Original Research

There are approximately 2 million female veterans in the United States, representing about 10% of the veteran population.¹ In 2015, 456,000 female veterans used the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care services. The VA predicts an increase in utilization over the next 20 years.²

Female veterans are more likely to have musculoskeletal disorder multimorbidity compared with male veterans and have higher rates of depressive and bipolar disorders, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).^3,4 Compared with male veterans, female veterans are younger, more likely to be unmarried and to have served during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.³ Fifty-five percent of women veterans vs 41% of men veterans have a service-connected disability, and a greater percentage of women veterans have a service connection rating > 50%.⁵ The top service-connected disabilities for women veterans are PTSD, major depressive disorder, migraines, and lumbosacral or cervical strain.² In addition, one-third of women veterans using VA health care report experiencing military sexual trauma (MST).⁶ Military service may impact the health of female veterans both physically and mentally. Providing treatments and programs to improve their health and their health care experience are current VA priorities.

The VA is changing the way health care is conceptualized and delivered by implementing a holistic model of care known as Whole Health, which seeks to empower and equip patients to take charge of their health, blending conventional medicine with self-care and complementary and integrative health (CIH) approaches, such as massage therapy, yoga, acupuncture, and meditation.⁷ CIH therapies can help improve physical and mental health with little to no adverse effects.^8-10

As part of the Whole Health initiative at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) in Michigan, the massage program was expanded in 2017 to offer relaxation massages to female veterans attending the women’s health clinic, which provides gynecologic care. Patients visiting a gynecology clinic often experience anxiety and pain related to invasive procedures and examinations. This is especially true for female veterans who experienced MST.¹¹

VAAAHS has 1 staff massage therapist (MT). To expand the program to the women’s health clinic, volunteer licensed MTs were recruited and trained in specific procedures by the staff MT.

Several studies have demonstrated the effect of therapeutic massage on pain and anxiety in predominantly male veteran study populations, including veterans needing postsurgical and palliative care as well as those experiencing chronic pain and knee osteoarthritis.^12-16 Little is known about the effects of massage therapy on female veterans. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine the effects of massage therapy among female veterans participating in the women’s health massage program.

Methods

The setting for this pre-post intervention study was VAAAHS. Veterans were called in advance by clinic staff and scheduled for 60-minute appointments either before or after their clinic appointment, depending on availability. MTs were instructed to provide relaxation massage using Swedish massage techniques with moderate pressure, avoiding deep pressure techniques. Swedish massage was selected to compare with previous veteran studies and because these techniques were approved for delivery by volunteer MTs. Massages were given in a private space on a massage table and were limited to the back, neck, head/face, and extremities.

The volunteer MTs gave the participants a survey to provide comments and to rate baseline pain and other symptoms prior to and following the massage. The MT left the room to provide privacy while completing the survey. The staff included the symptom data in the massage note as clinical outcomes and entered them into the electronic health record. Massages were given from October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. Data including symptom scores, demographics, the presence of chronic pain, mental health diagnoses, patient comments, and opioid use were abstracted from the electronic health record by 2 members of the study team and entered into an Excel database. This study was approved by the VAAAHS Institutional Review Board.

Study Measures

Pain intensity, pain unpleasantness (the affective component of pain), anxiety, shortness of breath, relaxation, and inner peace were rated pre- and postmassage on a 0 to 10 scale. Shortness of breath was included due to the relationship between breathing and anxiety. Inner peace was assessed to measure the calming effects of massage therapy. Beck and colleagues found the concept of inner peace was an important outcome of massage therapy.¹⁷ The scale anchors for pain intensity were “no pain” and “severe pain”; and “not at all unpleasant” and “as unpleasant as it can be” for pain unpleasantness. For anxiety, the anchors were “no anxiety” and “as anxious as I can be.” Anchors for relaxation and inner peace were reversed so that a 0 indicated low relaxation and inner peace while a 10 indicated the highest state of relaxation and inner peace.

Chronic pain was defined as pain existing for > 3 months. A history of chronic pain was determined from a review and synthesis of primary care and specialty care recorded diagnoses, patient concerns, and service-connected disabilities. The diagnoses included lumbosacral or cervical strain, chronic low back, joint (knee, shoulder, hip, ankle), neck, or pelvic pain, fibromyalgia, headache, migraine, osteoarthritis, and myofascial pain syndrome. The presence of mental health conditions, including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorders, and PTSD, were similarly determined by a review of mental health clinical notes. Sex was determined from the gynecology note.

Statistical Analysis

Means and medians were calculated for short-term changes in symptom scores. Due to skewness in the short-term changes, significance was tested using a nonparametric sign test. Significance was adjusted using the Bonferroni correction to protect the overall type I error level at 5% from multiple testing. We also assessed for differences in symptom changes in 4 subgroups, using an unadjusted general linear model: those with (1) chronic pain vs without; (2) an anxiety diagnosis vs without; (3) depression vs without; and (4) a PTSD diagnosis vs without. Data were analyzed using SPSS 25 and SAS 9.4.

Results

Results are based on the first massage received by 96 unique individuals (Table 1). Fifty-one (53%) patients were aged 21 to 40 years, and 45 (47%) were aged ≥ 41 years. Most participants (80%) had had a previous massage. Seven (7%) participants were currently on prescription opioids; 76 (79%) participants had a history of one or more chronic pain diagnoses (eg, back pain, migraine headaches, fibromyalgia) and 78 (81%) had a history of a mental health diagnosis (eg, depression, anxiety, PTSD). Massage sessions ranged from 30 to 60 minutes; most patients received massage therapy for 50 minutes.

Prior to massage, mean scores were 3.9 pain intensity, 3.7 pain unpleasantness, 3.8 anxiety, 1.0 shortness of breath, 4.0 relaxation, and 4.2 inner peace. Short-term changes in symptom scores are shown in Table 2. The mean score for pain intensity decreased by 1.9 points, pain unpleasantness by 2.0 points, anxiety by 2.4 points. The greatest change occurred for relaxation, which increased by 4.3 points. All changes in symptoms were statistically significant (P < .001). For subgroup comparisons, there were no significant differences in symptom scores for patients with a diagnosis of anxiety vs without and depression vs without (Table 3). However, anxiety in patients diagnosed with PTSD decreased by 3.3 points compared with 2.0 in patients without PTSD (P = .005). For patients with chronic pain, inner peace increased 3.9 points compared with an increase of 2.0 in patients without chronic pain (P = .002).

Discussion

Massage therapy may be a useful treatment for female veterans experiencing chronic pain, anxiety disorders, depression, or situational anxiety related to gynecologic procedures. After receiving a relaxation massage, female veterans reported decreased pain intensity, pain unpleasantness, and anxiety while reporting increased relaxation and feelings of inner peace. The effects of massage were consistent for all the symptoms or characteristics assessed, suggesting that massage may act on the body in multiple ways.

These changes parallel those seen in a palliative care population primarily composed of male veterans.¹⁴ However, the female veterans in this cohort experienced greater changes in relaxation and feelings of inner peace, which may be partly due to relief of tension related to an upcoming stressful appointment. The large mean decrease in anxiety level among female veterans with PTSD is notable as well as the larger increase in inner peace in those with chronic pain.

Many patients expressed their gratitude for the massage and interest in having access to more massage therapy. Female patients who have experienced sexual trauma or other trauma may especially benefit from massage prior to painful, invasive gynecologic procedures. Anecdotally, 2 nurse chaperones in the clinic mentioned separately to the massage program supervisor that the massages helped some very anxious women better tolerate an invasive procedure that would have been otherwise extremely difficult.

Limitations

This study has several limitations including lack of a control group, a self-selected population, the lack of objective biochemical measurements, and possible respondent bias to please the MTs. Eighty percent had previously experienced massage therapy and may have been biased toward the effects of massage before receiving the intervention. The first report of the effects of massage therapy in an exclusively female veteran population is a major strength of this study.

Further research including randomized controlled trials is needed, especially in populations with coexisting chronic pain and mental health disorders, as is exploring the acceptability of massage therapy for female veterans with MST. Finding viable alternatives to medications has become even more important as the nation addresses the challenge of the opioid crisis.^45,46

Conclusions

Female veterans are increasingly seeking VA health care. Although further research is needed, results from this pilot study suggest massage therapy may be an effective, inexpensive, and safe treatment for pain and/or anxiety in female veterans. Massage may be especially beneficial for female veterans who experience both chronic pain and mental health conditions. Providing female veterans with access to massage therapy may encourage better self-care and utilization of other Whole Health services, leading to overall improved health and well-being. VA Whole Health programs should consider targeting female veterans for massage therapy services.

Acknowledgments

The authors express our gratitude to the Women Veteran Program Manager, Cheryl Allen, RN; Massage Therapists Denise McGee and Kimberly Morro; Dara Ganoczy, MPH, for help with statistical analysis; and Mark Hausman, MD, for leadership support.

There are approximately 2 million female veterans in the United States, representing about 10% of the veteran population.¹ In 2015, 456,000 female veterans used the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care services. The VA predicts an increase in utilization over the next 20 years.²

Female veterans are more likely to have musculoskeletal disorder multimorbidity compared with male veterans and have higher rates of depressive and bipolar disorders, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).^3,4 Compared with male veterans, female veterans are younger, more likely to be unmarried and to have served during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.³ Fifty-five percent of women veterans vs 41% of men veterans have a service-connected disability, and a greater percentage of women veterans have a service connection rating > 50%.⁵ The top service-connected disabilities for women veterans are PTSD, major depressive disorder, migraines, and lumbosacral or cervical strain.² In addition, one-third of women veterans using VA health care report experiencing military sexual trauma (MST).⁶ Military service may impact the health of female veterans both physically and mentally. Providing treatments and programs to improve their health and their health care experience are current VA priorities.

The VA is changing the way health care is conceptualized and delivered by implementing a holistic model of care known as Whole Health, which seeks to empower and equip patients to take charge of their health, blending conventional medicine with self-care and complementary and integrative health (CIH) approaches, such as massage therapy, yoga, acupuncture, and meditation.⁷ CIH therapies can help improve physical and mental health with little to no adverse effects.^8-10

As part of the Whole Health initiative at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) in Michigan, the massage program was expanded in 2017 to offer relaxation massages to female veterans attending the women’s health clinic, which provides gynecologic care. Patients visiting a gynecology clinic often experience anxiety and pain related to invasive procedures and examinations. This is especially true for female veterans who experienced MST.¹¹

VAAAHS has 1 staff massage therapist (MT). To expand the program to the women’s health clinic, volunteer licensed MTs were recruited and trained in specific procedures by the staff MT.

Several studies have demonstrated the effect of therapeutic massage on pain and anxiety in predominantly male veteran study populations, including veterans needing postsurgical and palliative care as well as those experiencing chronic pain and knee osteoarthritis.^12-16 Little is known about the effects of massage therapy on female veterans. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine the effects of massage therapy among female veterans participating in the women’s health massage program.

Methods

The setting for this pre-post intervention study was VAAAHS. Veterans were called in advance by clinic staff and scheduled for 60-minute appointments either before or after their clinic appointment, depending on availability. MTs were instructed to provide relaxation massage using Swedish massage techniques with moderate pressure, avoiding deep pressure techniques. Swedish massage was selected to compare with previous veteran studies and because these techniques were approved for delivery by volunteer MTs. Massages were given in a private space on a massage table and were limited to the back, neck, head/face, and extremities.

The volunteer MTs gave the participants a survey to provide comments and to rate baseline pain and other symptoms prior to and following the massage. The MT left the room to provide privacy while completing the survey. The staff included the symptom data in the massage note as clinical outcomes and entered them into the electronic health record. Massages were given from October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. Data including symptom scores, demographics, the presence of chronic pain, mental health diagnoses, patient comments, and opioid use were abstracted from the electronic health record by 2 members of the study team and entered into an Excel database. This study was approved by the VAAAHS Institutional Review Board.

Study Measures

Pain intensity, pain unpleasantness (the affective component of pain), anxiety, shortness of breath, relaxation, and inner peace were rated pre- and postmassage on a 0 to 10 scale. Shortness of breath was included due to the relationship between breathing and anxiety. Inner peace was assessed to measure the calming effects of massage therapy. Beck and colleagues found the concept of inner peace was an important outcome of massage therapy.¹⁷ The scale anchors for pain intensity were “no pain” and “severe pain”; and “not at all unpleasant” and “as unpleasant as it can be” for pain unpleasantness. For anxiety, the anchors were “no anxiety” and “as anxious as I can be.” Anchors for relaxation and inner peace were reversed so that a 0 indicated low relaxation and inner peace while a 10 indicated the highest state of relaxation and inner peace.

Chronic pain was defined as pain existing for > 3 months. A history of chronic pain was determined from a review and synthesis of primary care and specialty care recorded diagnoses, patient concerns, and service-connected disabilities. The diagnoses included lumbosacral or cervical strain, chronic low back, joint (knee, shoulder, hip, ankle), neck, or pelvic pain, fibromyalgia, headache, migraine, osteoarthritis, and myofascial pain syndrome. The presence of mental health conditions, including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorders, and PTSD, were similarly determined by a review of mental health clinical notes. Sex was determined from the gynecology note.

Statistical Analysis

Means and medians were calculated for short-term changes in symptom scores. Due to skewness in the short-term changes, significance was tested using a nonparametric sign test. Significance was adjusted using the Bonferroni correction to protect the overall type I error level at 5% from multiple testing. We also assessed for differences in symptom changes in 4 subgroups, using an unadjusted general linear model: those with (1) chronic pain vs without; (2) an anxiety diagnosis vs without; (3) depression vs without; and (4) a PTSD diagnosis vs without. Data were analyzed using SPSS 25 and SAS 9.4.

Results

Results are based on the first massage received by 96 unique individuals (Table 1). Fifty-one (53%) patients were aged 21 to 40 years, and 45 (47%) were aged ≥ 41 years. Most participants (80%) had had a previous massage. Seven (7%) participants were currently on prescription opioids; 76 (79%) participants had a history of one or more chronic pain diagnoses (eg, back pain, migraine headaches, fibromyalgia) and 78 (81%) had a history of a mental health diagnosis (eg, depression, anxiety, PTSD). Massage sessions ranged from 30 to 60 minutes; most patients received massage therapy for 50 minutes.

Prior to massage, mean scores were 3.9 pain intensity, 3.7 pain unpleasantness, 3.8 anxiety, 1.0 shortness of breath, 4.0 relaxation, and 4.2 inner peace. Short-term changes in symptom scores are shown in Table 2. The mean score for pain intensity decreased by 1.9 points, pain unpleasantness by 2.0 points, anxiety by 2.4 points. The greatest change occurred for relaxation, which increased by 4.3 points. All changes in symptoms were statistically significant (P < .001). For subgroup comparisons, there were no significant differences in symptom scores for patients with a diagnosis of anxiety vs without and depression vs without (Table 3). However, anxiety in patients diagnosed with PTSD decreased by 3.3 points compared with 2.0 in patients without PTSD (P = .005). For patients with chronic pain, inner peace increased 3.9 points compared with an increase of 2.0 in patients without chronic pain (P = .002).

Discussion

Massage therapy may be a useful treatment for female veterans experiencing chronic pain, anxiety disorders, depression, or situational anxiety related to gynecologic procedures. After receiving a relaxation massage, female veterans reported decreased pain intensity, pain unpleasantness, and anxiety while reporting increased relaxation and feelings of inner peace. The effects of massage were consistent for all the symptoms or characteristics assessed, suggesting that massage may act on the body in multiple ways.

These changes parallel those seen in a palliative care population primarily composed of male veterans.¹⁴ However, the female veterans in this cohort experienced greater changes in relaxation and feelings of inner peace, which may be partly due to relief of tension related to an upcoming stressful appointment. The large mean decrease in anxiety level among female veterans with PTSD is notable as well as the larger increase in inner peace in those with chronic pain.

Many patients expressed their gratitude for the massage and interest in having access to more massage therapy. Female patients who have experienced sexual trauma or other trauma may especially benefit from massage prior to painful, invasive gynecologic procedures. Anecdotally, 2 nurse chaperones in the clinic mentioned separately to the massage program supervisor that the massages helped some very anxious women better tolerate an invasive procedure that would have been otherwise extremely difficult.

Limitations

This study has several limitations including lack of a control group, a self-selected population, the lack of objective biochemical measurements, and possible respondent bias to please the MTs. Eighty percent had previously experienced massage therapy and may have been biased toward the effects of massage before receiving the intervention. The first report of the effects of massage therapy in an exclusively female veteran population is a major strength of this study.

Further research including randomized controlled trials is needed, especially in populations with coexisting chronic pain and mental health disorders, as is exploring the acceptability of massage therapy for female veterans with MST. Finding viable alternatives to medications has become even more important as the nation addresses the challenge of the opioid crisis.^45,46

Conclusions

Female veterans are increasingly seeking VA health care. Although further research is needed, results from this pilot study suggest massage therapy may be an effective, inexpensive, and safe treatment for pain and/or anxiety in female veterans. Massage may be especially beneficial for female veterans who experience both chronic pain and mental health conditions. Providing female veterans with access to massage therapy may encourage better self-care and utilization of other Whole Health services, leading to overall improved health and well-being. VA Whole Health programs should consider targeting female veterans for massage therapy services.

Acknowledgments

The authors express our gratitude to the Women Veteran Program Manager, Cheryl Allen, RN; Massage Therapists Denise McGee and Kimberly Morro; Dara Ganoczy, MPH, for help with statistical analysis; and Mark Hausman, MD, for leadership support.

There are approximately 2 million female veterans in the United States, representing about 10% of the veteran population.¹ In 2015, 456,000 female veterans used the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care services. The VA predicts an increase in utilization over the next 20 years.²

Female veterans are more likely to have musculoskeletal disorder multimorbidity compared with male veterans and have higher rates of depressive and bipolar disorders, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).^3,4 Compared with male veterans, female veterans are younger, more likely to be unmarried and to have served during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.³ Fifty-five percent of women veterans vs 41% of men veterans have a service-connected disability, and a greater percentage of women veterans have a service connection rating > 50%.⁵ The top service-connected disabilities for women veterans are PTSD, major depressive disorder, migraines, and lumbosacral or cervical strain.² In addition, one-third of women veterans using VA health care report experiencing military sexual trauma (MST).⁶ Military service may impact the health of female veterans both physically and mentally. Providing treatments and programs to improve their health and their health care experience are current VA priorities.

The VA is changing the way health care is conceptualized and delivered by implementing a holistic model of care known as Whole Health, which seeks to empower and equip patients to take charge of their health, blending conventional medicine with self-care and complementary and integrative health (CIH) approaches, such as massage therapy, yoga, acupuncture, and meditation.⁷ CIH therapies can help improve physical and mental health with little to no adverse effects.^8-10

As part of the Whole Health initiative at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) in Michigan, the massage program was expanded in 2017 to offer relaxation massages to female veterans attending the women’s health clinic, which provides gynecologic care. Patients visiting a gynecology clinic often experience anxiety and pain related to invasive procedures and examinations. This is especially true for female veterans who experienced MST.¹¹

VAAAHS has 1 staff massage therapist (MT). To expand the program to the women’s health clinic, volunteer licensed MTs were recruited and trained in specific procedures by the staff MT.

Several studies have demonstrated the effect of therapeutic massage on pain and anxiety in predominantly male veteran study populations, including veterans needing postsurgical and palliative care as well as those experiencing chronic pain and knee osteoarthritis.^12-16 Little is known about the effects of massage therapy on female veterans. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine the effects of massage therapy among female veterans participating in the women’s health massage program.

Methods

The setting for this pre-post intervention study was VAAAHS. Veterans were called in advance by clinic staff and scheduled for 60-minute appointments either before or after their clinic appointment, depending on availability. MTs were instructed to provide relaxation massage using Swedish massage techniques with moderate pressure, avoiding deep pressure techniques. Swedish massage was selected to compare with previous veteran studies and because these techniques were approved for delivery by volunteer MTs. Massages were given in a private space on a massage table and were limited to the back, neck, head/face, and extremities.

The volunteer MTs gave the participants a survey to provide comments and to rate baseline pain and other symptoms prior to and following the massage. The MT left the room to provide privacy while completing the survey. The staff included the symptom data in the massage note as clinical outcomes and entered them into the electronic health record. Massages were given from October 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. Data including symptom scores, demographics, the presence of chronic pain, mental health diagnoses, patient comments, and opioid use were abstracted from the electronic health record by 2 members of the study team and entered into an Excel database. This study was approved by the VAAAHS Institutional Review Board.

Study Measures

Pain intensity, pain unpleasantness (the affective component of pain), anxiety, shortness of breath, relaxation, and inner peace were rated pre- and postmassage on a 0 to 10 scale. Shortness of breath was included due to the relationship between breathing and anxiety. Inner peace was assessed to measure the calming effects of massage therapy. Beck and colleagues found the concept of inner peace was an important outcome of massage therapy.¹⁷ The scale anchors for pain intensity were “no pain” and “severe pain”; and “not at all unpleasant” and “as unpleasant as it can be” for pain unpleasantness. For anxiety, the anchors were “no anxiety” and “as anxious as I can be.” Anchors for relaxation and inner peace were reversed so that a 0 indicated low relaxation and inner peace while a 10 indicated the highest state of relaxation and inner peace.

Chronic pain was defined as pain existing for > 3 months. A history of chronic pain was determined from a review and synthesis of primary care and specialty care recorded diagnoses, patient concerns, and service-connected disabilities. The diagnoses included lumbosacral or cervical strain, chronic low back, joint (knee, shoulder, hip, ankle), neck, or pelvic pain, fibromyalgia, headache, migraine, osteoarthritis, and myofascial pain syndrome. The presence of mental health conditions, including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorders, and PTSD, were similarly determined by a review of mental health clinical notes. Sex was determined from the gynecology note.

Statistical Analysis

Means and medians were calculated for short-term changes in symptom scores. Due to skewness in the short-term changes, significance was tested using a nonparametric sign test. Significance was adjusted using the Bonferroni correction to protect the overall type I error level at 5% from multiple testing. We also assessed for differences in symptom changes in 4 subgroups, using an unadjusted general linear model: those with (1) chronic pain vs without; (2) an anxiety diagnosis vs without; (3) depression vs without; and (4) a PTSD diagnosis vs without. Data were analyzed using SPSS 25 and SAS 9.4.

Results

Results are based on the first massage received by 96 unique individuals (Table 1). Fifty-one (53%) patients were aged 21 to 40 years, and 45 (47%) were aged ≥ 41 years. Most participants (80%) had had a previous massage. Seven (7%) participants were currently on prescription opioids; 76 (79%) participants had a history of one or more chronic pain diagnoses (eg, back pain, migraine headaches, fibromyalgia) and 78 (81%) had a history of a mental health diagnosis (eg, depression, anxiety, PTSD). Massage sessions ranged from 30 to 60 minutes; most patients received massage therapy for 50 minutes.

Prior to massage, mean scores were 3.9 pain intensity, 3.7 pain unpleasantness, 3.8 anxiety, 1.0 shortness of breath, 4.0 relaxation, and 4.2 inner peace. Short-term changes in symptom scores are shown in Table 2. The mean score for pain intensity decreased by 1.9 points, pain unpleasantness by 2.0 points, anxiety by 2.4 points. The greatest change occurred for relaxation, which increased by 4.3 points. All changes in symptoms were statistically significant (P < .001). For subgroup comparisons, there were no significant differences in symptom scores for patients with a diagnosis of anxiety vs without and depression vs without (Table 3). However, anxiety in patients diagnosed with PTSD decreased by 3.3 points compared with 2.0 in patients without PTSD (P = .005). For patients with chronic pain, inner peace increased 3.9 points compared with an increase of 2.0 in patients without chronic pain (P = .002).

Discussion

Massage therapy may be a useful treatment for female veterans experiencing chronic pain, anxiety disorders, depression, or situational anxiety related to gynecologic procedures. After receiving a relaxation massage, female veterans reported decreased pain intensity, pain unpleasantness, and anxiety while reporting increased relaxation and feelings of inner peace. The effects of massage were consistent for all the symptoms or characteristics assessed, suggesting that massage may act on the body in multiple ways.

These changes parallel those seen in a palliative care population primarily composed of male veterans.¹⁴ However, the female veterans in this cohort experienced greater changes in relaxation and feelings of inner peace, which may be partly due to relief of tension related to an upcoming stressful appointment. The large mean decrease in anxiety level among female veterans with PTSD is notable as well as the larger increase in inner peace in those with chronic pain.

Many patients expressed their gratitude for the massage and interest in having access to more massage therapy. Female patients who have experienced sexual trauma or other trauma may especially benefit from massage prior to painful, invasive gynecologic procedures. Anecdotally, 2 nurse chaperones in the clinic mentioned separately to the massage program supervisor that the massages helped some very anxious women better tolerate an invasive procedure that would have been otherwise extremely difficult.

Limitations

This study has several limitations including lack of a control group, a self-selected population, the lack of objective biochemical measurements, and possible respondent bias to please the MTs. Eighty percent had previously experienced massage therapy and may have been biased toward the effects of massage before receiving the intervention. The first report of the effects of massage therapy in an exclusively female veteran population is a major strength of this study.

Further research including randomized controlled trials is needed, especially in populations with coexisting chronic pain and mental health disorders, as is exploring the acceptability of massage therapy for female veterans with MST. Finding viable alternatives to medications has become even more important as the nation addresses the challenge of the opioid crisis.^45,46

Conclusions

Female veterans are increasingly seeking VA health care. Although further research is needed, results from this pilot study suggest massage therapy may be an effective, inexpensive, and safe treatment for pain and/or anxiety in female veterans. Massage may be especially beneficial for female veterans who experience both chronic pain and mental health conditions. Providing female veterans with access to massage therapy may encourage better self-care and utilization of other Whole Health services, leading to overall improved health and well-being. VA Whole Health programs should consider targeting female veterans for massage therapy services.

Acknowledgments

The authors express our gratitude to the Women Veteran Program Manager, Cheryl Allen, RN; Massage Therapists Denise McGee and Kimberly Morro; Dara Ganoczy, MPH, for help with statistical analysis; and Mark Hausman, MD, for leadership support.

Updated June 17, 2022

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides health care for > 9 million military veterans, nearly half of all former service members.¹ Over the past 15 years, there has been a steady and substantial increase in the frequency of disability awards for veterans with post-9/11 military service. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that 41% of veterans who served after 9/11 receive service-connected disability benefits compared with 28% of veterans overall.² More than 5 million veterans receive VA service-related disability benefits.^2,3 More than half of the VA $243 billion budget for fiscal year (FY) 2021 ($135.5 billion) was allocated to the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), of which $115.7 billion (85%) was allocated specifically for service-related compensation claims payments.⁴

The VA predicted that VBA will have completed 1.4 million ratings for disability claims in 2021.⁵ A substantial percentage of these claims will be for mental disorders, specifically posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). VA officials testifying before Congress in 2017 noted that the number of PTSD claims had nearly tripled in the previous 10 years.⁶ As far back as 2013, McNally and Frueh analyzed “the skyrocketing of disability claims,” particularly for PTSD, among veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.⁷

This large increase has placed an unprecedented burden on the VBA to expand its capacity to conduct initial PTSD disability evaluations that by regulations are completed by psychologists or psychiatrists. This need has led the VBA to make significant changes in the compensation and pension (C&P) process, including a reduced role for Veterans Health Administration (VHA) examiners and increased reliance on non-VA (contract) examiners through the Contract Medical Disability Examination (MDE) program. In 2019, the MDE budget was $1.23 billion; in 2020, it was increased to $1.79 billion, and for 2021, it was $2.23 billion, reflecting the increasing investment of resources in non-VA examiners, ostensibly to both increase capacity and save costs.⁵

Anecdotally, concerns have been raised regarding inadequate training of contract examiners as well as inadequate reports by these examiners. A 2018 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report concluded that VA lacked the data to determine whether contract examiners were meeting standards for quality, timeliness, and accuracy.⁸ The GAO report noted that VA required 92% of contractor reports contained no obvious errors, a relatively low target; however, in the first half of 2017, only 1 contractor group met that target. The report noted further that “VBA does not verify if examiners have completed training nor does it collect information to assess training effectiveness in preparing examiners.”⁸ A subsequent analysis of contract examinations completed by the VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in 2019 concluded that the MDE program was “hampered in their ability to provide oversight because of limitations with VBA’s electronic examination management systems, the lack of reliable data, and inadequate staffing of the program.”⁹

These reports have focused almost exclusively on simple performance metrics, such as timeliness of examination completion. However, the 2018 GAO report referenced isolated “focused reviews” of complaints about the quality of examinations by contract examiners and gave as an example an isolated “review of one contracted examiner who had high rates of diagnosing severe posttraumatic stress disorder.”⁸ After review indicated the examiner’s reports were of poor quality, the VBA discontinued the examiner’s contract.

Unfortunately, despite such anecdotal reports and isolated actions, to date there are no published reports examining and comparing the quality of PTSD examination reports completed by VHA and contract examiners or the subsequent disability determinations made by the VBA as a result of these evaluations. In a November 2020 letter to the VA Secretary, 11 US Senators expressed “grave concerns” regarding the VA decision to privatize C&P programs noting, among other concerns, that there were “no clinical quality measurement for, or evaluation of, contractor examinations.”¹⁰ The letter cited anecdotal evidence of contract examiners not reviewing veteran’s medical records and diagnosing conditions “without supporting evidence.”¹⁰

The purpose of the present evaluation was to provide a systematic comparison of the content and quality of initial PTSD disability examinations conducted by VHA and non-VA contract examiners. In addition, this study compared the disability rating decisions resulting from VHA and contract examinations.

Methods

A random sample of 100 Initial PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs)—structured forms completed by all examiners—were obtained from a list supplied by the VA Office of Performance Analysis and Integrity. All examinations were from the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 1, encompassing the New England region and were conducted in 2019 and 2020. Two of the 100 cases were excluded for technical reasons, resulting in 98 examination reports. However, the final pool yielded 62 contract examinations and only 36 VHA examinations. To make the sample sizes more comparable, an additional 15 examinations were randomly selected from the local examination database (also VISN 1) to complement the original examination pool.

Once DBQs were retrieved, all identifying information was deleted, and cases were analyzed using assigned record numbers. All coding was completed by the 2 principal investigators, both VA psychologists with extensive training and experience in C&P evaluation and treatment of veterans with PTSD. Due to inherent structural differences between the forms used for VA and contract examinations, raters could not be masked/blinded to the source of the report.

A number of measures were taken to reduce bias and enhance objectivity of rating. First, objectively coded variables (eg, age and sex of veteran, period of service, trauma type, diagnoses rendered by the examiner, impairment category endorsed, number and type of symptoms) were transcribed directly from the DBQ as recorded by the examiner. Second, to rate report quality, an initial categorical rating scale was developed based on predetermined elements of examination quality that were considered essential. After refinement and preliminary analysis of interrater reliabilities, 3 quality-related indices were identified: (1) level of detail in description of key content areas (history before service, service trauma, after service social and vocational history, mental health history, substance use); (2) synthesis of history and findings in explaining opinion rendered; and (3) clarity of opinion regarding causation required “at least as likely as not” degree of confidence. The first 2 quality ratings were based on a 3-point scale (poor, fair, good), and the third variable was coded as yes or no. (eAppendix available at doi:10.12788/fp.0225). Interrater reliabilities calculated based on a subsample of 18 cases, randomly selected and rated by both raters, yielded Cohen κ in the acceptable range (.61, .72, and .89 for detail, synthesis, and clarity, respectively). Finally, for information regarding VBA decision making, rating decision documents contained in the Veterans Benefit Management System database were reviewed to determine whether the veteran was granted service connection for PTSD or another mental disorder based on the examination report in question and, if so, the disability rating percentage awarded. These were recorded independently after all other coding had been completed.

Results

Comparison of VHA and contract examinations revealed no significant differences between groups on relevant sociodemographic and other measures (Table). Missing data were not obtained from other records or sources, and for this study, reflect only what is recorded in the examination reports except for age, which was calculated using veteran’s date of birth and the date of examination.

To examine differences between VHA and contract examinations, the groups were first compared on a set of predetermined objectively coded variables taken directly from the DBQ. The frequency of PTSD diagnoses by VHA (57%) and contract (71%) examiners was not significantly different nor were rates of non-PTSD diagnoses by VHA (51%) and contract (73%) examiners. There also was no difference in the mean number of PTSD symptoms endorsed across PTSD diagnostic criteria B, C, D, and E (maximum of 20) recorded by VHA (9.4) and contract (10.9) examiners.

Contract examiners recorded a significantly greater mean number of “other symptoms” on a checklist of 31 possible symptoms as compared to VHA examiners: 7.3 vs 5.8, respectively (t[104] = 2.27, P < .05). An initial analysis of overall social/vocational impairment ratings coded by examiners did not reveal significant differences between examiner groups. However, when the 2 most severe impairment categories were combined to create a pooled “severe” category, 31% of contract examiners rated veterans as severely impaired compared with only 12% of VHA examiners (χ² = 5.79, 1 df, P < .05) (Figure 1).

Discussion

The present study provides the first reported systematic comparison of VA disability examinations for PTSD completed by examiners employed by the VHA and those hired as contract examiners through the MDE program. Although the frequency of PTSD diagnoses by contract examiners was higher than that of VHA examiners (71% vs 57%, respectively), the difference was not statistically significant. However, contract examiners recorded significantly more symptoms for examinees and rated them as severely impaired more frequently than did their VHA counterparts. In keeping with rating guidelines used by the VBA, these differences in examination content resulted in higher disability ratings for veterans seen by contract examiners.

Along with these elevated reports in symptom and severity ratings, contract examiners were less likely to provide adequate detail in the narrative sections of their reports and less frequently provided a satisfactory explanation and synthesis of relevant history and findings in support of their conclusions. Although not reflected in the statistical analysis, case-by-case review revealed some startlingly inadequate examination reports by contract examiners, several of which contained no review of records, no report or discussion of relevant background, and no discussion or analysis of social and vocational function to inform and support their opinion about level of impairment. None of the VHA examination reports reviewed lacked information to that degree.

Such deficiencies in detail and synthesis run counter to accepted guidelines for the adequate assessment of psychological injury in general and in VA disability claims specifically.^11,12 For example, Watson and colleagues proposed that a minimum of 3 hours was required to conduct an initial PTSD examination, with more complex cases possibly taking longer.¹¹ There is no information available about how long contract examiners take to complete their examinations and how that compares with the time taken by VA examiners. The VBA failure to monitor whether or not examiners follow accepted guidelines for PTSD examination has not previously been evaluated. Historically, a large number of clinicians, researchers, and policy critics have raised concerns about the potential for exaggeration or malingering among VA PTSD disability claimants and have urged the need to adequately assess for unreliable reporting and presentation.^13,14 However, the possibility of systematic examiner deficiency and/or bias increasing the frequency of false or inflated claims being approved has received little empirical attention.

Limitations

A methodological limitation of the present study was that, due to structural differences in the DBQ forms used for VHA and contract examinations, the reports could not be de-identified as to examiner type and thus raters could not be masked/blinded. To mitigate bias, a predetermined, piloted, and refined coding and rating plan for report quality metrics was adhered to strictly, and interrater reliabilities were acceptable. Future study is suggested in which all report content is standardized for coding using the same format, which at present would require a complete rewriting of the entire report; this problem could be resolved by having the VBA adopt a more coherent system in which all reports, regardless of examiner type, use a single, standardized template. Further study using larger data sets and expanding to other VA regions also is needed.

Conclusions

The present study suggests that poor examination and report quality—by contract examiners and to a lesser degree VHA examiners—are not uncommon. The findings confirm and extend previous anecdotal reports of deficiencies in PTSD examinations performed by contract examiners and provide empirical support for concerns raised of global deficiencies in the VBA oversight of the MDE program. Such deficiencies have significant implications for the quality and integrity of the VA disability determination process for veterans claiming PTSD related to military service.

The current findings support and strengthen the call for development and management of a structured and enforced training and quality assurance/improvement program for VA PTSD disability examinations. Such training and oversight will be critical to improve the quality and integrity of these examinations, reduce error and waste in VBA’s Compensation and Pension process, and in doing so optimize VA financial resources to best serve veterans’ benefits and health care needs.

Updated June 17, 2022

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides health care for > 9 million military veterans, nearly half of all former service members.¹ Over the past 15 years, there has been a steady and substantial increase in the frequency of disability awards for veterans with post-9/11 military service. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that 41% of veterans who served after 9/11 receive service-connected disability benefits compared with 28% of veterans overall.² More than 5 million veterans receive VA service-related disability benefits.^2,3 More than half of the VA $243 billion budget for fiscal year (FY) 2021 ($135.5 billion) was allocated to the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), of which $115.7 billion (85%) was allocated specifically for service-related compensation claims payments.⁴

The VA predicted that VBA will have completed 1.4 million ratings for disability claims in 2021.⁵ A substantial percentage of these claims will be for mental disorders, specifically posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). VA officials testifying before Congress in 2017 noted that the number of PTSD claims had nearly tripled in the previous 10 years.⁶ As far back as 2013, McNally and Frueh analyzed “the skyrocketing of disability claims,” particularly for PTSD, among veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.⁷

This large increase has placed an unprecedented burden on the VBA to expand its capacity to conduct initial PTSD disability evaluations that by regulations are completed by psychologists or psychiatrists. This need has led the VBA to make significant changes in the compensation and pension (C&P) process, including a reduced role for Veterans Health Administration (VHA) examiners and increased reliance on non-VA (contract) examiners through the Contract Medical Disability Examination (MDE) program. In 2019, the MDE budget was $1.23 billion; in 2020, it was increased to $1.79 billion, and for 2021, it was $2.23 billion, reflecting the increasing investment of resources in non-VA examiners, ostensibly to both increase capacity and save costs.⁵

Anecdotally, concerns have been raised regarding inadequate training of contract examiners as well as inadequate reports by these examiners. A 2018 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report concluded that VA lacked the data to determine whether contract examiners were meeting standards for quality, timeliness, and accuracy.⁸ The GAO report noted that VA required 92% of contractor reports contained no obvious errors, a relatively low target; however, in the first half of 2017, only 1 contractor group met that target. The report noted further that “VBA does not verify if examiners have completed training nor does it collect information to assess training effectiveness in preparing examiners.”⁸ A subsequent analysis of contract examinations completed by the VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in 2019 concluded that the MDE program was “hampered in their ability to provide oversight because of limitations with VBA’s electronic examination management systems, the lack of reliable data, and inadequate staffing of the program.”⁹

These reports have focused almost exclusively on simple performance metrics, such as timeliness of examination completion. However, the 2018 GAO report referenced isolated “focused reviews” of complaints about the quality of examinations by contract examiners and gave as an example an isolated “review of one contracted examiner who had high rates of diagnosing severe posttraumatic stress disorder.”⁸ After review indicated the examiner’s reports were of poor quality, the VBA discontinued the examiner’s contract.

Unfortunately, despite such anecdotal reports and isolated actions, to date there are no published reports examining and comparing the quality of PTSD examination reports completed by VHA and contract examiners or the subsequent disability determinations made by the VBA as a result of these evaluations. In a November 2020 letter to the VA Secretary, 11 US Senators expressed “grave concerns” regarding the VA decision to privatize C&P programs noting, among other concerns, that there were “no clinical quality measurement for, or evaluation of, contractor examinations.”¹⁰ The letter cited anecdotal evidence of contract examiners not reviewing veteran’s medical records and diagnosing conditions “without supporting evidence.”¹⁰

The purpose of the present evaluation was to provide a systematic comparison of the content and quality of initial PTSD disability examinations conducted by VHA and non-VA contract examiners. In addition, this study compared the disability rating decisions resulting from VHA and contract examinations.

Methods

A random sample of 100 Initial PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs)—structured forms completed by all examiners—were obtained from a list supplied by the VA Office of Performance Analysis and Integrity. All examinations were from the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 1, encompassing the New England region and were conducted in 2019 and 2020. Two of the 100 cases were excluded for technical reasons, resulting in 98 examination reports. However, the final pool yielded 62 contract examinations and only 36 VHA examinations. To make the sample sizes more comparable, an additional 15 examinations were randomly selected from the local examination database (also VISN 1) to complement the original examination pool.

Once DBQs were retrieved, all identifying information was deleted, and cases were analyzed using assigned record numbers. All coding was completed by the 2 principal investigators, both VA psychologists with extensive training and experience in C&P evaluation and treatment of veterans with PTSD. Due to inherent structural differences between the forms used for VA and contract examinations, raters could not be masked/blinded to the source of the report.

A number of measures were taken to reduce bias and enhance objectivity of rating. First, objectively coded variables (eg, age and sex of veteran, period of service, trauma type, diagnoses rendered by the examiner, impairment category endorsed, number and type of symptoms) were transcribed directly from the DBQ as recorded by the examiner. Second, to rate report quality, an initial categorical rating scale was developed based on predetermined elements of examination quality that were considered essential. After refinement and preliminary analysis of interrater reliabilities, 3 quality-related indices were identified: (1) level of detail in description of key content areas (history before service, service trauma, after service social and vocational history, mental health history, substance use); (2) synthesis of history and findings in explaining opinion rendered; and (3) clarity of opinion regarding causation required “at least as likely as not” degree of confidence. The first 2 quality ratings were based on a 3-point scale (poor, fair, good), and the third variable was coded as yes or no. (eAppendix available at doi:10.12788/fp.0225). Interrater reliabilities calculated based on a subsample of 18 cases, randomly selected and rated by both raters, yielded Cohen κ in the acceptable range (.61, .72, and .89 for detail, synthesis, and clarity, respectively). Finally, for information regarding VBA decision making, rating decision documents contained in the Veterans Benefit Management System database were reviewed to determine whether the veteran was granted service connection for PTSD or another mental disorder based on the examination report in question and, if so, the disability rating percentage awarded. These were recorded independently after all other coding had been completed.

Results

Comparison of VHA and contract examinations revealed no significant differences between groups on relevant sociodemographic and other measures (Table). Missing data were not obtained from other records or sources, and for this study, reflect only what is recorded in the examination reports except for age, which was calculated using veteran’s date of birth and the date of examination.

To examine differences between VHA and contract examinations, the groups were first compared on a set of predetermined objectively coded variables taken directly from the DBQ. The frequency of PTSD diagnoses by VHA (57%) and contract (71%) examiners was not significantly different nor were rates of non-PTSD diagnoses by VHA (51%) and contract (73%) examiners. There also was no difference in the mean number of PTSD symptoms endorsed across PTSD diagnostic criteria B, C, D, and E (maximum of 20) recorded by VHA (9.4) and contract (10.9) examiners.

Contract examiners recorded a significantly greater mean number of “other symptoms” on a checklist of 31 possible symptoms as compared to VHA examiners: 7.3 vs 5.8, respectively (t[104] = 2.27, P < .05). An initial analysis of overall social/vocational impairment ratings coded by examiners did not reveal significant differences between examiner groups. However, when the 2 most severe impairment categories were combined to create a pooled “severe” category, 31% of contract examiners rated veterans as severely impaired compared with only 12% of VHA examiners (χ² = 5.79, 1 df, P < .05) (Figure 1).

Discussion

The present study provides the first reported systematic comparison of VA disability examinations for PTSD completed by examiners employed by the VHA and those hired as contract examiners through the MDE program. Although the frequency of PTSD diagnoses by contract examiners was higher than that of VHA examiners (71% vs 57%, respectively), the difference was not statistically significant. However, contract examiners recorded significantly more symptoms for examinees and rated them as severely impaired more frequently than did their VHA counterparts. In keeping with rating guidelines used by the VBA, these differences in examination content resulted in higher disability ratings for veterans seen by contract examiners.

Along with these elevated reports in symptom and severity ratings, contract examiners were less likely to provide adequate detail in the narrative sections of their reports and less frequently provided a satisfactory explanation and synthesis of relevant history and findings in support of their conclusions. Although not reflected in the statistical analysis, case-by-case review revealed some startlingly inadequate examination reports by contract examiners, several of which contained no review of records, no report or discussion of relevant background, and no discussion or analysis of social and vocational function to inform and support their opinion about level of impairment. None of the VHA examination reports reviewed lacked information to that degree.

Such deficiencies in detail and synthesis run counter to accepted guidelines for the adequate assessment of psychological injury in general and in VA disability claims specifically.^11,12 For example, Watson and colleagues proposed that a minimum of 3 hours was required to conduct an initial PTSD examination, with more complex cases possibly taking longer.¹¹ There is no information available about how long contract examiners take to complete their examinations and how that compares with the time taken by VA examiners. The VBA failure to monitor whether or not examiners follow accepted guidelines for PTSD examination has not previously been evaluated. Historically, a large number of clinicians, researchers, and policy critics have raised concerns about the potential for exaggeration or malingering among VA PTSD disability claimants and have urged the need to adequately assess for unreliable reporting and presentation.^13,14 However, the possibility of systematic examiner deficiency and/or bias increasing the frequency of false or inflated claims being approved has received little empirical attention.

Limitations

A methodological limitation of the present study was that, due to structural differences in the DBQ forms used for VHA and contract examinations, the reports could not be de-identified as to examiner type and thus raters could not be masked/blinded. To mitigate bias, a predetermined, piloted, and refined coding and rating plan for report quality metrics was adhered to strictly, and interrater reliabilities were acceptable. Future study is suggested in which all report content is standardized for coding using the same format, which at present would require a complete rewriting of the entire report; this problem could be resolved by having the VBA adopt a more coherent system in which all reports, regardless of examiner type, use a single, standardized template. Further study using larger data sets and expanding to other VA regions also is needed.

Conclusions

The present study suggests that poor examination and report quality—by contract examiners and to a lesser degree VHA examiners—are not uncommon. The findings confirm and extend previous anecdotal reports of deficiencies in PTSD examinations performed by contract examiners and provide empirical support for concerns raised of global deficiencies in the VBA oversight of the MDE program. Such deficiencies have significant implications for the quality and integrity of the VA disability determination process for veterans claiming PTSD related to military service.

The current findings support and strengthen the call for development and management of a structured and enforced training and quality assurance/improvement program for VA PTSD disability examinations. Such training and oversight will be critical to improve the quality and integrity of these examinations, reduce error and waste in VBA’s Compensation and Pension process, and in doing so optimize VA financial resources to best serve veterans’ benefits and health care needs.

Updated June 17, 2022

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides health care for > 9 million military veterans, nearly half of all former service members.¹ Over the past 15 years, there has been a steady and substantial increase in the frequency of disability awards for veterans with post-9/11 military service. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that 41% of veterans who served after 9/11 receive service-connected disability benefits compared with 28% of veterans overall.² More than 5 million veterans receive VA service-related disability benefits.^2,3 More than half of the VA $243 billion budget for fiscal year (FY) 2021 ($135.5 billion) was allocated to the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), of which $115.7 billion (85%) was allocated specifically for service-related compensation claims payments.⁴

The VA predicted that VBA will have completed 1.4 million ratings for disability claims in 2021.⁵ A substantial percentage of these claims will be for mental disorders, specifically posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). VA officials testifying before Congress in 2017 noted that the number of PTSD claims had nearly tripled in the previous 10 years.⁶ As far back as 2013, McNally and Frueh analyzed “the skyrocketing of disability claims,” particularly for PTSD, among veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.⁷

This large increase has placed an unprecedented burden on the VBA to expand its capacity to conduct initial PTSD disability evaluations that by regulations are completed by psychologists or psychiatrists. This need has led the VBA to make significant changes in the compensation and pension (C&P) process, including a reduced role for Veterans Health Administration (VHA) examiners and increased reliance on non-VA (contract) examiners through the Contract Medical Disability Examination (MDE) program. In 2019, the MDE budget was $1.23 billion; in 2020, it was increased to $1.79 billion, and for 2021, it was $2.23 billion, reflecting the increasing investment of resources in non-VA examiners, ostensibly to both increase capacity and save costs.⁵

Anecdotally, concerns have been raised regarding inadequate training of contract examiners as well as inadequate reports by these examiners. A 2018 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report concluded that VA lacked the data to determine whether contract examiners were meeting standards for quality, timeliness, and accuracy.⁸ The GAO report noted that VA required 92% of contractor reports contained no obvious errors, a relatively low target; however, in the first half of 2017, only 1 contractor group met that target. The report noted further that “VBA does not verify if examiners have completed training nor does it collect information to assess training effectiveness in preparing examiners.”⁸ A subsequent analysis of contract examinations completed by the VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in 2019 concluded that the MDE program was “hampered in their ability to provide oversight because of limitations with VBA’s electronic examination management systems, the lack of reliable data, and inadequate staffing of the program.”⁹

These reports have focused almost exclusively on simple performance metrics, such as timeliness of examination completion. However, the 2018 GAO report referenced isolated “focused reviews” of complaints about the quality of examinations by contract examiners and gave as an example an isolated “review of one contracted examiner who had high rates of diagnosing severe posttraumatic stress disorder.”⁸ After review indicated the examiner’s reports were of poor quality, the VBA discontinued the examiner’s contract.

Unfortunately, despite such anecdotal reports and isolated actions, to date there are no published reports examining and comparing the quality of PTSD examination reports completed by VHA and contract examiners or the subsequent disability determinations made by the VBA as a result of these evaluations. In a November 2020 letter to the VA Secretary, 11 US Senators expressed “grave concerns” regarding the VA decision to privatize C&P programs noting, among other concerns, that there were “no clinical quality measurement for, or evaluation of, contractor examinations.”¹⁰ The letter cited anecdotal evidence of contract examiners not reviewing veteran’s medical records and diagnosing conditions “without supporting evidence.”¹⁰

The purpose of the present evaluation was to provide a systematic comparison of the content and quality of initial PTSD disability examinations conducted by VHA and non-VA contract examiners. In addition, this study compared the disability rating decisions resulting from VHA and contract examinations.

Methods

A random sample of 100 Initial PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs)—structured forms completed by all examiners—were obtained from a list supplied by the VA Office of Performance Analysis and Integrity. All examinations were from the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 1, encompassing the New England region and were conducted in 2019 and 2020. Two of the 100 cases were excluded for technical reasons, resulting in 98 examination reports. However, the final pool yielded 62 contract examinations and only 36 VHA examinations. To make the sample sizes more comparable, an additional 15 examinations were randomly selected from the local examination database (also VISN 1) to complement the original examination pool.

Once DBQs were retrieved, all identifying information was deleted, and cases were analyzed using assigned record numbers. All coding was completed by the 2 principal investigators, both VA psychologists with extensive training and experience in C&P evaluation and treatment of veterans with PTSD. Due to inherent structural differences between the forms used for VA and contract examinations, raters could not be masked/blinded to the source of the report.

A number of measures were taken to reduce bias and enhance objectivity of rating. First, objectively coded variables (eg, age and sex of veteran, period of service, trauma type, diagnoses rendered by the examiner, impairment category endorsed, number and type of symptoms) were transcribed directly from the DBQ as recorded by the examiner. Second, to rate report quality, an initial categorical rating scale was developed based on predetermined elements of examination quality that were considered essential. After refinement and preliminary analysis of interrater reliabilities, 3 quality-related indices were identified: (1) level of detail in description of key content areas (history before service, service trauma, after service social and vocational history, mental health history, substance use); (2) synthesis of history and findings in explaining opinion rendered; and (3) clarity of opinion regarding causation required “at least as likely as not” degree of confidence. The first 2 quality ratings were based on a 3-point scale (poor, fair, good), and the third variable was coded as yes or no. (eAppendix available at doi:10.12788/fp.0225). Interrater reliabilities calculated based on a subsample of 18 cases, randomly selected and rated by both raters, yielded Cohen κ in the acceptable range (.61, .72, and .89 for detail, synthesis, and clarity, respectively). Finally, for information regarding VBA decision making, rating decision documents contained in the Veterans Benefit Management System database were reviewed to determine whether the veteran was granted service connection for PTSD or another mental disorder based on the examination report in question and, if so, the disability rating percentage awarded. These were recorded independently after all other coding had been completed.

Results

Comparison of VHA and contract examinations revealed no significant differences between groups on relevant sociodemographic and other measures (Table). Missing data were not obtained from other records or sources, and for this study, reflect only what is recorded in the examination reports except for age, which was calculated using veteran’s date of birth and the date of examination.

To examine differences between VHA and contract examinations, the groups were first compared on a set of predetermined objectively coded variables taken directly from the DBQ. The frequency of PTSD diagnoses by VHA (57%) and contract (71%) examiners was not significantly different nor were rates of non-PTSD diagnoses by VHA (51%) and contract (73%) examiners. There also was no difference in the mean number of PTSD symptoms endorsed across PTSD diagnostic criteria B, C, D, and E (maximum of 20) recorded by VHA (9.4) and contract (10.9) examiners.

Contract examiners recorded a significantly greater mean number of “other symptoms” on a checklist of 31 possible symptoms as compared to VHA examiners: 7.3 vs 5.8, respectively (t[104] = 2.27, P < .05). An initial analysis of overall social/vocational impairment ratings coded by examiners did not reveal significant differences between examiner groups. However, when the 2 most severe impairment categories were combined to create a pooled “severe” category, 31% of contract examiners rated veterans as severely impaired compared with only 12% of VHA examiners (χ² = 5.79, 1 df, P < .05) (Figure 1).

Discussion

The present study provides the first reported systematic comparison of VA disability examinations for PTSD completed by examiners employed by the VHA and those hired as contract examiners through the MDE program. Although the frequency of PTSD diagnoses by contract examiners was higher than that of VHA examiners (71% vs 57%, respectively), the difference was not statistically significant. However, contract examiners recorded significantly more symptoms for examinees and rated them as severely impaired more frequently than did their VHA counterparts. In keeping with rating guidelines used by the VBA, these differences in examination content resulted in higher disability ratings for veterans seen by contract examiners.

Along with these elevated reports in symptom and severity ratings, contract examiners were less likely to provide adequate detail in the narrative sections of their reports and less frequently provided a satisfactory explanation and synthesis of relevant history and findings in support of their conclusions. Although not reflected in the statistical analysis, case-by-case review revealed some startlingly inadequate examination reports by contract examiners, several of which contained no review of records, no report or discussion of relevant background, and no discussion or analysis of social and vocational function to inform and support their opinion about level of impairment. None of the VHA examination reports reviewed lacked information to that degree.

Such deficiencies in detail and synthesis run counter to accepted guidelines for the adequate assessment of psychological injury in general and in VA disability claims specifically.^11,12 For example, Watson and colleagues proposed that a minimum of 3 hours was required to conduct an initial PTSD examination, with more complex cases possibly taking longer.¹¹ There is no information available about how long contract examiners take to complete their examinations and how that compares with the time taken by VA examiners. The VBA failure to monitor whether or not examiners follow accepted guidelines for PTSD examination has not previously been evaluated. Historically, a large number of clinicians, researchers, and policy critics have raised concerns about the potential for exaggeration or malingering among VA PTSD disability claimants and have urged the need to adequately assess for unreliable reporting and presentation.^13,14 However, the possibility of systematic examiner deficiency and/or bias increasing the frequency of false or inflated claims being approved has received little empirical attention.

Limitations

A methodological limitation of the present study was that, due to structural differences in the DBQ forms used for VHA and contract examinations, the reports could not be de-identified as to examiner type and thus raters could not be masked/blinded. To mitigate bias, a predetermined, piloted, and refined coding and rating plan for report quality metrics was adhered to strictly, and interrater reliabilities were acceptable. Future study is suggested in which all report content is standardized for coding using the same format, which at present would require a complete rewriting of the entire report; this problem could be resolved by having the VBA adopt a more coherent system in which all reports, regardless of examiner type, use a single, standardized template. Further study using larger data sets and expanding to other VA regions also is needed.

Conclusions

The present study suggests that poor examination and report quality—by contract examiners and to a lesser degree VHA examiners—are not uncommon. The findings confirm and extend previous anecdotal reports of deficiencies in PTSD examinations performed by contract examiners and provide empirical support for concerns raised of global deficiencies in the VBA oversight of the MDE program. Such deficiencies have significant implications for the quality and integrity of the VA disability determination process for veterans claiming PTSD related to military service.

The current findings support and strengthen the call for development and management of a structured and enforced training and quality assurance/improvement program for VA PTSD disability examinations. Such training and oversight will be critical to improve the quality and integrity of these examinations, reduce error and waste in VBA’s Compensation and Pension process, and in doing so optimize VA financial resources to best serve veterans’ benefits and health care needs.

Automated urine cultures (UCs) following urinalysis (UA) are often used in emergency departments (EDs) to identify urinary tract infections (UTIs). The fast-paced environment of the ED makes this method of proactive collection and facilitation of UC favorable. However, results are often reported as no organism growth or the growth of clinically insignificant organisms, leading to the overdetection and overtreatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB).^1-3 An estimated 30 to 60% of patients with ASB receive unwarranted antibiotic treatment, which is associated with an increased risk of developing Clostridioides difficile infection and contributes to the development of antimicrobial resistance.^4-10 The costs associated with UC are an important consideration given the use of resources, the time and effort required to collect and process large numbers of negative cultures, and further efforts devoted to the follow-up of ED culture results.

Changes in traditional testing involving testing of both a UA and UC to reflex testing where urine specimens undergo culture only if they meet certain criteria have been described.^11-14 This change in traditional testing aims to reduce the number of potentially unnecessary cultures performed without compromising clinical care. Leukocyte quantity in the UA has been shown to be a reliable predictor of true infection.^11,15 Fok and colleagues demonstrated that reflex urine testing in ambulatory male urology patients in which cultures were done on only urine specimens with > 5 white blood cells per high-power field (WBC/HPF) would have missed only 7% of positive UCs, while avoiding 69% of cultures.¹¹

At the Edward Hines, Jr Veterans Affairs Hospital (Hines VA), inappropriate UC ordering and treatment for ASB has been identified as an area needing improvement. An evaluation was conducted at the facility to determine the population of inpatient veterans with a positive UC who were appropriately managed. Of the 113 study patients with a positive UC included in this review, 77 (68%) had a diagnosis of ASB, with > 80% of patients with ASB (and no other suspected infections) receiving antimicrobial therapy.⁸ A subsequent evaluation was conducted at the Hines VA ED to evaluate UTI treatment and follow-up. Of the 173 ED patients included, 23% received antibiotic therapy for an ASB and 60% had a UA and UC collected but did not report symptoms.⁹ Finally, a review by the Hines VA laboratory showed that in May 2017, of 359 UCs sent from various locations of the hospital, 38% were obtained in the setting of a negative UA.

A multidisciplinary group with representation from primary care, infectious diseases, pharmacy, nursing, laboratory, and informatics was created with a goal to improve the workup and management of UTIs. In addition to periodic education for the clinicians regarding appropriate use and interpretation of UA and UC along with judicious use of antimicrobials especially in the setting of ASB, a UA to reflex culture process change was implemented. This allowed for automatic cancellation of a UC in the setting of a negative UA, which was designed to help facilitate appropriate UC ordering.

Methods

The primary objective of this study was to compare the frequency of inappropriate UC use and inappropriate antibiotic prescribing pre- and postimplementation of this UA to reflex culture process change. An inappropriate UC was defined as a UC ordered despite a negative UA in asymptomatic patients. Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing was defined as treatment of patients with ASB. The secondary objective evaluated postintervention data to assess the frequency of outpatient, ED, and hospital visits for UTI-related symptoms in the group of patients that had a UC cancelled as a result of the new process change (within a 7-day period of the initial UA) to determine whether patients with true infections were missed due to the process change.

Study Design and Setting

This pre-post quality improvement (QI) study analyzed the UC-ordering practices for UTIs sent from the ED at the Hines VA. This VA is a 483-bed tertiary care hospital in Chicago, Illinois, and serves > 57,000 veterans and about 23,000 ED visits annually. This study was approved by the Edward Hines, Jr VA Institutional Review Board as a quality assurance/QI proposal prior to data collection.

Patient Selection

All patients who received a UA with or without a UC sent from the ED between October 17, 2017 and January 17, 2018 were identified by the microbiology laboratory and a list was generated. Postintervention data were compared with data from a previous analysis performed at the Hines VA in 2015 (baseline data), which found that UCs were collected frequently despite negative UA, and often resulted in the prescribing of unnecessary antibiotics.⁹

When comparing postintervention data with preintervention data for the primary study objective, the same exclusion criteria from the 2015 study were applied to the present study, which excluded ED patients who were admitted for inpatient care, concurrent antibiotic therapy for a non-UTI indication, duplicate cultures, and use of chronic bladder management devices. All patients identified as receiving a UA during the specified postintervention study period were included for evaluation of the secondary study objective.

Interventions

After physician education, an ED process change was implemented on October 3, 2017. This process change involved the creation of new order sets in the EHR that allowed clinicians to order a UA only, a UA with culture that would be cancelled by laboratory personnel if the UA did not result in > 5 WBC/HPF, and a UA with culture designated as do not cancel, where the UC was processed regardless of the UA results. The scenarios in which the latter option was considered appropriate were listed on the ordering screen and included pregnancy, a genitourinary procedure with necessary preoperative culture, and neutropenia.

Measurements

Postimplementation, all UAs were reviewed and grouped as follows: (1) positive UA with subsequent UC; (2) negative UA, culture cancelled; (3) only UA ordered (no culture); or (4) do not cancel UC ordered. Of the UAs that were analyzed, the following data were collected: demographics, comorbidities, concurrent medications for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and/or overactive bladder (OAB), documented allergies/adverse drug reactions to antibiotics, date of ED visit, documented UTI signs/symptoms (defined as frequency, urgency, dysuria, fever, suprapubic pain, or altered mental status in patients unable to verbalize urinary symptoms), UC results and susceptibilities, number of UCs repeated within 7 days after initial UA, requirement of antibiotic for UTI within 7 days of initial UA, antibiotic prescribed, duration of antibiotic therapy, and outpatient visits, ED visits, or need for hospital admission within 7 days of the initial UA for UTI-related symptoms. Other relevant UA and UC data that could not be obtained from the EHR were collected by generating a report using the Veterans Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA).

Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SAS v9.4. Independent t tests and Fisher exact tests were used to describe difference pre- and postintervention. Statistical significance was considered for P < .05. Based on results from the previous study conducted at this facility in addition to a literature review, it was determined that 92 patients in each group (pre- and postintervention) would be necessary to detect a 15% increase in percentage of patients appropriately treated for a UTI.

Results

There were 684 UAs evaluated from ED visits, 429 preintervention and 255 postintervention. The 255 patients were evaluated for the secondary objective of the study. Of the 255 patients with UAs identified postintervention, 150 were excluded based on the predefined exclusion criteria, and the remaining 105 were compared with the 173 patients from the preintervention group and were included in the analysis for the primary objective (Figure 1).

Patients in the postintervention group were younger than those in the preintervention group (P < .02): otherwise the groups were similar (Table 1). Inappropriate antibiotics for ASB decreased from 10.2% preintervention to 1.9% postintervention (odds ratio, 0.17; P = .01) (Table 2). UC processing despite a negative UA significantly decreased from 100% preintervention to 38.6% postintervention (P < .001) (Table 3). In patients with a negative UA, antibiotic prescribing decreased by 25.3% postintervention, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Discussion

A simple process change at the Hines VA resulted in benefits related to antimicrobial stewardship without conferring adverse outcomes on patient safety. Both UC processing despite a negative UA and inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ASB were reduced significantly postintervention. This process change was piloted in the ED where UCs are often included as part of the initial diagnostic testing in patients who may not report UTI-related symptoms but for whom a UC is often bundled with other infectious workup, depending on the patient presentation.

Reflex testing of urine specimens has been described in the literature, both in an exploratory nature where impact of a reflex UC cancellation protocol based on certain UA criteria is measured by percent reduction of UCs processed as well as results of such interventions implemented into clinical practice.^11-13 A retrospective study performed at the University of North Carolina Medical Center evaluated patients who presented to the ED during a 6-month period and had both an automated UA and UC collected. UC processing was restricted to UA that was positive for nitrites, leukocyte esterase, bacteria, or > 10 WBC/HPF. Use of this reflex culture cancellation protocol could have eliminated 604 of the 1546 (39.1%) cultures processed. However, 11 of the 314 (3.5%) positive cultures could have been missed.¹³ This same protocol was externally validated at another large academic ED setting, where similar results were found.¹⁴

Limitations

This single-center, pre-post QI study was not without limitations. Manual chart reviews were required, and accuracy of information was dependent on clinician documentation and assessment of UTI-related symptoms. The population studied was predominately older males; thus, results may not be applicable to females or young adults. Additionally, recognition of a negative UA and subsequent cancellation of the UC was dependent on laboratory personnel. As noted in the patient group with a positive UA, some of these UAs were negative and may have been overlooked; therefore, subsequent UCs were inappropriately processed. However, this occurred infrequently and confirmed the low probability of true UTI in the setting of a negative UA. Follow-up for UTI-related symptoms may not have been captured if a patient had presented to an outside facility. Last, definitions of a positive UA differed slightly between the pre- and postintervention groups. The preintervention study defined a positive UA as a WBC count > 5 WBC/HPF and positive leukocyte esterase, whereas the present study defined a positive UA with a WBC count > 5. This may have resulted in an overestimation of positive UA in the postintervention group.

Conclusions

Better selective use of UC testing may improve stewardship resources and reduce costs impacting both ED and clinical laboratories. Furthermore, benefits can include a reduction in the use of time and resources required to collect samples for culture, use of test supplies, the time and effort required to process the large number of negative cultures, and resources devoted to the follow-up of these ED culture results. The described UA to reflex culture process change demonstrated a significant reduction in the processing of inappropriate UC and unnecessary antibiotics for ASB. There were no missed UTIs or other adverse patient outcomes noted. This process change has been implemented in all departments at the Hines VA and additional data will be collected to ensure consistent outcomes.

Automated urine cultures (UCs) following urinalysis (UA) are often used in emergency departments (EDs) to identify urinary tract infections (UTIs). The fast-paced environment of the ED makes this method of proactive collection and facilitation of UC favorable. However, results are often reported as no organism growth or the growth of clinically insignificant organisms, leading to the overdetection and overtreatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB).^1-3 An estimated 30 to 60% of patients with ASB receive unwarranted antibiotic treatment, which is associated with an increased risk of developing Clostridioides difficile infection and contributes to the development of antimicrobial resistance.^4-10 The costs associated with UC are an important consideration given the use of resources, the time and effort required to collect and process large numbers of negative cultures, and further efforts devoted to the follow-up of ED culture results.

Changes in traditional testing involving testing of both a UA and UC to reflex testing where urine specimens undergo culture only if they meet certain criteria have been described.^11-14 This change in traditional testing aims to reduce the number of potentially unnecessary cultures performed without compromising clinical care. Leukocyte quantity in the UA has been shown to be a reliable predictor of true infection.^11,15 Fok and colleagues demonstrated that reflex urine testing in ambulatory male urology patients in which cultures were done on only urine specimens with > 5 white blood cells per high-power field (WBC/HPF) would have missed only 7% of positive UCs, while avoiding 69% of cultures.¹¹

At the Edward Hines, Jr Veterans Affairs Hospital (Hines VA), inappropriate UC ordering and treatment for ASB has been identified as an area needing improvement. An evaluation was conducted at the facility to determine the population of inpatient veterans with a positive UC who were appropriately managed. Of the 113 study patients with a positive UC included in this review, 77 (68%) had a diagnosis of ASB, with > 80% of patients with ASB (and no other suspected infections) receiving antimicrobial therapy.⁸ A subsequent evaluation was conducted at the Hines VA ED to evaluate UTI treatment and follow-up. Of the 173 ED patients included, 23% received antibiotic therapy for an ASB and 60% had a UA and UC collected but did not report symptoms.⁹ Finally, a review by the Hines VA laboratory showed that in May 2017, of 359 UCs sent from various locations of the hospital, 38% were obtained in the setting of a negative UA.

A multidisciplinary group with representation from primary care, infectious diseases, pharmacy, nursing, laboratory, and informatics was created with a goal to improve the workup and management of UTIs. In addition to periodic education for the clinicians regarding appropriate use and interpretation of UA and UC along with judicious use of antimicrobials especially in the setting of ASB, a UA to reflex culture process change was implemented. This allowed for automatic cancellation of a UC in the setting of a negative UA, which was designed to help facilitate appropriate UC ordering.

Methods

The primary objective of this study was to compare the frequency of inappropriate UC use and inappropriate antibiotic prescribing pre- and postimplementation of this UA to reflex culture process change. An inappropriate UC was defined as a UC ordered despite a negative UA in asymptomatic patients. Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing was defined as treatment of patients with ASB. The secondary objective evaluated postintervention data to assess the frequency of outpatient, ED, and hospital visits for UTI-related symptoms in the group of patients that had a UC cancelled as a result of the new process change (within a 7-day period of the initial UA) to determine whether patients with true infections were missed due to the process change.

Study Design and Setting

This pre-post quality improvement (QI) study analyzed the UC-ordering practices for UTIs sent from the ED at the Hines VA. This VA is a 483-bed tertiary care hospital in Chicago, Illinois, and serves > 57,000 veterans and about 23,000 ED visits annually. This study was approved by the Edward Hines, Jr VA Institutional Review Board as a quality assurance/QI proposal prior to data collection.

Patient Selection

All patients who received a UA with or without a UC sent from the ED between October 17, 2017 and January 17, 2018 were identified by the microbiology laboratory and a list was generated. Postintervention data were compared with data from a previous analysis performed at the Hines VA in 2015 (baseline data), which found that UCs were collected frequently despite negative UA, and often resulted in the prescribing of unnecessary antibiotics.⁹

When comparing postintervention data with preintervention data for the primary study objective, the same exclusion criteria from the 2015 study were applied to the present study, which excluded ED patients who were admitted for inpatient care, concurrent antibiotic therapy for a non-UTI indication, duplicate cultures, and use of chronic bladder management devices. All patients identified as receiving a UA during the specified postintervention study period were included for evaluation of the secondary study objective.

Interventions

After physician education, an ED process change was implemented on October 3, 2017. This process change involved the creation of new order sets in the EHR that allowed clinicians to order a UA only, a UA with culture that would be cancelled by laboratory personnel if the UA did not result in > 5 WBC/HPF, and a UA with culture designated as do not cancel, where the UC was processed regardless of the UA results. The scenarios in which the latter option was considered appropriate were listed on the ordering screen and included pregnancy, a genitourinary procedure with necessary preoperative culture, and neutropenia.

Measurements

Postimplementation, all UAs were reviewed and grouped as follows: (1) positive UA with subsequent UC; (2) negative UA, culture cancelled; (3) only UA ordered (no culture); or (4) do not cancel UC ordered. Of the UAs that were analyzed, the following data were collected: demographics, comorbidities, concurrent medications for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and/or overactive bladder (OAB), documented allergies/adverse drug reactions to antibiotics, date of ED visit, documented UTI signs/symptoms (defined as frequency, urgency, dysuria, fever, suprapubic pain, or altered mental status in patients unable to verbalize urinary symptoms), UC results and susceptibilities, number of UCs repeated within 7 days after initial UA, requirement of antibiotic for UTI within 7 days of initial UA, antibiotic prescribed, duration of antibiotic therapy, and outpatient visits, ED visits, or need for hospital admission within 7 days of the initial UA for UTI-related symptoms. Other relevant UA and UC data that could not be obtained from the EHR were collected by generating a report using the Veterans Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA).

Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SAS v9.4. Independent t tests and Fisher exact tests were used to describe difference pre- and postintervention. Statistical significance was considered for P < .05. Based on results from the previous study conducted at this facility in addition to a literature review, it was determined that 92 patients in each group (pre- and postintervention) would be necessary to detect a 15% increase in percentage of patients appropriately treated for a UTI.

Results

There were 684 UAs evaluated from ED visits, 429 preintervention and 255 postintervention. The 255 patients were evaluated for the secondary objective of the study. Of the 255 patients with UAs identified postintervention, 150 were excluded based on the predefined exclusion criteria, and the remaining 105 were compared with the 173 patients from the preintervention group and were included in the analysis for the primary objective (Figure 1).

Patients in the postintervention group were younger than those in the preintervention group (P < .02): otherwise the groups were similar (Table 1). Inappropriate antibiotics for ASB decreased from 10.2% preintervention to 1.9% postintervention (odds ratio, 0.17; P = .01) (Table 2). UC processing despite a negative UA significantly decreased from 100% preintervention to 38.6% postintervention (P < .001) (Table 3). In patients with a negative UA, antibiotic prescribing decreased by 25.3% postintervention, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Discussion

A simple process change at the Hines VA resulted in benefits related to antimicrobial stewardship without conferring adverse outcomes on patient safety. Both UC processing despite a negative UA and inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ASB were reduced significantly postintervention. This process change was piloted in the ED where UCs are often included as part of the initial diagnostic testing in patients who may not report UTI-related symptoms but for whom a UC is often bundled with other infectious workup, depending on the patient presentation.

Reflex testing of urine specimens has been described in the literature, both in an exploratory nature where impact of a reflex UC cancellation protocol based on certain UA criteria is measured by percent reduction of UCs processed as well as results of such interventions implemented into clinical practice.^11-13 A retrospective study performed at the University of North Carolina Medical Center evaluated patients who presented to the ED during a 6-month period and had both an automated UA and UC collected. UC processing was restricted to UA that was positive for nitrites, leukocyte esterase, bacteria, or > 10 WBC/HPF. Use of this reflex culture cancellation protocol could have eliminated 604 of the 1546 (39.1%) cultures processed. However, 11 of the 314 (3.5%) positive cultures could have been missed.¹³ This same protocol was externally validated at another large academic ED setting, where similar results were found.¹⁴

Limitations

This single-center, pre-post QI study was not without limitations. Manual chart reviews were required, and accuracy of information was dependent on clinician documentation and assessment of UTI-related symptoms. The population studied was predominately older males; thus, results may not be applicable to females or young adults. Additionally, recognition of a negative UA and subsequent cancellation of the UC was dependent on laboratory personnel. As noted in the patient group with a positive UA, some of these UAs were negative and may have been overlooked; therefore, subsequent UCs were inappropriately processed. However, this occurred infrequently and confirmed the low probability of true UTI in the setting of a negative UA. Follow-up for UTI-related symptoms may not have been captured if a patient had presented to an outside facility. Last, definitions of a positive UA differed slightly between the pre- and postintervention groups. The preintervention study defined a positive UA as a WBC count > 5 WBC/HPF and positive leukocyte esterase, whereas the present study defined a positive UA with a WBC count > 5. This may have resulted in an overestimation of positive UA in the postintervention group.

Conclusions

Better selective use of UC testing may improve stewardship resources and reduce costs impacting both ED and clinical laboratories. Furthermore, benefits can include a reduction in the use of time and resources required to collect samples for culture, use of test supplies, the time and effort required to process the large number of negative cultures, and resources devoted to the follow-up of these ED culture results. The described UA to reflex culture process change demonstrated a significant reduction in the processing of inappropriate UC and unnecessary antibiotics for ASB. There were no missed UTIs or other adverse patient outcomes noted. This process change has been implemented in all departments at the Hines VA and additional data will be collected to ensure consistent outcomes.

Automated urine cultures (UCs) following urinalysis (UA) are often used in emergency departments (EDs) to identify urinary tract infections (UTIs). The fast-paced environment of the ED makes this method of proactive collection and facilitation of UC favorable. However, results are often reported as no organism growth or the growth of clinically insignificant organisms, leading to the overdetection and overtreatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB).^1-3 An estimated 30 to 60% of patients with ASB receive unwarranted antibiotic treatment, which is associated with an increased risk of developing Clostridioides difficile infection and contributes to the development of antimicrobial resistance.^4-10 The costs associated with UC are an important consideration given the use of resources, the time and effort required to collect and process large numbers of negative cultures, and further efforts devoted to the follow-up of ED culture results.

Changes in traditional testing involving testing of both a UA and UC to reflex testing where urine specimens undergo culture only if they meet certain criteria have been described.^11-14 This change in traditional testing aims to reduce the number of potentially unnecessary cultures performed without compromising clinical care. Leukocyte quantity in the UA has been shown to be a reliable predictor of true infection.^11,15 Fok and colleagues demonstrated that reflex urine testing in ambulatory male urology patients in which cultures were done on only urine specimens with > 5 white blood cells per high-power field (WBC/HPF) would have missed only 7% of positive UCs, while avoiding 69% of cultures.¹¹

At the Edward Hines, Jr Veterans Affairs Hospital (Hines VA), inappropriate UC ordering and treatment for ASB has been identified as an area needing improvement. An evaluation was conducted at the facility to determine the population of inpatient veterans with a positive UC who were appropriately managed. Of the 113 study patients with a positive UC included in this review, 77 (68%) had a diagnosis of ASB, with > 80% of patients with ASB (and no other suspected infections) receiving antimicrobial therapy.⁸ A subsequent evaluation was conducted at the Hines VA ED to evaluate UTI treatment and follow-up. Of the 173 ED patients included, 23% received antibiotic therapy for an ASB and 60% had a UA and UC collected but did not report symptoms.⁹ Finally, a review by the Hines VA laboratory showed that in May 2017, of 359 UCs sent from various locations of the hospital, 38% were obtained in the setting of a negative UA.

A multidisciplinary group with representation from primary care, infectious diseases, pharmacy, nursing, laboratory, and informatics was created with a goal to improve the workup and management of UTIs. In addition to periodic education for the clinicians regarding appropriate use and interpretation of UA and UC along with judicious use of antimicrobials especially in the setting of ASB, a UA to reflex culture process change was implemented. This allowed for automatic cancellation of a UC in the setting of a negative UA, which was designed to help facilitate appropriate UC ordering.

Methods

The primary objective of this study was to compare the frequency of inappropriate UC use and inappropriate antibiotic prescribing pre- and postimplementation of this UA to reflex culture process change. An inappropriate UC was defined as a UC ordered despite a negative UA in asymptomatic patients. Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing was defined as treatment of patients with ASB. The secondary objective evaluated postintervention data to assess the frequency of outpatient, ED, and hospital visits for UTI-related symptoms in the group of patients that had a UC cancelled as a result of the new process change (within a 7-day period of the initial UA) to determine whether patients with true infections were missed due to the process change.

Study Design and Setting

This pre-post quality improvement (QI) study analyzed the UC-ordering practices for UTIs sent from the ED at the Hines VA. This VA is a 483-bed tertiary care hospital in Chicago, Illinois, and serves > 57,000 veterans and about 23,000 ED visits annually. This study was approved by the Edward Hines, Jr VA Institutional Review Board as a quality assurance/QI proposal prior to data collection.

Patient Selection

All patients who received a UA with or without a UC sent from the ED between October 17, 2017 and January 17, 2018 were identified by the microbiology laboratory and a list was generated. Postintervention data were compared with data from a previous analysis performed at the Hines VA in 2015 (baseline data), which found that UCs were collected frequently despite negative UA, and often resulted in the prescribing of unnecessary antibiotics.⁹

When comparing postintervention data with preintervention data for the primary study objective, the same exclusion criteria from the 2015 study were applied to the present study, which excluded ED patients who were admitted for inpatient care, concurrent antibiotic therapy for a non-UTI indication, duplicate cultures, and use of chronic bladder management devices. All patients identified as receiving a UA during the specified postintervention study period were included for evaluation of the secondary study objective.

Interventions

After physician education, an ED process change was implemented on October 3, 2017. This process change involved the creation of new order sets in the EHR that allowed clinicians to order a UA only, a UA with culture that would be cancelled by laboratory personnel if the UA did not result in > 5 WBC/HPF, and a UA with culture designated as do not cancel, where the UC was processed regardless of the UA results. The scenarios in which the latter option was considered appropriate were listed on the ordering screen and included pregnancy, a genitourinary procedure with necessary preoperative culture, and neutropenia.

Measurements

Postimplementation, all UAs were reviewed and grouped as follows: (1) positive UA with subsequent UC; (2) negative UA, culture cancelled; (3) only UA ordered (no culture); or (4) do not cancel UC ordered. Of the UAs that were analyzed, the following data were collected: demographics, comorbidities, concurrent medications for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and/or overactive bladder (OAB), documented allergies/adverse drug reactions to antibiotics, date of ED visit, documented UTI signs/symptoms (defined as frequency, urgency, dysuria, fever, suprapubic pain, or altered mental status in patients unable to verbalize urinary symptoms), UC results and susceptibilities, number of UCs repeated within 7 days after initial UA, requirement of antibiotic for UTI within 7 days of initial UA, antibiotic prescribed, duration of antibiotic therapy, and outpatient visits, ED visits, or need for hospital admission within 7 days of the initial UA for UTI-related symptoms. Other relevant UA and UC data that could not be obtained from the EHR were collected by generating a report using the Veterans Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA).

Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SAS v9.4. Independent t tests and Fisher exact tests were used to describe difference pre- and postintervention. Statistical significance was considered for P < .05. Based on results from the previous study conducted at this facility in addition to a literature review, it was determined that 92 patients in each group (pre- and postintervention) would be necessary to detect a 15% increase in percentage of patients appropriately treated for a UTI.

Results

There were 684 UAs evaluated from ED visits, 429 preintervention and 255 postintervention. The 255 patients were evaluated for the secondary objective of the study. Of the 255 patients with UAs identified postintervention, 150 were excluded based on the predefined exclusion criteria, and the remaining 105 were compared with the 173 patients from the preintervention group and were included in the analysis for the primary objective (Figure 1).

Patients in the postintervention group were younger than those in the preintervention group (P < .02): otherwise the groups were similar (Table 1). Inappropriate antibiotics for ASB decreased from 10.2% preintervention to 1.9% postintervention (odds ratio, 0.17; P = .01) (Table 2). UC processing despite a negative UA significantly decreased from 100% preintervention to 38.6% postintervention (P < .001) (Table 3). In patients with a negative UA, antibiotic prescribing decreased by 25.3% postintervention, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Discussion

A simple process change at the Hines VA resulted in benefits related to antimicrobial stewardship without conferring adverse outcomes on patient safety. Both UC processing despite a negative UA and inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ASB were reduced significantly postintervention. This process change was piloted in the ED where UCs are often included as part of the initial diagnostic testing in patients who may not report UTI-related symptoms but for whom a UC is often bundled with other infectious workup, depending on the patient presentation.

Reflex testing of urine specimens has been described in the literature, both in an exploratory nature where impact of a reflex UC cancellation protocol based on certain UA criteria is measured by percent reduction of UCs processed as well as results of such interventions implemented into clinical practice.^11-13 A retrospective study performed at the University of North Carolina Medical Center evaluated patients who presented to the ED during a 6-month period and had both an automated UA and UC collected. UC processing was restricted to UA that was positive for nitrites, leukocyte esterase, bacteria, or > 10 WBC/HPF. Use of this reflex culture cancellation protocol could have eliminated 604 of the 1546 (39.1%) cultures processed. However, 11 of the 314 (3.5%) positive cultures could have been missed.¹³ This same protocol was externally validated at another large academic ED setting, where similar results were found.¹⁴

Limitations

This single-center, pre-post QI study was not without limitations. Manual chart reviews were required, and accuracy of information was dependent on clinician documentation and assessment of UTI-related symptoms. The population studied was predominately older males; thus, results may not be applicable to females or young adults. Additionally, recognition of a negative UA and subsequent cancellation of the UC was dependent on laboratory personnel. As noted in the patient group with a positive UA, some of these UAs were negative and may have been overlooked; therefore, subsequent UCs were inappropriately processed. However, this occurred infrequently and confirmed the low probability of true UTI in the setting of a negative UA. Follow-up for UTI-related symptoms may not have been captured if a patient had presented to an outside facility. Last, definitions of a positive UA differed slightly between the pre- and postintervention groups. The preintervention study defined a positive UA as a WBC count > 5 WBC/HPF and positive leukocyte esterase, whereas the present study defined a positive UA with a WBC count > 5. This may have resulted in an overestimation of positive UA in the postintervention group.

Conclusions

Better selective use of UC testing may improve stewardship resources and reduce costs impacting both ED and clinical laboratories. Furthermore, benefits can include a reduction in the use of time and resources required to collect samples for culture, use of test supplies, the time and effort required to process the large number of negative cultures, and resources devoted to the follow-up of these ED culture results. The described UA to reflex culture process change demonstrated a significant reduction in the processing of inappropriate UC and unnecessary antibiotics for ASB. There were no missed UTIs or other adverse patient outcomes noted. This process change has been implemented in all departments at the Hines VA and additional data will be collected to ensure consistent outcomes.

Psoriasis is a common chronic immunologic skin disease that affects approximately 7.4 million adults in the United States¹ and more than 100 million individuals worldwide.² Patients with psoriasis have a potentially heightened risk for cardiometabolic diseases, psychiatric disorders, and psoriatic arthritis,³ as well as impaired quality of life (QOL).⁴ Psoriasis also is associated with increased health care costs⁵ and may result in substantial socioeconomic repercussions for affected patients.^6,7

Psoriasis treatments focus on relieving symptoms and improving patient QOL. Systemic therapy has been the mainstay of treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis.⁸ Although topical therapy usually is applied to treat mild symptoms, it also can be used as an adjunct to enhance efficacy of other treatment approaches.⁹ The National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) recommends a treat-to-target (TTT) strategy for plaque psoriasis, the most common form of psoriasis, with a target response of attaining affected body surface area (BSA) of 1% or lower at 3 months after treatment initiation, allowing for regular assessments of treatment responses.¹⁰

Not all patients with moderate to severe psoriasis can achieve a satisfactory response with systemic biologic monotherapy.¹¹ Switching to a new biologic improves responses in some but not all cases¹² and could be associated with new safety issues and additional costs. Combinations of biologics with phototherapy, nonbiologic systemic agents, or topical medications were found to be more effective than biologics alone,^9,11 though long-term safety studies are needed for biologics combined with other systemic inverventions.¹¹

A lotion containing a fixed combination of halobetasol propionate (HP) 0.01%, a corticosteroid, and tazarotene (TAZ) 0.045%, a retinoid, is indicated for plaque psoriasis in adults.¹³ Two randomized, controlled, phase 3 trials demonstrated the rapid and sustained efficacy of HP-TAZ in treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis without any safety concerns.^14,15 However, combining HP-TAZ lotion with biologics has not been examined yet, to our knowledge.

This open-label study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion in adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who were being treated with biologics in a real-world setting. Potential cost savings with the addition of topical HP-TAZ to ongoing biologics vs switching to a new biologic also were assessed.

Methods

Study Design and Participants—A single-center, institutional review board–approved, open-label study evaluated adjunctive therapy with HP 0.01%–TAZ 0.045% lotion in patients with psoriasis being treated with biologic agents. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and in compliance with Good Clinical Practices. All patients provided written informed consent before enrollment.

Male and nonpregnant female patients (aged ≥18 years)with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis and a BSA of 2% to 10% who were being treated with biologics for at least 24 weeks at baseline were enrolled. Patients were excluded if they had used oral systemic medications for psoriasis (≤4 weeks), other topical antipsoriatic therapies (≤14 days), UVB phototherapy (≤2 weeks), and psoralen plus UVA phototherapy (≤4 weeks) prior to study initiation. Concomitant use of steroid-free topical emollients or low-potency topical steroids and appropriate interventions deemed necessary by the investigator were allowed.

Although participants maintained their prescribed biologics for the duration of the study, HP-TAZ lotion also was applied once daily for 8 weeks, followed by once every other day for an additional 4 weeks. Participants then continued with biologics only for the last 4 weeks of the study.

Study Outcome Measures—Disease severity and treatment efficacy were assessed by affected BSA, Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score, composite BSA×PGA score, and participant-reported Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). The primary end point was the proportion of participants achieving a BSA of 0% to 1% (NPF TTT status) at week 8. Secondary end points included the proportions of participants with BSA of 0% to 1% at weeks 12 and 16; BSA×PGA score at weeks 8, 12, and 16; and improvements in BSA, PGA, and DLQI at weeks 8, 12, and 16.

Adverse events (AEs) that occurred after the signing of the informed consent and for the duration of the participant’s participation were recorded, regardless of causality. Physical examinations were performed at screening; baseline; and weeks 8, 12, and 16 to document any clinically significant abnormalities. Localized skin reactions were assessed for tolerability of the study drug, with any reaction requiring concomitant therapy recorded as an AE.

The likelihood of switching to a new biologic regimen was assessed by the investigator for each participant at baseline and weeks 8, 12, and 16. Participants with unacceptable responses to their treatments (BSA >3%) were reported as likely to be considered for switching biologics by the investigator.

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation—Potential cost savings were evaluated for the addition of HP-TAZ lotion to ongoing biologics vs switching to a new biologic. Cost comparisons were made in participants for whom the investigator would likely have switched biologics at baseline but not at the end of the study. For maintaining the same biologic with adjunctive topical HP-TAZ, total cost was estimated by adding the cost for 12 weeks (once daily for 8 weeks and once every other day for 4 weeks) of the HP-TAZ lotion to that of 16-week maintenance dosing with the biologic. The projected cost for switching to a new biologic for 16 weeks of treatment was based on both induction and maintenance dosing as recommended in its product label. Prices were obtained from the 2020 average wholesale price specialty pharmacy reports (BioPlus Specialty Pharmacy Services [https://www.bioplusrx.com]).

Data Handling—Enrollment of approximately 25 participants was desired for the study. Data on disease severity and participant-reported outcomes were assessed using descriptive statistics. Adverse events were summarized descriptively by incidence, severity, and relationship to the study drug. All participants with data available at a measured time point were included in the analyses for that time point.

Results

Participant Disposition and Demographics—Twenty-five participants (15 male and 10 female) were included in the study (Table 1). Seven participants discontinued the study for the following reasons: AEs (n=4), patient choice (n=2), and noncompliance (n=1).

The average age of the participants was 50 years, the majority were White (76.0% [19/25]) andnon-Hispanic (88.0% [22/25]), and the mean duration of chronic plaque psoriasis was 18.9 years (Table 1). Participants had been receiving biologic monotherapy for at least 24 weeks prior to enrollment, most commonly ustekinumab (32.0% [8/25])(Table 1). None had achieved the NPF TTT status with their biologics. At baseline, mean (SD) affected BSA, PGA, BSA×PGA, and participant-reported DLQI were 4.16% (2.04%), 2.84 (0.55), 11.88 (6.39), and 4.00 (4.74), respectively.

Efficacy Assessment—Application of HP-TAZ lotion in addition to the participants’ existing biologic therapy reduced severity of the disease, as evidenced by the reductions in mean BSA, PGA, and BSA×PGA. After 8 weeks of once-daily concomitant HP-TAZ use with biologic, mean BSA and PGA dropped by approximately 40% and 37%, respectively (Figures 1A and 1B). A greater reduction (54%) was found for mean BSA×PGA (Figure 1C). Disease severity continued to improve when the application schedule for HP-TAZ was changed to once every other day for 4 weeks, as mean BSA, PGA, and BSA×PGA decreased further at week 12. These beneficial effects were sustained during the last 4 weeks of the study after HP-TAZ was discontinued, with reductions of 57%, 43%, and 70% from baseline for mean BSA, PGA, and BSA×PGA, respectively (Figure 1).

The proportion of participants who achieved NPF TTT status increased from 0% at baseline to 20.0% (5/20) at week 8 with once-daily use of HP-TAZ plus biologic for 8 weeks (Figure 2). At week 12, more participants (64.7% [11/17]) achieved the treatment goal after application of HP-TAZ once every other day with biologic for 4 weeks. Most participants maintained NPF TTT status after HP-TAZ was discontinued; at week 16, 50.0% (9/18) attained the NPF treatment goal (Figure 2).

The mean DLQI score decreased from 4.00 at baseline to 2.45 after 8 weeks of concomitant use of once-daily HP-TAZ with biologic, reflecting a 39% score reduction. An additional 4 weeks of adjunctive HP-TAZ applied once every other day with biologic further decreased the DLQI score to 2.18 at week 12. Mean DLQI remained similar (2.33) after another 4 weeks of biologics alone. The proportion of participants reporting a DLQI score of 0 to 1 increased from 40% (10/25) at baseline to 60% (12/20) at week 8 and 76.5% (13/17) at week 12 with adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion use with biologic. At week 16, a DLQI score of 0 to 1 was reported in 61.1% (11/18) of participants after receiving only biologics for 4 weeks.

Safety Assessment—A total of 19 AEs were reported in 11 participants during the study; 16 AEs were considered treatment related in 8 participants (Table 2). The most common AEs were retinoid dermatitis (28% [7/25]), burning at the application site (8% [2/25]), and pruritus at the application site (8% [2/25]), all of which were considered related to the treatment. Among all AEs, 12 were mild in severity, and the remaining 7 were moderate. Adverse events led to early study termination in 4 participants, all with retinoid dermatitis as the primary reason.

Likelihood of Switching Biologics—At baseline, almost 90% (22/25) of participants were rated as likely to switch biologics by the investigator due to unacceptable responses to their currently prescribed biologics (BSA >3%)(Figure 3). The likelihood was greatly reduced by concomitant HP-TAZ, as the proportion of participants defined as nonresponders to their biologic decreased to 35% (7/20) with 8-week adjunctive application of once-daily HP-TAZ with biologic and further decreased to 23.5% (4/17) with another 4 weeks of adjunctive HP-TAZ applied every other day plus biologic. At week 16, after 4 weeks of biologics alone, the proportion was maintained at 33.3% (6/18).

Pharmacoeconomics of Adding Topical HP-TAZ vs Switching Biologics—In the participants whom the investigator reported as likely to switch biologics at baseline, 9 had improvements in disease control such that switching biologics was no longer considered necessary for them at week 16. Potential cost savings with adjunctive therapy of HP-TAZ plus biologic vs switching biologics were therefore evaluated in these 9 participants, who were receiving ustekinumab, adalimumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab during the study (Table 3). The estimated total cost of 16-week maintenance dosing of biologics plus adjunct HP-TAZ lotion ranged from $14,675 (ustekinumab 45 mg) to $54,025 (secukinumab 300 mg), while switching to other most commonly prescribed biologics for 16 weeks would cost an estimated $33,340 to $106,400 (induction and subsequent maintenance phases)(Table 3). Most biologic plus HP-TAZ combinations were estimated to cost less than $30,000, potentially saving $4816 to $91,725 compared with switching to any of the other 7 biologics (Table 3). The relatively more expensive maintenance combination containing secukinumab plus HP-TAZ ($54,025) appeared to be a less expensive option when compared with switching to ustekinumab (90 mg)($83,097), ixekizumab (80 mg)($61,452), or risankizumab (150 mg)($57,030) as an alternative biologic.

Comment

Adjunctive Use of HP-TAZ Lotion—In the present study, we showed that adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion improved biologic treatment response and reduced disease severity in participants with moderate to severe psoriasis whose symptoms could not be adequately controlled by 24 weeks or more of biologic monotherapy in a real-world setting. Disease activity decreased as evidenced by reductions in all assessed effectiveness variables, including BSA involvement, PGA score, composite BSA×PGA score, and participant-reported DLQI score. Half of the participants achieved NPF TTT status at the end of the study. The treatment was well tolerated with no unexpected safety concerns. Compared with switching to a new biologic, adding topical HP-TAZ to ongoing biologics appeared to be a more cost-effective approach to enhance treatment effects. Our results suggest that adjunctive use of HP-TAZ lotion may be a safe, effective, and economical option for patients with psoriasis who are failing their ongoing biologic monotherapy.

Treat-to-Target Status—The NPF-recommended target response to a treatment for plaque psoriasis is BSA of 1% or lower at 3 months postinitiation.¹⁰ Patients in the current study had major psoriasis activity at study entry despite being treated with a biologic for at least 24 weeks, as none had attained NPF TTT status at baseline. Because the time period of prior biologic treatment (at least 24 weeks) is much longer than the 3 months suggested by NPF, we believe that we were observing a true failure of the biologic rather than a slow onset of treatment effects in these patients at the time of enrollment. By week 12, with the addition of HP-TAZ lotion to the biologic, a high rate of participants achieved NPF TTT status (64.7%), with most participants being able to maintain this TTT status at study end after 4 weeks of biologic alone. Most participants also reported no impact of psoriasis on their QOL (DLQI, 0–1¹⁶; 76.5%) at week 12. Improvements we found in disease control with adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion plus biologic support prior reports showing enhanced responses when a topical medication was added to a biologic.^17,18 Reductions in psoriasis activity after 8 weeks of combined biologics plus once-daily HP-TAZ also are consistent with 2 phase 3 RCTs in which a monotherapy of HP-TAZ lotion used once daily for 8 weeks reduced BSA and DLQI.¹⁵ Notably, in the current study, disease severity continued to decrease when dosing of HP-TAZ was reduced to once every other day for 4 weeks, and the improvements were maintained even after the adjunct topical therapy was discontinued.

Safety Profile of HP-TAZ Lotion—The overall safety profile in our study also was consistent with that previously reported for HP-TAZ lotion,^15,19-21 with no new safety signals observed. The combination treatment was well tolerated, with most reported AEs being mild in severity. Adverse events were mostly related to application-site reactions, the most common being dermatitis (28%), which was likely attributable to the TAZ component of the topical regimen.¹⁵

Likelihood of Switching Biologics—Reduced disease activity was reflected by a decrease in the percentage of participants the investigator considered likely to change biologics, which was 88.0% at baseline but only 33.3% at the end of the study. Although switching to a different biologic agent can improve treatment effect,²² it could lead to a substantial increase in health care costs and use of resources compared with no switch.⁵ We found that switching to one of the other most commonly prescribed biologics could incur $4816 to $91,725 in additional costs in most cases when compared with the combination strategy we evaluated over the 16-week treatment period. Therefore, concomitant use of HP-TAZ lotion with the ongoing biologics would be a potentially more economical alternative for patients to achieve acceptable responses or the NPF TTT goal. Moreover, combination with an adjunctive topical medication could avoid potential risks associated with switching, such as new AEs with new biologic regimens or disease flare during any washout period sometimes adopted for switching biologics.

Study Limitations—Our estimated costs were based on average wholesale prices and did not reflect net prices paid by patients or health plans due to the lack of known discount rates. Inherent to the nature of its design, the study also had a relatively small patient population and lacked control groups. Although lack of a control group may limit the conclusions of our study, our goal was to examine real-world patient experience, and the efficacy of HP-TAZ lotion as well as the baseline disease state for each participant using a biologic was well known. Statistical inference on the differences in efficacy between biologics with and without adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion, or between combination therapy and a new biologic monotherapy, was not possible. Additionally, a longer follow-up after discontinuation of HP-TAZ is needed to evaluate the long-term maintenance of responses. Nevertheless, the results here demonstrated that participants responded better when adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion was added to the ongoing biologics in a clinical practice setting.

Conclusion

In this real-world study, patients with psoriasis that failed to respond to biologic monotherapy had improved disease control and QOL and reported no new safety concerns with adjunctive use of HP-TAZ lotion. Adding HP-TAZ to the ongoing biologics could be a more cost-effective option vs switching biologics for patients whose psoriasis symptoms could not be controlled with biologic monotherapy. Taken together, our results support the use of HP-TAZ lotion as an effective and safe adjunctive topical therapy in combination with biologics for psoriasis treatment.

Acknowledgments—We acknowledge the medical writing assistance provided by Hui Zhang, PhD, and Kathleen Ohleth, PhD, from Precise Publications LLC (Far Hills, New Jersey), which was funded by Ortho Dermatologics.

Psoriasis is a common chronic immunologic skin disease that affects approximately 7.4 million adults in the United States¹ and more than 100 million individuals worldwide.² Patients with psoriasis have a potentially heightened risk for cardiometabolic diseases, psychiatric disorders, and psoriatic arthritis,³ as well as impaired quality of life (QOL).⁴ Psoriasis also is associated with increased health care costs⁵ and may result in substantial socioeconomic repercussions for affected patients.^6,7

Psoriasis treatments focus on relieving symptoms and improving patient QOL. Systemic therapy has been the mainstay of treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis.⁸ Although topical therapy usually is applied to treat mild symptoms, it also can be used as an adjunct to enhance efficacy of other treatment approaches.⁹ The National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) recommends a treat-to-target (TTT) strategy for plaque psoriasis, the most common form of psoriasis, with a target response of attaining affected body surface area (BSA) of 1% or lower at 3 months after treatment initiation, allowing for regular assessments of treatment responses.¹⁰

Not all patients with moderate to severe psoriasis can achieve a satisfactory response with systemic biologic monotherapy.¹¹ Switching to a new biologic improves responses in some but not all cases¹² and could be associated with new safety issues and additional costs. Combinations of biologics with phototherapy, nonbiologic systemic agents, or topical medications were found to be more effective than biologics alone,^9,11 though long-term safety studies are needed for biologics combined with other systemic inverventions.¹¹

A lotion containing a fixed combination of halobetasol propionate (HP) 0.01%, a corticosteroid, and tazarotene (TAZ) 0.045%, a retinoid, is indicated for plaque psoriasis in adults.¹³ Two randomized, controlled, phase 3 trials demonstrated the rapid and sustained efficacy of HP-TAZ in treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis without any safety concerns.^14,15 However, combining HP-TAZ lotion with biologics has not been examined yet, to our knowledge.

This open-label study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion in adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who were being treated with biologics in a real-world setting. Potential cost savings with the addition of topical HP-TAZ to ongoing biologics vs switching to a new biologic also were assessed.

Methods

Study Design and Participants—A single-center, institutional review board–approved, open-label study evaluated adjunctive therapy with HP 0.01%–TAZ 0.045% lotion in patients with psoriasis being treated with biologic agents. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and in compliance with Good Clinical Practices. All patients provided written informed consent before enrollment.

Male and nonpregnant female patients (aged ≥18 years)with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis and a BSA of 2% to 10% who were being treated with biologics for at least 24 weeks at baseline were enrolled. Patients were excluded if they had used oral systemic medications for psoriasis (≤4 weeks), other topical antipsoriatic therapies (≤14 days), UVB phototherapy (≤2 weeks), and psoralen plus UVA phototherapy (≤4 weeks) prior to study initiation. Concomitant use of steroid-free topical emollients or low-potency topical steroids and appropriate interventions deemed necessary by the investigator were allowed.

Although participants maintained their prescribed biologics for the duration of the study, HP-TAZ lotion also was applied once daily for 8 weeks, followed by once every other day for an additional 4 weeks. Participants then continued with biologics only for the last 4 weeks of the study.

Study Outcome Measures—Disease severity and treatment efficacy were assessed by affected BSA, Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score, composite BSA×PGA score, and participant-reported Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). The primary end point was the proportion of participants achieving a BSA of 0% to 1% (NPF TTT status) at week 8. Secondary end points included the proportions of participants with BSA of 0% to 1% at weeks 12 and 16; BSA×PGA score at weeks 8, 12, and 16; and improvements in BSA, PGA, and DLQI at weeks 8, 12, and 16.

Adverse events (AEs) that occurred after the signing of the informed consent and for the duration of the participant’s participation were recorded, regardless of causality. Physical examinations were performed at screening; baseline; and weeks 8, 12, and 16 to document any clinically significant abnormalities. Localized skin reactions were assessed for tolerability of the study drug, with any reaction requiring concomitant therapy recorded as an AE.

The likelihood of switching to a new biologic regimen was assessed by the investigator for each participant at baseline and weeks 8, 12, and 16. Participants with unacceptable responses to their treatments (BSA >3%) were reported as likely to be considered for switching biologics by the investigator.

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation—Potential cost savings were evaluated for the addition of HP-TAZ lotion to ongoing biologics vs switching to a new biologic. Cost comparisons were made in participants for whom the investigator would likely have switched biologics at baseline but not at the end of the study. For maintaining the same biologic with adjunctive topical HP-TAZ, total cost was estimated by adding the cost for 12 weeks (once daily for 8 weeks and once every other day for 4 weeks) of the HP-TAZ lotion to that of 16-week maintenance dosing with the biologic. The projected cost for switching to a new biologic for 16 weeks of treatment was based on both induction and maintenance dosing as recommended in its product label. Prices were obtained from the 2020 average wholesale price specialty pharmacy reports (BioPlus Specialty Pharmacy Services [https://www.bioplusrx.com]).

Data Handling—Enrollment of approximately 25 participants was desired for the study. Data on disease severity and participant-reported outcomes were assessed using descriptive statistics. Adverse events were summarized descriptively by incidence, severity, and relationship to the study drug. All participants with data available at a measured time point were included in the analyses for that time point.

Results

Participant Disposition and Demographics—Twenty-five participants (15 male and 10 female) were included in the study (Table 1). Seven participants discontinued the study for the following reasons: AEs (n=4), patient choice (n=2), and noncompliance (n=1).

The average age of the participants was 50 years, the majority were White (76.0% [19/25]) andnon-Hispanic (88.0% [22/25]), and the mean duration of chronic plaque psoriasis was 18.9 years (Table 1). Participants had been receiving biologic monotherapy for at least 24 weeks prior to enrollment, most commonly ustekinumab (32.0% [8/25])(Table 1). None had achieved the NPF TTT status with their biologics. At baseline, mean (SD) affected BSA, PGA, BSA×PGA, and participant-reported DLQI were 4.16% (2.04%), 2.84 (0.55), 11.88 (6.39), and 4.00 (4.74), respectively.

Efficacy Assessment—Application of HP-TAZ lotion in addition to the participants’ existing biologic therapy reduced severity of the disease, as evidenced by the reductions in mean BSA, PGA, and BSA×PGA. After 8 weeks of once-daily concomitant HP-TAZ use with biologic, mean BSA and PGA dropped by approximately 40% and 37%, respectively (Figures 1A and 1B). A greater reduction (54%) was found for mean BSA×PGA (Figure 1C). Disease severity continued to improve when the application schedule for HP-TAZ was changed to once every other day for 4 weeks, as mean BSA, PGA, and BSA×PGA decreased further at week 12. These beneficial effects were sustained during the last 4 weeks of the study after HP-TAZ was discontinued, with reductions of 57%, 43%, and 70% from baseline for mean BSA, PGA, and BSA×PGA, respectively (Figure 1).

The proportion of participants who achieved NPF TTT status increased from 0% at baseline to 20.0% (5/20) at week 8 with once-daily use of HP-TAZ plus biologic for 8 weeks (Figure 2). At week 12, more participants (64.7% [11/17]) achieved the treatment goal after application of HP-TAZ once every other day with biologic for 4 weeks. Most participants maintained NPF TTT status after HP-TAZ was discontinued; at week 16, 50.0% (9/18) attained the NPF treatment goal (Figure 2).

The mean DLQI score decreased from 4.00 at baseline to 2.45 after 8 weeks of concomitant use of once-daily HP-TAZ with biologic, reflecting a 39% score reduction. An additional 4 weeks of adjunctive HP-TAZ applied once every other day with biologic further decreased the DLQI score to 2.18 at week 12. Mean DLQI remained similar (2.33) after another 4 weeks of biologics alone. The proportion of participants reporting a DLQI score of 0 to 1 increased from 40% (10/25) at baseline to 60% (12/20) at week 8 and 76.5% (13/17) at week 12 with adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion use with biologic. At week 16, a DLQI score of 0 to 1 was reported in 61.1% (11/18) of participants after receiving only biologics for 4 weeks.

Safety Assessment—A total of 19 AEs were reported in 11 participants during the study; 16 AEs were considered treatment related in 8 participants (Table 2). The most common AEs were retinoid dermatitis (28% [7/25]), burning at the application site (8% [2/25]), and pruritus at the application site (8% [2/25]), all of which were considered related to the treatment. Among all AEs, 12 were mild in severity, and the remaining 7 were moderate. Adverse events led to early study termination in 4 participants, all with retinoid dermatitis as the primary reason.

Likelihood of Switching Biologics—At baseline, almost 90% (22/25) of participants were rated as likely to switch biologics by the investigator due to unacceptable responses to their currently prescribed biologics (BSA >3%)(Figure 3). The likelihood was greatly reduced by concomitant HP-TAZ, as the proportion of participants defined as nonresponders to their biologic decreased to 35% (7/20) with 8-week adjunctive application of once-daily HP-TAZ with biologic and further decreased to 23.5% (4/17) with another 4 weeks of adjunctive HP-TAZ applied every other day plus biologic. At week 16, after 4 weeks of biologics alone, the proportion was maintained at 33.3% (6/18).

Pharmacoeconomics of Adding Topical HP-TAZ vs Switching Biologics—In the participants whom the investigator reported as likely to switch biologics at baseline, 9 had improvements in disease control such that switching biologics was no longer considered necessary for them at week 16. Potential cost savings with adjunctive therapy of HP-TAZ plus biologic vs switching biologics were therefore evaluated in these 9 participants, who were receiving ustekinumab, adalimumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab during the study (Table 3). The estimated total cost of 16-week maintenance dosing of biologics plus adjunct HP-TAZ lotion ranged from $14,675 (ustekinumab 45 mg) to $54,025 (secukinumab 300 mg), while switching to other most commonly prescribed biologics for 16 weeks would cost an estimated $33,340 to $106,400 (induction and subsequent maintenance phases)(Table 3). Most biologic plus HP-TAZ combinations were estimated to cost less than $30,000, potentially saving $4816 to $91,725 compared with switching to any of the other 7 biologics (Table 3). The relatively more expensive maintenance combination containing secukinumab plus HP-TAZ ($54,025) appeared to be a less expensive option when compared with switching to ustekinumab (90 mg)($83,097), ixekizumab (80 mg)($61,452), or risankizumab (150 mg)($57,030) as an alternative biologic.

Comment

Adjunctive Use of HP-TAZ Lotion—In the present study, we showed that adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion improved biologic treatment response and reduced disease severity in participants with moderate to severe psoriasis whose symptoms could not be adequately controlled by 24 weeks or more of biologic monotherapy in a real-world setting. Disease activity decreased as evidenced by reductions in all assessed effectiveness variables, including BSA involvement, PGA score, composite BSA×PGA score, and participant-reported DLQI score. Half of the participants achieved NPF TTT status at the end of the study. The treatment was well tolerated with no unexpected safety concerns. Compared with switching to a new biologic, adding topical HP-TAZ to ongoing biologics appeared to be a more cost-effective approach to enhance treatment effects. Our results suggest that adjunctive use of HP-TAZ lotion may be a safe, effective, and economical option for patients with psoriasis who are failing their ongoing biologic monotherapy.

Treat-to-Target Status—The NPF-recommended target response to a treatment for plaque psoriasis is BSA of 1% or lower at 3 months postinitiation.¹⁰ Patients in the current study had major psoriasis activity at study entry despite being treated with a biologic for at least 24 weeks, as none had attained NPF TTT status at baseline. Because the time period of prior biologic treatment (at least 24 weeks) is much longer than the 3 months suggested by NPF, we believe that we were observing a true failure of the biologic rather than a slow onset of treatment effects in these patients at the time of enrollment. By week 12, with the addition of HP-TAZ lotion to the biologic, a high rate of participants achieved NPF TTT status (64.7%), with most participants being able to maintain this TTT status at study end after 4 weeks of biologic alone. Most participants also reported no impact of psoriasis on their QOL (DLQI, 0–1¹⁶; 76.5%) at week 12. Improvements we found in disease control with adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion plus biologic support prior reports showing enhanced responses when a topical medication was added to a biologic.^17,18 Reductions in psoriasis activity after 8 weeks of combined biologics plus once-daily HP-TAZ also are consistent with 2 phase 3 RCTs in which a monotherapy of HP-TAZ lotion used once daily for 8 weeks reduced BSA and DLQI.¹⁵ Notably, in the current study, disease severity continued to decrease when dosing of HP-TAZ was reduced to once every other day for 4 weeks, and the improvements were maintained even after the adjunct topical therapy was discontinued.

Safety Profile of HP-TAZ Lotion—The overall safety profile in our study also was consistent with that previously reported for HP-TAZ lotion,^15,19-21 with no new safety signals observed. The combination treatment was well tolerated, with most reported AEs being mild in severity. Adverse events were mostly related to application-site reactions, the most common being dermatitis (28%), which was likely attributable to the TAZ component of the topical regimen.¹⁵

Likelihood of Switching Biologics—Reduced disease activity was reflected by a decrease in the percentage of participants the investigator considered likely to change biologics, which was 88.0% at baseline but only 33.3% at the end of the study. Although switching to a different biologic agent can improve treatment effect,²² it could lead to a substantial increase in health care costs and use of resources compared with no switch.⁵ We found that switching to one of the other most commonly prescribed biologics could incur $4816 to $91,725 in additional costs in most cases when compared with the combination strategy we evaluated over the 16-week treatment period. Therefore, concomitant use of HP-TAZ lotion with the ongoing biologics would be a potentially more economical alternative for patients to achieve acceptable responses or the NPF TTT goal. Moreover, combination with an adjunctive topical medication could avoid potential risks associated with switching, such as new AEs with new biologic regimens or disease flare during any washout period sometimes adopted for switching biologics.

Study Limitations—Our estimated costs were based on average wholesale prices and did not reflect net prices paid by patients or health plans due to the lack of known discount rates. Inherent to the nature of its design, the study also had a relatively small patient population and lacked control groups. Although lack of a control group may limit the conclusions of our study, our goal was to examine real-world patient experience, and the efficacy of HP-TAZ lotion as well as the baseline disease state for each participant using a biologic was well known. Statistical inference on the differences in efficacy between biologics with and without adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion, or between combination therapy and a new biologic monotherapy, was not possible. Additionally, a longer follow-up after discontinuation of HP-TAZ is needed to evaluate the long-term maintenance of responses. Nevertheless, the results here demonstrated that participants responded better when adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion was added to the ongoing biologics in a clinical practice setting.

Conclusion

In this real-world study, patients with psoriasis that failed to respond to biologic monotherapy had improved disease control and QOL and reported no new safety concerns with adjunctive use of HP-TAZ lotion. Adding HP-TAZ to the ongoing biologics could be a more cost-effective option vs switching biologics for patients whose psoriasis symptoms could not be controlled with biologic monotherapy. Taken together, our results support the use of HP-TAZ lotion as an effective and safe adjunctive topical therapy in combination with biologics for psoriasis treatment.

Acknowledgments—We acknowledge the medical writing assistance provided by Hui Zhang, PhD, and Kathleen Ohleth, PhD, from Precise Publications LLC (Far Hills, New Jersey), which was funded by Ortho Dermatologics.

Psoriasis is a common chronic immunologic skin disease that affects approximately 7.4 million adults in the United States¹ and more than 100 million individuals worldwide.² Patients with psoriasis have a potentially heightened risk for cardiometabolic diseases, psychiatric disorders, and psoriatic arthritis,³ as well as impaired quality of life (QOL).⁴ Psoriasis also is associated with increased health care costs⁵ and may result in substantial socioeconomic repercussions for affected patients.^6,7

Psoriasis treatments focus on relieving symptoms and improving patient QOL. Systemic therapy has been the mainstay of treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis.⁸ Although topical therapy usually is applied to treat mild symptoms, it also can be used as an adjunct to enhance efficacy of other treatment approaches.⁹ The National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) recommends a treat-to-target (TTT) strategy for plaque psoriasis, the most common form of psoriasis, with a target response of attaining affected body surface area (BSA) of 1% or lower at 3 months after treatment initiation, allowing for regular assessments of treatment responses.¹⁰

Not all patients with moderate to severe psoriasis can achieve a satisfactory response with systemic biologic monotherapy.¹¹ Switching to a new biologic improves responses in some but not all cases¹² and could be associated with new safety issues and additional costs. Combinations of biologics with phototherapy, nonbiologic systemic agents, or topical medications were found to be more effective than biologics alone,^9,11 though long-term safety studies are needed for biologics combined with other systemic inverventions.¹¹

A lotion containing a fixed combination of halobetasol propionate (HP) 0.01%, a corticosteroid, and tazarotene (TAZ) 0.045%, a retinoid, is indicated for plaque psoriasis in adults.¹³ Two randomized, controlled, phase 3 trials demonstrated the rapid and sustained efficacy of HP-TAZ in treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis without any safety concerns.^14,15 However, combining HP-TAZ lotion with biologics has not been examined yet, to our knowledge.

This open-label study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion in adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who were being treated with biologics in a real-world setting. Potential cost savings with the addition of topical HP-TAZ to ongoing biologics vs switching to a new biologic also were assessed.

Methods

Study Design and Participants—A single-center, institutional review board–approved, open-label study evaluated adjunctive therapy with HP 0.01%–TAZ 0.045% lotion in patients with psoriasis being treated with biologic agents. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and in compliance with Good Clinical Practices. All patients provided written informed consent before enrollment.

Male and nonpregnant female patients (aged ≥18 years)with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis and a BSA of 2% to 10% who were being treated with biologics for at least 24 weeks at baseline were enrolled. Patients were excluded if they had used oral systemic medications for psoriasis (≤4 weeks), other topical antipsoriatic therapies (≤14 days), UVB phototherapy (≤2 weeks), and psoralen plus UVA phototherapy (≤4 weeks) prior to study initiation. Concomitant use of steroid-free topical emollients or low-potency topical steroids and appropriate interventions deemed necessary by the investigator were allowed.

Although participants maintained their prescribed biologics for the duration of the study, HP-TAZ lotion also was applied once daily for 8 weeks, followed by once every other day for an additional 4 weeks. Participants then continued with biologics only for the last 4 weeks of the study.

Study Outcome Measures—Disease severity and treatment efficacy were assessed by affected BSA, Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score, composite BSA×PGA score, and participant-reported Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). The primary end point was the proportion of participants achieving a BSA of 0% to 1% (NPF TTT status) at week 8. Secondary end points included the proportions of participants with BSA of 0% to 1% at weeks 12 and 16; BSA×PGA score at weeks 8, 12, and 16; and improvements in BSA, PGA, and DLQI at weeks 8, 12, and 16.

Adverse events (AEs) that occurred after the signing of the informed consent and for the duration of the participant’s participation were recorded, regardless of causality. Physical examinations were performed at screening; baseline; and weeks 8, 12, and 16 to document any clinically significant abnormalities. Localized skin reactions were assessed for tolerability of the study drug, with any reaction requiring concomitant therapy recorded as an AE.

The likelihood of switching to a new biologic regimen was assessed by the investigator for each participant at baseline and weeks 8, 12, and 16. Participants with unacceptable responses to their treatments (BSA >3%) were reported as likely to be considered for switching biologics by the investigator.

Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation—Potential cost savings were evaluated for the addition of HP-TAZ lotion to ongoing biologics vs switching to a new biologic. Cost comparisons were made in participants for whom the investigator would likely have switched biologics at baseline but not at the end of the study. For maintaining the same biologic with adjunctive topical HP-TAZ, total cost was estimated by adding the cost for 12 weeks (once daily for 8 weeks and once every other day for 4 weeks) of the HP-TAZ lotion to that of 16-week maintenance dosing with the biologic. The projected cost for switching to a new biologic for 16 weeks of treatment was based on both induction and maintenance dosing as recommended in its product label. Prices were obtained from the 2020 average wholesale price specialty pharmacy reports (BioPlus Specialty Pharmacy Services [https://www.bioplusrx.com]).

Data Handling—Enrollment of approximately 25 participants was desired for the study. Data on disease severity and participant-reported outcomes were assessed using descriptive statistics. Adverse events were summarized descriptively by incidence, severity, and relationship to the study drug. All participants with data available at a measured time point were included in the analyses for that time point.

Results

Participant Disposition and Demographics—Twenty-five participants (15 male and 10 female) were included in the study (Table 1). Seven participants discontinued the study for the following reasons: AEs (n=4), patient choice (n=2), and noncompliance (n=1).

The average age of the participants was 50 years, the majority were White (76.0% [19/25]) andnon-Hispanic (88.0% [22/25]), and the mean duration of chronic plaque psoriasis was 18.9 years (Table 1). Participants had been receiving biologic monotherapy for at least 24 weeks prior to enrollment, most commonly ustekinumab (32.0% [8/25])(Table 1). None had achieved the NPF TTT status with their biologics. At baseline, mean (SD) affected BSA, PGA, BSA×PGA, and participant-reported DLQI were 4.16% (2.04%), 2.84 (0.55), 11.88 (6.39), and 4.00 (4.74), respectively.

Efficacy Assessment—Application of HP-TAZ lotion in addition to the participants’ existing biologic therapy reduced severity of the disease, as evidenced by the reductions in mean BSA, PGA, and BSA×PGA. After 8 weeks of once-daily concomitant HP-TAZ use with biologic, mean BSA and PGA dropped by approximately 40% and 37%, respectively (Figures 1A and 1B). A greater reduction (54%) was found for mean BSA×PGA (Figure 1C). Disease severity continued to improve when the application schedule for HP-TAZ was changed to once every other day for 4 weeks, as mean BSA, PGA, and BSA×PGA decreased further at week 12. These beneficial effects were sustained during the last 4 weeks of the study after HP-TAZ was discontinued, with reductions of 57%, 43%, and 70% from baseline for mean BSA, PGA, and BSA×PGA, respectively (Figure 1).

The proportion of participants who achieved NPF TTT status increased from 0% at baseline to 20.0% (5/20) at week 8 with once-daily use of HP-TAZ plus biologic for 8 weeks (Figure 2). At week 12, more participants (64.7% [11/17]) achieved the treatment goal after application of HP-TAZ once every other day with biologic for 4 weeks. Most participants maintained NPF TTT status after HP-TAZ was discontinued; at week 16, 50.0% (9/18) attained the NPF treatment goal (Figure 2).

The mean DLQI score decreased from 4.00 at baseline to 2.45 after 8 weeks of concomitant use of once-daily HP-TAZ with biologic, reflecting a 39% score reduction. An additional 4 weeks of adjunctive HP-TAZ applied once every other day with biologic further decreased the DLQI score to 2.18 at week 12. Mean DLQI remained similar (2.33) after another 4 weeks of biologics alone. The proportion of participants reporting a DLQI score of 0 to 1 increased from 40% (10/25) at baseline to 60% (12/20) at week 8 and 76.5% (13/17) at week 12 with adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion use with biologic. At week 16, a DLQI score of 0 to 1 was reported in 61.1% (11/18) of participants after receiving only biologics for 4 weeks.

Safety Assessment—A total of 19 AEs were reported in 11 participants during the study; 16 AEs were considered treatment related in 8 participants (Table 2). The most common AEs were retinoid dermatitis (28% [7/25]), burning at the application site (8% [2/25]), and pruritus at the application site (8% [2/25]), all of which were considered related to the treatment. Among all AEs, 12 were mild in severity, and the remaining 7 were moderate. Adverse events led to early study termination in 4 participants, all with retinoid dermatitis as the primary reason.

Likelihood of Switching Biologics—At baseline, almost 90% (22/25) of participants were rated as likely to switch biologics by the investigator due to unacceptable responses to their currently prescribed biologics (BSA >3%)(Figure 3). The likelihood was greatly reduced by concomitant HP-TAZ, as the proportion of participants defined as nonresponders to their biologic decreased to 35% (7/20) with 8-week adjunctive application of once-daily HP-TAZ with biologic and further decreased to 23.5% (4/17) with another 4 weeks of adjunctive HP-TAZ applied every other day plus biologic. At week 16, after 4 weeks of biologics alone, the proportion was maintained at 33.3% (6/18).

Pharmacoeconomics of Adding Topical HP-TAZ vs Switching Biologics—In the participants whom the investigator reported as likely to switch biologics at baseline, 9 had improvements in disease control such that switching biologics was no longer considered necessary for them at week 16. Potential cost savings with adjunctive therapy of HP-TAZ plus biologic vs switching biologics were therefore evaluated in these 9 participants, who were receiving ustekinumab, adalimumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab during the study (Table 3). The estimated total cost of 16-week maintenance dosing of biologics plus adjunct HP-TAZ lotion ranged from $14,675 (ustekinumab 45 mg) to $54,025 (secukinumab 300 mg), while switching to other most commonly prescribed biologics for 16 weeks would cost an estimated $33,340 to $106,400 (induction and subsequent maintenance phases)(Table 3). Most biologic plus HP-TAZ combinations were estimated to cost less than $30,000, potentially saving $4816 to $91,725 compared with switching to any of the other 7 biologics (Table 3). The relatively more expensive maintenance combination containing secukinumab plus HP-TAZ ($54,025) appeared to be a less expensive option when compared with switching to ustekinumab (90 mg)($83,097), ixekizumab (80 mg)($61,452), or risankizumab (150 mg)($57,030) as an alternative biologic.

Comment

Adjunctive Use of HP-TAZ Lotion—In the present study, we showed that adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion improved biologic treatment response and reduced disease severity in participants with moderate to severe psoriasis whose symptoms could not be adequately controlled by 24 weeks or more of biologic monotherapy in a real-world setting. Disease activity decreased as evidenced by reductions in all assessed effectiveness variables, including BSA involvement, PGA score, composite BSA×PGA score, and participant-reported DLQI score. Half of the participants achieved NPF TTT status at the end of the study. The treatment was well tolerated with no unexpected safety concerns. Compared with switching to a new biologic, adding topical HP-TAZ to ongoing biologics appeared to be a more cost-effective approach to enhance treatment effects. Our results suggest that adjunctive use of HP-TAZ lotion may be a safe, effective, and economical option for patients with psoriasis who are failing their ongoing biologic monotherapy.

Treat-to-Target Status—The NPF-recommended target response to a treatment for plaque psoriasis is BSA of 1% or lower at 3 months postinitiation.¹⁰ Patients in the current study had major psoriasis activity at study entry despite being treated with a biologic for at least 24 weeks, as none had attained NPF TTT status at baseline. Because the time period of prior biologic treatment (at least 24 weeks) is much longer than the 3 months suggested by NPF, we believe that we were observing a true failure of the biologic rather than a slow onset of treatment effects in these patients at the time of enrollment. By week 12, with the addition of HP-TAZ lotion to the biologic, a high rate of participants achieved NPF TTT status (64.7%), with most participants being able to maintain this TTT status at study end after 4 weeks of biologic alone. Most participants also reported no impact of psoriasis on their QOL (DLQI, 0–1¹⁶; 76.5%) at week 12. Improvements we found in disease control with adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion plus biologic support prior reports showing enhanced responses when a topical medication was added to a biologic.^17,18 Reductions in psoriasis activity after 8 weeks of combined biologics plus once-daily HP-TAZ also are consistent with 2 phase 3 RCTs in which a monotherapy of HP-TAZ lotion used once daily for 8 weeks reduced BSA and DLQI.¹⁵ Notably, in the current study, disease severity continued to decrease when dosing of HP-TAZ was reduced to once every other day for 4 weeks, and the improvements were maintained even after the adjunct topical therapy was discontinued.

Safety Profile of HP-TAZ Lotion—The overall safety profile in our study also was consistent with that previously reported for HP-TAZ lotion,^15,19-21 with no new safety signals observed. The combination treatment was well tolerated, with most reported AEs being mild in severity. Adverse events were mostly related to application-site reactions, the most common being dermatitis (28%), which was likely attributable to the TAZ component of the topical regimen.¹⁵

Likelihood of Switching Biologics—Reduced disease activity was reflected by a decrease in the percentage of participants the investigator considered likely to change biologics, which was 88.0% at baseline but only 33.3% at the end of the study. Although switching to a different biologic agent can improve treatment effect,²² it could lead to a substantial increase in health care costs and use of resources compared with no switch.⁵ We found that switching to one of the other most commonly prescribed biologics could incur $4816 to $91,725 in additional costs in most cases when compared with the combination strategy we evaluated over the 16-week treatment period. Therefore, concomitant use of HP-TAZ lotion with the ongoing biologics would be a potentially more economical alternative for patients to achieve acceptable responses or the NPF TTT goal. Moreover, combination with an adjunctive topical medication could avoid potential risks associated with switching, such as new AEs with new biologic regimens or disease flare during any washout period sometimes adopted for switching biologics.

Study Limitations—Our estimated costs were based on average wholesale prices and did not reflect net prices paid by patients or health plans due to the lack of known discount rates. Inherent to the nature of its design, the study also had a relatively small patient population and lacked control groups. Although lack of a control group may limit the conclusions of our study, our goal was to examine real-world patient experience, and the efficacy of HP-TAZ lotion as well as the baseline disease state for each participant using a biologic was well known. Statistical inference on the differences in efficacy between biologics with and without adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion, or between combination therapy and a new biologic monotherapy, was not possible. Additionally, a longer follow-up after discontinuation of HP-TAZ is needed to evaluate the long-term maintenance of responses. Nevertheless, the results here demonstrated that participants responded better when adjunctive HP-TAZ lotion was added to the ongoing biologics in a clinical practice setting.

Conclusion

In this real-world study, patients with psoriasis that failed to respond to biologic monotherapy had improved disease control and QOL and reported no new safety concerns with adjunctive use of HP-TAZ lotion. Adding HP-TAZ to the ongoing biologics could be a more cost-effective option vs switching biologics for patients whose psoriasis symptoms could not be controlled with biologic monotherapy. Taken together, our results support the use of HP-TAZ lotion as an effective and safe adjunctive topical therapy in combination with biologics for psoriasis treatment.

Acknowledgments—We acknowledge the medical writing assistance provided by Hui Zhang, PhD, and Kathleen Ohleth, PhD, from Precise Publications LLC (Far Hills, New Jersey), which was funded by Ortho Dermatologics.

From Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr Gallagher), T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Saketh Rompicherla; Drs Ebekozien, Noor, Odugbesan, and Mungmode; Nicole Rioles, Emma Ospelt), University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Drs. Wilkes, O’Malley, and Rapaport), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY (Drs. Antal and Feuer), NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, NY (Dr. Gabriel), NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr. Golden), Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, CO (Dr. Alonso), Texas Children’s Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (Dr. Lyons), Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Dr. Prahalad), Children Mercy Kansas City, MO (Dr. Clements), Indiana University School of Medicine, IN (Dr. Neyman), Rady Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Diego, CA (Dr. Demeterco-Berggren).

Background: Patient outcomes of COVID-19 have improved throughout the pandemic. However, because it is not known whether outcomes of COVID-19 in the type 1 diabetes (T1D) population improved over time, we investigated differences in COVID-19 outcomes for patients with T1D in the United States.

Methods: We analyzed data collected via a registry of patients with T1D and COVID-19 from 56 sites between April 2020 and January 2021. We grouped cases into first surge (April 9, 2020, to July 31, 2020, n = 188) and late surge (August 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021, n = 410), and then compared outcomes between both groups using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.

Results: Adverse outcomes were more frequent during the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (32% vs 15%, P < .001), severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04), and hospitalization (52% vs 22%, P < .001). Patients in the first surge were older (28 [SD,18.8] years vs 18.0 [SD, 11.1] years, P < .001), had higher median hemoglobin A1c levels (9.3 [interquartile range {IQR}, 4.0] vs 8.4 (IQR, 2.8), P < .001), and were more likely to use public insurance (107 [57%] vs 154 [38%], P < .001). The odds of hospitalization for adults in the first surge were 5 times higher compared to the late surge (odds ratio, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.11-12.63).

Conclusion: Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge had a higher proportion of adverse outcomes than those who presented in a later surge.

Keywords: TD1, diabetic ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia.

After the World Health Organization declared the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, a pandemic on March 11, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified patients with diabetes as high risk for severe illness.^1-7 The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 has significantly improved over the past 2 years. Public health measures, less severe COVID-19 variants, increased access to testing, and new treatments for COVID-19 have contributed to improved outcomes.

The T1D Exchange has previously published findings on COVID-19 outcomes for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using data from the T1D COVID-19 Surveillance Registry.^8-12 Given improved outcomes in COVID-19 in the general population, we sought to determine if outcomes for cases of COVID-19 reported to this registry changed over time.

Methods

This study was coordinated by the T1D Exchange and approved as nonhuman subject research by the Western Institutional Review Board. All participating centers also obtained local institutional review board approval. No identifiable patient information was collected as part of this noninterventional, cross-sectional study.

The T1D Exchange Multi-center COVID-19 Surveillance Study collected data from endocrinology clinics that completed a retrospective chart review and submitted information to T1D Exchange via an online questionnaire for all patients with T1D at their sites who tested positive for COVID-19.^13,14 The questionnaire was administered using the Qualtrics survey platform (www.qualtrics.com version XM) and contained 33 pre-coded and free-text response fields to collect patient and clinical attributes.

Each participating center identified 1 team member for reporting to avoid duplicate case submission. Each submitted case was reviewed for potential errors and incomplete information. The coordinating center verified the number of cases per site for data quality assurance.

Quantitative data were represented as mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range). Categorical data were described as the number (percentage) of patients. Summary statistics, including frequency and percentage for categorical variables, were calculated for all patient-related and clinical characteristics. The date August 1, 2021, was selected as the end of the first surge based on a review of national COVID-19 surges.

We used the Fisher’s exact test to assess associations between hospitalization and demographics, HbA1c, diabetes duration, symptoms, and adverse outcomes. In addition, multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR). Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between time of surge and hospitalization separately for both the pediatric and adult populations. Each model was adjusted for potential sociodemographic confounders, specifically age, sex, race, insurance, and HbA1c.

All tests were 2-sided, with type 1 error set at 5%. Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression were performed using statistical software R, version 3.6.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

The characteristics of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D that were reported early in the pandemic, before August 1, 2020 (first surge), compared with those of cases reported on and after August 1, 2020 (later surges) are shown in Table 1.

Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge as compared to the later surges were older (mean age 28 [SD, 18.0] years vs 18.8 [SD, 11.1] years; P < .001) and had a longer duration of diabetes (P < .001). The first-surge group also had more patients with >20 years’ diabetes duration (20% vs 9%, P < .001). Obesity, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease were also more commonly reported in first-surge cases (all P < .001).

There was a significant difference in race and ethnicity reported in the first surge vs the later surge cases, with fewer patients identifying as non-Hispanic White (39% vs, 63%, P < .001) and more patients identifying as non-Hispanic Black (29% vs 12%, P < .001). The groups also differed significantly in terms of insurance type, with more people on public insurance in the first-surge group (57% vs 38%, P < .001). In addition, median HbA1c was higher (9.3% vs 8.4%, P < .001) and continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump use were less common (P = .02 and <.001, respectively) in the early surge.

All symptoms and adverse outcomes were reported more often in the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA; 32% vs 15%; P < .001) and severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04). Hospitalization (52% vs 13%, P < .001) and ICU admission (24% vs 9%, P < .001) were reported more often in the first-surge group.

Regression Analyses

Table 2 shows the results of logistic regression analyses for hospitalization in the pediatric (≤19 years of age) and adult (>19 years of age) groups, along with the odds of hospitalization during the first vs late surge among COVID-positive people with T1D. Adult patients who tested positive in the first surge were about 5 times more likely to be hospitalized than adults who tested positive for infection in the late surge after adjusting for age, insurance type, sex, race, and HbA1c levels. Pediatric patients also had an increased odds for hospitalization during the first surge, but this increase was not statistically significant.

Discussion

Our analysis of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D reported by diabetes providers across the United States found that adverse outcomes were more prevalent early in the pandemic. There may be a number of reasons for this difference in outcomes between patients who presented in the first surge vs a later surge. First, because testing for COVID-19 was extremely limited and reserved for hospitalized patients early in the pandemic, the first-surge patients with confirmed COVID-19 likely represent a skewed population of higher-acuity patients. This may also explain the relative paucity of cases in younger patients reported early in the pandemic. Second, worse outcomes in the early surge may also have been associated with overwhelmed hospitals in New York City at the start of the outbreak. According to Cummings et al, the abrupt surge of critically ill patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome initially outpaced their capacity to provide prone-positioning ventilation, which has been expanded since then.¹⁵ While there was very little hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or kidney disease reported in the pediatric groups, there was a higher prevalence of obesity in the pediatric group from the mid-Atlantic region. Obesity has been associated with a worse prognosis for COVID-19 illness in children.¹⁶ Finally, there were 5 deaths reported in this study, all of which were reported during the first surge. Older age and increased rates of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease in the first surge cases likely contributed to worse outcomes for adults in mid-Atlantic region relative to the other regions. Minority race and the use of public insurance, risk factors for more severe outcomes in all regions, were also more common in cases reported from the mid-Atlantic region.

This study has several limitations. First, it is a cross-sectional study that relies upon voluntary provider reports. Second, availability of COVID-19 testing was limited in all regions in spring 2020. Third, different regions of the country experienced subsequent surges at different times within the reported timeframes in this analysis. Fourth, this report time period does not include the impact of the newer COVID-19 variants. Finally, trends in COVID-19 outcomes were affected by the evolution of care that developed throughout 2020.

Conclusion

Adult patients with T1D and COVID-19 who reported during the first surge had about 5 times higher hospitalization odds than those who presented in a later surge.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, MPH, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr Ebekozien reports receiving research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom, and receiving honoraria from Medtronic Diabetes.

From Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr Gallagher), T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Saketh Rompicherla; Drs Ebekozien, Noor, Odugbesan, and Mungmode; Nicole Rioles, Emma Ospelt), University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Drs. Wilkes, O’Malley, and Rapaport), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY (Drs. Antal and Feuer), NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, NY (Dr. Gabriel), NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr. Golden), Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, CO (Dr. Alonso), Texas Children’s Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (Dr. Lyons), Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Dr. Prahalad), Children Mercy Kansas City, MO (Dr. Clements), Indiana University School of Medicine, IN (Dr. Neyman), Rady Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Diego, CA (Dr. Demeterco-Berggren).

Background: Patient outcomes of COVID-19 have improved throughout the pandemic. However, because it is not known whether outcomes of COVID-19 in the type 1 diabetes (T1D) population improved over time, we investigated differences in COVID-19 outcomes for patients with T1D in the United States.

Methods: We analyzed data collected via a registry of patients with T1D and COVID-19 from 56 sites between April 2020 and January 2021. We grouped cases into first surge (April 9, 2020, to July 31, 2020, n = 188) and late surge (August 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021, n = 410), and then compared outcomes between both groups using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.

Results: Adverse outcomes were more frequent during the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (32% vs 15%, P < .001), severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04), and hospitalization (52% vs 22%, P < .001). Patients in the first surge were older (28 [SD,18.8] years vs 18.0 [SD, 11.1] years, P < .001), had higher median hemoglobin A1c levels (9.3 [interquartile range {IQR}, 4.0] vs 8.4 (IQR, 2.8), P < .001), and were more likely to use public insurance (107 [57%] vs 154 [38%], P < .001). The odds of hospitalization for adults in the first surge were 5 times higher compared to the late surge (odds ratio, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.11-12.63).

Conclusion: Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge had a higher proportion of adverse outcomes than those who presented in a later surge.

Keywords: TD1, diabetic ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia.

After the World Health Organization declared the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, a pandemic on March 11, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified patients with diabetes as high risk for severe illness.^1-7 The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 has significantly improved over the past 2 years. Public health measures, less severe COVID-19 variants, increased access to testing, and new treatments for COVID-19 have contributed to improved outcomes.

The T1D Exchange has previously published findings on COVID-19 outcomes for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using data from the T1D COVID-19 Surveillance Registry.^8-12 Given improved outcomes in COVID-19 in the general population, we sought to determine if outcomes for cases of COVID-19 reported to this registry changed over time.

Methods

This study was coordinated by the T1D Exchange and approved as nonhuman subject research by the Western Institutional Review Board. All participating centers also obtained local institutional review board approval. No identifiable patient information was collected as part of this noninterventional, cross-sectional study.

The T1D Exchange Multi-center COVID-19 Surveillance Study collected data from endocrinology clinics that completed a retrospective chart review and submitted information to T1D Exchange via an online questionnaire for all patients with T1D at their sites who tested positive for COVID-19.^13,14 The questionnaire was administered using the Qualtrics survey platform (www.qualtrics.com version XM) and contained 33 pre-coded and free-text response fields to collect patient and clinical attributes.

Each participating center identified 1 team member for reporting to avoid duplicate case submission. Each submitted case was reviewed for potential errors and incomplete information. The coordinating center verified the number of cases per site for data quality assurance.

Quantitative data were represented as mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range). Categorical data were described as the number (percentage) of patients. Summary statistics, including frequency and percentage for categorical variables, were calculated for all patient-related and clinical characteristics. The date August 1, 2021, was selected as the end of the first surge based on a review of national COVID-19 surges.

We used the Fisher’s exact test to assess associations between hospitalization and demographics, HbA1c, diabetes duration, symptoms, and adverse outcomes. In addition, multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR). Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between time of surge and hospitalization separately for both the pediatric and adult populations. Each model was adjusted for potential sociodemographic confounders, specifically age, sex, race, insurance, and HbA1c.

All tests were 2-sided, with type 1 error set at 5%. Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression were performed using statistical software R, version 3.6.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

The characteristics of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D that were reported early in the pandemic, before August 1, 2020 (first surge), compared with those of cases reported on and after August 1, 2020 (later surges) are shown in Table 1.

Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge as compared to the later surges were older (mean age 28 [SD, 18.0] years vs 18.8 [SD, 11.1] years; P < .001) and had a longer duration of diabetes (P < .001). The first-surge group also had more patients with >20 years’ diabetes duration (20% vs 9%, P < .001). Obesity, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease were also more commonly reported in first-surge cases (all P < .001).

There was a significant difference in race and ethnicity reported in the first surge vs the later surge cases, with fewer patients identifying as non-Hispanic White (39% vs, 63%, P < .001) and more patients identifying as non-Hispanic Black (29% vs 12%, P < .001). The groups also differed significantly in terms of insurance type, with more people on public insurance in the first-surge group (57% vs 38%, P < .001). In addition, median HbA1c was higher (9.3% vs 8.4%, P < .001) and continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump use were less common (P = .02 and <.001, respectively) in the early surge.

All symptoms and adverse outcomes were reported more often in the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA; 32% vs 15%; P < .001) and severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04). Hospitalization (52% vs 13%, P < .001) and ICU admission (24% vs 9%, P < .001) were reported more often in the first-surge group.

Regression Analyses

Table 2 shows the results of logistic regression analyses for hospitalization in the pediatric (≤19 years of age) and adult (>19 years of age) groups, along with the odds of hospitalization during the first vs late surge among COVID-positive people with T1D. Adult patients who tested positive in the first surge were about 5 times more likely to be hospitalized than adults who tested positive for infection in the late surge after adjusting for age, insurance type, sex, race, and HbA1c levels. Pediatric patients also had an increased odds for hospitalization during the first surge, but this increase was not statistically significant.

Discussion

Our analysis of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D reported by diabetes providers across the United States found that adverse outcomes were more prevalent early in the pandemic. There may be a number of reasons for this difference in outcomes between patients who presented in the first surge vs a later surge. First, because testing for COVID-19 was extremely limited and reserved for hospitalized patients early in the pandemic, the first-surge patients with confirmed COVID-19 likely represent a skewed population of higher-acuity patients. This may also explain the relative paucity of cases in younger patients reported early in the pandemic. Second, worse outcomes in the early surge may also have been associated with overwhelmed hospitals in New York City at the start of the outbreak. According to Cummings et al, the abrupt surge of critically ill patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome initially outpaced their capacity to provide prone-positioning ventilation, which has been expanded since then.¹⁵ While there was very little hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or kidney disease reported in the pediatric groups, there was a higher prevalence of obesity in the pediatric group from the mid-Atlantic region. Obesity has been associated with a worse prognosis for COVID-19 illness in children.¹⁶ Finally, there were 5 deaths reported in this study, all of which were reported during the first surge. Older age and increased rates of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease in the first surge cases likely contributed to worse outcomes for adults in mid-Atlantic region relative to the other regions. Minority race and the use of public insurance, risk factors for more severe outcomes in all regions, were also more common in cases reported from the mid-Atlantic region.

This study has several limitations. First, it is a cross-sectional study that relies upon voluntary provider reports. Second, availability of COVID-19 testing was limited in all regions in spring 2020. Third, different regions of the country experienced subsequent surges at different times within the reported timeframes in this analysis. Fourth, this report time period does not include the impact of the newer COVID-19 variants. Finally, trends in COVID-19 outcomes were affected by the evolution of care that developed throughout 2020.

Conclusion

Adult patients with T1D and COVID-19 who reported during the first surge had about 5 times higher hospitalization odds than those who presented in a later surge.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, MPH, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr Ebekozien reports receiving research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom, and receiving honoraria from Medtronic Diabetes.

From Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr Gallagher), T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Saketh Rompicherla; Drs Ebekozien, Noor, Odugbesan, and Mungmode; Nicole Rioles, Emma Ospelt), University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Drs. Wilkes, O’Malley, and Rapaport), Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY (Drs. Antal and Feuer), NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, NY (Dr. Gabriel), NYU Langone Health, New York, NY (Dr. Golden), Barbara Davis Center, Aurora, CO (Dr. Alonso), Texas Children’s Hospital/Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX (Dr. Lyons), Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Dr. Prahalad), Children Mercy Kansas City, MO (Dr. Clements), Indiana University School of Medicine, IN (Dr. Neyman), Rady Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Diego, CA (Dr. Demeterco-Berggren).

Background: Patient outcomes of COVID-19 have improved throughout the pandemic. However, because it is not known whether outcomes of COVID-19 in the type 1 diabetes (T1D) population improved over time, we investigated differences in COVID-19 outcomes for patients with T1D in the United States.

Methods: We analyzed data collected via a registry of patients with T1D and COVID-19 from 56 sites between April 2020 and January 2021. We grouped cases into first surge (April 9, 2020, to July 31, 2020, n = 188) and late surge (August 1, 2020, to January 31, 2021, n = 410), and then compared outcomes between both groups using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models.

Results: Adverse outcomes were more frequent during the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (32% vs 15%, P < .001), severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04), and hospitalization (52% vs 22%, P < .001). Patients in the first surge were older (28 [SD,18.8] years vs 18.0 [SD, 11.1] years, P < .001), had higher median hemoglobin A1c levels (9.3 [interquartile range {IQR}, 4.0] vs 8.4 (IQR, 2.8), P < .001), and were more likely to use public insurance (107 [57%] vs 154 [38%], P < .001). The odds of hospitalization for adults in the first surge were 5 times higher compared to the late surge (odds ratio, 5.01; 95% CI, 2.11-12.63).

Conclusion: Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge had a higher proportion of adverse outcomes than those who presented in a later surge.

Keywords: TD1, diabetic ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia.

After the World Health Organization declared the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, a pandemic on March 11, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified patients with diabetes as high risk for severe illness.^1-7 The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 has significantly improved over the past 2 years. Public health measures, less severe COVID-19 variants, increased access to testing, and new treatments for COVID-19 have contributed to improved outcomes.

The T1D Exchange has previously published findings on COVID-19 outcomes for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using data from the T1D COVID-19 Surveillance Registry.^8-12 Given improved outcomes in COVID-19 in the general population, we sought to determine if outcomes for cases of COVID-19 reported to this registry changed over time.

Methods

This study was coordinated by the T1D Exchange and approved as nonhuman subject research by the Western Institutional Review Board. All participating centers also obtained local institutional review board approval. No identifiable patient information was collected as part of this noninterventional, cross-sectional study.

The T1D Exchange Multi-center COVID-19 Surveillance Study collected data from endocrinology clinics that completed a retrospective chart review and submitted information to T1D Exchange via an online questionnaire for all patients with T1D at their sites who tested positive for COVID-19.^13,14 The questionnaire was administered using the Qualtrics survey platform (www.qualtrics.com version XM) and contained 33 pre-coded and free-text response fields to collect patient and clinical attributes.

Each participating center identified 1 team member for reporting to avoid duplicate case submission. Each submitted case was reviewed for potential errors and incomplete information. The coordinating center verified the number of cases per site for data quality assurance.

Quantitative data were represented as mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range). Categorical data were described as the number (percentage) of patients. Summary statistics, including frequency and percentage for categorical variables, were calculated for all patient-related and clinical characteristics. The date August 1, 2021, was selected as the end of the first surge based on a review of national COVID-19 surges.

We used the Fisher’s exact test to assess associations between hospitalization and demographics, HbA1c, diabetes duration, symptoms, and adverse outcomes. In addition, multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR). Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between time of surge and hospitalization separately for both the pediatric and adult populations. Each model was adjusted for potential sociodemographic confounders, specifically age, sex, race, insurance, and HbA1c.

All tests were 2-sided, with type 1 error set at 5%. Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression were performed using statistical software R, version 3.6.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Results

The characteristics of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D that were reported early in the pandemic, before August 1, 2020 (first surge), compared with those of cases reported on and after August 1, 2020 (later surges) are shown in Table 1.

Patients with T1D who presented with COVID-19 during the first surge as compared to the later surges were older (mean age 28 [SD, 18.0] years vs 18.8 [SD, 11.1] years; P < .001) and had a longer duration of diabetes (P < .001). The first-surge group also had more patients with >20 years’ diabetes duration (20% vs 9%, P < .001). Obesity, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease were also more commonly reported in first-surge cases (all P < .001).

There was a significant difference in race and ethnicity reported in the first surge vs the later surge cases, with fewer patients identifying as non-Hispanic White (39% vs, 63%, P < .001) and more patients identifying as non-Hispanic Black (29% vs 12%, P < .001). The groups also differed significantly in terms of insurance type, with more people on public insurance in the first-surge group (57% vs 38%, P < .001). In addition, median HbA1c was higher (9.3% vs 8.4%, P < .001) and continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump use were less common (P = .02 and <.001, respectively) in the early surge.

All symptoms and adverse outcomes were reported more often in the first surge, including diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA; 32% vs 15%; P < .001) and severe hypoglycemia (4% vs 1%, P = .04). Hospitalization (52% vs 13%, P < .001) and ICU admission (24% vs 9%, P < .001) were reported more often in the first-surge group.

Regression Analyses

Table 2 shows the results of logistic regression analyses for hospitalization in the pediatric (≤19 years of age) and adult (>19 years of age) groups, along with the odds of hospitalization during the first vs late surge among COVID-positive people with T1D. Adult patients who tested positive in the first surge were about 5 times more likely to be hospitalized than adults who tested positive for infection in the late surge after adjusting for age, insurance type, sex, race, and HbA1c levels. Pediatric patients also had an increased odds for hospitalization during the first surge, but this increase was not statistically significant.

Discussion

Our analysis of COVID-19 cases in patients with T1D reported by diabetes providers across the United States found that adverse outcomes were more prevalent early in the pandemic. There may be a number of reasons for this difference in outcomes between patients who presented in the first surge vs a later surge. First, because testing for COVID-19 was extremely limited and reserved for hospitalized patients early in the pandemic, the first-surge patients with confirmed COVID-19 likely represent a skewed population of higher-acuity patients. This may also explain the relative paucity of cases in younger patients reported early in the pandemic. Second, worse outcomes in the early surge may also have been associated with overwhelmed hospitals in New York City at the start of the outbreak. According to Cummings et al, the abrupt surge of critically ill patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome initially outpaced their capacity to provide prone-positioning ventilation, which has been expanded since then.¹⁵ While there was very little hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or kidney disease reported in the pediatric groups, there was a higher prevalence of obesity in the pediatric group from the mid-Atlantic region. Obesity has been associated with a worse prognosis for COVID-19 illness in children.¹⁶ Finally, there were 5 deaths reported in this study, all of which were reported during the first surge. Older age and increased rates of cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease in the first surge cases likely contributed to worse outcomes for adults in mid-Atlantic region relative to the other regions. Minority race and the use of public insurance, risk factors for more severe outcomes in all regions, were also more common in cases reported from the mid-Atlantic region.

This study has several limitations. First, it is a cross-sectional study that relies upon voluntary provider reports. Second, availability of COVID-19 testing was limited in all regions in spring 2020. Third, different regions of the country experienced subsequent surges at different times within the reported timeframes in this analysis. Fourth, this report time period does not include the impact of the newer COVID-19 variants. Finally, trends in COVID-19 outcomes were affected by the evolution of care that developed throughout 2020.

Conclusion

Adult patients with T1D and COVID-19 who reported during the first surge had about 5 times higher hospitalization odds than those who presented in a later surge.

Corresponding author: Osagie Ebekozien, MD, MPH, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr Ebekozien reports receiving research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom, and receiving honoraria from Medtronic Diabetes.

From the Department of Emergency Medicine, Santa Croce e Carle Hospital, Cuneo, Italy (Drs. Abram, Tosello, Emanuele Bernardi, Allione, Cavalot, Dutto, Corsini, Martini, Sciolla, Sara Bernardi, and Lauria). From the School of Emergency Medicine, University of Turin, Turin, Italy (Drs. Paglietta and Giamello).

Objective: This retrospective and prospective cohort study was designed to describe the characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) admitted to subintensive care units (SICU) and to identify the variables associated with outcomes. SICUs have been extremely stressed during the pandemic, but most data regarding critically ill COVID-19 patients come from intensive care units (ICUs). Studies about COVID-19 patients in SICUs are lacking.

Setting and participants: The study included 88 COVID-19 patients admitted to our SICU in Cuneo, Italy, between March and May 2020.

Measurements: Clinical and ventilatory data were collected, and patients were divided by outcome. Multivariable logistic regression analysis examined the variables associated with negative outcomes (transfer to the ICU, palliation, or death in a SICU).

Results: A total of 60 patients (68%) had a positive outcome, and 28 patients (32%) had a negative outcome; 69 patients (78%) underwent continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Pronation (n = 37 [42%]) had been more frequently adopted in patients who had a positive outcome vs a negative outcome (n = 30 [50%] vs n = 7 [25%]; P = .048), and the median (interquartile range) Pao₂/Fio₂ ratio after 6 hours of prone positioning was lower in patients who had a negative outcome vs a positive outcome (144 [140-168] vs 249 [195-268], P = .006). Independent predictors of a negative outcome were diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 8.22; 95% CI, 1.50-44.70; P = .015), higher D-dimer (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.57; P = .019), higher lactate dehydrogenase level (OR, 1.003; 95% CI, 1.000-1.006; P = .039), and lower lymphocytes count (OR, 0.996; 95% CI, 0.993-0.999; P = .004).

Conclusion: SICUs have a fundamental role in the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19, who require long-term CPAP and pronation cycles. Diabetes, lymphopenia, and high D-dimer and LDH levels are associated with negative outcomes.

Keywords: emergency medicine, noninvasive ventilation, prone position, continuous positive airway pressure.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to large increases in hospital admissions. Subintensive care units (SICUs) are among the wards most under pressure worldwide,¹ dealing with the increased number of critically ill patients who need noninvasive ventilation, as well as serving as the best alternative to overfilled intensive care units (ICUs). In Italy, SICUs are playing a fundamental role in the management of COVID-19 patients, providing early treatment of respiratory failure by continuous noninvasive ventilation in order to reduce the need for intubation.^2-5 Nevertheless, the great majority of available data about critically ill COVID-19 patients comes from ICUs. Full studies about outcomes of patients in SICUs are lacking and need to be conducted.

We sought to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to our SICU for COVID-19 to describe the treatments they needed and their impact on prognosis, and to identify the variables associated with patient outcomes.

Methods

Study Design

This cohort study used data from patients who were admitted in the very first weeks of the pandemic. Data were collected retrospectively as well as prospectively, since the ethical committee approved our project. The quality and quantity of data in the 2 groups were comparable.

Data were collected from electronic and written medical records gathered during the patient’s entire stay in our SICU. Data were entered in a database with limited and controlled access. This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics committees (ID: MEDURG10).

Study Population

We studied 88 consecutive patients admitted to the SICU of the Santa Croce e Carle Teaching Hospital, Cuneo, Italy, for COVID-19, from March 8 to May 1, 2020. The diagnosis was based on acute respiratory failure associated with SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection on nasopharyngeal swab or tracheal aspirate and/or typical COVID-19 features on a pulmonary computed tomography (CT) scan.⁶ Exclusion criteria were age younger than 18 years and patient denial of permission to use their data for research purposes (the great majority of patients could actively give consent; for patients who were too sick to do so, family members were asked whether they were aware of any reason why the patient would deny consent).

The past medical history and recent symptoms description were obtained by manually reviewing medical records. Epidemiological exposure was defined as contact with SARS-CoV-2–positive people or staying in an epidemic outbreak area. Initial vital parameters, venous blood tests, arterial blood gas analysis, chest x-ray, as well as the result of the nasopharyngeal swab were gathered from the emergency department (ED) examination. (Additional swabs could be requested when the first one was negative but clinical suspicion for COVID-19 was high.) Upon admission to the SICU, a standardized panel of blood tests was performed, which was repeated the next day and then every 48 hours. Arterial blood gas analysis was performed when clinically indicated, at least twice a day, or following a scheduled time in patients undergoing pronation. Charlson Comorbidity Index⁷ and MuLBSTA score⁸ were calculated based on the collected data.

Imaging

Chest ultrasonography was performed in the ED at the time of hospitalization and once a day in the SICU. Pulmonary high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) was performed when clinically indicated or when the results of nasopharyngeal swabs and/or x-ray results were discordant with COVID-19 clinical suspicion. Contrast CT was performed when pulmonary embolism was suspected.

Medical Therapy

Hydroxychloroquine, antiviral agents, tocilizumab, and ruxolitinib were used in the early phase of the pandemic, then were dismissed after evidence of no efficacy.^9-11 Steroids and low-molecular-weight heparin were used afterward. Enoxaparin was used at the standard prophylactic dosage, and 70% of the anticoagulant dosage was also adopted in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 and D-dimer values >3 times the normal value.^12-14 Antibiotics were given when a bacterial superinfection was suspected.

Oxygen and Ventilatory Therapy

Oxygen support or noninvasive ventilation were started based on patients’ respiratory efficacy, estimated by respiratory rate and the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F ratio).^15,16 Oxygen support was delivered through nasal cannula, Venturi mask, or reservoir mask. Noninvasive ventilation was performed by continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) when the P/F ratio was <250 or the respiratory rate was >25 breaths per minute, using the helmet interface.^5,17 Prone positioning during CPAP^18-20 was adopted in patients meeting the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) criteria²¹ and having persistence of respiratory distress and P/F <300 after a 1-hour trial of CPAP.

The prone position was maintained based on patient tolerance. P/F ratio was measured before pronation (T0), after 1 hour of prone position (T1), before resupination (T2), and 6 hours after resupination (T3). With the same timing, the patient was asked to rate their comfort in each position, from 0 (lack of comfort) to 10 (optimal comfort). Delta P/F was defined as the difference between P/F at T3 and basal P/F at T0.

Outcomes

Positive outcomes were defined as patient discharge from the SICU or transfer to a lower-intensity care ward for treatment continuation. Negative outcomes were defined as need for transfer to the ICU, transfer to another ward for palliation, or death in the SICU.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous data are reported as median and interquartile range (IQR); normal distribution of variables was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Categorical variables were reported as absolute number and percentage. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare continuous variables between groups, and chi-square test with continuity correction was used for categorical variables. The variables that were most significantly associated with a negative outcome on the univariate analysis were included in a stepwise logistic regression analysis, in order to identify independent predictors of patient outcome. Statistical analysis was performed using JASP (JASP Team) software.

Study Population

Of the 88 patients included in the study, 70% were male; the median age was 66 years (IQR, 60-77). In most patients, the diagnosis of COVID-19 was derived from a positive SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab. Six patients, however, maintained a negative swab at all determinations but had clinical and imaging features strongly suggesting COVID-19. No patients met the exclusion criteria. Most patients came from the ED (n = 58 [66%]) or general wards (n = 22 [25%]), while few were transferred from the ICU (n = 8 [9%]). The median length of stay in the SICU was 4 days (IQR, 2-7). An epidemiological link to affected persons or a known virus exposure was identifiable in 37 patients (42%).

Clinical, Laboratory, and Imaging Data

The clinical and anthropometric characteristics of patients are shown in Table 1. Hypertension and smoking habits were prevalent in our population, and the median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 3. Most patients experienced fever, dyspnea, and cough during the days before hospitalization.

Laboratory data showed a marked inflammatory milieu in all studied patients, both at baseline and after 24 and 72 hours. Lymphopenia was observed, along with a significant increase of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CPR), and D-dimer, and a mild increase of procalcitonin. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) values were also increased, with normal troponin I values (Table 2).

Medical Therapy

Most patients (89%) received hydroxychloroquine, whereas steroids were used in one-third of the population (36%). Immunomodulators (tocilizumab and ruxolitinib) were restricted to 12 patients (14%). Empirical antiviral therapy was introduced in the first 41 patients (47%). Enoxaparin was the default agent for thromboembolism prophylaxis, and 6 patients (7%) received 70% of the anticoagulating dose.

Oxygen and Ventilatory Therapy

Basal median P/F ratio was 253 (IQR, 218-291), and respiratory rate at triage was 20 breaths/min (IQR, 16-28), underlining a moderate-to-severe respiratory insufficiency at presentation. A total of 69 patients (78%) underwent CPAP, with a median positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 10.0 cm H₂O (IQR, 7.5-10.0) and fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio₂) of 0.40 (IQR, 0.40-0.50). In 37 patients (42%) who received ongoing CPAP, prone positioning was adopted. In this subgroup, respiratory rate was not significantly different from baseline to resupination (24 vs 25 breaths/min). The median P/F improved from 197 (IQR, 154-236) at baseline to 217 (IQR, 180-262) after pronation (the duration of the prone position was variable, depending on patients’ tolerance: 1 to 6 hours or every pronation cycle). The median delta P/F ratio was 39.4 (IQR, –17.0 to 78.0).

Outcomes

A total of 28 patients (32%) had a negative outcome in the SICU: 8 patients (9%) died, having no clinical indication for higher-intensity care; 6 patients (7%) were transferred to general wards for palliation; and 14 patients (16%) needed an upgrade of cure intensity and were transferred to the ICU. Of these 14 patients, 9 died in the ICU. The total in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients, including patients transferred from the SICU to general wards in fair condition, was 27% (n = 24). Clinical, laboratory, and therapeutic characteristics between the 2 groups are shown in Table 4.

Patients who had a negative outcome were significantly older and had more comorbidities, as suggested by a significantly higher prevalence of diabetes and higher Charlson Comorbidity scores (reflecting the mortality risk based on age and comorbidities). The median MuLBSTA score, which estimates the 90-day mortality risk from viral pneumonia, was also higher in patients who had a negative outcome (9.33%). Symptom occurrence was not different in patients with a negative outcome (apart from cough, which was less frequent), but these patients underwent hospitalization earlier—since the appearance of their first COVID-19 symptoms—compared to patients who had a positive outcome. No difference was found in antihypertensive therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers among outcome groups.

More pronounced laboratory abnormalities were found in patients who had a negative outcome, compared to patients who had a positive outcome: lower lymphocytes and higher C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, D-dimer, LDH, and NT-proBNP. We found no differences in the radiological distribution of pulmonary involvement in patients who had negative or positive outcomes, nor in the adopted medical treatment.

Data showed no difference in CPAP implementation in the 2 groups. However, prone positioning had been more frequently adopted in the group of patients who had a positive outcome, compared with patients who had a negative outcome. No differences of basal P/F were found in patients who had a negative or positive outcome, but the median P/F after 6 hours of prone position was significantly lower in patients who had a negative outcome. The delta P/F ratio did not differ in the 2 groups of patients.

Multivariate Analysis

A logistic regression model was created, including the variables significantly associated with outcomes in the univariate analysis (age, sex, history of diabetes, lymphocytes, CRP, procalcitonin, LDH, NT-proBNP, and D-dimer). In the multivariate analysis, independent predictors of a negative outcome were history of diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 8.22; 95% CI, 1.50-44.70; P =.015), high D-dimer values (OR, 1.28; CI, 1.04-1.57; P = .019), high LDH values (OR, 1.003; CI, 1.000-1.006; P = .039), and low lymphocytes count (OR, 0.996; CI, 0.993-0.999; P = .004).

Discussion

Role of Subintensive Units and Mortality

The novelty of our report is its attempt to investigate the specific group of COVID-19 patients admitted to a SICU. In Italy, SICUs receive acutely ill, spontaneously breathing patients who need (invasive) hemodynamic monitoring, vasoactive medication, renal replacement therapy, chest- tube placement, thrombolysis, and respiratory noninvasive support. The nurse-to-patient ratio is higher than for general wards (usually 1 nurse to every 4 or 5 patients), though lower than for ICUs. In northern Italy, a great number of COVID-19 patients have required this kind of high-intensity care during the pandemic: Noninvasive ventilation support had to be maintained for several days, pronation maneuvers required a high number of people 2 or 3 times a day, and strict monitoring had to be assured. The SICU setting allows patients to buy time as a bridge to progressive reduction of pulmonary involvement, sometimes preventing the need for intubation.

The high prevalence of negative outcomes in the SICU underlines the complexity of COVID-19 patients in this setting. In fact, published data about mortality for patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia are similar to ours.^22,23

Clinical, Laboratory, and Imaging Data

Our analysis confirmed a high rate of comorbidities in COVID-19 patients²⁴ and their prognostic role with age.^25,26 A marked inflammatory milieu was a negative prognostic indicator, and associated concomitant bacterial superinfection could have led to a worse prognosis (procalcitonin was associated with negative outcomes).²⁷ The cardiovascular system was nevertheless stressed, as suggested by higher values of NT-proBNP in patients with negative outcomes, which could reflect sepsis-related systemic involvement.²⁸

It is known that the pulmonary damage caused by SARS-CoV-2 has a dynamic radiological and clinical course, with early areas of subsegmental consolidation, and bilateral ground-glass opacities predominating later in the course of the disease.²⁹ This could explain why in our population we found no specific radiological pattern leading to a worse outcome.

Medical Therapy

No specific pharmacological therapy was found to be associated with a positive outcome in our study, just like antiviral and immunomodulator therapies failed to demonstrate effectiveness in subsequent pandemic surges. The low statistical power of our study did not allow us to give insight into the effectiveness of steroids and heparin at any dosage.

PEEP Support and Prone Positioning

Continuous positive airway pressure was initiated in the majority of patients and maintained for several days. This was an absolute novelty, because we rarely had to keep patients in helmets for long. This was feasible thanks to the SICU’s high nurse-to-patient ratio and the possibility of providing monitored sedation. Patients who could no longer tolerate CPAP helmets or did not improve with CPAP support were evaluated with anesthetists for programming further management. No initial data on respiratory rate, level of hypoxemia, or oxygen support need (level of PEEP and Fio₂) could discriminate between outcomes.

Prone positioning during CPAP was implemented in 42% of our study population: P/F ratio amelioration after prone positioning was highly variable, ranging from very good P/F ratio improvements to few responses or no response. No significantly greater delta P/F ratio was seen after the first prone positioning cycle in patients who had a positive outcome, probably due to the small size of our population, but we observed a clear positive trend. Interestingly, patients showing a negative outcome had a lower percentage of long-term responses to prone positioning: 6 hours after resupination, they lost the benefit of prone positioning in terms of P/F ratio amelioration. Similarly, a greater number of patients tolerating prone positioning had a positive outcome. These data give insight on the possible benefits of prone positioning in a noninvasively supported cohort of patients, which has been mentioned in previous studies.^30,31

Outcomes and Variables Associated With Negative Outcomes

After correction for age and sex, we found in multiple regression analysis that higher D-dimer and LDH values, lymphopenia, and history of diabetes were independently associated with a worse outcome. Although our results had low statistical significance, we consider the trend of the obtained odds ratios important from a clinical point of view. These results could lead to greater attention being placed on COVID-19 patients who present with these characteristics upon their arrival to the ED because they have increased risk of death or intensive care need. Clinicians should consider SICU admission for these patients in order to guarantee closer monitoring and possibly more aggressive ventilatory treatments, earlier pronation, or earlier transfer to the ICU.

Limitations

The major limitation to our study is undoubtedly its statistical power, due to its relatively low patient population. Particularly, the small number of patients who underwent pronation did not allow speculation about the efficacy of this technique, although preliminary data seem promising. However, ours is among the first studies regarding patients with COVID-19 admitted to a SICU, and these preliminary data truthfully describe the Italian, and perhaps international, experience with the first surge of the pandemic.

Conclusions

Our data highlight the primary role of the SICU in COVID-19 in adequately treating critically ill patients who have high care needs different from intubation, and who require noninvasive ventilation for prolonged times as well as frequent pronation cycles. This setting of care may represent a valid, reliable, and effective option for critically ill respiratory patients. History of diabetes, lymphopenia, and high D-dimer and LDH values are independently associated with negative outcomes, and patients presenting with these characteristics should be strictly monitored.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the Informatica System S.R.L., as well as Allessando Mendolia for the pro bono creation of the ISCovidCollect data collecting app.

Corresponding author: Sara Abram, MD, via Coppino, 12100 Cuneo, Italy; [email protected].

Disclosures: None.

From the Department of Emergency Medicine, Santa Croce e Carle Hospital, Cuneo, Italy (Drs. Abram, Tosello, Emanuele Bernardi, Allione, Cavalot, Dutto, Corsini, Martini, Sciolla, Sara Bernardi, and Lauria). From the School of Emergency Medicine, University of Turin, Turin, Italy (Drs. Paglietta and Giamello).

Objective: This retrospective and prospective cohort study was designed to describe the characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) admitted to subintensive care units (SICU) and to identify the variables associated with outcomes. SICUs have been extremely stressed during the pandemic, but most data regarding critically ill COVID-19 patients come from intensive care units (ICUs). Studies about COVID-19 patients in SICUs are lacking.

Setting and participants: The study included 88 COVID-19 patients admitted to our SICU in Cuneo, Italy, between March and May 2020.

Measurements: Clinical and ventilatory data were collected, and patients were divided by outcome. Multivariable logistic regression analysis examined the variables associated with negative outcomes (transfer to the ICU, palliation, or death in a SICU).

Results: A total of 60 patients (68%) had a positive outcome, and 28 patients (32%) had a negative outcome; 69 patients (78%) underwent continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Pronation (n = 37 [42%]) had been more frequently adopted in patients who had a positive outcome vs a negative outcome (n = 30 [50%] vs n = 7 [25%]; P = .048), and the median (interquartile range) Pao₂/Fio₂ ratio after 6 hours of prone positioning was lower in patients who had a negative outcome vs a positive outcome (144 [140-168] vs 249 [195-268], P = .006). Independent predictors of a negative outcome were diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 8.22; 95% CI, 1.50-44.70; P = .015), higher D-dimer (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.57; P = .019), higher lactate dehydrogenase level (OR, 1.003; 95% CI, 1.000-1.006; P = .039), and lower lymphocytes count (OR, 0.996; 95% CI, 0.993-0.999; P = .004).

Conclusion: SICUs have a fundamental role in the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19, who require long-term CPAP and pronation cycles. Diabetes, lymphopenia, and high D-dimer and LDH levels are associated with negative outcomes.

Keywords: emergency medicine, noninvasive ventilation, prone position, continuous positive airway pressure.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to large increases in hospital admissions. Subintensive care units (SICUs) are among the wards most under pressure worldwide,¹ dealing with the increased number of critically ill patients who need noninvasive ventilation, as well as serving as the best alternative to overfilled intensive care units (ICUs). In Italy, SICUs are playing a fundamental role in the management of COVID-19 patients, providing early treatment of respiratory failure by continuous noninvasive ventilation in order to reduce the need for intubation.^2-5 Nevertheless, the great majority of available data about critically ill COVID-19 patients comes from ICUs. Full studies about outcomes of patients in SICUs are lacking and need to be conducted.

We sought to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to our SICU for COVID-19 to describe the treatments they needed and their impact on prognosis, and to identify the variables associated with patient outcomes.

Methods

Study Design

This cohort study used data from patients who were admitted in the very first weeks of the pandemic. Data were collected retrospectively as well as prospectively, since the ethical committee approved our project. The quality and quantity of data in the 2 groups were comparable.

Data were collected from electronic and written medical records gathered during the patient’s entire stay in our SICU. Data were entered in a database with limited and controlled access. This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics committees (ID: MEDURG10).

Study Population

We studied 88 consecutive patients admitted to the SICU of the Santa Croce e Carle Teaching Hospital, Cuneo, Italy, for COVID-19, from March 8 to May 1, 2020. The diagnosis was based on acute respiratory failure associated with SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection on nasopharyngeal swab or tracheal aspirate and/or typical COVID-19 features on a pulmonary computed tomography (CT) scan.⁶ Exclusion criteria were age younger than 18 years and patient denial of permission to use their data for research purposes (the great majority of patients could actively give consent; for patients who were too sick to do so, family members were asked whether they were aware of any reason why the patient would deny consent).

The past medical history and recent symptoms description were obtained by manually reviewing medical records. Epidemiological exposure was defined as contact with SARS-CoV-2–positive people or staying in an epidemic outbreak area. Initial vital parameters, venous blood tests, arterial blood gas analysis, chest x-ray, as well as the result of the nasopharyngeal swab were gathered from the emergency department (ED) examination. (Additional swabs could be requested when the first one was negative but clinical suspicion for COVID-19 was high.) Upon admission to the SICU, a standardized panel of blood tests was performed, which was repeated the next day and then every 48 hours. Arterial blood gas analysis was performed when clinically indicated, at least twice a day, or following a scheduled time in patients undergoing pronation. Charlson Comorbidity Index⁷ and MuLBSTA score⁸ were calculated based on the collected data.

Imaging

Chest ultrasonography was performed in the ED at the time of hospitalization and once a day in the SICU. Pulmonary high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) was performed when clinically indicated or when the results of nasopharyngeal swabs and/or x-ray results were discordant with COVID-19 clinical suspicion. Contrast CT was performed when pulmonary embolism was suspected.

Medical Therapy

Hydroxychloroquine, antiviral agents, tocilizumab, and ruxolitinib were used in the early phase of the pandemic, then were dismissed after evidence of no efficacy.^9-11 Steroids and low-molecular-weight heparin were used afterward. Enoxaparin was used at the standard prophylactic dosage, and 70% of the anticoagulant dosage was also adopted in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 and D-dimer values >3 times the normal value.^12-14 Antibiotics were given when a bacterial superinfection was suspected.

Oxygen and Ventilatory Therapy

Oxygen support or noninvasive ventilation were started based on patients’ respiratory efficacy, estimated by respiratory rate and the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F ratio).^15,16 Oxygen support was delivered through nasal cannula, Venturi mask, or reservoir mask. Noninvasive ventilation was performed by continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) when the P/F ratio was <250 or the respiratory rate was >25 breaths per minute, using the helmet interface.^5,17 Prone positioning during CPAP^18-20 was adopted in patients meeting the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) criteria²¹ and having persistence of respiratory distress and P/F <300 after a 1-hour trial of CPAP.

The prone position was maintained based on patient tolerance. P/F ratio was measured before pronation (T0), after 1 hour of prone position (T1), before resupination (T2), and 6 hours after resupination (T3). With the same timing, the patient was asked to rate their comfort in each position, from 0 (lack of comfort) to 10 (optimal comfort). Delta P/F was defined as the difference between P/F at T3 and basal P/F at T0.

Outcomes

Positive outcomes were defined as patient discharge from the SICU or transfer to a lower-intensity care ward for treatment continuation. Negative outcomes were defined as need for transfer to the ICU, transfer to another ward for palliation, or death in the SICU.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous data are reported as median and interquartile range (IQR); normal distribution of variables was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Categorical variables were reported as absolute number and percentage. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare continuous variables between groups, and chi-square test with continuity correction was used for categorical variables. The variables that were most significantly associated with a negative outcome on the univariate analysis were included in a stepwise logistic regression analysis, in order to identify independent predictors of patient outcome. Statistical analysis was performed using JASP (JASP Team) software.

Study Population

Of the 88 patients included in the study, 70% were male; the median age was 66 years (IQR, 60-77). In most patients, the diagnosis of COVID-19 was derived from a positive SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab. Six patients, however, maintained a negative swab at all determinations but had clinical and imaging features strongly suggesting COVID-19. No patients met the exclusion criteria. Most patients came from the ED (n = 58 [66%]) or general wards (n = 22 [25%]), while few were transferred from the ICU (n = 8 [9%]). The median length of stay in the SICU was 4 days (IQR, 2-7). An epidemiological link to affected persons or a known virus exposure was identifiable in 37 patients (42%).

Clinical, Laboratory, and Imaging Data

The clinical and anthropometric characteristics of patients are shown in Table 1. Hypertension and smoking habits were prevalent in our population, and the median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 3. Most patients experienced fever, dyspnea, and cough during the days before hospitalization.

Laboratory data showed a marked inflammatory milieu in all studied patients, both at baseline and after 24 and 72 hours. Lymphopenia was observed, along with a significant increase of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CPR), and D-dimer, and a mild increase of procalcitonin. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) values were also increased, with normal troponin I values (Table 2).

Medical Therapy

Most patients (89%) received hydroxychloroquine, whereas steroids were used in one-third of the population (36%). Immunomodulators (tocilizumab and ruxolitinib) were restricted to 12 patients (14%). Empirical antiviral therapy was introduced in the first 41 patients (47%). Enoxaparin was the default agent for thromboembolism prophylaxis, and 6 patients (7%) received 70% of the anticoagulating dose.

Oxygen and Ventilatory Therapy

Basal median P/F ratio was 253 (IQR, 218-291), and respiratory rate at triage was 20 breaths/min (IQR, 16-28), underlining a moderate-to-severe respiratory insufficiency at presentation. A total of 69 patients (78%) underwent CPAP, with a median positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 10.0 cm H₂O (IQR, 7.5-10.0) and fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio₂) of 0.40 (IQR, 0.40-0.50). In 37 patients (42%) who received ongoing CPAP, prone positioning was adopted. In this subgroup, respiratory rate was not significantly different from baseline to resupination (24 vs 25 breaths/min). The median P/F improved from 197 (IQR, 154-236) at baseline to 217 (IQR, 180-262) after pronation (the duration of the prone position was variable, depending on patients’ tolerance: 1 to 6 hours or every pronation cycle). The median delta P/F ratio was 39.4 (IQR, –17.0 to 78.0).

Outcomes

A total of 28 patients (32%) had a negative outcome in the SICU: 8 patients (9%) died, having no clinical indication for higher-intensity care; 6 patients (7%) were transferred to general wards for palliation; and 14 patients (16%) needed an upgrade of cure intensity and were transferred to the ICU. Of these 14 patients, 9 died in the ICU. The total in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients, including patients transferred from the SICU to general wards in fair condition, was 27% (n = 24). Clinical, laboratory, and therapeutic characteristics between the 2 groups are shown in Table 4.

Patients who had a negative outcome were significantly older and had more comorbidities, as suggested by a significantly higher prevalence of diabetes and higher Charlson Comorbidity scores (reflecting the mortality risk based on age and comorbidities). The median MuLBSTA score, which estimates the 90-day mortality risk from viral pneumonia, was also higher in patients who had a negative outcome (9.33%). Symptom occurrence was not different in patients with a negative outcome (apart from cough, which was less frequent), but these patients underwent hospitalization earlier—since the appearance of their first COVID-19 symptoms—compared to patients who had a positive outcome. No difference was found in antihypertensive therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers among outcome groups.

More pronounced laboratory abnormalities were found in patients who had a negative outcome, compared to patients who had a positive outcome: lower lymphocytes and higher C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, D-dimer, LDH, and NT-proBNP. We found no differences in the radiological distribution of pulmonary involvement in patients who had negative or positive outcomes, nor in the adopted medical treatment.

Data showed no difference in CPAP implementation in the 2 groups. However, prone positioning had been more frequently adopted in the group of patients who had a positive outcome, compared with patients who had a negative outcome. No differences of basal P/F were found in patients who had a negative or positive outcome, but the median P/F after 6 hours of prone position was significantly lower in patients who had a negative outcome. The delta P/F ratio did not differ in the 2 groups of patients.

Multivariate Analysis

A logistic regression model was created, including the variables significantly associated with outcomes in the univariate analysis (age, sex, history of diabetes, lymphocytes, CRP, procalcitonin, LDH, NT-proBNP, and D-dimer). In the multivariate analysis, independent predictors of a negative outcome were history of diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 8.22; 95% CI, 1.50-44.70; P =.015), high D-dimer values (OR, 1.28; CI, 1.04-1.57; P = .019), high LDH values (OR, 1.003; CI, 1.000-1.006; P = .039), and low lymphocytes count (OR, 0.996; CI, 0.993-0.999; P = .004).

Discussion

Role of Subintensive Units and Mortality

The novelty of our report is its attempt to investigate the specific group of COVID-19 patients admitted to a SICU. In Italy, SICUs receive acutely ill, spontaneously breathing patients who need (invasive) hemodynamic monitoring, vasoactive medication, renal replacement therapy, chest- tube placement, thrombolysis, and respiratory noninvasive support. The nurse-to-patient ratio is higher than for general wards (usually 1 nurse to every 4 or 5 patients), though lower than for ICUs. In northern Italy, a great number of COVID-19 patients have required this kind of high-intensity care during the pandemic: Noninvasive ventilation support had to be maintained for several days, pronation maneuvers required a high number of people 2 or 3 times a day, and strict monitoring had to be assured. The SICU setting allows patients to buy time as a bridge to progressive reduction of pulmonary involvement, sometimes preventing the need for intubation.

The high prevalence of negative outcomes in the SICU underlines the complexity of COVID-19 patients in this setting. In fact, published data about mortality for patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia are similar to ours.^22,23

Clinical, Laboratory, and Imaging Data

Our analysis confirmed a high rate of comorbidities in COVID-19 patients²⁴ and their prognostic role with age.^25,26 A marked inflammatory milieu was a negative prognostic indicator, and associated concomitant bacterial superinfection could have led to a worse prognosis (procalcitonin was associated with negative outcomes).²⁷ The cardiovascular system was nevertheless stressed, as suggested by higher values of NT-proBNP in patients with negative outcomes, which could reflect sepsis-related systemic involvement.²⁸

It is known that the pulmonary damage caused by SARS-CoV-2 has a dynamic radiological and clinical course, with early areas of subsegmental consolidation, and bilateral ground-glass opacities predominating later in the course of the disease.²⁹ This could explain why in our population we found no specific radiological pattern leading to a worse outcome.

Medical Therapy

No specific pharmacological therapy was found to be associated with a positive outcome in our study, just like antiviral and immunomodulator therapies failed to demonstrate effectiveness in subsequent pandemic surges. The low statistical power of our study did not allow us to give insight into the effectiveness of steroids and heparin at any dosage.

PEEP Support and Prone Positioning

Continuous positive airway pressure was initiated in the majority of patients and maintained for several days. This was an absolute novelty, because we rarely had to keep patients in helmets for long. This was feasible thanks to the SICU’s high nurse-to-patient ratio and the possibility of providing monitored sedation. Patients who could no longer tolerate CPAP helmets or did not improve with CPAP support were evaluated with anesthetists for programming further management. No initial data on respiratory rate, level of hypoxemia, or oxygen support need (level of PEEP and Fio₂) could discriminate between outcomes.

Prone positioning during CPAP was implemented in 42% of our study population: P/F ratio amelioration after prone positioning was highly variable, ranging from very good P/F ratio improvements to few responses or no response. No significantly greater delta P/F ratio was seen after the first prone positioning cycle in patients who had a positive outcome, probably due to the small size of our population, but we observed a clear positive trend. Interestingly, patients showing a negative outcome had a lower percentage of long-term responses to prone positioning: 6 hours after resupination, they lost the benefit of prone positioning in terms of P/F ratio amelioration. Similarly, a greater number of patients tolerating prone positioning had a positive outcome. These data give insight on the possible benefits of prone positioning in a noninvasively supported cohort of patients, which has been mentioned in previous studies.^30,31

Outcomes and Variables Associated With Negative Outcomes

After correction for age and sex, we found in multiple regression analysis that higher D-dimer and LDH values, lymphopenia, and history of diabetes were independently associated with a worse outcome. Although our results had low statistical significance, we consider the trend of the obtained odds ratios important from a clinical point of view. These results could lead to greater attention being placed on COVID-19 patients who present with these characteristics upon their arrival to the ED because they have increased risk of death or intensive care need. Clinicians should consider SICU admission for these patients in order to guarantee closer monitoring and possibly more aggressive ventilatory treatments, earlier pronation, or earlier transfer to the ICU.

Limitations

The major limitation to our study is undoubtedly its statistical power, due to its relatively low patient population. Particularly, the small number of patients who underwent pronation did not allow speculation about the efficacy of this technique, although preliminary data seem promising. However, ours is among the first studies regarding patients with COVID-19 admitted to a SICU, and these preliminary data truthfully describe the Italian, and perhaps international, experience with the first surge of the pandemic.

Conclusions

Our data highlight the primary role of the SICU in COVID-19 in adequately treating critically ill patients who have high care needs different from intubation, and who require noninvasive ventilation for prolonged times as well as frequent pronation cycles. This setting of care may represent a valid, reliable, and effective option for critically ill respiratory patients. History of diabetes, lymphopenia, and high D-dimer and LDH values are independently associated with negative outcomes, and patients presenting with these characteristics should be strictly monitored.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the Informatica System S.R.L., as well as Allessando Mendolia for the pro bono creation of the ISCovidCollect data collecting app.

Corresponding author: Sara Abram, MD, via Coppino, 12100 Cuneo, Italy; [email protected].

Disclosures: None.

From the Department of Emergency Medicine, Santa Croce e Carle Hospital, Cuneo, Italy (Drs. Abram, Tosello, Emanuele Bernardi, Allione, Cavalot, Dutto, Corsini, Martini, Sciolla, Sara Bernardi, and Lauria). From the School of Emergency Medicine, University of Turin, Turin, Italy (Drs. Paglietta and Giamello).

Objective: This retrospective and prospective cohort study was designed to describe the characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) admitted to subintensive care units (SICU) and to identify the variables associated with outcomes. SICUs have been extremely stressed during the pandemic, but most data regarding critically ill COVID-19 patients come from intensive care units (ICUs). Studies about COVID-19 patients in SICUs are lacking.

Setting and participants: The study included 88 COVID-19 patients admitted to our SICU in Cuneo, Italy, between March and May 2020.

Measurements: Clinical and ventilatory data were collected, and patients were divided by outcome. Multivariable logistic regression analysis examined the variables associated with negative outcomes (transfer to the ICU, palliation, or death in a SICU).

Results: A total of 60 patients (68%) had a positive outcome, and 28 patients (32%) had a negative outcome; 69 patients (78%) underwent continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Pronation (n = 37 [42%]) had been more frequently adopted in patients who had a positive outcome vs a negative outcome (n = 30 [50%] vs n = 7 [25%]; P = .048), and the median (interquartile range) Pao₂/Fio₂ ratio after 6 hours of prone positioning was lower in patients who had a negative outcome vs a positive outcome (144 [140-168] vs 249 [195-268], P = .006). Independent predictors of a negative outcome were diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 8.22; 95% CI, 1.50-44.70; P = .015), higher D-dimer (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.57; P = .019), higher lactate dehydrogenase level (OR, 1.003; 95% CI, 1.000-1.006; P = .039), and lower lymphocytes count (OR, 0.996; 95% CI, 0.993-0.999; P = .004).

Conclusion: SICUs have a fundamental role in the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19, who require long-term CPAP and pronation cycles. Diabetes, lymphopenia, and high D-dimer and LDH levels are associated with negative outcomes.

Keywords: emergency medicine, noninvasive ventilation, prone position, continuous positive airway pressure.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to large increases in hospital admissions. Subintensive care units (SICUs) are among the wards most under pressure worldwide,¹ dealing with the increased number of critically ill patients who need noninvasive ventilation, as well as serving as the best alternative to overfilled intensive care units (ICUs). In Italy, SICUs are playing a fundamental role in the management of COVID-19 patients, providing early treatment of respiratory failure by continuous noninvasive ventilation in order to reduce the need for intubation.^2-5 Nevertheless, the great majority of available data about critically ill COVID-19 patients comes from ICUs. Full studies about outcomes of patients in SICUs are lacking and need to be conducted.

We sought to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to our SICU for COVID-19 to describe the treatments they needed and their impact on prognosis, and to identify the variables associated with patient outcomes.

Methods

Study Design

This cohort study used data from patients who were admitted in the very first weeks of the pandemic. Data were collected retrospectively as well as prospectively, since the ethical committee approved our project. The quality and quantity of data in the 2 groups were comparable.

Data were collected from electronic and written medical records gathered during the patient’s entire stay in our SICU. Data were entered in a database with limited and controlled access. This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics committees (ID: MEDURG10).

Study Population

We studied 88 consecutive patients admitted to the SICU of the Santa Croce e Carle Teaching Hospital, Cuneo, Italy, for COVID-19, from March 8 to May 1, 2020. The diagnosis was based on acute respiratory failure associated with SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection on nasopharyngeal swab or tracheal aspirate and/or typical COVID-19 features on a pulmonary computed tomography (CT) scan.⁶ Exclusion criteria were age younger than 18 years and patient denial of permission to use their data for research purposes (the great majority of patients could actively give consent; for patients who were too sick to do so, family members were asked whether they were aware of any reason why the patient would deny consent).

The past medical history and recent symptoms description were obtained by manually reviewing medical records. Epidemiological exposure was defined as contact with SARS-CoV-2–positive people or staying in an epidemic outbreak area. Initial vital parameters, venous blood tests, arterial blood gas analysis, chest x-ray, as well as the result of the nasopharyngeal swab were gathered from the emergency department (ED) examination. (Additional swabs could be requested when the first one was negative but clinical suspicion for COVID-19 was high.) Upon admission to the SICU, a standardized panel of blood tests was performed, which was repeated the next day and then every 48 hours. Arterial blood gas analysis was performed when clinically indicated, at least twice a day, or following a scheduled time in patients undergoing pronation. Charlson Comorbidity Index⁷ and MuLBSTA score⁸ were calculated based on the collected data.

Imaging

Chest ultrasonography was performed in the ED at the time of hospitalization and once a day in the SICU. Pulmonary high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) was performed when clinically indicated or when the results of nasopharyngeal swabs and/or x-ray results were discordant with COVID-19 clinical suspicion. Contrast CT was performed when pulmonary embolism was suspected.

Medical Therapy

Hydroxychloroquine, antiviral agents, tocilizumab, and ruxolitinib were used in the early phase of the pandemic, then were dismissed after evidence of no efficacy.^9-11 Steroids and low-molecular-weight heparin were used afterward. Enoxaparin was used at the standard prophylactic dosage, and 70% of the anticoagulant dosage was also adopted in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 and D-dimer values >3 times the normal value.^12-14 Antibiotics were given when a bacterial superinfection was suspected.

Oxygen and Ventilatory Therapy

Oxygen support or noninvasive ventilation were started based on patients’ respiratory efficacy, estimated by respiratory rate and the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F ratio).^15,16 Oxygen support was delivered through nasal cannula, Venturi mask, or reservoir mask. Noninvasive ventilation was performed by continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) when the P/F ratio was <250 or the respiratory rate was >25 breaths per minute, using the helmet interface.^5,17 Prone positioning during CPAP^18-20 was adopted in patients meeting the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) criteria²¹ and having persistence of respiratory distress and P/F <300 after a 1-hour trial of CPAP.

The prone position was maintained based on patient tolerance. P/F ratio was measured before pronation (T0), after 1 hour of prone position (T1), before resupination (T2), and 6 hours after resupination (T3). With the same timing, the patient was asked to rate their comfort in each position, from 0 (lack of comfort) to 10 (optimal comfort). Delta P/F was defined as the difference between P/F at T3 and basal P/F at T0.

Outcomes

Positive outcomes were defined as patient discharge from the SICU or transfer to a lower-intensity care ward for treatment continuation. Negative outcomes were defined as need for transfer to the ICU, transfer to another ward for palliation, or death in the SICU.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous data are reported as median and interquartile range (IQR); normal distribution of variables was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Categorical variables were reported as absolute number and percentage. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare continuous variables between groups, and chi-square test with continuity correction was used for categorical variables. The variables that were most significantly associated with a negative outcome on the univariate analysis were included in a stepwise logistic regression analysis, in order to identify independent predictors of patient outcome. Statistical analysis was performed using JASP (JASP Team) software.

Study Population

Of the 88 patients included in the study, 70% were male; the median age was 66 years (IQR, 60-77). In most patients, the diagnosis of COVID-19 was derived from a positive SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab. Six patients, however, maintained a negative swab at all determinations but had clinical and imaging features strongly suggesting COVID-19. No patients met the exclusion criteria. Most patients came from the ED (n = 58 [66%]) or general wards (n = 22 [25%]), while few were transferred from the ICU (n = 8 [9%]). The median length of stay in the SICU was 4 days (IQR, 2-7). An epidemiological link to affected persons or a known virus exposure was identifiable in 37 patients (42%).

Clinical, Laboratory, and Imaging Data

The clinical and anthropometric characteristics of patients are shown in Table 1. Hypertension and smoking habits were prevalent in our population, and the median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 3. Most patients experienced fever, dyspnea, and cough during the days before hospitalization.

Laboratory data showed a marked inflammatory milieu in all studied patients, both at baseline and after 24 and 72 hours. Lymphopenia was observed, along with a significant increase of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CPR), and D-dimer, and a mild increase of procalcitonin. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) values were also increased, with normal troponin I values (Table 2).

Medical Therapy

Most patients (89%) received hydroxychloroquine, whereas steroids were used in one-third of the population (36%). Immunomodulators (tocilizumab and ruxolitinib) were restricted to 12 patients (14%). Empirical antiviral therapy was introduced in the first 41 patients (47%). Enoxaparin was the default agent for thromboembolism prophylaxis, and 6 patients (7%) received 70% of the anticoagulating dose.

Oxygen and Ventilatory Therapy

Basal median P/F ratio was 253 (IQR, 218-291), and respiratory rate at triage was 20 breaths/min (IQR, 16-28), underlining a moderate-to-severe respiratory insufficiency at presentation. A total of 69 patients (78%) underwent CPAP, with a median positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 10.0 cm H₂O (IQR, 7.5-10.0) and fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio₂) of 0.40 (IQR, 0.40-0.50). In 37 patients (42%) who received ongoing CPAP, prone positioning was adopted. In this subgroup, respiratory rate was not significantly different from baseline to resupination (24 vs 25 breaths/min). The median P/F improved from 197 (IQR, 154-236) at baseline to 217 (IQR, 180-262) after pronation (the duration of the prone position was variable, depending on patients’ tolerance: 1 to 6 hours or every pronation cycle). The median delta P/F ratio was 39.4 (IQR, –17.0 to 78.0).

Outcomes

A total of 28 patients (32%) had a negative outcome in the SICU: 8 patients (9%) died, having no clinical indication for higher-intensity care; 6 patients (7%) were transferred to general wards for palliation; and 14 patients (16%) needed an upgrade of cure intensity and were transferred to the ICU. Of these 14 patients, 9 died in the ICU. The total in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients, including patients transferred from the SICU to general wards in fair condition, was 27% (n = 24). Clinical, laboratory, and therapeutic characteristics between the 2 groups are shown in Table 4.

Patients who had a negative outcome were significantly older and had more comorbidities, as suggested by a significantly higher prevalence of diabetes and higher Charlson Comorbidity scores (reflecting the mortality risk based on age and comorbidities). The median MuLBSTA score, which estimates the 90-day mortality risk from viral pneumonia, was also higher in patients who had a negative outcome (9.33%). Symptom occurrence was not different in patients with a negative outcome (apart from cough, which was less frequent), but these patients underwent hospitalization earlier—since the appearance of their first COVID-19 symptoms—compared to patients who had a positive outcome. No difference was found in antihypertensive therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers among outcome groups.

More pronounced laboratory abnormalities were found in patients who had a negative outcome, compared to patients who had a positive outcome: lower lymphocytes and higher C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, D-dimer, LDH, and NT-proBNP. We found no differences in the radiological distribution of pulmonary involvement in patients who had negative or positive outcomes, nor in the adopted medical treatment.

Data showed no difference in CPAP implementation in the 2 groups. However, prone positioning had been more frequently adopted in the group of patients who had a positive outcome, compared with patients who had a negative outcome. No differences of basal P/F were found in patients who had a negative or positive outcome, but the median P/F after 6 hours of prone position was significantly lower in patients who had a negative outcome. The delta P/F ratio did not differ in the 2 groups of patients.

Multivariate Analysis

A logistic regression model was created, including the variables significantly associated with outcomes in the univariate analysis (age, sex, history of diabetes, lymphocytes, CRP, procalcitonin, LDH, NT-proBNP, and D-dimer). In the multivariate analysis, independent predictors of a negative outcome were history of diabetes (odds ratio [OR], 8.22; 95% CI, 1.50-44.70; P =.015), high D-dimer values (OR, 1.28; CI, 1.04-1.57; P = .019), high LDH values (OR, 1.003; CI, 1.000-1.006; P = .039), and low lymphocytes count (OR, 0.996; CI, 0.993-0.999; P = .004).

Discussion

Role of Subintensive Units and Mortality

The novelty of our report is its attempt to investigate the specific group of COVID-19 patients admitted to a SICU. In Italy, SICUs receive acutely ill, spontaneously breathing patients who need (invasive) hemodynamic monitoring, vasoactive medication, renal replacement therapy, chest- tube placement, thrombolysis, and respiratory noninvasive support. The nurse-to-patient ratio is higher than for general wards (usually 1 nurse to every 4 or 5 patients), though lower than for ICUs. In northern Italy, a great number of COVID-19 patients have required this kind of high-intensity care during the pandemic: Noninvasive ventilation support had to be maintained for several days, pronation maneuvers required a high number of people 2 or 3 times a day, and strict monitoring had to be assured. The SICU setting allows patients to buy time as a bridge to progressive reduction of pulmonary involvement, sometimes preventing the need for intubation.

The high prevalence of negative outcomes in the SICU underlines the complexity of COVID-19 patients in this setting. In fact, published data about mortality for patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia are similar to ours.^22,23

Clinical, Laboratory, and Imaging Data

Our analysis confirmed a high rate of comorbidities in COVID-19 patients²⁴ and their prognostic role with age.^25,26 A marked inflammatory milieu was a negative prognostic indicator, and associated concomitant bacterial superinfection could have led to a worse prognosis (procalcitonin was associated with negative outcomes).²⁷ The cardiovascular system was nevertheless stressed, as suggested by higher values of NT-proBNP in patients with negative outcomes, which could reflect sepsis-related systemic involvement.²⁸

It is known that the pulmonary damage caused by SARS-CoV-2 has a dynamic radiological and clinical course, with early areas of subsegmental consolidation, and bilateral ground-glass opacities predominating later in the course of the disease.²⁹ This could explain why in our population we found no specific radiological pattern leading to a worse outcome.

Medical Therapy

No specific pharmacological therapy was found to be associated with a positive outcome in our study, just like antiviral and immunomodulator therapies failed to demonstrate effectiveness in subsequent pandemic surges. The low statistical power of our study did not allow us to give insight into the effectiveness of steroids and heparin at any dosage.

PEEP Support and Prone Positioning

Continuous positive airway pressure was initiated in the majority of patients and maintained for several days. This was an absolute novelty, because we rarely had to keep patients in helmets for long. This was feasible thanks to the SICU’s high nurse-to-patient ratio and the possibility of providing monitored sedation. Patients who could no longer tolerate CPAP helmets or did not improve with CPAP support were evaluated with anesthetists for programming further management. No initial data on respiratory rate, level of hypoxemia, or oxygen support need (level of PEEP and Fio₂) could discriminate between outcomes.

Prone positioning during CPAP was implemented in 42% of our study population: P/F ratio amelioration after prone positioning was highly variable, ranging from very good P/F ratio improvements to few responses or no response. No significantly greater delta P/F ratio was seen after the first prone positioning cycle in patients who had a positive outcome, probably due to the small size of our population, but we observed a clear positive trend. Interestingly, patients showing a negative outcome had a lower percentage of long-term responses to prone positioning: 6 hours after resupination, they lost the benefit of prone positioning in terms of P/F ratio amelioration. Similarly, a greater number of patients tolerating prone positioning had a positive outcome. These data give insight on the possible benefits of prone positioning in a noninvasively supported cohort of patients, which has been mentioned in previous studies.^30,31

Outcomes and Variables Associated With Negative Outcomes

After correction for age and sex, we found in multiple regression analysis that higher D-dimer and LDH values, lymphopenia, and history of diabetes were independently associated with a worse outcome. Although our results had low statistical significance, we consider the trend of the obtained odds ratios important from a clinical point of view. These results could lead to greater attention being placed on COVID-19 patients who present with these characteristics upon their arrival to the ED because they have increased risk of death or intensive care need. Clinicians should consider SICU admission for these patients in order to guarantee closer monitoring and possibly more aggressive ventilatory treatments, earlier pronation, or earlier transfer to the ICU.

Limitations

The major limitation to our study is undoubtedly its statistical power, due to its relatively low patient population. Particularly, the small number of patients who underwent pronation did not allow speculation about the efficacy of this technique, although preliminary data seem promising. However, ours is among the first studies regarding patients with COVID-19 admitted to a SICU, and these preliminary data truthfully describe the Italian, and perhaps international, experience with the first surge of the pandemic.

Conclusions

Our data highlight the primary role of the SICU in COVID-19 in adequately treating critically ill patients who have high care needs different from intubation, and who require noninvasive ventilation for prolonged times as well as frequent pronation cycles. This setting of care may represent a valid, reliable, and effective option for critically ill respiratory patients. History of diabetes, lymphopenia, and high D-dimer and LDH values are independently associated with negative outcomes, and patients presenting with these characteristics should be strictly monitored.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the Informatica System S.R.L., as well as Allessando Mendolia for the pro bono creation of the ISCovidCollect data collecting app.

Corresponding author: Sara Abram, MD, via Coppino, 12100 Cuneo, Italy; [email protected].

Disclosures: None.

Lower back pain (LBP) affects an estimated 9.4% of the global population and has resulted in more years lived with disability than any other health condition.¹ LBP affects a wide range of populations, but US veterans have been shown to have significantly higher rates of back pain than nonveterans. The National Institutes of Health reports that 65.6% of veterans experience chronic pain; 9.1% of veterans experience severe, chronic pain.² Chronic back pain is treated by a range of methods, including medications, surgery, physical therapy (PT), patient education, and behavioral therapy.³ However, chronic neuropathic back pain has been shown to have limited responsiveness to medication.⁴

Neuropathic pain is caused by lesions in the somatosensory nervous system, resulting in spontaneous pain and amplified pain responses to both painful and nonpainful stimuli.⁵ The most common location for neuropathic pain is the back and legs. Between 10% and 40% of people who undergo lumbosacral spine surgery to treat neuropathic radicular pain will experience further neuropathic pain.⁶ This condition is referred to as failed back surgery syndrome or postlaminectomy syndrome (PLS). While neuropathic back pain has had limited responsiveness to medication and repeated lumbosacral spine surgery, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has shown promise as an effective form of pain treatment for those experiencing PLS and other spine disorders.^7-10 In addition, SCS therapy has had a very low incidence of complications, which may be on the decline with recent technological advancements.¹¹ Patients with a diagnosis of PLS, LBP, or complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) who have not responded to medications, therapy, and/or injections for ≥ 6 months were eligible for a trial of SCS therapy. Trial leads were placed via the percutaneous route with the battery strapped to the waistline for 3 to 5 days and were removed in clinic. Patients who experienced > 60% pain relief and functional improvement received a SCS implant.

The effectiveness of SCS has been demonstrated in a nonveteran population, but it has not been studied in a veteran population.¹² US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care coverage is different from Medicare and private insurance in that it is classified as a benefit and not insurance. The goals of treatment at the VA may include considerations in addition to feeling better, and patient presentations may not align with those in the private sector.

We hypothesize that SCS is both a safe and beneficial treatment option for veterans with chronic intractable spine and/or extremity pain. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of SCS in a veteran population.

Methods

The efficacy and safety of SCS was determined via a retrospective study. Inclusion criteria for the study consisted of any Southeastern Louisiana Veterans Health Care System (SLVHCS) patient who had an SCS trial and/or implant from 2008 to 2020. Eligible veterans must have had chronic pain for at least 6 months and had previously tried multiple medications, PT, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, facet injections, epidural steroid injections, or surgery without success. For medication therapy to be considered unsuccessful, it must have included acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and ≥ 1 adjuvant medication (gabapentin, duloxetine, amitriptyline, lidocaine, and menthol). A diagnosis of chronic LBP, PLS, cervical or lumbar spondylosis with radiculopathy, complex regional pain syndrome, or chronic pain syndrome was required for eligibility. Patients whose pain decreased by > 60% and had functional improvement in a 3- to 5-day trial received SCS implantation with percutaneous leads by a pain physician or paddle lead by a neurosurgeon.

The SLVHCS Institutional Review Board approved this study. Electronic health records were reviewed to determine patient age, anthropometric data, and date of SCS implantation. Patients were then called and interviewed to complete a survey. After obtaining verbal consent to the study, subjects were surveyed regarding whether the patient would recommend the procedure to peers, adverse effects (AEs) or complications, and the ability to decrease opiates if applicable. A verbal Pain Outcome Questionnaire (POQ) assessment of activities of daily living also was given during the phone interview regarding pain levels before SCS and at the time of the phone interview.¹³ (eAppendix available at doi:10.12788/fp.0204) Following the survey, a chart review was performed to corroborate the given AEs or complications and opiate use information. Before and after results of the POQ were compared via a paired sample t test, and P values < .05 were considered significant. Analyses were performed by IBM SPSS, version 26.

The primary outcome measure for this study was whether veterans would recommend SCS to their peers; in our view, this categorical outcome measure seemed to be more valuable to share with future patients who might be candidates for SCS. Since VA health care coverage and goals of treatment may be different from a nonveteran population, we opted to use this primary measure to decrease the possibility of confounding variables.

Secondary outcome measures included changes in POC scores, improvements in activities of daily living, and decreases in use of opioid pain medications.

POQ responses were recorded during the telephone interviews (0 to 10 scale). A paired sample t test was conducted to compare pain levels before and after SCS implant. Pain levels were gathered in the single phone call. Patient opioid usage, if applicable, was assessed by converting medications to morphine milligram equivalent dosing (MMED). Since patients who were on chronic opioids took multiple formulations, we changed the total daily dose to all morphine; for this study, morphine was considered equivalent to hydrocodone, and oxycodone was 1.5x morphine.

Results

Of the 90 SLVHCS patients who received an SCS implant between 2008 and 2020, 76 were reached by telephone and 65 had their responses recorded in the study. Of the 11 patients who were not included, 5 had the SCS removed; it is unclear whether these veterans would have recommended the treatment. Four were unable to quantify pain and/or SCS effects, and 2 were excluded due to a dementia diagnosis years after the implant. The mean (SD) age of participants was 63.9 (10.3) years. Forty percent of patients had a diabetes mellitus diagnosis and 1 had prediabetes. Patients’ most common qualifying diagnosis for SCS was PLS (47.7%) followed by chronic LBP (26.2%). A percutaneous 2-lead technique was the most common type of SCS type used (60.0%) followed by 1-lead (21.5%). The most common SCS manufacturer was Boston Scientific (87.7%)(Table 1). Most veterans (76.9%) recommended SCS to their peers; 13.8% did not recommend SCS; 9.2% were undecided and stated that they were unable to recommend because they did not want to persuade a peer to get SCS (Figure).

There was a statistically significant decrease in opioid use for the 40 veterans for whom pain medication was converted (P < .001)(Table 2). Six patients reported using opioids at some point but could not remember their dose, and no records were found in their chart review, so they were not included in the MMED analysis. In that group, 4 patients reported using opioids before SCS but discontinued the opioid use after SCS implantation, and 2 patients noted using opioids before SCS and concomitantly. Eighteen subjects reported no opioid use at any point before or after SCS (Table 3).

There were few life-threatening complications of SCS. Three veterans developed skin dehiscence; 2 had dehiscence at the battery/generator site, and 1 had dehiscence at the lead anchor site. Two patients with dehiscence also had morbid obesity, and the third had postoperative malnourishment. The dehiscence occurred 3 and 8 months postoperation. All 3 patients with dehiscence had the SCS explanted, though they were eager to get a new SCS implanted as soon as possible because SCS was their most successful treatment to date.

Discussion

In this nonrandomized retrospective review, SCS was shown to be an effective treatment for intractable spine and/or extremity pain. Veterans’ pain levels were significantly reduced following SCS implantation, and more than three-fourths of veterans recommended SCS to their peers. We used the recommendation of SCS to peers as the most important metric regarding the effectiveness of SCS, as this measure was felt to be more valuable to share with future patients; furthermore, categorical analysis has been shown to be more valuable than ordinal pain scales to measure pain.¹⁴ In addition to wanting to expand the available research to the general public, we wanted a measure that we could easily relay to our patient population regarding SCS.

The explant rate of 14.5% among surveyed veterans falls at the higher end of the normal ranges found in previous studies of long-term SCS outcomes.^15-17 One possible reason for the higher rate is that we did not differentiate based on the reason for the explant (ie, no benefit, further surgery needed for underlying medical condition, or SCS-specific complications). Another possible contributing factor to the higher than expected explant rate is the geographic location in the New Orleans metro area; New Orleans is considered to have one of the highest rates of obesity in the United States and obesity typically has other diseases associated with it such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus.

Limitations

Limitations of the study include the relatively low number of subjects, subjective nature of the interview questions, and the patients’ answers. Typically the POQ has been used as a prospective assessment of pain; whether it is valid in a retrospective analysis is not clear. While there was a statistically significant decrease of opioid use after getting SCS, this study can only show correlation, not causation. During the study period, there has been a drastic change in opioid prescribing patterns and efforts to decrease the amount of opioids prescribed.

Subjects also were asked to rate their pain and quality of life before SCS. Some subjects had SCS implantation up to 10 years prior to the phone interview. The variable amount of time between SCS implantation and interview likely affected subjects’ responses. Chronic pain is a moving target. Patients have good days and bad days that would likely change opinions on SCS benefits on a single phone interview. Some patients needed battery replacements at the time of the interview (battery life averaged about 3 to 5 years in our study population) and were asked to report current levels of pain from the perspective of when their batteries were still functional, further affecting results.

Conclusions

SCS was shown to improve the quality of life of US veterans at SLVHCS across a wide variety of metrics, including activities of daily living, as well as mental and physical health. For veterans with chronic intractable pain who have tried and failed more conservative treatments, SCS is a great treatment.

Lower back pain (LBP) affects an estimated 9.4% of the global population and has resulted in more years lived with disability than any other health condition.¹ LBP affects a wide range of populations, but US veterans have been shown to have significantly higher rates of back pain than nonveterans. The National Institutes of Health reports that 65.6% of veterans experience chronic pain; 9.1% of veterans experience severe, chronic pain.² Chronic back pain is treated by a range of methods, including medications, surgery, physical therapy (PT), patient education, and behavioral therapy.³ However, chronic neuropathic back pain has been shown to have limited responsiveness to medication.⁴

Neuropathic pain is caused by lesions in the somatosensory nervous system, resulting in spontaneous pain and amplified pain responses to both painful and nonpainful stimuli.⁵ The most common location for neuropathic pain is the back and legs. Between 10% and 40% of people who undergo lumbosacral spine surgery to treat neuropathic radicular pain will experience further neuropathic pain.⁶ This condition is referred to as failed back surgery syndrome or postlaminectomy syndrome (PLS). While neuropathic back pain has had limited responsiveness to medication and repeated lumbosacral spine surgery, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has shown promise as an effective form of pain treatment for those experiencing PLS and other spine disorders.^7-10 In addition, SCS therapy has had a very low incidence of complications, which may be on the decline with recent technological advancements.¹¹ Patients with a diagnosis of PLS, LBP, or complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) who have not responded to medications, therapy, and/or injections for ≥ 6 months were eligible for a trial of SCS therapy. Trial leads were placed via the percutaneous route with the battery strapped to the waistline for 3 to 5 days and were removed in clinic. Patients who experienced > 60% pain relief and functional improvement received a SCS implant.

The effectiveness of SCS has been demonstrated in a nonveteran population, but it has not been studied in a veteran population.¹² US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care coverage is different from Medicare and private insurance in that it is classified as a benefit and not insurance. The goals of treatment at the VA may include considerations in addition to feeling better, and patient presentations may not align with those in the private sector.

We hypothesize that SCS is both a safe and beneficial treatment option for veterans with chronic intractable spine and/or extremity pain. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of SCS in a veteran population.

Methods

The efficacy and safety of SCS was determined via a retrospective study. Inclusion criteria for the study consisted of any Southeastern Louisiana Veterans Health Care System (SLVHCS) patient who had an SCS trial and/or implant from 2008 to 2020. Eligible veterans must have had chronic pain for at least 6 months and had previously tried multiple medications, PT, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, facet injections, epidural steroid injections, or surgery without success. For medication therapy to be considered unsuccessful, it must have included acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and ≥ 1 adjuvant medication (gabapentin, duloxetine, amitriptyline, lidocaine, and menthol). A diagnosis of chronic LBP, PLS, cervical or lumbar spondylosis with radiculopathy, complex regional pain syndrome, or chronic pain syndrome was required for eligibility. Patients whose pain decreased by > 60% and had functional improvement in a 3- to 5-day trial received SCS implantation with percutaneous leads by a pain physician or paddle lead by a neurosurgeon.

The SLVHCS Institutional Review Board approved this study. Electronic health records were reviewed to determine patient age, anthropometric data, and date of SCS implantation. Patients were then called and interviewed to complete a survey. After obtaining verbal consent to the study, subjects were surveyed regarding whether the patient would recommend the procedure to peers, adverse effects (AEs) or complications, and the ability to decrease opiates if applicable. A verbal Pain Outcome Questionnaire (POQ) assessment of activities of daily living also was given during the phone interview regarding pain levels before SCS and at the time of the phone interview.¹³ (eAppendix available at doi:10.12788/fp.0204) Following the survey, a chart review was performed to corroborate the given AEs or complications and opiate use information. Before and after results of the POQ were compared via a paired sample t test, and P values < .05 were considered significant. Analyses were performed by IBM SPSS, version 26.

The primary outcome measure for this study was whether veterans would recommend SCS to their peers; in our view, this categorical outcome measure seemed to be more valuable to share with future patients who might be candidates for SCS. Since VA health care coverage and goals of treatment may be different from a nonveteran population, we opted to use this primary measure to decrease the possibility of confounding variables.

Secondary outcome measures included changes in POC scores, improvements in activities of daily living, and decreases in use of opioid pain medications.

POQ responses were recorded during the telephone interviews (0 to 10 scale). A paired sample t test was conducted to compare pain levels before and after SCS implant. Pain levels were gathered in the single phone call. Patient opioid usage, if applicable, was assessed by converting medications to morphine milligram equivalent dosing (MMED). Since patients who were on chronic opioids took multiple formulations, we changed the total daily dose to all morphine; for this study, morphine was considered equivalent to hydrocodone, and oxycodone was 1.5x morphine.

Results

Of the 90 SLVHCS patients who received an SCS implant between 2008 and 2020, 76 were reached by telephone and 65 had their responses recorded in the study. Of the 11 patients who were not included, 5 had the SCS removed; it is unclear whether these veterans would have recommended the treatment. Four were unable to quantify pain and/or SCS effects, and 2 were excluded due to a dementia diagnosis years after the implant. The mean (SD) age of participants was 63.9 (10.3) years. Forty percent of patients had a diabetes mellitus diagnosis and 1 had prediabetes. Patients’ most common qualifying diagnosis for SCS was PLS (47.7%) followed by chronic LBP (26.2%). A percutaneous 2-lead technique was the most common type of SCS type used (60.0%) followed by 1-lead (21.5%). The most common SCS manufacturer was Boston Scientific (87.7%)(Table 1). Most veterans (76.9%) recommended SCS to their peers; 13.8% did not recommend SCS; 9.2% were undecided and stated that they were unable to recommend because they did not want to persuade a peer to get SCS (Figure).

There was a statistically significant decrease in opioid use for the 40 veterans for whom pain medication was converted (P < .001)(Table 2). Six patients reported using opioids at some point but could not remember their dose, and no records were found in their chart review, so they were not included in the MMED analysis. In that group, 4 patients reported using opioids before SCS but discontinued the opioid use after SCS implantation, and 2 patients noted using opioids before SCS and concomitantly. Eighteen subjects reported no opioid use at any point before or after SCS (Table 3).

There were few life-threatening complications of SCS. Three veterans developed skin dehiscence; 2 had dehiscence at the battery/generator site, and 1 had dehiscence at the lead anchor site. Two patients with dehiscence also had morbid obesity, and the third had postoperative malnourishment. The dehiscence occurred 3 and 8 months postoperation. All 3 patients with dehiscence had the SCS explanted, though they were eager to get a new SCS implanted as soon as possible because SCS was their most successful treatment to date.

Discussion

In this nonrandomized retrospective review, SCS was shown to be an effective treatment for intractable spine and/or extremity pain. Veterans’ pain levels were significantly reduced following SCS implantation, and more than three-fourths of veterans recommended SCS to their peers. We used the recommendation of SCS to peers as the most important metric regarding the effectiveness of SCS, as this measure was felt to be more valuable to share with future patients; furthermore, categorical analysis has been shown to be more valuable than ordinal pain scales to measure pain.¹⁴ In addition to wanting to expand the available research to the general public, we wanted a measure that we could easily relay to our patient population regarding SCS.

The explant rate of 14.5% among surveyed veterans falls at the higher end of the normal ranges found in previous studies of long-term SCS outcomes.^15-17 One possible reason for the higher rate is that we did not differentiate based on the reason for the explant (ie, no benefit, further surgery needed for underlying medical condition, or SCS-specific complications). Another possible contributing factor to the higher than expected explant rate is the geographic location in the New Orleans metro area; New Orleans is considered to have one of the highest rates of obesity in the United States and obesity typically has other diseases associated with it such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus.

Limitations

Limitations of the study include the relatively low number of subjects, subjective nature of the interview questions, and the patients’ answers. Typically the POQ has been used as a prospective assessment of pain; whether it is valid in a retrospective analysis is not clear. While there was a statistically significant decrease of opioid use after getting SCS, this study can only show correlation, not causation. During the study period, there has been a drastic change in opioid prescribing patterns and efforts to decrease the amount of opioids prescribed.

Subjects also were asked to rate their pain and quality of life before SCS. Some subjects had SCS implantation up to 10 years prior to the phone interview. The variable amount of time between SCS implantation and interview likely affected subjects’ responses. Chronic pain is a moving target. Patients have good days and bad days that would likely change opinions on SCS benefits on a single phone interview. Some patients needed battery replacements at the time of the interview (battery life averaged about 3 to 5 years in our study population) and were asked to report current levels of pain from the perspective of when their batteries were still functional, further affecting results.

Conclusions

SCS was shown to improve the quality of life of US veterans at SLVHCS across a wide variety of metrics, including activities of daily living, as well as mental and physical health. For veterans with chronic intractable pain who have tried and failed more conservative treatments, SCS is a great treatment.

Lower back pain (LBP) affects an estimated 9.4% of the global population and has resulted in more years lived with disability than any other health condition.¹ LBP affects a wide range of populations, but US veterans have been shown to have significantly higher rates of back pain than nonveterans. The National Institutes of Health reports that 65.6% of veterans experience chronic pain; 9.1% of veterans experience severe, chronic pain.² Chronic back pain is treated by a range of methods, including medications, surgery, physical therapy (PT), patient education, and behavioral therapy.³ However, chronic neuropathic back pain has been shown to have limited responsiveness to medication.⁴

Neuropathic pain is caused by lesions in the somatosensory nervous system, resulting in spontaneous pain and amplified pain responses to both painful and nonpainful stimuli.⁵ The most common location for neuropathic pain is the back and legs. Between 10% and 40% of people who undergo lumbosacral spine surgery to treat neuropathic radicular pain will experience further neuropathic pain.⁶ This condition is referred to as failed back surgery syndrome or postlaminectomy syndrome (PLS). While neuropathic back pain has had limited responsiveness to medication and repeated lumbosacral spine surgery, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has shown promise as an effective form of pain treatment for those experiencing PLS and other spine disorders.^7-10 In addition, SCS therapy has had a very low incidence of complications, which may be on the decline with recent technological advancements.¹¹ Patients with a diagnosis of PLS, LBP, or complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) who have not responded to medications, therapy, and/or injections for ≥ 6 months were eligible for a trial of SCS therapy. Trial leads were placed via the percutaneous route with the battery strapped to the waistline for 3 to 5 days and were removed in clinic. Patients who experienced > 60% pain relief and functional improvement received a SCS implant.

The effectiveness of SCS has been demonstrated in a nonveteran population, but it has not been studied in a veteran population.¹² US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care coverage is different from Medicare and private insurance in that it is classified as a benefit and not insurance. The goals of treatment at the VA may include considerations in addition to feeling better, and patient presentations may not align with those in the private sector.

We hypothesize that SCS is both a safe and beneficial treatment option for veterans with chronic intractable spine and/or extremity pain. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of SCS in a veteran population.

Methods

The efficacy and safety of SCS was determined via a retrospective study. Inclusion criteria for the study consisted of any Southeastern Louisiana Veterans Health Care System (SLVHCS) patient who had an SCS trial and/or implant from 2008 to 2020. Eligible veterans must have had chronic pain for at least 6 months and had previously tried multiple medications, PT, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, facet injections, epidural steroid injections, or surgery without success. For medication therapy to be considered unsuccessful, it must have included acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and ≥ 1 adjuvant medication (gabapentin, duloxetine, amitriptyline, lidocaine, and menthol). A diagnosis of chronic LBP, PLS, cervical or lumbar spondylosis with radiculopathy, complex regional pain syndrome, or chronic pain syndrome was required for eligibility. Patients whose pain decreased by > 60% and had functional improvement in a 3- to 5-day trial received SCS implantation with percutaneous leads by a pain physician or paddle lead by a neurosurgeon.

The SLVHCS Institutional Review Board approved this study. Electronic health records were reviewed to determine patient age, anthropometric data, and date of SCS implantation. Patients were then called and interviewed to complete a survey. After obtaining verbal consent to the study, subjects were surveyed regarding whether the patient would recommend the procedure to peers, adverse effects (AEs) or complications, and the ability to decrease opiates if applicable. A verbal Pain Outcome Questionnaire (POQ) assessment of activities of daily living also was given during the phone interview regarding pain levels before SCS and at the time of the phone interview.¹³ (eAppendix available at doi:10.12788/fp.0204) Following the survey, a chart review was performed to corroborate the given AEs or complications and opiate use information. Before and after results of the POQ were compared via a paired sample t test, and P values < .05 were considered significant. Analyses were performed by IBM SPSS, version 26.

The primary outcome measure for this study was whether veterans would recommend SCS to their peers; in our view, this categorical outcome measure seemed to be more valuable to share with future patients who might be candidates for SCS. Since VA health care coverage and goals of treatment may be different from a nonveteran population, we opted to use this primary measure to decrease the possibility of confounding variables.

Secondary outcome measures included changes in POC scores, improvements in activities of daily living, and decreases in use of opioid pain medications.

POQ responses were recorded during the telephone interviews (0 to 10 scale). A paired sample t test was conducted to compare pain levels before and after SCS implant. Pain levels were gathered in the single phone call. Patient opioid usage, if applicable, was assessed by converting medications to morphine milligram equivalent dosing (MMED). Since patients who were on chronic opioids took multiple formulations, we changed the total daily dose to all morphine; for this study, morphine was considered equivalent to hydrocodone, and oxycodone was 1.5x morphine.

Results

Of the 90 SLVHCS patients who received an SCS implant between 2008 and 2020, 76 were reached by telephone and 65 had their responses recorded in the study. Of the 11 patients who were not included, 5 had the SCS removed; it is unclear whether these veterans would have recommended the treatment. Four were unable to quantify pain and/or SCS effects, and 2 were excluded due to a dementia diagnosis years after the implant. The mean (SD) age of participants was 63.9 (10.3) years. Forty percent of patients had a diabetes mellitus diagnosis and 1 had prediabetes. Patients’ most common qualifying diagnosis for SCS was PLS (47.7%) followed by chronic LBP (26.2%). A percutaneous 2-lead technique was the most common type of SCS type used (60.0%) followed by 1-lead (21.5%). The most common SCS manufacturer was Boston Scientific (87.7%)(Table 1). Most veterans (76.9%) recommended SCS to their peers; 13.8% did not recommend SCS; 9.2% were undecided and stated that they were unable to recommend because they did not want to persuade a peer to get SCS (Figure).

There was a statistically significant decrease in opioid use for the 40 veterans for whom pain medication was converted (P < .001)(Table 2). Six patients reported using opioids at some point but could not remember their dose, and no records were found in their chart review, so they were not included in the MMED analysis. In that group, 4 patients reported using opioids before SCS but discontinued the opioid use after SCS implantation, and 2 patients noted using opioids before SCS and concomitantly. Eighteen subjects reported no opioid use at any point before or after SCS (Table 3).

There were few life-threatening complications of SCS. Three veterans developed skin dehiscence; 2 had dehiscence at the battery/generator site, and 1 had dehiscence at the lead anchor site. Two patients with dehiscence also had morbid obesity, and the third had postoperative malnourishment. The dehiscence occurred 3 and 8 months postoperation. All 3 patients with dehiscence had the SCS explanted, though they were eager to get a new SCS implanted as soon as possible because SCS was their most successful treatment to date.

Discussion

In this nonrandomized retrospective review, SCS was shown to be an effective treatment for intractable spine and/or extremity pain. Veterans’ pain levels were significantly reduced following SCS implantation, and more than three-fourths of veterans recommended SCS to their peers. We used the recommendation of SCS to peers as the most important metric regarding the effectiveness of SCS, as this measure was felt to be more valuable to share with future patients; furthermore, categorical analysis has been shown to be more valuable than ordinal pain scales to measure pain.¹⁴ In addition to wanting to expand the available research to the general public, we wanted a measure that we could easily relay to our patient population regarding SCS.

The explant rate of 14.5% among surveyed veterans falls at the higher end of the normal ranges found in previous studies of long-term SCS outcomes.^15-17 One possible reason for the higher rate is that we did not differentiate based on the reason for the explant (ie, no benefit, further surgery needed for underlying medical condition, or SCS-specific complications). Another possible contributing factor to the higher than expected explant rate is the geographic location in the New Orleans metro area; New Orleans is considered to have one of the highest rates of obesity in the United States and obesity typically has other diseases associated with it such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus.

Limitations

Limitations of the study include the relatively low number of subjects, subjective nature of the interview questions, and the patients’ answers. Typically the POQ has been used as a prospective assessment of pain; whether it is valid in a retrospective analysis is not clear. While there was a statistically significant decrease of opioid use after getting SCS, this study can only show correlation, not causation. During the study period, there has been a drastic change in opioid prescribing patterns and efforts to decrease the amount of opioids prescribed.

Subjects also were asked to rate their pain and quality of life before SCS. Some subjects had SCS implantation up to 10 years prior to the phone interview. The variable amount of time between SCS implantation and interview likely affected subjects’ responses. Chronic pain is a moving target. Patients have good days and bad days that would likely change opinions on SCS benefits on a single phone interview. Some patients needed battery replacements at the time of the interview (battery life averaged about 3 to 5 years in our study population) and were asked to report current levels of pain from the perspective of when their batteries were still functional, further affecting results.

Conclusions

SCS was shown to improve the quality of life of US veterans at SLVHCS across a wide variety of metrics, including activities of daily living, as well as mental and physical health. For veterans with chronic intractable pain who have tried and failed more conservative treatments, SCS is a great treatment.

Suicide is a national public health concern that affects thousands of US individuals and families, with repercussions that reverberate through entire communities. In 2019, there were 47,500 US deaths by suicide, which accounted for about 1 death every 11 minutes.¹ Suicide remains the tenth leading cause of death in the United States and has been part of the top 12 leading causes of death since 1975.² Unfortunately, this trend has worsened; suicide rates have increased by 35% from 1999 to 2018.³ One particularly vulnerable population is US veterans who accounted for 13.8% of all suicide deaths in 2018.⁴ Among veterans, the suicide death average increased from 16.6 per day in 2005 to 17.6 in 2018.⁴ Furthermore, veterans experiencing homelessness are 5 times more likely to attempt suicide and 2.5 times more likely to have suicidal ideation compared with veterans without a history of homelessness.⁴ Suicide is a significant issue among veterans experiencing homelessness: Veterans account for about 11% of the overall US homeless population.⁵

Recent data suggest opportunities for suicide risk assessment in the primary care setting. A study from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Office for Suicide Prevention found that in 2014 an average of 20 veterans died by suicide every day and 6 of the 20 (30%) on average used VHA services within the prior year.⁶ Similarly, a review of 40 studies on suicide found that 45% of suicide victims had contact with their primary care practitioner (PCP) within 1 month of suicide, and 75% of victims had contact within the year of suicide.⁷ An analysis of depression screening in 2008/2009 using Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) or Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at 3 large western US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers found that 55% were screened for depression.⁸ The VA has made suicide prevention a top priority and supports the established US goal of reducing annual suicide deaths by 20% by 2025.⁹ Given key opportunities for suicide risk assessment in the primary care setting, the VHA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention implemented a national, standardized process for suicide risk assessment on October 1, 2018.^10,11

The VA approach to suicide screening, evaluation, and documentation has evolved over time. Between October 2018 and December 2020, the process was augmented to include 3 stages embedded into the electronic health record (EHR): a primary screen (PHQ-2 with Item 9 from the PHQ-9 [PHQ-2+I9]), a secondary screen (Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale [C-SSRS]), and a tertiary screen (Comprehensive Suicide Risk Evaluation [CSRE]). The primary screen consisted of the depression screening using the PHQ-2 with the addition of I9 asking about suicidal ideation. The secondary screening, or C-SSRS, included 8 questions to elaborate on suicidal ideation, intent, plan, and any history of suicidal attempts or preparatory behaviors. The tertiary screen consisted of the CSRE, a questionnaire developed internally by the VA in 2018 to further evaluate the veteran’s suicidal thoughts, attempts, warning signs, risk factors, protective factors, and reasons for living. The goal of the screenings was to identify veterans at risk of suicide, assess risk severity, and to individually tailor risk mitigation strategies for safe disposition. These risk categories were developed by the regional Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, which suggested treatment strategies, such as hospitalization or close outpatient follow-up.^12,13

The Homeless Patient Aligned Care Team (HPACT) clinic at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center (WLAVAMC) in California, one of the largest VA homeless clinics in the country and 1 of 7 national VA Office of Academic Affiliation Centers of Excellence in Primary Care Education training programs implemented the standardized tools for suicide risk screening and quality improvement (QI). The HPACT clinic is an interprofessional team, including primary care, mental health, social work, pharmacy, and peer support, that is adjacent to the WLAVAMC general primary care clinics. The team collaboratively addresses both medical and psychosocial needs of veterans with a focus on the Housing First Model, an approach that prioritizes ending homelessness while addressing all factors associated with veterans' health and well-being. After 1 year of stable housing, veterans graduate to the WLAVAMC general primary care clinics.

Given the vulnerability of veterans experiencing homelessness, the clinic leadership identified suicide risk screening as a high priority initiative and created a taskforce to oversee effective implementation of clinic screening efforts. An interprofessional team of nurse practitioners (NPs), pharmacists, physicians, psychologists, social workers (SWs), and trainees formed to improve screening efforts and use the QI principles to guide analysis and intervention. The team wrote the following SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) Aim statements: (1) ensure > 90% of eligible patients receive a primary screen; (2) ensure > 90% of positive primary I9 screens receive subsequent screenings within 24 hours; and (3) increase staff comfort and familiarity using the screening tools. This article examines the results of the screening initiative 1-year postimplementation, describes difficulties faced, and suggests strategies that might be used to overcome those challenges.

Methods

This QI analysis was exempt from institutional review board review. Prior to the standardized national suicide risk assessment rollout of October 1, 2018, the QI team met to review and understand the workflow to be implemented into the HPACT clinic. To describe the initial screening process, the new suicide risk assessment consisted of primary, secondary, and tertiary screens that would warrant subsequent intervention by clinicians if positive (Figure 1). The primary screen included the PHQ-2+I9 questionnaire (PHQ-2 for depression and I9 for suicidal ideation). If either were positive, follow-up questionnaires were required. Of note, patients with a prior depression diagnosis, cognitive impairment defined at a severity of moderate or greater based on clinician evaluation and judgement, or life expectancy < 6 months were exempt from screening because, by definition, they had theoretically already been screened and classified as under surveillance.

A positive I9 response prompted a secondary screen using C-SSRS. A positive secondary screen prompted a tertiary screen using CSRE. If the PHQ-2 screening was positive but I9 was negative, the standard follow-up depression clinical reminder was used. Any clinical staff member could perform the primary screen, including licensed vocational nurses (LVNs), registered nurses (RNs), and SWs in any setting (eg, emergency department, primary care, inpatient services). The secondary and tertiary screens required completion by a licensed clinician. RNs were able to perform the secondary screen but not the tertiary screen.

The HPACT clinic serves approximately 3000 patients by 50 staff and trainees divided into 2 teams. LVNs and RNs were tasked to conduct the primary screen as part of their initial clinic check-in. If the primary screen was positive for scheduled patients, LVNs notified a PCP to complete the secondary screen. For unscheduled patients, RNs conducted a primary screen and, if positive, a secondary screen. If the secondary screen was positive, a tertiary screen was performed by mental health practitioners or SWs, or PCPs if the former were unavailable. SWs, mental health practitioners, and PCPs were colocated in the clinic, which allowed for safe and convenient warm handoffs between clinicians.

Results

During the project year, the HPACT clinic had 2932 unique patients assigned to primary care. Of those veterans, 533 (18%) were exempt from screening by protocol. Of the remainder, staff screened 1876 (64%) of eligible veterans for suicide risk (Figure 2), which did not meet the SMART Aim of screening > 90% of eligible veterans. For the follow-up screens, using a QI dashboard designed for reviewing I9 and C-SSRS results, the QI team reviewed a convenience sample of 5 provider panels and identified 34 positive I9 screens. Twenty of those 34 patients (59%) received a C-SSRS within 24 hours of the positive I9, which did not meet the SMART Aim of ensuring > 90% of primary I9 screens had subsequent C-SSRS screening within 24 hours.

Of the veterans screened, 1,271 (43%) had their screening performed outside of the HPACT primary care team assigned, while 605 (21%) patients had their screening performed by an HPACT member. Most of the screening that occurred outside of the assigned primary care team occurred in other physical settings, including other VA facilities.

Of the 523 (18%) patients who were not screened, 331 (11%) patients had no visit to the HPACT clinic and 132 (5%) empaneled patients did not visit any VA site within the 1-year period. There were 192 (7%) patients who were not screened that had a visit to HPACT while 19 (1%) of those patients declined screening. A total of 184 (6%) patients were not screened and thus were considered true missed opportunities. This group of patients were eligible for screening but did not undergo screening in the HPACT clinic or any other VA setting despite visiting the VA.

Discussion

Though the QI project failed to meet the SMART Aim of ensuring > 90% of eligible patients received a primary screen for suicide risk and > 90% of positive primary I9 screens received subsequent screenings within 24 hours, the results highlight effective practices and barriers for implementation of wide-scale EHR-based interventions for suicide assessment. Most missed screening opportunities were due to patients being lost to follow-up over the duration of the project, which is a challenge faced in this patient population. A recent analysis of the national rollout of this screening program found that 95% of eligible veterans with a visit to the VA in the first year of the program received screening.¹⁴ In a post hoc analysis using the same eligibility criteria, the rate of screening for this project was 83%. Reflecting on the data from this national cohort compared with the HPACT clinic, this brings to light potential circumstances that may be unique to veterans experiencing homelessness compared with the general veteran population, for instance, the level of engagement may be lower among veterans experiencing homelessness, though this is beyond the scope of this article. Nonetheless, promoting interprofessional collaboration, visualizing effective process flows, establishing clear lines of communication and roles for involved staff, and opening avenues for continuous feedback and troubleshooting are all potentially effective interventions to improve suicide screening rates within the veteran population.

This HPACT clinic initiative aimed to determine how a new screening process would be implemented while identifying potential areas for improvement. Surprisingly, 43% of patients who were screened had their screening performed outside of the HPACT clinic, most often in the inpatient setting at other WLAVAMC clinics or other VA systems. It is possible that due to the nature of the patient population that the HPACT clinic serves with intensive service needs, these patients have wider geographic and clinical location use than most clinic populations due to the transient nature of patients with housing insecurity. What is encouraging, however, is that through this systemwide initiative, there is an impetus to screen veterans, regardless of who performs the screening. This is particularly meaningful given that rates of depression screening may be as low as 4% among PCPs.¹⁵ During implementation, the QI team learned that nearly 18% of the empaneled HPACT patients were exempt from screening. The exempt patients do not have an active clinical reminder for depression screens. Instead, these patients are receiving mental health surveillance and specialty treatment, during which continuous monitoring and assessment for suicidal ideation and risk of suicide are performed. Additionally, an EHR-based factor that also may limit appropriate follow-up and contribute to missed opportunities is that secondary and tertiary screens do not populate until the EHR was refreshed after positive primary screens, which introduces human error in a process that could be automated. Both RNs and PCPs may occasionally miss secondary and tertiary screens due to this issue, which continues to be a barrier. Given the high risk HPACT clinic population, the QI team encouraged staff members to frequently screen patients for suicidal ideation regardless of clinical reminders. A consideration for the future would be to identify optimal frequency for screening and to continue to validate assessment methods.

Limitations

Due to the limited sample size, findings cannot be generalized to all VA sites. The QI team used retrospective, administrative data. Additionally, since this is a primary care clinic focused on a specialized population, this result may not be generalizable to all primary care settings, other primary care populations, or even other homeless primary care clinics, though it may establish a benchmark when other clinics internally examine their data and processes.

Conclusions

Improving screening protocols can lead to identification of at-risk individuals who would not have otherwise been identified.^16,17 As the US continues to grapple with mental health and suicide, efforts toward addressing this important issue among veterans remains a top priority.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the VAGLAHS Center of Excellence in Primary Care Education faculty and trainees, the HPACT staff, and the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) for data support.

Suicide is a national public health concern that affects thousands of US individuals and families, with repercussions that reverberate through entire communities. In 2019, there were 47,500 US deaths by suicide, which accounted for about 1 death every 11 minutes.¹ Suicide remains the tenth leading cause of death in the United States and has been part of the top 12 leading causes of death since 1975.² Unfortunately, this trend has worsened; suicide rates have increased by 35% from 1999 to 2018.³ One particularly vulnerable population is US veterans who accounted for 13.8% of all suicide deaths in 2018.⁴ Among veterans, the suicide death average increased from 16.6 per day in 2005 to 17.6 in 2018.⁴ Furthermore, veterans experiencing homelessness are 5 times more likely to attempt suicide and 2.5 times more likely to have suicidal ideation compared with veterans without a history of homelessness.⁴ Suicide is a significant issue among veterans experiencing homelessness: Veterans account for about 11% of the overall US homeless population.⁵

Recent data suggest opportunities for suicide risk assessment in the primary care setting. A study from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Office for Suicide Prevention found that in 2014 an average of 20 veterans died by suicide every day and 6 of the 20 (30%) on average used VHA services within the prior year.⁶ Similarly, a review of 40 studies on suicide found that 45% of suicide victims had contact with their primary care practitioner (PCP) within 1 month of suicide, and 75% of victims had contact within the year of suicide.⁷ An analysis of depression screening in 2008/2009 using Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) or Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at 3 large western US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers found that 55% were screened for depression.⁸ The VA has made suicide prevention a top priority and supports the established US goal of reducing annual suicide deaths by 20% by 2025.⁹ Given key opportunities for suicide risk assessment in the primary care setting, the VHA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention implemented a national, standardized process for suicide risk assessment on October 1, 2018.^10,11

The VA approach to suicide screening, evaluation, and documentation has evolved over time. Between October 2018 and December 2020, the process was augmented to include 3 stages embedded into the electronic health record (EHR): a primary screen (PHQ-2 with Item 9 from the PHQ-9 [PHQ-2+I9]), a secondary screen (Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale [C-SSRS]), and a tertiary screen (Comprehensive Suicide Risk Evaluation [CSRE]). The primary screen consisted of the depression screening using the PHQ-2 with the addition of I9 asking about suicidal ideation. The secondary screening, or C-SSRS, included 8 questions to elaborate on suicidal ideation, intent, plan, and any history of suicidal attempts or preparatory behaviors. The tertiary screen consisted of the CSRE, a questionnaire developed internally by the VA in 2018 to further evaluate the veteran’s suicidal thoughts, attempts, warning signs, risk factors, protective factors, and reasons for living. The goal of the screenings was to identify veterans at risk of suicide, assess risk severity, and to individually tailor risk mitigation strategies for safe disposition. These risk categories were developed by the regional Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, which suggested treatment strategies, such as hospitalization or close outpatient follow-up.^12,13

The Homeless Patient Aligned Care Team (HPACT) clinic at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center (WLAVAMC) in California, one of the largest VA homeless clinics in the country and 1 of 7 national VA Office of Academic Affiliation Centers of Excellence in Primary Care Education training programs implemented the standardized tools for suicide risk screening and quality improvement (QI). The HPACT clinic is an interprofessional team, including primary care, mental health, social work, pharmacy, and peer support, that is adjacent to the WLAVAMC general primary care clinics. The team collaboratively addresses both medical and psychosocial needs of veterans with a focus on the Housing First Model, an approach that prioritizes ending homelessness while addressing all factors associated with veterans' health and well-being. After 1 year of stable housing, veterans graduate to the WLAVAMC general primary care clinics.

Given the vulnerability of veterans experiencing homelessness, the clinic leadership identified suicide risk screening as a high priority initiative and created a taskforce to oversee effective implementation of clinic screening efforts. An interprofessional team of nurse practitioners (NPs), pharmacists, physicians, psychologists, social workers (SWs), and trainees formed to improve screening efforts and use the QI principles to guide analysis and intervention. The team wrote the following SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) Aim statements: (1) ensure > 90% of eligible patients receive a primary screen; (2) ensure > 90% of positive primary I9 screens receive subsequent screenings within 24 hours; and (3) increase staff comfort and familiarity using the screening tools. This article examines the results of the screening initiative 1-year postimplementation, describes difficulties faced, and suggests strategies that might be used to overcome those challenges.

Methods

This QI analysis was exempt from institutional review board review. Prior to the standardized national suicide risk assessment rollout of October 1, 2018, the QI team met to review and understand the workflow to be implemented into the HPACT clinic. To describe the initial screening process, the new suicide risk assessment consisted of primary, secondary, and tertiary screens that would warrant subsequent intervention by clinicians if positive (Figure 1). The primary screen included the PHQ-2+I9 questionnaire (PHQ-2 for depression and I9 for suicidal ideation). If either were positive, follow-up questionnaires were required. Of note, patients with a prior depression diagnosis, cognitive impairment defined at a severity of moderate or greater based on clinician evaluation and judgement, or life expectancy < 6 months were exempt from screening because, by definition, they had theoretically already been screened and classified as under surveillance.

A positive I9 response prompted a secondary screen using C-SSRS. A positive secondary screen prompted a tertiary screen using CSRE. If the PHQ-2 screening was positive but I9 was negative, the standard follow-up depression clinical reminder was used. Any clinical staff member could perform the primary screen, including licensed vocational nurses (LVNs), registered nurses (RNs), and SWs in any setting (eg, emergency department, primary care, inpatient services). The secondary and tertiary screens required completion by a licensed clinician. RNs were able to perform the secondary screen but not the tertiary screen.

The HPACT clinic serves approximately 3000 patients by 50 staff and trainees divided into 2 teams. LVNs and RNs were tasked to conduct the primary screen as part of their initial clinic check-in. If the primary screen was positive for scheduled patients, LVNs notified a PCP to complete the secondary screen. For unscheduled patients, RNs conducted a primary screen and, if positive, a secondary screen. If the secondary screen was positive, a tertiary screen was performed by mental health practitioners or SWs, or PCPs if the former were unavailable. SWs, mental health practitioners, and PCPs were colocated in the clinic, which allowed for safe and convenient warm handoffs between clinicians.

Results

During the project year, the HPACT clinic had 2932 unique patients assigned to primary care. Of those veterans, 533 (18%) were exempt from screening by protocol. Of the remainder, staff screened 1876 (64%) of eligible veterans for suicide risk (Figure 2), which did not meet the SMART Aim of screening > 90% of eligible veterans. For the follow-up screens, using a QI dashboard designed for reviewing I9 and C-SSRS results, the QI team reviewed a convenience sample of 5 provider panels and identified 34 positive I9 screens. Twenty of those 34 patients (59%) received a C-SSRS within 24 hours of the positive I9, which did not meet the SMART Aim of ensuring > 90% of primary I9 screens had subsequent C-SSRS screening within 24 hours.

Of the veterans screened, 1,271 (43%) had their screening performed outside of the HPACT primary care team assigned, while 605 (21%) patients had their screening performed by an HPACT member. Most of the screening that occurred outside of the assigned primary care team occurred in other physical settings, including other VA facilities.

Of the 523 (18%) patients who were not screened, 331 (11%) patients had no visit to the HPACT clinic and 132 (5%) empaneled patients did not visit any VA site within the 1-year period. There were 192 (7%) patients who were not screened that had a visit to HPACT while 19 (1%) of those patients declined screening. A total of 184 (6%) patients were not screened and thus were considered true missed opportunities. This group of patients were eligible for screening but did not undergo screening in the HPACT clinic or any other VA setting despite visiting the VA.

Discussion

Though the QI project failed to meet the SMART Aim of ensuring > 90% of eligible patients received a primary screen for suicide risk and > 90% of positive primary I9 screens received subsequent screenings within 24 hours, the results highlight effective practices and barriers for implementation of wide-scale EHR-based interventions for suicide assessment. Most missed screening opportunities were due to patients being lost to follow-up over the duration of the project, which is a challenge faced in this patient population. A recent analysis of the national rollout of this screening program found that 95% of eligible veterans with a visit to the VA in the first year of the program received screening.¹⁴ In a post hoc analysis using the same eligibility criteria, the rate of screening for this project was 83%. Reflecting on the data from this national cohort compared with the HPACT clinic, this brings to light potential circumstances that may be unique to veterans experiencing homelessness compared with the general veteran population, for instance, the level of engagement may be lower among veterans experiencing homelessness, though this is beyond the scope of this article. Nonetheless, promoting interprofessional collaboration, visualizing effective process flows, establishing clear lines of communication and roles for involved staff, and opening avenues for continuous feedback and troubleshooting are all potentially effective interventions to improve suicide screening rates within the veteran population.

This HPACT clinic initiative aimed to determine how a new screening process would be implemented while identifying potential areas for improvement. Surprisingly, 43% of patients who were screened had their screening performed outside of the HPACT clinic, most often in the inpatient setting at other WLAVAMC clinics or other VA systems. It is possible that due to the nature of the patient population that the HPACT clinic serves with intensive service needs, these patients have wider geographic and clinical location use than most clinic populations due to the transient nature of patients with housing insecurity. What is encouraging, however, is that through this systemwide initiative, there is an impetus to screen veterans, regardless of who performs the screening. This is particularly meaningful given that rates of depression screening may be as low as 4% among PCPs.¹⁵ During implementation, the QI team learned that nearly 18% of the empaneled HPACT patients were exempt from screening. The exempt patients do not have an active clinical reminder for depression screens. Instead, these patients are receiving mental health surveillance and specialty treatment, during which continuous monitoring and assessment for suicidal ideation and risk of suicide are performed. Additionally, an EHR-based factor that also may limit appropriate follow-up and contribute to missed opportunities is that secondary and tertiary screens do not populate until the EHR was refreshed after positive primary screens, which introduces human error in a process that could be automated. Both RNs and PCPs may occasionally miss secondary and tertiary screens due to this issue, which continues to be a barrier. Given the high risk HPACT clinic population, the QI team encouraged staff members to frequently screen patients for suicidal ideation regardless of clinical reminders. A consideration for the future would be to identify optimal frequency for screening and to continue to validate assessment methods.

Limitations

Due to the limited sample size, findings cannot be generalized to all VA sites. The QI team used retrospective, administrative data. Additionally, since this is a primary care clinic focused on a specialized population, this result may not be generalizable to all primary care settings, other primary care populations, or even other homeless primary care clinics, though it may establish a benchmark when other clinics internally examine their data and processes.

Conclusions

Improving screening protocols can lead to identification of at-risk individuals who would not have otherwise been identified.^16,17 As the US continues to grapple with mental health and suicide, efforts toward addressing this important issue among veterans remains a top priority.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the VAGLAHS Center of Excellence in Primary Care Education faculty and trainees, the HPACT staff, and the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) for data support.

Suicide is a national public health concern that affects thousands of US individuals and families, with repercussions that reverberate through entire communities. In 2019, there were 47,500 US deaths by suicide, which accounted for about 1 death every 11 minutes.¹ Suicide remains the tenth leading cause of death in the United States and has been part of the top 12 leading causes of death since 1975.² Unfortunately, this trend has worsened; suicide rates have increased by 35% from 1999 to 2018.³ One particularly vulnerable population is US veterans who accounted for 13.8% of all suicide deaths in 2018.⁴ Among veterans, the suicide death average increased from 16.6 per day in 2005 to 17.6 in 2018.⁴ Furthermore, veterans experiencing homelessness are 5 times more likely to attempt suicide and 2.5 times more likely to have suicidal ideation compared with veterans without a history of homelessness.⁴ Suicide is a significant issue among veterans experiencing homelessness: Veterans account for about 11% of the overall US homeless population.⁵

Recent data suggest opportunities for suicide risk assessment in the primary care setting. A study from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Office for Suicide Prevention found that in 2014 an average of 20 veterans died by suicide every day and 6 of the 20 (30%) on average used VHA services within the prior year.⁶ Similarly, a review of 40 studies on suicide found that 45% of suicide victims had contact with their primary care practitioner (PCP) within 1 month of suicide, and 75% of victims had contact within the year of suicide.⁷ An analysis of depression screening in 2008/2009 using Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) or Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at 3 large western US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers found that 55% were screened for depression.⁸ The VA has made suicide prevention a top priority and supports the established US goal of reducing annual suicide deaths by 20% by 2025.⁹ Given key opportunities for suicide risk assessment in the primary care setting, the VHA Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention implemented a national, standardized process for suicide risk assessment on October 1, 2018.^10,11

The VA approach to suicide screening, evaluation, and documentation has evolved over time. Between October 2018 and December 2020, the process was augmented to include 3 stages embedded into the electronic health record (EHR): a primary screen (PHQ-2 with Item 9 from the PHQ-9 [PHQ-2+I9]), a secondary screen (Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale [C-SSRS]), and a tertiary screen (Comprehensive Suicide Risk Evaluation [CSRE]). The primary screen consisted of the depression screening using the PHQ-2 with the addition of I9 asking about suicidal ideation. The secondary screening, or C-SSRS, included 8 questions to elaborate on suicidal ideation, intent, plan, and any history of suicidal attempts or preparatory behaviors. The tertiary screen consisted of the CSRE, a questionnaire developed internally by the VA in 2018 to further evaluate the veteran’s suicidal thoughts, attempts, warning signs, risk factors, protective factors, and reasons for living. The goal of the screenings was to identify veterans at risk of suicide, assess risk severity, and to individually tailor risk mitigation strategies for safe disposition. These risk categories were developed by the regional Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, which suggested treatment strategies, such as hospitalization or close outpatient follow-up.^12,13

The Homeless Patient Aligned Care Team (HPACT) clinic at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center (WLAVAMC) in California, one of the largest VA homeless clinics in the country and 1 of 7 national VA Office of Academic Affiliation Centers of Excellence in Primary Care Education training programs implemented the standardized tools for suicide risk screening and quality improvement (QI). The HPACT clinic is an interprofessional team, including primary care, mental health, social work, pharmacy, and peer support, that is adjacent to the WLAVAMC general primary care clinics. The team collaboratively addresses both medical and psychosocial needs of veterans with a focus on the Housing First Model, an approach that prioritizes ending homelessness while addressing all factors associated with veterans' health and well-being. After 1 year of stable housing, veterans graduate to the WLAVAMC general primary care clinics.

Given the vulnerability of veterans experiencing homelessness, the clinic leadership identified suicide risk screening as a high priority initiative and created a taskforce to oversee effective implementation of clinic screening efforts. An interprofessional team of nurse practitioners (NPs), pharmacists, physicians, psychologists, social workers (SWs), and trainees formed to improve screening efforts and use the QI principles to guide analysis and intervention. The team wrote the following SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) Aim statements: (1) ensure > 90% of eligible patients receive a primary screen; (2) ensure > 90% of positive primary I9 screens receive subsequent screenings within 24 hours; and (3) increase staff comfort and familiarity using the screening tools. This article examines the results of the screening initiative 1-year postimplementation, describes difficulties faced, and suggests strategies that might be used to overcome those challenges.

Methods

This QI analysis was exempt from institutional review board review. Prior to the standardized national suicide risk assessment rollout of October 1, 2018, the QI team met to review and understand the workflow to be implemented into the HPACT clinic. To describe the initial screening process, the new suicide risk assessment consisted of primary, secondary, and tertiary screens that would warrant subsequent intervention by clinicians if positive (Figure 1). The primary screen included the PHQ-2+I9 questionnaire (PHQ-2 for depression and I9 for suicidal ideation). If either were positive, follow-up questionnaires were required. Of note, patients with a prior depression diagnosis, cognitive impairment defined at a severity of moderate or greater based on clinician evaluation and judgement, or life expectancy < 6 months were exempt from screening because, by definition, they had theoretically already been screened and classified as under surveillance.

A positive I9 response prompted a secondary screen using C-SSRS. A positive secondary screen prompted a tertiary screen using CSRE. If the PHQ-2 screening was positive but I9 was negative, the standard follow-up depression clinical reminder was used. Any clinical staff member could perform the primary screen, including licensed vocational nurses (LVNs), registered nurses (RNs), and SWs in any setting (eg, emergency department, primary care, inpatient services). The secondary and tertiary screens required completion by a licensed clinician. RNs were able to perform the secondary screen but not the tertiary screen.

The HPACT clinic serves approximately 3000 patients by 50 staff and trainees divided into 2 teams. LVNs and RNs were tasked to conduct the primary screen as part of their initial clinic check-in. If the primary screen was positive for scheduled patients, LVNs notified a PCP to complete the secondary screen. For unscheduled patients, RNs conducted a primary screen and, if positive, a secondary screen. If the secondary screen was positive, a tertiary screen was performed by mental health practitioners or SWs, or PCPs if the former were unavailable. SWs, mental health practitioners, and PCPs were colocated in the clinic, which allowed for safe and convenient warm handoffs between clinicians.

Results

During the project year, the HPACT clinic had 2932 unique patients assigned to primary care. Of those veterans, 533 (18%) were exempt from screening by protocol. Of the remainder, staff screened 1876 (64%) of eligible veterans for suicide risk (Figure 2), which did not meet the SMART Aim of screening > 90% of eligible veterans. For the follow-up screens, using a QI dashboard designed for reviewing I9 and C-SSRS results, the QI team reviewed a convenience sample of 5 provider panels and identified 34 positive I9 screens. Twenty of those 34 patients (59%) received a C-SSRS within 24 hours of the positive I9, which did not meet the SMART Aim of ensuring > 90% of primary I9 screens had subsequent C-SSRS screening within 24 hours.

Of the veterans screened, 1,271 (43%) had their screening performed outside of the HPACT primary care team assigned, while 605 (21%) patients had their screening performed by an HPACT member. Most of the screening that occurred outside of the assigned primary care team occurred in other physical settings, including other VA facilities.

Of the 523 (18%) patients who were not screened, 331 (11%) patients had no visit to the HPACT clinic and 132 (5%) empaneled patients did not visit any VA site within the 1-year period. There were 192 (7%) patients who were not screened that had a visit to HPACT while 19 (1%) of those patients declined screening. A total of 184 (6%) patients were not screened and thus were considered true missed opportunities. This group of patients were eligible for screening but did not undergo screening in the HPACT clinic or any other VA setting despite visiting the VA.

Discussion

Though the QI project failed to meet the SMART Aim of ensuring > 90% of eligible patients received a primary screen for suicide risk and > 90% of positive primary I9 screens received subsequent screenings within 24 hours, the results highlight effective practices and barriers for implementation of wide-scale EHR-based interventions for suicide assessment. Most missed screening opportunities were due to patients being lost to follow-up over the duration of the project, which is a challenge faced in this patient population. A recent analysis of the national rollout of this screening program found that 95% of eligible veterans with a visit to the VA in the first year of the program received screening.¹⁴ In a post hoc analysis using the same eligibility criteria, the rate of screening for this project was 83%. Reflecting on the data from this national cohort compared with the HPACT clinic, this brings to light potential circumstances that may be unique to veterans experiencing homelessness compared with the general veteran population, for instance, the level of engagement may be lower among veterans experiencing homelessness, though this is beyond the scope of this article. Nonetheless, promoting interprofessional collaboration, visualizing effective process flows, establishing clear lines of communication and roles for involved staff, and opening avenues for continuous feedback and troubleshooting are all potentially effective interventions to improve suicide screening rates within the veteran population.

This HPACT clinic initiative aimed to determine how a new screening process would be implemented while identifying potential areas for improvement. Surprisingly, 43% of patients who were screened had their screening performed outside of the HPACT clinic, most often in the inpatient setting at other WLAVAMC clinics or other VA systems. It is possible that due to the nature of the patient population that the HPACT clinic serves with intensive service needs, these patients have wider geographic and clinical location use than most clinic populations due to the transient nature of patients with housing insecurity. What is encouraging, however, is that through this systemwide initiative, there is an impetus to screen veterans, regardless of who performs the screening. This is particularly meaningful given that rates of depression screening may be as low as 4% among PCPs.¹⁵ During implementation, the QI team learned that nearly 18% of the empaneled HPACT patients were exempt from screening. The exempt patients do not have an active clinical reminder for depression screens. Instead, these patients are receiving mental health surveillance and specialty treatment, during which continuous monitoring and assessment for suicidal ideation and risk of suicide are performed. Additionally, an EHR-based factor that also may limit appropriate follow-up and contribute to missed opportunities is that secondary and tertiary screens do not populate until the EHR was refreshed after positive primary screens, which introduces human error in a process that could be automated. Both RNs and PCPs may occasionally miss secondary and tertiary screens due to this issue, which continues to be a barrier. Given the high risk HPACT clinic population, the QI team encouraged staff members to frequently screen patients for suicidal ideation regardless of clinical reminders. A consideration for the future would be to identify optimal frequency for screening and to continue to validate assessment methods.

Limitations

Due to the limited sample size, findings cannot be generalized to all VA sites. The QI team used retrospective, administrative data. Additionally, since this is a primary care clinic focused on a specialized population, this result may not be generalizable to all primary care settings, other primary care populations, or even other homeless primary care clinics, though it may establish a benchmark when other clinics internally examine their data and processes.

Conclusions

Improving screening protocols can lead to identification of at-risk individuals who would not have otherwise been identified.^16,17 As the US continues to grapple with mental health and suicide, efforts toward addressing this important issue among veterans remains a top priority.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the VAGLAHS Center of Excellence in Primary Care Education faculty and trainees, the HPACT staff, and the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) for data support.