Article

Compartment syndrome occurs when the interstitial tissue pressures within a confined space are elevated to a level at which the arterial perfusion is diminished. Multiple etiologies exist and can be extrinsic (a cast that is too tight or prolonged compression on a limb), iatrogenic (aggressive resuscitation, drug infiltration, arterial puncture, or a spontaneous bleed from anticoagulation), and traumatic (fracture, snake envenomation, circumferential burn, or electrocution). If the compartments are not released, irreversible changes happen to the cells, including nerve and muscle death.¹ Definitive management of this emergency requires prompt fasciotomy to decompress the compartment(s).^1-3

Case Presentation

A 76-year-old right-handed woman with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia presented to the emergency department with 2 days of extensive right upper extremity ecchymosis and severe pain that was localized to her forearm (Figure 1). She was taking low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d) for left subclavian stenosis and over-the-counter ginkgo biloba. Leading up to the presentation, the patient was able to perform routine household chores, including yard work, cleaning, and taking care of her cats. Wrist and elbow X-rays were negative for a fracture. An upper extremity ultrasound found no venous occlusion. A computed tomography (CT) angiogram of her arm and chest found diffuse edema around the right elbow and forearm without pulmonary or right upper extremity emboli, fractures, hematoma, abscess, or air in the tissues.

The plastic surgery service was consulted. The patient was found to have a very tense forearm and pain to passive digital extension. The 2-point discrimination and pulses were intact. The patient was diagnosed with compartment syndrome based on the examination alone and gave consent for an emergent forearm and hand fasciotomy. A carpal tunnel release and a standard S-shaped volar forearm fasciotomy release were performed, which provided immediate decompression (Figure 2). The rest of the hand and extremity were soft. Edematous, healthy flexor muscle belly was identified without a hematoma. Most of the forearm wound was left open because the skin could not be reapproximated. Oxidized regenerated cellulose (Surgicel) was placed around the wound edges and the muscle was covered with a nonadherent dressing. Hemoglobin on admission was 12.9 g/dL(reference range, 12 to 16 g/dL). Kidney function was within normal limits. The rest of the complete blood count was unremarkable. Postoperative hemoglobin was 8.6 g/dL. Over the next several days, the patient's skin edges and muscle bellies continued to slowly bleed, and her hemoglobin fell to 5.6 g/dL by postoperative Day 2. The bleeding was managed with topical oxidized regenerated cellulose, thrombin spray, a hemostatic dressing made with kaolin (QuikClot), and a transfusion of 2 units of packed red blood cells.

A hematology consultation was requested. The patient was noted to have an elevated partial thromboplastin time (PTT) since admission measuring between 39.9 to 61.7 seconds (reference range, 26.2 to 37.2 seconds) and a normal prothrombin time test with an international normalized ratio. A PTT measured 17 months prior to admission was within the normal range. She reported no personal or family history of bleeding disorders. Until recently, she had never had easy bruisability. She reported no history of heavy menses or epistaxis. The patient had no children and had never been pregnant. She had tolerated an exploratory laparotomy 40 years prior to admission without bleeding complications and had never required blood transfusions before. A PTT 1:1 mixing study revealed incomplete correction. Subsequent workup included factor VIII (FVIII) activity, factor IX activity, factor XI activity, von Willebrand factor antigen, ristocetin cofactor assay, and von Willebrand factor multimers. FVIII activity was severely reduced at 7.8% (reference, > 54%) with a positive Bethesda assay of 300 to 400 Bodansky units (BU), indicating a strong FVIII inhibitor was present and establishing a diagnosis of acquired hemophilia A. Further workup for secondary causes of acquired hemophilia A including abdominal and pelvic CT, serum protein electrophoresis, and serum free light chains, were negative. She was started on prednisone 1 mg/kg daily and rituximab 375 mg/m². Her hemoglobin stabilized, and she required no further blood transfusions.

The patient underwent wound closure on postoperative Day 11. At the time of the second surgery, there was still no improvement in her FVIII levels or PTT; therefore, 70 mcg/kg of recombinant coagulation-activated FVII was given just before surgery with no bleeding complications. The skin was closed primarily except for the most distal 3 cm (Figure 3). Due to concerns regarding further bleeding with skin graft, the remaining wound was allowed to close by secondary intention. As a precaution, the wound was covered with oxidized regenerated cellulose and thrombin spray. The patient continued to progress postoperatively without bleeding complications or a need for additional transfusions. She was seen by the hand therapist before and after the second surgery to help with edema management and joint mobility. She completed 4 weekly doses of 375 mg/m² rituximab and prednisone was tapered by 10 mg weekly.

Three weeks after starting treatment, her PTT normalized, and her FVIII increased to 33.7%. The Bethesda assay remained high at 198 BU, although it was lower than at admission. She was discharged home with dressing changes and monthly follow-up appointments. The wounds were fully closed at her 3-month appointment when she proudly demonstrated full digital extension and flexion into her palm.

Discussion

Forearm compartment syndrome is most often caused by fractures—distal radius in adults and supracondylar in children.² This case initially presented as a diagnostic puzzle to the emergency department due to the patient’s lucid review of several days of nontraumatic injury.

The clinical hallmarks of compartment syndrome are the 5 Ps: pain, pallor, paresthesia, paralysis, and pulselessness. Patients will describe the pain as out of proportion to the nature of the injury; the compartments will be tense and swollen, they will have pain to passive muscle stretch, and sensation will progressively diminish. Distal pulses are the last to go, and permanent tissue damage can still occur when pulses are present.¹

Compartment Syndrome

Compartment syndrome is generally a clinical diagnosis; however, in patients who are sedated or uncooperative, or if the clinical findings are equivocal, the examination can be supplemented with intercompartmental pressures using an arterial line transducer system.² In general, a tissue pressure of 30 mm Hg or a 20- to 30-mm Hg difference between the diastolic and compartment pressures are indications for fasciotomy.¹ The hand is treated with an open carpal tunnel release, interosseous muscle release through 2 dorsal hand incisions, and thenar and hypothenar muscle release. The forearm is treated through a curved volar incision that usually decompresses the dorsal compartment, as it did in our patient. If pressures are still high in the forearm, a longitudinal dorsal incision over the mobile wad is necessary. Wounds can be closed primarily days later, left open to close by secondary intention, or reconstructed with skin grafts.² In our patient, compartment syndrome was isolated to her forearm and the carpal tunnel release was performed prophylactically since it did not add significant time or morbidity to the surgery.

Nontraumatic upper extremity compartment syndrome is rare. A 2021 review of acute nontraumatic upper extremity compartment syndrome found a bleeding disorder as the etiology in 3 cases published in the literature between 1993 and 2016.⁴ One of these cases was secondary to a known diagnosis of hemophilia A in a teenager.⁵ Ogrodnik and colleagues described a spontaneous hand hematoma secondary to previously undiagnosed acquired hemophilia A and Waldenström macroglobulinemia.⁴ Ilyas and colleagues described a spontaneous hematoma in the forearm dorsal compartment in a 67-year-old woman, which presented as compartment syndrome and elevated PTT and led to a diagnosis of acquired FVIII inhibitor. The authors recommended prompt hematology consultation to coordinate treatment once this diagnosis issuspected.⁶ Compartment syndrome also has been found to develop slowly over weeks in patients with acquired FVIII deficiency, suggesting a high index of suspicion and frequent examinations are needed when patients with known acquired hemophilia A present with a painful extremity.⁷

Nontraumatic compartment syndrome in the lower extremity in patients with previously undiagnosed acquired hemophilia A has also been described in the literature.^8-11 Case reports describe the delay in diagnosis as the patients were originally seen by clinicians for lower extremity pain and swelling within days of presenting to the emergency room with compartment syndrome. Persistent bleeding and abnormal laboratory results prompted further tests and examinations.^8,9,11 This underscores the need to be suspicious of this unusual pathology without a history of trauma.

Acquired Hemophilia A

Acquired hemophilia A is an autoimmune disease most often found in older individuals, with a mean age of approximately 70 years.¹² It is caused by the spontaneous production of neutralizing immunoglobin autoantibodies that target endogenous FVIII. Many cases are idiopathic; however, up to 50% of cases are associated with underlying autoimmunity, malignancy (especially lymphoproliferative disorders), or pregnancy. It often presents as bleeding that is subcutaneous or in the gastrointestinal system, muscle, retroperitoneal space, or genitourinary system. Unlike congenital hemophilia A, joint bleeding is rare.¹³

The diagnosis is suspected with an isolated elevated PTT in the absence of other coagulation abnormalities. A 1:1 mixing study will typically show incomplete correction, which suggests the presence of an inhibitor. FVIII activity is reduced, and the FVIII inhibitor is confirmed with the Bethesda assay. Clinically active bleeding is treated with bypassing agents such as recombinant coagulation-activated FVII, activated prothrombin complex concentrates such as anti-inhibitor coagulant complex (FEIBA), or recombinant porcine FVIII.^12,14 Not all patients require hemostatic treatment, but close monitoring, education, recognition, and immediate treatment, if needed, are indicated.¹³ Immunosuppressive therapy (corticosteroids, rituximab, and/or cyclophosphamide) is prescribed to eradicate the antibodies and induce remission.¹²

Conclusions

An older woman without a preceding trauma was diagnosed with an unusual case of acute compartment syndrome in the forearm. No hematoma was found, but muscle and skin bleeding plus an elevated PTT prompted a hematology workup, and, ultimately, the diagnosis of FVIII inhibitor secondary to acquired hemophilia A.

While a nontraumatic cause of compartment syndrome is rare, it should be considered in differential diagnosis for clinicians who see hand and upper extremity emergencies. An isolated elevated PTT in a patient with a bleed should raise suspicions and trigger immediate further evaluation. Once suspected, multidisciplinary treatment is indicated for immediate and long-term successful outcomes.

Acknowledgments

This manuscript is the result of work supported withresources and the use of facilities at the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System, Gainesville, Florida.

Compartment syndrome occurs when the interstitial tissue pressures within a confined space are elevated to a level at which the arterial perfusion is diminished. Multiple etiologies exist and can be extrinsic (a cast that is too tight or prolonged compression on a limb), iatrogenic (aggressive resuscitation, drug infiltration, arterial puncture, or a spontaneous bleed from anticoagulation), and traumatic (fracture, snake envenomation, circumferential burn, or electrocution). If the compartments are not released, irreversible changes happen to the cells, including nerve and muscle death.¹ Definitive management of this emergency requires prompt fasciotomy to decompress the compartment(s).^1-3

Case Presentation

A 76-year-old right-handed woman with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia presented to the emergency department with 2 days of extensive right upper extremity ecchymosis and severe pain that was localized to her forearm (Figure 1). She was taking low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d) for left subclavian stenosis and over-the-counter ginkgo biloba. Leading up to the presentation, the patient was able to perform routine household chores, including yard work, cleaning, and taking care of her cats. Wrist and elbow X-rays were negative for a fracture. An upper extremity ultrasound found no venous occlusion. A computed tomography (CT) angiogram of her arm and chest found diffuse edema around the right elbow and forearm without pulmonary or right upper extremity emboli, fractures, hematoma, abscess, or air in the tissues.

The plastic surgery service was consulted. The patient was found to have a very tense forearm and pain to passive digital extension. The 2-point discrimination and pulses were intact. The patient was diagnosed with compartment syndrome based on the examination alone and gave consent for an emergent forearm and hand fasciotomy. A carpal tunnel release and a standard S-shaped volar forearm fasciotomy release were performed, which provided immediate decompression (Figure 2). The rest of the hand and extremity were soft. Edematous, healthy flexor muscle belly was identified without a hematoma. Most of the forearm wound was left open because the skin could not be reapproximated. Oxidized regenerated cellulose (Surgicel) was placed around the wound edges and the muscle was covered with a nonadherent dressing. Hemoglobin on admission was 12.9 g/dL(reference range, 12 to 16 g/dL). Kidney function was within normal limits. The rest of the complete blood count was unremarkable. Postoperative hemoglobin was 8.6 g/dL. Over the next several days, the patient's skin edges and muscle bellies continued to slowly bleed, and her hemoglobin fell to 5.6 g/dL by postoperative Day 2. The bleeding was managed with topical oxidized regenerated cellulose, thrombin spray, a hemostatic dressing made with kaolin (QuikClot), and a transfusion of 2 units of packed red blood cells.

A hematology consultation was requested. The patient was noted to have an elevated partial thromboplastin time (PTT) since admission measuring between 39.9 to 61.7 seconds (reference range, 26.2 to 37.2 seconds) and a normal prothrombin time test with an international normalized ratio. A PTT measured 17 months prior to admission was within the normal range. She reported no personal or family history of bleeding disorders. Until recently, she had never had easy bruisability. She reported no history of heavy menses or epistaxis. The patient had no children and had never been pregnant. She had tolerated an exploratory laparotomy 40 years prior to admission without bleeding complications and had never required blood transfusions before. A PTT 1:1 mixing study revealed incomplete correction. Subsequent workup included factor VIII (FVIII) activity, factor IX activity, factor XI activity, von Willebrand factor antigen, ristocetin cofactor assay, and von Willebrand factor multimers. FVIII activity was severely reduced at 7.8% (reference, > 54%) with a positive Bethesda assay of 300 to 400 Bodansky units (BU), indicating a strong FVIII inhibitor was present and establishing a diagnosis of acquired hemophilia A. Further workup for secondary causes of acquired hemophilia A including abdominal and pelvic CT, serum protein electrophoresis, and serum free light chains, were negative. She was started on prednisone 1 mg/kg daily and rituximab 375 mg/m². Her hemoglobin stabilized, and she required no further blood transfusions.

The patient underwent wound closure on postoperative Day 11. At the time of the second surgery, there was still no improvement in her FVIII levels or PTT; therefore, 70 mcg/kg of recombinant coagulation-activated FVII was given just before surgery with no bleeding complications. The skin was closed primarily except for the most distal 3 cm (Figure 3). Due to concerns regarding further bleeding with skin graft, the remaining wound was allowed to close by secondary intention. As a precaution, the wound was covered with oxidized regenerated cellulose and thrombin spray. The patient continued to progress postoperatively without bleeding complications or a need for additional transfusions. She was seen by the hand therapist before and after the second surgery to help with edema management and joint mobility. She completed 4 weekly doses of 375 mg/m² rituximab and prednisone was tapered by 10 mg weekly.

Three weeks after starting treatment, her PTT normalized, and her FVIII increased to 33.7%. The Bethesda assay remained high at 198 BU, although it was lower than at admission. She was discharged home with dressing changes and monthly follow-up appointments. The wounds were fully closed at her 3-month appointment when she proudly demonstrated full digital extension and flexion into her palm.

Discussion

Forearm compartment syndrome is most often caused by fractures—distal radius in adults and supracondylar in children.² This case initially presented as a diagnostic puzzle to the emergency department due to the patient’s lucid review of several days of nontraumatic injury.

The clinical hallmarks of compartment syndrome are the 5 Ps: pain, pallor, paresthesia, paralysis, and pulselessness. Patients will describe the pain as out of proportion to the nature of the injury; the compartments will be tense and swollen, they will have pain to passive muscle stretch, and sensation will progressively diminish. Distal pulses are the last to go, and permanent tissue damage can still occur when pulses are present.¹

Compartment Syndrome

Compartment syndrome is generally a clinical diagnosis; however, in patients who are sedated or uncooperative, or if the clinical findings are equivocal, the examination can be supplemented with intercompartmental pressures using an arterial line transducer system.² In general, a tissue pressure of 30 mm Hg or a 20- to 30-mm Hg difference between the diastolic and compartment pressures are indications for fasciotomy.¹ The hand is treated with an open carpal tunnel release, interosseous muscle release through 2 dorsal hand incisions, and thenar and hypothenar muscle release. The forearm is treated through a curved volar incision that usually decompresses the dorsal compartment, as it did in our patient. If pressures are still high in the forearm, a longitudinal dorsal incision over the mobile wad is necessary. Wounds can be closed primarily days later, left open to close by secondary intention, or reconstructed with skin grafts.² In our patient, compartment syndrome was isolated to her forearm and the carpal tunnel release was performed prophylactically since it did not add significant time or morbidity to the surgery.

Nontraumatic upper extremity compartment syndrome is rare. A 2021 review of acute nontraumatic upper extremity compartment syndrome found a bleeding disorder as the etiology in 3 cases published in the literature between 1993 and 2016.⁴ One of these cases was secondary to a known diagnosis of hemophilia A in a teenager.⁵ Ogrodnik and colleagues described a spontaneous hand hematoma secondary to previously undiagnosed acquired hemophilia A and Waldenström macroglobulinemia.⁴ Ilyas and colleagues described a spontaneous hematoma in the forearm dorsal compartment in a 67-year-old woman, which presented as compartment syndrome and elevated PTT and led to a diagnosis of acquired FVIII inhibitor. The authors recommended prompt hematology consultation to coordinate treatment once this diagnosis issuspected.⁶ Compartment syndrome also has been found to develop slowly over weeks in patients with acquired FVIII deficiency, suggesting a high index of suspicion and frequent examinations are needed when patients with known acquired hemophilia A present with a painful extremity.⁷

Nontraumatic compartment syndrome in the lower extremity in patients with previously undiagnosed acquired hemophilia A has also been described in the literature.^8-11 Case reports describe the delay in diagnosis as the patients were originally seen by clinicians for lower extremity pain and swelling within days of presenting to the emergency room with compartment syndrome. Persistent bleeding and abnormal laboratory results prompted further tests and examinations.^8,9,11 This underscores the need to be suspicious of this unusual pathology without a history of trauma.

Acquired Hemophilia A

Acquired hemophilia A is an autoimmune disease most often found in older individuals, with a mean age of approximately 70 years.¹² It is caused by the spontaneous production of neutralizing immunoglobin autoantibodies that target endogenous FVIII. Many cases are idiopathic; however, up to 50% of cases are associated with underlying autoimmunity, malignancy (especially lymphoproliferative disorders), or pregnancy. It often presents as bleeding that is subcutaneous or in the gastrointestinal system, muscle, retroperitoneal space, or genitourinary system. Unlike congenital hemophilia A, joint bleeding is rare.¹³

The diagnosis is suspected with an isolated elevated PTT in the absence of other coagulation abnormalities. A 1:1 mixing study will typically show incomplete correction, which suggests the presence of an inhibitor. FVIII activity is reduced, and the FVIII inhibitor is confirmed with the Bethesda assay. Clinically active bleeding is treated with bypassing agents such as recombinant coagulation-activated FVII, activated prothrombin complex concentrates such as anti-inhibitor coagulant complex (FEIBA), or recombinant porcine FVIII.^12,14 Not all patients require hemostatic treatment, but close monitoring, education, recognition, and immediate treatment, if needed, are indicated.¹³ Immunosuppressive therapy (corticosteroids, rituximab, and/or cyclophosphamide) is prescribed to eradicate the antibodies and induce remission.¹²

Conclusions

An older woman without a preceding trauma was diagnosed with an unusual case of acute compartment syndrome in the forearm. No hematoma was found, but muscle and skin bleeding plus an elevated PTT prompted a hematology workup, and, ultimately, the diagnosis of FVIII inhibitor secondary to acquired hemophilia A.

While a nontraumatic cause of compartment syndrome is rare, it should be considered in differential diagnosis for clinicians who see hand and upper extremity emergencies. An isolated elevated PTT in a patient with a bleed should raise suspicions and trigger immediate further evaluation. Once suspected, multidisciplinary treatment is indicated for immediate and long-term successful outcomes.

Acknowledgments

This manuscript is the result of work supported withresources and the use of facilities at the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System, Gainesville, Florida.

Compartment syndrome occurs when the interstitial tissue pressures within a confined space are elevated to a level at which the arterial perfusion is diminished. Multiple etiologies exist and can be extrinsic (a cast that is too tight or prolonged compression on a limb), iatrogenic (aggressive resuscitation, drug infiltration, arterial puncture, or a spontaneous bleed from anticoagulation), and traumatic (fracture, snake envenomation, circumferential burn, or electrocution). If the compartments are not released, irreversible changes happen to the cells, including nerve and muscle death.¹ Definitive management of this emergency requires prompt fasciotomy to decompress the compartment(s).^1-3

Case Presentation

A 76-year-old right-handed woman with a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia presented to the emergency department with 2 days of extensive right upper extremity ecchymosis and severe pain that was localized to her forearm (Figure 1). She was taking low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d) for left subclavian stenosis and over-the-counter ginkgo biloba. Leading up to the presentation, the patient was able to perform routine household chores, including yard work, cleaning, and taking care of her cats. Wrist and elbow X-rays were negative for a fracture. An upper extremity ultrasound found no venous occlusion. A computed tomography (CT) angiogram of her arm and chest found diffuse edema around the right elbow and forearm without pulmonary or right upper extremity emboli, fractures, hematoma, abscess, or air in the tissues.

The plastic surgery service was consulted. The patient was found to have a very tense forearm and pain to passive digital extension. The 2-point discrimination and pulses were intact. The patient was diagnosed with compartment syndrome based on the examination alone and gave consent for an emergent forearm and hand fasciotomy. A carpal tunnel release and a standard S-shaped volar forearm fasciotomy release were performed, which provided immediate decompression (Figure 2). The rest of the hand and extremity were soft. Edematous, healthy flexor muscle belly was identified without a hematoma. Most of the forearm wound was left open because the skin could not be reapproximated. Oxidized regenerated cellulose (Surgicel) was placed around the wound edges and the muscle was covered with a nonadherent dressing. Hemoglobin on admission was 12.9 g/dL(reference range, 12 to 16 g/dL). Kidney function was within normal limits. The rest of the complete blood count was unremarkable. Postoperative hemoglobin was 8.6 g/dL. Over the next several days, the patient's skin edges and muscle bellies continued to slowly bleed, and her hemoglobin fell to 5.6 g/dL by postoperative Day 2. The bleeding was managed with topical oxidized regenerated cellulose, thrombin spray, a hemostatic dressing made with kaolin (QuikClot), and a transfusion of 2 units of packed red blood cells.

A hematology consultation was requested. The patient was noted to have an elevated partial thromboplastin time (PTT) since admission measuring between 39.9 to 61.7 seconds (reference range, 26.2 to 37.2 seconds) and a normal prothrombin time test with an international normalized ratio. A PTT measured 17 months prior to admission was within the normal range. She reported no personal or family history of bleeding disorders. Until recently, she had never had easy bruisability. She reported no history of heavy menses or epistaxis. The patient had no children and had never been pregnant. She had tolerated an exploratory laparotomy 40 years prior to admission without bleeding complications and had never required blood transfusions before. A PTT 1:1 mixing study revealed incomplete correction. Subsequent workup included factor VIII (FVIII) activity, factor IX activity, factor XI activity, von Willebrand factor antigen, ristocetin cofactor assay, and von Willebrand factor multimers. FVIII activity was severely reduced at 7.8% (reference, > 54%) with a positive Bethesda assay of 300 to 400 Bodansky units (BU), indicating a strong FVIII inhibitor was present and establishing a diagnosis of acquired hemophilia A. Further workup for secondary causes of acquired hemophilia A including abdominal and pelvic CT, serum protein electrophoresis, and serum free light chains, were negative. She was started on prednisone 1 mg/kg daily and rituximab 375 mg/m². Her hemoglobin stabilized, and she required no further blood transfusions.

The patient underwent wound closure on postoperative Day 11. At the time of the second surgery, there was still no improvement in her FVIII levels or PTT; therefore, 70 mcg/kg of recombinant coagulation-activated FVII was given just before surgery with no bleeding complications. The skin was closed primarily except for the most distal 3 cm (Figure 3). Due to concerns regarding further bleeding with skin graft, the remaining wound was allowed to close by secondary intention. As a precaution, the wound was covered with oxidized regenerated cellulose and thrombin spray. The patient continued to progress postoperatively without bleeding complications or a need for additional transfusions. She was seen by the hand therapist before and after the second surgery to help with edema management and joint mobility. She completed 4 weekly doses of 375 mg/m² rituximab and prednisone was tapered by 10 mg weekly.

Three weeks after starting treatment, her PTT normalized, and her FVIII increased to 33.7%. The Bethesda assay remained high at 198 BU, although it was lower than at admission. She was discharged home with dressing changes and monthly follow-up appointments. The wounds were fully closed at her 3-month appointment when she proudly demonstrated full digital extension and flexion into her palm.

Discussion

Forearm compartment syndrome is most often caused by fractures—distal radius in adults and supracondylar in children.² This case initially presented as a diagnostic puzzle to the emergency department due to the patient’s lucid review of several days of nontraumatic injury.

The clinical hallmarks of compartment syndrome are the 5 Ps: pain, pallor, paresthesia, paralysis, and pulselessness. Patients will describe the pain as out of proportion to the nature of the injury; the compartments will be tense and swollen, they will have pain to passive muscle stretch, and sensation will progressively diminish. Distal pulses are the last to go, and permanent tissue damage can still occur when pulses are present.¹

Compartment Syndrome

Compartment syndrome is generally a clinical diagnosis; however, in patients who are sedated or uncooperative, or if the clinical findings are equivocal, the examination can be supplemented with intercompartmental pressures using an arterial line transducer system.² In general, a tissue pressure of 30 mm Hg or a 20- to 30-mm Hg difference between the diastolic and compartment pressures are indications for fasciotomy.¹ The hand is treated with an open carpal tunnel release, interosseous muscle release through 2 dorsal hand incisions, and thenar and hypothenar muscle release. The forearm is treated through a curved volar incision that usually decompresses the dorsal compartment, as it did in our patient. If pressures are still high in the forearm, a longitudinal dorsal incision over the mobile wad is necessary. Wounds can be closed primarily days later, left open to close by secondary intention, or reconstructed with skin grafts.² In our patient, compartment syndrome was isolated to her forearm and the carpal tunnel release was performed prophylactically since it did not add significant time or morbidity to the surgery.

Nontraumatic upper extremity compartment syndrome is rare. A 2021 review of acute nontraumatic upper extremity compartment syndrome found a bleeding disorder as the etiology in 3 cases published in the literature between 1993 and 2016.⁴ One of these cases was secondary to a known diagnosis of hemophilia A in a teenager.⁵ Ogrodnik and colleagues described a spontaneous hand hematoma secondary to previously undiagnosed acquired hemophilia A and Waldenström macroglobulinemia.⁴ Ilyas and colleagues described a spontaneous hematoma in the forearm dorsal compartment in a 67-year-old woman, which presented as compartment syndrome and elevated PTT and led to a diagnosis of acquired FVIII inhibitor. The authors recommended prompt hematology consultation to coordinate treatment once this diagnosis issuspected.⁶ Compartment syndrome also has been found to develop slowly over weeks in patients with acquired FVIII deficiency, suggesting a high index of suspicion and frequent examinations are needed when patients with known acquired hemophilia A present with a painful extremity.⁷

Nontraumatic compartment syndrome in the lower extremity in patients with previously undiagnosed acquired hemophilia A has also been described in the literature.^8-11 Case reports describe the delay in diagnosis as the patients were originally seen by clinicians for lower extremity pain and swelling within days of presenting to the emergency room with compartment syndrome. Persistent bleeding and abnormal laboratory results prompted further tests and examinations.^8,9,11 This underscores the need to be suspicious of this unusual pathology without a history of trauma.

Acquired Hemophilia A

Acquired hemophilia A is an autoimmune disease most often found in older individuals, with a mean age of approximately 70 years.¹² It is caused by the spontaneous production of neutralizing immunoglobin autoantibodies that target endogenous FVIII. Many cases are idiopathic; however, up to 50% of cases are associated with underlying autoimmunity, malignancy (especially lymphoproliferative disorders), or pregnancy. It often presents as bleeding that is subcutaneous or in the gastrointestinal system, muscle, retroperitoneal space, or genitourinary system. Unlike congenital hemophilia A, joint bleeding is rare.¹³

The diagnosis is suspected with an isolated elevated PTT in the absence of other coagulation abnormalities. A 1:1 mixing study will typically show incomplete correction, which suggests the presence of an inhibitor. FVIII activity is reduced, and the FVIII inhibitor is confirmed with the Bethesda assay. Clinically active bleeding is treated with bypassing agents such as recombinant coagulation-activated FVII, activated prothrombin complex concentrates such as anti-inhibitor coagulant complex (FEIBA), or recombinant porcine FVIII.^12,14 Not all patients require hemostatic treatment, but close monitoring, education, recognition, and immediate treatment, if needed, are indicated.¹³ Immunosuppressive therapy (corticosteroids, rituximab, and/or cyclophosphamide) is prescribed to eradicate the antibodies and induce remission.¹²

Conclusions

An older woman without a preceding trauma was diagnosed with an unusual case of acute compartment syndrome in the forearm. No hematoma was found, but muscle and skin bleeding plus an elevated PTT prompted a hematology workup, and, ultimately, the diagnosis of FVIII inhibitor secondary to acquired hemophilia A.

While a nontraumatic cause of compartment syndrome is rare, it should be considered in differential diagnosis for clinicians who see hand and upper extremity emergencies. An isolated elevated PTT in a patient with a bleed should raise suspicions and trigger immediate further evaluation. Once suspected, multidisciplinary treatment is indicated for immediate and long-term successful outcomes.

Acknowledgments

This manuscript is the result of work supported withresources and the use of facilities at the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System, Gainesville, Florida.

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest has been shown to reduce mortality rates for individuals at risk for lung cancer.¹ Despite the benefits, < 5% of those who were eligible for LCS in the United States were screened in 2022.² Implementation of a LCS program in rural communities is especially challenging because they are sparsely populated, medically underserved, and located far from urban centers.^2-7 It is estimated that 1 in 5 people live in rural areas. Rates of tobacco smoking and cancer are higher in rural communities when compared with urban communities.^8,9 The scarcity of physicians in rural areas who are familiar with LCS may further impede individuals who are at risk from accessing this life saving service.^5,6 As a result, these individuals may not regularly undergo LCS as recommended.⁹

Telehealth, or the remote delivery of health care services via telecommunications, is an emerging approach for addressing unmet medical needs in rural communities and is being utilized widely by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).^4,10-15 The Veterans Integrated Service Network 12 (Great Lakes Network) has established the Clinical Resource Hub (CRH), a telehealth network comprising of licensed independent physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, and ancillary staff. The CRH offers regular, remote health care services to several community-based outpatient clinics (CBOC) primary care clinics located in rural northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.^10,14

The utility of telehealth in promoting LCS among at-risk veterans living in rural communities has not been firmly established.^4-6 To address this issue, we conducted a proof-of-principle quality improvement project to determine whether a telehealth intervention would increase referrals among at-risk veterans who reside in rural northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan who are self-enrolled in a CBOC smoking cessation program in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The CBOC provides primary health care to veterans residing in rural northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan as defined by US Department of Agriculture rural-urban commuting area codes.¹⁶ The intervention aimed to refer these individuals to the closest available and centralized LCS program, which is located at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center (CJZVAMC) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

METHODS

We reviewed electronic health records (EHR) of LCS-eligible veterans treated by 2 authors (SH and TB) who were self-enrolled in the smoking cessation program at the Green Bay CBOC between October 1, 2020, and September 30, 2021. The program provides comprehensive evidence-based tobacco use treatment, online self-help resources, behavioral counseling, and medicines for smoking cessation.¹⁷ Veterans aged 50 to 80 years with a smoking history of ≥ 20 pack-years, who currently smoke cigarettes or quit within the past 15 years, were considered at risk for lung cancer and eligible for LCS. After confirming eligibility, pertinent demographic data were abstracted from each EHR.

Telehealth Intervention

The CJZVAMC centralized LCS program manages all delivery processes and has been previously shown to increase uptake of LCS and improve patient outcomes among veterans as compared to a decentralized approach.^18,19 In the centralized approach, eligible veterans were referred by a CBOC primary care practitioner (PCP) to a designated centralized LCS program. The centralized LCS program provides further evaluation and disposition, which includes structured and shared decision making, ordering LDCT of the chest, reporting LDCT results to the patient and PCP, devising a goal-directed care plan, and managing follow-up LDCTs as indicated (Figure 1).^18,19

This intervention was initiated before other measures aimed to increase the LCS enrollment for at-risk rural veterans at the CBOC, (eg, mailing LCS education fact sheet to veterans).²⁰ After reviewing prospective veterans’ EHRs, 1 author (TB) contacted LCS-eligible veterans by telephone and left a voicemail if contact could not be established. A second telephone call was placed within 2 months of the initial call if no call back was documented in the EHR. When verbal contact was established, the goals of the centralized LCS program were described and the veteran was invited to participate.²¹

Veterans were seen at CBOCs affiliated with CJZVAMC. The CJZVAMC LCS coordinator was notified whenever a veteran agreed to enroll into LCS and then ordered LDCT, which was performed and read at CJZVAMC. Once LDCT has been ordered, 1 author (TB) reviewed the veteran’s EHR for LDCT completion over the next 4 months.Upon conclusion of the intervention period, the number of veterans referred for LDCT and the number of LDCTs performed were recorded. Each LDCT was reviewed and coded by medical imaging clinicians according to Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) version 1.1 and coded as 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 based on the nodule with the highest degree of suspicion.²² The LDCT and reports were also reviewed by pulmonary physicians at the CJZVAMC Lung Nodule Clinic with recommendations issued and reported to the PCP treating the veteran, such as annual follow-up with LDCT or referral to specialty care for further evaluation as indicated.

Of 117 veterans enrolled in the smoking cessation program at the CBOC during the intervention period, 74 (63%) were eligible to undergo LCS, and 68 (58%) were contacted by telephone (Figure 2). Eligible patients were primarily White male veterans; their mean (SD) age was 65.0 years (7.6). Participation in LCS was discussed with 41 (60%) veterans either during the initial or second telephone call of which 29 (71%) agreed to enroll and 12 (29%) declined. Veterans did not provide reasons for declining participation at the time of the telephone call.

Among the 74 eligible veterans who attended the smoking cessation program, only 3 had LDCT performed before initiation of this project (4%). At the conclusion of the telehealth intervention period, 19 veterans had LDCT performed (26%). Ten LDCTs were coded Lung-RADS 1, 7 Lung-RADS 2, 1 Lung-RADS 3, and 1 Lung-RADS 4B. In each case, annual follow-up LDCT or referral to a LCS clinician was pursued as indicated.²²

DISCUSSION

This proof-of-principle quality improvement project found that a high percentage (66%) of individuals in rural communities who were contacted via telehealth agreed to participate in a regional LCS program. The program reviewed LDCT results, ordered follow-up LDCTs, and recommended further evaluations.^18,19 Whether this centralized LCS process could also promote adherence with subsequent annual LDCT and/or scheduled clinic appointments with designated clinicians, if abnormal imaging findings are detected, remains unclear.

It has been well established LDCT LCS reduces lung cancer-specific and overall mortality rates among eligible current and former smokers.^1,9,23 The 5-year relative survival rate of veterans diagnosed with localized non-small cell lung cancer is 63%; that number drops to 7% in those with advanced disease attesting to the utility of LCS in detecting early stage lung cancer.² Despite these favorable observations, however, screening rates with free LDCT remains low in rural communities.^3-7

This proof-of-principle quality improvement project found that telehealth intervention may increase referrals of at-risk veterans who reside in rural communities to the closest centralized LCS program located at aregional VAMC. This program is responsible for reviewing the results of the initial LDCT, ordering follow-up LDCT, and recommending further evaluation as indicated.^18,19 Whether this centralized LCS process would promote adherence with subsequent annual LDCT and/or scheduled clinic appointments with designated clinicians if abnormal imaging findings are detected is yet to be determined.

We found that among 74 LCS-eligible rural veterans attending a CBOC-based smoking cessation program, only 3 (4%) underwent LDCT screening before this telehealth intervention was launched. This low LCS rate among veterans attempting to quit smoking may have been related, in part, to a lack of awareness of this intervention and/or barriers to LCS access.^7,10,21,24 Deploying a telehealth intervention targeting LCS could address this life threatening and unmet medical need in rural communities.²⁵ The results of this proof-of-principle quality improvement project support this contention with the reported increased referrals to and completion of initial LDCT within 4 months of the telehealth encounter.

This was a small, single site project composed of predominantly White male rural veterans participating in a smoking cessation program associated with a VA facility.^26,27 It is not clear whether similar outcomes would be observed in at-risk veterans who do not participate in a smoking cessation program or in more diverse communities. We were unable to contact 40% of LCS-eligible rural veterans by telephone. Twelve veterans reached by telephone declined to participate in LCS without providing a reason, and only 19 of 68 eligible veterans (28%) underwent LDCT screening during the 4-month telehealth intervention. The reasons underlying this overall low accrual rate and whether rural veterans prefer other means of personal communication regarding LCS were not determined. Lastly, generalizability of our initial observations to other veterans living in rural communities is limited because the project was conducted only in rural northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Conclusions

At-risk rural veterans may be willing to participate in a centralized LCS program at a regional VA medical facility when contacted and coordinated using telehealth modalities. These findings offer support for future prospective, multisite, VA telehealth-based studies to be conducted in rural areas. The results of this project also suggest that telehealth intervention could increase referrals of at-risk rural veterans to the closest centralized LCS program located at a regional VA medical facility.

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest has been shown to reduce mortality rates for individuals at risk for lung cancer.¹ Despite the benefits, < 5% of those who were eligible for LCS in the United States were screened in 2022.² Implementation of a LCS program in rural communities is especially challenging because they are sparsely populated, medically underserved, and located far from urban centers.^2-7 It is estimated that 1 in 5 people live in rural areas. Rates of tobacco smoking and cancer are higher in rural communities when compared with urban communities.^8,9 The scarcity of physicians in rural areas who are familiar with LCS may further impede individuals who are at risk from accessing this life saving service.^5,6 As a result, these individuals may not regularly undergo LCS as recommended.⁹

Telehealth, or the remote delivery of health care services via telecommunications, is an emerging approach for addressing unmet medical needs in rural communities and is being utilized widely by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).^4,10-15 The Veterans Integrated Service Network 12 (Great Lakes Network) has established the Clinical Resource Hub (CRH), a telehealth network comprising of licensed independent physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, and ancillary staff. The CRH offers regular, remote health care services to several community-based outpatient clinics (CBOC) primary care clinics located in rural northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.^10,14

The utility of telehealth in promoting LCS among at-risk veterans living in rural communities has not been firmly established.^4-6 To address this issue, we conducted a proof-of-principle quality improvement project to determine whether a telehealth intervention would increase referrals among at-risk veterans who reside in rural northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan who are self-enrolled in a CBOC smoking cessation program in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The CBOC provides primary health care to veterans residing in rural northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan as defined by US Department of Agriculture rural-urban commuting area codes.¹⁶ The intervention aimed to refer these individuals to the closest available and centralized LCS program, which is located at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center (CJZVAMC) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

METHODS

We reviewed electronic health records (EHR) of LCS-eligible veterans treated by 2 authors (SH and TB) who were self-enrolled in the smoking cessation program at the Green Bay CBOC between October 1, 2020, and September 30, 2021. The program provides comprehensive evidence-based tobacco use treatment, online self-help resources, behavioral counseling, and medicines for smoking cessation.¹⁷ Veterans aged 50 to 80 years with a smoking history of ≥ 20 pack-years, who currently smoke cigarettes or quit within the past 15 years, were considered at risk for lung cancer and eligible for LCS. After confirming eligibility, pertinent demographic data were abstracted from each EHR.

Telehealth Intervention

The CJZVAMC centralized LCS program manages all delivery processes and has been previously shown to increase uptake of LCS and improve patient outcomes among veterans as compared to a decentralized approach.^18,19 In the centralized approach, eligible veterans were referred by a CBOC primary care practitioner (PCP) to a designated centralized LCS program. The centralized LCS program provides further evaluation and disposition, which includes structured and shared decision making, ordering LDCT of the chest, reporting LDCT results to the patient and PCP, devising a goal-directed care plan, and managing follow-up LDCTs as indicated (Figure 1).^18,19

This intervention was initiated before other measures aimed to increase the LCS enrollment for at-risk rural veterans at the CBOC, (eg, mailing LCS education fact sheet to veterans).²⁰ After reviewing prospective veterans’ EHRs, 1 author (TB) contacted LCS-eligible veterans by telephone and left a voicemail if contact could not be established. A second telephone call was placed within 2 months of the initial call if no call back was documented in the EHR. When verbal contact was established, the goals of the centralized LCS program were described and the veteran was invited to participate.²¹

Veterans were seen at CBOCs affiliated with CJZVAMC. The CJZVAMC LCS coordinator was notified whenever a veteran agreed to enroll into LCS and then ordered LDCT, which was performed and read at CJZVAMC. Once LDCT has been ordered, 1 author (TB) reviewed the veteran’s EHR for LDCT completion over the next 4 months.Upon conclusion of the intervention period, the number of veterans referred for LDCT and the number of LDCTs performed were recorded. Each LDCT was reviewed and coded by medical imaging clinicians according to Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) version 1.1 and coded as 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 based on the nodule with the highest degree of suspicion.²² The LDCT and reports were also reviewed by pulmonary physicians at the CJZVAMC Lung Nodule Clinic with recommendations issued and reported to the PCP treating the veteran, such as annual follow-up with LDCT or referral to specialty care for further evaluation as indicated.

Of 117 veterans enrolled in the smoking cessation program at the CBOC during the intervention period, 74 (63%) were eligible to undergo LCS, and 68 (58%) were contacted by telephone (Figure 2). Eligible patients were primarily White male veterans; their mean (SD) age was 65.0 years (7.6). Participation in LCS was discussed with 41 (60%) veterans either during the initial or second telephone call of which 29 (71%) agreed to enroll and 12 (29%) declined. Veterans did not provide reasons for declining participation at the time of the telephone call.

Among the 74 eligible veterans who attended the smoking cessation program, only 3 had LDCT performed before initiation of this project (4%). At the conclusion of the telehealth intervention period, 19 veterans had LDCT performed (26%). Ten LDCTs were coded Lung-RADS 1, 7 Lung-RADS 2, 1 Lung-RADS 3, and 1 Lung-RADS 4B. In each case, annual follow-up LDCT or referral to a LCS clinician was pursued as indicated.²²

DISCUSSION

This proof-of-principle quality improvement project found that a high percentage (66%) of individuals in rural communities who were contacted via telehealth agreed to participate in a regional LCS program. The program reviewed LDCT results, ordered follow-up LDCTs, and recommended further evaluations.^18,19 Whether this centralized LCS process could also promote adherence with subsequent annual LDCT and/or scheduled clinic appointments with designated clinicians, if abnormal imaging findings are detected, remains unclear.

It has been well established LDCT LCS reduces lung cancer-specific and overall mortality rates among eligible current and former smokers.^1,9,23 The 5-year relative survival rate of veterans diagnosed with localized non-small cell lung cancer is 63%; that number drops to 7% in those with advanced disease attesting to the utility of LCS in detecting early stage lung cancer.² Despite these favorable observations, however, screening rates with free LDCT remains low in rural communities.^3-7

This proof-of-principle quality improvement project found that telehealth intervention may increase referrals of at-risk veterans who reside in rural communities to the closest centralized LCS program located at aregional VAMC. This program is responsible for reviewing the results of the initial LDCT, ordering follow-up LDCT, and recommending further evaluation as indicated.^18,19 Whether this centralized LCS process would promote adherence with subsequent annual LDCT and/or scheduled clinic appointments with designated clinicians if abnormal imaging findings are detected is yet to be determined.

We found that among 74 LCS-eligible rural veterans attending a CBOC-based smoking cessation program, only 3 (4%) underwent LDCT screening before this telehealth intervention was launched. This low LCS rate among veterans attempting to quit smoking may have been related, in part, to a lack of awareness of this intervention and/or barriers to LCS access.^7,10,21,24 Deploying a telehealth intervention targeting LCS could address this life threatening and unmet medical need in rural communities.²⁵ The results of this proof-of-principle quality improvement project support this contention with the reported increased referrals to and completion of initial LDCT within 4 months of the telehealth encounter.

This was a small, single site project composed of predominantly White male rural veterans participating in a smoking cessation program associated with a VA facility.^26,27 It is not clear whether similar outcomes would be observed in at-risk veterans who do not participate in a smoking cessation program or in more diverse communities. We were unable to contact 40% of LCS-eligible rural veterans by telephone. Twelve veterans reached by telephone declined to participate in LCS without providing a reason, and only 19 of 68 eligible veterans (28%) underwent LDCT screening during the 4-month telehealth intervention. The reasons underlying this overall low accrual rate and whether rural veterans prefer other means of personal communication regarding LCS were not determined. Lastly, generalizability of our initial observations to other veterans living in rural communities is limited because the project was conducted only in rural northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Conclusions

At-risk rural veterans may be willing to participate in a centralized LCS program at a regional VA medical facility when contacted and coordinated using telehealth modalities. These findings offer support for future prospective, multisite, VA telehealth-based studies to be conducted in rural areas. The results of this project also suggest that telehealth intervention could increase referrals of at-risk rural veterans to the closest centralized LCS program located at a regional VA medical facility.

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest has been shown to reduce mortality rates for individuals at risk for lung cancer.¹ Despite the benefits, < 5% of those who were eligible for LCS in the United States were screened in 2022.² Implementation of a LCS program in rural communities is especially challenging because they are sparsely populated, medically underserved, and located far from urban centers.^2-7 It is estimated that 1 in 5 people live in rural areas. Rates of tobacco smoking and cancer are higher in rural communities when compared with urban communities.^8,9 The scarcity of physicians in rural areas who are familiar with LCS may further impede individuals who are at risk from accessing this life saving service.^5,6 As a result, these individuals may not regularly undergo LCS as recommended.⁹

Telehealth, or the remote delivery of health care services via telecommunications, is an emerging approach for addressing unmet medical needs in rural communities and is being utilized widely by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).^4,10-15 The Veterans Integrated Service Network 12 (Great Lakes Network) has established the Clinical Resource Hub (CRH), a telehealth network comprising of licensed independent physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, and ancillary staff. The CRH offers regular, remote health care services to several community-based outpatient clinics (CBOC) primary care clinics located in rural northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.^10,14

The utility of telehealth in promoting LCS among at-risk veterans living in rural communities has not been firmly established.^4-6 To address this issue, we conducted a proof-of-principle quality improvement project to determine whether a telehealth intervention would increase referrals among at-risk veterans who reside in rural northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan who are self-enrolled in a CBOC smoking cessation program in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The CBOC provides primary health care to veterans residing in rural northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan as defined by US Department of Agriculture rural-urban commuting area codes.¹⁶ The intervention aimed to refer these individuals to the closest available and centralized LCS program, which is located at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center (CJZVAMC) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

METHODS

We reviewed electronic health records (EHR) of LCS-eligible veterans treated by 2 authors (SH and TB) who were self-enrolled in the smoking cessation program at the Green Bay CBOC between October 1, 2020, and September 30, 2021. The program provides comprehensive evidence-based tobacco use treatment, online self-help resources, behavioral counseling, and medicines for smoking cessation.¹⁷ Veterans aged 50 to 80 years with a smoking history of ≥ 20 pack-years, who currently smoke cigarettes or quit within the past 15 years, were considered at risk for lung cancer and eligible for LCS. After confirming eligibility, pertinent demographic data were abstracted from each EHR.

Telehealth Intervention

The CJZVAMC centralized LCS program manages all delivery processes and has been previously shown to increase uptake of LCS and improve patient outcomes among veterans as compared to a decentralized approach.^18,19 In the centralized approach, eligible veterans were referred by a CBOC primary care practitioner (PCP) to a designated centralized LCS program. The centralized LCS program provides further evaluation and disposition, which includes structured and shared decision making, ordering LDCT of the chest, reporting LDCT results to the patient and PCP, devising a goal-directed care plan, and managing follow-up LDCTs as indicated (Figure 1).^18,19

This intervention was initiated before other measures aimed to increase the LCS enrollment for at-risk rural veterans at the CBOC, (eg, mailing LCS education fact sheet to veterans).²⁰ After reviewing prospective veterans’ EHRs, 1 author (TB) contacted LCS-eligible veterans by telephone and left a voicemail if contact could not be established. A second telephone call was placed within 2 months of the initial call if no call back was documented in the EHR. When verbal contact was established, the goals of the centralized LCS program were described and the veteran was invited to participate.²¹

Veterans were seen at CBOCs affiliated with CJZVAMC. The CJZVAMC LCS coordinator was notified whenever a veteran agreed to enroll into LCS and then ordered LDCT, which was performed and read at CJZVAMC. Once LDCT has been ordered, 1 author (TB) reviewed the veteran’s EHR for LDCT completion over the next 4 months.Upon conclusion of the intervention period, the number of veterans referred for LDCT and the number of LDCTs performed were recorded. Each LDCT was reviewed and coded by medical imaging clinicians according to Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) version 1.1 and coded as 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 based on the nodule with the highest degree of suspicion.²² The LDCT and reports were also reviewed by pulmonary physicians at the CJZVAMC Lung Nodule Clinic with recommendations issued and reported to the PCP treating the veteran, such as annual follow-up with LDCT or referral to specialty care for further evaluation as indicated.

Of 117 veterans enrolled in the smoking cessation program at the CBOC during the intervention period, 74 (63%) were eligible to undergo LCS, and 68 (58%) were contacted by telephone (Figure 2). Eligible patients were primarily White male veterans; their mean (SD) age was 65.0 years (7.6). Participation in LCS was discussed with 41 (60%) veterans either during the initial or second telephone call of which 29 (71%) agreed to enroll and 12 (29%) declined. Veterans did not provide reasons for declining participation at the time of the telephone call.

Among the 74 eligible veterans who attended the smoking cessation program, only 3 had LDCT performed before initiation of this project (4%). At the conclusion of the telehealth intervention period, 19 veterans had LDCT performed (26%). Ten LDCTs were coded Lung-RADS 1, 7 Lung-RADS 2, 1 Lung-RADS 3, and 1 Lung-RADS 4B. In each case, annual follow-up LDCT or referral to a LCS clinician was pursued as indicated.²²

DISCUSSION

This proof-of-principle quality improvement project found that a high percentage (66%) of individuals in rural communities who were contacted via telehealth agreed to participate in a regional LCS program. The program reviewed LDCT results, ordered follow-up LDCTs, and recommended further evaluations.^18,19 Whether this centralized LCS process could also promote adherence with subsequent annual LDCT and/or scheduled clinic appointments with designated clinicians, if abnormal imaging findings are detected, remains unclear.

It has been well established LDCT LCS reduces lung cancer-specific and overall mortality rates among eligible current and former smokers.^1,9,23 The 5-year relative survival rate of veterans diagnosed with localized non-small cell lung cancer is 63%; that number drops to 7% in those with advanced disease attesting to the utility of LCS in detecting early stage lung cancer.² Despite these favorable observations, however, screening rates with free LDCT remains low in rural communities.^3-7

This proof-of-principle quality improvement project found that telehealth intervention may increase referrals of at-risk veterans who reside in rural communities to the closest centralized LCS program located at aregional VAMC. This program is responsible for reviewing the results of the initial LDCT, ordering follow-up LDCT, and recommending further evaluation as indicated.^18,19 Whether this centralized LCS process would promote adherence with subsequent annual LDCT and/or scheduled clinic appointments with designated clinicians if abnormal imaging findings are detected is yet to be determined.

We found that among 74 LCS-eligible rural veterans attending a CBOC-based smoking cessation program, only 3 (4%) underwent LDCT screening before this telehealth intervention was launched. This low LCS rate among veterans attempting to quit smoking may have been related, in part, to a lack of awareness of this intervention and/or barriers to LCS access.^7,10,21,24 Deploying a telehealth intervention targeting LCS could address this life threatening and unmet medical need in rural communities.²⁵ The results of this proof-of-principle quality improvement project support this contention with the reported increased referrals to and completion of initial LDCT within 4 months of the telehealth encounter.

This was a small, single site project composed of predominantly White male rural veterans participating in a smoking cessation program associated with a VA facility.^26,27 It is not clear whether similar outcomes would be observed in at-risk veterans who do not participate in a smoking cessation program or in more diverse communities. We were unable to contact 40% of LCS-eligible rural veterans by telephone. Twelve veterans reached by telephone declined to participate in LCS without providing a reason, and only 19 of 68 eligible veterans (28%) underwent LDCT screening during the 4-month telehealth intervention. The reasons underlying this overall low accrual rate and whether rural veterans prefer other means of personal communication regarding LCS were not determined. Lastly, generalizability of our initial observations to other veterans living in rural communities is limited because the project was conducted only in rural northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Conclusions

At-risk rural veterans may be willing to participate in a centralized LCS program at a regional VA medical facility when contacted and coordinated using telehealth modalities. These findings offer support for future prospective, multisite, VA telehealth-based studies to be conducted in rural areas. The results of this project also suggest that telehealth intervention could increase referrals of at-risk rural veterans to the closest centralized LCS program located at a regional VA medical facility.

Predicting life expectancy and providing an end-of-life diagnosis in hospice and palliative care is a challenge for most clinicians. Lack of training, limited communication skills, and relationships with patients are all contributing factors. These skills can improve with the use of functional scoring tools in conjunction with the patient’s comorbidities and physical/psychological symptoms. The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status Scale (ECOG) are commonly used functional scoring tools.

The PPS measures 5 functional dimensions including ambulation, activity level, ability to administer self-care, oral intake, and level of consciousness.¹ It has been shown to be valid for a broad range of palliative care patients, including those with advanced cancer or life-threatening noncancer diagnoses in hospitals or hospice care.² The scale, measured in 10% increments, runs from 100% (completely functional) to 0% (dead). A PPS ≤ 70% helps meet hospice eligibility criteria.

The KPS evaluates functional impairment and helps with prognostication. Developed in 1948, it evaluates a patient’s functional ability to tolerate chemotherapy, specifically in lung cancer,and has since been validated to predict mortality across older adults and in chronic disease populations.^3,4 The KPS is also measured in 10% increments ranging from 100% (completely functional without assistance) to 0% (dead). A KPS ≤ 70% assists with hospice eligibility criteria (Table 1).⁵

Developed in 1974, the ECOG has been identified as one of the most important functional status tools in adult cancer care.⁶ It describes a cancer patient’s functional ability, evaluating their ability to care for oneself and participate in daily activities.⁷ The ECOG is a 6-point scale; patients can receive scores ranging from 0 (fully active) to 5 (dead). An ECOG score of 4 (sometimes 3) is generally supportive of meeting hospice eligibility (Table 2).⁶

CASE Presentation

An 80-year-old patient was admitted to the hospice service at the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS) community living center (CLC) in Tacoma, Washington, from a community-based acute care hospital. His medical history included prostate cancer with metastasis to his pelvis and type 2 diabetes mellitus, which was stable with treatment with oral medication. Six weeks earlier the patient reported a severe frontal headache that was not responding to over-the-counter analgesics. After 2 days with these symptoms, including a ground-level fall without injuries, he presented to the VAPSHCS emergency department (ED) where a complete neurological examination, including magnetic resonance imaging, revealed a left frontoparietal brain lesion that was 4.2 cm × 3.4 cm × 4.2 cm.

The patient experienced a seizure during his ED evaluation and was admitted for treatment. He underwent a craniotomy where most, but not all the lesions were successfully removed. Postoperatively, the patient exhibited right-sided neglect, gait instability, emotional lability, and cognitive communication disorder. The patient completed 15 of 20 planned radiation treatments but declined further radiation or chemotherapy. The patient decided to halt radiation treatments after being informed by the oncology service that the treatments would likely only add 1 to 2 months to his overall survival, which was < 6 months. The patient elected to focus his goals of care on comfort, dignity, and respect at the end of life and accepted recommendations to be placed into end-of-life hospice care. He was then transferred to the VAPSHCS CLC in Tacoma, Washington, for hospice care.

Upon admission, the patient weighed 94 kg, his vital signs were within reference range, and he reported no pain or headaches. His initial laboratory results revealed a 13.2 g/dL hemoglobin, 3.6 g/dL serum albumin, and a 5.5% hemoglobin A_1c, all of which fall into a normal reference range. He had a reported ECOG score of 3 and a KPS score of 50% by the transferring medical team. The patient’s medications included scheduled dexamethasone, metformin, senna, levetiracetam, and as-needed midazolam nasal spray for breakthrough seizures. He also had as-needed acetaminophen for pain. He was alert, oriented ×3, and fully ambulatory but continuously used a 4-wheeled walker for safety and gait instability.

After the patient’s first night, the hospice team met with him to discuss his understanding of his health issues. The patient appeared to have low health literacy but told the team, “I know I am dying.” He had completed written advance directives and a Portable Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment indicating that life-sustaining treatments, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, supplemental mechanical feeding, or intubation, were not to be used to keep him alive.

At his first 90-day recertification, the patient had gained 8 kg and laboratory results revealed a 14.6 g/dL hemoglobin, 3.8 g/dL serum albumin, and a 6.1% hemoglobin A_1c. His ECOG score remained at 3, but his KPS score had increased to 60%. The patient exhibited no new neurologic symptoms or seizures and reported no headaches but had 2 ground-level falls without injury. On both occasions the patient chose not to use his walker to go to the bathroom because it was “too far from my bed.” Per VA policy, after discussions with the hospice team, he was recertified for 90 more days of hospice care. At the end of 6 months in CLC, the patient’s weight remained stable, as did his complete blood count and comprehensive medical panel. He had 1 additional noninjurious ground-level fall and again reported no pain and no use of as-needed acetaminophen. His only medical complication was testing positive for COVID-19, but he remained asymptomatic. The patient was graduated from hospice care and referred to a nearby non-VA adult family home in the community after 180 days. At that time his ECOG score was 2 and his KPS score had increased to 70%.

DISCUSSION

Primary brain tumors account for about 2% of all malignant neoplasms in adults. About half of them represent gliomas. Glioblastoma multiforme derived from neuroepithelial cells is the most frequent and deadly primary malignant central nervous system tumor in adults.⁸ About 50% of patients with glioblastomas are aged ≥ 65 years at diagnosis.⁹ A retrospective study of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services claims data paired with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database indicated a median survival of 4 months for patients with glioblastoma multiforme aged > 65 years, including all treatment modalities.¹⁰ Surgical resection combined with radiation and chemotherapy offers the best prognosis for the preservation of neurologic function.¹¹ However, comorbidities, adverse drug effects, and the potential for postoperative complications pose significant risks, especially for older patients. Ultimately, goals of care conversations and advance directives play a very important role in evaluating benefits vs risks with this malignancy.

Our patient was aged 80 years and had previously been diagnosed with metastatic prostate malignancy. His goals of care focused on spending time with his friends, leaving his room to eat in the facility dining area, and continuing his daily walks. He remained clear that he did not want his care team to institute life-sustaining treatments to be kept alive and felt the information regarding the risks vs benefits of accepting chemotherapy was not aligned with his goals of care. Over the 6 months that he received hospice care, he gained weight, improved his hemoglobin and serum albumin levels, and ambulated with the use of a 4-wheeled walker. As the patient exhibited no functional decline or new comorbidities and his functional status improved, the clinical staff felt he no longer needed hospice services. The patient had an ECOG score of 2 and a KPS score of 70% at his hospice graduation.

Medical prognostication is one of the biggest challenges clinicians face. Clinicians are generally “over prognosticators,” and their thoughts tend to be based on the patient relationship, overall experiences in health care, and desire to treat and cure patients.¹² In hospice we are asked to define the usual, normal, or expected course of a disease, but what does that mean? Although metastatic malignancies usually have a predictable course in comparison to diagnoses such as dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or congestive heart failure, the challenges to improve prognostic ability andpredict disease course continue.^13-15 Focusing on functional status, goals of care, and comorbidities are keys to helping with prognosis. Given the challenge, we find the PPS, KPS, and ECOG scales important tools.

When prognosticating, we attempt to define quantity and quality of life (which our patients must define independently or from the voice of their surrogate) and their ability to perform daily activities. Quality of life in patients with glioblastoma is progressively and significantly impacted due to the emergence of debilitating neurologic symptoms arising from infiltrative tumor growth into functionally intact brain tissue that restricts and disrupts normal day-to-day activities. However, functional status plays a significant role in helping the hospice team improve its overall prognosis.

Conclusions

This case study illustrates the difficulty that comes with prognostication(s) despite a patient's severely morbid disease, history of metastatic prostate cancer, and advanced age. Although a diagnosis may be concerning, documenting a patient’s status using functional scales prior to hospice admission and during the recertification process is helpful in prognostication. Doing so will allow health care professionals to have an accepted medical standard to use regardless how distinct the patient's diagnosis. The expression, “as the disease does not read the textbook,” may serve as a helpful reminder in talking with patients and their families. This is important as most patient’s clinical disease courses are different and having the opportunity to use performance status scales may help improve prognostic skills.

Predicting life expectancy and providing an end-of-life diagnosis in hospice and palliative care is a challenge for most clinicians. Lack of training, limited communication skills, and relationships with patients are all contributing factors. These skills can improve with the use of functional scoring tools in conjunction with the patient’s comorbidities and physical/psychological symptoms. The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status Scale (ECOG) are commonly used functional scoring tools.

The PPS measures 5 functional dimensions including ambulation, activity level, ability to administer self-care, oral intake, and level of consciousness.¹ It has been shown to be valid for a broad range of palliative care patients, including those with advanced cancer or life-threatening noncancer diagnoses in hospitals or hospice care.² The scale, measured in 10% increments, runs from 100% (completely functional) to 0% (dead). A PPS ≤ 70% helps meet hospice eligibility criteria.

The KPS evaluates functional impairment and helps with prognostication. Developed in 1948, it evaluates a patient’s functional ability to tolerate chemotherapy, specifically in lung cancer,and has since been validated to predict mortality across older adults and in chronic disease populations.^3,4 The KPS is also measured in 10% increments ranging from 100% (completely functional without assistance) to 0% (dead). A KPS ≤ 70% assists with hospice eligibility criteria (Table 1).⁵

Developed in 1974, the ECOG has been identified as one of the most important functional status tools in adult cancer care.⁶ It describes a cancer patient’s functional ability, evaluating their ability to care for oneself and participate in daily activities.⁷ The ECOG is a 6-point scale; patients can receive scores ranging from 0 (fully active) to 5 (dead). An ECOG score of 4 (sometimes 3) is generally supportive of meeting hospice eligibility (Table 2).⁶

CASE Presentation

An 80-year-old patient was admitted to the hospice service at the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS) community living center (CLC) in Tacoma, Washington, from a community-based acute care hospital. His medical history included prostate cancer with metastasis to his pelvis and type 2 diabetes mellitus, which was stable with treatment with oral medication. Six weeks earlier the patient reported a severe frontal headache that was not responding to over-the-counter analgesics. After 2 days with these symptoms, including a ground-level fall without injuries, he presented to the VAPSHCS emergency department (ED) where a complete neurological examination, including magnetic resonance imaging, revealed a left frontoparietal brain lesion that was 4.2 cm × 3.4 cm × 4.2 cm.

The patient experienced a seizure during his ED evaluation and was admitted for treatment. He underwent a craniotomy where most, but not all the lesions were successfully removed. Postoperatively, the patient exhibited right-sided neglect, gait instability, emotional lability, and cognitive communication disorder. The patient completed 15 of 20 planned radiation treatments but declined further radiation or chemotherapy. The patient decided to halt radiation treatments after being informed by the oncology service that the treatments would likely only add 1 to 2 months to his overall survival, which was < 6 months. The patient elected to focus his goals of care on comfort, dignity, and respect at the end of life and accepted recommendations to be placed into end-of-life hospice care. He was then transferred to the VAPSHCS CLC in Tacoma, Washington, for hospice care.

Upon admission, the patient weighed 94 kg, his vital signs were within reference range, and he reported no pain or headaches. His initial laboratory results revealed a 13.2 g/dL hemoglobin, 3.6 g/dL serum albumin, and a 5.5% hemoglobin A_1c, all of which fall into a normal reference range. He had a reported ECOG score of 3 and a KPS score of 50% by the transferring medical team. The patient’s medications included scheduled dexamethasone, metformin, senna, levetiracetam, and as-needed midazolam nasal spray for breakthrough seizures. He also had as-needed acetaminophen for pain. He was alert, oriented ×3, and fully ambulatory but continuously used a 4-wheeled walker for safety and gait instability.

After the patient’s first night, the hospice team met with him to discuss his understanding of his health issues. The patient appeared to have low health literacy but told the team, “I know I am dying.” He had completed written advance directives and a Portable Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment indicating that life-sustaining treatments, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, supplemental mechanical feeding, or intubation, were not to be used to keep him alive.

At his first 90-day recertification, the patient had gained 8 kg and laboratory results revealed a 14.6 g/dL hemoglobin, 3.8 g/dL serum albumin, and a 6.1% hemoglobin A_1c. His ECOG score remained at 3, but his KPS score had increased to 60%. The patient exhibited no new neurologic symptoms or seizures and reported no headaches but had 2 ground-level falls without injury. On both occasions the patient chose not to use his walker to go to the bathroom because it was “too far from my bed.” Per VA policy, after discussions with the hospice team, he was recertified for 90 more days of hospice care. At the end of 6 months in CLC, the patient’s weight remained stable, as did his complete blood count and comprehensive medical panel. He had 1 additional noninjurious ground-level fall and again reported no pain and no use of as-needed acetaminophen. His only medical complication was testing positive for COVID-19, but he remained asymptomatic. The patient was graduated from hospice care and referred to a nearby non-VA adult family home in the community after 180 days. At that time his ECOG score was 2 and his KPS score had increased to 70%.

DISCUSSION

Primary brain tumors account for about 2% of all malignant neoplasms in adults. About half of them represent gliomas. Glioblastoma multiforme derived from neuroepithelial cells is the most frequent and deadly primary malignant central nervous system tumor in adults.⁸ About 50% of patients with glioblastomas are aged ≥ 65 years at diagnosis.⁹ A retrospective study of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services claims data paired with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database indicated a median survival of 4 months for patients with glioblastoma multiforme aged > 65 years, including all treatment modalities.¹⁰ Surgical resection combined with radiation and chemotherapy offers the best prognosis for the preservation of neurologic function.¹¹ However, comorbidities, adverse drug effects, and the potential for postoperative complications pose significant risks, especially for older patients. Ultimately, goals of care conversations and advance directives play a very important role in evaluating benefits vs risks with this malignancy.

Our patient was aged 80 years and had previously been diagnosed with metastatic prostate malignancy. His goals of care focused on spending time with his friends, leaving his room to eat in the facility dining area, and continuing his daily walks. He remained clear that he did not want his care team to institute life-sustaining treatments to be kept alive and felt the information regarding the risks vs benefits of accepting chemotherapy was not aligned with his goals of care. Over the 6 months that he received hospice care, he gained weight, improved his hemoglobin and serum albumin levels, and ambulated with the use of a 4-wheeled walker. As the patient exhibited no functional decline or new comorbidities and his functional status improved, the clinical staff felt he no longer needed hospice services. The patient had an ECOG score of 2 and a KPS score of 70% at his hospice graduation.

Medical prognostication is one of the biggest challenges clinicians face. Clinicians are generally “over prognosticators,” and their thoughts tend to be based on the patient relationship, overall experiences in health care, and desire to treat and cure patients.¹² In hospice we are asked to define the usual, normal, or expected course of a disease, but what does that mean? Although metastatic malignancies usually have a predictable course in comparison to diagnoses such as dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or congestive heart failure, the challenges to improve prognostic ability andpredict disease course continue.^13-15 Focusing on functional status, goals of care, and comorbidities are keys to helping with prognosis. Given the challenge, we find the PPS, KPS, and ECOG scales important tools.

When prognosticating, we attempt to define quantity and quality of life (which our patients must define independently or from the voice of their surrogate) and their ability to perform daily activities. Quality of life in patients with glioblastoma is progressively and significantly impacted due to the emergence of debilitating neurologic symptoms arising from infiltrative tumor growth into functionally intact brain tissue that restricts and disrupts normal day-to-day activities. However, functional status plays a significant role in helping the hospice team improve its overall prognosis.

Conclusions

This case study illustrates the difficulty that comes with prognostication(s) despite a patient's severely morbid disease, history of metastatic prostate cancer, and advanced age. Although a diagnosis may be concerning, documenting a patient’s status using functional scales prior to hospice admission and during the recertification process is helpful in prognostication. Doing so will allow health care professionals to have an accepted medical standard to use regardless how distinct the patient's diagnosis. The expression, “as the disease does not read the textbook,” may serve as a helpful reminder in talking with patients and their families. This is important as most patient’s clinical disease courses are different and having the opportunity to use performance status scales may help improve prognostic skills.

Predicting life expectancy and providing an end-of-life diagnosis in hospice and palliative care is a challenge for most clinicians. Lack of training, limited communication skills, and relationships with patients are all contributing factors. These skills can improve with the use of functional scoring tools in conjunction with the patient’s comorbidities and physical/psychological symptoms. The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status Scale (ECOG) are commonly used functional scoring tools.

The PPS measures 5 functional dimensions including ambulation, activity level, ability to administer self-care, oral intake, and level of consciousness.¹ It has been shown to be valid for a broad range of palliative care patients, including those with advanced cancer or life-threatening noncancer diagnoses in hospitals or hospice care.² The scale, measured in 10% increments, runs from 100% (completely functional) to 0% (dead). A PPS ≤ 70% helps meet hospice eligibility criteria.

The KPS evaluates functional impairment and helps with prognostication. Developed in 1948, it evaluates a patient’s functional ability to tolerate chemotherapy, specifically in lung cancer,and has since been validated to predict mortality across older adults and in chronic disease populations.^3,4 The KPS is also measured in 10% increments ranging from 100% (completely functional without assistance) to 0% (dead). A KPS ≤ 70% assists with hospice eligibility criteria (Table 1).⁵

Developed in 1974, the ECOG has been identified as one of the most important functional status tools in adult cancer care.⁶ It describes a cancer patient’s functional ability, evaluating their ability to care for oneself and participate in daily activities.⁷ The ECOG is a 6-point scale; patients can receive scores ranging from 0 (fully active) to 5 (dead). An ECOG score of 4 (sometimes 3) is generally supportive of meeting hospice eligibility (Table 2).⁶

CASE Presentation

An 80-year-old patient was admitted to the hospice service at the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS) community living center (CLC) in Tacoma, Washington, from a community-based acute care hospital. His medical history included prostate cancer with metastasis to his pelvis and type 2 diabetes mellitus, which was stable with treatment with oral medication. Six weeks earlier the patient reported a severe frontal headache that was not responding to over-the-counter analgesics. After 2 days with these symptoms, including a ground-level fall without injuries, he presented to the VAPSHCS emergency department (ED) where a complete neurological examination, including magnetic resonance imaging, revealed a left frontoparietal brain lesion that was 4.2 cm × 3.4 cm × 4.2 cm.

The patient experienced a seizure during his ED evaluation and was admitted for treatment. He underwent a craniotomy where most, but not all the lesions were successfully removed. Postoperatively, the patient exhibited right-sided neglect, gait instability, emotional lability, and cognitive communication disorder. The patient completed 15 of 20 planned radiation treatments but declined further radiation or chemotherapy. The patient decided to halt radiation treatments after being informed by the oncology service that the treatments would likely only add 1 to 2 months to his overall survival, which was < 6 months. The patient elected to focus his goals of care on comfort, dignity, and respect at the end of life and accepted recommendations to be placed into end-of-life hospice care. He was then transferred to the VAPSHCS CLC in Tacoma, Washington, for hospice care.

Upon admission, the patient weighed 94 kg, his vital signs were within reference range, and he reported no pain or headaches. His initial laboratory results revealed a 13.2 g/dL hemoglobin, 3.6 g/dL serum albumin, and a 5.5% hemoglobin A_1c, all of which fall into a normal reference range. He had a reported ECOG score of 3 and a KPS score of 50% by the transferring medical team. The patient’s medications included scheduled dexamethasone, metformin, senna, levetiracetam, and as-needed midazolam nasal spray for breakthrough seizures. He also had as-needed acetaminophen for pain. He was alert, oriented ×3, and fully ambulatory but continuously used a 4-wheeled walker for safety and gait instability.

After the patient’s first night, the hospice team met with him to discuss his understanding of his health issues. The patient appeared to have low health literacy but told the team, “I know I am dying.” He had completed written advance directives and a Portable Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment indicating that life-sustaining treatments, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, supplemental mechanical feeding, or intubation, were not to be used to keep him alive.

At his first 90-day recertification, the patient had gained 8 kg and laboratory results revealed a 14.6 g/dL hemoglobin, 3.8 g/dL serum albumin, and a 6.1% hemoglobin A_1c. His ECOG score remained at 3, but his KPS score had increased to 60%. The patient exhibited no new neurologic symptoms or seizures and reported no headaches but had 2 ground-level falls without injury. On both occasions the patient chose not to use his walker to go to the bathroom because it was “too far from my bed.” Per VA policy, after discussions with the hospice team, he was recertified for 90 more days of hospice care. At the end of 6 months in CLC, the patient’s weight remained stable, as did his complete blood count and comprehensive medical panel. He had 1 additional noninjurious ground-level fall and again reported no pain and no use of as-needed acetaminophen. His only medical complication was testing positive for COVID-19, but he remained asymptomatic. The patient was graduated from hospice care and referred to a nearby non-VA adult family home in the community after 180 days. At that time his ECOG score was 2 and his KPS score had increased to 70%.

DISCUSSION

Primary brain tumors account for about 2% of all malignant neoplasms in adults. About half of them represent gliomas. Glioblastoma multiforme derived from neuroepithelial cells is the most frequent and deadly primary malignant central nervous system tumor in adults.⁸ About 50% of patients with glioblastomas are aged ≥ 65 years at diagnosis.⁹ A retrospective study of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services claims data paired with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database indicated a median survival of 4 months for patients with glioblastoma multiforme aged > 65 years, including all treatment modalities.¹⁰ Surgical resection combined with radiation and chemotherapy offers the best prognosis for the preservation of neurologic function.¹¹ However, comorbidities, adverse drug effects, and the potential for postoperative complications pose significant risks, especially for older patients. Ultimately, goals of care conversations and advance directives play a very important role in evaluating benefits vs risks with this malignancy.

Our patient was aged 80 years and had previously been diagnosed with metastatic prostate malignancy. His goals of care focused on spending time with his friends, leaving his room to eat in the facility dining area, and continuing his daily walks. He remained clear that he did not want his care team to institute life-sustaining treatments to be kept alive and felt the information regarding the risks vs benefits of accepting chemotherapy was not aligned with his goals of care. Over the 6 months that he received hospice care, he gained weight, improved his hemoglobin and serum albumin levels, and ambulated with the use of a 4-wheeled walker. As the patient exhibited no functional decline or new comorbidities and his functional status improved, the clinical staff felt he no longer needed hospice services. The patient had an ECOG score of 2 and a KPS score of 70% at his hospice graduation.

Medical prognostication is one of the biggest challenges clinicians face. Clinicians are generally “over prognosticators,” and their thoughts tend to be based on the patient relationship, overall experiences in health care, and desire to treat and cure patients.¹² In hospice we are asked to define the usual, normal, or expected course of a disease, but what does that mean? Although metastatic malignancies usually have a predictable course in comparison to diagnoses such as dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or congestive heart failure, the challenges to improve prognostic ability andpredict disease course continue.^13-15 Focusing on functional status, goals of care, and comorbidities are keys to helping with prognosis. Given the challenge, we find the PPS, KPS, and ECOG scales important tools.

When prognosticating, we attempt to define quantity and quality of life (which our patients must define independently or from the voice of their surrogate) and their ability to perform daily activities. Quality of life in patients with glioblastoma is progressively and significantly impacted due to the emergence of debilitating neurologic symptoms arising from infiltrative tumor growth into functionally intact brain tissue that restricts and disrupts normal day-to-day activities. However, functional status plays a significant role in helping the hospice team improve its overall prognosis.

Conclusions

This case study illustrates the difficulty that comes with prognostication(s) despite a patient's severely morbid disease, history of metastatic prostate cancer, and advanced age. Although a diagnosis may be concerning, documenting a patient’s status using functional scales prior to hospice admission and during the recertification process is helpful in prognostication. Doing so will allow health care professionals to have an accepted medical standard to use regardless how distinct the patient's diagnosis. The expression, “as the disease does not read the textbook,” may serve as a helpful reminder in talking with patients and their families. This is important as most patient’s clinical disease courses are different and having the opportunity to use performance status scales may help improve prognostic skills.

The value of a hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy practitioner (CPP) has been validated in several studies documenting their positive impact on patient outcomes, supportive care management, laboratory monitoring, medication error identification, and drug expenditure.^1-6 With> 200 oncology-related US Food and Drug Administration approval notifications published from 2020 to 2023, it is no surprise that national trends in oncology drug clinic expenditures increased from $39.9 billion in 2020 to $44.1 billion in 2021.^7,8 With the rapidly changing treatment landscape, new drug approvals, and risk of polypharmacy, oral anticancer agents carry a high risk for medication errors.⁴ Additional challenges include complex dosing regimens and instructions, adherence issues, drug interactions, adjustments for organ dysfunction, and extensive adverse effect (AE) profiles.

Because of the niche and complexity of oral anticancer agents, trained CPPs havehematology/oncology education and expertise that pharmacists without specialized training lack. A survey of 243 nonspecialized community pharmacists that assessed their knowledge of oral anticancer therapies revealed that only about half of the knowledge questions were answered correctly, illustrating an education gap among these pharmacists.⁹ The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacist Association's suggests that best practices for managing oral oncology therapy should include comprehensive medication review by an oncology-trained pharmacist for each prescription.¹⁰

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) community care network, which was established by the MISSION Act, allows covered access for eligible veterans in the local community outside of the VA network. Unfortunately, this dual-system use of health care could increase the risk of poorly coordinated care and has been associated with the risk of inappropriate prescribing.^11,12 It is unclear how many private practices enrolled in the community care program have access to oncology-trained pharmacists. Specialized pharmaceutical reviews of oral anticancer medication prescriptions from these practices are vital for veteran care. This study evaluates the clinical and financial interventions of hematology/oncology CPPs review of specialty hematology/oncology prescriptions from community care health care practitioners (HCPs) at the Veterans Affairs North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS) in Dallas.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) records of patients at VANTHCS from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2023. Patients included were aged ≥ 18 years, enrolled in the VA community care program, received a specialty hematology/oncology medication that was dispensed through VA pharmacies or VA-contracted pharmacies, and had an hematology/oncology CPP medication review documented in CPRS. The primary aim of this study was to assess the number and types of clinical interventions performed. A clinical intervention was defined as a documented communication attempt with a community care HCP or direct communication with a patient to address a specific medication-related issue noted during CPP review.

Review of specialty hematology/oncology medications by a hematology/oncology CPP included evaluation of therapy indication, such as whether the prescription meets clinical guidelines, VA criteria for use, or other clinical literature as judged appropriate by the CPP. In some cases, the CPP requested that the community care HCP prescribe a more cost-effective or formulary-preferred agent. Each prescription was reviewed for dosage and formulation appropriateness, drug interactions with available medication lists, baseline laboratory test completion, and recommended supportive care medicines. At times, patient counseling is completed as part of the clinical review. When necessary, CPPs could discuss patient cases with a VA-employed oncologist for further oversight regarding appropriateness and safety. Secondary outcomes included the number of interventions accepted or denied by the prescriber provider and cost savings.

Data collected included the type of malignancy, hematology/oncology specialty medication requested, number and type of interventions sent to the community care prescriber, number of interventions accepted or denied by the community care prescriber, and whether the CPP conducted patient counseling or dispensed or denied the product. Cost savings were calculated for medications that were denied or changed to a formulary preferred or cost-effective agent using pricing data from the National Acquisition Center Contract Catalog or Federal Supply Schedule Service as of April 2024.

A total of 221 hematology/oncology prescriptions met inclusion criteria. Among patients receiving these prescriptions, the median age was 70 years and 91% were male. The most common malignancies included 31 instances of multiple myeloma (14%), 26 for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (12%), 24 for prostate cancer (11%), 23 for glioblastoma/brain cancer (10%), 18 for renal cell carcinoma (8%), 17 for colorectal cancer (8%), and 15 for acute myeloid leukemia (7%). Clinical interventions by the hematology/oncology CPP were completed for 82 (37%) of the 221 prescriptions. One clinical intervention was communicated directly to the patient, and attempts were made to communicate with the community care HCP for the remaining 81 prescriptions. The CPP documented 97 clinical interventions for the 82 prescriptions (Table 1). The most commonly documented clinical interventions included: 25 for managing/preventing a drug interaction (26%), 24 for dose adjustment request (25%), 13 for prescription denial (13%), and 11 for requesting the use of a preferred or more cost-effective product (11%). Of note, 16 patients (7%) received counseling from the hematology/oncology CPP. Ten patients (5%) received counseling alone with no other intervention and did not meet the definition of a clinical intervention.

The most frequent prescriptions requiring intervention included 8 for enzalutamide, 7 for venetoclax, 6 for ibrutinib, and 5 each for lenalidomide, cabozantinib, and temozolomide. Among the 97 interventions, 68 were approved (70%), 15 received no response (16%), and 14 were denied by the community care HCP (14%). Despite obtaining no response or intervention denial from the community care HCP, hematology/oncology CPPs could approve these prescriptions if clinically appropriate, and their reasoning was documented. Table 2 further describes the types of interventions that were denied or obtained no response by the community care practitioner. Among the prescriptions denied by the hematology/oncology CPP, 11 were rejected for off-label indications and/or did not have support through primary literature, national guidelines, or VA criteria for use. Only 2 prescriptions were denied for safety concerns.

These documented clinical interventions had financial implications. For drugs with available cost data, requesting the use of a preferred/cost-effective product led to estimated savings of at least $263,536 over the study period with some ongoing cost savings. Prescription denials led to further estimated savings of $186,275 per month, although this is limited by the lack of known costs of alternative therapies the community care physicians chose.

DISCUSSION

More than one-third of prescriptions required clinical interventions, and 70% of these interventions were accepted by the community care prescriber, demonstrating the CPP’s essential role. Results indicate that most CPP clinical interventions involved clarifying and correcting doses, managing pertinent drug interactions, and ensuring appropriate use of medications according to clinical and national VA guidelines. Other studies have examined the impact of CPPs on patient care and cancer treatment.^5,6 The randomized, multicenter AMBORA trial found that clinical pharmacist support reduced severe AEs and medication errors related to oral anticancer agents.⁵ The per-patient mean number of medication errors found by pharmacist review was 1.7 (range, 0 to 9), with most medication errors noted at the prescribing stage.⁵ Suzuki and colleagues analyzed data from 35,062 chemotherapy regimens and found that 53.1% of the chemotherapy prescriptions were modified because of pharmacist interventions.⁶ The most common reason for prescription modifications was prescription error.

Most of the clinical interventions in this study were accepted by community HCPs, indicating that these prescribers are receptive to hematology/oncology CPP input. Among those with no response, most were in relation to recommendations regarding drug interactions. In most of these cases, the drug interaction was not clinically concerning enough to require a response before the CPP approved the prescription. Therefore, it is unknown whether the outside HCP implemented the clinical recommendations. The most common types of clinical interventions the community care HCP declined were dose adjustment requests or requests to switch to a more cost-effective/formulary-preferred agent. In these cases, the prescriber’s preference was documented and, if clinically appropriate, approved by the CPP.

Although the financial implications of CPP clinical interventions were only marginally evaluated in this review, results suggest that cost savings by requests to switch to a cost-effective/formulary preferred agent or prescription denials are substantial. Because of changes in prescription costs over time, it is possible that savings from CPP intervention were greater than calculations using current Federal Supply Schedule Service pricing. The total impact of CPP prescription interventions on reducing or preventing hospitalizations or AEs is not known from this review, but other data suggest that cost savings may benefit the system.^13,14

Limitations

This study's retrospective design is a limitation because practice patterns at the VANTHCS involving multiple hematology/oncology CPPs review of community care prescriptions might have evolved over time. The total financial implications of CPP interventions cannot fully be elucidated. The cost of alternative therapies used for patients who received a prescription denial is not factored into this review.

Conclusions

VANTHCS CPPs played an essential role in reviewing anticancer medication prescriptions from community care prescribers. In this study, CPP clinical interventions were completed for more than one-third of the prescriptions and the community-based HCP approved most of these interventions. These changes also resulted in financial benefits.

These findings add to the body of literature emphasizing the need for hematology/oncology-trained CPPs to review anticancer prescriptions and treatment plans. Our review could be used to justify CPP involvement in community care specialty medication review at VA facilities that do not currently have CPP involvement.

The value of a hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy practitioner (CPP) has been validated in several studies documenting their positive impact on patient outcomes, supportive care management, laboratory monitoring, medication error identification, and drug expenditure.^1-6 With> 200 oncology-related US Food and Drug Administration approval notifications published from 2020 to 2023, it is no surprise that national trends in oncology drug clinic expenditures increased from $39.9 billion in 2020 to $44.1 billion in 2021.^7,8 With the rapidly changing treatment landscape, new drug approvals, and risk of polypharmacy, oral anticancer agents carry a high risk for medication errors.⁴ Additional challenges include complex dosing regimens and instructions, adherence issues, drug interactions, adjustments for organ dysfunction, and extensive adverse effect (AE) profiles.

Because of the niche and complexity of oral anticancer agents, trained CPPs havehematology/oncology education and expertise that pharmacists without specialized training lack. A survey of 243 nonspecialized community pharmacists that assessed their knowledge of oral anticancer therapies revealed that only about half of the knowledge questions were answered correctly, illustrating an education gap among these pharmacists.⁹ The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacist Association's suggests that best practices for managing oral oncology therapy should include comprehensive medication review by an oncology-trained pharmacist for each prescription.¹⁰

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) community care network, which was established by the MISSION Act, allows covered access for eligible veterans in the local community outside of the VA network. Unfortunately, this dual-system use of health care could increase the risk of poorly coordinated care and has been associated with the risk of inappropriate prescribing.^11,12 It is unclear how many private practices enrolled in the community care program have access to oncology-trained pharmacists. Specialized pharmaceutical reviews of oral anticancer medication prescriptions from these practices are vital for veteran care. This study evaluates the clinical and financial interventions of hematology/oncology CPPs review of specialty hematology/oncology prescriptions from community care health care practitioners (HCPs) at the Veterans Affairs North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS) in Dallas.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) records of patients at VANTHCS from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2023. Patients included were aged ≥ 18 years, enrolled in the VA community care program, received a specialty hematology/oncology medication that was dispensed through VA pharmacies or VA-contracted pharmacies, and had an hematology/oncology CPP medication review documented in CPRS. The primary aim of this study was to assess the number and types of clinical interventions performed. A clinical intervention was defined as a documented communication attempt with a community care HCP or direct communication with a patient to address a specific medication-related issue noted during CPP review.

Review of specialty hematology/oncology medications by a hematology/oncology CPP included evaluation of therapy indication, such as whether the prescription meets clinical guidelines, VA criteria for use, or other clinical literature as judged appropriate by the CPP. In some cases, the CPP requested that the community care HCP prescribe a more cost-effective or formulary-preferred agent. Each prescription was reviewed for dosage and formulation appropriateness, drug interactions with available medication lists, baseline laboratory test completion, and recommended supportive care medicines. At times, patient counseling is completed as part of the clinical review. When necessary, CPPs could discuss patient cases with a VA-employed oncologist for further oversight regarding appropriateness and safety. Secondary outcomes included the number of interventions accepted or denied by the prescriber provider and cost savings.

Data collected included the type of malignancy, hematology/oncology specialty medication requested, number and type of interventions sent to the community care prescriber, number of interventions accepted or denied by the community care prescriber, and whether the CPP conducted patient counseling or dispensed or denied the product. Cost savings were calculated for medications that were denied or changed to a formulary preferred or cost-effective agent using pricing data from the National Acquisition Center Contract Catalog or Federal Supply Schedule Service as of April 2024.

A total of 221 hematology/oncology prescriptions met inclusion criteria. Among patients receiving these prescriptions, the median age was 70 years and 91% were male. The most common malignancies included 31 instances of multiple myeloma (14%), 26 for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (12%), 24 for prostate cancer (11%), 23 for glioblastoma/brain cancer (10%), 18 for renal cell carcinoma (8%), 17 for colorectal cancer (8%), and 15 for acute myeloid leukemia (7%). Clinical interventions by the hematology/oncology CPP were completed for 82 (37%) of the 221 prescriptions. One clinical intervention was communicated directly to the patient, and attempts were made to communicate with the community care HCP for the remaining 81 prescriptions. The CPP documented 97 clinical interventions for the 82 prescriptions (Table 1). The most commonly documented clinical interventions included: 25 for managing/preventing a drug interaction (26%), 24 for dose adjustment request (25%), 13 for prescription denial (13%), and 11 for requesting the use of a preferred or more cost-effective product (11%). Of note, 16 patients (7%) received counseling from the hematology/oncology CPP. Ten patients (5%) received counseling alone with no other intervention and did not meet the definition of a clinical intervention.

The most frequent prescriptions requiring intervention included 8 for enzalutamide, 7 for venetoclax, 6 for ibrutinib, and 5 each for lenalidomide, cabozantinib, and temozolomide. Among the 97 interventions, 68 were approved (70%), 15 received no response (16%), and 14 were denied by the community care HCP (14%). Despite obtaining no response or intervention denial from the community care HCP, hematology/oncology CPPs could approve these prescriptions if clinically appropriate, and their reasoning was documented. Table 2 further describes the types of interventions that were denied or obtained no response by the community care practitioner. Among the prescriptions denied by the hematology/oncology CPP, 11 were rejected for off-label indications and/or did not have support through primary literature, national guidelines, or VA criteria for use. Only 2 prescriptions were denied for safety concerns.

These documented clinical interventions had financial implications. For drugs with available cost data, requesting the use of a preferred/cost-effective product led to estimated savings of at least $263,536 over the study period with some ongoing cost savings. Prescription denials led to further estimated savings of $186,275 per month, although this is limited by the lack of known costs of alternative therapies the community care physicians chose.

DISCUSSION

More than one-third of prescriptions required clinical interventions, and 70% of these interventions were accepted by the community care prescriber, demonstrating the CPP’s essential role. Results indicate that most CPP clinical interventions involved clarifying and correcting doses, managing pertinent drug interactions, and ensuring appropriate use of medications according to clinical and national VA guidelines. Other studies have examined the impact of CPPs on patient care and cancer treatment.^5,6 The randomized, multicenter AMBORA trial found that clinical pharmacist support reduced severe AEs and medication errors related to oral anticancer agents.⁵ The per-patient mean number of medication errors found by pharmacist review was 1.7 (range, 0 to 9), with most medication errors noted at the prescribing stage.⁵ Suzuki and colleagues analyzed data from 35,062 chemotherapy regimens and found that 53.1% of the chemotherapy prescriptions were modified because of pharmacist interventions.⁶ The most common reason for prescription modifications was prescription error.

Most of the clinical interventions in this study were accepted by community HCPs, indicating that these prescribers are receptive to hematology/oncology CPP input. Among those with no response, most were in relation to recommendations regarding drug interactions. In most of these cases, the drug interaction was not clinically concerning enough to require a response before the CPP approved the prescription. Therefore, it is unknown whether the outside HCP implemented the clinical recommendations. The most common types of clinical interventions the community care HCP declined were dose adjustment requests or requests to switch to a more cost-effective/formulary-preferred agent. In these cases, the prescriber’s preference was documented and, if clinically appropriate, approved by the CPP.

Although the financial implications of CPP clinical interventions were only marginally evaluated in this review, results suggest that cost savings by requests to switch to a cost-effective/formulary preferred agent or prescription denials are substantial. Because of changes in prescription costs over time, it is possible that savings from CPP intervention were greater than calculations using current Federal Supply Schedule Service pricing. The total impact of CPP prescription interventions on reducing or preventing hospitalizations or AEs is not known from this review, but other data suggest that cost savings may benefit the system.^13,14

Limitations

This study's retrospective design is a limitation because practice patterns at the VANTHCS involving multiple hematology/oncology CPPs review of community care prescriptions might have evolved over time. The total financial implications of CPP interventions cannot fully be elucidated. The cost of alternative therapies used for patients who received a prescription denial is not factored into this review.

Conclusions

VANTHCS CPPs played an essential role in reviewing anticancer medication prescriptions from community care prescribers. In this study, CPP clinical interventions were completed for more than one-third of the prescriptions and the community-based HCP approved most of these interventions. These changes also resulted in financial benefits.

These findings add to the body of literature emphasizing the need for hematology/oncology-trained CPPs to review anticancer prescriptions and treatment plans. Our review could be used to justify CPP involvement in community care specialty medication review at VA facilities that do not currently have CPP involvement.

The value of a hematology/oncology clinical pharmacy practitioner (CPP) has been validated in several studies documenting their positive impact on patient outcomes, supportive care management, laboratory monitoring, medication error identification, and drug expenditure.^1-6 With> 200 oncology-related US Food and Drug Administration approval notifications published from 2020 to 2023, it is no surprise that national trends in oncology drug clinic expenditures increased from $39.9 billion in 2020 to $44.1 billion in 2021.^7,8 With the rapidly changing treatment landscape, new drug approvals, and risk of polypharmacy, oral anticancer agents carry a high risk for medication errors.⁴ Additional challenges include complex dosing regimens and instructions, adherence issues, drug interactions, adjustments for organ dysfunction, and extensive adverse effect (AE) profiles.

Because of the niche and complexity of oral anticancer agents, trained CPPs havehematology/oncology education and expertise that pharmacists without specialized training lack. A survey of 243 nonspecialized community pharmacists that assessed their knowledge of oral anticancer therapies revealed that only about half of the knowledge questions were answered correctly, illustrating an education gap among these pharmacists.⁹ The Hematology/Oncology Pharmacist Association's suggests that best practices for managing oral oncology therapy should include comprehensive medication review by an oncology-trained pharmacist for each prescription.¹⁰

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) community care network, which was established by the MISSION Act, allows covered access for eligible veterans in the local community outside of the VA network. Unfortunately, this dual-system use of health care could increase the risk of poorly coordinated care and has been associated with the risk of inappropriate prescribing.^11,12 It is unclear how many private practices enrolled in the community care program have access to oncology-trained pharmacists. Specialized pharmaceutical reviews of oral anticancer medication prescriptions from these practices are vital for veteran care. This study evaluates the clinical and financial interventions of hematology/oncology CPPs review of specialty hematology/oncology prescriptions from community care health care practitioners (HCPs) at the Veterans Affairs North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS) in Dallas.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) records of patients at VANTHCS from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2023. Patients included were aged ≥ 18 years, enrolled in the VA community care program, received a specialty hematology/oncology medication that was dispensed through VA pharmacies or VA-contracted pharmacies, and had an hematology/oncology CPP medication review documented in CPRS. The primary aim of this study was to assess the number and types of clinical interventions performed. A clinical intervention was defined as a documented communication attempt with a community care HCP or direct communication with a patient to address a specific medication-related issue noted during CPP review.

Review of specialty hematology/oncology medications by a hematology/oncology CPP included evaluation of therapy indication, such as whether the prescription meets clinical guidelines, VA criteria for use, or other clinical literature as judged appropriate by the CPP. In some cases, the CPP requested that the community care HCP prescribe a more cost-effective or formulary-preferred agent. Each prescription was reviewed for dosage and formulation appropriateness, drug interactions with available medication lists, baseline laboratory test completion, and recommended supportive care medicines. At times, patient counseling is completed as part of the clinical review. When necessary, CPPs could discuss patient cases with a VA-employed oncologist for further oversight regarding appropriateness and safety. Secondary outcomes included the number of interventions accepted or denied by the prescriber provider and cost savings.

Data collected included the type of malignancy, hematology/oncology specialty medication requested, number and type of interventions sent to the community care prescriber, number of interventions accepted or denied by the community care prescriber, and whether the CPP conducted patient counseling or dispensed or denied the product. Cost savings were calculated for medications that were denied or changed to a formulary preferred or cost-effective agent using pricing data from the National Acquisition Center Contract Catalog or Federal Supply Schedule Service as of April 2024.

A total of 221 hematology/oncology prescriptions met inclusion criteria. Among patients receiving these prescriptions, the median age was 70 years and 91% were male. The most common malignancies included 31 instances of multiple myeloma (14%), 26 for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (12%), 24 for prostate cancer (11%), 23 for glioblastoma/brain cancer (10%), 18 for renal cell carcinoma (8%), 17 for colorectal cancer (8%), and 15 for acute myeloid leukemia (7%). Clinical interventions by the hematology/oncology CPP were completed for 82 (37%) of the 221 prescriptions. One clinical intervention was communicated directly to the patient, and attempts were made to communicate with the community care HCP for the remaining 81 prescriptions. The CPP documented 97 clinical interventions for the 82 prescriptions (Table 1). The most commonly documented clinical interventions included: 25 for managing/preventing a drug interaction (26%), 24 for dose adjustment request (25%), 13 for prescription denial (13%), and 11 for requesting the use of a preferred or more cost-effective product (11%). Of note, 16 patients (7%) received counseling from the hematology/oncology CPP. Ten patients (5%) received counseling alone with no other intervention and did not meet the definition of a clinical intervention.

The most frequent prescriptions requiring intervention included 8 for enzalutamide, 7 for venetoclax, 6 for ibrutinib, and 5 each for lenalidomide, cabozantinib, and temozolomide. Among the 97 interventions, 68 were approved (70%), 15 received no response (16%), and 14 were denied by the community care HCP (14%). Despite obtaining no response or intervention denial from the community care HCP, hematology/oncology CPPs could approve these prescriptions if clinically appropriate, and their reasoning was documented. Table 2 further describes the types of interventions that were denied or obtained no response by the community care practitioner. Among the prescriptions denied by the hematology/oncology CPP, 11 were rejected for off-label indications and/or did not have support through primary literature, national guidelines, or VA criteria for use. Only 2 prescriptions were denied for safety concerns.

These documented clinical interventions had financial implications. For drugs with available cost data, requesting the use of a preferred/cost-effective product led to estimated savings of at least $263,536 over the study period with some ongoing cost savings. Prescription denials led to further estimated savings of $186,275 per month, although this is limited by the lack of known costs of alternative therapies the community care physicians chose.

DISCUSSION

More than one-third of prescriptions required clinical interventions, and 70% of these interventions were accepted by the community care prescriber, demonstrating the CPP’s essential role. Results indicate that most CPP clinical interventions involved clarifying and correcting doses, managing pertinent drug interactions, and ensuring appropriate use of medications according to clinical and national VA guidelines. Other studies have examined the impact of CPPs on patient care and cancer treatment.^5,6 The randomized, multicenter AMBORA trial found that clinical pharmacist support reduced severe AEs and medication errors related to oral anticancer agents.⁵ The per-patient mean number of medication errors found by pharmacist review was 1.7 (range, 0 to 9), with most medication errors noted at the prescribing stage.⁵ Suzuki and colleagues analyzed data from 35,062 chemotherapy regimens and found that 53.1% of the chemotherapy prescriptions were modified because of pharmacist interventions.⁶ The most common reason for prescription modifications was prescription error.

Most of the clinical interventions in this study were accepted by community HCPs, indicating that these prescribers are receptive to hematology/oncology CPP input. Among those with no response, most were in relation to recommendations regarding drug interactions. In most of these cases, the drug interaction was not clinically concerning enough to require a response before the CPP approved the prescription. Therefore, it is unknown whether the outside HCP implemented the clinical recommendations. The most common types of clinical interventions the community care HCP declined were dose adjustment requests or requests to switch to a more cost-effective/formulary-preferred agent. In these cases, the prescriber’s preference was documented and, if clinically appropriate, approved by the CPP.

Although the financial implications of CPP clinical interventions were only marginally evaluated in this review, results suggest that cost savings by requests to switch to a cost-effective/formulary preferred agent or prescription denials are substantial. Because of changes in prescription costs over time, it is possible that savings from CPP intervention were greater than calculations using current Federal Supply Schedule Service pricing. The total impact of CPP prescription interventions on reducing or preventing hospitalizations or AEs is not known from this review, but other data suggest that cost savings may benefit the system.^13,14

Limitations

This study's retrospective design is a limitation because practice patterns at the VANTHCS involving multiple hematology/oncology CPPs review of community care prescriptions might have evolved over time. The total financial implications of CPP interventions cannot fully be elucidated. The cost of alternative therapies used for patients who received a prescription denial is not factored into this review.

Conclusions

VANTHCS CPPs played an essential role in reviewing anticancer medication prescriptions from community care prescribers. In this study, CPP clinical interventions were completed for more than one-third of the prescriptions and the community-based HCP approved most of these interventions. These changes also resulted in financial benefits.

These findings add to the body of literature emphasizing the need for hematology/oncology-trained CPPs to review anticancer prescriptions and treatment plans. Our review could be used to justify CPP involvement in community care specialty medication review at VA facilities that do not currently have CPP involvement.