Federal Practitioner

Micro-ultrasound–guided biopsies were found for the first time to be “noninferior” to MRI-guided procedures, according to new research presented at the 2025 annual congress of the European Association of Urology.

The OPTIMUM study found 4.5% more clinically significant cancers among men who underwent micro-ultrasound–guided biopsies of the prostate than in those scanned using MRI.

“The take-home message is that men being worked up for an elevated PSA [prostate-specific antigen] or an abnormal digital rectal examination who are at increased risk of prostate cancer may safely undergo a micro-ultrasound–guided biopsy rather than an MRI-guided biopsy,” said Adam Kinnaird, MD, PhD, the Frank and Carla Sojonky Chair in Prostate Cancer Research at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and principal investigator of the study.

Micro-ultrasound can image to as small as 70 μm, ie, the width of a human hair.

OPTIMUM was an international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial in 20 centers in eight countries of men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer, elevated PSAs, abnormal digital rectal exams, or a combination of these risk factors. None of the men previously had undergone biopsies.

The study had three arms to which men were assigned randomly: Micro-ultrasound–guided biopsy (n = 121); biopsies guided by micro-ultrasound and fusion MRI (n = 226), and MRI plus conventional ultrasound–guided biopsy (n = 331).

Subjects had a median age of 65 years and a median PSA level of 6.9 ng/mL; 83% self-identified as White individuals.

“Micro-ultrasound was found to be no worse than MRI at the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. We don’t show it is equivalent. We don’t show it better. We show it is not worse,” Kinnaird said.

The study, funded by Exact Imaging, which makes the ExactVu micro-ultrasound platform, appeared simultaneously in JAMA.

Laurence Klotz, MD, the Sunnybrook Chair of Prostate Cancer Research at the University of Toronto Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and senior researcher on the OPTIMUM trial, said as the incidence of prostate cancer rises globally, micro-ultrasound may be of particular value in low-income and middle-income countries where MRI is not widely available. 

“It’s extremely appealing in places that can’t offer MRI to everyone, but I think it also will have a role going forward in regions where there is no problem about getting access to MRI,” Klotz told Medscape Medical News.

This group is next studying the financial aspects of the technology, he added.

Gerald Andriole, MD, then urology chief at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, designed the original studies of the ExactVu system, which the US Food and Drug Administration approved in 2017.

Andriole, now chief medical officer of Prostatype Genomics, said MRIs are costly, subjective, and uncomfortable for many patients, due to claustrophobia and obesity, requiring complicated co-registration procedures to perform an accurate targeted biopsy into the most worrisome regions of the prostate. “Proceeding directly to a micro-ultrasound study avoids these impediments to discovering whether the patient has clinically significant cancer,” he said.

Micro-ultrasound testing involves a single visit to a urologist whereas MRI requires two trips for the patient — one to the urologist and the other to a radiologist, Klotz said. “It’s one-stop shopping,” he said. “So, the patient has his micro-ultrasound. If there’s a target found, he then does the targeted biopsy.”

Klotz said micro-ultrasound helps patients avoid the expense and health risks of gadolinium in contrast with MRIs.

“I don’t think micro-ultrasound is going to replace MRIs,” he said. “I think they’re somewhat complementary. You get cases where they’re visible on MRI and not visible on micro-ultrasound and vice versa.”

The researchers received a grant from Exact Imaging. 

A version of this article appeared at Medscape.com.

Howard Wolinsky is a Chicago-based freelance writer.

Micro-ultrasound–guided biopsies were found for the first time to be “noninferior” to MRI-guided procedures, according to new research presented at the 2025 annual congress of the European Association of Urology.

The OPTIMUM study found 4.5% more clinically significant cancers among men who underwent micro-ultrasound–guided biopsies of the prostate than in those scanned using MRI.

“The take-home message is that men being worked up for an elevated PSA [prostate-specific antigen] or an abnormal digital rectal examination who are at increased risk of prostate cancer may safely undergo a micro-ultrasound–guided biopsy rather than an MRI-guided biopsy,” said Adam Kinnaird, MD, PhD, the Frank and Carla Sojonky Chair in Prostate Cancer Research at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and principal investigator of the study.

Micro-ultrasound can image to as small as 70 μm, ie, the width of a human hair.

OPTIMUM was an international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial in 20 centers in eight countries of men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer, elevated PSAs, abnormal digital rectal exams, or a combination of these risk factors. None of the men previously had undergone biopsies.

The study had three arms to which men were assigned randomly: Micro-ultrasound–guided biopsy (n = 121); biopsies guided by micro-ultrasound and fusion MRI (n = 226), and MRI plus conventional ultrasound–guided biopsy (n = 331).

Subjects had a median age of 65 years and a median PSA level of 6.9 ng/mL; 83% self-identified as White individuals.

“Micro-ultrasound was found to be no worse than MRI at the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. We don’t show it is equivalent. We don’t show it better. We show it is not worse,” Kinnaird said.

The study, funded by Exact Imaging, which makes the ExactVu micro-ultrasound platform, appeared simultaneously in JAMA.

Laurence Klotz, MD, the Sunnybrook Chair of Prostate Cancer Research at the University of Toronto Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and senior researcher on the OPTIMUM trial, said as the incidence of prostate cancer rises globally, micro-ultrasound may be of particular value in low-income and middle-income countries where MRI is not widely available. 

“It’s extremely appealing in places that can’t offer MRI to everyone, but I think it also will have a role going forward in regions where there is no problem about getting access to MRI,” Klotz told Medscape Medical News.

This group is next studying the financial aspects of the technology, he added.

Gerald Andriole, MD, then urology chief at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, designed the original studies of the ExactVu system, which the US Food and Drug Administration approved in 2017.

Andriole, now chief medical officer of Prostatype Genomics, said MRIs are costly, subjective, and uncomfortable for many patients, due to claustrophobia and obesity, requiring complicated co-registration procedures to perform an accurate targeted biopsy into the most worrisome regions of the prostate. “Proceeding directly to a micro-ultrasound study avoids these impediments to discovering whether the patient has clinically significant cancer,” he said.

Micro-ultrasound testing involves a single visit to a urologist whereas MRI requires two trips for the patient — one to the urologist and the other to a radiologist, Klotz said. “It’s one-stop shopping,” he said. “So, the patient has his micro-ultrasound. If there’s a target found, he then does the targeted biopsy.”

Klotz said micro-ultrasound helps patients avoid the expense and health risks of gadolinium in contrast with MRIs.

“I don’t think micro-ultrasound is going to replace MRIs,” he said. “I think they’re somewhat complementary. You get cases where they’re visible on MRI and not visible on micro-ultrasound and vice versa.”

The researchers received a grant from Exact Imaging. 

A version of this article appeared at Medscape.com.

Howard Wolinsky is a Chicago-based freelance writer.

Micro-ultrasound–guided biopsies were found for the first time to be “noninferior” to MRI-guided procedures, according to new research presented at the 2025 annual congress of the European Association of Urology.

The OPTIMUM study found 4.5% more clinically significant cancers among men who underwent micro-ultrasound–guided biopsies of the prostate than in those scanned using MRI.

“The take-home message is that men being worked up for an elevated PSA [prostate-specific antigen] or an abnormal digital rectal examination who are at increased risk of prostate cancer may safely undergo a micro-ultrasound–guided biopsy rather than an MRI-guided biopsy,” said Adam Kinnaird, MD, PhD, the Frank and Carla Sojonky Chair in Prostate Cancer Research at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and principal investigator of the study.

Micro-ultrasound can image to as small as 70 μm, ie, the width of a human hair.

OPTIMUM was an international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial in 20 centers in eight countries of men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer, elevated PSAs, abnormal digital rectal exams, or a combination of these risk factors. None of the men previously had undergone biopsies.

The study had three arms to which men were assigned randomly: Micro-ultrasound–guided biopsy (n = 121); biopsies guided by micro-ultrasound and fusion MRI (n = 226), and MRI plus conventional ultrasound–guided biopsy (n = 331).

Subjects had a median age of 65 years and a median PSA level of 6.9 ng/mL; 83% self-identified as White individuals.

“Micro-ultrasound was found to be no worse than MRI at the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. We don’t show it is equivalent. We don’t show it better. We show it is not worse,” Kinnaird said.

The study, funded by Exact Imaging, which makes the ExactVu micro-ultrasound platform, appeared simultaneously in JAMA.

Laurence Klotz, MD, the Sunnybrook Chair of Prostate Cancer Research at the University of Toronto Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and senior researcher on the OPTIMUM trial, said as the incidence of prostate cancer rises globally, micro-ultrasound may be of particular value in low-income and middle-income countries where MRI is not widely available. 

“It’s extremely appealing in places that can’t offer MRI to everyone, but I think it also will have a role going forward in regions where there is no problem about getting access to MRI,” Klotz told Medscape Medical News.

This group is next studying the financial aspects of the technology, he added.

Gerald Andriole, MD, then urology chief at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, designed the original studies of the ExactVu system, which the US Food and Drug Administration approved in 2017.

Andriole, now chief medical officer of Prostatype Genomics, said MRIs are costly, subjective, and uncomfortable for many patients, due to claustrophobia and obesity, requiring complicated co-registration procedures to perform an accurate targeted biopsy into the most worrisome regions of the prostate. “Proceeding directly to a micro-ultrasound study avoids these impediments to discovering whether the patient has clinically significant cancer,” he said.

Micro-ultrasound testing involves a single visit to a urologist whereas MRI requires two trips for the patient — one to the urologist and the other to a radiologist, Klotz said. “It’s one-stop shopping,” he said. “So, the patient has his micro-ultrasound. If there’s a target found, he then does the targeted biopsy.”

Klotz said micro-ultrasound helps patients avoid the expense and health risks of gadolinium in contrast with MRIs.

“I don’t think micro-ultrasound is going to replace MRIs,” he said. “I think they’re somewhat complementary. You get cases where they’re visible on MRI and not visible on micro-ultrasound and vice versa.”

The researchers received a grant from Exact Imaging. 

A version of this article appeared at Medscape.com.

Howard Wolinsky is a Chicago-based freelance writer.

BOSTON — Solid intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) is associated with significantly worse outcomes compared with conventional Gleason grade 5 prostate cancers and is more commonly present in metastatic than nonmetastatic cancers, according to two studies presented this week at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) 2025 Annual Meeting.

“Our findings suggest that solid IDC-P is more aggressive than Gleason grade 5 conventional prostate adenocarcinoma or cribriform IDC-P,” and it may therefore be better not to consider it as a grade 5 pattern, said first author of one of the studies, Hangchuan Shi, MD, PhD, of the University of Rochester Medical Center, in Rochester, New York.

Although IDC-P — reported in about 20% of men with prostate cancer — is known to be associated with poorer response to treatment, there is a debate over whether to grade the entity with Gleason scoring or not.

The International Society of Urological Pathology recommends incorporating IDC-P into the Gleason score, while the Genitourinary Pathology Society does not.

To evaluate the prognostic significance of solid IDC-P compared with Gleason grade 5 conventional prostate cancer, Shi and his colleagues identified 115 cases in the surgical pathology database at the University of Rochester Medical Center between 2008 and 2015 involving Gleason grade 5 conventional prostatic adenocarcinoma as a primary, secondary, or tertiary pattern, as well as cribriform IDC-P.

The researchers excluded cases showing comedonecrosis within IDC-P, due to the potential for worse outcomes.

Of the grade 5 conventional prostate cancer cases with cribriform carcinoma, 28 (24.3%) had solid nest pattern IDC-P. Patients with and without solid IDC-P had a matching mean age of about 64 years, and their mean preoperative PSA was about 12.27 ng/mL.

Adjuvant therapy prior to recurrence was significantly more common in those who had solid IDC-P (60.7% vs 34.5%; P = .016).

Compared with the conventional prostate cancer cases, those with solid IDC-P had a significantly higher incidence of lymph node metastasis (P = .014) and had larger estimated tumor volume (P = .011).

There were no significant differences in other clinicopathologic features, such as preoperative prostate-specific antigen, grade group, pT stage, and surgical margin status.

After adjustment for key factors in a multivariable analysis, solid IDC-P was significantly associated with poorer recurrence-free survival (P = .007), and poorer cancer-specific survival (P = .004).

Finally, solid IDC-P was an independent predictor of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 1.960; P = .031), whereas other measures, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA), cancer grade, pT, lymph node metastasis, surgical and tumor volume were not significant factors.

“We found the solid IDC-P patients had almost two-times the risk of recurrence compared with the patients without solid IDC-P in our study,” Shi said.

The findings underscore the importance of accurately identifying IDC-P, senior author Hiroshi Miyamoto, MD, PhD, director of Genitourinary Pathology at School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, told Medscape Medical News.

“It may be difficult for some pathologists, especially those who have no specific training in genitourinary pathology, to adequately recognize” this form of cancer, he said.

Although it is recognized as an aggressive form of prostate cancer, “based on our studies, we believe that it is inadequate to grade IDC-P” as a Gleason grade 5 cancer, Miyamoto added.

IDC More Common in Metastases 

Poorer outcomes associated with IDC-P were further described in a post hoc sub-analysis of the phase 3, prospective PATRON clinical trial that is evaluating prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET-CT–guided intensification of therapy.

In the multicenter trial, 825 patients were stratified into three cohorts: High-risk patients receiving radiation therapy (45%), high-risk patients receiving salvage radiation therapy post-radical prostatectomy (47%), and those receiving a radical prostatectomy (8%).

The patients in all three cohorts were randomized 1:1 to receive imaging with or without PSMA PET-CT.

IDC-P and/or cribriform carcinoma were present among 342 patients in the PSMA PET-CT group including 48% of high-risk patients receiving radiotherapy, 42% of high-risk patients receiving salvage radiation therapy post-radical prostatectomy, and 40% of those receiving a radical prostatectomy.

IDC-P was reported in 64% of cases with metastases detected by PSMA PET-CT compared with just 36% of cases without metastasis (P = .008), with the ratios being similar in each individual patient cohort.

Of note, the association between the presence of IDC-P and metastases was not observed when IDC-P and cribriform carcinoma were combined — IDC-P and/or cribriform carcinoma was detected in 54% of cases with PSMA PET-CT–detectable metastasis and in 46% of cases without metastasis (P = .362).

The first author Dominique Trudel, MD, PhD, of the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, said the findings add to understanding of IDC-P’s relationship with poorer outcomes.

“As pathologists, we know that IDC is associated with poor outcomes and that men with IDC who are treated with standard therapies do benefit from them, but they never benefit as much as men without IDC,” she told Medscape Medical News.

As the study is ongoing, “in approximately 4-5 years, we will know how much of a difference IDC-P makes in outcomes after treatment,” Trudel noted.

The take-home message from the collective research should be that “IDC-P matters,” she said.

“I think that if your patient has IDC-P and [cribriform carcinoma], it is worth at least asking someone from an academic center to see what the treatment options are. We know that some radiation oncologists are increasing doses for IDC-P. It is empiric, but they’re doing it,” she explained.

The authors had no disclosures to report.

The article first appeared in Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Solid intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) is associated with significantly worse outcomes compared with conventional Gleason grade 5 prostate cancers and is more commonly present in metastatic than nonmetastatic cancers, according to two studies presented this week at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) 2025 Annual Meeting.

“Our findings suggest that solid IDC-P is more aggressive than Gleason grade 5 conventional prostate adenocarcinoma or cribriform IDC-P,” and it may therefore be better not to consider it as a grade 5 pattern, said first author of one of the studies, Hangchuan Shi, MD, PhD, of the University of Rochester Medical Center, in Rochester, New York.

Although IDC-P — reported in about 20% of men with prostate cancer — is known to be associated with poorer response to treatment, there is a debate over whether to grade the entity with Gleason scoring or not.

The International Society of Urological Pathology recommends incorporating IDC-P into the Gleason score, while the Genitourinary Pathology Society does not.

To evaluate the prognostic significance of solid IDC-P compared with Gleason grade 5 conventional prostate cancer, Shi and his colleagues identified 115 cases in the surgical pathology database at the University of Rochester Medical Center between 2008 and 2015 involving Gleason grade 5 conventional prostatic adenocarcinoma as a primary, secondary, or tertiary pattern, as well as cribriform IDC-P.

The researchers excluded cases showing comedonecrosis within IDC-P, due to the potential for worse outcomes.

Of the grade 5 conventional prostate cancer cases with cribriform carcinoma, 28 (24.3%) had solid nest pattern IDC-P. Patients with and without solid IDC-P had a matching mean age of about 64 years, and their mean preoperative PSA was about 12.27 ng/mL.

Adjuvant therapy prior to recurrence was significantly more common in those who had solid IDC-P (60.7% vs 34.5%; P = .016).

Compared with the conventional prostate cancer cases, those with solid IDC-P had a significantly higher incidence of lymph node metastasis (P = .014) and had larger estimated tumor volume (P = .011).

There were no significant differences in other clinicopathologic features, such as preoperative prostate-specific antigen, grade group, pT stage, and surgical margin status.

After adjustment for key factors in a multivariable analysis, solid IDC-P was significantly associated with poorer recurrence-free survival (P = .007), and poorer cancer-specific survival (P = .004).

Finally, solid IDC-P was an independent predictor of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 1.960; P = .031), whereas other measures, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA), cancer grade, pT, lymph node metastasis, surgical and tumor volume were not significant factors.

“We found the solid IDC-P patients had almost two-times the risk of recurrence compared with the patients without solid IDC-P in our study,” Shi said.

The findings underscore the importance of accurately identifying IDC-P, senior author Hiroshi Miyamoto, MD, PhD, director of Genitourinary Pathology at School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, told Medscape Medical News.

“It may be difficult for some pathologists, especially those who have no specific training in genitourinary pathology, to adequately recognize” this form of cancer, he said.

Although it is recognized as an aggressive form of prostate cancer, “based on our studies, we believe that it is inadequate to grade IDC-P” as a Gleason grade 5 cancer, Miyamoto added.

IDC More Common in Metastases 

Poorer outcomes associated with IDC-P were further described in a post hoc sub-analysis of the phase 3, prospective PATRON clinical trial that is evaluating prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET-CT–guided intensification of therapy.

In the multicenter trial, 825 patients were stratified into three cohorts: High-risk patients receiving radiation therapy (45%), high-risk patients receiving salvage radiation therapy post-radical prostatectomy (47%), and those receiving a radical prostatectomy (8%).

The patients in all three cohorts were randomized 1:1 to receive imaging with or without PSMA PET-CT.

IDC-P and/or cribriform carcinoma were present among 342 patients in the PSMA PET-CT group including 48% of high-risk patients receiving radiotherapy, 42% of high-risk patients receiving salvage radiation therapy post-radical prostatectomy, and 40% of those receiving a radical prostatectomy.

IDC-P was reported in 64% of cases with metastases detected by PSMA PET-CT compared with just 36% of cases without metastasis (P = .008), with the ratios being similar in each individual patient cohort.

Of note, the association between the presence of IDC-P and metastases was not observed when IDC-P and cribriform carcinoma were combined — IDC-P and/or cribriform carcinoma was detected in 54% of cases with PSMA PET-CT–detectable metastasis and in 46% of cases without metastasis (P = .362).

The first author Dominique Trudel, MD, PhD, of the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, said the findings add to understanding of IDC-P’s relationship with poorer outcomes.

“As pathologists, we know that IDC is associated with poor outcomes and that men with IDC who are treated with standard therapies do benefit from them, but they never benefit as much as men without IDC,” she told Medscape Medical News.

As the study is ongoing, “in approximately 4-5 years, we will know how much of a difference IDC-P makes in outcomes after treatment,” Trudel noted.

The take-home message from the collective research should be that “IDC-P matters,” she said.

“I think that if your patient has IDC-P and [cribriform carcinoma], it is worth at least asking someone from an academic center to see what the treatment options are. We know that some radiation oncologists are increasing doses for IDC-P. It is empiric, but they’re doing it,” she explained.

The authors had no disclosures to report.

The article first appeared in Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Solid intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) is associated with significantly worse outcomes compared with conventional Gleason grade 5 prostate cancers and is more commonly present in metastatic than nonmetastatic cancers, according to two studies presented this week at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) 2025 Annual Meeting.

“Our findings suggest that solid IDC-P is more aggressive than Gleason grade 5 conventional prostate adenocarcinoma or cribriform IDC-P,” and it may therefore be better not to consider it as a grade 5 pattern, said first author of one of the studies, Hangchuan Shi, MD, PhD, of the University of Rochester Medical Center, in Rochester, New York.

Although IDC-P — reported in about 20% of men with prostate cancer — is known to be associated with poorer response to treatment, there is a debate over whether to grade the entity with Gleason scoring or not.

The International Society of Urological Pathology recommends incorporating IDC-P into the Gleason score, while the Genitourinary Pathology Society does not.

To evaluate the prognostic significance of solid IDC-P compared with Gleason grade 5 conventional prostate cancer, Shi and his colleagues identified 115 cases in the surgical pathology database at the University of Rochester Medical Center between 2008 and 2015 involving Gleason grade 5 conventional prostatic adenocarcinoma as a primary, secondary, or tertiary pattern, as well as cribriform IDC-P.

The researchers excluded cases showing comedonecrosis within IDC-P, due to the potential for worse outcomes.

Of the grade 5 conventional prostate cancer cases with cribriform carcinoma, 28 (24.3%) had solid nest pattern IDC-P. Patients with and without solid IDC-P had a matching mean age of about 64 years, and their mean preoperative PSA was about 12.27 ng/mL.

Adjuvant therapy prior to recurrence was significantly more common in those who had solid IDC-P (60.7% vs 34.5%; P = .016).

Compared with the conventional prostate cancer cases, those with solid IDC-P had a significantly higher incidence of lymph node metastasis (P = .014) and had larger estimated tumor volume (P = .011).

There were no significant differences in other clinicopathologic features, such as preoperative prostate-specific antigen, grade group, pT stage, and surgical margin status.

After adjustment for key factors in a multivariable analysis, solid IDC-P was significantly associated with poorer recurrence-free survival (P = .007), and poorer cancer-specific survival (P = .004).

Finally, solid IDC-P was an independent predictor of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 1.960; P = .031), whereas other measures, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA), cancer grade, pT, lymph node metastasis, surgical and tumor volume were not significant factors.

“We found the solid IDC-P patients had almost two-times the risk of recurrence compared with the patients without solid IDC-P in our study,” Shi said.

The findings underscore the importance of accurately identifying IDC-P, senior author Hiroshi Miyamoto, MD, PhD, director of Genitourinary Pathology at School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, told Medscape Medical News.

“It may be difficult for some pathologists, especially those who have no specific training in genitourinary pathology, to adequately recognize” this form of cancer, he said.

Although it is recognized as an aggressive form of prostate cancer, “based on our studies, we believe that it is inadequate to grade IDC-P” as a Gleason grade 5 cancer, Miyamoto added.

IDC More Common in Metastases 

Poorer outcomes associated with IDC-P were further described in a post hoc sub-analysis of the phase 3, prospective PATRON clinical trial that is evaluating prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET-CT–guided intensification of therapy.

In the multicenter trial, 825 patients were stratified into three cohorts: High-risk patients receiving radiation therapy (45%), high-risk patients receiving salvage radiation therapy post-radical prostatectomy (47%), and those receiving a radical prostatectomy (8%).

The patients in all three cohorts were randomized 1:1 to receive imaging with or without PSMA PET-CT.

IDC-P and/or cribriform carcinoma were present among 342 patients in the PSMA PET-CT group including 48% of high-risk patients receiving radiotherapy, 42% of high-risk patients receiving salvage radiation therapy post-radical prostatectomy, and 40% of those receiving a radical prostatectomy.

IDC-P was reported in 64% of cases with metastases detected by PSMA PET-CT compared with just 36% of cases without metastasis (P = .008), with the ratios being similar in each individual patient cohort.

Of note, the association between the presence of IDC-P and metastases was not observed when IDC-P and cribriform carcinoma were combined — IDC-P and/or cribriform carcinoma was detected in 54% of cases with PSMA PET-CT–detectable metastasis and in 46% of cases without metastasis (P = .362).

The first author Dominique Trudel, MD, PhD, of the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, said the findings add to understanding of IDC-P’s relationship with poorer outcomes.

“As pathologists, we know that IDC is associated with poor outcomes and that men with IDC who are treated with standard therapies do benefit from them, but they never benefit as much as men without IDC,” she told Medscape Medical News.

As the study is ongoing, “in approximately 4-5 years, we will know how much of a difference IDC-P makes in outcomes after treatment,” Trudel noted.

The take-home message from the collective research should be that “IDC-P matters,” she said.

“I think that if your patient has IDC-P and [cribriform carcinoma], it is worth at least asking someone from an academic center to see what the treatment options are. We know that some radiation oncologists are increasing doses for IDC-P. It is empiric, but they’re doing it,” she explained.

The authors had no disclosures to report.

The article first appeared in Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) — Joey Cortez, who served 24 years in the US Air Force, had been waiting since August to see a mental health specialist from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, when he experienced a fresh jolt of anxiety.

Cortez was fired last month from his human resources job at the agency - one of about 2400 employees who lost their jobs at Veterans’ Affairs (VA) in the first wave of President Donald Trump’s efforts to shrink the federal workforce.

“Once the firings happened and I was terminated, I started having panic attacks to the point where I black out,” Cortez, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, told Reuters. The layoff is also making it harder to maintain his sobriety, as a recovering alcoholic.

“Not a day has gone by since I was fired that I haven’t thought about picking up a bottle,” said Cortez.

After losing his job, Cortez asked the VA to expedite his wait for a therapist and was told there was no record of his request, he said. After a month of calls to the agency, he got an appointment for this August, one year after he started the process. Then the VA offered him an appointment next week because another patient had canceled.

The VA provides health care to 9.31 million US veterans at hundreds of medical centers, clinics, and nursing homes across the country.

It also faces complex problems.

“The VA has bloat. There are redundancies. There are places where we have questioned the administration of care and asked, does it need to be the way it is?” Pat Murray, the legislative director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which represents Americans who have fought overseas, said in an interview.

The Trump administration plans additional cuts to the VA of more than 80,000 personnel, according to an internal memo obtained by Reuters. The agency has also announced it is phasing out telework.

Reuters spoke to nine current and former VA employees in California, Oregon, Texas, and the Washington D.C. area who said the changes were further disrupting some mental health services and fueling anxieties among those who provide and rely on them.

The VA employees — who include six mental health professionals and three people in leadership positions — described cancellations of some in-person and telehealth appointments; confusion over staffing of a crisis hot-line; and professionals conducting telehealth visits in makeshift meeting rooms inside VA buildings.

They spoke on the condition of anonymity, because they were not authorized to speak with the media.

 

STAFFING SHORTAGES

A former employee at the VA’s Office of Inspector General, who is also a veteran, said any future large-scale staffing cuts would likely worsen shortages and impact the quality of care.

“There’s no way to take a scalpel and do it appropriately that quickly,” he said.

VA spokesperson Peter Kasperowicz told Reuters mental health professionals, such as psychologists and social workers, were not included in February’s staffing cuts, and the agency is working to recruit mental health providers and improve wait times.

He did not specify how many support staff for these providers had been affected.

Last week, two federal judges ordered the VA and other federal agencies to reinstate thousands of fired probationary workers. Cortez’s pay was reinstated but he was told not to return to work.

The Veterans Health Administration, the branch of the VA that provides healthcare, has experienced severe staffing shortages since 2015, especially among mental health professionals, according to an OIG report last year.

Veterans often benefit from specialized services to treat anxiety, trauma, depression and substance abuse. The proportion of veterans receiving mental health services rose to 31% in 2022 from 20% in 2007, according to the VA. Suicide among veterans is twice the rate of Americans overall.

The VFW’s Murray said his organization supports a thorough review of the VA’s mental health services, but it needs to be done carefully, “not with a chainsaw.”

 

‘THE MOOD IS SO LOW’

In recent years, the agency had encouraged remote work to help expand access to telehealth services and reduce wait times, especially in rural areas where recruiting providers is difficult.

The VA’s Kasperowicz said that, while providers will need to return to VA facilities, veterans will be able to access telehealth appointments.

He did not directly address questions about why mental health providers needed to return to the office.

“The VA will make accommodations as needed to ensure employees have enough space to work and will always ensure that Veterans’ access to benefits and services remains uninterrupted as employees return to in-person work,” Kasperowicz said.

In the last few weeks, demand for services among veterans who are VA employees has also risen, one of the mental health professionals, a social worker, told Reuters. A quarter of VA employees are veterans.

The social worker said he is meeting with two to three VA employees a week who are seeking access to mental health care, citing stress and the fear that they will lose their jobs.

“People are calling out sick. People are ill with stress and worry. The mood is so low.”

A mental health supervisor in California described scrambling to cover the caseload of a remote worker who had to cancel appointments with more than a dozen veterans, because she could not access a VA facility.

VA employees in the Washington area and in Oregon said mental health professionals were unsure if they were allowed to answer calls from the VA’s crisis hot-line if they were not physically in an office, because they had been instructed not to conduct work outside of a facility.

“People are nervous to be on-call,” said a supervisor of mental health providers in the Washington area. “The system is under a lot of duress.”

The VA told Reuters that crisis line workers are exempt from the return-to-office policy, and that staff continue to respond quickly to nearly 3000 calls daily.

Therapists returning to the office are struggling to find private meeting rooms at some VA facilities, according to four of the mental health professionals interviewed by Reuters.

They described medical and mental health professionals converting closets and conference rooms into offices to comply with the mandate to conduct telehealth visits from VA facilities. They expressed concerns that the crowded rooms could violate patient privacy rights.

“We are scrambling to find space,” said a provider in California. “Veterans are going without until we can find spaces for these providers.”

Reuters was unable to independently verify the accounts of overcrowding. Kasperowicz said the agency’s “policy is to bring as many employees back to the office as space permits.”

(Reporting by Robin Respaut in San Francisco; additional reporting by Julia Harte in New York and Gabriella Borter in D.C.; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Suzanne Goldenberg)

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) — Joey Cortez, who served 24 years in the US Air Force, had been waiting since August to see a mental health specialist from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, when he experienced a fresh jolt of anxiety.

Cortez was fired last month from his human resources job at the agency - one of about 2400 employees who lost their jobs at Veterans’ Affairs (VA) in the first wave of President Donald Trump’s efforts to shrink the federal workforce.

“Once the firings happened and I was terminated, I started having panic attacks to the point where I black out,” Cortez, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, told Reuters. The layoff is also making it harder to maintain his sobriety, as a recovering alcoholic.

“Not a day has gone by since I was fired that I haven’t thought about picking up a bottle,” said Cortez.

After losing his job, Cortez asked the VA to expedite his wait for a therapist and was told there was no record of his request, he said. After a month of calls to the agency, he got an appointment for this August, one year after he started the process. Then the VA offered him an appointment next week because another patient had canceled.

The VA provides health care to 9.31 million US veterans at hundreds of medical centers, clinics, and nursing homes across the country.

It also faces complex problems.

“The VA has bloat. There are redundancies. There are places where we have questioned the administration of care and asked, does it need to be the way it is?” Pat Murray, the legislative director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which represents Americans who have fought overseas, said in an interview.

The Trump administration plans additional cuts to the VA of more than 80,000 personnel, according to an internal memo obtained by Reuters. The agency has also announced it is phasing out telework.

Reuters spoke to nine current and former VA employees in California, Oregon, Texas, and the Washington D.C. area who said the changes were further disrupting some mental health services and fueling anxieties among those who provide and rely on them.

The VA employees — who include six mental health professionals and three people in leadership positions — described cancellations of some in-person and telehealth appointments; confusion over staffing of a crisis hot-line; and professionals conducting telehealth visits in makeshift meeting rooms inside VA buildings.

They spoke on the condition of anonymity, because they were not authorized to speak with the media.

 

STAFFING SHORTAGES

A former employee at the VA’s Office of Inspector General, who is also a veteran, said any future large-scale staffing cuts would likely worsen shortages and impact the quality of care.

“There’s no way to take a scalpel and do it appropriately that quickly,” he said.

VA spokesperson Peter Kasperowicz told Reuters mental health professionals, such as psychologists and social workers, were not included in February’s staffing cuts, and the agency is working to recruit mental health providers and improve wait times.

He did not specify how many support staff for these providers had been affected.

Last week, two federal judges ordered the VA and other federal agencies to reinstate thousands of fired probationary workers. Cortez’s pay was reinstated but he was told not to return to work.

The Veterans Health Administration, the branch of the VA that provides healthcare, has experienced severe staffing shortages since 2015, especially among mental health professionals, according to an OIG report last year.

Veterans often benefit from specialized services to treat anxiety, trauma, depression and substance abuse. The proportion of veterans receiving mental health services rose to 31% in 2022 from 20% in 2007, according to the VA. Suicide among veterans is twice the rate of Americans overall.

The VFW’s Murray said his organization supports a thorough review of the VA’s mental health services, but it needs to be done carefully, “not with a chainsaw.”

 

‘THE MOOD IS SO LOW’

In recent years, the agency had encouraged remote work to help expand access to telehealth services and reduce wait times, especially in rural areas where recruiting providers is difficult.

The VA’s Kasperowicz said that, while providers will need to return to VA facilities, veterans will be able to access telehealth appointments.

He did not directly address questions about why mental health providers needed to return to the office.

“The VA will make accommodations as needed to ensure employees have enough space to work and will always ensure that Veterans’ access to benefits and services remains uninterrupted as employees return to in-person work,” Kasperowicz said.

In the last few weeks, demand for services among veterans who are VA employees has also risen, one of the mental health professionals, a social worker, told Reuters. A quarter of VA employees are veterans.

The social worker said he is meeting with two to three VA employees a week who are seeking access to mental health care, citing stress and the fear that they will lose their jobs.

“People are calling out sick. People are ill with stress and worry. The mood is so low.”

A mental health supervisor in California described scrambling to cover the caseload of a remote worker who had to cancel appointments with more than a dozen veterans, because she could not access a VA facility.

VA employees in the Washington area and in Oregon said mental health professionals were unsure if they were allowed to answer calls from the VA’s crisis hot-line if they were not physically in an office, because they had been instructed not to conduct work outside of a facility.

“People are nervous to be on-call,” said a supervisor of mental health providers in the Washington area. “The system is under a lot of duress.”

The VA told Reuters that crisis line workers are exempt from the return-to-office policy, and that staff continue to respond quickly to nearly 3000 calls daily.

Therapists returning to the office are struggling to find private meeting rooms at some VA facilities, according to four of the mental health professionals interviewed by Reuters.

They described medical and mental health professionals converting closets and conference rooms into offices to comply with the mandate to conduct telehealth visits from VA facilities. They expressed concerns that the crowded rooms could violate patient privacy rights.

“We are scrambling to find space,” said a provider in California. “Veterans are going without until we can find spaces for these providers.”

Reuters was unable to independently verify the accounts of overcrowding. Kasperowicz said the agency’s “policy is to bring as many employees back to the office as space permits.”

(Reporting by Robin Respaut in San Francisco; additional reporting by Julia Harte in New York and Gabriella Borter in D.C.; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Suzanne Goldenberg)

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) — Joey Cortez, who served 24 years in the US Air Force, had been waiting since August to see a mental health specialist from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, when he experienced a fresh jolt of anxiety.

Cortez was fired last month from his human resources job at the agency - one of about 2400 employees who lost their jobs at Veterans’ Affairs (VA) in the first wave of President Donald Trump’s efforts to shrink the federal workforce.

“Once the firings happened and I was terminated, I started having panic attacks to the point where I black out,” Cortez, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, told Reuters. The layoff is also making it harder to maintain his sobriety, as a recovering alcoholic.

“Not a day has gone by since I was fired that I haven’t thought about picking up a bottle,” said Cortez.

After losing his job, Cortez asked the VA to expedite his wait for a therapist and was told there was no record of his request, he said. After a month of calls to the agency, he got an appointment for this August, one year after he started the process. Then the VA offered him an appointment next week because another patient had canceled.

The VA provides health care to 9.31 million US veterans at hundreds of medical centers, clinics, and nursing homes across the country.

It also faces complex problems.

“The VA has bloat. There are redundancies. There are places where we have questioned the administration of care and asked, does it need to be the way it is?” Pat Murray, the legislative director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which represents Americans who have fought overseas, said in an interview.

The Trump administration plans additional cuts to the VA of more than 80,000 personnel, according to an internal memo obtained by Reuters. The agency has also announced it is phasing out telework.

Reuters spoke to nine current and former VA employees in California, Oregon, Texas, and the Washington D.C. area who said the changes were further disrupting some mental health services and fueling anxieties among those who provide and rely on them.

The VA employees — who include six mental health professionals and three people in leadership positions — described cancellations of some in-person and telehealth appointments; confusion over staffing of a crisis hot-line; and professionals conducting telehealth visits in makeshift meeting rooms inside VA buildings.

They spoke on the condition of anonymity, because they were not authorized to speak with the media.

 

STAFFING SHORTAGES

A former employee at the VA’s Office of Inspector General, who is also a veteran, said any future large-scale staffing cuts would likely worsen shortages and impact the quality of care.

“There’s no way to take a scalpel and do it appropriately that quickly,” he said.

VA spokesperson Peter Kasperowicz told Reuters mental health professionals, such as psychologists and social workers, were not included in February’s staffing cuts, and the agency is working to recruit mental health providers and improve wait times.

He did not specify how many support staff for these providers had been affected.

Last week, two federal judges ordered the VA and other federal agencies to reinstate thousands of fired probationary workers. Cortez’s pay was reinstated but he was told not to return to work.

The Veterans Health Administration, the branch of the VA that provides healthcare, has experienced severe staffing shortages since 2015, especially among mental health professionals, according to an OIG report last year.

Veterans often benefit from specialized services to treat anxiety, trauma, depression and substance abuse. The proportion of veterans receiving mental health services rose to 31% in 2022 from 20% in 2007, according to the VA. Suicide among veterans is twice the rate of Americans overall.

The VFW’s Murray said his organization supports a thorough review of the VA’s mental health services, but it needs to be done carefully, “not with a chainsaw.”

 

‘THE MOOD IS SO LOW’

In recent years, the agency had encouraged remote work to help expand access to telehealth services and reduce wait times, especially in rural areas where recruiting providers is difficult.

The VA’s Kasperowicz said that, while providers will need to return to VA facilities, veterans will be able to access telehealth appointments.

He did not directly address questions about why mental health providers needed to return to the office.

“The VA will make accommodations as needed to ensure employees have enough space to work and will always ensure that Veterans’ access to benefits and services remains uninterrupted as employees return to in-person work,” Kasperowicz said.

In the last few weeks, demand for services among veterans who are VA employees has also risen, one of the mental health professionals, a social worker, told Reuters. A quarter of VA employees are veterans.

The social worker said he is meeting with two to three VA employees a week who are seeking access to mental health care, citing stress and the fear that they will lose their jobs.

“People are calling out sick. People are ill with stress and worry. The mood is so low.”

A mental health supervisor in California described scrambling to cover the caseload of a remote worker who had to cancel appointments with more than a dozen veterans, because she could not access a VA facility.

VA employees in the Washington area and in Oregon said mental health professionals were unsure if they were allowed to answer calls from the VA’s crisis hot-line if they were not physically in an office, because they had been instructed not to conduct work outside of a facility.

“People are nervous to be on-call,” said a supervisor of mental health providers in the Washington area. “The system is under a lot of duress.”

The VA told Reuters that crisis line workers are exempt from the return-to-office policy, and that staff continue to respond quickly to nearly 3000 calls daily.

Therapists returning to the office are struggling to find private meeting rooms at some VA facilities, according to four of the mental health professionals interviewed by Reuters.

They described medical and mental health professionals converting closets and conference rooms into offices to comply with the mandate to conduct telehealth visits from VA facilities. They expressed concerns that the crowded rooms could violate patient privacy rights.

“We are scrambling to find space,” said a provider in California. “Veterans are going without until we can find spaces for these providers.”

Reuters was unable to independently verify the accounts of overcrowding. Kasperowicz said the agency’s “policy is to bring as many employees back to the office as space permits.”

(Reporting by Robin Respaut in San Francisco; additional reporting by Julia Harte in New York and Gabriella Borter in D.C.; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Suzanne Goldenberg)

TOPLINE:

A single dose of the recombinant respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine demonstrates effectiveness against infections and associated hospitalizations in veterans aged 60 years or older during the 2023-2024 respiratory illness season. This protection extends across age groups and immunocompromised individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a target trial emulation study to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of a single dose of recombinant RSV vaccine (RSVPreF3 or RSVpreF) among veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration in the United States between September 1 and December 31, 2023.

• They analyzed 146,852 vaccinated veterans (69.2%, RSVPreF; 29.9%, RSVPreF3) propensity matched with 582,936 unvaccinated ones (median age, ~76 years; ~94% men; immunocompromised individuals, 11.2%) who were followed up for a median of 124 days.

• The primary outcome was any positive RSV test result obtained from day 14 after vaccination.

• The secondary outcomes were RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits, hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vaccine effectiveness against documented RSV infections was 78.1% (95% CI, 72.6-83.5), with incidence rates of infections lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (1.7 vs 7.3 per 1000 person-years).

• Likewise, vaccine effectiveness against RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits was 78.7% (95% CI, 72.2-84.8), with rates of infections lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (1.3 vs 5.7 per 1000 person-years).

• Immunocompromised veterans demonstrated a lower vaccine effectiveness of 71.6% (95% CI, 55.4-85.2); however, infection rates remained lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (5.8 vs 19.9 per 1000 person-years).

• Hospitalizations, ICU admission rates, and mortality rates were also lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results give confidence that an RSV vaccine for older adults is likely to provide protection against RSV infection and RSV disease, at least in the first season following vaccination,” wrote the author of an accompanying comment.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program. It was published online on January 20, 2025, in The Lancet Infectious Diseases (2025 Jan 20. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00796-5)

LIMITATIONS:

This study did not account for veterans who sought care outside of the Veterans Health Administration. While the study employed rigorous matching to ensure the similarity of demographic, geographic, and clinical characteristics, there could still have been residual confounding. Also, the study was not designed to estimate the protective effect of the vaccine against mild RSV illness.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program and funded in part by the US Department of Health and Human Services Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and US Food and Drug Administration. One of the authors reported receiving consulting support from Van-Breemen & Hynes and having a subcontract at Oregon State University for a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute grant. Others reported no conflicts of interest.■

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A single dose of the recombinant respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine demonstrates effectiveness against infections and associated hospitalizations in veterans aged 60 years or older during the 2023-2024 respiratory illness season. This protection extends across age groups and immunocompromised individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a target trial emulation study to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of a single dose of recombinant RSV vaccine (RSVPreF3 or RSVpreF) among veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration in the United States between September 1 and December 31, 2023.

• They analyzed 146,852 vaccinated veterans (69.2%, RSVPreF; 29.9%, RSVPreF3) propensity matched with 582,936 unvaccinated ones (median age, ~76 years; ~94% men; immunocompromised individuals, 11.2%) who were followed up for a median of 124 days.

• The primary outcome was any positive RSV test result obtained from day 14 after vaccination.

• The secondary outcomes were RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits, hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vaccine effectiveness against documented RSV infections was 78.1% (95% CI, 72.6-83.5), with incidence rates of infections lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (1.7 vs 7.3 per 1000 person-years).

• Likewise, vaccine effectiveness against RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits was 78.7% (95% CI, 72.2-84.8), with rates of infections lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (1.3 vs 5.7 per 1000 person-years).

• Immunocompromised veterans demonstrated a lower vaccine effectiveness of 71.6% (95% CI, 55.4-85.2); however, infection rates remained lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (5.8 vs 19.9 per 1000 person-years).

• Hospitalizations, ICU admission rates, and mortality rates were also lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results give confidence that an RSV vaccine for older adults is likely to provide protection against RSV infection and RSV disease, at least in the first season following vaccination,” wrote the author of an accompanying comment.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program. It was published online on January 20, 2025, in The Lancet Infectious Diseases (2025 Jan 20. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00796-5)

LIMITATIONS:

This study did not account for veterans who sought care outside of the Veterans Health Administration. While the study employed rigorous matching to ensure the similarity of demographic, geographic, and clinical characteristics, there could still have been residual confounding. Also, the study was not designed to estimate the protective effect of the vaccine against mild RSV illness.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program and funded in part by the US Department of Health and Human Services Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and US Food and Drug Administration. One of the authors reported receiving consulting support from Van-Breemen & Hynes and having a subcontract at Oregon State University for a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute grant. Others reported no conflicts of interest.■

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A single dose of the recombinant respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine demonstrates effectiveness against infections and associated hospitalizations in veterans aged 60 years or older during the 2023-2024 respiratory illness season. This protection extends across age groups and immunocompromised individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a target trial emulation study to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of a single dose of recombinant RSV vaccine (RSVPreF3 or RSVpreF) among veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration in the United States between September 1 and December 31, 2023.

• They analyzed 146,852 vaccinated veterans (69.2%, RSVPreF; 29.9%, RSVPreF3) propensity matched with 582,936 unvaccinated ones (median age, ~76 years; ~94% men; immunocompromised individuals, 11.2%) who were followed up for a median of 124 days.

• The primary outcome was any positive RSV test result obtained from day 14 after vaccination.

• The secondary outcomes were RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits, hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vaccine effectiveness against documented RSV infections was 78.1% (95% CI, 72.6-83.5), with incidence rates of infections lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (1.7 vs 7.3 per 1000 person-years).

• Likewise, vaccine effectiveness against RSV-associated emergency department or urgent care visits was 78.7% (95% CI, 72.2-84.8), with rates of infections lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (1.3 vs 5.7 per 1000 person-years).

• Immunocompromised veterans demonstrated a lower vaccine effectiveness of 71.6% (95% CI, 55.4-85.2); however, infection rates remained lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (5.8 vs 19.9 per 1000 person-years).

• Hospitalizations, ICU admission rates, and mortality rates were also lower in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results give confidence that an RSV vaccine for older adults is likely to provide protection against RSV infection and RSV disease, at least in the first season following vaccination,” wrote the author of an accompanying comment.

SOURCE:

The study was funded by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program. It was published online on January 20, 2025, in The Lancet Infectious Diseases (2025 Jan 20. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(24)00796-5)

LIMITATIONS:

This study did not account for veterans who sought care outside of the Veterans Health Administration. While the study employed rigorous matching to ensure the similarity of demographic, geographic, and clinical characteristics, there could still have been residual confounding. Also, the study was not designed to estimate the protective effect of the vaccine against mild RSV illness.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program and funded in part by the US Department of Health and Human Services Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and US Food and Drug Administration. One of the authors reported receiving consulting support from Van-Breemen & Hynes and having a subcontract at Oregon State University for a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute grant. Others reported no conflicts of interest.■

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

Electronic health records (EHRs) are an integral part of modern health care. The 2009, Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act established financial incentives for US hospitals to adopt EHRs. In 2009 only 12% of nonfederal acute care hospitals had adopted a certified EHR system, which increased to 96% by 2021.¹

EHRs have transformed the way patient data are stored and accessed, streamlining the process of providing quality patient care with improvements in efficiency, effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and safety.² Despite their widespread adoption and benefits, EHRs have generally been met with mixed physician satisfaction.³ Interactions with EHRs are linked to disproportionate time at the computer and physician burnout.^4-6

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was at the forefront of EHR development, establishing the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) in the 1970s. The VA released the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) in 1997, the first clinical user interface for VistA. In May 2018, the VA signed a $10 billion contract with Cerner (now Oracle Health) to modernize its EHR.⁷ This was later revised to $16.1 billion, and the Institute for Defense Analyses estimates it will cost $49.8 billion.⁸ The transition to Oracle Health has been faced with significant challenges, including patient safety risks and workflow inefficiencies, leading to a pause in rollout.⁹

Due to the known challenges with EHRs and the aging CPRS system (without a scheduled replacement date), innovations that facilitate the synthesis and display of clinical information are needed. To address this gap, the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) developed the Inpatient Dashboard, an online EHR companion tool. The Inpatient Dashboard was designed to draw data from VistA to reduce time spent at the computer by streamlining clinical information presentation, standardizing inpatient notes, improving safety measures, and enhancing overall clinician satisfaction. This study evaluated the adoption and user experience with the Inpatient Dashboard.

INPATIENT DASHBOARD

The Inpatient Dashboard consists of several modules created by a contractor for the VAAAHS that is housed on VA servers with access restricted to individuals with patient health data privileges. As the Inpatient Dashboard draws data from VistA, it can display laboratory information, studies, and notes from all VA sites.

The main dashboard is a snapshot summary of patient information, including patient location, code status, last vital sign readings, vital sign ranges over the previous 24 hours, intake/output, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis, the presence of telemetry orders, or use of Foley or central catheters (Figure). It also includes a customizable to-do list and contact information for the patient’s clinician and nurse. Significant events, such as abnormal vital signs or speciation/sensitivities for blood cultures, are automatically populated on the to-do list. From this main dashboard overview, clinicians can customize which patients are displayed, create and print a rounding list, print a sign-out sheet, or select individual patients to open a progress note module.

Notes can be written in the patient history and physical module, progress note module, and discharge summary module. The patient history and physical module has text blocks allocated to the traditional components of a history and physical note (ie, chief complaint, history of present illness, review of systems, past medical history, family history, social history, allergies, medications, physical examination, assessment, and plan) (eAppendix 1). Some elements, such as past medical history, family history, and social history are prepopulated if the patient was previously admitted. Vital signs, laboratory results, studies, microbiology/ pathology reports, and other CPRS notes are displayed in this module.

The progress note module contains text blocks allocated to the traditional components of a progress note, such as subjective/interval events, physical examination, assessment, and plan (eAppendix 2). Vital signs, laboratory results, studies, microbiology/ pathology reports, other CPRS notes, and the patient’s medication administration record are also displayed in this module. Lastly, the discharge summary module includes patient follow-up, patient instructions, hospitalization summary, medication reconciliation, laboratory results, and studies/procedures, ensuring a comprehensive discharge summary for patients and clinicians (eAppendix 3).

A medication reconciliation tool was embedded within the history and physical and discharge summary modules. This tool has been shown to reduce medication errors in patients admitted from the emergency department to the hospital (eAppendix 4).¹⁰ The handoff/sign-out tool (eAppendix 5) accessible through the main dashboard page is modeled on the I-PASS handoff framework.^11,12 This includes the patient identifier, interval events, inpatient medications, specific sign-out guidance, sign-out tasks/to-dos, and any other pertinent information.

The Inpatient Dashboard is a team-based construct shared by the attending physicians, residents, and medical students. Each team (eg, general medicine, general surgery) is its own entity; only team members can change the content or add to the documentation. Each facility can have multiple teams caring for the same patient (eg, primary and consulting teams). Additional care members can also be incorporated (eg, pharmacists assist with medication reconciliation for admission and discharge at VAAAHS). The Inpatient Dashboard can export information directly to CPRS for clinicians to review and sign. It can also generate a note that can be pasted into CPRS.

Clinician Feedback and Satisfaction

A survey was developed to evaluate clinician experiences with using the Inpatient Dashboard as an adjunct to the CPRS. The Inpatient Dashboard was made available to general medicine teams in November 2018. The survey was conducted from December 2018 to September 2019. The study was conducted at the VAAAHS and included 4 general medicine teams. Each team included an attending physician, a senior resident, 2 to 3 interns, and 3 to 4 medical students. Eligibility was extended to any team member who used both the CPRS and Inpatient Dashboard. Participation in the survey was voluntary. All respondents were informed of the study’s purpose and encouraged to provide candid feedback to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings.

Data were collected through a semistructured survey administered via the Qualtrics platform. The questionnaire was designed to capture multidimensional insights into clinician experience, with particular focus on satisfaction, efficiency, and perceived safety when using the tool as an adjunct to CPRS compared to using CPRS alone. The questionnaire primarily used a Likert scale for responses. Surveys were emailed at the completion of a team’s 1-month inpatient block. An answer was not required for every question, resulting in slightly different response numbers for some questions.

A question regarding the tool’s impact on workload stress was added halfway through the study period, which resulted in fewer responses. Adoption was assessed by counting the Inpatient Dashboard unique users. Descriptive statistics were used within individual survey responses to report the distribution of responses. Differences in response between levels of training were assessed using a X² test of independence.

Survey Results

From September 2023 through November 2023, there were 1549 rounding printouts across 144 unique users (5 nurses, 40 medical students, 87 residents, and 12 attending physicians) and 1468 handoff printouts across 148 unique users (5 nurses, 10 medical students, 111 residents, and 22 attending physicians). The clinician survey received 68 responses from users at various levels of medical training: 23 medical students, 31 interns, 12 senior residents, and 2 attending physicians. All 68 participants confirmed they had used the Inpatient Dashboard.

User satisfaction and preference for the Inpatient Dashboard vs CPRS were assessed. Sixty-one respondents (90%) expressed overall satisfaction with the Inpatient Dashboard; 22 (32%) were extremely satisfied, and 39 (57%) were somewhat satisfied (Table 1). Three respondents (4%) were neutral, 2 (3%) were somewhat dissatisfied, and 2 (3%) were extremely dissatisfied with the Inpatient Dashboard. Responses differed by level of training (P = .03), with medical students trending towards higher satisfaction.

Respondents preferred the Inpatient Dashboard over CPRS for gathering information and writing progress notes; 42 (64%) respondents mostly favored the Inpatient Dashboard, 15 (23%) slightly favored the Inpatient Dashboard over CPRS, and 8 (12%) were neutral. One respondent (2%) slightly favored CPRS to the Inpatient Dashboard (Table 2).

Sixty-five respondents (100%) found the Inpatient Dashboard’s ability to summarize patient information in a central place helpful (Table 3). Among them, 53 (82%) respondents reported it was very or extremely helpful, 10 (15%) respondents reported it was moderately helpful, and 2 (3%) respondents reported it was slightly helpful. This feature positively impacted users’ awareness of patients with DVT prophylaxis or a Foley catheter. Ten (15%) respondents reported being much more aware, and 29 (45%) respondents reporting they were slightly more aware. The remaining 26 (40%) respondents reported no change in awareness.

The Inpatient Dashboard was reported to save time preparing for physician rounds by 52 (80%) respondents, contributing to much greater efficiency for 29 (45%) respondents and slightly more efficiency for 23 (35%) respondents. However, 10 (15%) respondents reported no change in efficiency, and 3 (5%) respondents reduced efficiency, with 1 (2%) respondent reporting it slightly less efficient and 2 (3%) respondents reporting it much less efficient. Responses differed by level of training (P = .01), with medical students trending towards higher efficiency. Of the 23 respondents who reported on the Inpatient Dashboard’s impact on daily workload stress level, 22 (96%) indicated the tool had a stress-reducing effect, with 9 (39%) experiencing a major reduction in stress level, and 13 (57%) experiencing somewhat reduced stress level. Only 1 participant (4%) reported no change in stress. No participants reported an increase in stress.

DISCUSSION

The adoption of EHRs has transformed operational modalities in contemporary health care systems, heralding advancements in patient satisfaction, safety, and overall quality and efficiency of care.^1,2 However, EHRs still present challenges, predominantly around clinician satisfaction, marked by instances of burnout and increased time spent on computers.^2-6 In this context, the Inpatient Dashboard, an online companion to the CPRS, exemplifies how user-centered innovations in EHRs can address and mitigate associated challenges.

The Inpatient Dashboard has been well received with most respondents of the survey conducted in this study indicating they were both satisfied with the instrument and preferring it to CPRS. This high approval aligns with existing literature on the potential advantages of user-centered design in health care technology.¹³ The tool has gained widespread acceptance at the VAAAHS even in the absence of obligatory usage or institutional incentives. The appeal of the Inpatient Dashboard may stem from its increased efficiency, with most users affirming its timesaving nature. While CPRS can only display local notes, laboratory results, and studies, the Inpatient Dashboard can display data from across all VA sites. The VA Joint Longitudinal Viewer can similarly display data from across all sites, but the display is not streamlined as it is in the Inpatient Dashboard. The Inpatient Dashboard incorporates this clinical information into a single page to facilitate day-to-day workflow and dynamic documentation (ie, reviewing laboratory results, medications, writing notes, and signing out patients). This increased efficiency allows clinicians to counter 2 common barriers to EHR implementation: productivity loss and insufficient time.¹⁴

The association between EHRs and improved quality and safety in health care is well-documented.³ The Inpatient Dashboard fortifies this association by enhancing awareness around patient status, evidenced by a majority of respondents, and by integrating a medication reconciliation tool to decrease medication errors on transition from the emergency department to inpatient hospitalization.¹⁰

The Inpatient Dashboard’s impact on alleviating daily workload stress is noteworthy, with almost all respondents experiencing reduced stress levels and physician burnout, which has been linked to deteriorating well-being, compromised patient safety, and escalated health care costs.^15,16 The heightened susceptibility of physicians to burnout compared to other professionals underscores the imperative for incorporating stress-mitigating interventions in the EHR.^17,18

While responses to most questions did not significantly differ by training levels, overall satisfaction with the Inpatient Dashboard and its ability to save time preparing for rounds were rated higher by medical students. This may be attributable to a greater derived benefit from collating and presenting data to learners with less familiarity with the native EHR. It is also notable that the Inpatient Dashboard allows medical students to directly contribute to a patient’s note, which could be another driver in satisfaction. While most interns still felt the Inpatient Dashboard enabled them to save time preparing for rounds, there were a considerable number of ‘no change’ responses, which suggests some interns may not have modified their existing prerounding strategies. These associations are limited by the relatively small number of respondents by learner category, with senior medical residents and attending physicians being underrepresented.

While there are a multitude of dashboards available at the VA, most are made to track certain quality metrics and are used more by administrative and leadership staff. The Inpatient Dashboard was created specifically for frontline clinicians to facilitate their day-to-day workflow and dynamic documentation. This tool can additionally help with quality metrics, though its main purpose was and is to make clinician workflow easier and more efficient.

These results are especially timely because the VA is modernizing its EHR by transitioning to Oracle Health.⁷ Due to the numerous reports both from veterans and VA clinicians that the Oracle Health EHR is not meeting expectations, deployment at further sites has been halted while improving the experience of the 5 institutions using Oracle Health is prioritized.⁹ The Inpatient Dashboard, instead of being merely an enhancement to CPRS, could emerge as a potential bridge to Oracle Health if adapted to display data from Oracle Health as it does VistA. This would facilitate a smoother, more integrated transition for those health care institutions employing the Inpatient Dashboard.

Limitations

The reliance on self-reported data inherently carries the risk of bias, and the absence of objective measures, like time-tracking studies, limits the quantifiable assessment of the Inpatient Dashboard efficacy. The single-center nature of the study also may restrict the generalizability of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal integration of EHRs into health care delivery is critical to high-quality patient care and operational efficiency. The Inpatient Dashboard is an example of an innovative, user-centric solution that integrated and presented clinical information in a way that produced high satisfaction and adoption by users at a VA hospital.

Electronic health records (EHRs) are an integral part of modern health care. The 2009, Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act established financial incentives for US hospitals to adopt EHRs. In 2009 only 12% of nonfederal acute care hospitals had adopted a certified EHR system, which increased to 96% by 2021.¹

EHRs have transformed the way patient data are stored and accessed, streamlining the process of providing quality patient care with improvements in efficiency, effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and safety.² Despite their widespread adoption and benefits, EHRs have generally been met with mixed physician satisfaction.³ Interactions with EHRs are linked to disproportionate time at the computer and physician burnout.^4-6

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was at the forefront of EHR development, establishing the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) in the 1970s. The VA released the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) in 1997, the first clinical user interface for VistA. In May 2018, the VA signed a $10 billion contract with Cerner (now Oracle Health) to modernize its EHR.⁷ This was later revised to $16.1 billion, and the Institute for Defense Analyses estimates it will cost $49.8 billion.⁸ The transition to Oracle Health has been faced with significant challenges, including patient safety risks and workflow inefficiencies, leading to a pause in rollout.⁹

Due to the known challenges with EHRs and the aging CPRS system (without a scheduled replacement date), innovations that facilitate the synthesis and display of clinical information are needed. To address this gap, the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) developed the Inpatient Dashboard, an online EHR companion tool. The Inpatient Dashboard was designed to draw data from VistA to reduce time spent at the computer by streamlining clinical information presentation, standardizing inpatient notes, improving safety measures, and enhancing overall clinician satisfaction. This study evaluated the adoption and user experience with the Inpatient Dashboard.

INPATIENT DASHBOARD

The Inpatient Dashboard consists of several modules created by a contractor for the VAAAHS that is housed on VA servers with access restricted to individuals with patient health data privileges. As the Inpatient Dashboard draws data from VistA, it can display laboratory information, studies, and notes from all VA sites.

The main dashboard is a snapshot summary of patient information, including patient location, code status, last vital sign readings, vital sign ranges over the previous 24 hours, intake/output, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis, the presence of telemetry orders, or use of Foley or central catheters (Figure). It also includes a customizable to-do list and contact information for the patient’s clinician and nurse. Significant events, such as abnormal vital signs or speciation/sensitivities for blood cultures, are automatically populated on the to-do list. From this main dashboard overview, clinicians can customize which patients are displayed, create and print a rounding list, print a sign-out sheet, or select individual patients to open a progress note module.

Notes can be written in the patient history and physical module, progress note module, and discharge summary module. The patient history and physical module has text blocks allocated to the traditional components of a history and physical note (ie, chief complaint, history of present illness, review of systems, past medical history, family history, social history, allergies, medications, physical examination, assessment, and plan) (eAppendix 1). Some elements, such as past medical history, family history, and social history are prepopulated if the patient was previously admitted. Vital signs, laboratory results, studies, microbiology/ pathology reports, and other CPRS notes are displayed in this module.

The progress note module contains text blocks allocated to the traditional components of a progress note, such as subjective/interval events, physical examination, assessment, and plan (eAppendix 2). Vital signs, laboratory results, studies, microbiology/ pathology reports, other CPRS notes, and the patient’s medication administration record are also displayed in this module. Lastly, the discharge summary module includes patient follow-up, patient instructions, hospitalization summary, medication reconciliation, laboratory results, and studies/procedures, ensuring a comprehensive discharge summary for patients and clinicians (eAppendix 3).

A medication reconciliation tool was embedded within the history and physical and discharge summary modules. This tool has been shown to reduce medication errors in patients admitted from the emergency department to the hospital (eAppendix 4).¹⁰ The handoff/sign-out tool (eAppendix 5) accessible through the main dashboard page is modeled on the I-PASS handoff framework.^11,12 This includes the patient identifier, interval events, inpatient medications, specific sign-out guidance, sign-out tasks/to-dos, and any other pertinent information.

The Inpatient Dashboard is a team-based construct shared by the attending physicians, residents, and medical students. Each team (eg, general medicine, general surgery) is its own entity; only team members can change the content or add to the documentation. Each facility can have multiple teams caring for the same patient (eg, primary and consulting teams). Additional care members can also be incorporated (eg, pharmacists assist with medication reconciliation for admission and discharge at VAAAHS). The Inpatient Dashboard can export information directly to CPRS for clinicians to review and sign. It can also generate a note that can be pasted into CPRS.

Clinician Feedback and Satisfaction

A survey was developed to evaluate clinician experiences with using the Inpatient Dashboard as an adjunct to the CPRS. The Inpatient Dashboard was made available to general medicine teams in November 2018. The survey was conducted from December 2018 to September 2019. The study was conducted at the VAAAHS and included 4 general medicine teams. Each team included an attending physician, a senior resident, 2 to 3 interns, and 3 to 4 medical students. Eligibility was extended to any team member who used both the CPRS and Inpatient Dashboard. Participation in the survey was voluntary. All respondents were informed of the study’s purpose and encouraged to provide candid feedback to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings.

Data were collected through a semistructured survey administered via the Qualtrics platform. The questionnaire was designed to capture multidimensional insights into clinician experience, with particular focus on satisfaction, efficiency, and perceived safety when using the tool as an adjunct to CPRS compared to using CPRS alone. The questionnaire primarily used a Likert scale for responses. Surveys were emailed at the completion of a team’s 1-month inpatient block. An answer was not required for every question, resulting in slightly different response numbers for some questions.

A question regarding the tool’s impact on workload stress was added halfway through the study period, which resulted in fewer responses. Adoption was assessed by counting the Inpatient Dashboard unique users. Descriptive statistics were used within individual survey responses to report the distribution of responses. Differences in response between levels of training were assessed using a X² test of independence.

Survey Results

From September 2023 through November 2023, there were 1549 rounding printouts across 144 unique users (5 nurses, 40 medical students, 87 residents, and 12 attending physicians) and 1468 handoff printouts across 148 unique users (5 nurses, 10 medical students, 111 residents, and 22 attending physicians). The clinician survey received 68 responses from users at various levels of medical training: 23 medical students, 31 interns, 12 senior residents, and 2 attending physicians. All 68 participants confirmed they had used the Inpatient Dashboard.

User satisfaction and preference for the Inpatient Dashboard vs CPRS were assessed. Sixty-one respondents (90%) expressed overall satisfaction with the Inpatient Dashboard; 22 (32%) were extremely satisfied, and 39 (57%) were somewhat satisfied (Table 1). Three respondents (4%) were neutral, 2 (3%) were somewhat dissatisfied, and 2 (3%) were extremely dissatisfied with the Inpatient Dashboard. Responses differed by level of training (P = .03), with medical students trending towards higher satisfaction.

Respondents preferred the Inpatient Dashboard over CPRS for gathering information and writing progress notes; 42 (64%) respondents mostly favored the Inpatient Dashboard, 15 (23%) slightly favored the Inpatient Dashboard over CPRS, and 8 (12%) were neutral. One respondent (2%) slightly favored CPRS to the Inpatient Dashboard (Table 2).

Sixty-five respondents (100%) found the Inpatient Dashboard’s ability to summarize patient information in a central place helpful (Table 3). Among them, 53 (82%) respondents reported it was very or extremely helpful, 10 (15%) respondents reported it was moderately helpful, and 2 (3%) respondents reported it was slightly helpful. This feature positively impacted users’ awareness of patients with DVT prophylaxis or a Foley catheter. Ten (15%) respondents reported being much more aware, and 29 (45%) respondents reporting they were slightly more aware. The remaining 26 (40%) respondents reported no change in awareness.

The Inpatient Dashboard was reported to save time preparing for physician rounds by 52 (80%) respondents, contributing to much greater efficiency for 29 (45%) respondents and slightly more efficiency for 23 (35%) respondents. However, 10 (15%) respondents reported no change in efficiency, and 3 (5%) respondents reduced efficiency, with 1 (2%) respondent reporting it slightly less efficient and 2 (3%) respondents reporting it much less efficient. Responses differed by level of training (P = .01), with medical students trending towards higher efficiency. Of the 23 respondents who reported on the Inpatient Dashboard’s impact on daily workload stress level, 22 (96%) indicated the tool had a stress-reducing effect, with 9 (39%) experiencing a major reduction in stress level, and 13 (57%) experiencing somewhat reduced stress level. Only 1 participant (4%) reported no change in stress. No participants reported an increase in stress.

DISCUSSION

The adoption of EHRs has transformed operational modalities in contemporary health care systems, heralding advancements in patient satisfaction, safety, and overall quality and efficiency of care.^1,2 However, EHRs still present challenges, predominantly around clinician satisfaction, marked by instances of burnout and increased time spent on computers.^2-6 In this context, the Inpatient Dashboard, an online companion to the CPRS, exemplifies how user-centered innovations in EHRs can address and mitigate associated challenges.

The Inpatient Dashboard has been well received with most respondents of the survey conducted in this study indicating they were both satisfied with the instrument and preferring it to CPRS. This high approval aligns with existing literature on the potential advantages of user-centered design in health care technology.¹³ The tool has gained widespread acceptance at the VAAAHS even in the absence of obligatory usage or institutional incentives. The appeal of the Inpatient Dashboard may stem from its increased efficiency, with most users affirming its timesaving nature. While CPRS can only display local notes, laboratory results, and studies, the Inpatient Dashboard can display data from across all VA sites. The VA Joint Longitudinal Viewer can similarly display data from across all sites, but the display is not streamlined as it is in the Inpatient Dashboard. The Inpatient Dashboard incorporates this clinical information into a single page to facilitate day-to-day workflow and dynamic documentation (ie, reviewing laboratory results, medications, writing notes, and signing out patients). This increased efficiency allows clinicians to counter 2 common barriers to EHR implementation: productivity loss and insufficient time.¹⁴

The association between EHRs and improved quality and safety in health care is well-documented.³ The Inpatient Dashboard fortifies this association by enhancing awareness around patient status, evidenced by a majority of respondents, and by integrating a medication reconciliation tool to decrease medication errors on transition from the emergency department to inpatient hospitalization.¹⁰

The Inpatient Dashboard’s impact on alleviating daily workload stress is noteworthy, with almost all respondents experiencing reduced stress levels and physician burnout, which has been linked to deteriorating well-being, compromised patient safety, and escalated health care costs.^15,16 The heightened susceptibility of physicians to burnout compared to other professionals underscores the imperative for incorporating stress-mitigating interventions in the EHR.^17,18

While responses to most questions did not significantly differ by training levels, overall satisfaction with the Inpatient Dashboard and its ability to save time preparing for rounds were rated higher by medical students. This may be attributable to a greater derived benefit from collating and presenting data to learners with less familiarity with the native EHR. It is also notable that the Inpatient Dashboard allows medical students to directly contribute to a patient’s note, which could be another driver in satisfaction. While most interns still felt the Inpatient Dashboard enabled them to save time preparing for rounds, there were a considerable number of ‘no change’ responses, which suggests some interns may not have modified their existing prerounding strategies. These associations are limited by the relatively small number of respondents by learner category, with senior medical residents and attending physicians being underrepresented.

While there are a multitude of dashboards available at the VA, most are made to track certain quality metrics and are used more by administrative and leadership staff. The Inpatient Dashboard was created specifically for frontline clinicians to facilitate their day-to-day workflow and dynamic documentation. This tool can additionally help with quality metrics, though its main purpose was and is to make clinician workflow easier and more efficient.

These results are especially timely because the VA is modernizing its EHR by transitioning to Oracle Health.⁷ Due to the numerous reports both from veterans and VA clinicians that the Oracle Health EHR is not meeting expectations, deployment at further sites has been halted while improving the experience of the 5 institutions using Oracle Health is prioritized.⁹ The Inpatient Dashboard, instead of being merely an enhancement to CPRS, could emerge as a potential bridge to Oracle Health if adapted to display data from Oracle Health as it does VistA. This would facilitate a smoother, more integrated transition for those health care institutions employing the Inpatient Dashboard.

Limitations

The reliance on self-reported data inherently carries the risk of bias, and the absence of objective measures, like time-tracking studies, limits the quantifiable assessment of the Inpatient Dashboard efficacy. The single-center nature of the study also may restrict the generalizability of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal integration of EHRs into health care delivery is critical to high-quality patient care and operational efficiency. The Inpatient Dashboard is an example of an innovative, user-centric solution that integrated and presented clinical information in a way that produced high satisfaction and adoption by users at a VA hospital.

Electronic health records (EHRs) are an integral part of modern health care. The 2009, Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act established financial incentives for US hospitals to adopt EHRs. In 2009 only 12% of nonfederal acute care hospitals had adopted a certified EHR system, which increased to 96% by 2021.¹

EHRs have transformed the way patient data are stored and accessed, streamlining the process of providing quality patient care with improvements in efficiency, effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and safety.² Despite their widespread adoption and benefits, EHRs have generally been met with mixed physician satisfaction.³ Interactions with EHRs are linked to disproportionate time at the computer and physician burnout.^4-6

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was at the forefront of EHR development, establishing the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA) in the 1970s. The VA released the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) in 1997, the first clinical user interface for VistA. In May 2018, the VA signed a $10 billion contract with Cerner (now Oracle Health) to modernize its EHR.⁷ This was later revised to $16.1 billion, and the Institute for Defense Analyses estimates it will cost $49.8 billion.⁸ The transition to Oracle Health has been faced with significant challenges, including patient safety risks and workflow inefficiencies, leading to a pause in rollout.⁹

Due to the known challenges with EHRs and the aging CPRS system (without a scheduled replacement date), innovations that facilitate the synthesis and display of clinical information are needed. To address this gap, the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) developed the Inpatient Dashboard, an online EHR companion tool. The Inpatient Dashboard was designed to draw data from VistA to reduce time spent at the computer by streamlining clinical information presentation, standardizing inpatient notes, improving safety measures, and enhancing overall clinician satisfaction. This study evaluated the adoption and user experience with the Inpatient Dashboard.

INPATIENT DASHBOARD

The Inpatient Dashboard consists of several modules created by a contractor for the VAAAHS that is housed on VA servers with access restricted to individuals with patient health data privileges. As the Inpatient Dashboard draws data from VistA, it can display laboratory information, studies, and notes from all VA sites.

The main dashboard is a snapshot summary of patient information, including patient location, code status, last vital sign readings, vital sign ranges over the previous 24 hours, intake/output, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis, the presence of telemetry orders, or use of Foley or central catheters (Figure). It also includes a customizable to-do list and contact information for the patient’s clinician and nurse. Significant events, such as abnormal vital signs or speciation/sensitivities for blood cultures, are automatically populated on the to-do list. From this main dashboard overview, clinicians can customize which patients are displayed, create and print a rounding list, print a sign-out sheet, or select individual patients to open a progress note module.

Notes can be written in the patient history and physical module, progress note module, and discharge summary module. The patient history and physical module has text blocks allocated to the traditional components of a history and physical note (ie, chief complaint, history of present illness, review of systems, past medical history, family history, social history, allergies, medications, physical examination, assessment, and plan) (eAppendix 1). Some elements, such as past medical history, family history, and social history are prepopulated if the patient was previously admitted. Vital signs, laboratory results, studies, microbiology/ pathology reports, and other CPRS notes are displayed in this module.

The progress note module contains text blocks allocated to the traditional components of a progress note, such as subjective/interval events, physical examination, assessment, and plan (eAppendix 2). Vital signs, laboratory results, studies, microbiology/ pathology reports, other CPRS notes, and the patient’s medication administration record are also displayed in this module. Lastly, the discharge summary module includes patient follow-up, patient instructions, hospitalization summary, medication reconciliation, laboratory results, and studies/procedures, ensuring a comprehensive discharge summary for patients and clinicians (eAppendix 3).

A medication reconciliation tool was embedded within the history and physical and discharge summary modules. This tool has been shown to reduce medication errors in patients admitted from the emergency department to the hospital (eAppendix 4).¹⁰ The handoff/sign-out tool (eAppendix 5) accessible through the main dashboard page is modeled on the I-PASS handoff framework.^11,12 This includes the patient identifier, interval events, inpatient medications, specific sign-out guidance, sign-out tasks/to-dos, and any other pertinent information.

The Inpatient Dashboard is a team-based construct shared by the attending physicians, residents, and medical students. Each team (eg, general medicine, general surgery) is its own entity; only team members can change the content or add to the documentation. Each facility can have multiple teams caring for the same patient (eg, primary and consulting teams). Additional care members can also be incorporated (eg, pharmacists assist with medication reconciliation for admission and discharge at VAAAHS). The Inpatient Dashboard can export information directly to CPRS for clinicians to review and sign. It can also generate a note that can be pasted into CPRS.

Clinician Feedback and Satisfaction

A survey was developed to evaluate clinician experiences with using the Inpatient Dashboard as an adjunct to the CPRS. The Inpatient Dashboard was made available to general medicine teams in November 2018. The survey was conducted from December 2018 to September 2019. The study was conducted at the VAAAHS and included 4 general medicine teams. Each team included an attending physician, a senior resident, 2 to 3 interns, and 3 to 4 medical students. Eligibility was extended to any team member who used both the CPRS and Inpatient Dashboard. Participation in the survey was voluntary. All respondents were informed of the study’s purpose and encouraged to provide candid feedback to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings.

Data were collected through a semistructured survey administered via the Qualtrics platform. The questionnaire was designed to capture multidimensional insights into clinician experience, with particular focus on satisfaction, efficiency, and perceived safety when using the tool as an adjunct to CPRS compared to using CPRS alone. The questionnaire primarily used a Likert scale for responses. Surveys were emailed at the completion of a team’s 1-month inpatient block. An answer was not required for every question, resulting in slightly different response numbers for some questions.

A question regarding the tool’s impact on workload stress was added halfway through the study period, which resulted in fewer responses. Adoption was assessed by counting the Inpatient Dashboard unique users. Descriptive statistics were used within individual survey responses to report the distribution of responses. Differences in response between levels of training were assessed using a X² test of independence.

Survey Results

From September 2023 through November 2023, there were 1549 rounding printouts across 144 unique users (5 nurses, 40 medical students, 87 residents, and 12 attending physicians) and 1468 handoff printouts across 148 unique users (5 nurses, 10 medical students, 111 residents, and 22 attending physicians). The clinician survey received 68 responses from users at various levels of medical training: 23 medical students, 31 interns, 12 senior residents, and 2 attending physicians. All 68 participants confirmed they had used the Inpatient Dashboard.

User satisfaction and preference for the Inpatient Dashboard vs CPRS were assessed. Sixty-one respondents (90%) expressed overall satisfaction with the Inpatient Dashboard; 22 (32%) were extremely satisfied, and 39 (57%) were somewhat satisfied (Table 1). Three respondents (4%) were neutral, 2 (3%) were somewhat dissatisfied, and 2 (3%) were extremely dissatisfied with the Inpatient Dashboard. Responses differed by level of training (P = .03), with medical students trending towards higher satisfaction.

Respondents preferred the Inpatient Dashboard over CPRS for gathering information and writing progress notes; 42 (64%) respondents mostly favored the Inpatient Dashboard, 15 (23%) slightly favored the Inpatient Dashboard over CPRS, and 8 (12%) were neutral. One respondent (2%) slightly favored CPRS to the Inpatient Dashboard (Table 2).

Sixty-five respondents (100%) found the Inpatient Dashboard’s ability to summarize patient information in a central place helpful (Table 3). Among them, 53 (82%) respondents reported it was very or extremely helpful, 10 (15%) respondents reported it was moderately helpful, and 2 (3%) respondents reported it was slightly helpful. This feature positively impacted users’ awareness of patients with DVT prophylaxis or a Foley catheter. Ten (15%) respondents reported being much more aware, and 29 (45%) respondents reporting they were slightly more aware. The remaining 26 (40%) respondents reported no change in awareness.

The Inpatient Dashboard was reported to save time preparing for physician rounds by 52 (80%) respondents, contributing to much greater efficiency for 29 (45%) respondents and slightly more efficiency for 23 (35%) respondents. However, 10 (15%) respondents reported no change in efficiency, and 3 (5%) respondents reduced efficiency, with 1 (2%) respondent reporting it slightly less efficient and 2 (3%) respondents reporting it much less efficient. Responses differed by level of training (P = .01), with medical students trending towards higher efficiency. Of the 23 respondents who reported on the Inpatient Dashboard’s impact on daily workload stress level, 22 (96%) indicated the tool had a stress-reducing effect, with 9 (39%) experiencing a major reduction in stress level, and 13 (57%) experiencing somewhat reduced stress level. Only 1 participant (4%) reported no change in stress. No participants reported an increase in stress.

DISCUSSION

The adoption of EHRs has transformed operational modalities in contemporary health care systems, heralding advancements in patient satisfaction, safety, and overall quality and efficiency of care.^1,2 However, EHRs still present challenges, predominantly around clinician satisfaction, marked by instances of burnout and increased time spent on computers.^2-6 In this context, the Inpatient Dashboard, an online companion to the CPRS, exemplifies how user-centered innovations in EHRs can address and mitigate associated challenges.

The Inpatient Dashboard has been well received with most respondents of the survey conducted in this study indicating they were both satisfied with the instrument and preferring it to CPRS. This high approval aligns with existing literature on the potential advantages of user-centered design in health care technology.¹³ The tool has gained widespread acceptance at the VAAAHS even in the absence of obligatory usage or institutional incentives. The appeal of the Inpatient Dashboard may stem from its increased efficiency, with most users affirming its timesaving nature. While CPRS can only display local notes, laboratory results, and studies, the Inpatient Dashboard can display data from across all VA sites. The VA Joint Longitudinal Viewer can similarly display data from across all sites, but the display is not streamlined as it is in the Inpatient Dashboard. The Inpatient Dashboard incorporates this clinical information into a single page to facilitate day-to-day workflow and dynamic documentation (ie, reviewing laboratory results, medications, writing notes, and signing out patients). This increased efficiency allows clinicians to counter 2 common barriers to EHR implementation: productivity loss and insufficient time.¹⁴

The association between EHRs and improved quality and safety in health care is well-documented.³ The Inpatient Dashboard fortifies this association by enhancing awareness around patient status, evidenced by a majority of respondents, and by integrating a medication reconciliation tool to decrease medication errors on transition from the emergency department to inpatient hospitalization.¹⁰

The Inpatient Dashboard’s impact on alleviating daily workload stress is noteworthy, with almost all respondents experiencing reduced stress levels and physician burnout, which has been linked to deteriorating well-being, compromised patient safety, and escalated health care costs.^15,16 The heightened susceptibility of physicians to burnout compared to other professionals underscores the imperative for incorporating stress-mitigating interventions in the EHR.^17,18

While responses to most questions did not significantly differ by training levels, overall satisfaction with the Inpatient Dashboard and its ability to save time preparing for rounds were rated higher by medical students. This may be attributable to a greater derived benefit from collating and presenting data to learners with less familiarity with the native EHR. It is also notable that the Inpatient Dashboard allows medical students to directly contribute to a patient’s note, which could be another driver in satisfaction. While most interns still felt the Inpatient Dashboard enabled them to save time preparing for rounds, there were a considerable number of ‘no change’ responses, which suggests some interns may not have modified their existing prerounding strategies. These associations are limited by the relatively small number of respondents by learner category, with senior medical residents and attending physicians being underrepresented.

While there are a multitude of dashboards available at the VA, most are made to track certain quality metrics and are used more by administrative and leadership staff. The Inpatient Dashboard was created specifically for frontline clinicians to facilitate their day-to-day workflow and dynamic documentation. This tool can additionally help with quality metrics, though its main purpose was and is to make clinician workflow easier and more efficient.

These results are especially timely because the VA is modernizing its EHR by transitioning to Oracle Health.⁷ Due to the numerous reports both from veterans and VA clinicians that the Oracle Health EHR is not meeting expectations, deployment at further sites has been halted while improving the experience of the 5 institutions using Oracle Health is prioritized.⁹ The Inpatient Dashboard, instead of being merely an enhancement to CPRS, could emerge as a potential bridge to Oracle Health if adapted to display data from Oracle Health as it does VistA. This would facilitate a smoother, more integrated transition for those health care institutions employing the Inpatient Dashboard.

Limitations

The reliance on self-reported data inherently carries the risk of bias, and the absence of objective measures, like time-tracking studies, limits the quantifiable assessment of the Inpatient Dashboard efficacy. The single-center nature of the study also may restrict the generalizability of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal integration of EHRs into health care delivery is critical to high-quality patient care and operational efficiency. The Inpatient Dashboard is an example of an innovative, user-centric solution that integrated and presented clinical information in a way that produced high satisfaction and adoption by users at a VA hospital.

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in about 1% to 2% of joint replacements. ¹ Risk factors include immunosuppression, diabetes, chronic illnesses, and prolonged operative time.² Bacterial infections constitute most of these infections, while fungal pathogens account for about 1%. Candida (C.) species, predominantly C. albicans, are responsible for most PJIs.^1,3 In contrast, C. glabrata is a rare cause of fungal PJI, with only 18 PJI cases currently reported in the literature.⁴C. glabrata PJI occurs more frequently among immunosuppressed patients and is associated with a higher treatment failure rate despite antifungal therapy.⁵ Treatment of fungal PJI is often complicated, involving multiple surgical debridements, prolonged antifungal therapy, and in some cases, prosthesis removal.⁶ However, given the rarity of C. glabrata as a PJI pathogen, no standardized treatment guidelines exist, leading to potential delays in diagnosis and tailored treatment.^7,8

CASE PRESENTATION

A male Vietnam veteran aged 75 years presented to the emergency department in July 2023 with a fluid collection over his left hip surgical incision site. The patient had a complex medical history that included chronic kidney disease, well-controlled type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. His history was further complicated by nonalcoholic steatohepatitis with hepatocellular carcinoma that was treated with transarterial radioembolization and yttrium-90. The patient had undergone a left total hip arthroplasty in 1996 and subsequent open reduction and internal fixation about 9 months prior to his presentation. The patient reported the fluid had been present for about 6 weeks, while he received outpatient monitoring by the orthopedic surgery service. He sought emergency care after noting a moderate amount of purulent discharge on his clothing originating from his hip. In the week prior to admission, the patient observed progressive erythema, warmth, and tenderness over the incision site. Despite these symptoms, the patient remained ambulatory and able to walk long distances with the use of an assistive device.

Upon presentation, the patient was afebrile and normotensive. Laboratory testing revealed an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 77 mm/h (reference range, 0-20 mm/h) and a C-reactive protein of 9.8 mg/L (reference range, 0-2.5 mg/L), suggesting an underlying infectious process. A physical examination revealed a well-healed incision over the left hip with a poorly defined area of fluctuance and evidence of wound dehiscence. The left lower extremity was swollen with 2+ pitting edema, but tenderness was localized to the incision site. Magnetic resonance imaging of the left hip revealed a multiloculated fluid collection abutting the left greater trochanter with extension to the skin surface and inferior extension along the entire length of the surgical fixation hardware (Figure).

Upon admission, orthopedic surgery performed a bedside aspiration of the fluid collection. Samples were sent for analysis, including cell count and bacterial and fungal cultures. Initial blood cultures were sterile. Due to concerns for a bacterial infection, the patient was started on empiric intravenous (IV) ceftriaxone 2 g/day and IV vancomycin 1250 mg/day. Synovial fluid analysis revealed an elevated white blood cell count of 45,000/ìL, but bacterial cultures were negative. Five days after admission, the fungal culture from the left hip wound was notable for presence of C. glabrata, prompting an infectious diseases (ID) consultation. IV micafungin 100 mg/day was initiated as empiric antifungal therapy.

ID and orthopedic surgery teams determined that a combined medical and surgical approach would be best suited for infection control. They proposed 2 main approaches: complete hardware replacement with washout, which carried a higher morbidity risk but a better chance of infection resolution, or partial hardware replacement with washout, which was associated with a lower morbidity risk but a higher risk of infection persistence and recurrence. This decision was particularly challenging for the patient, who prioritized maintaining his functional status, including his ability to continue dancing for pleasure. The patient opted for a more conservative approach, electing to proceed with antifungal therapy and debridement while retaining the prosthetic joint.

After 11 days of hospitalization, the patient was discharged with a peripherally inserted central catheter for long-term antifungal infusions of micafungin 150 mg/day at home. Fungal sensitivity test results several days after discharge confirmed susceptibility to micafungin.

About 2 weeks after discharge, the patient underwent debridement and implant retention (DAIR). Wound cultures were positive for C. glabrata, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Corynebacterium tuberculostearicum. Based on susceptibilities, he completed a 2-month course of IV micafungin 150 mg daily and daptomycin 750 mg daily, followed by an oral suppressive regimen consisting of doxycycline 100 mg twice daily, amoxicillin-clavulanate 2 g twice daily, and fluconazole initially 800 mg daily adjusted to 400 mg daily. The patient continued wound management with twice-daily dressing changes.

Nine months after DAIR, the patient remained on suppressive antifungal and antibacterial therapy. He continued to experience serous drainage from the wound, which greatly affected his quality of life. After discussion with his family and the orthopedic surgery team, he agreed to proceed with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving prosthetic explant and antibiotic spacer placement. However, the surgery was postponed due to findings of anemia (hemoglobin, 8.9 g/dL) and thrombocytopenia (platelet count, 73 x 10³/λL). At the time of this report, the patient was being monitored closely with his multidisciplinary care team for the planned orthopedic procedure.

DISCUSSION

PJI is the most common cause of primary hip arthroplasty failure; however, fungal species only make up about 1% of PJIs.^3,9-11 Patients are typically immunocompromised, undergoing antineoplastic therapies for malignancy, or have other comorbid conditions such as diabetes.^12,13C. glabrata presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge as it is not only rare but also notorious for its resistance to common antifungal agents. C. glabrata is known to develop multidrug resistance through the rapid accumulation of genomic mutations.¹⁴ Its propensity towards forming protective biofilm also arms it with intrinsic resistance to agents like fluconazole.¹⁵ Furthermore, based on a review of the available reports in the literature, C. glabrata PJIs are often insidious and present with symptoms closely mimicking those of bacterial PJIs, as it did in the patient in this case.¹⁶

Synovial fluid analysis, fungal cultures, and sensitivity testing are paramount for ensuring proper diagnosis for fungal PJI. The patient in this case was empirically treated with micafungin based on recommendations from the ID team. When the sensitivities results were reviewed, the same antifungal therapy was continued. Echinocandins have a favorable toxicity profile in long-term use, as well as efficacy against biofilm-producing organisms like C. glabrata.^17,18

While there are a few cases citing DAIR as a feasible surgical strategy for treating fungal PJI, more recent studies have reported greater success with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving some combination of debridement, placement of antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacers, and partial or total exchange of the infected prosthetic joint.^4,19-23 In this case, complete hardware replacement would have offered the patient the most favorable outlook for eliminating this fungal infection. However, given the patient’s advanced age, significant underlying comorbidities, and functional status, medical management with antifungal therapy and DAIR was favored.

Based on the discussion from the 6-month follow-up visit, the patient was experiencing progressive and persistent wound drainage and frequent dressing changes, highlighting the limitations of medical management for PJI in the setting of retained prosthesis. If the patient ultimately proceeds with a more invasive surgical intervention, another important consideration will be the likelihood of fungal PJI recurrence. At present, fungal PJI recurrence rates following antifungal and surgical treatment have been reported to range between 0% to 50%, which is too imprecise to be considered clinically useful.^22-24

Given the ambiguity surrounding management guidelines and limited treatment options, it is crucial to emphasize the timeline of this patient’s clinical presentation and subsequent course of treatment. Upon presentation to the ED in late July, fungal PJI was considered less likely. Initial blood cultures from presentation were negative, which is common with PJIs. It was not until 5 days later that the left hip wound culture showed moderate growth of C. glabrata. Identifying a PJI is clinically challenging due to the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria. However, timely identification and diagnosis of fungal PJI with appropriate antifungal therapy, in patients with limited curative options due to comorbidities, can significantly improve quality of life and overall outcomes.²⁵ Routine fungal and mycobacterial cultures are not currently recommended in PJI guidelines, but this case illustrates it is imperative in immunocompromised hosts.²⁶

This case and the current paucity of similar cases in the literature stress the importance of clinicians publishing their experience in the management of fungal PJI. We strongly recommend that clinicians approach each suspected PJI with careful consideration of the patient’s unique risk factors, comorbidities, and goals of care, when deciding on a curative vs suppressive approach to therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This case report highlights the importance of considering fungal pathogens for PJIs, especially in high-risk patients, the value of obtaining fungal cultures, the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach, the role of antifungal susceptibility testing, and consideration for the feasibility of a surgical intervention. It underscores the challenges in diagnosis and treatment of C. glabrata-associated PJI, emphasizing the importance of clinician experience-sharing in developing evidence-based management strategies. As the understanding of fungal PJI evolves, continued research and clinical data collection remain crucial for improving patient outcomes in the management of these complex cases.

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in about 1% to 2% of joint replacements. ¹ Risk factors include immunosuppression, diabetes, chronic illnesses, and prolonged operative time.² Bacterial infections constitute most of these infections, while fungal pathogens account for about 1%. Candida (C.) species, predominantly C. albicans, are responsible for most PJIs.^1,3 In contrast, C. glabrata is a rare cause of fungal PJI, with only 18 PJI cases currently reported in the literature.⁴C. glabrata PJI occurs more frequently among immunosuppressed patients and is associated with a higher treatment failure rate despite antifungal therapy.⁵ Treatment of fungal PJI is often complicated, involving multiple surgical debridements, prolonged antifungal therapy, and in some cases, prosthesis removal.⁶ However, given the rarity of C. glabrata as a PJI pathogen, no standardized treatment guidelines exist, leading to potential delays in diagnosis and tailored treatment.^7,8

CASE PRESENTATION

A male Vietnam veteran aged 75 years presented to the emergency department in July 2023 with a fluid collection over his left hip surgical incision site. The patient had a complex medical history that included chronic kidney disease, well-controlled type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. His history was further complicated by nonalcoholic steatohepatitis with hepatocellular carcinoma that was treated with transarterial radioembolization and yttrium-90. The patient had undergone a left total hip arthroplasty in 1996 and subsequent open reduction and internal fixation about 9 months prior to his presentation. The patient reported the fluid had been present for about 6 weeks, while he received outpatient monitoring by the orthopedic surgery service. He sought emergency care after noting a moderate amount of purulent discharge on his clothing originating from his hip. In the week prior to admission, the patient observed progressive erythema, warmth, and tenderness over the incision site. Despite these symptoms, the patient remained ambulatory and able to walk long distances with the use of an assistive device.

Upon presentation, the patient was afebrile and normotensive. Laboratory testing revealed an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 77 mm/h (reference range, 0-20 mm/h) and a C-reactive protein of 9.8 mg/L (reference range, 0-2.5 mg/L), suggesting an underlying infectious process. A physical examination revealed a well-healed incision over the left hip with a poorly defined area of fluctuance and evidence of wound dehiscence. The left lower extremity was swollen with 2+ pitting edema, but tenderness was localized to the incision site. Magnetic resonance imaging of the left hip revealed a multiloculated fluid collection abutting the left greater trochanter with extension to the skin surface and inferior extension along the entire length of the surgical fixation hardware (Figure).

Upon admission, orthopedic surgery performed a bedside aspiration of the fluid collection. Samples were sent for analysis, including cell count and bacterial and fungal cultures. Initial blood cultures were sterile. Due to concerns for a bacterial infection, the patient was started on empiric intravenous (IV) ceftriaxone 2 g/day and IV vancomycin 1250 mg/day. Synovial fluid analysis revealed an elevated white blood cell count of 45,000/ìL, but bacterial cultures were negative. Five days after admission, the fungal culture from the left hip wound was notable for presence of C. glabrata, prompting an infectious diseases (ID) consultation. IV micafungin 100 mg/day was initiated as empiric antifungal therapy.

ID and orthopedic surgery teams determined that a combined medical and surgical approach would be best suited for infection control. They proposed 2 main approaches: complete hardware replacement with washout, which carried a higher morbidity risk but a better chance of infection resolution, or partial hardware replacement with washout, which was associated with a lower morbidity risk but a higher risk of infection persistence and recurrence. This decision was particularly challenging for the patient, who prioritized maintaining his functional status, including his ability to continue dancing for pleasure. The patient opted for a more conservative approach, electing to proceed with antifungal therapy and debridement while retaining the prosthetic joint.

After 11 days of hospitalization, the patient was discharged with a peripherally inserted central catheter for long-term antifungal infusions of micafungin 150 mg/day at home. Fungal sensitivity test results several days after discharge confirmed susceptibility to micafungin.

About 2 weeks after discharge, the patient underwent debridement and implant retention (DAIR). Wound cultures were positive for C. glabrata, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Corynebacterium tuberculostearicum. Based on susceptibilities, he completed a 2-month course of IV micafungin 150 mg daily and daptomycin 750 mg daily, followed by an oral suppressive regimen consisting of doxycycline 100 mg twice daily, amoxicillin-clavulanate 2 g twice daily, and fluconazole initially 800 mg daily adjusted to 400 mg daily. The patient continued wound management with twice-daily dressing changes.

Nine months after DAIR, the patient remained on suppressive antifungal and antibacterial therapy. He continued to experience serous drainage from the wound, which greatly affected his quality of life. After discussion with his family and the orthopedic surgery team, he agreed to proceed with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving prosthetic explant and antibiotic spacer placement. However, the surgery was postponed due to findings of anemia (hemoglobin, 8.9 g/dL) and thrombocytopenia (platelet count, 73 x 10³/λL). At the time of this report, the patient was being monitored closely with his multidisciplinary care team for the planned orthopedic procedure.

DISCUSSION

PJI is the most common cause of primary hip arthroplasty failure; however, fungal species only make up about 1% of PJIs.^3,9-11 Patients are typically immunocompromised, undergoing antineoplastic therapies for malignancy, or have other comorbid conditions such as diabetes.^12,13C. glabrata presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge as it is not only rare but also notorious for its resistance to common antifungal agents. C. glabrata is known to develop multidrug resistance through the rapid accumulation of genomic mutations.¹⁴ Its propensity towards forming protective biofilm also arms it with intrinsic resistance to agents like fluconazole.¹⁵ Furthermore, based on a review of the available reports in the literature, C. glabrata PJIs are often insidious and present with symptoms closely mimicking those of bacterial PJIs, as it did in the patient in this case.¹⁶

Synovial fluid analysis, fungal cultures, and sensitivity testing are paramount for ensuring proper diagnosis for fungal PJI. The patient in this case was empirically treated with micafungin based on recommendations from the ID team. When the sensitivities results were reviewed, the same antifungal therapy was continued. Echinocandins have a favorable toxicity profile in long-term use, as well as efficacy against biofilm-producing organisms like C. glabrata.^17,18

While there are a few cases citing DAIR as a feasible surgical strategy for treating fungal PJI, more recent studies have reported greater success with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving some combination of debridement, placement of antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacers, and partial or total exchange of the infected prosthetic joint.^4,19-23 In this case, complete hardware replacement would have offered the patient the most favorable outlook for eliminating this fungal infection. However, given the patient’s advanced age, significant underlying comorbidities, and functional status, medical management with antifungal therapy and DAIR was favored.

Based on the discussion from the 6-month follow-up visit, the patient was experiencing progressive and persistent wound drainage and frequent dressing changes, highlighting the limitations of medical management for PJI in the setting of retained prosthesis. If the patient ultimately proceeds with a more invasive surgical intervention, another important consideration will be the likelihood of fungal PJI recurrence. At present, fungal PJI recurrence rates following antifungal and surgical treatment have been reported to range between 0% to 50%, which is too imprecise to be considered clinically useful.^22-24

Given the ambiguity surrounding management guidelines and limited treatment options, it is crucial to emphasize the timeline of this patient’s clinical presentation and subsequent course of treatment. Upon presentation to the ED in late July, fungal PJI was considered less likely. Initial blood cultures from presentation were negative, which is common with PJIs. It was not until 5 days later that the left hip wound culture showed moderate growth of C. glabrata. Identifying a PJI is clinically challenging due to the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria. However, timely identification and diagnosis of fungal PJI with appropriate antifungal therapy, in patients with limited curative options due to comorbidities, can significantly improve quality of life and overall outcomes.²⁵ Routine fungal and mycobacterial cultures are not currently recommended in PJI guidelines, but this case illustrates it is imperative in immunocompromised hosts.²⁶

This case and the current paucity of similar cases in the literature stress the importance of clinicians publishing their experience in the management of fungal PJI. We strongly recommend that clinicians approach each suspected PJI with careful consideration of the patient’s unique risk factors, comorbidities, and goals of care, when deciding on a curative vs suppressive approach to therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This case report highlights the importance of considering fungal pathogens for PJIs, especially in high-risk patients, the value of obtaining fungal cultures, the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach, the role of antifungal susceptibility testing, and consideration for the feasibility of a surgical intervention. It underscores the challenges in diagnosis and treatment of C. glabrata-associated PJI, emphasizing the importance of clinician experience-sharing in developing evidence-based management strategies. As the understanding of fungal PJI evolves, continued research and clinical data collection remain crucial for improving patient outcomes in the management of these complex cases.

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in about 1% to 2% of joint replacements. ¹ Risk factors include immunosuppression, diabetes, chronic illnesses, and prolonged operative time.² Bacterial infections constitute most of these infections, while fungal pathogens account for about 1%. Candida (C.) species, predominantly C. albicans, are responsible for most PJIs.^1,3 In contrast, C. glabrata is a rare cause of fungal PJI, with only 18 PJI cases currently reported in the literature.⁴C. glabrata PJI occurs more frequently among immunosuppressed patients and is associated with a higher treatment failure rate despite antifungal therapy.⁵ Treatment of fungal PJI is often complicated, involving multiple surgical debridements, prolonged antifungal therapy, and in some cases, prosthesis removal.⁶ However, given the rarity of C. glabrata as a PJI pathogen, no standardized treatment guidelines exist, leading to potential delays in diagnosis and tailored treatment.^7,8

CASE PRESENTATION

A male Vietnam veteran aged 75 years presented to the emergency department in July 2023 with a fluid collection over his left hip surgical incision site. The patient had a complex medical history that included chronic kidney disease, well-controlled type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and osteoarthritis. His history was further complicated by nonalcoholic steatohepatitis with hepatocellular carcinoma that was treated with transarterial radioembolization and yttrium-90. The patient had undergone a left total hip arthroplasty in 1996 and subsequent open reduction and internal fixation about 9 months prior to his presentation. The patient reported the fluid had been present for about 6 weeks, while he received outpatient monitoring by the orthopedic surgery service. He sought emergency care after noting a moderate amount of purulent discharge on his clothing originating from his hip. In the week prior to admission, the patient observed progressive erythema, warmth, and tenderness over the incision site. Despite these symptoms, the patient remained ambulatory and able to walk long distances with the use of an assistive device.

Upon presentation, the patient was afebrile and normotensive. Laboratory testing revealed an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 77 mm/h (reference range, 0-20 mm/h) and a C-reactive protein of 9.8 mg/L (reference range, 0-2.5 mg/L), suggesting an underlying infectious process. A physical examination revealed a well-healed incision over the left hip with a poorly defined area of fluctuance and evidence of wound dehiscence. The left lower extremity was swollen with 2+ pitting edema, but tenderness was localized to the incision site. Magnetic resonance imaging of the left hip revealed a multiloculated fluid collection abutting the left greater trochanter with extension to the skin surface and inferior extension along the entire length of the surgical fixation hardware (Figure).

Upon admission, orthopedic surgery performed a bedside aspiration of the fluid collection. Samples were sent for analysis, including cell count and bacterial and fungal cultures. Initial blood cultures were sterile. Due to concerns for a bacterial infection, the patient was started on empiric intravenous (IV) ceftriaxone 2 g/day and IV vancomycin 1250 mg/day. Synovial fluid analysis revealed an elevated white blood cell count of 45,000/ìL, but bacterial cultures were negative. Five days after admission, the fungal culture from the left hip wound was notable for presence of C. glabrata, prompting an infectious diseases (ID) consultation. IV micafungin 100 mg/day was initiated as empiric antifungal therapy.

ID and orthopedic surgery teams determined that a combined medical and surgical approach would be best suited for infection control. They proposed 2 main approaches: complete hardware replacement with washout, which carried a higher morbidity risk but a better chance of infection resolution, or partial hardware replacement with washout, which was associated with a lower morbidity risk but a higher risk of infection persistence and recurrence. This decision was particularly challenging for the patient, who prioritized maintaining his functional status, including his ability to continue dancing for pleasure. The patient opted for a more conservative approach, electing to proceed with antifungal therapy and debridement while retaining the prosthetic joint.

After 11 days of hospitalization, the patient was discharged with a peripherally inserted central catheter for long-term antifungal infusions of micafungin 150 mg/day at home. Fungal sensitivity test results several days after discharge confirmed susceptibility to micafungin.

About 2 weeks after discharge, the patient underwent debridement and implant retention (DAIR). Wound cultures were positive for C. glabrata, Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Corynebacterium tuberculostearicum. Based on susceptibilities, he completed a 2-month course of IV micafungin 150 mg daily and daptomycin 750 mg daily, followed by an oral suppressive regimen consisting of doxycycline 100 mg twice daily, amoxicillin-clavulanate 2 g twice daily, and fluconazole initially 800 mg daily adjusted to 400 mg daily. The patient continued wound management with twice-daily dressing changes.

Nine months after DAIR, the patient remained on suppressive antifungal and antibacterial therapy. He continued to experience serous drainage from the wound, which greatly affected his quality of life. After discussion with his family and the orthopedic surgery team, he agreed to proceed with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving prosthetic explant and antibiotic spacer placement. However, the surgery was postponed due to findings of anemia (hemoglobin, 8.9 g/dL) and thrombocytopenia (platelet count, 73 x 10³/λL). At the time of this report, the patient was being monitored closely with his multidisciplinary care team for the planned orthopedic procedure.

DISCUSSION

PJI is the most common cause of primary hip arthroplasty failure; however, fungal species only make up about 1% of PJIs.^3,9-11 Patients are typically immunocompromised, undergoing antineoplastic therapies for malignancy, or have other comorbid conditions such as diabetes.^12,13C. glabrata presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge as it is not only rare but also notorious for its resistance to common antifungal agents. C. glabrata is known to develop multidrug resistance through the rapid accumulation of genomic mutations.¹⁴ Its propensity towards forming protective biofilm also arms it with intrinsic resistance to agents like fluconazole.¹⁵ Furthermore, based on a review of the available reports in the literature, C. glabrata PJIs are often insidious and present with symptoms closely mimicking those of bacterial PJIs, as it did in the patient in this case.¹⁶

Synovial fluid analysis, fungal cultures, and sensitivity testing are paramount for ensuring proper diagnosis for fungal PJI. The patient in this case was empirically treated with micafungin based on recommendations from the ID team. When the sensitivities results were reviewed, the same antifungal therapy was continued. Echinocandins have a favorable toxicity profile in long-term use, as well as efficacy against biofilm-producing organisms like C. glabrata.^17,18

While there are a few cases citing DAIR as a feasible surgical strategy for treating fungal PJI, more recent studies have reported greater success with a 2-staged revision arthroplasty involving some combination of debridement, placement of antibiotic-loaded bone cement spacers, and partial or total exchange of the infected prosthetic joint.^4,19-23 In this case, complete hardware replacement would have offered the patient the most favorable outlook for eliminating this fungal infection. However, given the patient’s advanced age, significant underlying comorbidities, and functional status, medical management with antifungal therapy and DAIR was favored.

Based on the discussion from the 6-month follow-up visit, the patient was experiencing progressive and persistent wound drainage and frequent dressing changes, highlighting the limitations of medical management for PJI in the setting of retained prosthesis. If the patient ultimately proceeds with a more invasive surgical intervention, another important consideration will be the likelihood of fungal PJI recurrence. At present, fungal PJI recurrence rates following antifungal and surgical treatment have been reported to range between 0% to 50%, which is too imprecise to be considered clinically useful.^22-24

Given the ambiguity surrounding management guidelines and limited treatment options, it is crucial to emphasize the timeline of this patient’s clinical presentation and subsequent course of treatment. Upon presentation to the ED in late July, fungal PJI was considered less likely. Initial blood cultures from presentation were negative, which is common with PJIs. It was not until 5 days later that the left hip wound culture showed moderate growth of C. glabrata. Identifying a PJI is clinically challenging due to the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria. However, timely identification and diagnosis of fungal PJI with appropriate antifungal therapy, in patients with limited curative options due to comorbidities, can significantly improve quality of life and overall outcomes.²⁵ Routine fungal and mycobacterial cultures are not currently recommended in PJI guidelines, but this case illustrates it is imperative in immunocompromised hosts.²⁶

This case and the current paucity of similar cases in the literature stress the importance of clinicians publishing their experience in the management of fungal PJI. We strongly recommend that clinicians approach each suspected PJI with careful consideration of the patient’s unique risk factors, comorbidities, and goals of care, when deciding on a curative vs suppressive approach to therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This case report highlights the importance of considering fungal pathogens for PJIs, especially in high-risk patients, the value of obtaining fungal cultures, the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach, the role of antifungal susceptibility testing, and consideration for the feasibility of a surgical intervention. It underscores the challenges in diagnosis and treatment of C. glabrata-associated PJI, emphasizing the importance of clinician experience-sharing in developing evidence-based management strategies. As the understanding of fungal PJI evolves, continued research and clinical data collection remain crucial for improving patient outcomes in the management of these complex cases.