Article

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Veterans’ access to medical care was expanded outside of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities with the inception of the 2014 Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act (Choice Act).¹ This legislation aimed to remove barriers some veterans were experiencing, specifically access to health care. In subsequent years, approximately 17% of veterans receiving care from the VA did so under the Choice Act.² The Choice Act positively impacted medical care access for veterans but presented new challenges for VA pharmacies processing community care (CC) prescriptions, including limited access to outside health records, lack of interface between CC prescribers and the VA order entry system, and limited awareness of the VA national formulary.^3,4 These factors made it difficult for VA pharmacies to assess prescriptions for clinical appropriateness, evaluate patient safety parameters, and manage expenditures.

In 2019, the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act, which expanded CC support and better defined which veterans are able to receive care outside the VA, updated the Choice Act.^4,5 However, VA pharmacies faced challenges in managing pharmacy drug costs and ensuring clinical appropriateness of prescription drug therapy. As a result, VA pharmacy departments have adjusted how they allocate workload, time, and funds.⁵

Pharmacists improve clinical outcomes and reduce health care costs by decreasing medication errors, unnecessary prescribing, and adverse drug events.^6-12 Pharmacist-driven formulary management through evaluation of prior authorization drug requests (PADRs) has shown economic value.^13,14 VA pharmacy review of community care PADRs is important because outside health care professionals (HCPs) might not be familiar with the VA formulary. This could lead to high volume of PADRs that do not meet criteria and could result in increased potential for medication misuse, adverse drug events, medication errors, and cost to the health system. It is imperative that CC orders are evaluated as critically as traditional orders.

The value of a centralized CC pharmacy team has not been assessed in the literature. The primary objective of this study was to assess the direct cost savings achieved through a centralized CC PADR process. Secondary objectives were to characterize the CC PADRs submitted to the site, including approval rate, reason for nonapproval, which medications were requested and by whom, and to compare CC prescriptions with other high-complexity (1a) VA facilities.

Community Care Pharmacy

VA health systems are stratified according to complexity, which reflects size, patient population, and services offered. This study was conducted at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System (DVAHCS), North Carolina, a high-complexity, 251-bed, tertiary care referral, teaching, and research system. DVAHCS provides general and specialty medical, surgical, inpatient psychiatric, and ambulatory services, and serves as a major referral center.

DVAHCS created a centralized pharmacy team for processing CC prescriptions and managing customer service. This team’s goal is to increase CC prescription processing efficiency and transparency, ensure accountability of the health care team, and promote veteran-centric customer service. The pharmacy team includes a pharmacist program manager and a dedicated CC pharmacist with administrative support from a health benefits assistant and 4 pharmacy technicians. The CC pharmacy team assesses every new prescription to ensure the veteran is authorized to receive care in the community. Once eligibility is verified, a pharmacy technician or pharmacist evaluates the prescription to ensure it contains all required information, then contacts the prescriber for any missing data. If clinically appropriate, the pharmacist processes the prescription.

In 2020, the CC pharmacy team implemented a new process for reviewing and documenting CC prescriptions that require a PADR. The closed national VA formulary is set up so that all nonformulary medications and some formulary medications, including those that are restricted because of safety and/or cost, require a PADR.¹⁵ After a CC pharmacy technician confirms a veteran’s eligibility, the technician assesses whether the requested medication requires submitting a PADR to the VA internal electronic health record. The PADR is then adjudicated by a formulary management pharmacist, CC program manager, or CC pharmacist who reviews health records to determine whether the CC prescription meets VA medication use policy requirements.

If additional information is needed or an alternate medication is suggested, the pharmacist comments back on the PADR and a CC pharmacy technician contacts the prescriber. The PADR is canceled administratively then resubmitted once all information is obtained. While waiting for a response from the prescriber, the CC pharmacy technician contacts that veteran to give an update on the prescription status, as appropriate. Once there is sufficient information to adjudicate the PADR, the outcome is documented, and if approved, the order is processed.

Methods

The DVAHCS Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective review of CC PADRs submitted from June 1, 2020, through November 30, 2020. CC PADRs were excluded if they were duplicates or were reactivated administratively but had an initial submission date before the study period. Local data were collected for nonapproved CC PADRs including drug requested, dosage and directions, medication specialty, alternative drug recommended, drug acquisition cost, PADR submission date, PADR completion date, PADR nonapproval rationale, and documented time spent per PADR. Additional data was obtained for CC prescriptions at all 42 high-complexity VA facilities from the VA national CC prescription database for the study time interval and included total PADRs, PADR approval status, total CC prescription cost, and total CC fills.

Direct cost savings were calculated by assessing the cost of requested therapy that was not approved minus the cost of recommended therapy and cost to review all PADRs, as described by Britt and colleagues.¹³ The cost of the requested and recommended therapy was calculated based on VA drug acquisition cost at time of data collection and multiplied by the expected duration of therapy up to 1 year. For each CC prescription, duration of therapy was based on the duration limit in the prescription or annualized if no duration limit was documented. Cost of PADR review was calculated based on the total time pharmacists and pharmacy technicians documented for each step of the review process for a representative sample of 100 nonapproved PADRs and then multiplied by the salary plus benefits of an entry-level pharmacist and pharmacy technician.¹⁶ The eAppendix  describes specific equations used for determining direct cost savings. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate study results.

Results

During the 6-month study period, 611 CC PADRs were submitted to the pharmacy and 526 met inclusion criteria (Figure 1). Of those, 243 (46.2%) were approved and 283 (53.8%) were not approved. The cost of requested therapies for nonapproved CC PADRs totaled $584,565.48 and the cost of all recommended therapies was $57,473.59. The mean time per CC PADR was 24 minutes; 16 minutes for pharmacists and 8 minutes for pharmacy technicians. Given an hourly wage (plus benefits) of $67.25 for a pharmacist and $25.53 for a pharmacy technician, the total cost of review per CC PADR was $21.33. After subtracting the costs of all recommended therapies and review of all included CC PADRs, the process generated $515,872.31 in direct cost savings. After factoring in administrative lag time, such as HCP communication, an average of 8 calendar days was needed to complete a nonapproved PADR.

The most common rationale for PADR nonapproval was that the formulary alternative was not exhausted. Ondansetron orally disintegrating tablets was the most commonly nonapproved medication and azelastine was the most commonly approved medication. Dulaglutide was the most expensive nonapproved and tafamidis was the most expensive approved PADR (Table 1). Gastroenterology, endocrinology, and neurology were the top specialties for nonapproved PADRs while neurology, pulmonology, and endocrinology were the top specialties for approved PADRs (Table 2).

Several high-complexity VA facilities had no reported data; we used the median for the analysis to account for these outliers (Figure 2). The median (IQR) adjudicated CC PADRs for all facilities was 97 (20-175), median (IQR) CC PADR approval rate was 80.9% (63.7%-96.8%), median (IQR) total CC prescriptions was 8440 (2464-14,466), and median (IQR) cost per fill was $136.05 ($76.27-$221.28).

Discussion

This study demonstrated direct cost savings of $515,872.31 over 6 months with theadjudication of CC PADRs by a centralized CC pharmacy team. This could result in > $1,000,000 of cost savings per fiscal year.

The CC PADRs observed at DVAHCS had a 46.2% approval rate; almost one-half the approval rate of 84.1% of all PADRs submitted to the study site by VA HCPs captured by Britt and colleagues.¹³ Results from this study showed that coordination of care for nonapproved CC PADRs between the VA pharmacy and non-VA prescriber took an average of 8 calendar days. The noted CC PADR approval rate and administrative burden might be because of lack of familiarity of non-VA providers regarding the VA national formulary. The National VA Pharmacy Benefits Management determines the formulary using cost-effectiveness criteria that considers the medical literature and VA-specific contract pricing and prepares extensive guidance for restricted medications via relevant criteria for use.¹⁵ HCPs outside the VA might not know this information is available online. Because gastroenterology, endocrinology, and neurology specialty medications were among the most frequently nonapproved PADRs, VA formulary education could begin with CC HCPs in these practice areas.

This study showed that the CC PADR process was not solely driven by cost, but also included patient safety. Nonapproval rationale for some requests included submission without an indication, submission by a prescriber that did not have the authority to prescribe a type of medication, or contraindication based on patient-specific factors.

Limitations

CC PADRs were assessed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which might have resulted in lower-than-normal CC prescription and PADR volumes, therefore underestimating the potential for direct cost savings. Entry-level salary was used to demonstrate cost savings potential from the perspective of a newly hired CC team; however, the cost savings might have been less if the actual salaries of site personnel were higher. National contract pricing data were gathered at the time of data collection and might have been different than at the time of PADR submission. Chronic medication prescriptions were annualized, which could overestimate cost savings if the medication was discontinued or changed to an alternative therapy within that time period.

The study’s exclusion criteria could only be applied locally and did not include data received from the VA CC prescription database. This can be seen by the discrepancy in CC PADR approval rates from the local and national data (46.2% vs 44.2%, respectively) and CC PADR volume. High-complexity VA facility data were captured without assessing the CC prescription process at each site. As a result, definitive conclusions cannot be made regarding the impact of a centralized CC pharmacy team compared with other facilities.

Conclusions

Adjudication of CC PADRs by a centralized CC pharmacy team over a 6-month period provided > $500,000 in direct cost savings to a VA health care system. Considering the CC PADR approval rate seen in this study, the VA could allocate resources to educate CC providers about the VA formulary to increase the PADR approval rate and reduce administrative burden for VA pharmacies and prescribers. Future research should evaluate CC prescription handling practices at other VA facilities to compare the effectiveness among varying approaches and develop recommendations for a nationally standardized process.

Acknowledgments

Concept and design (AJJ, JNB, RBB, LAM, MD, MGH); acquisition of data (AJJ, MGH); analysis and interpretation of data (AJJ, JNB, RBB, LAM, MD, MGH); drafting of the manuscript (AJJ); critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content (AJJ, JNB, RBB, LAM, MD, MGH); statistical analysis (AJJ); administrative, technical, or logistic support (LAM, MGH); and supervision (MGH).

Veterans’ access to medical care was expanded outside of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities with the inception of the 2014 Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act (Choice Act).¹ This legislation aimed to remove barriers some veterans were experiencing, specifically access to health care. In subsequent years, approximately 17% of veterans receiving care from the VA did so under the Choice Act.² The Choice Act positively impacted medical care access for veterans but presented new challenges for VA pharmacies processing community care (CC) prescriptions, including limited access to outside health records, lack of interface between CC prescribers and the VA order entry system, and limited awareness of the VA national formulary.^3,4 These factors made it difficult for VA pharmacies to assess prescriptions for clinical appropriateness, evaluate patient safety parameters, and manage expenditures.

In 2019, the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act, which expanded CC support and better defined which veterans are able to receive care outside the VA, updated the Choice Act.^4,5 However, VA pharmacies faced challenges in managing pharmacy drug costs and ensuring clinical appropriateness of prescription drug therapy. As a result, VA pharmacy departments have adjusted how they allocate workload, time, and funds.⁵

Pharmacists improve clinical outcomes and reduce health care costs by decreasing medication errors, unnecessary prescribing, and adverse drug events.^6-12 Pharmacist-driven formulary management through evaluation of prior authorization drug requests (PADRs) has shown economic value.^13,14 VA pharmacy review of community care PADRs is important because outside health care professionals (HCPs) might not be familiar with the VA formulary. This could lead to high volume of PADRs that do not meet criteria and could result in increased potential for medication misuse, adverse drug events, medication errors, and cost to the health system. It is imperative that CC orders are evaluated as critically as traditional orders.

The value of a centralized CC pharmacy team has not been assessed in the literature. The primary objective of this study was to assess the direct cost savings achieved through a centralized CC PADR process. Secondary objectives were to characterize the CC PADRs submitted to the site, including approval rate, reason for nonapproval, which medications were requested and by whom, and to compare CC prescriptions with other high-complexity (1a) VA facilities.

Community Care Pharmacy

VA health systems are stratified according to complexity, which reflects size, patient population, and services offered. This study was conducted at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System (DVAHCS), North Carolina, a high-complexity, 251-bed, tertiary care referral, teaching, and research system. DVAHCS provides general and specialty medical, surgical, inpatient psychiatric, and ambulatory services, and serves as a major referral center.

DVAHCS created a centralized pharmacy team for processing CC prescriptions and managing customer service. This team’s goal is to increase CC prescription processing efficiency and transparency, ensure accountability of the health care team, and promote veteran-centric customer service. The pharmacy team includes a pharmacist program manager and a dedicated CC pharmacist with administrative support from a health benefits assistant and 4 pharmacy technicians. The CC pharmacy team assesses every new prescription to ensure the veteran is authorized to receive care in the community. Once eligibility is verified, a pharmacy technician or pharmacist evaluates the prescription to ensure it contains all required information, then contacts the prescriber for any missing data. If clinically appropriate, the pharmacist processes the prescription.

In 2020, the CC pharmacy team implemented a new process for reviewing and documenting CC prescriptions that require a PADR. The closed national VA formulary is set up so that all nonformulary medications and some formulary medications, including those that are restricted because of safety and/or cost, require a PADR.¹⁵ After a CC pharmacy technician confirms a veteran’s eligibility, the technician assesses whether the requested medication requires submitting a PADR to the VA internal electronic health record. The PADR is then adjudicated by a formulary management pharmacist, CC program manager, or CC pharmacist who reviews health records to determine whether the CC prescription meets VA medication use policy requirements.

If additional information is needed or an alternate medication is suggested, the pharmacist comments back on the PADR and a CC pharmacy technician contacts the prescriber. The PADR is canceled administratively then resubmitted once all information is obtained. While waiting for a response from the prescriber, the CC pharmacy technician contacts that veteran to give an update on the prescription status, as appropriate. Once there is sufficient information to adjudicate the PADR, the outcome is documented, and if approved, the order is processed.

Methods

The DVAHCS Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective review of CC PADRs submitted from June 1, 2020, through November 30, 2020. CC PADRs were excluded if they were duplicates or were reactivated administratively but had an initial submission date before the study period. Local data were collected for nonapproved CC PADRs including drug requested, dosage and directions, medication specialty, alternative drug recommended, drug acquisition cost, PADR submission date, PADR completion date, PADR nonapproval rationale, and documented time spent per PADR. Additional data was obtained for CC prescriptions at all 42 high-complexity VA facilities from the VA national CC prescription database for the study time interval and included total PADRs, PADR approval status, total CC prescription cost, and total CC fills.

Direct cost savings were calculated by assessing the cost of requested therapy that was not approved minus the cost of recommended therapy and cost to review all PADRs, as described by Britt and colleagues.¹³ The cost of the requested and recommended therapy was calculated based on VA drug acquisition cost at time of data collection and multiplied by the expected duration of therapy up to 1 year. For each CC prescription, duration of therapy was based on the duration limit in the prescription or annualized if no duration limit was documented. Cost of PADR review was calculated based on the total time pharmacists and pharmacy technicians documented for each step of the review process for a representative sample of 100 nonapproved PADRs and then multiplied by the salary plus benefits of an entry-level pharmacist and pharmacy technician.¹⁶ The eAppendix  describes specific equations used for determining direct cost savings. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate study results.

Results

During the 6-month study period, 611 CC PADRs were submitted to the pharmacy and 526 met inclusion criteria (Figure 1). Of those, 243 (46.2%) were approved and 283 (53.8%) were not approved. The cost of requested therapies for nonapproved CC PADRs totaled $584,565.48 and the cost of all recommended therapies was $57,473.59. The mean time per CC PADR was 24 minutes; 16 minutes for pharmacists and 8 minutes for pharmacy technicians. Given an hourly wage (plus benefits) of $67.25 for a pharmacist and $25.53 for a pharmacy technician, the total cost of review per CC PADR was $21.33. After subtracting the costs of all recommended therapies and review of all included CC PADRs, the process generated $515,872.31 in direct cost savings. After factoring in administrative lag time, such as HCP communication, an average of 8 calendar days was needed to complete a nonapproved PADR.

The most common rationale for PADR nonapproval was that the formulary alternative was not exhausted. Ondansetron orally disintegrating tablets was the most commonly nonapproved medication and azelastine was the most commonly approved medication. Dulaglutide was the most expensive nonapproved and tafamidis was the most expensive approved PADR (Table 1). Gastroenterology, endocrinology, and neurology were the top specialties for nonapproved PADRs while neurology, pulmonology, and endocrinology were the top specialties for approved PADRs (Table 2).

Several high-complexity VA facilities had no reported data; we used the median for the analysis to account for these outliers (Figure 2). The median (IQR) adjudicated CC PADRs for all facilities was 97 (20-175), median (IQR) CC PADR approval rate was 80.9% (63.7%-96.8%), median (IQR) total CC prescriptions was 8440 (2464-14,466), and median (IQR) cost per fill was $136.05 ($76.27-$221.28).

Discussion

This study demonstrated direct cost savings of $515,872.31 over 6 months with theadjudication of CC PADRs by a centralized CC pharmacy team. This could result in > $1,000,000 of cost savings per fiscal year.

The CC PADRs observed at DVAHCS had a 46.2% approval rate; almost one-half the approval rate of 84.1% of all PADRs submitted to the study site by VA HCPs captured by Britt and colleagues.¹³ Results from this study showed that coordination of care for nonapproved CC PADRs between the VA pharmacy and non-VA prescriber took an average of 8 calendar days. The noted CC PADR approval rate and administrative burden might be because of lack of familiarity of non-VA providers regarding the VA national formulary. The National VA Pharmacy Benefits Management determines the formulary using cost-effectiveness criteria that considers the medical literature and VA-specific contract pricing and prepares extensive guidance for restricted medications via relevant criteria for use.¹⁵ HCPs outside the VA might not know this information is available online. Because gastroenterology, endocrinology, and neurology specialty medications were among the most frequently nonapproved PADRs, VA formulary education could begin with CC HCPs in these practice areas.

This study showed that the CC PADR process was not solely driven by cost, but also included patient safety. Nonapproval rationale for some requests included submission without an indication, submission by a prescriber that did not have the authority to prescribe a type of medication, or contraindication based on patient-specific factors.

Limitations

CC PADRs were assessed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which might have resulted in lower-than-normal CC prescription and PADR volumes, therefore underestimating the potential for direct cost savings. Entry-level salary was used to demonstrate cost savings potential from the perspective of a newly hired CC team; however, the cost savings might have been less if the actual salaries of site personnel were higher. National contract pricing data were gathered at the time of data collection and might have been different than at the time of PADR submission. Chronic medication prescriptions were annualized, which could overestimate cost savings if the medication was discontinued or changed to an alternative therapy within that time period.

The study’s exclusion criteria could only be applied locally and did not include data received from the VA CC prescription database. This can be seen by the discrepancy in CC PADR approval rates from the local and national data (46.2% vs 44.2%, respectively) and CC PADR volume. High-complexity VA facility data were captured without assessing the CC prescription process at each site. As a result, definitive conclusions cannot be made regarding the impact of a centralized CC pharmacy team compared with other facilities.

Conclusions

Adjudication of CC PADRs by a centralized CC pharmacy team over a 6-month period provided > $500,000 in direct cost savings to a VA health care system. Considering the CC PADR approval rate seen in this study, the VA could allocate resources to educate CC providers about the VA formulary to increase the PADR approval rate and reduce administrative burden for VA pharmacies and prescribers. Future research should evaluate CC prescription handling practices at other VA facilities to compare the effectiveness among varying approaches and develop recommendations for a nationally standardized process.

Acknowledgments

Concept and design (AJJ, JNB, RBB, LAM, MD, MGH); acquisition of data (AJJ, MGH); analysis and interpretation of data (AJJ, JNB, RBB, LAM, MD, MGH); drafting of the manuscript (AJJ); critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content (AJJ, JNB, RBB, LAM, MD, MGH); statistical analysis (AJJ); administrative, technical, or logistic support (LAM, MGH); and supervision (MGH).

Veterans’ access to medical care was expanded outside of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities with the inception of the 2014 Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act (Choice Act).¹ This legislation aimed to remove barriers some veterans were experiencing, specifically access to health care. In subsequent years, approximately 17% of veterans receiving care from the VA did so under the Choice Act.² The Choice Act positively impacted medical care access for veterans but presented new challenges for VA pharmacies processing community care (CC) prescriptions, including limited access to outside health records, lack of interface between CC prescribers and the VA order entry system, and limited awareness of the VA national formulary.^3,4 These factors made it difficult for VA pharmacies to assess prescriptions for clinical appropriateness, evaluate patient safety parameters, and manage expenditures.

In 2019, the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act, which expanded CC support and better defined which veterans are able to receive care outside the VA, updated the Choice Act.^4,5 However, VA pharmacies faced challenges in managing pharmacy drug costs and ensuring clinical appropriateness of prescription drug therapy. As a result, VA pharmacy departments have adjusted how they allocate workload, time, and funds.⁵

Pharmacists improve clinical outcomes and reduce health care costs by decreasing medication errors, unnecessary prescribing, and adverse drug events.^6-12 Pharmacist-driven formulary management through evaluation of prior authorization drug requests (PADRs) has shown economic value.^13,14 VA pharmacy review of community care PADRs is important because outside health care professionals (HCPs) might not be familiar with the VA formulary. This could lead to high volume of PADRs that do not meet criteria and could result in increased potential for medication misuse, adverse drug events, medication errors, and cost to the health system. It is imperative that CC orders are evaluated as critically as traditional orders.

The value of a centralized CC pharmacy team has not been assessed in the literature. The primary objective of this study was to assess the direct cost savings achieved through a centralized CC PADR process. Secondary objectives were to characterize the CC PADRs submitted to the site, including approval rate, reason for nonapproval, which medications were requested and by whom, and to compare CC prescriptions with other high-complexity (1a) VA facilities.

Community Care Pharmacy

VA health systems are stratified according to complexity, which reflects size, patient population, and services offered. This study was conducted at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System (DVAHCS), North Carolina, a high-complexity, 251-bed, tertiary care referral, teaching, and research system. DVAHCS provides general and specialty medical, surgical, inpatient psychiatric, and ambulatory services, and serves as a major referral center.

DVAHCS created a centralized pharmacy team for processing CC prescriptions and managing customer service. This team’s goal is to increase CC prescription processing efficiency and transparency, ensure accountability of the health care team, and promote veteran-centric customer service. The pharmacy team includes a pharmacist program manager and a dedicated CC pharmacist with administrative support from a health benefits assistant and 4 pharmacy technicians. The CC pharmacy team assesses every new prescription to ensure the veteran is authorized to receive care in the community. Once eligibility is verified, a pharmacy technician or pharmacist evaluates the prescription to ensure it contains all required information, then contacts the prescriber for any missing data. If clinically appropriate, the pharmacist processes the prescription.

In 2020, the CC pharmacy team implemented a new process for reviewing and documenting CC prescriptions that require a PADR. The closed national VA formulary is set up so that all nonformulary medications and some formulary medications, including those that are restricted because of safety and/or cost, require a PADR.¹⁵ After a CC pharmacy technician confirms a veteran’s eligibility, the technician assesses whether the requested medication requires submitting a PADR to the VA internal electronic health record. The PADR is then adjudicated by a formulary management pharmacist, CC program manager, or CC pharmacist who reviews health records to determine whether the CC prescription meets VA medication use policy requirements.

If additional information is needed or an alternate medication is suggested, the pharmacist comments back on the PADR and a CC pharmacy technician contacts the prescriber. The PADR is canceled administratively then resubmitted once all information is obtained. While waiting for a response from the prescriber, the CC pharmacy technician contacts that veteran to give an update on the prescription status, as appropriate. Once there is sufficient information to adjudicate the PADR, the outcome is documented, and if approved, the order is processed.

Methods

The DVAHCS Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective review of CC PADRs submitted from June 1, 2020, through November 30, 2020. CC PADRs were excluded if they were duplicates or were reactivated administratively but had an initial submission date before the study period. Local data were collected for nonapproved CC PADRs including drug requested, dosage and directions, medication specialty, alternative drug recommended, drug acquisition cost, PADR submission date, PADR completion date, PADR nonapproval rationale, and documented time spent per PADR. Additional data was obtained for CC prescriptions at all 42 high-complexity VA facilities from the VA national CC prescription database for the study time interval and included total PADRs, PADR approval status, total CC prescription cost, and total CC fills.

Direct cost savings were calculated by assessing the cost of requested therapy that was not approved minus the cost of recommended therapy and cost to review all PADRs, as described by Britt and colleagues.¹³ The cost of the requested and recommended therapy was calculated based on VA drug acquisition cost at time of data collection and multiplied by the expected duration of therapy up to 1 year. For each CC prescription, duration of therapy was based on the duration limit in the prescription or annualized if no duration limit was documented. Cost of PADR review was calculated based on the total time pharmacists and pharmacy technicians documented for each step of the review process for a representative sample of 100 nonapproved PADRs and then multiplied by the salary plus benefits of an entry-level pharmacist and pharmacy technician.¹⁶ The eAppendix  describes specific equations used for determining direct cost savings. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate study results.

Results

During the 6-month study period, 611 CC PADRs were submitted to the pharmacy and 526 met inclusion criteria (Figure 1). Of those, 243 (46.2%) were approved and 283 (53.8%) were not approved. The cost of requested therapies for nonapproved CC PADRs totaled $584,565.48 and the cost of all recommended therapies was $57,473.59. The mean time per CC PADR was 24 minutes; 16 minutes for pharmacists and 8 minutes for pharmacy technicians. Given an hourly wage (plus benefits) of $67.25 for a pharmacist and $25.53 for a pharmacy technician, the total cost of review per CC PADR was $21.33. After subtracting the costs of all recommended therapies and review of all included CC PADRs, the process generated $515,872.31 in direct cost savings. After factoring in administrative lag time, such as HCP communication, an average of 8 calendar days was needed to complete a nonapproved PADR.

The most common rationale for PADR nonapproval was that the formulary alternative was not exhausted. Ondansetron orally disintegrating tablets was the most commonly nonapproved medication and azelastine was the most commonly approved medication. Dulaglutide was the most expensive nonapproved and tafamidis was the most expensive approved PADR (Table 1). Gastroenterology, endocrinology, and neurology were the top specialties for nonapproved PADRs while neurology, pulmonology, and endocrinology were the top specialties for approved PADRs (Table 2).

Several high-complexity VA facilities had no reported data; we used the median for the analysis to account for these outliers (Figure 2). The median (IQR) adjudicated CC PADRs for all facilities was 97 (20-175), median (IQR) CC PADR approval rate was 80.9% (63.7%-96.8%), median (IQR) total CC prescriptions was 8440 (2464-14,466), and median (IQR) cost per fill was $136.05 ($76.27-$221.28).

Discussion

This study demonstrated direct cost savings of $515,872.31 over 6 months with theadjudication of CC PADRs by a centralized CC pharmacy team. This could result in > $1,000,000 of cost savings per fiscal year.

The CC PADRs observed at DVAHCS had a 46.2% approval rate; almost one-half the approval rate of 84.1% of all PADRs submitted to the study site by VA HCPs captured by Britt and colleagues.¹³ Results from this study showed that coordination of care for nonapproved CC PADRs between the VA pharmacy and non-VA prescriber took an average of 8 calendar days. The noted CC PADR approval rate and administrative burden might be because of lack of familiarity of non-VA providers regarding the VA national formulary. The National VA Pharmacy Benefits Management determines the formulary using cost-effectiveness criteria that considers the medical literature and VA-specific contract pricing and prepares extensive guidance for restricted medications via relevant criteria for use.¹⁵ HCPs outside the VA might not know this information is available online. Because gastroenterology, endocrinology, and neurology specialty medications were among the most frequently nonapproved PADRs, VA formulary education could begin with CC HCPs in these practice areas.

This study showed that the CC PADR process was not solely driven by cost, but also included patient safety. Nonapproval rationale for some requests included submission without an indication, submission by a prescriber that did not have the authority to prescribe a type of medication, or contraindication based on patient-specific factors.

Limitations

CC PADRs were assessed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which might have resulted in lower-than-normal CC prescription and PADR volumes, therefore underestimating the potential for direct cost savings. Entry-level salary was used to demonstrate cost savings potential from the perspective of a newly hired CC team; however, the cost savings might have been less if the actual salaries of site personnel were higher. National contract pricing data were gathered at the time of data collection and might have been different than at the time of PADR submission. Chronic medication prescriptions were annualized, which could overestimate cost savings if the medication was discontinued or changed to an alternative therapy within that time period.

The study’s exclusion criteria could only be applied locally and did not include data received from the VA CC prescription database. This can be seen by the discrepancy in CC PADR approval rates from the local and national data (46.2% vs 44.2%, respectively) and CC PADR volume. High-complexity VA facility data were captured without assessing the CC prescription process at each site. As a result, definitive conclusions cannot be made regarding the impact of a centralized CC pharmacy team compared with other facilities.

Conclusions

Adjudication of CC PADRs by a centralized CC pharmacy team over a 6-month period provided > $500,000 in direct cost savings to a VA health care system. Considering the CC PADR approval rate seen in this study, the VA could allocate resources to educate CC providers about the VA formulary to increase the PADR approval rate and reduce administrative burden for VA pharmacies and prescribers. Future research should evaluate CC prescription handling practices at other VA facilities to compare the effectiveness among varying approaches and develop recommendations for a nationally standardized process.

Acknowledgments

Concept and design (AJJ, JNB, RBB, LAM, MD, MGH); acquisition of data (AJJ, MGH); analysis and interpretation of data (AJJ, JNB, RBB, LAM, MD, MGH); drafting of the manuscript (AJJ); critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content (AJJ, JNB, RBB, LAM, MD, MGH); statistical analysis (AJJ); administrative, technical, or logistic support (LAM, MGH); and supervision (MGH).

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS), also called drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, is a potentially fatal drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction that is characterized by a cutaneous eruption, multiorgan involvement, viral reactivation, and hematologic abnormalities. As the nomenclature of this disease advances, consensus groups have adopted DIHS/DRESS to underscore that both names refer to the same clinical phenomenon.¹ Autoimmune sequelae have been reported after DIHS/DRESS that include vitiligo, thyroid disease, and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). We present a case of lamotrigine-associated DIHS/DRESS complicated by an unusually prolonged course requiring oral corticosteroids and narrow-band ultraviolet B (UVB) treatment and with development of extensive alopecia areata and autoimmune thyroiditis.

Case Presentation

A 35-year-old female Filipino patient was prescribed lamotrigine 25 mg daily for bipolar II disorder and titrated to 100 mg twice daily after 1 month. One week after the increase, the patient developed a diffuse morbilliform rash covering their entire body along with facial swelling and generalized pruritus. Lamotrigine was discontinued after lamotrigine allergy was diagnosed. The patient improved following a 9-day oral prednisone taper and was placed on oxcarbazepine 300 mg twice daily to manage their bipolar disorder. One day after completing the taper, the patient presented again with worsening rash, swelling, and cervical lymphadenopathy. Oxcarbazepine was discontinued, and oral prednisone 60 mg was reinstituted for an additional 11 days.

Dermatology evaluated the patient 10 days after completion of the second oral steroid taper (1 month after cessation of lamotrigine). The patient had erythroderma along with malaise, fevers, chills, and fatigue and a diffuse burning sensation (Figure 1). The patient was hypotensive and tachycardic with significant eosinophilia (42%; reference range, 0%-8%), transaminitis, and renal insufficiency. The patient was diagnosed with DIHS/DRESS based on their clinical presentation and calculated RegiSCAR score of 7 (score > 5 corresponds with definite DIHS/DRESS and points were given for fever, enlarged lymph nodes, eosinophilia ≥ 20%, skin rash extending > 50% of their body, edema and scaling, and 2 organs involved).² A punch biopsy was confirmatory (Figure 2A).³ The patient was started on prednisone 80 mg once daily along with topical fluocinonide 0.05% ointment. However, the patient’s clinical status deteriorated, requiring hospital admission for heart failure evaluation. The echocardiogram revealed hyperdynamic circulation but was otherwise unremarkable.

Four months after DIHS/DRESS resolution and cessation of steroids, the patient noted significant patches of smooth alopecia on their posterior scalp and was diagnosed with alopecia areata. Treatment with intralesional triamcinolone over 2 months resulted in regrowth of hair (Figure 3). A month later, the patient reported increasing fatigue and anorexia. The patient was evaluated once more for AI, this time with low morning cortisol and low adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) levels—consistent with AI secondary to prolonged glucocorticoid therapy. The patient also was concomitantly evaluated for hypothyroidism with significantly elevated thyroperoxidase antibodies—confirming the diagnosis of Hashimoto thyroiditis.

Discussion

DIHS/DRESS syndrome is a rare, but potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity to a medication, often beginning 2 to 6 weeks after exposure to the causative agent. The incidence of DIHS/DRESS in the general population is about 2 per 100,000.³ Our patient presented with DIHS/DRESS 33 days after starting lamotrigine, which corresponds with the published mean onset of anticonvulsant-induced DIHS/DRESS (29.7-33.3 days).⁴ Recent evidence shows that time from drug exposure to DIHS/DRESS symptoms may vary by drug class, with antibiotics implicated as precipitating DIHS/DRESS in < 15 days.³ The diagnosis of DIHS/DRESS may be complicated for many reasons. The accompanying rash may be morbilliform, erythroderma, or exfoliative dermatitis with multiple anatomic regions affected.⁵ Systemic involvement with various internal organs occurs in > 90% of cases, with the liver and kidney involved most frequently.⁵ Overall mortality rate may be as high as 10% most commonly due to acute liver failure.⁵ Biopsy may be helpful in the diagnosis but is not always specific.⁵ Diagnostic criteria include RegiSCAR and J-SCAR scores; our patient met criteria for both (Table).⁵ 

The pathogenesis of DIHS/DRESS remains unclear. Proposed mechanisms include genetic predisposition with human leukocyte antigen (HLA) haplotypes, autoimmune with a delayed cell-mediated immune response associated with herpesviruses, and abnormal enzymatic pathways that metabolize medications.² Although no HLA has been identified between lamotrigine and DIHS, HLA-A*02:07 and HLA-B*15:02 have been associated with lamotrigine-induced cutaneous drug reactions in patients of Thai ancestry.⁶ Immunosuppression also is a risk factor, especially when accompanied by a primary or reactivated HHV-6 infection, as seen in our patient.² Additionally, HHV-6 infection may be a common link between DIHS/DRESS and autoimmune thyroiditis but is believed to involve elevated levels of interferon-γ-induced protein-10 (IP-10) that may lead to excessive recruitment of cytotoxic T cells into target tissues.⁷ Elevated levels of IP-10 are seen in many autoimmune conditions, such as autoimmune thyroiditis, Sjögren syndrome, and Graves disease.⁸

Treatment

For management, early recognition and discontinuation of the offending agent is paramount. Systemic corticosteroids are the accepted treatment standard. Symptoms of DIHS/DRESS usually resolve between 3 and 18 weeks, with the mean resolution time at 7 weeks.¹⁰ Our patient developed a prolonged course with persistent eosinophilia for 20 weeks and cutaneous symptoms for 32 weeks—requiring 40 weeks of oral prednisone. The most significant clinical improvement occurred during the 8-week period low-dose nbUVB was used (Figure 4). There also are reports outlining the successful use of intravenous immunoglobulin, cyclosporine, cyclophosphamide, rituximab, or plasma exchange in cases refractory to oral corticosteroids.¹¹

A recent retrospective case control study showed that treatment of DIHS/DRESS with cyclosporine in patients who had a contraindication to steroids resulted in faster resolution of symptoms, shorter treatment durations, and shorter hospitalizations than did those treated with corticosteroids.¹² However, the data are limited by a significantly smaller number of patients treated with cyclosporine than steroids and the cyclosporine treatment group having milder cases of DIHS/DRESS.¹²

The risk of AI is increased for patients who have taken > 20 mg of prednisone daily ≥ 3 weeks, an evening dose ≥ 5 mg for a few weeks, or have a Cushingoid appearance.¹³ Patients may not regain full adrenal function for 12 to 18 months.¹⁴ Our patient had a normal basal serum cortisol level 2 weeks after prednisone cessation and then presented 5 months later with AI. While the reason for this period of normality is unclear, it may partly be due to the variable length of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis recovery time. Thus, ACTH stimulation tests in addition to serum cortisol may be done in patients with suspected AI for higher diagnostic certainty.¹⁰

Conclusions

DIHS/DRESS is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction that may require a prolonged treatment course until symptom resolution (40 weeks of oral prednisone in our patient). Oral corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment, but long-term use is associated with significant adverse effects, such as AI in our patient. Alternative therapies, such as cyclosporine, look promising, but further studies are needed to determine safety profile and efficacy.¹² Additionally, patients with DIHS/DRESS should be educated and followed for potential autoimmune sequelae; in our patient alopecia areata and autoimmune thyroiditis were late sequelae, occurring 14 and 15 months, respectively, after onset of DIHS/DRESS.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS), also called drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, is a potentially fatal drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction that is characterized by a cutaneous eruption, multiorgan involvement, viral reactivation, and hematologic abnormalities. As the nomenclature of this disease advances, consensus groups have adopted DIHS/DRESS to underscore that both names refer to the same clinical phenomenon.¹ Autoimmune sequelae have been reported after DIHS/DRESS that include vitiligo, thyroid disease, and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). We present a case of lamotrigine-associated DIHS/DRESS complicated by an unusually prolonged course requiring oral corticosteroids and narrow-band ultraviolet B (UVB) treatment and with development of extensive alopecia areata and autoimmune thyroiditis.

Case Presentation

A 35-year-old female Filipino patient was prescribed lamotrigine 25 mg daily for bipolar II disorder and titrated to 100 mg twice daily after 1 month. One week after the increase, the patient developed a diffuse morbilliform rash covering their entire body along with facial swelling and generalized pruritus. Lamotrigine was discontinued after lamotrigine allergy was diagnosed. The patient improved following a 9-day oral prednisone taper and was placed on oxcarbazepine 300 mg twice daily to manage their bipolar disorder. One day after completing the taper, the patient presented again with worsening rash, swelling, and cervical lymphadenopathy. Oxcarbazepine was discontinued, and oral prednisone 60 mg was reinstituted for an additional 11 days.

Dermatology evaluated the patient 10 days after completion of the second oral steroid taper (1 month after cessation of lamotrigine). The patient had erythroderma along with malaise, fevers, chills, and fatigue and a diffuse burning sensation (Figure 1). The patient was hypotensive and tachycardic with significant eosinophilia (42%; reference range, 0%-8%), transaminitis, and renal insufficiency. The patient was diagnosed with DIHS/DRESS based on their clinical presentation and calculated RegiSCAR score of 7 (score > 5 corresponds with definite DIHS/DRESS and points were given for fever, enlarged lymph nodes, eosinophilia ≥ 20%, skin rash extending > 50% of their body, edema and scaling, and 2 organs involved).² A punch biopsy was confirmatory (Figure 2A).³ The patient was started on prednisone 80 mg once daily along with topical fluocinonide 0.05% ointment. However, the patient’s clinical status deteriorated, requiring hospital admission for heart failure evaluation. The echocardiogram revealed hyperdynamic circulation but was otherwise unremarkable.

Four months after DIHS/DRESS resolution and cessation of steroids, the patient noted significant patches of smooth alopecia on their posterior scalp and was diagnosed with alopecia areata. Treatment with intralesional triamcinolone over 2 months resulted in regrowth of hair (Figure 3). A month later, the patient reported increasing fatigue and anorexia. The patient was evaluated once more for AI, this time with low morning cortisol and low adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) levels—consistent with AI secondary to prolonged glucocorticoid therapy. The patient also was concomitantly evaluated for hypothyroidism with significantly elevated thyroperoxidase antibodies—confirming the diagnosis of Hashimoto thyroiditis.

Discussion

DIHS/DRESS syndrome is a rare, but potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity to a medication, often beginning 2 to 6 weeks after exposure to the causative agent. The incidence of DIHS/DRESS in the general population is about 2 per 100,000.³ Our patient presented with DIHS/DRESS 33 days after starting lamotrigine, which corresponds with the published mean onset of anticonvulsant-induced DIHS/DRESS (29.7-33.3 days).⁴ Recent evidence shows that time from drug exposure to DIHS/DRESS symptoms may vary by drug class, with antibiotics implicated as precipitating DIHS/DRESS in < 15 days.³ The diagnosis of DIHS/DRESS may be complicated for many reasons. The accompanying rash may be morbilliform, erythroderma, or exfoliative dermatitis with multiple anatomic regions affected.⁵ Systemic involvement with various internal organs occurs in > 90% of cases, with the liver and kidney involved most frequently.⁵ Overall mortality rate may be as high as 10% most commonly due to acute liver failure.⁵ Biopsy may be helpful in the diagnosis but is not always specific.⁵ Diagnostic criteria include RegiSCAR and J-SCAR scores; our patient met criteria for both (Table).⁵ 

The pathogenesis of DIHS/DRESS remains unclear. Proposed mechanisms include genetic predisposition with human leukocyte antigen (HLA) haplotypes, autoimmune with a delayed cell-mediated immune response associated with herpesviruses, and abnormal enzymatic pathways that metabolize medications.² Although no HLA has been identified between lamotrigine and DIHS, HLA-A*02:07 and HLA-B*15:02 have been associated with lamotrigine-induced cutaneous drug reactions in patients of Thai ancestry.⁶ Immunosuppression also is a risk factor, especially when accompanied by a primary or reactivated HHV-6 infection, as seen in our patient.² Additionally, HHV-6 infection may be a common link between DIHS/DRESS and autoimmune thyroiditis but is believed to involve elevated levels of interferon-γ-induced protein-10 (IP-10) that may lead to excessive recruitment of cytotoxic T cells into target tissues.⁷ Elevated levels of IP-10 are seen in many autoimmune conditions, such as autoimmune thyroiditis, Sjögren syndrome, and Graves disease.⁸

Treatment

For management, early recognition and discontinuation of the offending agent is paramount. Systemic corticosteroids are the accepted treatment standard. Symptoms of DIHS/DRESS usually resolve between 3 and 18 weeks, with the mean resolution time at 7 weeks.¹⁰ Our patient developed a prolonged course with persistent eosinophilia for 20 weeks and cutaneous symptoms for 32 weeks—requiring 40 weeks of oral prednisone. The most significant clinical improvement occurred during the 8-week period low-dose nbUVB was used (Figure 4). There also are reports outlining the successful use of intravenous immunoglobulin, cyclosporine, cyclophosphamide, rituximab, or plasma exchange in cases refractory to oral corticosteroids.¹¹

A recent retrospective case control study showed that treatment of DIHS/DRESS with cyclosporine in patients who had a contraindication to steroids resulted in faster resolution of symptoms, shorter treatment durations, and shorter hospitalizations than did those treated with corticosteroids.¹² However, the data are limited by a significantly smaller number of patients treated with cyclosporine than steroids and the cyclosporine treatment group having milder cases of DIHS/DRESS.¹²

The risk of AI is increased for patients who have taken > 20 mg of prednisone daily ≥ 3 weeks, an evening dose ≥ 5 mg for a few weeks, or have a Cushingoid appearance.¹³ Patients may not regain full adrenal function for 12 to 18 months.¹⁴ Our patient had a normal basal serum cortisol level 2 weeks after prednisone cessation and then presented 5 months later with AI. While the reason for this period of normality is unclear, it may partly be due to the variable length of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis recovery time. Thus, ACTH stimulation tests in addition to serum cortisol may be done in patients with suspected AI for higher diagnostic certainty.¹⁰

Conclusions

DIHS/DRESS is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction that may require a prolonged treatment course until symptom resolution (40 weeks of oral prednisone in our patient). Oral corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment, but long-term use is associated with significant adverse effects, such as AI in our patient. Alternative therapies, such as cyclosporine, look promising, but further studies are needed to determine safety profile and efficacy.¹² Additionally, patients with DIHS/DRESS should be educated and followed for potential autoimmune sequelae; in our patient alopecia areata and autoimmune thyroiditis were late sequelae, occurring 14 and 15 months, respectively, after onset of DIHS/DRESS.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS), also called drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, is a potentially fatal drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction that is characterized by a cutaneous eruption, multiorgan involvement, viral reactivation, and hematologic abnormalities. As the nomenclature of this disease advances, consensus groups have adopted DIHS/DRESS to underscore that both names refer to the same clinical phenomenon.¹ Autoimmune sequelae have been reported after DIHS/DRESS that include vitiligo, thyroid disease, and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). We present a case of lamotrigine-associated DIHS/DRESS complicated by an unusually prolonged course requiring oral corticosteroids and narrow-band ultraviolet B (UVB) treatment and with development of extensive alopecia areata and autoimmune thyroiditis.

Case Presentation

A 35-year-old female Filipino patient was prescribed lamotrigine 25 mg daily for bipolar II disorder and titrated to 100 mg twice daily after 1 month. One week after the increase, the patient developed a diffuse morbilliform rash covering their entire body along with facial swelling and generalized pruritus. Lamotrigine was discontinued after lamotrigine allergy was diagnosed. The patient improved following a 9-day oral prednisone taper and was placed on oxcarbazepine 300 mg twice daily to manage their bipolar disorder. One day after completing the taper, the patient presented again with worsening rash, swelling, and cervical lymphadenopathy. Oxcarbazepine was discontinued, and oral prednisone 60 mg was reinstituted for an additional 11 days.

Dermatology evaluated the patient 10 days after completion of the second oral steroid taper (1 month after cessation of lamotrigine). The patient had erythroderma along with malaise, fevers, chills, and fatigue and a diffuse burning sensation (Figure 1). The patient was hypotensive and tachycardic with significant eosinophilia (42%; reference range, 0%-8%), transaminitis, and renal insufficiency. The patient was diagnosed with DIHS/DRESS based on their clinical presentation and calculated RegiSCAR score of 7 (score > 5 corresponds with definite DIHS/DRESS and points were given for fever, enlarged lymph nodes, eosinophilia ≥ 20%, skin rash extending > 50% of their body, edema and scaling, and 2 organs involved).² A punch biopsy was confirmatory (Figure 2A).³ The patient was started on prednisone 80 mg once daily along with topical fluocinonide 0.05% ointment. However, the patient’s clinical status deteriorated, requiring hospital admission for heart failure evaluation. The echocardiogram revealed hyperdynamic circulation but was otherwise unremarkable.

Four months after DIHS/DRESS resolution and cessation of steroids, the patient noted significant patches of smooth alopecia on their posterior scalp and was diagnosed with alopecia areata. Treatment with intralesional triamcinolone over 2 months resulted in regrowth of hair (Figure 3). A month later, the patient reported increasing fatigue and anorexia. The patient was evaluated once more for AI, this time with low morning cortisol and low adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) levels—consistent with AI secondary to prolonged glucocorticoid therapy. The patient also was concomitantly evaluated for hypothyroidism with significantly elevated thyroperoxidase antibodies—confirming the diagnosis of Hashimoto thyroiditis.

Discussion

DIHS/DRESS syndrome is a rare, but potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity to a medication, often beginning 2 to 6 weeks after exposure to the causative agent. The incidence of DIHS/DRESS in the general population is about 2 per 100,000.³ Our patient presented with DIHS/DRESS 33 days after starting lamotrigine, which corresponds with the published mean onset of anticonvulsant-induced DIHS/DRESS (29.7-33.3 days).⁴ Recent evidence shows that time from drug exposure to DIHS/DRESS symptoms may vary by drug class, with antibiotics implicated as precipitating DIHS/DRESS in < 15 days.³ The diagnosis of DIHS/DRESS may be complicated for many reasons. The accompanying rash may be morbilliform, erythroderma, or exfoliative dermatitis with multiple anatomic regions affected.⁵ Systemic involvement with various internal organs occurs in > 90% of cases, with the liver and kidney involved most frequently.⁵ Overall mortality rate may be as high as 10% most commonly due to acute liver failure.⁵ Biopsy may be helpful in the diagnosis but is not always specific.⁵ Diagnostic criteria include RegiSCAR and J-SCAR scores; our patient met criteria for both (Table).⁵ 

The pathogenesis of DIHS/DRESS remains unclear. Proposed mechanisms include genetic predisposition with human leukocyte antigen (HLA) haplotypes, autoimmune with a delayed cell-mediated immune response associated with herpesviruses, and abnormal enzymatic pathways that metabolize medications.² Although no HLA has been identified between lamotrigine and DIHS, HLA-A*02:07 and HLA-B*15:02 have been associated with lamotrigine-induced cutaneous drug reactions in patients of Thai ancestry.⁶ Immunosuppression also is a risk factor, especially when accompanied by a primary or reactivated HHV-6 infection, as seen in our patient.² Additionally, HHV-6 infection may be a common link between DIHS/DRESS and autoimmune thyroiditis but is believed to involve elevated levels of interferon-γ-induced protein-10 (IP-10) that may lead to excessive recruitment of cytotoxic T cells into target tissues.⁷ Elevated levels of IP-10 are seen in many autoimmune conditions, such as autoimmune thyroiditis, Sjögren syndrome, and Graves disease.⁸

Treatment

For management, early recognition and discontinuation of the offending agent is paramount. Systemic corticosteroids are the accepted treatment standard. Symptoms of DIHS/DRESS usually resolve between 3 and 18 weeks, with the mean resolution time at 7 weeks.¹⁰ Our patient developed a prolonged course with persistent eosinophilia for 20 weeks and cutaneous symptoms for 32 weeks—requiring 40 weeks of oral prednisone. The most significant clinical improvement occurred during the 8-week period low-dose nbUVB was used (Figure 4). There also are reports outlining the successful use of intravenous immunoglobulin, cyclosporine, cyclophosphamide, rituximab, or plasma exchange in cases refractory to oral corticosteroids.¹¹

A recent retrospective case control study showed that treatment of DIHS/DRESS with cyclosporine in patients who had a contraindication to steroids resulted in faster resolution of symptoms, shorter treatment durations, and shorter hospitalizations than did those treated with corticosteroids.¹² However, the data are limited by a significantly smaller number of patients treated with cyclosporine than steroids and the cyclosporine treatment group having milder cases of DIHS/DRESS.¹²

The risk of AI is increased for patients who have taken > 20 mg of prednisone daily ≥ 3 weeks, an evening dose ≥ 5 mg for a few weeks, or have a Cushingoid appearance.¹³ Patients may not regain full adrenal function for 12 to 18 months.¹⁴ Our patient had a normal basal serum cortisol level 2 weeks after prednisone cessation and then presented 5 months later with AI. While the reason for this period of normality is unclear, it may partly be due to the variable length of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis recovery time. Thus, ACTH stimulation tests in addition to serum cortisol may be done in patients with suspected AI for higher diagnostic certainty.¹⁰

Conclusions

DIHS/DRESS is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction that may require a prolonged treatment course until symptom resolution (40 weeks of oral prednisone in our patient). Oral corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment, but long-term use is associated with significant adverse effects, such as AI in our patient. Alternative therapies, such as cyclosporine, look promising, but further studies are needed to determine safety profile and efficacy.¹² Additionally, patients with DIHS/DRESS should be educated and followed for potential autoimmune sequelae; in our patient alopecia areata and autoimmune thyroiditis were late sequelae, occurring 14 and 15 months, respectively, after onset of DIHS/DRESS.

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022