During COVID-19 infection surges, hours were extended to include evenings and weekends to decrease ED exposure of stable but symptomatic patients seeking testing. If patients were felt to require more care, they were referred to the ED.

Patients with specific symptoms noted during triage, such as those associated with COVID-19 diagnosis, respiratory infections, fever, and/or myalgias, were isolated in their own patient room. Electronic tablets were used for persons under investigation and patients with COVID-19 to communicate with family and/or medical staff who did not need to enter the patient’s room. Two-hour disinfection protocols were instituted for high-risk patients who were moved during the course of their treatment (ie, transfer to another bed for admission or discharge). All staff was specifically trained in personal protective equipment (PPE) donning and doffing, and 2-physician airway teams were implemented to ensure proper PPE use and safe COVID-19 intubations.

COVID-19 Infections

Electronic health records of patients who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not related to COVID-19 were reviewed from June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, to determine whether these patients had an increased incidence of confirmed COVID-19 infection within 21 days of the index ED visit. Patients with upper respiratory infection symptoms, such as cough, fever, chills, sore throat, changes to taste or smell, or a confirmed COVID-19 infection on the initial visit were excluded. Patients were considered to have had an ED-acquired COVID-19 infection if they had a positive test within 21 days of visiting the ED for a symptom not related to COVID-19. We report the overall average positivity rate by month of COVID-19 infections 21 days post-ED visit for visits for symptoms not related to COVID-19. 

A total of 8708 patients who came to the ED with symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection and had a COVID-19 test within 21 days of the ED visit met the inclusion criteria. The overall average positivity rate at the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection was 1.1% from June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. The positivity rate by month ranged from 0% to 6.7% for this period (Figure).

Discussion 

Implementing COVID-19 mitigation measures in the VAGLAHS ED helped minimize exposure and subsequent infection of COVID-19 for veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED with symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection. Contextualizing this with the overall average monthly positivity rate of veterans in the VAGLAHS catchment area (10.9%) or Los Angeles County (7.9%) between June 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 infection were less likely to test positive for COVID-19 within 21 days (1.1%), suggesting that the extensive measures taken at the VAGLAHS ED were effective.⁸

Many health care systems in the US and abroad have experimented with different transmission mitigation strategies in the ED. These tactics have included careful resource allocation when PPE shortages occur, incorporation of airway teams with appropriate safety measures to reduce nosocomial spread to health care workers, and use of a cohorting plan to separate persons under investigation and patients with COVID-19 from other patients.^9-15 Additionally, forward screening areas were incorporated similar to the COVID-19 tent that was instituted at the VAGLAHS ED to manage patients who were referred to the ED for COVID-19 testing during the beginning of the pandemic, which prevented symptomatic patients from congregating with asymptomatic patients.^14,15

Encouragingly, some of these studies reported no cases of nosocomial transmission in the ED.^11,13 In a separate study, 14 clusters of COVID-19 cases were identified at one VA health care system in which nosocomial transmission was suspected, including one in the ED.¹⁶ Using contact tracing, no patients and 9 employees were found to have contracted COVID-19 in that cluster. Overall, among all clusters examined within the health care system, either by contact tracing or by whole-genome sequencing, the authors found that transmission from health care personnel to patients was rare. Despite different methodologies, we also similarly found that ED patients in our VA facility were unlikely to become infected with COVID-19.

While the low incidence of positive COVID-19 tests cannot be attributed to any one method, our data provide a working blueprint for enhanced ED precautions in future surges of COVID-19 or other airborne diseases, including that of future pandemics.

Limitations

Notably, although the VA is the largest health care system in the US, a considerable number of veterans may present to non-VA EDs to seek care, and thus their data are not included here; these veterans may live farther from a VA facility or experience higher barriers to care than veterans who exclusively or almost exclusively seek care within the VA. As a result, we are unable to account for COVID-19 tests completed outside the VA. Moreover, the wild type SARS-CoV-2 virus was dominant during the time frame chosen for this assessment, and data may not be generalizable to other variants (eg, omicron) that are known to be more highly transmissible.¹⁷ Lastly, although our observation was performed at a single VA ED and may not apply to other facilities, especially in light of different mitigation strategies, our findings still provide support for approaches to minimizing patient and staff exposure to COVID-19 in ED settings.

Conclusions

Implementation of COVID-19 mitigation measures in the VAGLAHS ED may have minimized exposure to COVID-19 for veterans who visited the VAGLAHS ED for symptoms not associated with COVID-19 and did not put one at higher risk of contracting COVID-19. Taken together, our data suggest that patients should not avoid seeking emergency care out of fear of contracting COVID-19 if EDs have adequately instituted mitigation techniques.

Days or weeks before a scheduled surgical or invasive procedure involving anesthesia, evaluations are conducted to assess a patient’s condition and risk, optimize their status, and prepare them for their procedure. A comprehensive pre-anesthesia evaluation visit includes a history of present illness, the evaluation of comorbidities and medication use, the assessment of health habits such as alcohol and tobacco use, functional capacity and nutritional assessments, and the identification of social support deficiencies that may influence recovery. It also includes a focused physical examination and laboratory and other ancillary testing as needed and may include optimization interventions such as anemia management or prehabilitation. Conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations before surgery has been shown to reduce delays and cancellations, unnecessary preprocedure testing, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality.^1-4

The pre-anesthesia evaluation is usually conducted in person, although other modalities have been in use for several years and have accelerated since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, audio-only telephone visits are used in many settings to conduct abbreviated forms of a pre-anesthesia evaluation, typically for less-invasive procedures. When patients are evaluated over the telephone, the physical examination and testing are deferred until the day of the procedure. Another modality is the use of synchronous video telehealth. Emerging evidence for the use of video-based care in anesthesiology provides encouraging results. Several institutions have proven the technological feasibility of performing preoperative evaluations via video.^5,6 Compared with in-person evaluations, these visits seem to have similar surgery cancellation rates, improved patient satisfaction, and reduced wait times and costs.^7-9

As part of a quality improvement project, we studied the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). An internal review found overall low utilization of these modalities before the COVID-19 pandemic that accelerated toward telehealth during the pandemic: The largest uptake was with telephone visits. Given the increasing adoption of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations and the marked preference for telephone over video modalities among VA practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to understand the barriers and facilitators to the adoption of telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits within the VA.

Methods

Our objective was to assess health care practitioners’ (HCPs) preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities (in-person, telephone, or video), and the perceived advantages and barriers to adoption for each modality. We followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline and Checklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (CHAMP) statement.^10,11 The survey was deemed a quality improvement activity that was exempt from institutional review board oversight by the VA National Anesthesia Program Office and the VA Office of Connected Care.

A survey was distributed to all VA anesthesiology service chiefs via email between April 27, 2022, and May 3, 2022. Three emails were sent to each participant (initial invitation and 2 reminders). The respondents were asked to identify themselves by facility and role and to indicate whether their anesthesiology service performed any pre-anesthesia evaluations, including any telephone- or video-based evaluations; and whether their service has a dedicated pre-anesthesia evaluation clinic.

A second set of questions referred to the use of telephone- and video-based preprocedure evaluations. The questions were based on branch logic and depended on the respondent’s answers concerning their use of telephone- and video-based evaluations. Questions included statements about perceived barriers to the adoption of these pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, (completely disagree [1] to completely agree [5]). A third section measured acceptability and feasibility of video using the validated Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM)questionnaires.¹² These instruments are 4-item measures of implementation outcomes that are often considered indicators of implementation success.¹³Acceptability is the perception among implementation stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory. Feasibility is defined as the extent to which a new treatment or an innovation can be successfully used or carried out within a given agency or setting.¹³ The criterion for acceptability is personal, meaning that different HCPs may have differing needs, preferences, and expectations regarding the same intervention. The criterion for feasibility is practical. An intervention may be considered to be feasible if the required tasks can be performed easily or conveniently. Finally, 2 open-ended questions allowed respondents to identify the most important factor that allowed the implementation of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations in their service, and provide comments about the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations at the VA. All questions were developed by the authors except for the 2 implementation measure instruments.

The survey was administered using an electronic survey platform (Qualtrics, version April 2022) and sent by email alongside a brief introductory video. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, as no personal information was collected. Responses were attributed to each facility, using the self-declared affiliation. When an affiliation was not provided, we deduced it using the latitude/longitude of the respondent, a feature included in the survey software. No incentives were provided. Data were stored and maintained in a secure VA server. All completed surveys were included. Some facilities had > 1 complete response, and all were included. Facilities that provided > 1 response and where responses were discordant, we clarified with the facility service chief. Incomplete responses were excluded from the analysis.

Statistics

For this analysis, the 2 positive sentiment responses (agree and completely agree) and the 2 negative sentiment responses (disagree and completely disagree) in the Likert scale were collapsed into single categories (good and poor, respectively). The neither agree nor disagree responses were coded as neutral. Our analysis began with a visual exploration of all variables to evaluate the frequency, percentage, and near-zero variance for categorical variables.¹⁴ Near-zero variance occurs when a categorical variable has a low frequency of unique values over the sample size (ie, the variable is almost constant), and we addressed it by combining different variable categorizations. We handled missing values through imputation algorithms followed by sensitivity analyses to verify whether our results were stable with and without imputation. We performed comparisons for the exploratory analysis using P values for one-way analysis of variance tests for numeric variables and χ²tests for categorical variables. We considered P values < .05 to be statistically significant. We also used correlation matrices and plots as exploratory analysis tools to better understand all items’ correlations. We used Pearson, polychoric, and polyserial correlation tests as appropriate for numeric, ordinal, and logical items.

Our modeling strategy involved a series of generalized linear models (GLMs) with a Gaussian family, ie, multiple linear regression models, to assess the association between (1) facilities’ preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities; (2) advantages between modalities; and (3) barriers to the adoption of telehealth and the ability to perform different pre-anesthesia evaluation-related tasks. In addition, we used backward deletion to reach the most parsimonious model based on a series of likelihood-ratio tests comparing nested models. Results are reported as predicted means with 95% confidence intervals, with results being interpreted as significant when any 2 predicted means do not overlap between different estimates along with P for trends < .001. We performed all analyses using the R language.¹⁵

Results

Of 109 surveyed facilities, 50 (46%) responded to the survey. The final study sample included 67 responses, and 55 were included in the analysis. Twelve responses were excluded from the analysis as they were either incomplete or test responses. Three facilities had > 1 complete response (2 facilities had 2 responses and 1 facility had 4 responses), and these were all included in the analysis.

Thirty-six locations were complex inpatient facilities, and 32 (89%) had pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics (Table 1).

Discussion

We surveyed 109 anesthesiology services across the VA regarding barriers to implementing telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits. We found that 12 (23%) of the 50 anesthesiology services responding to this survey still conduct the totality of their pre-anesthesia evaluations in person. This represents an opportunity to further disseminate the appropriate use of telehealth and potentially reduce travel time, costs, and low-value testing, as it is well established that remote pre-anesthesia evaluations for low-risk procedures are safe and effective.⁶

We also found no difference between telephone and video regarding users’ perceived ability to perform any of the basic pre-anesthesia evaluation tasks except for assessing patients’ nutritional status, which was rated as easier using video than telephone. According to those not using telephone and/or video, the biggest barriers to implementation of telehealth visits were the inability to obtain vital signs and to perform a physical examination. This finding was unexpected, as facilities that conduct remote evaluations typically defer these tasks to the day of surgery, a practice that has been well established and shown to be safe and efficient. Respondents also identified patient-level factors (eg, patient preference, lack of telephone or computer) as significant barriers. Finally, feasibility ratings were higher than acceptability ratings with regards to the implementation of telehealth.

In 2004, the first use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations was reported by Wong and colleagues.¹⁶ Since then, several case series and a literature review have documented the efficacy, safety, and patient and HCP satisfaction with the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations. A study by Mullen-Fortino and colleagues showed reduced visit times when telehealth was used for pre-anesthesia evaluation.⁸ Another study at VA hospitals showed that 88% of veterans reported that telemedicine saved them time and money.¹⁷ A report of 35 patients in rural Australia reported 98% satisfaction with the video quality of the visit, 95% perceived efficacy, and 87% preference for telehealth compared with driving to be seen in person.¹⁸ These reports conflict with the perceptions of the respondents of our survey, who identified patient preference as an important barrier to adoption of telehealth. Given these findings, research is needed on veterans’ perceptions on the use of telehealth modalities for pre-anesthesia evaluations; if their perceptions are similarly favorable, it will be important to communicate this information to HCPs and leadership, which may help increase subsequent telehealth adoption.

Despite the reported safety, efficacy, and high satisfaction of video visits among anesthesiology teams conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations, its use remains low at VA. We have found that most facilities in the VA system chose telephone platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. One possibility is that the adoption of video modalities among pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics in the VA system is resource intensive or difficult from the HCP’s perspective. When combined with the lack of perceived advantages over telephone as we found in our survey, most practitioners resort to the technologically less demanding and more familiar telephone platform. The results from FIM and AIM support this. While both telephone and video have high feasibility scores, acceptability scores are lower for video, even among those currently using this technology. Our findings do not rule out the utility of video-based care in perioperative medicine. Rather than a yes/no proposition, future studies need to establish the precise indications for video for pre-anesthesia evaluations; that is, situations where video visits offer an advantage over telephone. For example, video could be used to deliver preoperative optimization therapies, such as supervised exercise or mental health interventions or to guide the achievement of certain milestones before surgery in patients with chronic conditions, such as target glucose values or the treatment of anemia. Future studies should explore the perceived benefits of video over telephone among centers offering these more advanced optimization interventions.

Limitations

We received responses from a subset of VA anesthesiology services; therefore, they may not be representative of the entire VA system. Facilities designated by the VA as inpatient complex were overrepresented (72% of our sample vs 50% of the total facilities nationally), and ambulatory centers (those designed by the VA as ambulatory procedural center with basic or advanced capabilities) were underrepresented (2% of our sample vs 22% nationally). Despite this, the response rate was high, and no geographic area appeared to be underrepresented. In addition, we surveyed pre-anesthesia evaluation facilities led by anesthesiologists, and the results may not be representative of the preferences of HCPs working in nonanesthesiology led pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics. Finally, just 11 facilities used both telephone and video; therefore, a true direct comparison between these 2 platforms was limited. The VA serves a unique patient population, and the findings may not be completely applicable to the non-VA population.

Conclusions

We found no significant perceived advantages of video over telephone in the ability to conduct routine pre-anesthesia evaluations among a sample of anesthesiology HCPs in the VA except for the perceived ability to assess nutritional status. HCPs with no telehealth experience cited the inability to perform a physical examination and obtain vital signs as the most significant barriers to implementation. Respondents not using telephone cited concerns about safety. Video visits in this clinical setting had additional perceived barriers to implementation, such as lack of information technology and staff support and patient-level barriers. Video had lower acceptability by HCPs. Given findings that pre-anesthesia evaluations can be conducted effectively via telehealth and have high levels of patient satisfaction, future work should focus on increasing uptake of these remote modalities. Additionally, research on the most appropriate uses of video visits within perioperative care is also needed.

Days or weeks before a scheduled surgical or invasive procedure involving anesthesia, evaluations are conducted to assess a patient’s condition and risk, optimize their status, and prepare them for their procedure. A comprehensive pre-anesthesia evaluation visit includes a history of present illness, the evaluation of comorbidities and medication use, the assessment of health habits such as alcohol and tobacco use, functional capacity and nutritional assessments, and the identification of social support deficiencies that may influence recovery. It also includes a focused physical examination and laboratory and other ancillary testing as needed and may include optimization interventions such as anemia management or prehabilitation. Conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations before surgery has been shown to reduce delays and cancellations, unnecessary preprocedure testing, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality.^1-4

The pre-anesthesia evaluation is usually conducted in person, although other modalities have been in use for several years and have accelerated since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, audio-only telephone visits are used in many settings to conduct abbreviated forms of a pre-anesthesia evaluation, typically for less-invasive procedures. When patients are evaluated over the telephone, the physical examination and testing are deferred until the day of the procedure. Another modality is the use of synchronous video telehealth. Emerging evidence for the use of video-based care in anesthesiology provides encouraging results. Several institutions have proven the technological feasibility of performing preoperative evaluations via video.^5,6 Compared with in-person evaluations, these visits seem to have similar surgery cancellation rates, improved patient satisfaction, and reduced wait times and costs.^7-9

As part of a quality improvement project, we studied the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). An internal review found overall low utilization of these modalities before the COVID-19 pandemic that accelerated toward telehealth during the pandemic: The largest uptake was with telephone visits. Given the increasing adoption of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations and the marked preference for telephone over video modalities among VA practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to understand the barriers and facilitators to the adoption of telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits within the VA.

Methods

Our objective was to assess health care practitioners’ (HCPs) preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities (in-person, telephone, or video), and the perceived advantages and barriers to adoption for each modality. We followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline and Checklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (CHAMP) statement.^10,11 The survey was deemed a quality improvement activity that was exempt from institutional review board oversight by the VA National Anesthesia Program Office and the VA Office of Connected Care.

A survey was distributed to all VA anesthesiology service chiefs via email between April 27, 2022, and May 3, 2022. Three emails were sent to each participant (initial invitation and 2 reminders). The respondents were asked to identify themselves by facility and role and to indicate whether their anesthesiology service performed any pre-anesthesia evaluations, including any telephone- or video-based evaluations; and whether their service has a dedicated pre-anesthesia evaluation clinic.

A second set of questions referred to the use of telephone- and video-based preprocedure evaluations. The questions were based on branch logic and depended on the respondent’s answers concerning their use of telephone- and video-based evaluations. Questions included statements about perceived barriers to the adoption of these pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, (completely disagree [1] to completely agree [5]). A third section measured acceptability and feasibility of video using the validated Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM)questionnaires.¹² These instruments are 4-item measures of implementation outcomes that are often considered indicators of implementation success.¹³Acceptability is the perception among implementation stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory. Feasibility is defined as the extent to which a new treatment or an innovation can be successfully used or carried out within a given agency or setting.¹³ The criterion for acceptability is personal, meaning that different HCPs may have differing needs, preferences, and expectations regarding the same intervention. The criterion for feasibility is practical. An intervention may be considered to be feasible if the required tasks can be performed easily or conveniently. Finally, 2 open-ended questions allowed respondents to identify the most important factor that allowed the implementation of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations in their service, and provide comments about the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations at the VA. All questions were developed by the authors except for the 2 implementation measure instruments.

The survey was administered using an electronic survey platform (Qualtrics, version April 2022) and sent by email alongside a brief introductory video. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, as no personal information was collected. Responses were attributed to each facility, using the self-declared affiliation. When an affiliation was not provided, we deduced it using the latitude/longitude of the respondent, a feature included in the survey software. No incentives were provided. Data were stored and maintained in a secure VA server. All completed surveys were included. Some facilities had > 1 complete response, and all were included. Facilities that provided > 1 response and where responses were discordant, we clarified with the facility service chief. Incomplete responses were excluded from the analysis.

Statistics

For this analysis, the 2 positive sentiment responses (agree and completely agree) and the 2 negative sentiment responses (disagree and completely disagree) in the Likert scale were collapsed into single categories (good and poor, respectively). The neither agree nor disagree responses were coded as neutral. Our analysis began with a visual exploration of all variables to evaluate the frequency, percentage, and near-zero variance for categorical variables.¹⁴ Near-zero variance occurs when a categorical variable has a low frequency of unique values over the sample size (ie, the variable is almost constant), and we addressed it by combining different variable categorizations. We handled missing values through imputation algorithms followed by sensitivity analyses to verify whether our results were stable with and without imputation. We performed comparisons for the exploratory analysis using P values for one-way analysis of variance tests for numeric variables and χ²tests for categorical variables. We considered P values < .05 to be statistically significant. We also used correlation matrices and plots as exploratory analysis tools to better understand all items’ correlations. We used Pearson, polychoric, and polyserial correlation tests as appropriate for numeric, ordinal, and logical items.

Our modeling strategy involved a series of generalized linear models (GLMs) with a Gaussian family, ie, multiple linear regression models, to assess the association between (1) facilities’ preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities; (2) advantages between modalities; and (3) barriers to the adoption of telehealth and the ability to perform different pre-anesthesia evaluation-related tasks. In addition, we used backward deletion to reach the most parsimonious model based on a series of likelihood-ratio tests comparing nested models. Results are reported as predicted means with 95% confidence intervals, with results being interpreted as significant when any 2 predicted means do not overlap between different estimates along with P for trends < .001. We performed all analyses using the R language.¹⁵

Results

Of 109 surveyed facilities, 50 (46%) responded to the survey. The final study sample included 67 responses, and 55 were included in the analysis. Twelve responses were excluded from the analysis as they were either incomplete or test responses. Three facilities had > 1 complete response (2 facilities had 2 responses and 1 facility had 4 responses), and these were all included in the analysis.

Thirty-six locations were complex inpatient facilities, and 32 (89%) had pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics (Table 1).

Discussion

We surveyed 109 anesthesiology services across the VA regarding barriers to implementing telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits. We found that 12 (23%) of the 50 anesthesiology services responding to this survey still conduct the totality of their pre-anesthesia evaluations in person. This represents an opportunity to further disseminate the appropriate use of telehealth and potentially reduce travel time, costs, and low-value testing, as it is well established that remote pre-anesthesia evaluations for low-risk procedures are safe and effective.⁶

We also found no difference between telephone and video regarding users’ perceived ability to perform any of the basic pre-anesthesia evaluation tasks except for assessing patients’ nutritional status, which was rated as easier using video than telephone. According to those not using telephone and/or video, the biggest barriers to implementation of telehealth visits were the inability to obtain vital signs and to perform a physical examination. This finding was unexpected, as facilities that conduct remote evaluations typically defer these tasks to the day of surgery, a practice that has been well established and shown to be safe and efficient. Respondents also identified patient-level factors (eg, patient preference, lack of telephone or computer) as significant barriers. Finally, feasibility ratings were higher than acceptability ratings with regards to the implementation of telehealth.

In 2004, the first use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations was reported by Wong and colleagues.¹⁶ Since then, several case series and a literature review have documented the efficacy, safety, and patient and HCP satisfaction with the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations. A study by Mullen-Fortino and colleagues showed reduced visit times when telehealth was used for pre-anesthesia evaluation.⁸ Another study at VA hospitals showed that 88% of veterans reported that telemedicine saved them time and money.¹⁷ A report of 35 patients in rural Australia reported 98% satisfaction with the video quality of the visit, 95% perceived efficacy, and 87% preference for telehealth compared with driving to be seen in person.¹⁸ These reports conflict with the perceptions of the respondents of our survey, who identified patient preference as an important barrier to adoption of telehealth. Given these findings, research is needed on veterans’ perceptions on the use of telehealth modalities for pre-anesthesia evaluations; if their perceptions are similarly favorable, it will be important to communicate this information to HCPs and leadership, which may help increase subsequent telehealth adoption.

Despite the reported safety, efficacy, and high satisfaction of video visits among anesthesiology teams conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations, its use remains low at VA. We have found that most facilities in the VA system chose telephone platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. One possibility is that the adoption of video modalities among pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics in the VA system is resource intensive or difficult from the HCP’s perspective. When combined with the lack of perceived advantages over telephone as we found in our survey, most practitioners resort to the technologically less demanding and more familiar telephone platform. The results from FIM and AIM support this. While both telephone and video have high feasibility scores, acceptability scores are lower for video, even among those currently using this technology. Our findings do not rule out the utility of video-based care in perioperative medicine. Rather than a yes/no proposition, future studies need to establish the precise indications for video for pre-anesthesia evaluations; that is, situations where video visits offer an advantage over telephone. For example, video could be used to deliver preoperative optimization therapies, such as supervised exercise or mental health interventions or to guide the achievement of certain milestones before surgery in patients with chronic conditions, such as target glucose values or the treatment of anemia. Future studies should explore the perceived benefits of video over telephone among centers offering these more advanced optimization interventions.

Limitations

We received responses from a subset of VA anesthesiology services; therefore, they may not be representative of the entire VA system. Facilities designated by the VA as inpatient complex were overrepresented (72% of our sample vs 50% of the total facilities nationally), and ambulatory centers (those designed by the VA as ambulatory procedural center with basic or advanced capabilities) were underrepresented (2% of our sample vs 22% nationally). Despite this, the response rate was high, and no geographic area appeared to be underrepresented. In addition, we surveyed pre-anesthesia evaluation facilities led by anesthesiologists, and the results may not be representative of the preferences of HCPs working in nonanesthesiology led pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics. Finally, just 11 facilities used both telephone and video; therefore, a true direct comparison between these 2 platforms was limited. The VA serves a unique patient population, and the findings may not be completely applicable to the non-VA population.

Conclusions

We found no significant perceived advantages of video over telephone in the ability to conduct routine pre-anesthesia evaluations among a sample of anesthesiology HCPs in the VA except for the perceived ability to assess nutritional status. HCPs with no telehealth experience cited the inability to perform a physical examination and obtain vital signs as the most significant barriers to implementation. Respondents not using telephone cited concerns about safety. Video visits in this clinical setting had additional perceived barriers to implementation, such as lack of information technology and staff support and patient-level barriers. Video had lower acceptability by HCPs. Given findings that pre-anesthesia evaluations can be conducted effectively via telehealth and have high levels of patient satisfaction, future work should focus on increasing uptake of these remote modalities. Additionally, research on the most appropriate uses of video visits within perioperative care is also needed.

Days or weeks before a scheduled surgical or invasive procedure involving anesthesia, evaluations are conducted to assess a patient’s condition and risk, optimize their status, and prepare them for their procedure. A comprehensive pre-anesthesia evaluation visit includes a history of present illness, the evaluation of comorbidities and medication use, the assessment of health habits such as alcohol and tobacco use, functional capacity and nutritional assessments, and the identification of social support deficiencies that may influence recovery. It also includes a focused physical examination and laboratory and other ancillary testing as needed and may include optimization interventions such as anemia management or prehabilitation. Conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations before surgery has been shown to reduce delays and cancellations, unnecessary preprocedure testing, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality.^1-4

The pre-anesthesia evaluation is usually conducted in person, although other modalities have been in use for several years and have accelerated since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, audio-only telephone visits are used in many settings to conduct abbreviated forms of a pre-anesthesia evaluation, typically for less-invasive procedures. When patients are evaluated over the telephone, the physical examination and testing are deferred until the day of the procedure. Another modality is the use of synchronous video telehealth. Emerging evidence for the use of video-based care in anesthesiology provides encouraging results. Several institutions have proven the technological feasibility of performing preoperative evaluations via video.^5,6 Compared with in-person evaluations, these visits seem to have similar surgery cancellation rates, improved patient satisfaction, and reduced wait times and costs.^7-9

As part of a quality improvement project, we studied the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). An internal review found overall low utilization of these modalities before the COVID-19 pandemic that accelerated toward telehealth during the pandemic: The largest uptake was with telephone visits. Given the increasing adoption of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations and the marked preference for telephone over video modalities among VA practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to understand the barriers and facilitators to the adoption of telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits within the VA.

Methods

Our objective was to assess health care practitioners’ (HCPs) preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities (in-person, telephone, or video), and the perceived advantages and barriers to adoption for each modality. We followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline and Checklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (CHAMP) statement.^10,11 The survey was deemed a quality improvement activity that was exempt from institutional review board oversight by the VA National Anesthesia Program Office and the VA Office of Connected Care.

A survey was distributed to all VA anesthesiology service chiefs via email between April 27, 2022, and May 3, 2022. Three emails were sent to each participant (initial invitation and 2 reminders). The respondents were asked to identify themselves by facility and role and to indicate whether their anesthesiology service performed any pre-anesthesia evaluations, including any telephone- or video-based evaluations; and whether their service has a dedicated pre-anesthesia evaluation clinic.

A second set of questions referred to the use of telephone- and video-based preprocedure evaluations. The questions were based on branch logic and depended on the respondent’s answers concerning their use of telephone- and video-based evaluations. Questions included statements about perceived barriers to the adoption of these pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, (completely disagree [1] to completely agree [5]). A third section measured acceptability and feasibility of video using the validated Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM)questionnaires.¹² These instruments are 4-item measures of implementation outcomes that are often considered indicators of implementation success.¹³Acceptability is the perception among implementation stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory. Feasibility is defined as the extent to which a new treatment or an innovation can be successfully used or carried out within a given agency or setting.¹³ The criterion for acceptability is personal, meaning that different HCPs may have differing needs, preferences, and expectations regarding the same intervention. The criterion for feasibility is practical. An intervention may be considered to be feasible if the required tasks can be performed easily or conveniently. Finally, 2 open-ended questions allowed respondents to identify the most important factor that allowed the implementation of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations in their service, and provide comments about the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations at the VA. All questions were developed by the authors except for the 2 implementation measure instruments.

The survey was administered using an electronic survey platform (Qualtrics, version April 2022) and sent by email alongside a brief introductory video. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, as no personal information was collected. Responses were attributed to each facility, using the self-declared affiliation. When an affiliation was not provided, we deduced it using the latitude/longitude of the respondent, a feature included in the survey software. No incentives were provided. Data were stored and maintained in a secure VA server. All completed surveys were included. Some facilities had > 1 complete response, and all were included. Facilities that provided > 1 response and where responses were discordant, we clarified with the facility service chief. Incomplete responses were excluded from the analysis.

Statistics

For this analysis, the 2 positive sentiment responses (agree and completely agree) and the 2 negative sentiment responses (disagree and completely disagree) in the Likert scale were collapsed into single categories (good and poor, respectively). The neither agree nor disagree responses were coded as neutral. Our analysis began with a visual exploration of all variables to evaluate the frequency, percentage, and near-zero variance for categorical variables.¹⁴ Near-zero variance occurs when a categorical variable has a low frequency of unique values over the sample size (ie, the variable is almost constant), and we addressed it by combining different variable categorizations. We handled missing values through imputation algorithms followed by sensitivity analyses to verify whether our results were stable with and without imputation. We performed comparisons for the exploratory analysis using P values for one-way analysis of variance tests for numeric variables and χ²tests for categorical variables. We considered P values < .05 to be statistically significant. We also used correlation matrices and plots as exploratory analysis tools to better understand all items’ correlations. We used Pearson, polychoric, and polyserial correlation tests as appropriate for numeric, ordinal, and logical items.

Our modeling strategy involved a series of generalized linear models (GLMs) with a Gaussian family, ie, multiple linear regression models, to assess the association between (1) facilities’ preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities; (2) advantages between modalities; and (3) barriers to the adoption of telehealth and the ability to perform different pre-anesthesia evaluation-related tasks. In addition, we used backward deletion to reach the most parsimonious model based on a series of likelihood-ratio tests comparing nested models. Results are reported as predicted means with 95% confidence intervals, with results being interpreted as significant when any 2 predicted means do not overlap between different estimates along with P for trends < .001. We performed all analyses using the R language.¹⁵

Results

Of 109 surveyed facilities, 50 (46%) responded to the survey. The final study sample included 67 responses, and 55 were included in the analysis. Twelve responses were excluded from the analysis as they were either incomplete or test responses. Three facilities had > 1 complete response (2 facilities had 2 responses and 1 facility had 4 responses), and these were all included in the analysis.

Thirty-six locations were complex inpatient facilities, and 32 (89%) had pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics (Table 1).

Discussion

We surveyed 109 anesthesiology services across the VA regarding barriers to implementing telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits. We found that 12 (23%) of the 50 anesthesiology services responding to this survey still conduct the totality of their pre-anesthesia evaluations in person. This represents an opportunity to further disseminate the appropriate use of telehealth and potentially reduce travel time, costs, and low-value testing, as it is well established that remote pre-anesthesia evaluations for low-risk procedures are safe and effective.⁶

We also found no difference between telephone and video regarding users’ perceived ability to perform any of the basic pre-anesthesia evaluation tasks except for assessing patients’ nutritional status, which was rated as easier using video than telephone. According to those not using telephone and/or video, the biggest barriers to implementation of telehealth visits were the inability to obtain vital signs and to perform a physical examination. This finding was unexpected, as facilities that conduct remote evaluations typically defer these tasks to the day of surgery, a practice that has been well established and shown to be safe and efficient. Respondents also identified patient-level factors (eg, patient preference, lack of telephone or computer) as significant barriers. Finally, feasibility ratings were higher than acceptability ratings with regards to the implementation of telehealth.

In 2004, the first use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations was reported by Wong and colleagues.¹⁶ Since then, several case series and a literature review have documented the efficacy, safety, and patient and HCP satisfaction with the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations. A study by Mullen-Fortino and colleagues showed reduced visit times when telehealth was used for pre-anesthesia evaluation.⁸ Another study at VA hospitals showed that 88% of veterans reported that telemedicine saved them time and money.¹⁷ A report of 35 patients in rural Australia reported 98% satisfaction with the video quality of the visit, 95% perceived efficacy, and 87% preference for telehealth compared with driving to be seen in person.¹⁸ These reports conflict with the perceptions of the respondents of our survey, who identified patient preference as an important barrier to adoption of telehealth. Given these findings, research is needed on veterans’ perceptions on the use of telehealth modalities for pre-anesthesia evaluations; if their perceptions are similarly favorable, it will be important to communicate this information to HCPs and leadership, which may help increase subsequent telehealth adoption.

Despite the reported safety, efficacy, and high satisfaction of video visits among anesthesiology teams conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations, its use remains low at VA. We have found that most facilities in the VA system chose telephone platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. One possibility is that the adoption of video modalities among pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics in the VA system is resource intensive or difficult from the HCP’s perspective. When combined with the lack of perceived advantages over telephone as we found in our survey, most practitioners resort to the technologically less demanding and more familiar telephone platform. The results from FIM and AIM support this. While both telephone and video have high feasibility scores, acceptability scores are lower for video, even among those currently using this technology. Our findings do not rule out the utility of video-based care in perioperative medicine. Rather than a yes/no proposition, future studies need to establish the precise indications for video for pre-anesthesia evaluations; that is, situations where video visits offer an advantage over telephone. For example, video could be used to deliver preoperative optimization therapies, such as supervised exercise or mental health interventions or to guide the achievement of certain milestones before surgery in patients with chronic conditions, such as target glucose values or the treatment of anemia. Future studies should explore the perceived benefits of video over telephone among centers offering these more advanced optimization interventions.

Limitations

We received responses from a subset of VA anesthesiology services; therefore, they may not be representative of the entire VA system. Facilities designated by the VA as inpatient complex were overrepresented (72% of our sample vs 50% of the total facilities nationally), and ambulatory centers (those designed by the VA as ambulatory procedural center with basic or advanced capabilities) were underrepresented (2% of our sample vs 22% nationally). Despite this, the response rate was high, and no geographic area appeared to be underrepresented. In addition, we surveyed pre-anesthesia evaluation facilities led by anesthesiologists, and the results may not be representative of the preferences of HCPs working in nonanesthesiology led pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics. Finally, just 11 facilities used both telephone and video; therefore, a true direct comparison between these 2 platforms was limited. The VA serves a unique patient population, and the findings may not be completely applicable to the non-VA population.

Conclusions

We found no significant perceived advantages of video over telephone in the ability to conduct routine pre-anesthesia evaluations among a sample of anesthesiology HCPs in the VA except for the perceived ability to assess nutritional status. HCPs with no telehealth experience cited the inability to perform a physical examination and obtain vital signs as the most significant barriers to implementation. Respondents not using telephone cited concerns about safety. Video visits in this clinical setting had additional perceived barriers to implementation, such as lack of information technology and staff support and patient-level barriers. Video had lower acceptability by HCPs. Given findings that pre-anesthesia evaluations can be conducted effectively via telehealth and have high levels of patient satisfaction, future work should focus on increasing uptake of these remote modalities. Additionally, research on the most appropriate uses of video visits within perioperative care is also needed.

My first wish is to see this plague to Mankind, war, banished from the Earth; & the Sons and daughters of this World employed in more pleasing & innocent amusements than in preparing implements, & exercising them for the destruction of the human race.

General George Washington¹

When I was a child, every Fourth of July holiday my father would take me to the military fireworks display at Fort Sam Houston in Texas. We would take our place in the long cascade of cars parked at the huge parade ground in front of Brooke Army Medical Center. It was the most spectacular display of the year not to be found anywhere else in the city. Army fire engines and medics were always on site in case anything went wrong, which rarely occurred thanks to the pyrotechnic experts who ran the display.

Later, when I began my psychiatric residency at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New Mexico Healthcare System, I quickly learned a darker truth about fireworks. What seemed to me and many other civilians in General Washington’s words, a “pleasing and innocent amusement,” instead was a distressing and terrifying revisiting of trauma for many service members and veterans, likely including my father, who was a World War II combat veteran.

Fireworks are so closely linked to the birth of our young nation that we often forget they were invented in China a millennia ago. Fireworks were first associated with the fledgling nation in the middle of the War of Independence. On July 4, 1776, representatives of the 13 colonies signed the Declaration of Independence. In one of several ironies of history, what was used at the initial commemorations was not fireworks but the very “implements of destruction,” to use Washington’s phrase—guns and cannons. The demonstrations of firepower were meant to be morale boosters. After the war, the dangers of the detonations were recognized, and firearms were replaced with the fireworks we still launch today.²

The country celebrates the holiday with cookouts, parades, brass band concerts, and of course fireworks. Added to the organized shows are the millions of citizens who demonstrate private patriotism by shooting off fireworks in their neighborhoods. In 2021, Americans spent $1.5 billion on fireworks, and 33% said they planned to attend a public display.³

However, people are increasingly recognizing the negative side of fireworks for wild and companion animals and the environment. Most of us who have dogs and I am sure cats, horses, and other animals dread the impending darkness of the Fourth as it signals the coming loud noise and the cringing, pacing animals who want to run yet have nowhere to go to be safe from the sound.⁴

Sitting in the clinic with veterans, I realized it was not only pets and wildlife that feared the ultimate American holiday but also the very individuals who fought to preserve the freedom those fireworks celebrate. The VA’s National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) estimates that about 7% of veterans will meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD in their lifetimes. The prevalence of PTSD differs, depending on the methodology used, era and type of services, and demographics. Some studies have found higher rates of PTSD in women, young veterans, and those who served in Vietnam. Among the veterans who receive health care at the VA, like those I saw in the clinic, 23 in 1000 may have PTSD.⁵

We, after all, are remarkably similar in physiology to other mammals, and not surprisingly, veterans with PTSD exhibit many of the same reactions to fireworks. The sights, sounds, and odor of fireworks, as well as the vocal responses of the crowd at large displays evoke memories that trigger fear and anxiety. Many veterans experience flashbacks in which they relive combat and training accidents and have nightmares of those events, interrupting sleep. The instinct of many veterans is to avoid the holiday altogether: Many patients I knew sought refuge in remote mountain campsites often to find that even there they were not safe from revelers.

Avoidance being a cardinal symptom and coping mechanism of PTSD, therapists advise other methods of managing the Fourth of July, such as distractions that are calming and people who are reassuring. Therapists often rehearse self-talk scripts and teach breathing exercises targeted to break the behavioral conditioning that links present innocuous sensory overstimulation with a past life-threatening danger. The heat of summer worsens the stress, cooling down literally and figuratively can help.⁶

Many VA medical centers send announcements to the media or have their experts do interviews to educate the public about the potentially traumatizing effects of fireworks. They also encourage veterans who are apprehensive about the holiday to seek additional mental health help, including the Veterans Crisis Line. With my patients, we started early and developed a preventive plan to manage the anticipatory apprehension and arrange a means of enduring the ordeal. I do not have data to prove it, but anecdotally I know from my years on-call that visits to VA emergency departments and admissions to our inpatient psychiatry unit always increased around Independence Day in part because some veterans used drugs and/or alcohol to dampen their stress response.

VA experts also have advice for the families and friends of veterans who want to reduce the impact of fireworks and other holiday activities on them. Many veterans will feel at once intensely present to the disturbing aspects like fireworks and crowds and at the same time, distant and separated from the more positive parts of celebrations like being with loved ones in the outdoors. We can simply ask the veterans in our lives and neighborhoods how the festivities affect them and how we can help them get through the long hot night.⁷ Yet it would not be America without some controversy, and opinions are divided even among veterans about whether yard signs that say, “Combat Veteran Lives Here Please Be Courteous With Fireworks” enhance or impede the effort to increase awareness of the connection between fireworks, veterans, and PTSD.⁸

This editorial began with my own story of enjoying fireworks to emphasize that my aim is not to ruin the fun but to ask us to think before we shoot and consider the veterans near us for whom our recreation may cause unnecessary distress. Fourth of July would not have been possible without the soldiers who fought and died in the American Revolution and all the conflicts since. We owe it to all who have worn the uniform for the United States of America to remember the extraordinary toll it has taken on their ability to live ordinary lives. Like General Washington, we should vow to end the wars that wounded them so future generations will be able to join in celebrating Independence Day.

My first wish is to see this plague to Mankind, war, banished from the Earth; & the Sons and daughters of this World employed in more pleasing & innocent amusements than in preparing implements, & exercising them for the destruction of the human race.

General George Washington¹

When I was a child, every Fourth of July holiday my father would take me to the military fireworks display at Fort Sam Houston in Texas. We would take our place in the long cascade of cars parked at the huge parade ground in front of Brooke Army Medical Center. It was the most spectacular display of the year not to be found anywhere else in the city. Army fire engines and medics were always on site in case anything went wrong, which rarely occurred thanks to the pyrotechnic experts who ran the display.

Later, when I began my psychiatric residency at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New Mexico Healthcare System, I quickly learned a darker truth about fireworks. What seemed to me and many other civilians in General Washington’s words, a “pleasing and innocent amusement,” instead was a distressing and terrifying revisiting of trauma for many service members and veterans, likely including my father, who was a World War II combat veteran.

Fireworks are so closely linked to the birth of our young nation that we often forget they were invented in China a millennia ago. Fireworks were first associated with the fledgling nation in the middle of the War of Independence. On July 4, 1776, representatives of the 13 colonies signed the Declaration of Independence. In one of several ironies of history, what was used at the initial commemorations was not fireworks but the very “implements of destruction,” to use Washington’s phrase—guns and cannons. The demonstrations of firepower were meant to be morale boosters. After the war, the dangers of the detonations were recognized, and firearms were replaced with the fireworks we still launch today.²

The country celebrates the holiday with cookouts, parades, brass band concerts, and of course fireworks. Added to the organized shows are the millions of citizens who demonstrate private patriotism by shooting off fireworks in their neighborhoods. In 2021, Americans spent $1.5 billion on fireworks, and 33% said they planned to attend a public display.³

However, people are increasingly recognizing the negative side of fireworks for wild and companion animals and the environment. Most of us who have dogs and I am sure cats, horses, and other animals dread the impending darkness of the Fourth as it signals the coming loud noise and the cringing, pacing animals who want to run yet have nowhere to go to be safe from the sound.⁴

Sitting in the clinic with veterans, I realized it was not only pets and wildlife that feared the ultimate American holiday but also the very individuals who fought to preserve the freedom those fireworks celebrate. The VA’s National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) estimates that about 7% of veterans will meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD in their lifetimes. The prevalence of PTSD differs, depending on the methodology used, era and type of services, and demographics. Some studies have found higher rates of PTSD in women, young veterans, and those who served in Vietnam. Among the veterans who receive health care at the VA, like those I saw in the clinic, 23 in 1000 may have PTSD.⁵

We, after all, are remarkably similar in physiology to other mammals, and not surprisingly, veterans with PTSD exhibit many of the same reactions to fireworks. The sights, sounds, and odor of fireworks, as well as the vocal responses of the crowd at large displays evoke memories that trigger fear and anxiety. Many veterans experience flashbacks in which they relive combat and training accidents and have nightmares of those events, interrupting sleep. The instinct of many veterans is to avoid the holiday altogether: Many patients I knew sought refuge in remote mountain campsites often to find that even there they were not safe from revelers.

Avoidance being a cardinal symptom and coping mechanism of PTSD, therapists advise other methods of managing the Fourth of July, such as distractions that are calming and people who are reassuring. Therapists often rehearse self-talk scripts and teach breathing exercises targeted to break the behavioral conditioning that links present innocuous sensory overstimulation with a past life-threatening danger. The heat of summer worsens the stress, cooling down literally and figuratively can help.⁶

Many VA medical centers send announcements to the media or have their experts do interviews to educate the public about the potentially traumatizing effects of fireworks. They also encourage veterans who are apprehensive about the holiday to seek additional mental health help, including the Veterans Crisis Line. With my patients, we started early and developed a preventive plan to manage the anticipatory apprehension and arrange a means of enduring the ordeal. I do not have data to prove it, but anecdotally I know from my years on-call that visits to VA emergency departments and admissions to our inpatient psychiatry unit always increased around Independence Day in part because some veterans used drugs and/or alcohol to dampen their stress response.

VA experts also have advice for the families and friends of veterans who want to reduce the impact of fireworks and other holiday activities on them. Many veterans will feel at once intensely present to the disturbing aspects like fireworks and crowds and at the same time, distant and separated from the more positive parts of celebrations like being with loved ones in the outdoors. We can simply ask the veterans in our lives and neighborhoods how the festivities affect them and how we can help them get through the long hot night.⁷ Yet it would not be America without some controversy, and opinions are divided even among veterans about whether yard signs that say, “Combat Veteran Lives Here Please Be Courteous With Fireworks” enhance or impede the effort to increase awareness of the connection between fireworks, veterans, and PTSD.⁸

This editorial began with my own story of enjoying fireworks to emphasize that my aim is not to ruin the fun but to ask us to think before we shoot and consider the veterans near us for whom our recreation may cause unnecessary distress. Fourth of July would not have been possible without the soldiers who fought and died in the American Revolution and all the conflicts since. We owe it to all who have worn the uniform for the United States of America to remember the extraordinary toll it has taken on their ability to live ordinary lives. Like General Washington, we should vow to end the wars that wounded them so future generations will be able to join in celebrating Independence Day.

My first wish is to see this plague to Mankind, war, banished from the Earth; & the Sons and daughters of this World employed in more pleasing & innocent amusements than in preparing implements, & exercising them for the destruction of the human race.

General George Washington¹

When I was a child, every Fourth of July holiday my father would take me to the military fireworks display at Fort Sam Houston in Texas. We would take our place in the long cascade of cars parked at the huge parade ground in front of Brooke Army Medical Center. It was the most spectacular display of the year not to be found anywhere else in the city. Army fire engines and medics were always on site in case anything went wrong, which rarely occurred thanks to the pyrotechnic experts who ran the display.

Later, when I began my psychiatric residency at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New Mexico Healthcare System, I quickly learned a darker truth about fireworks. What seemed to me and many other civilians in General Washington’s words, a “pleasing and innocent amusement,” instead was a distressing and terrifying revisiting of trauma for many service members and veterans, likely including my father, who was a World War II combat veteran.

Fireworks are so closely linked to the birth of our young nation that we often forget they were invented in China a millennia ago. Fireworks were first associated with the fledgling nation in the middle of the War of Independence. On July 4, 1776, representatives of the 13 colonies signed the Declaration of Independence. In one of several ironies of history, what was used at the initial commemorations was not fireworks but the very “implements of destruction,” to use Washington’s phrase—guns and cannons. The demonstrations of firepower were meant to be morale boosters. After the war, the dangers of the detonations were recognized, and firearms were replaced with the fireworks we still launch today.²

The country celebrates the holiday with cookouts, parades, brass band concerts, and of course fireworks. Added to the organized shows are the millions of citizens who demonstrate private patriotism by shooting off fireworks in their neighborhoods. In 2021, Americans spent $1.5 billion on fireworks, and 33% said they planned to attend a public display.³

However, people are increasingly recognizing the negative side of fireworks for wild and companion animals and the environment. Most of us who have dogs and I am sure cats, horses, and other animals dread the impending darkness of the Fourth as it signals the coming loud noise and the cringing, pacing animals who want to run yet have nowhere to go to be safe from the sound.⁴

Sitting in the clinic with veterans, I realized it was not only pets and wildlife that feared the ultimate American holiday but also the very individuals who fought to preserve the freedom those fireworks celebrate. The VA’s National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) estimates that about 7% of veterans will meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD in their lifetimes. The prevalence of PTSD differs, depending on the methodology used, era and type of services, and demographics. Some studies have found higher rates of PTSD in women, young veterans, and those who served in Vietnam. Among the veterans who receive health care at the VA, like those I saw in the clinic, 23 in 1000 may have PTSD.⁵

We, after all, are remarkably similar in physiology to other mammals, and not surprisingly, veterans with PTSD exhibit many of the same reactions to fireworks. The sights, sounds, and odor of fireworks, as well as the vocal responses of the crowd at large displays evoke memories that trigger fear and anxiety. Many veterans experience flashbacks in which they relive combat and training accidents and have nightmares of those events, interrupting sleep. The instinct of many veterans is to avoid the holiday altogether: Many patients I knew sought refuge in remote mountain campsites often to find that even there they were not safe from revelers.

Avoidance being a cardinal symptom and coping mechanism of PTSD, therapists advise other methods of managing the Fourth of July, such as distractions that are calming and people who are reassuring. Therapists often rehearse self-talk scripts and teach breathing exercises targeted to break the behavioral conditioning that links present innocuous sensory overstimulation with a past life-threatening danger. The heat of summer worsens the stress, cooling down literally and figuratively can help.⁶

Many VA medical centers send announcements to the media or have their experts do interviews to educate the public about the potentially traumatizing effects of fireworks. They also encourage veterans who are apprehensive about the holiday to seek additional mental health help, including the Veterans Crisis Line. With my patients, we started early and developed a preventive plan to manage the anticipatory apprehension and arrange a means of enduring the ordeal. I do not have data to prove it, but anecdotally I know from my years on-call that visits to VA emergency departments and admissions to our inpatient psychiatry unit always increased around Independence Day in part because some veterans used drugs and/or alcohol to dampen their stress response.

VA experts also have advice for the families and friends of veterans who want to reduce the impact of fireworks and other holiday activities on them. Many veterans will feel at once intensely present to the disturbing aspects like fireworks and crowds and at the same time, distant and separated from the more positive parts of celebrations like being with loved ones in the outdoors. We can simply ask the veterans in our lives and neighborhoods how the festivities affect them and how we can help them get through the long hot night.⁷ Yet it would not be America without some controversy, and opinions are divided even among veterans about whether yard signs that say, “Combat Veteran Lives Here Please Be Courteous With Fireworks” enhance or impede the effort to increase awareness of the connection between fireworks, veterans, and PTSD.⁸

This editorial began with my own story of enjoying fireworks to emphasize that my aim is not to ruin the fun but to ask us to think before we shoot and consider the veterans near us for whom our recreation may cause unnecessary distress. Fourth of July would not have been possible without the soldiers who fought and died in the American Revolution and all the conflicts since. We owe it to all who have worn the uniform for the United States of America to remember the extraordinary toll it has taken on their ability to live ordinary lives. Like General Washington, we should vow to end the wars that wounded them so future generations will be able to join in celebrating Independence Day.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare and often heterogenous subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Though patients can experience prolonged remissions after frontline therapy, most patients ultimately relapse. Treatment of relapsed/refractory disease can be challenging, but there have recently been a growing number of therapeutic options in this setting. Covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, for example, have demonstrated activity in patients with MCL and are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for relapsed/refractory disease. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is also an effective option for relapsed/refractory disease, though this is typically available only at select centers and is associated with toxicities, such as cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicity.

Recently, a novel BTK inhibitor, pirtobrutinib, has also been studied across NHL, including MCL (Wang et al) Pirtobrutinib is a selective, noncovalent BTK inhibitor with the ability to bind both the C481S-mutant and wild-type BTK. The multicenter, phase 1/2 BRUIN study included 90 patients with MCL who were previously treated with a covalent BTK inhibitor. Patients in the phase 1 portion of the study were treated with oral pirtobrutinib at a dose of 25-300 mg once daily, and patients in the phase 2 study were treated at the recommended dose of 200 mg once daily. The overall response rate was 57.8% (95% CI 46.9%-68.1%), with the complete response rate being 20.0%. At a median follow-up of 12 months, the median duration of response was 21.6 (95% CI 7.5 to not reached) months. Treatment-related adverse events that were grade 3 or higher were not frequent, with neutropenia (8.5%) being the most common. Of note, grade 3 or higher hemorrhage and atrial fibrillation, which can be seen with BTK inhibitors, were rare, occurring in 3.7% and 1.2% of patients, respectively. Based on the results of this study, pirtobrutinib has been approved by the FDA for patients with relapsed/refractory MCL after at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTK inhibitor. This is an appealing oral option for patients with relapsed disease.

Options for patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) have also significantly increased in recent years. One of the most important advances in this disease has been the use of anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. There are currently three FDA-approved options for patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL who have received at least two prior lines of therapy.^1-3 More recently, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) have also been approved for the second line based on the results of the ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM studies, respectively.^4,5

Longer follow-up of the ZUMA-7 trial continues to confirm the advantage of axi-cel over standard-care therapy for patients with primary refractory or early relapse of disease, now with evidence of an overall survival advantage (Westin et al). The ZUMA-7 trial included 359 adults with LBCL (refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of first-line treatment) who were randomly assigned to receive axi-cel (n = 180) or standard care (n = 179). At a median follow-up of 47.2 mo, patients receiving axi-cel vs standard care had a significantly longer median overall survival (not reached vs 31.1 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 0.73; P = .03) and an absolute improvement in overall survival (8.6 percentage points at 4 years). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the primary event-free survival analysis. These data confirm that early use of axi-cel is preferred over standard-care therapy with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation.

Another important study that was recently published looked at the role of mental health on outcomes in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (Kuczmarski et al). Though it is known that mental health disorders can decrease the quality of life of patients with cancer, there is limited information on the survival implications of these issues. A recent retrospective cohort study analyzed the data of 13,244 patients aged 67 years or older with DLBCL from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare registry, of which, 2094 patients had depression, anxiety, or both at the time of their DLBCL diagnosis. At a median follow-up of 2.0 years, patients with depression, anxiety, or both vs without any mental disorder had significantly lower 5-year overall survival rates (27.0% vs 37.4%; HR 1.37; 95% CI 1.29-1.44). They also found that those patients with preexisting depression vs without any mental disorder have the worst survival (23.4% vs 38.0%; HR 1.37; P < .0001). Though the mechanism accounting for decreased survival is not clear, the authors postulate that mental health disorders may lead to delays or interruptions in lymphoma-directed therapy. They also note the potential for increased barriers to care in patients with mental health disorders, which may result in nonadherence in this patient population. Regardless, these results highlight the importance of mental health screening and interventions in patients with DLBCL.

Additional References

1. Neelapu SS, Locke FL, Bartlett NL, et al. Axicabtagene ciloleucel CAR T-Cell therapy in refractory large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:2531-2544. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1707447
    
2. Schuster SJ, Bishop MR, Tam CS, et al; JULIET Investigators. Tisagenlecleucel in adult relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:45-56. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804980
    
3. Abramson JS, Palomba ML, Gordon LI, et al. Lisocabtagene maraleucel for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas (TRANSCEND NHL 001): A multicentre seamless design study. Lancet. 2020;396:839-852. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31366-0
    
4. Locke FL, Miklos DB, Jacobson CA, et al; All ZUMA-7 Investigators and Contributing Kite Members. Axicabtagene ciloleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:640-654. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2116133
5. Kamdar M, Solomon SR, Arnason J, et al; TRANSFORM Investigators. Lisocabtagene maraleucel versus standard of care with salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as second-line treatment in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (TRANSFORM): Results from an interim analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2022;399:2294-2308. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00662-6

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare and often heterogenous subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Though patients can experience prolonged remissions after frontline therapy, most patients ultimately relapse. Treatment of relapsed/refractory disease can be challenging, but there have recently been a growing number of therapeutic options in this setting. Covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, for example, have demonstrated activity in patients with MCL and are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for relapsed/refractory disease. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is also an effective option for relapsed/refractory disease, though this is typically available only at select centers and is associated with toxicities, such as cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicity.

Recently, a novel BTK inhibitor, pirtobrutinib, has also been studied across NHL, including MCL (Wang et al) Pirtobrutinib is a selective, noncovalent BTK inhibitor with the ability to bind both the C481S-mutant and wild-type BTK. The multicenter, phase 1/2 BRUIN study included 90 patients with MCL who were previously treated with a covalent BTK inhibitor. Patients in the phase 1 portion of the study were treated with oral pirtobrutinib at a dose of 25-300 mg once daily, and patients in the phase 2 study were treated at the recommended dose of 200 mg once daily. The overall response rate was 57.8% (95% CI 46.9%-68.1%), with the complete response rate being 20.0%. At a median follow-up of 12 months, the median duration of response was 21.6 (95% CI 7.5 to not reached) months. Treatment-related adverse events that were grade 3 or higher were not frequent, with neutropenia (8.5%) being the most common. Of note, grade 3 or higher hemorrhage and atrial fibrillation, which can be seen with BTK inhibitors, were rare, occurring in 3.7% and 1.2% of patients, respectively. Based on the results of this study, pirtobrutinib has been approved by the FDA for patients with relapsed/refractory MCL after at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTK inhibitor. This is an appealing oral option for patients with relapsed disease.

Options for patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) have also significantly increased in recent years. One of the most important advances in this disease has been the use of anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. There are currently three FDA-approved options for patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL who have received at least two prior lines of therapy.^1-3 More recently, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) have also been approved for the second line based on the results of the ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM studies, respectively.^4,5

Longer follow-up of the ZUMA-7 trial continues to confirm the advantage of axi-cel over standard-care therapy for patients with primary refractory or early relapse of disease, now with evidence of an overall survival advantage (Westin et al). The ZUMA-7 trial included 359 adults with LBCL (refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of first-line treatment) who were randomly assigned to receive axi-cel (n = 180) or standard care (n = 179). At a median follow-up of 47.2 mo, patients receiving axi-cel vs standard care had a significantly longer median overall survival (not reached vs 31.1 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 0.73; P = .03) and an absolute improvement in overall survival (8.6 percentage points at 4 years). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the primary event-free survival analysis. These data confirm that early use of axi-cel is preferred over standard-care therapy with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation.

Another important study that was recently published looked at the role of mental health on outcomes in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (Kuczmarski et al). Though it is known that mental health disorders can decrease the quality of life of patients with cancer, there is limited information on the survival implications of these issues. A recent retrospective cohort study analyzed the data of 13,244 patients aged 67 years or older with DLBCL from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare registry, of which, 2094 patients had depression, anxiety, or both at the time of their DLBCL diagnosis. At a median follow-up of 2.0 years, patients with depression, anxiety, or both vs without any mental disorder had significantly lower 5-year overall survival rates (27.0% vs 37.4%; HR 1.37; 95% CI 1.29-1.44). They also found that those patients with preexisting depression vs without any mental disorder have the worst survival (23.4% vs 38.0%; HR 1.37; P < .0001). Though the mechanism accounting for decreased survival is not clear, the authors postulate that mental health disorders may lead to delays or interruptions in lymphoma-directed therapy. They also note the potential for increased barriers to care in patients with mental health disorders, which may result in nonadherence in this patient population. Regardless, these results highlight the importance of mental health screening and interventions in patients with DLBCL.

Additional References

1. Neelapu SS, Locke FL, Bartlett NL, et al. Axicabtagene ciloleucel CAR T-Cell therapy in refractory large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:2531-2544. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1707447
    
2. Schuster SJ, Bishop MR, Tam CS, et al; JULIET Investigators. Tisagenlecleucel in adult relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:45-56. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804980
    
3. Abramson JS, Palomba ML, Gordon LI, et al. Lisocabtagene maraleucel for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas (TRANSCEND NHL 001): A multicentre seamless design study. Lancet. 2020;396:839-852. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31366-0
    
4. Locke FL, Miklos DB, Jacobson CA, et al; All ZUMA-7 Investigators and Contributing Kite Members. Axicabtagene ciloleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:640-654. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2116133
5. Kamdar M, Solomon SR, Arnason J, et al; TRANSFORM Investigators. Lisocabtagene maraleucel versus standard of care with salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as second-line treatment in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (TRANSFORM): Results from an interim analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2022;399:2294-2308. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00662-6

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare and often heterogenous subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Though patients can experience prolonged remissions after frontline therapy, most patients ultimately relapse. Treatment of relapsed/refractory disease can be challenging, but there have recently been a growing number of therapeutic options in this setting. Covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, for example, have demonstrated activity in patients with MCL and are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for relapsed/refractory disease. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is also an effective option for relapsed/refractory disease, though this is typically available only at select centers and is associated with toxicities, such as cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicity.

Recently, a novel BTK inhibitor, pirtobrutinib, has also been studied across NHL, including MCL (Wang et al) Pirtobrutinib is a selective, noncovalent BTK inhibitor with the ability to bind both the C481S-mutant and wild-type BTK. The multicenter, phase 1/2 BRUIN study included 90 patients with MCL who were previously treated with a covalent BTK inhibitor. Patients in the phase 1 portion of the study were treated with oral pirtobrutinib at a dose of 25-300 mg once daily, and patients in the phase 2 study were treated at the recommended dose of 200 mg once daily. The overall response rate was 57.8% (95% CI 46.9%-68.1%), with the complete response rate being 20.0%. At a median follow-up of 12 months, the median duration of response was 21.6 (95% CI 7.5 to not reached) months. Treatment-related adverse events that were grade 3 or higher were not frequent, with neutropenia (8.5%) being the most common. Of note, grade 3 or higher hemorrhage and atrial fibrillation, which can be seen with BTK inhibitors, were rare, occurring in 3.7% and 1.2% of patients, respectively. Based on the results of this study, pirtobrutinib has been approved by the FDA for patients with relapsed/refractory MCL after at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTK inhibitor. This is an appealing oral option for patients with relapsed disease.

Options for patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) have also significantly increased in recent years. One of the most important advances in this disease has been the use of anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. There are currently three FDA-approved options for patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL who have received at least two prior lines of therapy.^1-3 More recently, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) have also been approved for the second line based on the results of the ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM studies, respectively.^4,5

Longer follow-up of the ZUMA-7 trial continues to confirm the advantage of axi-cel over standard-care therapy for patients with primary refractory or early relapse of disease, now with evidence of an overall survival advantage (Westin et al). The ZUMA-7 trial included 359 adults with LBCL (refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of first-line treatment) who were randomly assigned to receive axi-cel (n = 180) or standard care (n = 179). At a median follow-up of 47.2 mo, patients receiving axi-cel vs standard care had a significantly longer median overall survival (not reached vs 31.1 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 0.73; P = .03) and an absolute improvement in overall survival (8.6 percentage points at 4 years). No new treatment-related deaths were reported since the primary event-free survival analysis. These data confirm that early use of axi-cel is preferred over standard-care therapy with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation.

Another important study that was recently published looked at the role of mental health on outcomes in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (Kuczmarski et al). Though it is known that mental health disorders can decrease the quality of life of patients with cancer, there is limited information on the survival implications of these issues. A recent retrospective cohort study analyzed the data of 13,244 patients aged 67 years or older with DLBCL from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare registry, of which, 2094 patients had depression, anxiety, or both at the time of their DLBCL diagnosis. At a median follow-up of 2.0 years, patients with depression, anxiety, or both vs without any mental disorder had significantly lower 5-year overall survival rates (27.0% vs 37.4%; HR 1.37; 95% CI 1.29-1.44). They also found that those patients with preexisting depression vs without any mental disorder have the worst survival (23.4% vs 38.0%; HR 1.37; P < .0001). Though the mechanism accounting for decreased survival is not clear, the authors postulate that mental health disorders may lead to delays or interruptions in lymphoma-directed therapy. They also note the potential for increased barriers to care in patients with mental health disorders, which may result in nonadherence in this patient population. Regardless, these results highlight the importance of mental health screening and interventions in patients with DLBCL.

Additional References

1. Neelapu SS, Locke FL, Bartlett NL, et al. Axicabtagene ciloleucel CAR T-Cell therapy in refractory large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:2531-2544. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1707447
    
2. Schuster SJ, Bishop MR, Tam CS, et al; JULIET Investigators. Tisagenlecleucel in adult relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:45-56. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804980
    
3. Abramson JS, Palomba ML, Gordon LI, et al. Lisocabtagene maraleucel for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas (TRANSCEND NHL 001): A multicentre seamless design study. Lancet. 2020;396:839-852. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31366-0
    
4. Locke FL, Miklos DB, Jacobson CA, et al; All ZUMA-7 Investigators and Contributing Kite Members. Axicabtagene ciloleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:640-654. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2116133
5. Kamdar M, Solomon SR, Arnason J, et al; TRANSFORM Investigators. Lisocabtagene maraleucel versus standard of care with salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as second-line treatment in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (TRANSFORM): Results from an interim analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2022;399:2294-2308. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00662-6

Despite multiple existing conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) and biologic DMARD (bDMARD) options, many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not respond adequately to treatment. In an exciting development, a recent phase 2 study by Tuttle and colleagues examined a novel treatment approach in RA: stimulation of the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pathway. PD-1 is a checkpoint inhibitor receptor whose activation reflects T-cell activation and may play a role in synovitis and extra-articular inflammation. Blocking PD-1 in cancer therapy has been associated with an increase in inflammatory arthritis. In this 12-week study, RA disease activity was analyzed in patients randomly assigned to two different monthly intravenous doses of peresolimab or placebo. Of note, a large majority of participants were seropositive for rheumatoid factor (RF) or cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP). Patients receiving the 700-mg dose of peresolimab had a better American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response than did those receiving placebo (71% vs 42%), but not a better ACR50 or ACR70 response; the 300-mg dose was not better than placebo. Although reported adverse events were similar in all three groups, with a short timeframe it would be difficult to address concerns about cancer risk. Though this novel treatment is exciting, a larger and longer-term trial is necessary to address this concern as well as potentially tease out risk factors (including age or other immunosuppression) in this susceptible group.

Two other studies examined use of a much older csDMARD therapy, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), in Brazilian patients with RA. Bredemeier and colleagues looked at the effects of HCQ on adverse events as well as the persistence of bDMARD/targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD) therapy in over 1300 patients with RA. Using the BiobadaBrasil registry of patients starting their first bDMARD or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, they looked at effects of combination therapy with HCQ during the treatment course of up to six bDMARD or JAK inhibitors. At baseline, patients prescribed antimalarial therapy had shorter RA duration and began treatment earlier, perhaps due to patient or physician preferences regarding starting "milder" antimalarial medication earlier or due to use of "triple therapy" with methotrexate and sulfasalazine. Of interest, patients receiving antimalarial therapy had a lower incidence of adverse events, especially serious infections, but no effect on cardiovascular events was seen despite HCQ's perceived beneficial effects on thrombotic risk and cholesterol profile. Patients receiving HCQ were also more likely to persist in their course of bDMARD or JAK inhibitor therapy, though the effect size seems relatively small. As the focus in this study was on adverse effects, the authors' analysis of the effects on antimalarials on the persistence of therapy was not detailed.

Lin and colleagues also looked at the effects of HCQ in patients with older-onset RA with respect to mortality risk. Using data from the electronic health records of a hospital in Taiwan, mortality-associated risk factors were evaluated in 980 patients with RA diagnosed at >60 years. Male sex, current smoking status, and cancer status were all associated with mortality, whereas HCQ use was associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio 0.30). In contrast to the registry study mentioned above, patients receiving HCQ had a lower risk for cardiovascular events, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. Interaction with cancer was less clear due to lower number of patients. Of interest, use of cyclosporine, leflunomide, and a bDMARD was associated with higher mortality risk. The source and true relevance of the potential risk reduction in this study is not clear because of the lack of prospective data, but combined with the information above, this study suggests that the benefits of HCQ use should not be discounted in patients with RA.

Despite multiple existing conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) and biologic DMARD (bDMARD) options, many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not respond adequately to treatment. In an exciting development, a recent phase 2 study by Tuttle and colleagues examined a novel treatment approach in RA: stimulation of the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pathway. PD-1 is a checkpoint inhibitor receptor whose activation reflects T-cell activation and may play a role in synovitis and extra-articular inflammation. Blocking PD-1 in cancer therapy has been associated with an increase in inflammatory arthritis. In this 12-week study, RA disease activity was analyzed in patients randomly assigned to two different monthly intravenous doses of peresolimab or placebo. Of note, a large majority of participants were seropositive for rheumatoid factor (RF) or cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP). Patients receiving the 700-mg dose of peresolimab had a better American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response than did those receiving placebo (71% vs 42%), but not a better ACR50 or ACR70 response; the 300-mg dose was not better than placebo. Although reported adverse events were similar in all three groups, with a short timeframe it would be difficult to address concerns about cancer risk. Though this novel treatment is exciting, a larger and longer-term trial is necessary to address this concern as well as potentially tease out risk factors (including age or other immunosuppression) in this susceptible group.

Two other studies examined use of a much older csDMARD therapy, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), in Brazilian patients with RA. Bredemeier and colleagues looked at the effects of HCQ on adverse events as well as the persistence of bDMARD/targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD) therapy in over 1300 patients with RA. Using the BiobadaBrasil registry of patients starting their first bDMARD or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, they looked at effects of combination therapy with HCQ during the treatment course of up to six bDMARD or JAK inhibitors. At baseline, patients prescribed antimalarial therapy had shorter RA duration and began treatment earlier, perhaps due to patient or physician preferences regarding starting "milder" antimalarial medication earlier or due to use of "triple therapy" with methotrexate and sulfasalazine. Of interest, patients receiving antimalarial therapy had a lower incidence of adverse events, especially serious infections, but no effect on cardiovascular events was seen despite HCQ's perceived beneficial effects on thrombotic risk and cholesterol profile. Patients receiving HCQ were also more likely to persist in their course of bDMARD or JAK inhibitor therapy, though the effect size seems relatively small. As the focus in this study was on adverse effects, the authors' analysis of the effects on antimalarials on the persistence of therapy was not detailed.

Lin and colleagues also looked at the effects of HCQ in patients with older-onset RA with respect to mortality risk. Using data from the electronic health records of a hospital in Taiwan, mortality-associated risk factors were evaluated in 980 patients with RA diagnosed at >60 years. Male sex, current smoking status, and cancer status were all associated with mortality, whereas HCQ use was associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio 0.30). In contrast to the registry study mentioned above, patients receiving HCQ had a lower risk for cardiovascular events, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. Interaction with cancer was less clear due to lower number of patients. Of interest, use of cyclosporine, leflunomide, and a bDMARD was associated with higher mortality risk. The source and true relevance of the potential risk reduction in this study is not clear because of the lack of prospective data, but combined with the information above, this study suggests that the benefits of HCQ use should not be discounted in patients with RA.

Despite multiple existing conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) and biologic DMARD (bDMARD) options, many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not respond adequately to treatment. In an exciting development, a recent phase 2 study by Tuttle and colleagues examined a novel treatment approach in RA: stimulation of the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pathway. PD-1 is a checkpoint inhibitor receptor whose activation reflects T-cell activation and may play a role in synovitis and extra-articular inflammation. Blocking PD-1 in cancer therapy has been associated with an increase in inflammatory arthritis. In this 12-week study, RA disease activity was analyzed in patients randomly assigned to two different monthly intravenous doses of peresolimab or placebo. Of note, a large majority of participants were seropositive for rheumatoid factor (RF) or cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP). Patients receiving the 700-mg dose of peresolimab had a better American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response than did those receiving placebo (71% vs 42%), but not a better ACR50 or ACR70 response; the 300-mg dose was not better than placebo. Although reported adverse events were similar in all three groups, with a short timeframe it would be difficult to address concerns about cancer risk. Though this novel treatment is exciting, a larger and longer-term trial is necessary to address this concern as well as potentially tease out risk factors (including age or other immunosuppression) in this susceptible group.

Two other studies examined use of a much older csDMARD therapy, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), in Brazilian patients with RA. Bredemeier and colleagues looked at the effects of HCQ on adverse events as well as the persistence of bDMARD/targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD) therapy in over 1300 patients with RA. Using the BiobadaBrasil registry of patients starting their first bDMARD or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, they looked at effects of combination therapy with HCQ during the treatment course of up to six bDMARD or JAK inhibitors. At baseline, patients prescribed antimalarial therapy had shorter RA duration and began treatment earlier, perhaps due to patient or physician preferences regarding starting "milder" antimalarial medication earlier or due to use of "triple therapy" with methotrexate and sulfasalazine. Of interest, patients receiving antimalarial therapy had a lower incidence of adverse events, especially serious infections, but no effect on cardiovascular events was seen despite HCQ's perceived beneficial effects on thrombotic risk and cholesterol profile. Patients receiving HCQ were also more likely to persist in their course of bDMARD or JAK inhibitor therapy, though the effect size seems relatively small. As the focus in this study was on adverse effects, the authors' analysis of the effects on antimalarials on the persistence of therapy was not detailed.

Lin and colleagues also looked at the effects of HCQ in patients with older-onset RA with respect to mortality risk. Using data from the electronic health records of a hospital in Taiwan, mortality-associated risk factors were evaluated in 980 patients with RA diagnosed at >60 years. Male sex, current smoking status, and cancer status were all associated with mortality, whereas HCQ use was associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio 0.30). In contrast to the registry study mentioned above, patients receiving HCQ had a lower risk for cardiovascular events, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. Interaction with cancer was less clear due to lower number of patients. Of interest, use of cyclosporine, leflunomide, and a bDMARD was associated with higher mortality risk. The source and true relevance of the potential risk reduction in this study is not clear because of the lack of prospective data, but combined with the information above, this study suggests that the benefits of HCQ use should not be discounted in patients with RA.

After a median follow-up of 21.6 mo, the dalpiciclib group demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with the placebo group (30.6 mo vs 18.2 mo; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; 95% CI 0.38-0.69; P < .0001). Overall, the dalpiciclib group demonstrated a manageable safety profile, although a higher percentage of grade 3/4 adverse events was noted with dalpiciclib than with placebo (90% vs 12%), as expected. Overall survival data for this CDK4/6 inhibitor are yet to come. These results suggest that dalpiciclib in combination with endocrine therapy is an alternative treatment for this group of patients, especially in countries where the traditionally approved CDK4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib) are not available.

The optimal sequencing of endocrine therapy (ET) after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitor–based therapy remains a challenge. In the phase 2 MAINTAIN trial, 119 patients (all of whom had HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer and who progressed on ET and CDK4/6 inhibitors) were randomly assigned to receive a different ET (fulvestrant or exemestane) from the previous ET they had received plus either the CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib or placebo. In the study by Kalinksky and colleagues, at a median follow-up of 18.2 mo, a significant improvement in PFS was observed in the switched ET-plus-ribociclib group compared with the switched ET-plus-placebo group (HR 0.57; P = .006). The phase 2 MAINTAIN trial is the first randomized trial to show the benefit of a CDK4/6 inhibitor after progression on another CDK4/6 inhibitor. It is important to note that the majority of patients in the MAINTAIN study previously received palbociclib in the first-line setting, which in recent studies has been demonstrated to be inferior to other CDK4/6 inhibitors. Therefore, it is important to confirm whether this will hold true upon progression from ribociclib or abemaciclib in the first-line setting. In addition, more data are needed to compare this approach with other ET treatment options, such as phosphoinositide 3-kinases inhibitors and oral selective estrogen receptor degraders.

There are several options for adjuvant radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. A meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials and six comparative observational studies assessed the efficacy of whole breast irradiation (WBI) compared with partial breast irradiation (PBI) in 17,234 adults with early-stage breast cancer. Results of this meta-analysis showed that PBI was not significantly different from WBI, with similar rates of ipsilateral breast recurrence  at 5 years (relative risk [RR] 1.34; 95% CI 0.83-2.18) and 10 years (RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.87-1.91), although patients undergoing PBI reported fewer acute adverse events  compared with patients undergoing WBI (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.53; 95% CI 0.31-0.92) and acute grade ≥2 adverse events (IRR 0.21; 95% CI 0.07-0.62). These findings support using PBI as the adjuvant radiotherapy modality for select patients with favorable-risk early-stage breast cancer.

Another meta-analysis looked at assessing the survival benefit of adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to standard ET in older patients with advanced breast cancer. The study included 10 trials with 1985 older patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer who received ET with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors. The findings showed that adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to ET (letrozole or fulvestrant) significantly reduced the mortality risk by 21% (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.69-0.91) and progression risk by 41% (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.51-0.69) in older patients (age ≥ 65 years) with advanced breast cancer. Grade 3-4 neutropenia and diarrhea were similar in older patients. This study supports the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors as a reasonable treatment modality for older patients. More studies dedicated to the geriatric population are needed to help elaborate on the efficacy and tolerability of such agents in this population.

The phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-42 (NSABP B-42) trial evaluated the role of extended letrozole therapy in postmenopausal breast cancer patients who were disease-free after 5 years of aromatase inhibitor–based therapy. The study included 3966 postmenopausal women with stage I-IIIA HR+ breast cancer who were randomly assigned to receive letrozole or placebo for 5 more years. After a median follow-up of 10.3 years, letrozole significantly improved disease-free survival (10-year absolute benefit 3.4%; HR 0.85; P = .01) compared with placebo, although there were no differences noted in overall survival between the groups (HR 0.97, P = .74). Furthermore, letrozole significantly reduced the breast cancer–free interval (HR 0.75, ,P = .003) and distant recurrence (HR 0.72, P = .01). There were no notable differences in toxicity, particularly rates of osteoporotic fractures and arterial thrombotic events, between the groups. Extended therapy with aromatase inhibitors beyond 5 years can be considered for select patients with early-stage breast cancer. Careful consideration of risks and benefits is needed to make these recommendations. 

After a median follow-up of 21.6 mo, the dalpiciclib group demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with the placebo group (30.6 mo vs 18.2 mo; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; 95% CI 0.38-0.69; P < .0001). Overall, the dalpiciclib group demonstrated a manageable safety profile, although a higher percentage of grade 3/4 adverse events was noted with dalpiciclib than with placebo (90% vs 12%), as expected. Overall survival data for this CDK4/6 inhibitor are yet to come. These results suggest that dalpiciclib in combination with endocrine therapy is an alternative treatment for this group of patients, especially in countries where the traditionally approved CDK4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib) are not available.

The optimal sequencing of endocrine therapy (ET) after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitor–based therapy remains a challenge. In the phase 2 MAINTAIN trial, 119 patients (all of whom had HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer and who progressed on ET and CDK4/6 inhibitors) were randomly assigned to receive a different ET (fulvestrant or exemestane) from the previous ET they had received plus either the CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib or placebo. In the study by Kalinksky and colleagues, at a median follow-up of 18.2 mo, a significant improvement in PFS was observed in the switched ET-plus-ribociclib group compared with the switched ET-plus-placebo group (HR 0.57; P = .006). The phase 2 MAINTAIN trial is the first randomized trial to show the benefit of a CDK4/6 inhibitor after progression on another CDK4/6 inhibitor. It is important to note that the majority of patients in the MAINTAIN study previously received palbociclib in the first-line setting, which in recent studies has been demonstrated to be inferior to other CDK4/6 inhibitors. Therefore, it is important to confirm whether this will hold true upon progression from ribociclib or abemaciclib in the first-line setting. In addition, more data are needed to compare this approach with other ET treatment options, such as phosphoinositide 3-kinases inhibitors and oral selective estrogen receptor degraders.

There are several options for adjuvant radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. A meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials and six comparative observational studies assessed the efficacy of whole breast irradiation (WBI) compared with partial breast irradiation (PBI) in 17,234 adults with early-stage breast cancer. Results of this meta-analysis showed that PBI was not significantly different from WBI, with similar rates of ipsilateral breast recurrence  at 5 years (relative risk [RR] 1.34; 95% CI 0.83-2.18) and 10 years (RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.87-1.91), although patients undergoing PBI reported fewer acute adverse events  compared with patients undergoing WBI (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.53; 95% CI 0.31-0.92) and acute grade ≥2 adverse events (IRR 0.21; 95% CI 0.07-0.62). These findings support using PBI as the adjuvant radiotherapy modality for select patients with favorable-risk early-stage breast cancer.

Another meta-analysis looked at assessing the survival benefit of adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to standard ET in older patients with advanced breast cancer. The study included 10 trials with 1985 older patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer who received ET with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors. The findings showed that adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to ET (letrozole or fulvestrant) significantly reduced the mortality risk by 21% (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.69-0.91) and progression risk by 41% (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.51-0.69) in older patients (age ≥ 65 years) with advanced breast cancer. Grade 3-4 neutropenia and diarrhea were similar in older patients. This study supports the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors as a reasonable treatment modality for older patients. More studies dedicated to the geriatric population are needed to help elaborate on the efficacy and tolerability of such agents in this population.

The phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-42 (NSABP B-42) trial evaluated the role of extended letrozole therapy in postmenopausal breast cancer patients who were disease-free after 5 years of aromatase inhibitor–based therapy. The study included 3966 postmenopausal women with stage I-IIIA HR+ breast cancer who were randomly assigned to receive letrozole or placebo for 5 more years. After a median follow-up of 10.3 years, letrozole significantly improved disease-free survival (10-year absolute benefit 3.4%; HR 0.85; P = .01) compared with placebo, although there were no differences noted in overall survival between the groups (HR 0.97, P = .74). Furthermore, letrozole significantly reduced the breast cancer–free interval (HR 0.75, ,P = .003) and distant recurrence (HR 0.72, P = .01). There were no notable differences in toxicity, particularly rates of osteoporotic fractures and arterial thrombotic events, between the groups. Extended therapy with aromatase inhibitors beyond 5 years can be considered for select patients with early-stage breast cancer. Careful consideration of risks and benefits is needed to make these recommendations. 

After a median follow-up of 21.6 mo, the dalpiciclib group demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with the placebo group (30.6 mo vs 18.2 mo; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.51; 95% CI 0.38-0.69; P < .0001). Overall, the dalpiciclib group demonstrated a manageable safety profile, although a higher percentage of grade 3/4 adverse events was noted with dalpiciclib than with placebo (90% vs 12%), as expected. Overall survival data for this CDK4/6 inhibitor are yet to come. These results suggest that dalpiciclib in combination with endocrine therapy is an alternative treatment for this group of patients, especially in countries where the traditionally approved CDK4/6 inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib) are not available.

The optimal sequencing of endocrine therapy (ET) after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitor–based therapy remains a challenge. In the phase 2 MAINTAIN trial, 119 patients (all of whom had HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer and who progressed on ET and CDK4/6 inhibitors) were randomly assigned to receive a different ET (fulvestrant or exemestane) from the previous ET they had received plus either the CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib or placebo. In the study by Kalinksky and colleagues, at a median follow-up of 18.2 mo, a significant improvement in PFS was observed in the switched ET-plus-ribociclib group compared with the switched ET-plus-placebo group (HR 0.57; P = .006). The phase 2 MAINTAIN trial is the first randomized trial to show the benefit of a CDK4/6 inhibitor after progression on another CDK4/6 inhibitor. It is important to note that the majority of patients in the MAINTAIN study previously received palbociclib in the first-line setting, which in recent studies has been demonstrated to be inferior to other CDK4/6 inhibitors. Therefore, it is important to confirm whether this will hold true upon progression from ribociclib or abemaciclib in the first-line setting. In addition, more data are needed to compare this approach with other ET treatment options, such as phosphoinositide 3-kinases inhibitors and oral selective estrogen receptor degraders.

There are several options for adjuvant radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer. A meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials and six comparative observational studies assessed the efficacy of whole breast irradiation (WBI) compared with partial breast irradiation (PBI) in 17,234 adults with early-stage breast cancer. Results of this meta-analysis showed that PBI was not significantly different from WBI, with similar rates of ipsilateral breast recurrence  at 5 years (relative risk [RR] 1.34; 95% CI 0.83-2.18) and 10 years (RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.87-1.91), although patients undergoing PBI reported fewer acute adverse events  compared with patients undergoing WBI (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.53; 95% CI 0.31-0.92) and acute grade ≥2 adverse events (IRR 0.21; 95% CI 0.07-0.62). These findings support using PBI as the adjuvant radiotherapy modality for select patients with favorable-risk early-stage breast cancer.

Another meta-analysis looked at assessing the survival benefit of adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to standard ET in older patients with advanced breast cancer. The study included 10 trials with 1985 older patients with advanced ER+ breast cancer who received ET with or without CDK4/6 inhibitors. The findings showed that adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to ET (letrozole or fulvestrant) significantly reduced the mortality risk by 21% (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.69-0.91) and progression risk by 41% (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.51-0.69) in older patients (age ≥ 65 years) with advanced breast cancer. Grade 3-4 neutropenia and diarrhea were similar in older patients. This study supports the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors as a reasonable treatment modality for older patients. More studies dedicated to the geriatric population are needed to help elaborate on the efficacy and tolerability of such agents in this population.

The phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-42 (NSABP B-42) trial evaluated the role of extended letrozole therapy in postmenopausal breast cancer patients who were disease-free after 5 years of aromatase inhibitor–based therapy. The study included 3966 postmenopausal women with stage I-IIIA HR+ breast cancer who were randomly assigned to receive letrozole or placebo for 5 more years. After a median follow-up of 10.3 years, letrozole significantly improved disease-free survival (10-year absolute benefit 3.4%; HR 0.85; P = .01) compared with placebo, although there were no differences noted in overall survival between the groups (HR 0.97, P = .74). Furthermore, letrozole significantly reduced the breast cancer–free interval (HR 0.75, ,P = .003) and distant recurrence (HR 0.72, P = .01). There were no notable differences in toxicity, particularly rates of osteoporotic fractures and arterial thrombotic events, between the groups. Extended therapy with aromatase inhibitors beyond 5 years can be considered for select patients with early-stage breast cancer. Careful consideration of risks and benefits is needed to make these recommendations. 

An automated artificial intelligence (AI) model trained to read electroencephalograms (EEGs) in patients with suspected epilepsy is just as accurate as trained neurologists, new data suggest.

Known as SCORE-AI, the technology distinguishes between abnormal and normal EEG recordings and classifies irregular recordings into specific categories crucial for patient decision-making.

“SCORE-AI can be used in place of experts in underprivileged areas, where expertise is missing, or to help physicians to preselect or prescore recordings in areas where the workload is high – we can all benefit from AI,” study investigator Sándor Beniczky, MD, PhD, said in a JAMA Neurology podcast.

Dr. Beniczky is professor of clinical neurophysiology at Aarhus University in Denmark.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Gaining a foothold

Increasingly, AI is gaining a foothold in medicine by credibly addressing patient queries and aiding radiologists.

To bring AI to EEG interpretation, the researchers developed and validated an AI model that was able to assess routine, clinical EEGs in patients with suspected epilepsy.

Beyond using AI to distinguish abnormal from normal EEG recordings, the researchers wanted to train the new system to classify abnormal recordings into the major categories that are most relevant for clinical decision-making in patients who may have epilepsy. The categories included epileptiform-focal, epileptiform-generalized, nonepileptiform-focal, and nonepileptiform-diffuse abnormalities.

The researchers trained the learning model using Standardized Computer-based Organized Reporting of EEG (SCORE) software.

In the development phase, the model was trained using more than 30,490 anonymized and highly annotated EEG recordings from 14,100 men (median age, 25 years) from a single center. The recordings had an average duration of 31 minutes and were interpreted by 17 neurologists using standardized criteria. If an EEG recording was abnormal, the physicians had to specify which abnormal features were present.

SCORE-AI then performed an analysis of the recordings based on input from the experts.

To validate the findings, investigators used two independent test datasets. The first dataset consisted of 100 representative routine EEGs from 61 men (median age, 26 years), evaluated by 11 neurologists from different centers.

The consensus of these evaluations served as the reference standard. The second dataset comprised nearly 10,000 EEGs from a single center (5,170 men; median age, 35 years), independently assessed by 14 neurologists.
 

Near-perfect accuracy

When compared with the experts, SCORE-AI had near-perfect accuracy with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for differentiating normal from abnormal EEG recordings of 0.95.

SCORE-AI also performed well at identifying generalized epileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.96), focal epileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.91), focal nonepileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.89), and diffuse nonepileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.93).

In addition, SCORE-AI had excellent agreement with clinicians – and sometimes agreed with individual experts more than the experts agreed with one another.

When Dr. Beniczky and team tested SCORE-AI against three previously published AI models, SCORE-AI demonstrated greater specificity than those models (90% vs. 3%-63%) but was not as sensitive (86.7%) as two of the models (96.7% and 100%).

One of the study’s limitations was the fact that SCORE-AI was developed and validated on routine EEGs that excluded neonates and critically ill patients.

In the future, Dr. Beniczky said on the podcast, the team would like to train SCORE-AI to read EEGs with more granularity, and eventually use only one single channel to record EEGs. At present, SCORE-AI is being integrated with Natus Neuro, a widely used EEG equipment system, the investigators note.

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan Kleen, MD, PhD, and Elan Guterman, MD, said, “The overall approach taken ... in developing and validating SCORE-AI sets a standard for this work going forward.”

Dr. Kleen and Dr. Guterman note that the technological gains brought about by SCORE-AI technology “could offer an exciting prospect to improve EEG availability and clinical care for the 50 million people with epilepsy worldwide.”
 

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

An automated artificial intelligence (AI) model trained to read electroencephalograms (EEGs) in patients with suspected epilepsy is just as accurate as trained neurologists, new data suggest.

Known as SCORE-AI, the technology distinguishes between abnormal and normal EEG recordings and classifies irregular recordings into specific categories crucial for patient decision-making.

“SCORE-AI can be used in place of experts in underprivileged areas, where expertise is missing, or to help physicians to preselect or prescore recordings in areas where the workload is high – we can all benefit from AI,” study investigator Sándor Beniczky, MD, PhD, said in a JAMA Neurology podcast.

Dr. Beniczky is professor of clinical neurophysiology at Aarhus University in Denmark.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Gaining a foothold

Increasingly, AI is gaining a foothold in medicine by credibly addressing patient queries and aiding radiologists.

To bring AI to EEG interpretation, the researchers developed and validated an AI model that was able to assess routine, clinical EEGs in patients with suspected epilepsy.

Beyond using AI to distinguish abnormal from normal EEG recordings, the researchers wanted to train the new system to classify abnormal recordings into the major categories that are most relevant for clinical decision-making in patients who may have epilepsy. The categories included epileptiform-focal, epileptiform-generalized, nonepileptiform-focal, and nonepileptiform-diffuse abnormalities.

The researchers trained the learning model using Standardized Computer-based Organized Reporting of EEG (SCORE) software.

In the development phase, the model was trained using more than 30,490 anonymized and highly annotated EEG recordings from 14,100 men (median age, 25 years) from a single center. The recordings had an average duration of 31 minutes and were interpreted by 17 neurologists using standardized criteria. If an EEG recording was abnormal, the physicians had to specify which abnormal features were present.

SCORE-AI then performed an analysis of the recordings based on input from the experts.

To validate the findings, investigators used two independent test datasets. The first dataset consisted of 100 representative routine EEGs from 61 men (median age, 26 years), evaluated by 11 neurologists from different centers.

The consensus of these evaluations served as the reference standard. The second dataset comprised nearly 10,000 EEGs from a single center (5,170 men; median age, 35 years), independently assessed by 14 neurologists.
 

Near-perfect accuracy

When compared with the experts, SCORE-AI had near-perfect accuracy with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for differentiating normal from abnormal EEG recordings of 0.95.

SCORE-AI also performed well at identifying generalized epileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.96), focal epileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.91), focal nonepileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.89), and diffuse nonepileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.93).

In addition, SCORE-AI had excellent agreement with clinicians – and sometimes agreed with individual experts more than the experts agreed with one another.

When Dr. Beniczky and team tested SCORE-AI against three previously published AI models, SCORE-AI demonstrated greater specificity than those models (90% vs. 3%-63%) but was not as sensitive (86.7%) as two of the models (96.7% and 100%).

One of the study’s limitations was the fact that SCORE-AI was developed and validated on routine EEGs that excluded neonates and critically ill patients.

In the future, Dr. Beniczky said on the podcast, the team would like to train SCORE-AI to read EEGs with more granularity, and eventually use only one single channel to record EEGs. At present, SCORE-AI is being integrated with Natus Neuro, a widely used EEG equipment system, the investigators note.

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan Kleen, MD, PhD, and Elan Guterman, MD, said, “The overall approach taken ... in developing and validating SCORE-AI sets a standard for this work going forward.”

Dr. Kleen and Dr. Guterman note that the technological gains brought about by SCORE-AI technology “could offer an exciting prospect to improve EEG availability and clinical care for the 50 million people with epilepsy worldwide.”
 

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

An automated artificial intelligence (AI) model trained to read electroencephalograms (EEGs) in patients with suspected epilepsy is just as accurate as trained neurologists, new data suggest.

Known as SCORE-AI, the technology distinguishes between abnormal and normal EEG recordings and classifies irregular recordings into specific categories crucial for patient decision-making.

“SCORE-AI can be used in place of experts in underprivileged areas, where expertise is missing, or to help physicians to preselect or prescore recordings in areas where the workload is high – we can all benefit from AI,” study investigator Sándor Beniczky, MD, PhD, said in a JAMA Neurology podcast.

Dr. Beniczky is professor of clinical neurophysiology at Aarhus University in Denmark.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Gaining a foothold

Increasingly, AI is gaining a foothold in medicine by credibly addressing patient queries and aiding radiologists.

To bring AI to EEG interpretation, the researchers developed and validated an AI model that was able to assess routine, clinical EEGs in patients with suspected epilepsy.

Beyond using AI to distinguish abnormal from normal EEG recordings, the researchers wanted to train the new system to classify abnormal recordings into the major categories that are most relevant for clinical decision-making in patients who may have epilepsy. The categories included epileptiform-focal, epileptiform-generalized, nonepileptiform-focal, and nonepileptiform-diffuse abnormalities.

The researchers trained the learning model using Standardized Computer-based Organized Reporting of EEG (SCORE) software.

In the development phase, the model was trained using more than 30,490 anonymized and highly annotated EEG recordings from 14,100 men (median age, 25 years) from a single center. The recordings had an average duration of 31 minutes and were interpreted by 17 neurologists using standardized criteria. If an EEG recording was abnormal, the physicians had to specify which abnormal features were present.

SCORE-AI then performed an analysis of the recordings based on input from the experts.

To validate the findings, investigators used two independent test datasets. The first dataset consisted of 100 representative routine EEGs from 61 men (median age, 26 years), evaluated by 11 neurologists from different centers.

The consensus of these evaluations served as the reference standard. The second dataset comprised nearly 10,000 EEGs from a single center (5,170 men; median age, 35 years), independently assessed by 14 neurologists.
 

Near-perfect accuracy

When compared with the experts, SCORE-AI had near-perfect accuracy with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for differentiating normal from abnormal EEG recordings of 0.95.

SCORE-AI also performed well at identifying generalized epileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.96), focal epileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.91), focal nonepileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.89), and diffuse nonepileptiform abnormalities (AUROC, 0.93).

In addition, SCORE-AI had excellent agreement with clinicians – and sometimes agreed with individual experts more than the experts agreed with one another.

When Dr. Beniczky and team tested SCORE-AI against three previously published AI models, SCORE-AI demonstrated greater specificity than those models (90% vs. 3%-63%) but was not as sensitive (86.7%) as two of the models (96.7% and 100%).

One of the study’s limitations was the fact that SCORE-AI was developed and validated on routine EEGs that excluded neonates and critically ill patients.

In the future, Dr. Beniczky said on the podcast, the team would like to train SCORE-AI to read EEGs with more granularity, and eventually use only one single channel to record EEGs. At present, SCORE-AI is being integrated with Natus Neuro, a widely used EEG equipment system, the investigators note.

In an accompanying editorial, Jonathan Kleen, MD, PhD, and Elan Guterman, MD, said, “The overall approach taken ... in developing and validating SCORE-AI sets a standard for this work going forward.”

Dr. Kleen and Dr. Guterman note that the technological gains brought about by SCORE-AI technology “could offer an exciting prospect to improve EEG availability and clinical care for the 50 million people with epilepsy worldwide.”
 

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

As a general practitioner with a specialist interest in diabetes, I am increasingly diagnosing younger people living with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Sadly, my youngest patient living with type 2 diabetes and obesity is only in her early 20s.
 

In fact, in England, there are now more people under the age of 40 years living with type 2 diabetes than type 1 diabetes. These younger individuals tend to present with very high hemoglobin A1c levels; I am routinely seeing double-digit A1c percentage levels in my practice. Indeed, the patient mentioned above presented with an A1c of more than 13%.

The lifetime cardiometabolic risk of individuals like her is considerable and very worrying: Younger adults with type 2 diabetes often have adverse cardiometabolic risk profiles at diagnosis, with higher body mass indices, marked dyslipidemia, hypertension, and abnormal liver profiles suggesting nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. The cumulative impact of this risk profile is a significant impact on quality and quantity of life. Evidence tells us that a younger age of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for premature death, especially from cardiovascular disease.

Early treatment intensification is warranted in younger individuals living with type 2 diabetes and obesity. My patient above is now on triple therapy with metformin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist. I gave her an urgent referral to my local weight management service for weight, nutritional, and psychological support. I have also issued her a real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) device: Whilst she does not meet any current U.K. criteria for using rt-CGM, I feel that the role of CGM as an educational tool for her is invaluable and equally important to her pharmacologic therapies. We are in desperate need of effective pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions to tackle this epidemic of cardiometabolic disease in the young.

I attended the recent ADA 2023 congress in San Diego, including the presentation of the SURMOUNT-2 trial data. SURMOUNT-2 explored the efficacy and safety of the dual GLP-GIP agonist tirzepatide for weight management in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. Tirzepatide was associated with significant reductions in weight (average weight loss, 14-16 kg after 72 weeks) and glycemia (2.1% reduction in A1c after 72 weeks), as well as reductions in clinically meaningful cardiometabolic risk factors, including systolic blood pressure, liver enzymes, and fasting non–HDL cholesterol levels. The overall safety profile of tirzepatide was also reassuring and consistent with the GLP-1 class. Most adverse effects were gastrointestinal and of mild to moderate severity. These adverse effects decreased over time.

These results perfectly position tirzepatide for my younger patients like the young woman mentioned above. The significant improvements in weight, glycemia, and cardiometabolic risk factors will not only help mitigate her future cardiometabolic risk but also help the sustainability of the U.K.’s National Health System. The cost of diabetes to the NHS in the United Kingdom is more than 10% of the entire NHS budget for England and Wales. More than 80% of this cost, however, is related not to the medications and devices we prescribe for diabetes but to the downstream complications of diabetes, such as hospital admissions for cardiovascular events and amputations, as well as regular hospital attendance for dialysis for end-stage kidney disease.

There is no doubt, however, that modern obesity medications such as semaglutide and tirzepatide are expensive, and demand has been astronomical. This demand has been driven by private weight-management services and celebrity influencers, and has resulted in major U.K.-wide GLP-1 shortages.

This situation is tragically widening health inequalities, as many of my patients who have been on GLP-1 receptor agonists for many years are unable to obtain them. I am having to consider switching therapies, often to less efficacious options without the compelling cardiorenal benefits. Furthermore, the GLP-1 shortages have prevented GLP-1 initiation for my other high-risk younger patients, potentially increasing future cardiometabolic risk.

There remain unanswered questions for tirzepatide: What is the durability of effect of tirzepatide after 72 weeks (that is, the trial duration of SURMOUNT-2)? Crucially, what is the effect of withdrawal of tirzepatide on weight loss maintenance? Previous evidence has suggested weight regain after discontinuation of a GLP-1 receptor agonist for obesity. This, of course, has further financial and sustainability implications for health care systems such as the NHS.

Finally, we are increasingly seeing younger women of childbearing age with or at risk for cardiometabolic disease. Again, my patient above is one example. Many of the therapies we use for cardiometabolic disease management, including GLP-1 receptor agonists and tirzepatide, have not been studied, and hence have not been licensed in pregnant women. Therefore, frank discussions are required with patients about future family plans and the importance of contraception. Often, the significant weight loss seen with GLP-1 receptor agonists can improve hormonal profiles and fertility in women and result in unexpected pregnancies if robust contraception is not in place.

Tirzepatide has yet to be made commercially available in the United Kingdom, and its price has also yet to be set. But I already envision a clear role for tirzepatide in my treatment armamentarium. I will be positioning tirzepatide as my first injectable of choice after oral treatment escalation with metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor in all my patients who require treatment intensification – not just my younger, higher-risk individuals. This may remain an aspirational goal until supply chains and cost are defined. There is no doubt, however, that the compelling weight and glycemic benefits of tirzepatide alongside individualized lifestyle interventions can help improve the quality and quantity of life of my patients living with type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk..

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

As a general practitioner with a specialist interest in diabetes, I am increasingly diagnosing younger people living with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Sadly, my youngest patient living with type 2 diabetes and obesity is only in her early 20s.
 

In fact, in England, there are now more people under the age of 40 years living with type 2 diabetes than type 1 diabetes. These younger individuals tend to present with very high hemoglobin A1c levels; I am routinely seeing double-digit A1c percentage levels in my practice. Indeed, the patient mentioned above presented with an A1c of more than 13%.

The lifetime cardiometabolic risk of individuals like her is considerable and very worrying: Younger adults with type 2 diabetes often have adverse cardiometabolic risk profiles at diagnosis, with higher body mass indices, marked dyslipidemia, hypertension, and abnormal liver profiles suggesting nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. The cumulative impact of this risk profile is a significant impact on quality and quantity of life. Evidence tells us that a younger age of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for premature death, especially from cardiovascular disease.

Early treatment intensification is warranted in younger individuals living with type 2 diabetes and obesity. My patient above is now on triple therapy with metformin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist. I gave her an urgent referral to my local weight management service for weight, nutritional, and psychological support. I have also issued her a real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) device: Whilst she does not meet any current U.K. criteria for using rt-CGM, I feel that the role of CGM as an educational tool for her is invaluable and equally important to her pharmacologic therapies. We are in desperate need of effective pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions to tackle this epidemic of cardiometabolic disease in the young.

I attended the recent ADA 2023 congress in San Diego, including the presentation of the SURMOUNT-2 trial data. SURMOUNT-2 explored the efficacy and safety of the dual GLP-GIP agonist tirzepatide for weight management in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. Tirzepatide was associated with significant reductions in weight (average weight loss, 14-16 kg after 72 weeks) and glycemia (2.1% reduction in A1c after 72 weeks), as well as reductions in clinically meaningful cardiometabolic risk factors, including systolic blood pressure, liver enzymes, and fasting non–HDL cholesterol levels. The overall safety profile of tirzepatide was also reassuring and consistent with the GLP-1 class. Most adverse effects were gastrointestinal and of mild to moderate severity. These adverse effects decreased over time.

These results perfectly position tirzepatide for my younger patients like the young woman mentioned above. The significant improvements in weight, glycemia, and cardiometabolic risk factors will not only help mitigate her future cardiometabolic risk but also help the sustainability of the U.K.’s National Health System. The cost of diabetes to the NHS in the United Kingdom is more than 10% of the entire NHS budget for England and Wales. More than 80% of this cost, however, is related not to the medications and devices we prescribe for diabetes but to the downstream complications of diabetes, such as hospital admissions for cardiovascular events and amputations, as well as regular hospital attendance for dialysis for end-stage kidney disease.

There is no doubt, however, that modern obesity medications such as semaglutide and tirzepatide are expensive, and demand has been astronomical. This demand has been driven by private weight-management services and celebrity influencers, and has resulted in major U.K.-wide GLP-1 shortages.

This situation is tragically widening health inequalities, as many of my patients who have been on GLP-1 receptor agonists for many years are unable to obtain them. I am having to consider switching therapies, often to less efficacious options without the compelling cardiorenal benefits. Furthermore, the GLP-1 shortages have prevented GLP-1 initiation for my other high-risk younger patients, potentially increasing future cardiometabolic risk.

There remain unanswered questions for tirzepatide: What is the durability of effect of tirzepatide after 72 weeks (that is, the trial duration of SURMOUNT-2)? Crucially, what is the effect of withdrawal of tirzepatide on weight loss maintenance? Previous evidence has suggested weight regain after discontinuation of a GLP-1 receptor agonist for obesity. This, of course, has further financial and sustainability implications for health care systems such as the NHS.

Finally, we are increasingly seeing younger women of childbearing age with or at risk for cardiometabolic disease. Again, my patient above is one example. Many of the therapies we use for cardiometabolic disease management, including GLP-1 receptor agonists and tirzepatide, have not been studied, and hence have not been licensed in pregnant women. Therefore, frank discussions are required with patients about future family plans and the importance of contraception. Often, the significant weight loss seen with GLP-1 receptor agonists can improve hormonal profiles and fertility in women and result in unexpected pregnancies if robust contraception is not in place.

Tirzepatide has yet to be made commercially available in the United Kingdom, and its price has also yet to be set. But I already envision a clear role for tirzepatide in my treatment armamentarium. I will be positioning tirzepatide as my first injectable of choice after oral treatment escalation with metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor in all my patients who require treatment intensification – not just my younger, higher-risk individuals. This may remain an aspirational goal until supply chains and cost are defined. There is no doubt, however, that the compelling weight and glycemic benefits of tirzepatide alongside individualized lifestyle interventions can help improve the quality and quantity of life of my patients living with type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk..

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

As a general practitioner with a specialist interest in diabetes, I am increasingly diagnosing younger people living with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Sadly, my youngest patient living with type 2 diabetes and obesity is only in her early 20s.
 

In fact, in England, there are now more people under the age of 40 years living with type 2 diabetes than type 1 diabetes. These younger individuals tend to present with very high hemoglobin A1c levels; I am routinely seeing double-digit A1c percentage levels in my practice. Indeed, the patient mentioned above presented with an A1c of more than 13%.

The lifetime cardiometabolic risk of individuals like her is considerable and very worrying: Younger adults with type 2 diabetes often have adverse cardiometabolic risk profiles at diagnosis, with higher body mass indices, marked dyslipidemia, hypertension, and abnormal liver profiles suggesting nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. The cumulative impact of this risk profile is a significant impact on quality and quantity of life. Evidence tells us that a younger age of diagnosis with type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for premature death, especially from cardiovascular disease.

Early treatment intensification is warranted in younger individuals living with type 2 diabetes and obesity. My patient above is now on triple therapy with metformin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, and a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist. I gave her an urgent referral to my local weight management service for weight, nutritional, and psychological support. I have also issued her a real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) device: Whilst she does not meet any current U.K. criteria for using rt-CGM, I feel that the role of CGM as an educational tool for her is invaluable and equally important to her pharmacologic therapies. We are in desperate need of effective pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions to tackle this epidemic of cardiometabolic disease in the young.

I attended the recent ADA 2023 congress in San Diego, including the presentation of the SURMOUNT-2 trial data. SURMOUNT-2 explored the efficacy and safety of the dual GLP-GIP agonist tirzepatide for weight management in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. Tirzepatide was associated with significant reductions in weight (average weight loss, 14-16 kg after 72 weeks) and glycemia (2.1% reduction in A1c after 72 weeks), as well as reductions in clinically meaningful cardiometabolic risk factors, including systolic blood pressure, liver enzymes, and fasting non–HDL cholesterol levels. The overall safety profile of tirzepatide was also reassuring and consistent with the GLP-1 class. Most adverse effects were gastrointestinal and of mild to moderate severity. These adverse effects decreased over time.

These results perfectly position tirzepatide for my younger patients like the young woman mentioned above. The significant improvements in weight, glycemia, and cardiometabolic risk factors will not only help mitigate her future cardiometabolic risk but also help the sustainability of the U.K.’s National Health System. The cost of diabetes to the NHS in the United Kingdom is more than 10% of the entire NHS budget for England and Wales. More than 80% of this cost, however, is related not to the medications and devices we prescribe for diabetes but to the downstream complications of diabetes, such as hospital admissions for cardiovascular events and amputations, as well as regular hospital attendance for dialysis for end-stage kidney disease.

There is no doubt, however, that modern obesity medications such as semaglutide and tirzepatide are expensive, and demand has been astronomical. This demand has been driven by private weight-management services and celebrity influencers, and has resulted in major U.K.-wide GLP-1 shortages.

This situation is tragically widening health inequalities, as many of my patients who have been on GLP-1 receptor agonists for many years are unable to obtain them. I am having to consider switching therapies, often to less efficacious options without the compelling cardiorenal benefits. Furthermore, the GLP-1 shortages have prevented GLP-1 initiation for my other high-risk younger patients, potentially increasing future cardiometabolic risk.

There remain unanswered questions for tirzepatide: What is the durability of effect of tirzepatide after 72 weeks (that is, the trial duration of SURMOUNT-2)? Crucially, what is the effect of withdrawal of tirzepatide on weight loss maintenance? Previous evidence has suggested weight regain after discontinuation of a GLP-1 receptor agonist for obesity. This, of course, has further financial and sustainability implications for health care systems such as the NHS.

Finally, we are increasingly seeing younger women of childbearing age with or at risk for cardiometabolic disease. Again, my patient above is one example. Many of the therapies we use for cardiometabolic disease management, including GLP-1 receptor agonists and tirzepatide, have not been studied, and hence have not been licensed in pregnant women. Therefore, frank discussions are required with patients about future family plans and the importance of contraception. Often, the significant weight loss seen with GLP-1 receptor agonists can improve hormonal profiles and fertility in women and result in unexpected pregnancies if robust contraception is not in place.

Tirzepatide has yet to be made commercially available in the United Kingdom, and its price has also yet to be set. But I already envision a clear role for tirzepatide in my treatment armamentarium. I will be positioning tirzepatide as my first injectable of choice after oral treatment escalation with metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor in all my patients who require treatment intensification – not just my younger, higher-risk individuals. This may remain an aspirational goal until supply chains and cost are defined. There is no doubt, however, that the compelling weight and glycemic benefits of tirzepatide alongside individualized lifestyle interventions can help improve the quality and quantity of life of my patients living with type 2 diabetes and obesity.

Dr. Fernando is a general practitioner near Edinburgh. He reported receiving speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk..

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