Acute exacerbations (AEs) are both common in rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) and are a frequent cause of imminent mortality, a retrospective Japanese study suggests.

The same is also true for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) for whom an AE is the most frequent cause of death as well, the same comparative study indicates.

“Several studies have reported that acute exacerbation, which occurs during the clinical course of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), also occurs in rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD),” lead author Junji Otsuka, MD, PhD, of the National Hospital Organization Omuta National Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan, and colleagues observed.

“[We found that] AE was not uncommon in RA-ILD or IPF ... but the prognosis after AE of RA-ILD was significantly better than that of IPF [even though] the most frequent cause of death in RA-ILD and IPF was AE,” they stated.

The study was published online in Respiratory Medicine.

Patient features

The study involved 149 RA-ILD patients with a median age of 72 years at RA onset. The median time from ILD diagnosis to onset of AE was 48.5 months, while the median survival time after the onset of AE was 196 days (range 1-3,463 days), as the authors detailed. “All patients were treated with corticosteroids,” the authors noted, and almost all of them were treated with steroid pulse therapy.

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) was used to maintain oxygenation in 18.5% of patients with severe respiratory failure, while invasive positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) was used in almost 26% of patients with the same degree of respiratory failure. Features of patients who developed an AE were then compared with those who did not.

Interestingly, no significant differences in clinical parameters were seen between those who developed an AE and those who did not. Nor were there any significant differences between the 2 groups in the length of time from the ILD diagnosis to the development of an AE. Some 18% of RA-ILD patients developed an AE, as did over 27% of patients with IPF, investigators report.

The median survival after RA-ILD patients developed an AE was 277 days, compared with only 60 days for those with IPF (P = .038). In a multivariable analysis, hypoalbuminemia at an odds ratio of .090 (95% confidence interval, 0.011-0.733; P = .012) as well as percent carbon monoxide diffusion capacity at an OR of .810 (95% CI, 0.814-0.964; P < .01) were both independent risk factors for the development of an AE, the investigators pointed out.

The best cut-off level for predicting the risk of an AE was 3.0 g/dL (95% CI, 0.011-0.733; P = .012) for serum albumin and 53% (95% CI, 0.814-0.964; P < .01) for carbon monoxide diffusion capacity. As Dr. Otsuka noted in an email to this news organization, low serum albumin likely correlates with a generally poor condition, while low carbon monoxide diffusion capacity is likely due to lung fibrosis.

“But if low albumin and low carbon monoxide diffusion capacity are due to the progression of ILD, both values may be difficult to improve,” he added.
 

Survivors versus nonsurvivors

Of those patients with RA-ILD who developed an AE, approximately half recovered. Among the IPF patients who developed an AE during the study period, approximately 39% recovered from the event, while 70% did not. Comparing RA-ILD patients who survived versus whose who did not, again, no significant demographic or clinical differences were seen between the 2 groups. On the other hand, the number of patients treated with immunosuppressants for their AE was significantly higher among patients who did not survive the AE, compared with those who did (P =.022), investigators note.

Similarly, the number of patients who required NPPV was also significantly higher among those who did not survive, compared with those who did. In fact, “none of the surviving patients used NPPV (P <0.01),” the authors stress. The number of patients who required IPPV was also significantly higher among nonsurvivors than among survivors (P =.017), and of the small number of patients who were treated with IPPV, all but one died without recovery.

As the authors suggested, these findings suggest that RA-ILD patients who recover from an AE with the help of corticosteroids alone have a relatively decent prognosis. In contrast, those who require immunosuppressive drugs in addition to steroids or mechanical ventilation for AE management can be expected to have a poor prognosis.

The same can also be said for IPF patients and even with the help of mechanical ventilation “with IPF patients, the survival rate is low anyway, so the indication for mechanical ventilation should be carefully judged,” Dr. Otsuka stressed.
 

Cause of death

The authors also compared the cause of death between patients with RA-ILD and those with IPF. “In RA-ILD patients, the most frequent cause of death was AE,” they report, at close to 35% of all patients with RA-ILD. This was also true for IPF patients among whom AE was the cause of death for over 44%. “These results indicate that, as in IPF, AE develops in the clinical course of RA-ILD with considerable frequency,” investigators note.

“During the clinical course of RA-ILD, as with IPD, it is necessary to pay attention to AE,” they stress. Dr. Otsuka added: “It may be difficult to change the prognosis of these patients.”

“However, knowing which patients are more likely to develop AE may help predict the prognosis, and it may be improved if antifibrotic agents are used for these patients,” he said. Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, director, UCLA scleroderma program, University of California, Los Angeles, felt that understanding the risk factors for AEs in this patient population may help physicians identify a subgroup of patients with RA-ILD who require closer monitoring and follow-up.

“These patients may also require more aggressive treatment for RA-ILD to prevent AEs,” she said in an email to this news organization. Given that the study was retrospective in nature, Dr. Volkmann cautioned that there were likely multiple confounding factors that could have affected survival in this patient population and not to take away from the study that survival was solely affected by immunosuppressant use, for example.

“It is possible that patients [treated with] immunosuppressants had other features of their disease that independently heightened their risk of mortality,” Dr. Volkmann said. Similarly, physicians should not assume that the high mortality rate seen in RA-ILD patients who were treated with mechanical ventilation had anything to do with mechanical ventilation itself, as patients requiring ventilation are likely to have worse outcomes, as she stressed.

As for hypoalbuminemia, Dr. Volkmann pointed out that hypoalbuminemia is often a sign of malnutrition in these patients. “Studies have demonstrated that malnutrition is an independent predictor of mortality in patients with ILD,” she emphasized.

“Optimizing patients’ nutritional status could potentially help lower the risk of AEs,” Dr. Volkmann suggested.

Limitations of the study include the fact that it was a single-center design study and included only a limited number of patients.

No specific funding source was noted. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Acute exacerbations (AEs) are both common in rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) and are a frequent cause of imminent mortality, a retrospective Japanese study suggests.

The same is also true for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) for whom an AE is the most frequent cause of death as well, the same comparative study indicates.

“Several studies have reported that acute exacerbation, which occurs during the clinical course of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), also occurs in rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD),” lead author Junji Otsuka, MD, PhD, of the National Hospital Organization Omuta National Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan, and colleagues observed.

“[We found that] AE was not uncommon in RA-ILD or IPF ... but the prognosis after AE of RA-ILD was significantly better than that of IPF [even though] the most frequent cause of death in RA-ILD and IPF was AE,” they stated.

The study was published online in Respiratory Medicine.

Patient features

The study involved 149 RA-ILD patients with a median age of 72 years at RA onset. The median time from ILD diagnosis to onset of AE was 48.5 months, while the median survival time after the onset of AE was 196 days (range 1-3,463 days), as the authors detailed. “All patients were treated with corticosteroids,” the authors noted, and almost all of them were treated with steroid pulse therapy.

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) was used to maintain oxygenation in 18.5% of patients with severe respiratory failure, while invasive positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) was used in almost 26% of patients with the same degree of respiratory failure. Features of patients who developed an AE were then compared with those who did not.

Interestingly, no significant differences in clinical parameters were seen between those who developed an AE and those who did not. Nor were there any significant differences between the 2 groups in the length of time from the ILD diagnosis to the development of an AE. Some 18% of RA-ILD patients developed an AE, as did over 27% of patients with IPF, investigators report.

The median survival after RA-ILD patients developed an AE was 277 days, compared with only 60 days for those with IPF (P = .038). In a multivariable analysis, hypoalbuminemia at an odds ratio of .090 (95% confidence interval, 0.011-0.733; P = .012) as well as percent carbon monoxide diffusion capacity at an OR of .810 (95% CI, 0.814-0.964; P < .01) were both independent risk factors for the development of an AE, the investigators pointed out.

The best cut-off level for predicting the risk of an AE was 3.0 g/dL (95% CI, 0.011-0.733; P = .012) for serum albumin and 53% (95% CI, 0.814-0.964; P < .01) for carbon monoxide diffusion capacity. As Dr. Otsuka noted in an email to this news organization, low serum albumin likely correlates with a generally poor condition, while low carbon monoxide diffusion capacity is likely due to lung fibrosis.

“But if low albumin and low carbon monoxide diffusion capacity are due to the progression of ILD, both values may be difficult to improve,” he added.
 

Survivors versus nonsurvivors

Of those patients with RA-ILD who developed an AE, approximately half recovered. Among the IPF patients who developed an AE during the study period, approximately 39% recovered from the event, while 70% did not. Comparing RA-ILD patients who survived versus whose who did not, again, no significant demographic or clinical differences were seen between the 2 groups. On the other hand, the number of patients treated with immunosuppressants for their AE was significantly higher among patients who did not survive the AE, compared with those who did (P =.022), investigators note.

Similarly, the number of patients who required NPPV was also significantly higher among those who did not survive, compared with those who did. In fact, “none of the surviving patients used NPPV (P <0.01),” the authors stress. The number of patients who required IPPV was also significantly higher among nonsurvivors than among survivors (P =.017), and of the small number of patients who were treated with IPPV, all but one died without recovery.

As the authors suggested, these findings suggest that RA-ILD patients who recover from an AE with the help of corticosteroids alone have a relatively decent prognosis. In contrast, those who require immunosuppressive drugs in addition to steroids or mechanical ventilation for AE management can be expected to have a poor prognosis.

The same can also be said for IPF patients and even with the help of mechanical ventilation “with IPF patients, the survival rate is low anyway, so the indication for mechanical ventilation should be carefully judged,” Dr. Otsuka stressed.
 

Cause of death

The authors also compared the cause of death between patients with RA-ILD and those with IPF. “In RA-ILD patients, the most frequent cause of death was AE,” they report, at close to 35% of all patients with RA-ILD. This was also true for IPF patients among whom AE was the cause of death for over 44%. “These results indicate that, as in IPF, AE develops in the clinical course of RA-ILD with considerable frequency,” investigators note.

“During the clinical course of RA-ILD, as with IPD, it is necessary to pay attention to AE,” they stress. Dr. Otsuka added: “It may be difficult to change the prognosis of these patients.”

“However, knowing which patients are more likely to develop AE may help predict the prognosis, and it may be improved if antifibrotic agents are used for these patients,” he said. Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, director, UCLA scleroderma program, University of California, Los Angeles, felt that understanding the risk factors for AEs in this patient population may help physicians identify a subgroup of patients with RA-ILD who require closer monitoring and follow-up.

“These patients may also require more aggressive treatment for RA-ILD to prevent AEs,” she said in an email to this news organization. Given that the study was retrospective in nature, Dr. Volkmann cautioned that there were likely multiple confounding factors that could have affected survival in this patient population and not to take away from the study that survival was solely affected by immunosuppressant use, for example.

“It is possible that patients [treated with] immunosuppressants had other features of their disease that independently heightened their risk of mortality,” Dr. Volkmann said. Similarly, physicians should not assume that the high mortality rate seen in RA-ILD patients who were treated with mechanical ventilation had anything to do with mechanical ventilation itself, as patients requiring ventilation are likely to have worse outcomes, as she stressed.

As for hypoalbuminemia, Dr. Volkmann pointed out that hypoalbuminemia is often a sign of malnutrition in these patients. “Studies have demonstrated that malnutrition is an independent predictor of mortality in patients with ILD,” she emphasized.

“Optimizing patients’ nutritional status could potentially help lower the risk of AEs,” Dr. Volkmann suggested.

Limitations of the study include the fact that it was a single-center design study and included only a limited number of patients.

No specific funding source was noted. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Acute exacerbations (AEs) are both common in rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) and are a frequent cause of imminent mortality, a retrospective Japanese study suggests.

The same is also true for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) for whom an AE is the most frequent cause of death as well, the same comparative study indicates.

“Several studies have reported that acute exacerbation, which occurs during the clinical course of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), also occurs in rheumatoid arthritis–associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD),” lead author Junji Otsuka, MD, PhD, of the National Hospital Organization Omuta National Hospital, Fukuoka, Japan, and colleagues observed.

“[We found that] AE was not uncommon in RA-ILD or IPF ... but the prognosis after AE of RA-ILD was significantly better than that of IPF [even though] the most frequent cause of death in RA-ILD and IPF was AE,” they stated.

The study was published online in Respiratory Medicine.

Patient features

The study involved 149 RA-ILD patients with a median age of 72 years at RA onset. The median time from ILD diagnosis to onset of AE was 48.5 months, while the median survival time after the onset of AE was 196 days (range 1-3,463 days), as the authors detailed. “All patients were treated with corticosteroids,” the authors noted, and almost all of them were treated with steroid pulse therapy.

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) was used to maintain oxygenation in 18.5% of patients with severe respiratory failure, while invasive positive pressure ventilation (IPPV) was used in almost 26% of patients with the same degree of respiratory failure. Features of patients who developed an AE were then compared with those who did not.

Interestingly, no significant differences in clinical parameters were seen between those who developed an AE and those who did not. Nor were there any significant differences between the 2 groups in the length of time from the ILD diagnosis to the development of an AE. Some 18% of RA-ILD patients developed an AE, as did over 27% of patients with IPF, investigators report.

The median survival after RA-ILD patients developed an AE was 277 days, compared with only 60 days for those with IPF (P = .038). In a multivariable analysis, hypoalbuminemia at an odds ratio of .090 (95% confidence interval, 0.011-0.733; P = .012) as well as percent carbon monoxide diffusion capacity at an OR of .810 (95% CI, 0.814-0.964; P < .01) were both independent risk factors for the development of an AE, the investigators pointed out.

The best cut-off level for predicting the risk of an AE was 3.0 g/dL (95% CI, 0.011-0.733; P = .012) for serum albumin and 53% (95% CI, 0.814-0.964; P < .01) for carbon monoxide diffusion capacity. As Dr. Otsuka noted in an email to this news organization, low serum albumin likely correlates with a generally poor condition, while low carbon monoxide diffusion capacity is likely due to lung fibrosis.

“But if low albumin and low carbon monoxide diffusion capacity are due to the progression of ILD, both values may be difficult to improve,” he added.
 

Survivors versus nonsurvivors

Of those patients with RA-ILD who developed an AE, approximately half recovered. Among the IPF patients who developed an AE during the study period, approximately 39% recovered from the event, while 70% did not. Comparing RA-ILD patients who survived versus whose who did not, again, no significant demographic or clinical differences were seen between the 2 groups. On the other hand, the number of patients treated with immunosuppressants for their AE was significantly higher among patients who did not survive the AE, compared with those who did (P =.022), investigators note.

Similarly, the number of patients who required NPPV was also significantly higher among those who did not survive, compared with those who did. In fact, “none of the surviving patients used NPPV (P <0.01),” the authors stress. The number of patients who required IPPV was also significantly higher among nonsurvivors than among survivors (P =.017), and of the small number of patients who were treated with IPPV, all but one died without recovery.

As the authors suggested, these findings suggest that RA-ILD patients who recover from an AE with the help of corticosteroids alone have a relatively decent prognosis. In contrast, those who require immunosuppressive drugs in addition to steroids or mechanical ventilation for AE management can be expected to have a poor prognosis.

The same can also be said for IPF patients and even with the help of mechanical ventilation “with IPF patients, the survival rate is low anyway, so the indication for mechanical ventilation should be carefully judged,” Dr. Otsuka stressed.
 

Cause of death

The authors also compared the cause of death between patients with RA-ILD and those with IPF. “In RA-ILD patients, the most frequent cause of death was AE,” they report, at close to 35% of all patients with RA-ILD. This was also true for IPF patients among whom AE was the cause of death for over 44%. “These results indicate that, as in IPF, AE develops in the clinical course of RA-ILD with considerable frequency,” investigators note.

“During the clinical course of RA-ILD, as with IPD, it is necessary to pay attention to AE,” they stress. Dr. Otsuka added: “It may be difficult to change the prognosis of these patients.”

“However, knowing which patients are more likely to develop AE may help predict the prognosis, and it may be improved if antifibrotic agents are used for these patients,” he said. Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, director, UCLA scleroderma program, University of California, Los Angeles, felt that understanding the risk factors for AEs in this patient population may help physicians identify a subgroup of patients with RA-ILD who require closer monitoring and follow-up.

“These patients may also require more aggressive treatment for RA-ILD to prevent AEs,” she said in an email to this news organization. Given that the study was retrospective in nature, Dr. Volkmann cautioned that there were likely multiple confounding factors that could have affected survival in this patient population and not to take away from the study that survival was solely affected by immunosuppressant use, for example.

“It is possible that patients [treated with] immunosuppressants had other features of their disease that independently heightened their risk of mortality,” Dr. Volkmann said. Similarly, physicians should not assume that the high mortality rate seen in RA-ILD patients who were treated with mechanical ventilation had anything to do with mechanical ventilation itself, as patients requiring ventilation are likely to have worse outcomes, as she stressed.

As for hypoalbuminemia, Dr. Volkmann pointed out that hypoalbuminemia is often a sign of malnutrition in these patients. “Studies have demonstrated that malnutrition is an independent predictor of mortality in patients with ILD,” she emphasized.

“Optimizing patients’ nutritional status could potentially help lower the risk of AEs,” Dr. Volkmann suggested.

Limitations of the study include the fact that it was a single-center design study and included only a limited number of patients.

No specific funding source was noted. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

A new Scandinavian study has confirmed previous data showing increased rates of cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

The study also showed higher rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, although these increases were less than the rates observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent.

The researchers conclude that confirmatory analysis on the two mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.

The study was published in the June issue of JAMA Network Open.

“This study confirms what we know from other studies: that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with the rare but serious side effect of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” lead author Jacob Dag Berild, MD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, told this news organization.

“Reassuringly, no consistent association was observed between the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and these rare complications,” he added.

Dr. Dag Berild noted that in the current study there was an excess of 1.6 events of cerebral venous thrombosis per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses, which is similar to what has been previously reported.

Asked how he saw these results affecting continued use of these vaccines, Dr. Dag Berild pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine depends on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the risk for a severe outcome from COVID-19 weighed against the risk for an adverse event after vaccination.

“The European Medicines Agency has concluded that the overall risk-benefit ratio remains positive for the AstraZeneca vaccine, but Norway, Finland, and Denmark no longer use the AstraZeneca vaccine in their vaccination programs because of adequate availability of alternative vaccines. I think this is a reasonable decision,” he said.

For the current study, the researchers linked individual-level data separately from national population, patient, and vaccination registers in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Patient registers were used to identify hospital visits and admissions related to thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic disease in all three countries.

The main outcomes were relative rates of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, and cerebrovascular disease in the 28-day period after vaccination, compared with the control period prior to vaccination.

The authors note that a strength of this study is the use of registers with full population coverage in three countries with universal health care, ensuring equal access to care for all permanent residents. At the end of the study period, from Jan. 1, 2020 to May 16, 2021, more than 5.3 million people in the three countries were vaccinated with one or two doses.

Another strength is the inherent adjustment for time-invariant confounders in the self-controlled case series design and the resulting control of confounders that can affect the more traditional observational studies when complete data for confounders are not available, they add.

Of the 265,339 hospital contacts, 43% were made by female patients and 93% by patients born in or before 1971, and 44% were for coronary artery disease, 21% for coagulation disorders, and 35% for cerebrovascular disease.

In the 28-day period after vaccination, there was an elevated rate of coronary artery disease after the Moderna vaccine (relative rate, 1.13) but not after the AstraZeneca (RR, 0.92) or Pfizer (RR, 0.96) vaccines.

There was an observed increase in the rate of coagulation disorders after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 2.01; Pfizer RR, 1.12; and Moderna RR, 1.26).

There was also an increase in the rate of cerebrovascular disease after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 1.32; Pfizer RR, 1.09; and Moderna RR, 1.21).

For individual diseases in the main outcomes, two notably high rates were observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, with relative rates of 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess events per 100,000 doses, respectively.

The elevated risk after the AstraZeneca vaccine was consistent across all three countries and robust in sensitivity analyses.

The researchers report that they also observed statistically significant increases in hospital contacts for thrombocytopenic and thromboembolic events after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the risk was smaller than after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

“Additionally, the national estimates varied, increased risk [was] observed only in the oldest cohorts, and sensitivity analysis checking underlying assumptions of the analyses were not consistent. Therefore, the overall and combined increased relative risks following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations should be interpreted with caution,” they say.

They note that their results with the AstraZeneca vaccine are in line with a comparison of observed and historic rates performed on partly the same population in Norway and Denmark and also with a Scottish national case-control study.

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

A new Scandinavian study has confirmed previous data showing increased rates of cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

The study also showed higher rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, although these increases were less than the rates observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent.

The researchers conclude that confirmatory analysis on the two mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.

The study was published in the June issue of JAMA Network Open.

“This study confirms what we know from other studies: that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with the rare but serious side effect of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” lead author Jacob Dag Berild, MD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, told this news organization.

“Reassuringly, no consistent association was observed between the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and these rare complications,” he added.

Dr. Dag Berild noted that in the current study there was an excess of 1.6 events of cerebral venous thrombosis per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses, which is similar to what has been previously reported.

Asked how he saw these results affecting continued use of these vaccines, Dr. Dag Berild pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine depends on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the risk for a severe outcome from COVID-19 weighed against the risk for an adverse event after vaccination.

“The European Medicines Agency has concluded that the overall risk-benefit ratio remains positive for the AstraZeneca vaccine, but Norway, Finland, and Denmark no longer use the AstraZeneca vaccine in their vaccination programs because of adequate availability of alternative vaccines. I think this is a reasonable decision,” he said.

For the current study, the researchers linked individual-level data separately from national population, patient, and vaccination registers in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Patient registers were used to identify hospital visits and admissions related to thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic disease in all three countries.

The main outcomes were relative rates of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, and cerebrovascular disease in the 28-day period after vaccination, compared with the control period prior to vaccination.

The authors note that a strength of this study is the use of registers with full population coverage in three countries with universal health care, ensuring equal access to care for all permanent residents. At the end of the study period, from Jan. 1, 2020 to May 16, 2021, more than 5.3 million people in the three countries were vaccinated with one or two doses.

Another strength is the inherent adjustment for time-invariant confounders in the self-controlled case series design and the resulting control of confounders that can affect the more traditional observational studies when complete data for confounders are not available, they add.

Of the 265,339 hospital contacts, 43% were made by female patients and 93% by patients born in or before 1971, and 44% were for coronary artery disease, 21% for coagulation disorders, and 35% for cerebrovascular disease.

In the 28-day period after vaccination, there was an elevated rate of coronary artery disease after the Moderna vaccine (relative rate, 1.13) but not after the AstraZeneca (RR, 0.92) or Pfizer (RR, 0.96) vaccines.

There was an observed increase in the rate of coagulation disorders after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 2.01; Pfizer RR, 1.12; and Moderna RR, 1.26).

There was also an increase in the rate of cerebrovascular disease after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 1.32; Pfizer RR, 1.09; and Moderna RR, 1.21).

For individual diseases in the main outcomes, two notably high rates were observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, with relative rates of 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess events per 100,000 doses, respectively.

The elevated risk after the AstraZeneca vaccine was consistent across all three countries and robust in sensitivity analyses.

The researchers report that they also observed statistically significant increases in hospital contacts for thrombocytopenic and thromboembolic events after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the risk was smaller than after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

“Additionally, the national estimates varied, increased risk [was] observed only in the oldest cohorts, and sensitivity analysis checking underlying assumptions of the analyses were not consistent. Therefore, the overall and combined increased relative risks following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations should be interpreted with caution,” they say.

They note that their results with the AstraZeneca vaccine are in line with a comparison of observed and historic rates performed on partly the same population in Norway and Denmark and also with a Scottish national case-control study.

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

A new Scandinavian study has confirmed previous data showing increased rates of cerebral venous thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.

The study also showed higher rates of several thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic outcomes after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, although these increases were less than the rates observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, and sensitivity analyses were not consistent.

The researchers conclude that confirmatory analysis on the two mRNA vaccines by other methods are warranted.

The study was published in the June issue of JAMA Network Open.

“This study confirms what we know from other studies: that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with the rare but serious side effect of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” lead author Jacob Dag Berild, MD, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, told this news organization.

“Reassuringly, no consistent association was observed between the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and these rare complications,” he added.

Dr. Dag Berild noted that in the current study there was an excess of 1.6 events of cerebral venous thrombosis per 100,000 AstraZeneca vaccine doses, which is similar to what has been previously reported.

Asked how he saw these results affecting continued use of these vaccines, Dr. Dag Berild pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine depends on the risk of contracting COVID-19 and the risk for a severe outcome from COVID-19 weighed against the risk for an adverse event after vaccination.

“The European Medicines Agency has concluded that the overall risk-benefit ratio remains positive for the AstraZeneca vaccine, but Norway, Finland, and Denmark no longer use the AstraZeneca vaccine in their vaccination programs because of adequate availability of alternative vaccines. I think this is a reasonable decision,” he said.

For the current study, the researchers linked individual-level data separately from national population, patient, and vaccination registers in Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Patient registers were used to identify hospital visits and admissions related to thromboembolic and thrombocytopenic disease in all three countries.

The main outcomes were relative rates of coronary artery disease, coagulation disorders, and cerebrovascular disease in the 28-day period after vaccination, compared with the control period prior to vaccination.

The authors note that a strength of this study is the use of registers with full population coverage in three countries with universal health care, ensuring equal access to care for all permanent residents. At the end of the study period, from Jan. 1, 2020 to May 16, 2021, more than 5.3 million people in the three countries were vaccinated with one or two doses.

Another strength is the inherent adjustment for time-invariant confounders in the self-controlled case series design and the resulting control of confounders that can affect the more traditional observational studies when complete data for confounders are not available, they add.

Of the 265,339 hospital contacts, 43% were made by female patients and 93% by patients born in or before 1971, and 44% were for coronary artery disease, 21% for coagulation disorders, and 35% for cerebrovascular disease.

In the 28-day period after vaccination, there was an elevated rate of coronary artery disease after the Moderna vaccine (relative rate, 1.13) but not after the AstraZeneca (RR, 0.92) or Pfizer (RR, 0.96) vaccines.

There was an observed increase in the rate of coagulation disorders after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 2.01; Pfizer RR, 1.12; and Moderna RR, 1.26).

There was also an increase in the rate of cerebrovascular disease after all three vaccines (AstraZeneca RR, 1.32; Pfizer RR, 1.09; and Moderna RR, 1.21).

For individual diseases in the main outcomes, two notably high rates were observed after the AstraZeneca vaccine, with relative rates of 12.04 for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 and 4.9 excess events per 100,000 doses, respectively.

The elevated risk after the AstraZeneca vaccine was consistent across all three countries and robust in sensitivity analyses.

The researchers report that they also observed statistically significant increases in hospital contacts for thrombocytopenic and thromboembolic events after the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. However, the risk was smaller than after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

“Additionally, the national estimates varied, increased risk [was] observed only in the oldest cohorts, and sensitivity analysis checking underlying assumptions of the analyses were not consistent. Therefore, the overall and combined increased relative risks following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations should be interpreted with caution,” they say.

They note that their results with the AstraZeneca vaccine are in line with a comparison of observed and historic rates performed on partly the same population in Norway and Denmark and also with a Scottish national case-control study.

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

Cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBTs) can provide relief from comorbid, persistent posttraumatic headache and posttraumatic stress disorder, new research suggests.

Results from a randomized clinical trial of almost 200 military veterans showed that, compared with usual care, CBT for headache led to significant improvement in both headache disability and PTSD symptoms. Cognitive-processing therapy (CPT) also led to significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, but it did not improve headache disability.

Lead author Donald McGeary, PhD, department of rehabilitation medicine, the University of Texas Health Science Center,San Antonio, noted the improvements shown in headache disability after CBT were likely caused by its building of patients’ confidence that they could control or manage their headaches themselves.

That sense of control was key to helping patients “get their lives back. If you can improve a person’s belief that they can control their headache, they function better,” Dr. McGeary said in a news release.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Signature wounds

Both mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) and PTSD are signature wounds of post-9/11 military conflicts. The two conditions commonly occur together and can harm quality of life and functioning, the investigators noted. Following mild TBI, many veterans experience persistent posttraumatic headache, which often co-occurs with PTSD.

To gauge the impact of CBTs for this patient population, researchers recruited 193 post-9/11 combat veterans (mean age, 39.7 years) with clinically significant PTSD symptoms and posttraumatic headache that had persisted more than 3 months after TBI. Of these, 167 were men.

All participants were receiving care at the Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center of the South Texas Veterans Health Care System in Houston.

They were randomly allocated to undergo 8 sessions of manualized CBT for headache, 12 sessions of manualized CPT for PTSD, or usual headache treatment.

CBT for headache uses CBT concepts to reduce headache disability and improve mood – and includes key components, such as relaxation, setting goals for activities patients want to resume, and planning for those situations.

CPT is a leading psychotherapy for PTSD. It teaches patients how to evaluate and change upsetting and maladaptive thoughts related to their trauma. The idea is that, by changing thoughts, patients can change the way they feel.

Treatment as usual was consistent with multidisciplinary treatment in a large Veterans Affairs multiple-trauma center and could include pharmacotherapies, physical and occupational therapies, pain medications, acupuncture, and massage.

The coprimary outcomes were headache-related disability on the six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and PTSD symptom severity on the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (PCL-5), assessed from end of treatment to 6 months post treatment.

At baseline, all participants reported severe headache-related disability (mean HIT-6 score, 65.8 points) and severe PTSD symptoms (mean PCL-5 score, 48.4 points).
 

Significant improvement

Compared with usual care, CBT for headache led to significant improvement in headache disability (posttreatment mean change in HIT-6 score, –3.4 points; P < .01) and PTSD symptoms (posttreatment change in PCL-5, –6.5 points; P = .04).

CPT also led to significant improvement in PTSD symptoms (8.9 points lower on the PCL-5 after treatment; P = .01), but it had only a modest effect on headache disability (1.4 points lower after treatment; P = .21).

“This was a surprise,” Dr. McGeary said. “If theories about PTSD driving posttraumatic headache are correct, you’d expect CPT to help both PTSD and headache. Our findings call that into question.”

Despite improvements in headache disability, CBT for headache did not significantly reduce headache frequency or intensity.

The researchers are now hoping to replicate their findings in a larger trial at multiple military and VA sites around the United States.

“We need more women, more racial and ethnic diversity, veterans as well as active military of different branches with varying comorbidities in different geographic regions attached to different hospitals and medical systems, because we’re comparing to usual care,” Dr. McGeary said.
 

A step forward

Commenting on the study, retired Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chair of psychiatry, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, said she was “pleased” to see that this study was conducted and that she was pleased with the results.

“It’s been 20 years since 9/11, and wars are pretty much forgotten, but people are still suffering from the effects of traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder. These are not conditions that go away quickly or lightly. They do take work,” said Dr. Ritchie, who was not involved with the research.

Finding therapies besides medication that are helpful is “good and is a step forward. The more alternatives we have, the better,” she concluded.

The study was supported in part by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. McGeary and Dr. Ritchie have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBTs) can provide relief from comorbid, persistent posttraumatic headache and posttraumatic stress disorder, new research suggests.

Results from a randomized clinical trial of almost 200 military veterans showed that, compared with usual care, CBT for headache led to significant improvement in both headache disability and PTSD symptoms. Cognitive-processing therapy (CPT) also led to significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, but it did not improve headache disability.

Lead author Donald McGeary, PhD, department of rehabilitation medicine, the University of Texas Health Science Center,San Antonio, noted the improvements shown in headache disability after CBT were likely caused by its building of patients’ confidence that they could control or manage their headaches themselves.

That sense of control was key to helping patients “get their lives back. If you can improve a person’s belief that they can control their headache, they function better,” Dr. McGeary said in a news release.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Signature wounds

Both mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) and PTSD are signature wounds of post-9/11 military conflicts. The two conditions commonly occur together and can harm quality of life and functioning, the investigators noted. Following mild TBI, many veterans experience persistent posttraumatic headache, which often co-occurs with PTSD.

To gauge the impact of CBTs for this patient population, researchers recruited 193 post-9/11 combat veterans (mean age, 39.7 years) with clinically significant PTSD symptoms and posttraumatic headache that had persisted more than 3 months after TBI. Of these, 167 were men.

All participants were receiving care at the Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center of the South Texas Veterans Health Care System in Houston.

They were randomly allocated to undergo 8 sessions of manualized CBT for headache, 12 sessions of manualized CPT for PTSD, or usual headache treatment.

CBT for headache uses CBT concepts to reduce headache disability and improve mood – and includes key components, such as relaxation, setting goals for activities patients want to resume, and planning for those situations.

CPT is a leading psychotherapy for PTSD. It teaches patients how to evaluate and change upsetting and maladaptive thoughts related to their trauma. The idea is that, by changing thoughts, patients can change the way they feel.

Treatment as usual was consistent with multidisciplinary treatment in a large Veterans Affairs multiple-trauma center and could include pharmacotherapies, physical and occupational therapies, pain medications, acupuncture, and massage.

The coprimary outcomes were headache-related disability on the six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and PTSD symptom severity on the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (PCL-5), assessed from end of treatment to 6 months post treatment.

At baseline, all participants reported severe headache-related disability (mean HIT-6 score, 65.8 points) and severe PTSD symptoms (mean PCL-5 score, 48.4 points).
 

Significant improvement

Compared with usual care, CBT for headache led to significant improvement in headache disability (posttreatment mean change in HIT-6 score, –3.4 points; P < .01) and PTSD symptoms (posttreatment change in PCL-5, –6.5 points; P = .04).

CPT also led to significant improvement in PTSD symptoms (8.9 points lower on the PCL-5 after treatment; P = .01), but it had only a modest effect on headache disability (1.4 points lower after treatment; P = .21).

“This was a surprise,” Dr. McGeary said. “If theories about PTSD driving posttraumatic headache are correct, you’d expect CPT to help both PTSD and headache. Our findings call that into question.”

Despite improvements in headache disability, CBT for headache did not significantly reduce headache frequency or intensity.

The researchers are now hoping to replicate their findings in a larger trial at multiple military and VA sites around the United States.

“We need more women, more racial and ethnic diversity, veterans as well as active military of different branches with varying comorbidities in different geographic regions attached to different hospitals and medical systems, because we’re comparing to usual care,” Dr. McGeary said.
 

A step forward

Commenting on the study, retired Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chair of psychiatry, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, said she was “pleased” to see that this study was conducted and that she was pleased with the results.

“It’s been 20 years since 9/11, and wars are pretty much forgotten, but people are still suffering from the effects of traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder. These are not conditions that go away quickly or lightly. They do take work,” said Dr. Ritchie, who was not involved with the research.

Finding therapies besides medication that are helpful is “good and is a step forward. The more alternatives we have, the better,” she concluded.

The study was supported in part by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. McGeary and Dr. Ritchie have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBTs) can provide relief from comorbid, persistent posttraumatic headache and posttraumatic stress disorder, new research suggests.

Results from a randomized clinical trial of almost 200 military veterans showed that, compared with usual care, CBT for headache led to significant improvement in both headache disability and PTSD symptoms. Cognitive-processing therapy (CPT) also led to significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, but it did not improve headache disability.

Lead author Donald McGeary, PhD, department of rehabilitation medicine, the University of Texas Health Science Center,San Antonio, noted the improvements shown in headache disability after CBT were likely caused by its building of patients’ confidence that they could control or manage their headaches themselves.

That sense of control was key to helping patients “get their lives back. If you can improve a person’s belief that they can control their headache, they function better,” Dr. McGeary said in a news release.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Signature wounds

Both mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) and PTSD are signature wounds of post-9/11 military conflicts. The two conditions commonly occur together and can harm quality of life and functioning, the investigators noted. Following mild TBI, many veterans experience persistent posttraumatic headache, which often co-occurs with PTSD.

To gauge the impact of CBTs for this patient population, researchers recruited 193 post-9/11 combat veterans (mean age, 39.7 years) with clinically significant PTSD symptoms and posttraumatic headache that had persisted more than 3 months after TBI. Of these, 167 were men.

All participants were receiving care at the Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center of the South Texas Veterans Health Care System in Houston.

They were randomly allocated to undergo 8 sessions of manualized CBT for headache, 12 sessions of manualized CPT for PTSD, or usual headache treatment.

CBT for headache uses CBT concepts to reduce headache disability and improve mood – and includes key components, such as relaxation, setting goals for activities patients want to resume, and planning for those situations.

CPT is a leading psychotherapy for PTSD. It teaches patients how to evaluate and change upsetting and maladaptive thoughts related to their trauma. The idea is that, by changing thoughts, patients can change the way they feel.

Treatment as usual was consistent with multidisciplinary treatment in a large Veterans Affairs multiple-trauma center and could include pharmacotherapies, physical and occupational therapies, pain medications, acupuncture, and massage.

The coprimary outcomes were headache-related disability on the six-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and PTSD symptom severity on the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (PCL-5), assessed from end of treatment to 6 months post treatment.

At baseline, all participants reported severe headache-related disability (mean HIT-6 score, 65.8 points) and severe PTSD symptoms (mean PCL-5 score, 48.4 points).
 

Significant improvement

Compared with usual care, CBT for headache led to significant improvement in headache disability (posttreatment mean change in HIT-6 score, –3.4 points; P < .01) and PTSD symptoms (posttreatment change in PCL-5, –6.5 points; P = .04).

CPT also led to significant improvement in PTSD symptoms (8.9 points lower on the PCL-5 after treatment; P = .01), but it had only a modest effect on headache disability (1.4 points lower after treatment; P = .21).

“This was a surprise,” Dr. McGeary said. “If theories about PTSD driving posttraumatic headache are correct, you’d expect CPT to help both PTSD and headache. Our findings call that into question.”

Despite improvements in headache disability, CBT for headache did not significantly reduce headache frequency or intensity.

The researchers are now hoping to replicate their findings in a larger trial at multiple military and VA sites around the United States.

“We need more women, more racial and ethnic diversity, veterans as well as active military of different branches with varying comorbidities in different geographic regions attached to different hospitals and medical systems, because we’re comparing to usual care,” Dr. McGeary said.
 

A step forward

Commenting on the study, retired Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, MD, chair of psychiatry, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, said she was “pleased” to see that this study was conducted and that she was pleased with the results.

“It’s been 20 years since 9/11, and wars are pretty much forgotten, but people are still suffering from the effects of traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder. These are not conditions that go away quickly or lightly. They do take work,” said Dr. Ritchie, who was not involved with the research.

Finding therapies besides medication that are helpful is “good and is a step forward. The more alternatives we have, the better,” she concluded.

The study was supported in part by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. McGeary and Dr. Ritchie have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

LONDON – Substantial reductions in liver fat and fibrosis can be achieved with statin therapy, according to research presented at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Statins are thought to have multiple beneficial actions in people with fatty liver disease, but there has been little insight into how they may be exerting such effects.

Now, data from the Rotterdam Study and others suggest that statins may be reducing the formation of lipid droplets as well as influencing the expression of important inflammatory genes.

The results “require further confirmation,” the team behind the work said, which was done at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with researchers at The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Statins are inversely associated with multiple components of the NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] spectrum,” said Ibrahim Ayada, a PhD student in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Erasmus MC.

“Statins can inhibit lipid synthesis in organoids and statins also exhibit healthy inflammatory effects, which might contribute to the hepatoprotective effects that we observe in our population studies,” Mr. Ayada said.
 

A rising problem that needs addressing

Together NAFLD and NASH constitute a significant and increasing health burden, Mr. Ayada observed, noting that there were an estimated 64 million people in the United States and 52 million people in Europe, at least, with the rise mirroring the obesity pandemic.

“The number of patients visiting outpatient clinics has nearly doubled within a study period of 5 years,” he said.

“There is no pharmacologic therapy,” he reminded his audience, observing that fatty liver disease was a major indication for liver transplantation.

Statins are a long-standing staple of cardiovascular disease management and are known to have pleiotropic effects, Mr. Ayada explained. Their use in NAFLD and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has been purported but is supported by inconclusive evidence.

Indeed, a prior Cochrane review performed in 2013 found only two studies that were eligible for analysis and had “high risk of bias and a small numbers of participants,” according to the review’s authors.
 

Examining the connection

To look at the possible benefits of statins in people with NASH and examine how these effects might be occurring, Mr. Ayada and collaborators first took data from the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based prospective cohort that has been collecting data on its participants since the early 90s.

Data on over 4,500 participants were examined and of these, just over 1,000 had NAFLD. Statin versus no statin use was found to be associated with around a 30% reduction in fatty liver disease, with an odds ratio or 0.72 for NAFLD.

Then, looking only at a subset of patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, statin use was associated with a 45% reduction in NASH (OR, 0.55) and a 24% reduction in fibrosis, although only the NASH reduction was significant (P = .031). The purpose of this cohort is to look at potential biomarkers and all participants had donated blood, urine, and stool samples; all were of Chinese descent, Mr. Ayada said.

“We then pooled our results with existing evidence in a meta-analysis,” said Mr. Ayada, including 16 studies. While results showed an overall inverse association, only the findings for a reduction in NAFLD and fibrosis were significant; the relationship between statins and NASH was not significant.
 

Investigating mechanistic effects

Then, for the second part of their work, Mr. Ayada and associates looked at potential mechanistic effects of statins.

“We did part two because we knew part one was going to be cross-sectional and we could only show the association and not causality, so we tried to shed some light on possible pathways,” he said.

To do this they used a novel model of liver organoids developed to study fatty liver disease and test potential therapeutics. In this model human liver organoids are exposed to sodium lactate, sodium pyruvate, and octanoic acid, which induce the formation of lipid droplets. Exposing the organoids to statins – simvastatin and lovastatin were used in the experiments – resulted in a reduced number of the induced lipid droplets.

“Although all concentrations of statins significantly inhibited the lipid size versus the control, the major effect was quite modest,” observed Mr. Ayada. The effect was most noticeable at the highest dose used (10 micromolar), and what they think might be happening is that the statins are clearing the smaller droplets first, leaving the larger ones behind.

Next, they looked at the effect of statin treatment on inflammatory gene expression in liver-derived monocytes. These will turn into macrophages and play a key role in chronic inflammation, Mr. Ayada explained. Initial results suggest that several proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-8 may be downplayed by statin therapy.

An anti-inflammatory effect of statins was also reported in unrelated poster presentations at the congress. While researchers Seul Ki Han and associated from South Korea showed an anti-inflammatory effect of a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe (SAT083), a Dutch team found that atorvastatin reduced the infiltration of hepatic macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes, as well as lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines (SAT033).
 

Statins for NASH – a missed opportunity?

“As far as I am aware there is no robust evidence from large, randomized trials to suggest statins lessen chances of NAFLD, or improve its surrogate markers such as ALT or GGT [gamma-glutamyltransferase] levels,” Naveed Sattar, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE, FMedSci, commented in an interview.

“The Rotterdam study is merely cross-sectional and cannot answer the question of causality,” added Dr. Sattar, who is professor of metabolic medicine and Honorary Consultant in Cardiovascular & Medical Science at the University of Glasgow. “It may be people who have less NAFLD are more likely to be prescribed statins, perhaps because doctors are wary of prescribing statins to those with slightly deranged liver tests,” he qualified.

Moreover, said Dr. Sattar, “prior evidence shows statins are underused in people with heart disease but who have NAFLD, which represents a missed opportunity to prevent heart disease.

“If statins had positive effects for preventing conversion of NAFLD to NASH or lessening fibrosis, I believe we would have known that by now.”

As for use of statins in future treatments of fatty liver disease, Dr. Sattar said: “I would not pin my hopes on statins to improve liver health, but doctors need to remember statins are safe in people with NAFLD or NASH and they should not be withheld in those who have existing cardiovascular disease or at elevated risk.” 

The study received no commercial funding. Mr. Ayada and Dr. Sattar had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

LONDON – Substantial reductions in liver fat and fibrosis can be achieved with statin therapy, according to research presented at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Statins are thought to have multiple beneficial actions in people with fatty liver disease, but there has been little insight into how they may be exerting such effects.

Now, data from the Rotterdam Study and others suggest that statins may be reducing the formation of lipid droplets as well as influencing the expression of important inflammatory genes.

The results “require further confirmation,” the team behind the work said, which was done at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with researchers at The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Statins are inversely associated with multiple components of the NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] spectrum,” said Ibrahim Ayada, a PhD student in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Erasmus MC.

“Statins can inhibit lipid synthesis in organoids and statins also exhibit healthy inflammatory effects, which might contribute to the hepatoprotective effects that we observe in our population studies,” Mr. Ayada said.
 

A rising problem that needs addressing

Together NAFLD and NASH constitute a significant and increasing health burden, Mr. Ayada observed, noting that there were an estimated 64 million people in the United States and 52 million people in Europe, at least, with the rise mirroring the obesity pandemic.

“The number of patients visiting outpatient clinics has nearly doubled within a study period of 5 years,” he said.

“There is no pharmacologic therapy,” he reminded his audience, observing that fatty liver disease was a major indication for liver transplantation.

Statins are a long-standing staple of cardiovascular disease management and are known to have pleiotropic effects, Mr. Ayada explained. Their use in NAFLD and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has been purported but is supported by inconclusive evidence.

Indeed, a prior Cochrane review performed in 2013 found only two studies that were eligible for analysis and had “high risk of bias and a small numbers of participants,” according to the review’s authors.
 

Examining the connection

To look at the possible benefits of statins in people with NASH and examine how these effects might be occurring, Mr. Ayada and collaborators first took data from the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based prospective cohort that has been collecting data on its participants since the early 90s.

Data on over 4,500 participants were examined and of these, just over 1,000 had NAFLD. Statin versus no statin use was found to be associated with around a 30% reduction in fatty liver disease, with an odds ratio or 0.72 for NAFLD.

Then, looking only at a subset of patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, statin use was associated with a 45% reduction in NASH (OR, 0.55) and a 24% reduction in fibrosis, although only the NASH reduction was significant (P = .031). The purpose of this cohort is to look at potential biomarkers and all participants had donated blood, urine, and stool samples; all were of Chinese descent, Mr. Ayada said.

“We then pooled our results with existing evidence in a meta-analysis,” said Mr. Ayada, including 16 studies. While results showed an overall inverse association, only the findings for a reduction in NAFLD and fibrosis were significant; the relationship between statins and NASH was not significant.
 

Investigating mechanistic effects

Then, for the second part of their work, Mr. Ayada and associates looked at potential mechanistic effects of statins.

“We did part two because we knew part one was going to be cross-sectional and we could only show the association and not causality, so we tried to shed some light on possible pathways,” he said.

To do this they used a novel model of liver organoids developed to study fatty liver disease and test potential therapeutics. In this model human liver organoids are exposed to sodium lactate, sodium pyruvate, and octanoic acid, which induce the formation of lipid droplets. Exposing the organoids to statins – simvastatin and lovastatin were used in the experiments – resulted in a reduced number of the induced lipid droplets.

“Although all concentrations of statins significantly inhibited the lipid size versus the control, the major effect was quite modest,” observed Mr. Ayada. The effect was most noticeable at the highest dose used (10 micromolar), and what they think might be happening is that the statins are clearing the smaller droplets first, leaving the larger ones behind.

Next, they looked at the effect of statin treatment on inflammatory gene expression in liver-derived monocytes. These will turn into macrophages and play a key role in chronic inflammation, Mr. Ayada explained. Initial results suggest that several proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-8 may be downplayed by statin therapy.

An anti-inflammatory effect of statins was also reported in unrelated poster presentations at the congress. While researchers Seul Ki Han and associated from South Korea showed an anti-inflammatory effect of a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe (SAT083), a Dutch team found that atorvastatin reduced the infiltration of hepatic macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes, as well as lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines (SAT033).
 

Statins for NASH – a missed opportunity?

“As far as I am aware there is no robust evidence from large, randomized trials to suggest statins lessen chances of NAFLD, or improve its surrogate markers such as ALT or GGT [gamma-glutamyltransferase] levels,” Naveed Sattar, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE, FMedSci, commented in an interview.

“The Rotterdam study is merely cross-sectional and cannot answer the question of causality,” added Dr. Sattar, who is professor of metabolic medicine and Honorary Consultant in Cardiovascular & Medical Science at the University of Glasgow. “It may be people who have less NAFLD are more likely to be prescribed statins, perhaps because doctors are wary of prescribing statins to those with slightly deranged liver tests,” he qualified.

Moreover, said Dr. Sattar, “prior evidence shows statins are underused in people with heart disease but who have NAFLD, which represents a missed opportunity to prevent heart disease.

“If statins had positive effects for preventing conversion of NAFLD to NASH or lessening fibrosis, I believe we would have known that by now.”

As for use of statins in future treatments of fatty liver disease, Dr. Sattar said: “I would not pin my hopes on statins to improve liver health, but doctors need to remember statins are safe in people with NAFLD or NASH and they should not be withheld in those who have existing cardiovascular disease or at elevated risk.” 

The study received no commercial funding. Mr. Ayada and Dr. Sattar had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

LONDON – Substantial reductions in liver fat and fibrosis can be achieved with statin therapy, according to research presented at the annual International Liver Congress sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.

Statins are thought to have multiple beneficial actions in people with fatty liver disease, but there has been little insight into how they may be exerting such effects.

Now, data from the Rotterdam Study and others suggest that statins may be reducing the formation of lipid droplets as well as influencing the expression of important inflammatory genes.

The results “require further confirmation,” the team behind the work said, which was done at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, in collaboration with researchers at The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou (China) Medical University.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Statins are inversely associated with multiple components of the NAFLD [nonalcoholic fatty liver disease] spectrum,” said Ibrahim Ayada, a PhD student in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Erasmus MC.

“Statins can inhibit lipid synthesis in organoids and statins also exhibit healthy inflammatory effects, which might contribute to the hepatoprotective effects that we observe in our population studies,” Mr. Ayada said.
 

A rising problem that needs addressing

Together NAFLD and NASH constitute a significant and increasing health burden, Mr. Ayada observed, noting that there were an estimated 64 million people in the United States and 52 million people in Europe, at least, with the rise mirroring the obesity pandemic.

“The number of patients visiting outpatient clinics has nearly doubled within a study period of 5 years,” he said.

“There is no pharmacologic therapy,” he reminded his audience, observing that fatty liver disease was a major indication for liver transplantation.

Statins are a long-standing staple of cardiovascular disease management and are known to have pleiotropic effects, Mr. Ayada explained. Their use in NAFLD and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has been purported but is supported by inconclusive evidence.

Indeed, a prior Cochrane review performed in 2013 found only two studies that were eligible for analysis and had “high risk of bias and a small numbers of participants,” according to the review’s authors.
 

Examining the connection

To look at the possible benefits of statins in people with NASH and examine how these effects might be occurring, Mr. Ayada and collaborators first took data from the Rotterdam Study, a large population-based prospective cohort that has been collecting data on its participants since the early 90s.

Data on over 4,500 participants were examined and of these, just over 1,000 had NAFLD. Statin versus no statin use was found to be associated with around a 30% reduction in fatty liver disease, with an odds ratio or 0.72 for NAFLD.

Then, looking only at a subset of patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD, statin use was associated with a 45% reduction in NASH (OR, 0.55) and a 24% reduction in fibrosis, although only the NASH reduction was significant (P = .031). The purpose of this cohort is to look at potential biomarkers and all participants had donated blood, urine, and stool samples; all were of Chinese descent, Mr. Ayada said.

“We then pooled our results with existing evidence in a meta-analysis,” said Mr. Ayada, including 16 studies. While results showed an overall inverse association, only the findings for a reduction in NAFLD and fibrosis were significant; the relationship between statins and NASH was not significant.
 

Investigating mechanistic effects

Then, for the second part of their work, Mr. Ayada and associates looked at potential mechanistic effects of statins.

“We did part two because we knew part one was going to be cross-sectional and we could only show the association and not causality, so we tried to shed some light on possible pathways,” he said.

To do this they used a novel model of liver organoids developed to study fatty liver disease and test potential therapeutics. In this model human liver organoids are exposed to sodium lactate, sodium pyruvate, and octanoic acid, which induce the formation of lipid droplets. Exposing the organoids to statins – simvastatin and lovastatin were used in the experiments – resulted in a reduced number of the induced lipid droplets.

“Although all concentrations of statins significantly inhibited the lipid size versus the control, the major effect was quite modest,” observed Mr. Ayada. The effect was most noticeable at the highest dose used (10 micromolar), and what they think might be happening is that the statins are clearing the smaller droplets first, leaving the larger ones behind.

Next, they looked at the effect of statin treatment on inflammatory gene expression in liver-derived monocytes. These will turn into macrophages and play a key role in chronic inflammation, Mr. Ayada explained. Initial results suggest that several proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-8 may be downplayed by statin therapy.

An anti-inflammatory effect of statins was also reported in unrelated poster presentations at the congress. While researchers Seul Ki Han and associated from South Korea showed an anti-inflammatory effect of a combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe (SAT083), a Dutch team found that atorvastatin reduced the infiltration of hepatic macrophages, neutrophils, and monocytes, as well as lowering levels of proinflammatory cytokines (SAT033).
 

Statins for NASH – a missed opportunity?

“As far as I am aware there is no robust evidence from large, randomized trials to suggest statins lessen chances of NAFLD, or improve its surrogate markers such as ALT or GGT [gamma-glutamyltransferase] levels,” Naveed Sattar, PhD, FRCP, FRCPath, FRSE, FMedSci, commented in an interview.

“The Rotterdam study is merely cross-sectional and cannot answer the question of causality,” added Dr. Sattar, who is professor of metabolic medicine and Honorary Consultant in Cardiovascular & Medical Science at the University of Glasgow. “It may be people who have less NAFLD are more likely to be prescribed statins, perhaps because doctors are wary of prescribing statins to those with slightly deranged liver tests,” he qualified.

Moreover, said Dr. Sattar, “prior evidence shows statins are underused in people with heart disease but who have NAFLD, which represents a missed opportunity to prevent heart disease.

“If statins had positive effects for preventing conversion of NAFLD to NASH or lessening fibrosis, I believe we would have known that by now.”

As for use of statins in future treatments of fatty liver disease, Dr. Sattar said: “I would not pin my hopes on statins to improve liver health, but doctors need to remember statins are safe in people with NAFLD or NASH and they should not be withheld in those who have existing cardiovascular disease or at elevated risk.” 

The study received no commercial funding. Mr. Ayada and Dr. Sattar had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

LONDON – Bulevirtide may not just treat but perhaps be a potential cure for hepatitis D in some patients, as was suggested at the annual International Liver Congress.

Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial showed that, after 48 weeks of treatment, almost half of those treated with bulevirtide achieved the combined primary endpoint of reduced or undetectable hepatitis delta virus (HDV) RNA levels and normalized ALT levels.

“The good message for our patients is that the initial data of the smaller phase 2 trials will really be confirmed, so the drug works,” Heiner Wedemeyer, MD, said at a media briefing ahead of his presentation at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver .

“It induces a decline in viral load and, very importantly for us as hepatologists, liver enzymes normalize, this is really good news” added Dr. Wedemeyer, who is the clinic director of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and endocrinology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

“This is really an almost historic moment for hepatology,” he said. “It’s the first time that these patients have an antiviral treatment; they are afraid of dying and now they have a hope.”

Giving his thoughts, Thomas Berg, MD, Secretary General of EASL, said: “We are entering into a golden age of hepatology science when it comes to viral hepatitis.

Dr. Berg, also of University Clinic Leipzig (Germany), added: “We have several million people worldwide living with viral hepatitis; we have a cure for hepatitis C but there’s no cure for hepatitis B or hepatitis D, so these data give me great hope that we have scientific momentum with us.”
 

Pivotal phase 3 study

The MYR301 trial is an important and pivotal study for bulevirtide, which is a first-in-class HDV entry inhibitor. While it was approved for use Europe in 2020 under the brand name Hepcludex, the drug remains investigational in the United States.

“We were really surprised that EMA [European Medicines Agency] went forward, granting approval because there was no alternative available at that time,” Dr. Wedemeyer said. That approval is conditional, however, and was based on the results of phase 2 studies with the proviso that further data needed would need to be provided. Hopefully, the phase 3 findings will mean that the drug will receive full official approval, he said.

Overall, 150 patients with chronic hepatitis D were recruited into the phase 3 study and randomized to receive one of two doses of bulevirtide (2 mg or 10 mg) for 144 weeks or delayed treatment for 48 weeks followed by the higher dose of the drug until the remainder of the treatment period. Bulevirtide was given as once-daily subcutaneous injection.

The mean age of participants was 41 years, the majority (82.7%) were White, and just under half already had liver cirrhosis. For inclusion, Dr. Wedemeyer said that they had to have compensated cirrhosis.

Just over half had received prior interferon therapy and almost two-thirds were receiving concomitant nucleos(t)ide (NUC) treatment.
 

Key results

The primary endpoint was defined as a combination of decreased HDV RNA (defined as undetectable or a 2 log or greater decrease) and normalized ALT (defined as 3.1 U/L or less in women and 4.1 U/L or less in men). This was assessed after 48 weeks’ treatment and was achieved by 45% of participants given the 2-mg dose of bulevirtide, 48% of those given the 10-mg dose, and by 2% of those who had delayed treatment (P < .0001 for both doses, compared with delayed treatment).

The treatment benefit was consistent across all subgroups of patients, including those with cirrhosis, Dr. Wedemeyer reported.

Looking at some of the secondary endpoints, he reported that, when considering only decreased HDV RNA, the rate of response was over 70% with both dose of bulevirtide at week 48, compared with just 4% for delayed treatment (P < .0001), although there was no significant difference in rates of undetectable HDV RNA between the two doses. ALT normalization rates were 51%-56% versus 12% for delayed treatment (P < .0001).

A further benefit was seen in liver stiffness, with values reduced by at least three points at week 48 with either dose of bulevirtide, compared with an increase of almost 1 point for delayed treatment.

As for side effects, one of the concerns for bulevirtide is an increase in serum bile acids, but when this occurred, it occurred early and remained steady over the course of treatment, with a less pronounced effect in the 2 mg–dosed group than the 10 mg–dosed group. There were no serious adverse reactions related to bulevirtide or any adverse event that led to stopping the drug.

“There are always questions that need to be answered,” Dr. Wedemeyer acknowledged. Indeed, it’s unclear for how long patients need to be treated and if treatment with interferon is needed. In the phase 2 studies (MYR202 and MYR203), bulevirtide was given at the same time as pegylated interferon alpha (peg-IFNa) or tenofovir, whereas in the phase 3 MYR301 trial, it was given as monotherapy.
 

Real-world experience

“We have already some real-world data in parallel to this phase 3 trial,” Dr. Wedemeyer said. “So, for us in the hepatitis D field, it is a really exciting time; [it’s] completely novel data and game-changing for patients.”

“The results are similar to our real life study, but in our real-life study, we have some patients treated with interferon and some not treated with interferon,” Hélène Fontaine, MD, of Hôpital Cochin in Paris, observed in an interview.

She reported preliminary results from the prospective BuleDelta cohort, which showed a virologic response rate of 58% and ALT normalization in 46% of patients.

“Virologic response was achieved in more patients receiving bulevirtide in combination with interferon,” she said. Indeed, 84% of patient who received peg-IFNa versus 39% of those who did not achieved a virologic response. However, rates of ALT normalization were more frequent in those received bulevirtide monotherapy than in combination with peg-IFN1 (54% vs. 35%).

A greater benefit of combining bulevirtide with interferon therapy was also seen in another real-world study presented by Victor de Lédinghen, MD, PhD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital. After 18 months of treatment, bulevirtide plus peg-IFNa was associated with undetectable HDV RNA in 57% of patients versus 33% of those given the drug as monotherapy.

“Of course, if you add interferon, it’s better than without but you cannot use interferon in all patients,” he observed in an interview.

Results are good but could be better, he suggested, noting that the results are dependent on patients injecting themselves correctly on a daily basis.

At the media briefing Dr. Wedemeyer also commented on how bulevirtide must be delivered.

“The only, let’s say, disadvantage is that it has to be injected because it’s a peptide, which requires daily injections, but patients managed very well,” Dr. Wedemeyer said.

“There is some evidence from single cases that we may stop treatment and that the virus does not come back,” he said, but stressed that patients should not stop treatment on their own as the risk is not known.

“For patients with advanced disease I consider this as a maintenance treatment,” Dr. Wedemeyer said, at least for the time being.

The MYR3201 study was funded by Gilead Sciences. The BuleDelta cohort is sponsored by the ANRS Maladies Infectieuses Emergencies. Dr. Wedemeyer acknowledged research funding, acting as a consultant to, and giving paid lectures on behalf of Gilead Sciences and MYR as well as having ties to multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Berg, Dr. Fontaine, and Dr. de Lédinghen had no conflicts of interest to report.
 

LONDON – Bulevirtide may not just treat but perhaps be a potential cure for hepatitis D in some patients, as was suggested at the annual International Liver Congress.

Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial showed that, after 48 weeks of treatment, almost half of those treated with bulevirtide achieved the combined primary endpoint of reduced or undetectable hepatitis delta virus (HDV) RNA levels and normalized ALT levels.

“The good message for our patients is that the initial data of the smaller phase 2 trials will really be confirmed, so the drug works,” Heiner Wedemeyer, MD, said at a media briefing ahead of his presentation at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver .

“It induces a decline in viral load and, very importantly for us as hepatologists, liver enzymes normalize, this is really good news” added Dr. Wedemeyer, who is the clinic director of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and endocrinology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

“This is really an almost historic moment for hepatology,” he said. “It’s the first time that these patients have an antiviral treatment; they are afraid of dying and now they have a hope.”

Giving his thoughts, Thomas Berg, MD, Secretary General of EASL, said: “We are entering into a golden age of hepatology science when it comes to viral hepatitis.

Dr. Berg, also of University Clinic Leipzig (Germany), added: “We have several million people worldwide living with viral hepatitis; we have a cure for hepatitis C but there’s no cure for hepatitis B or hepatitis D, so these data give me great hope that we have scientific momentum with us.”
 

Pivotal phase 3 study

The MYR301 trial is an important and pivotal study for bulevirtide, which is a first-in-class HDV entry inhibitor. While it was approved for use Europe in 2020 under the brand name Hepcludex, the drug remains investigational in the United States.

“We were really surprised that EMA [European Medicines Agency] went forward, granting approval because there was no alternative available at that time,” Dr. Wedemeyer said. That approval is conditional, however, and was based on the results of phase 2 studies with the proviso that further data needed would need to be provided. Hopefully, the phase 3 findings will mean that the drug will receive full official approval, he said.

Overall, 150 patients with chronic hepatitis D were recruited into the phase 3 study and randomized to receive one of two doses of bulevirtide (2 mg or 10 mg) for 144 weeks or delayed treatment for 48 weeks followed by the higher dose of the drug until the remainder of the treatment period. Bulevirtide was given as once-daily subcutaneous injection.

The mean age of participants was 41 years, the majority (82.7%) were White, and just under half already had liver cirrhosis. For inclusion, Dr. Wedemeyer said that they had to have compensated cirrhosis.

Just over half had received prior interferon therapy and almost two-thirds were receiving concomitant nucleos(t)ide (NUC) treatment.
 

Key results

The primary endpoint was defined as a combination of decreased HDV RNA (defined as undetectable or a 2 log or greater decrease) and normalized ALT (defined as 3.1 U/L or less in women and 4.1 U/L or less in men). This was assessed after 48 weeks’ treatment and was achieved by 45% of participants given the 2-mg dose of bulevirtide, 48% of those given the 10-mg dose, and by 2% of those who had delayed treatment (P < .0001 for both doses, compared with delayed treatment).

The treatment benefit was consistent across all subgroups of patients, including those with cirrhosis, Dr. Wedemeyer reported.

Looking at some of the secondary endpoints, he reported that, when considering only decreased HDV RNA, the rate of response was over 70% with both dose of bulevirtide at week 48, compared with just 4% for delayed treatment (P < .0001), although there was no significant difference in rates of undetectable HDV RNA between the two doses. ALT normalization rates were 51%-56% versus 12% for delayed treatment (P < .0001).

A further benefit was seen in liver stiffness, with values reduced by at least three points at week 48 with either dose of bulevirtide, compared with an increase of almost 1 point for delayed treatment.

As for side effects, one of the concerns for bulevirtide is an increase in serum bile acids, but when this occurred, it occurred early and remained steady over the course of treatment, with a less pronounced effect in the 2 mg–dosed group than the 10 mg–dosed group. There were no serious adverse reactions related to bulevirtide or any adverse event that led to stopping the drug.

“There are always questions that need to be answered,” Dr. Wedemeyer acknowledged. Indeed, it’s unclear for how long patients need to be treated and if treatment with interferon is needed. In the phase 2 studies (MYR202 and MYR203), bulevirtide was given at the same time as pegylated interferon alpha (peg-IFNa) or tenofovir, whereas in the phase 3 MYR301 trial, it was given as monotherapy.
 

Real-world experience

“We have already some real-world data in parallel to this phase 3 trial,” Dr. Wedemeyer said. “So, for us in the hepatitis D field, it is a really exciting time; [it’s] completely novel data and game-changing for patients.”

“The results are similar to our real life study, but in our real-life study, we have some patients treated with interferon and some not treated with interferon,” Hélène Fontaine, MD, of Hôpital Cochin in Paris, observed in an interview.

She reported preliminary results from the prospective BuleDelta cohort, which showed a virologic response rate of 58% and ALT normalization in 46% of patients.

“Virologic response was achieved in more patients receiving bulevirtide in combination with interferon,” she said. Indeed, 84% of patient who received peg-IFNa versus 39% of those who did not achieved a virologic response. However, rates of ALT normalization were more frequent in those received bulevirtide monotherapy than in combination with peg-IFN1 (54% vs. 35%).

A greater benefit of combining bulevirtide with interferon therapy was also seen in another real-world study presented by Victor de Lédinghen, MD, PhD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital. After 18 months of treatment, bulevirtide plus peg-IFNa was associated with undetectable HDV RNA in 57% of patients versus 33% of those given the drug as monotherapy.

“Of course, if you add interferon, it’s better than without but you cannot use interferon in all patients,” he observed in an interview.

Results are good but could be better, he suggested, noting that the results are dependent on patients injecting themselves correctly on a daily basis.

At the media briefing Dr. Wedemeyer also commented on how bulevirtide must be delivered.

“The only, let’s say, disadvantage is that it has to be injected because it’s a peptide, which requires daily injections, but patients managed very well,” Dr. Wedemeyer said.

“There is some evidence from single cases that we may stop treatment and that the virus does not come back,” he said, but stressed that patients should not stop treatment on their own as the risk is not known.

“For patients with advanced disease I consider this as a maintenance treatment,” Dr. Wedemeyer said, at least for the time being.

The MYR3201 study was funded by Gilead Sciences. The BuleDelta cohort is sponsored by the ANRS Maladies Infectieuses Emergencies. Dr. Wedemeyer acknowledged research funding, acting as a consultant to, and giving paid lectures on behalf of Gilead Sciences and MYR as well as having ties to multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Berg, Dr. Fontaine, and Dr. de Lédinghen had no conflicts of interest to report.
 

LONDON – Bulevirtide may not just treat but perhaps be a potential cure for hepatitis D in some patients, as was suggested at the annual International Liver Congress.

Data from an ongoing phase 3 trial showed that, after 48 weeks of treatment, almost half of those treated with bulevirtide achieved the combined primary endpoint of reduced or undetectable hepatitis delta virus (HDV) RNA levels and normalized ALT levels.

“The good message for our patients is that the initial data of the smaller phase 2 trials will really be confirmed, so the drug works,” Heiner Wedemeyer, MD, said at a media briefing ahead of his presentation at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver .

“It induces a decline in viral load and, very importantly for us as hepatologists, liver enzymes normalize, this is really good news” added Dr. Wedemeyer, who is the clinic director of the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and endocrinology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.

“This is really an almost historic moment for hepatology,” he said. “It’s the first time that these patients have an antiviral treatment; they are afraid of dying and now they have a hope.”

Giving his thoughts, Thomas Berg, MD, Secretary General of EASL, said: “We are entering into a golden age of hepatology science when it comes to viral hepatitis.

Dr. Berg, also of University Clinic Leipzig (Germany), added: “We have several million people worldwide living with viral hepatitis; we have a cure for hepatitis C but there’s no cure for hepatitis B or hepatitis D, so these data give me great hope that we have scientific momentum with us.”
 

Pivotal phase 3 study

The MYR301 trial is an important and pivotal study for bulevirtide, which is a first-in-class HDV entry inhibitor. While it was approved for use Europe in 2020 under the brand name Hepcludex, the drug remains investigational in the United States.

“We were really surprised that EMA [European Medicines Agency] went forward, granting approval because there was no alternative available at that time,” Dr. Wedemeyer said. That approval is conditional, however, and was based on the results of phase 2 studies with the proviso that further data needed would need to be provided. Hopefully, the phase 3 findings will mean that the drug will receive full official approval, he said.

Overall, 150 patients with chronic hepatitis D were recruited into the phase 3 study and randomized to receive one of two doses of bulevirtide (2 mg or 10 mg) for 144 weeks or delayed treatment for 48 weeks followed by the higher dose of the drug until the remainder of the treatment period. Bulevirtide was given as once-daily subcutaneous injection.

The mean age of participants was 41 years, the majority (82.7%) were White, and just under half already had liver cirrhosis. For inclusion, Dr. Wedemeyer said that they had to have compensated cirrhosis.

Just over half had received prior interferon therapy and almost two-thirds were receiving concomitant nucleos(t)ide (NUC) treatment.
 

Key results

The primary endpoint was defined as a combination of decreased HDV RNA (defined as undetectable or a 2 log or greater decrease) and normalized ALT (defined as 3.1 U/L or less in women and 4.1 U/L or less in men). This was assessed after 48 weeks’ treatment and was achieved by 45% of participants given the 2-mg dose of bulevirtide, 48% of those given the 10-mg dose, and by 2% of those who had delayed treatment (P < .0001 for both doses, compared with delayed treatment).

The treatment benefit was consistent across all subgroups of patients, including those with cirrhosis, Dr. Wedemeyer reported.

Looking at some of the secondary endpoints, he reported that, when considering only decreased HDV RNA, the rate of response was over 70% with both dose of bulevirtide at week 48, compared with just 4% for delayed treatment (P < .0001), although there was no significant difference in rates of undetectable HDV RNA between the two doses. ALT normalization rates were 51%-56% versus 12% for delayed treatment (P < .0001).

A further benefit was seen in liver stiffness, with values reduced by at least three points at week 48 with either dose of bulevirtide, compared with an increase of almost 1 point for delayed treatment.

As for side effects, one of the concerns for bulevirtide is an increase in serum bile acids, but when this occurred, it occurred early and remained steady over the course of treatment, with a less pronounced effect in the 2 mg–dosed group than the 10 mg–dosed group. There were no serious adverse reactions related to bulevirtide or any adverse event that led to stopping the drug.

“There are always questions that need to be answered,” Dr. Wedemeyer acknowledged. Indeed, it’s unclear for how long patients need to be treated and if treatment with interferon is needed. In the phase 2 studies (MYR202 and MYR203), bulevirtide was given at the same time as pegylated interferon alpha (peg-IFNa) or tenofovir, whereas in the phase 3 MYR301 trial, it was given as monotherapy.
 

Real-world experience

“We have already some real-world data in parallel to this phase 3 trial,” Dr. Wedemeyer said. “So, for us in the hepatitis D field, it is a really exciting time; [it’s] completely novel data and game-changing for patients.”

“The results are similar to our real life study, but in our real-life study, we have some patients treated with interferon and some not treated with interferon,” Hélène Fontaine, MD, of Hôpital Cochin in Paris, observed in an interview.

She reported preliminary results from the prospective BuleDelta cohort, which showed a virologic response rate of 58% and ALT normalization in 46% of patients.

“Virologic response was achieved in more patients receiving bulevirtide in combination with interferon,” she said. Indeed, 84% of patient who received peg-IFNa versus 39% of those who did not achieved a virologic response. However, rates of ALT normalization were more frequent in those received bulevirtide monotherapy than in combination with peg-IFN1 (54% vs. 35%).

A greater benefit of combining bulevirtide with interferon therapy was also seen in another real-world study presented by Victor de Lédinghen, MD, PhD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital. After 18 months of treatment, bulevirtide plus peg-IFNa was associated with undetectable HDV RNA in 57% of patients versus 33% of those given the drug as monotherapy.

“Of course, if you add interferon, it’s better than without but you cannot use interferon in all patients,” he observed in an interview.

Results are good but could be better, he suggested, noting that the results are dependent on patients injecting themselves correctly on a daily basis.

At the media briefing Dr. Wedemeyer also commented on how bulevirtide must be delivered.

“The only, let’s say, disadvantage is that it has to be injected because it’s a peptide, which requires daily injections, but patients managed very well,” Dr. Wedemeyer said.

“There is some evidence from single cases that we may stop treatment and that the virus does not come back,” he said, but stressed that patients should not stop treatment on their own as the risk is not known.

“For patients with advanced disease I consider this as a maintenance treatment,” Dr. Wedemeyer said, at least for the time being.

The MYR3201 study was funded by Gilead Sciences. The BuleDelta cohort is sponsored by the ANRS Maladies Infectieuses Emergencies. Dr. Wedemeyer acknowledged research funding, acting as a consultant to, and giving paid lectures on behalf of Gilead Sciences and MYR as well as having ties to multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Dr. Berg, Dr. Fontaine, and Dr. de Lédinghen had no conflicts of interest to report.
 

Following hospital discharge, patients are often in a vulnerable state due to new medical diagnoses, changes in medications, lack of understanding, and concerns for medical costs. In addition, the discharge process is complex and encompasses decisions regarding the postdischarge site of care, conveying patient instructions, and obtaining supplies and medications. There are several disciplines involved in the transitions of care process that are all essential for ensuring a successful transition and reducing the risk of hospital readmissions. Pharmacists play an integral role in the process.

When pharmacists are provided the opportunity to make therapeutic interventions, medication errors and hospital readmissions decrease and quality of life improves.¹ Studies have shown that many older patients return home from the hospital with a limited understanding of their discharge instructions and oftentimes are unable to recall their discharge diagnoses and treatment plan, leaving opportunities for error when patients transition from one level of care to another.^2,3 Additionally, high-quality transitional care is especially important for older adults with multiple comorbidities and complex therapeutic regimens as well as for their families and caregivers.⁴ To prevent hospital readmissions, pharmacists and other health care professionals (HCPs) should work diligently to prevent gaps in care as patients transition between settings. Common factors that lead to increased readmissions include premature discharge, inadequate follow-up, therapeutic errors, and medication-related problems. Furthermore, unintended hospital readmissions are common within the first 30 days following hospital discharge and lead to increased health care costs.² For these reasons, many health care institutions have developed comprehensive models to improve the discharge process, decrease hospital readmissions, and reduce incidence of adverse events in general medical patients and high-risk populations.⁵

A study evaluating 693 hospital discharges found that 27.6% of patients were recommended for outpatient workups; however only 9% were actually completed.⁶ Due to lack of communication regarding discharge summaries, primary care practitioners (PCPs) were unaware of the need for outpatient workups; thus, these patients were lost to follow-up, and appropriate care was not received. Future studies should focus on interventions to improve the quality and dissemination of discharge information to PCPs.⁶ Fosnight and colleagues assessed a new transitions process focusing on the role of pharmacists. They evaluated medication reconciliations performed and discussed medication adherence barriers, medication recommendations, and time spent performing the interventions.⁷ After patients received a pharmacy intervention, Fosnight and colleagues reported that readmission rates decreased from 21.0% to 15.3% and mean length of stay decreased from 5.3 to 4.4 days. They also observed greater improvements in patients who received the full pharmacy intervention vs those receiving only parts of the intervention. This study concluded that adding a comprehensive pharmacy intervention to transitions of care resulted in an average of nearly 10 medication recommendations per patient, improved length of stay, and reduced readmission rates. After a review of similar studies, we concluded that a comprehensive discharge model is imperative to improve patient outcomes, along with HCP monitoring of the process to ensure appropriate follow-up.⁸

At Michael E. DeBakey Veteran Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas, 30-day readmissions data were reviewed for veterans 6 months before and 12 months after enrollment in the Home-Based Primary Care (HBPC) service. HBPC is an in-home health care service provided to home-bound veterans with complex health care needs or when routine clinic-based care is not feasible. HBPC programs may differ among various US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers. Currently, there are 9 HBPC teams at MEDVAMC and nearly 540 veterans are enrolled in the program. HBPC teams typically consist of PCPs, pharmacists, nurses, psychologists, occupational/physical therapists, social workers, medical support assistants, and dietitians.

Readmissions data are reviewed quarterly by fiscal year (FY) (Table 1). In FY 2019 quarter (Q) 2, the readmission rate before HBPC enrollment was 31% and decreased to 20% after enrollment. In FY 2019 Q3, the readmission rate was 29% before enrollment and decreased to 16% afterward. In FY 2019 Q4, the readmission rate before HBPC enrollment was 28% and decreased to 19% afterward. Although the readmission rates appeared to be decreasing overall, improvements were needed to decrease these rates further and to ensure readmissions were not rising as there was a slight increase in Q4. After reviewing these data, the HBPC service implemented a streamlined hospital discharge process to lower readmission rates and improve patient outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement project. The first step was to conduct a review of veterans enrolled in HBPC at MEDVAMC.⁹ Patients included were enrolled in HBPC at MEDVAMC from October 2019 to March 2020 (FY 2020 Q1 and Q2). The Computerized Patient Record System was used to access the patients’ electronic health records. Patient information collected included race, age, sex, admission diagnosis, date of discharge, HBPC pharmacist name, PCP notification on the discharge summary, and 30-day readmission rates. Unplanned return to the hospital within 30 days, which was counted as a readmission, was defined as any admission for acute clinical events that required urgent hospital management.¹⁰

Next, we identified specific pharmacist interventions, including medication reconciliation completed by an HBPC pharmacist postdischarge; mean time to contact patients postdischarge; correct medications and supplies on discharge; incorrect dose; incorrect medication frequency or route of administration; therapeutic duplications; discontinuation of medications; additional drug therapy recommendations; laboratory test recommendations; maintenance medications not restarted or omitted; new medication education; and medication or formulation changes.

Results

Medication reconciliation was completed postdischarge by an HBPC pharmacist in 118 of 175 study patients (67.4%). The mean age of patients was 76 years, about 95% were male (Table 2). There was a wide variety of admission diagnoses but sepsis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic kidney disease were most common. The PCP was notified on the discharge note for 68 (38.9%) patients. The mean time for HBPC pharmacists to contact patients postdischarge was about 3 days, which was much less than the 14 days allowed in the streamlined discharge process.

Pharmacists made the following interventions during medication reconciliation: New medication education was provided for 34 (19.4%) patients and was the largest intervention completed by HBPC pharmacists. Laboratory tests were recommended for 16 (9.1%) patients, medications were discontinued in 14 (8.0%) patients, and additional drug therapy recommendations were made for 7 (4.0%) patients. Medication or formulation changes were completed in 7 (4.0%) patients, incorrect doses were identified in 6 (3.4%) patients, 5 (2.9%) patients were not discharged with the correct medications or supplies, maintenance medications were not restarted in 3 (1.7%) patients, and there were no therapeutic duplications identified. In total, there were 92 (77.9%) patients with interventions compared with the 118 medication reconciliations completed (Table 3).

Process Improvement

As this was a new streamlined discharge process, it was important to assess the progress of the pharmacist role over time. We evaluated the number of medication reconciliations completed by quarter to determine whether more interventions were completed as the streamlined discharge process was being fully implemented. In FY 2020 Q1, medication reconciliation was completed by an HBPC pharmacist at a rate of 35%, and in FY 2020 Q2, at a rate of 65%.

In addition to assessing interventions completed by an HBPC pharmacist, we noted how many medication reconciliations were completed by an inpatient pharmacist as this may have impacted the results of this study. Of the 175 patients in this study, 49 (28%) received a medication reconciliation by an inpatient clinical pharmacy specialist before discharge. Last, when reviewing the readmissions data for the study period, it was evident that the streamlined discharge process was improving. In FY 2020 Q1, the readmissions rate prior to HBPC enrollment was 30% and decreased to 15% after and in FY 2020 Q2 was 31% before and decreased to 13% after HBPC enrollment. Before the study period in FY 2019 Q4, the readmissions rate after HBPC enrollment was 19%. Therefore, the readmissions rate decreased from 19% before the study period to 13% by the end of the study period.

Discussion

A comparison of the readmissions data from FYs 2019, 2020, and 2021 revealed that the newly implemented discharge process at MEDVAMC had been more effective. Our study suggests several opportunities for interventions to lower readmission rates. HBPC pharmacists completed a medication reconciliation for 118 of the 175 HBPC patients in this study. Of note this process did not exist before October 2019; overall, there has been a 67% increase in medication reconciliations completed by pharmacists.

There were 92 interventions made during the study period, which is about 78% of all medication reconciliations completed. Medication doses were changed based on patients’ renal function. Additional laboratory tests were recommended after discharge to ensure safety of therapy. Medications were discontinued if inappropriate or if patients were no longer on them to simplify their medication list and limit polypharmacy. New medication education was provided, including drug name, dose, route of administration, time of administration, frequency, indication, mechanism of action, adverse effect profile, monitoring parameters, and more. The HBPC pharmacists were able to make suitable interventions in a timely fashion as the average time to contact patients postdischarge was 3 days.

Areas for Improvement

The PCP was notified on the discharge note only in 68 (38.9%) patients. This could lead to gaps in care if other mechanisms are not in place to notify the PCP of the patient’s discharge. For this reason, it is imperative not only to implement a streamlined discharge process, but to review it and determine methods for continued improvement.⁹ The streamlined discharge process implemented by the HBPC team highlights when each team member should contact the patient postdischarge. However, it may be beneficial for each team member to have a list of vital information that should be communicated to the patient postdischarge and to other HCPs. For pharmacists, a standardized discharge note template may aid in the consistency of the medication reconciliation process postdischarge and may also increase interventions from pharmacists. For example, only some HBPC pharmacists inserted a new medication template in their discharge follow-up note. In addition, 23 (13.1%) patients were unreachable, and although a complete medication reconciliation was not feasible, a standardized note to review inpatient and outpatient medications along with the discharge plan may still serve as an asset for HCPs.

As the HBPC team continues to improve the discharge process, it is also important to highlight roles of the inpatient team who may assist with a smoother transition. For example, discharge summaries should be clear, complete, and concise, incorporating key elements from the hospital visit. Methods of communication on discharge should be efficient and understood by both inpatient and outpatient teams. Patients’ health literacy status should be considered when providing discharge instructions. Finally, patients should have a clear understanding of who is included in their primary care team should any questions arise. The potential interventions for HCPs highlighted in this study are critical for preventing adverse outcomes, improving patients’ quality of life, and decreasing hospital readmissions. However, implementing the streamlined discharge process was only step 1. Areas of improvement still exist to provide exceptional patient care.

Our goal is to increase pharmacist-led medication reconciliation after discharge to ≥ 80%. This will be assessed monthly after providing education to the HBPC team regarding the study results. The second goal is to maintain hospital readmission rates to ≤ 10%, which will be assessed with each quarterly review.

Strengths and Limitations

This study was one of the first to evaluate the impact of pharmacist intervention on improving patient outcomes in HBPC veterans. Additionally, only 1 investigator conducted the data collection, which decreased the opportunity for errors.

A notable limitation of this study is that the discharge processes may not be able to be duplicated in other HBPC settings due to variability in programs. Additionally, as this was a new discharge process, there were a few aspects that needed to be worked out in the beginning as it was established. Furthermore, this study did not clarify whether a medication reconciliation was conducted by a physician or nurse after discharge; therefore, this study cannot conclude that the medication interventions were solely attributed to pharmacists. Also this study did not assess readmissions for recurrent events only, which may have impacted the results in a different way from the current results that assessed readmission rates for any hospitalization. Other limitations include the retrospective study design at a single center.

Conclusions

This study outlines several opportunities for interventions to improve patient outcomes and aid in decreasing hospital readmission rates. Using the results from this study, education has been provided for the HBPC Service and its readmission committee. Additionally, the safety concerns identified have been addressed with inpatient and outpatient pharmacy leadership to improve the practices in both settings, prevent delays in patient care, and avoid future adverse outcomes. This project highlights the advantages of having pharmacists involved in transitions of care and demonstrates the benefit of HBPC pharmacists’ role in the streamlined discharge process. This project will be reviewed biannually to further improve the discharge process and quality of care for our veterans.

Following hospital discharge, patients are often in a vulnerable state due to new medical diagnoses, changes in medications, lack of understanding, and concerns for medical costs. In addition, the discharge process is complex and encompasses decisions regarding the postdischarge site of care, conveying patient instructions, and obtaining supplies and medications. There are several disciplines involved in the transitions of care process that are all essential for ensuring a successful transition and reducing the risk of hospital readmissions. Pharmacists play an integral role in the process.

When pharmacists are provided the opportunity to make therapeutic interventions, medication errors and hospital readmissions decrease and quality of life improves.¹ Studies have shown that many older patients return home from the hospital with a limited understanding of their discharge instructions and oftentimes are unable to recall their discharge diagnoses and treatment plan, leaving opportunities for error when patients transition from one level of care to another.^2,3 Additionally, high-quality transitional care is especially important for older adults with multiple comorbidities and complex therapeutic regimens as well as for their families and caregivers.⁴ To prevent hospital readmissions, pharmacists and other health care professionals (HCPs) should work diligently to prevent gaps in care as patients transition between settings. Common factors that lead to increased readmissions include premature discharge, inadequate follow-up, therapeutic errors, and medication-related problems. Furthermore, unintended hospital readmissions are common within the first 30 days following hospital discharge and lead to increased health care costs.² For these reasons, many health care institutions have developed comprehensive models to improve the discharge process, decrease hospital readmissions, and reduce incidence of adverse events in general medical patients and high-risk populations.⁵

A study evaluating 693 hospital discharges found that 27.6% of patients were recommended for outpatient workups; however only 9% were actually completed.⁶ Due to lack of communication regarding discharge summaries, primary care practitioners (PCPs) were unaware of the need for outpatient workups; thus, these patients were lost to follow-up, and appropriate care was not received. Future studies should focus on interventions to improve the quality and dissemination of discharge information to PCPs.⁶ Fosnight and colleagues assessed a new transitions process focusing on the role of pharmacists. They evaluated medication reconciliations performed and discussed medication adherence barriers, medication recommendations, and time spent performing the interventions.⁷ After patients received a pharmacy intervention, Fosnight and colleagues reported that readmission rates decreased from 21.0% to 15.3% and mean length of stay decreased from 5.3 to 4.4 days. They also observed greater improvements in patients who received the full pharmacy intervention vs those receiving only parts of the intervention. This study concluded that adding a comprehensive pharmacy intervention to transitions of care resulted in an average of nearly 10 medication recommendations per patient, improved length of stay, and reduced readmission rates. After a review of similar studies, we concluded that a comprehensive discharge model is imperative to improve patient outcomes, along with HCP monitoring of the process to ensure appropriate follow-up.⁸

At Michael E. DeBakey Veteran Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas, 30-day readmissions data were reviewed for veterans 6 months before and 12 months after enrollment in the Home-Based Primary Care (HBPC) service. HBPC is an in-home health care service provided to home-bound veterans with complex health care needs or when routine clinic-based care is not feasible. HBPC programs may differ among various US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers. Currently, there are 9 HBPC teams at MEDVAMC and nearly 540 veterans are enrolled in the program. HBPC teams typically consist of PCPs, pharmacists, nurses, psychologists, occupational/physical therapists, social workers, medical support assistants, and dietitians.

Readmissions data are reviewed quarterly by fiscal year (FY) (Table 1). In FY 2019 quarter (Q) 2, the readmission rate before HBPC enrollment was 31% and decreased to 20% after enrollment. In FY 2019 Q3, the readmission rate was 29% before enrollment and decreased to 16% afterward. In FY 2019 Q4, the readmission rate before HBPC enrollment was 28% and decreased to 19% afterward. Although the readmission rates appeared to be decreasing overall, improvements were needed to decrease these rates further and to ensure readmissions were not rising as there was a slight increase in Q4. After reviewing these data, the HBPC service implemented a streamlined hospital discharge process to lower readmission rates and improve patient outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement project. The first step was to conduct a review of veterans enrolled in HBPC at MEDVAMC.⁹ Patients included were enrolled in HBPC at MEDVAMC from October 2019 to March 2020 (FY 2020 Q1 and Q2). The Computerized Patient Record System was used to access the patients’ electronic health records. Patient information collected included race, age, sex, admission diagnosis, date of discharge, HBPC pharmacist name, PCP notification on the discharge summary, and 30-day readmission rates. Unplanned return to the hospital within 30 days, which was counted as a readmission, was defined as any admission for acute clinical events that required urgent hospital management.¹⁰

Next, we identified specific pharmacist interventions, including medication reconciliation completed by an HBPC pharmacist postdischarge; mean time to contact patients postdischarge; correct medications and supplies on discharge; incorrect dose; incorrect medication frequency or route of administration; therapeutic duplications; discontinuation of medications; additional drug therapy recommendations; laboratory test recommendations; maintenance medications not restarted or omitted; new medication education; and medication or formulation changes.

Results

Medication reconciliation was completed postdischarge by an HBPC pharmacist in 118 of 175 study patients (67.4%). The mean age of patients was 76 years, about 95% were male (Table 2). There was a wide variety of admission diagnoses but sepsis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic kidney disease were most common. The PCP was notified on the discharge note for 68 (38.9%) patients. The mean time for HBPC pharmacists to contact patients postdischarge was about 3 days, which was much less than the 14 days allowed in the streamlined discharge process.

Pharmacists made the following interventions during medication reconciliation: New medication education was provided for 34 (19.4%) patients and was the largest intervention completed by HBPC pharmacists. Laboratory tests were recommended for 16 (9.1%) patients, medications were discontinued in 14 (8.0%) patients, and additional drug therapy recommendations were made for 7 (4.0%) patients. Medication or formulation changes were completed in 7 (4.0%) patients, incorrect doses were identified in 6 (3.4%) patients, 5 (2.9%) patients were not discharged with the correct medications or supplies, maintenance medications were not restarted in 3 (1.7%) patients, and there were no therapeutic duplications identified. In total, there were 92 (77.9%) patients with interventions compared with the 118 medication reconciliations completed (Table 3).

Process Improvement

As this was a new streamlined discharge process, it was important to assess the progress of the pharmacist role over time. We evaluated the number of medication reconciliations completed by quarter to determine whether more interventions were completed as the streamlined discharge process was being fully implemented. In FY 2020 Q1, medication reconciliation was completed by an HBPC pharmacist at a rate of 35%, and in FY 2020 Q2, at a rate of 65%.

In addition to assessing interventions completed by an HBPC pharmacist, we noted how many medication reconciliations were completed by an inpatient pharmacist as this may have impacted the results of this study. Of the 175 patients in this study, 49 (28%) received a medication reconciliation by an inpatient clinical pharmacy specialist before discharge. Last, when reviewing the readmissions data for the study period, it was evident that the streamlined discharge process was improving. In FY 2020 Q1, the readmissions rate prior to HBPC enrollment was 30% and decreased to 15% after and in FY 2020 Q2 was 31% before and decreased to 13% after HBPC enrollment. Before the study period in FY 2019 Q4, the readmissions rate after HBPC enrollment was 19%. Therefore, the readmissions rate decreased from 19% before the study period to 13% by the end of the study period.

Discussion

A comparison of the readmissions data from FYs 2019, 2020, and 2021 revealed that the newly implemented discharge process at MEDVAMC had been more effective. Our study suggests several opportunities for interventions to lower readmission rates. HBPC pharmacists completed a medication reconciliation for 118 of the 175 HBPC patients in this study. Of note this process did not exist before October 2019; overall, there has been a 67% increase in medication reconciliations completed by pharmacists.

There were 92 interventions made during the study period, which is about 78% of all medication reconciliations completed. Medication doses were changed based on patients’ renal function. Additional laboratory tests were recommended after discharge to ensure safety of therapy. Medications were discontinued if inappropriate or if patients were no longer on them to simplify their medication list and limit polypharmacy. New medication education was provided, including drug name, dose, route of administration, time of administration, frequency, indication, mechanism of action, adverse effect profile, monitoring parameters, and more. The HBPC pharmacists were able to make suitable interventions in a timely fashion as the average time to contact patients postdischarge was 3 days.

Areas for Improvement

The PCP was notified on the discharge note only in 68 (38.9%) patients. This could lead to gaps in care if other mechanisms are not in place to notify the PCP of the patient’s discharge. For this reason, it is imperative not only to implement a streamlined discharge process, but to review it and determine methods for continued improvement.⁹ The streamlined discharge process implemented by the HBPC team highlights when each team member should contact the patient postdischarge. However, it may be beneficial for each team member to have a list of vital information that should be communicated to the patient postdischarge and to other HCPs. For pharmacists, a standardized discharge note template may aid in the consistency of the medication reconciliation process postdischarge and may also increase interventions from pharmacists. For example, only some HBPC pharmacists inserted a new medication template in their discharge follow-up note. In addition, 23 (13.1%) patients were unreachable, and although a complete medication reconciliation was not feasible, a standardized note to review inpatient and outpatient medications along with the discharge plan may still serve as an asset for HCPs.

As the HBPC team continues to improve the discharge process, it is also important to highlight roles of the inpatient team who may assist with a smoother transition. For example, discharge summaries should be clear, complete, and concise, incorporating key elements from the hospital visit. Methods of communication on discharge should be efficient and understood by both inpatient and outpatient teams. Patients’ health literacy status should be considered when providing discharge instructions. Finally, patients should have a clear understanding of who is included in their primary care team should any questions arise. The potential interventions for HCPs highlighted in this study are critical for preventing adverse outcomes, improving patients’ quality of life, and decreasing hospital readmissions. However, implementing the streamlined discharge process was only step 1. Areas of improvement still exist to provide exceptional patient care.

Our goal is to increase pharmacist-led medication reconciliation after discharge to ≥ 80%. This will be assessed monthly after providing education to the HBPC team regarding the study results. The second goal is to maintain hospital readmission rates to ≤ 10%, which will be assessed with each quarterly review.

Strengths and Limitations

This study was one of the first to evaluate the impact of pharmacist intervention on improving patient outcomes in HBPC veterans. Additionally, only 1 investigator conducted the data collection, which decreased the opportunity for errors.

A notable limitation of this study is that the discharge processes may not be able to be duplicated in other HBPC settings due to variability in programs. Additionally, as this was a new discharge process, there were a few aspects that needed to be worked out in the beginning as it was established. Furthermore, this study did not clarify whether a medication reconciliation was conducted by a physician or nurse after discharge; therefore, this study cannot conclude that the medication interventions were solely attributed to pharmacists. Also this study did not assess readmissions for recurrent events only, which may have impacted the results in a different way from the current results that assessed readmission rates for any hospitalization. Other limitations include the retrospective study design at a single center.

Conclusions

This study outlines several opportunities for interventions to improve patient outcomes and aid in decreasing hospital readmission rates. Using the results from this study, education has been provided for the HBPC Service and its readmission committee. Additionally, the safety concerns identified have been addressed with inpatient and outpatient pharmacy leadership to improve the practices in both settings, prevent delays in patient care, and avoid future adverse outcomes. This project highlights the advantages of having pharmacists involved in transitions of care and demonstrates the benefit of HBPC pharmacists’ role in the streamlined discharge process. This project will be reviewed biannually to further improve the discharge process and quality of care for our veterans.

Following hospital discharge, patients are often in a vulnerable state due to new medical diagnoses, changes in medications, lack of understanding, and concerns for medical costs. In addition, the discharge process is complex and encompasses decisions regarding the postdischarge site of care, conveying patient instructions, and obtaining supplies and medications. There are several disciplines involved in the transitions of care process that are all essential for ensuring a successful transition and reducing the risk of hospital readmissions. Pharmacists play an integral role in the process.

When pharmacists are provided the opportunity to make therapeutic interventions, medication errors and hospital readmissions decrease and quality of life improves.¹ Studies have shown that many older patients return home from the hospital with a limited understanding of their discharge instructions and oftentimes are unable to recall their discharge diagnoses and treatment plan, leaving opportunities for error when patients transition from one level of care to another.^2,3 Additionally, high-quality transitional care is especially important for older adults with multiple comorbidities and complex therapeutic regimens as well as for their families and caregivers.⁴ To prevent hospital readmissions, pharmacists and other health care professionals (HCPs) should work diligently to prevent gaps in care as patients transition between settings. Common factors that lead to increased readmissions include premature discharge, inadequate follow-up, therapeutic errors, and medication-related problems. Furthermore, unintended hospital readmissions are common within the first 30 days following hospital discharge and lead to increased health care costs.² For these reasons, many health care institutions have developed comprehensive models to improve the discharge process, decrease hospital readmissions, and reduce incidence of adverse events in general medical patients and high-risk populations.⁵

A study evaluating 693 hospital discharges found that 27.6% of patients were recommended for outpatient workups; however only 9% were actually completed.⁶ Due to lack of communication regarding discharge summaries, primary care practitioners (PCPs) were unaware of the need for outpatient workups; thus, these patients were lost to follow-up, and appropriate care was not received. Future studies should focus on interventions to improve the quality and dissemination of discharge information to PCPs.⁶ Fosnight and colleagues assessed a new transitions process focusing on the role of pharmacists. They evaluated medication reconciliations performed and discussed medication adherence barriers, medication recommendations, and time spent performing the interventions.⁷ After patients received a pharmacy intervention, Fosnight and colleagues reported that readmission rates decreased from 21.0% to 15.3% and mean length of stay decreased from 5.3 to 4.4 days. They also observed greater improvements in patients who received the full pharmacy intervention vs those receiving only parts of the intervention. This study concluded that adding a comprehensive pharmacy intervention to transitions of care resulted in an average of nearly 10 medication recommendations per patient, improved length of stay, and reduced readmission rates. After a review of similar studies, we concluded that a comprehensive discharge model is imperative to improve patient outcomes, along with HCP monitoring of the process to ensure appropriate follow-up.⁸

At Michael E. DeBakey Veteran Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC) in Houston, Texas, 30-day readmissions data were reviewed for veterans 6 months before and 12 months after enrollment in the Home-Based Primary Care (HBPC) service. HBPC is an in-home health care service provided to home-bound veterans with complex health care needs or when routine clinic-based care is not feasible. HBPC programs may differ among various US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers. Currently, there are 9 HBPC teams at MEDVAMC and nearly 540 veterans are enrolled in the program. HBPC teams typically consist of PCPs, pharmacists, nurses, psychologists, occupational/physical therapists, social workers, medical support assistants, and dietitians.

Readmissions data are reviewed quarterly by fiscal year (FY) (Table 1). In FY 2019 quarter (Q) 2, the readmission rate before HBPC enrollment was 31% and decreased to 20% after enrollment. In FY 2019 Q3, the readmission rate was 29% before enrollment and decreased to 16% afterward. In FY 2019 Q4, the readmission rate before HBPC enrollment was 28% and decreased to 19% afterward. Although the readmission rates appeared to be decreasing overall, improvements were needed to decrease these rates further and to ensure readmissions were not rising as there was a slight increase in Q4. After reviewing these data, the HBPC service implemented a streamlined hospital discharge process to lower readmission rates and improve patient outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a Plan-Do-Study-Act quality improvement project. The first step was to conduct a review of veterans enrolled in HBPC at MEDVAMC.⁹ Patients included were enrolled in HBPC at MEDVAMC from October 2019 to March 2020 (FY 2020 Q1 and Q2). The Computerized Patient Record System was used to access the patients’ electronic health records. Patient information collected included race, age, sex, admission diagnosis, date of discharge, HBPC pharmacist name, PCP notification on the discharge summary, and 30-day readmission rates. Unplanned return to the hospital within 30 days, which was counted as a readmission, was defined as any admission for acute clinical events that required urgent hospital management.¹⁰

Next, we identified specific pharmacist interventions, including medication reconciliation completed by an HBPC pharmacist postdischarge; mean time to contact patients postdischarge; correct medications and supplies on discharge; incorrect dose; incorrect medication frequency or route of administration; therapeutic duplications; discontinuation of medications; additional drug therapy recommendations; laboratory test recommendations; maintenance medications not restarted or omitted; new medication education; and medication or formulation changes.

Results

Medication reconciliation was completed postdischarge by an HBPC pharmacist in 118 of 175 study patients (67.4%). The mean age of patients was 76 years, about 95% were male (Table 2). There was a wide variety of admission diagnoses but sepsis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic kidney disease were most common. The PCP was notified on the discharge note for 68 (38.9%) patients. The mean time for HBPC pharmacists to contact patients postdischarge was about 3 days, which was much less than the 14 days allowed in the streamlined discharge process.

Pharmacists made the following interventions during medication reconciliation: New medication education was provided for 34 (19.4%) patients and was the largest intervention completed by HBPC pharmacists. Laboratory tests were recommended for 16 (9.1%) patients, medications were discontinued in 14 (8.0%) patients, and additional drug therapy recommendations were made for 7 (4.0%) patients. Medication or formulation changes were completed in 7 (4.0%) patients, incorrect doses were identified in 6 (3.4%) patients, 5 (2.9%) patients were not discharged with the correct medications or supplies, maintenance medications were not restarted in 3 (1.7%) patients, and there were no therapeutic duplications identified. In total, there were 92 (77.9%) patients with interventions compared with the 118 medication reconciliations completed (Table 3).

Process Improvement

As this was a new streamlined discharge process, it was important to assess the progress of the pharmacist role over time. We evaluated the number of medication reconciliations completed by quarter to determine whether more interventions were completed as the streamlined discharge process was being fully implemented. In FY 2020 Q1, medication reconciliation was completed by an HBPC pharmacist at a rate of 35%, and in FY 2020 Q2, at a rate of 65%.

In addition to assessing interventions completed by an HBPC pharmacist, we noted how many medication reconciliations were completed by an inpatient pharmacist as this may have impacted the results of this study. Of the 175 patients in this study, 49 (28%) received a medication reconciliation by an inpatient clinical pharmacy specialist before discharge. Last, when reviewing the readmissions data for the study period, it was evident that the streamlined discharge process was improving. In FY 2020 Q1, the readmissions rate prior to HBPC enrollment was 30% and decreased to 15% after and in FY 2020 Q2 was 31% before and decreased to 13% after HBPC enrollment. Before the study period in FY 2019 Q4, the readmissions rate after HBPC enrollment was 19%. Therefore, the readmissions rate decreased from 19% before the study period to 13% by the end of the study period.

Discussion

A comparison of the readmissions data from FYs 2019, 2020, and 2021 revealed that the newly implemented discharge process at MEDVAMC had been more effective. Our study suggests several opportunities for interventions to lower readmission rates. HBPC pharmacists completed a medication reconciliation for 118 of the 175 HBPC patients in this study. Of note this process did not exist before October 2019; overall, there has been a 67% increase in medication reconciliations completed by pharmacists.

There were 92 interventions made during the study period, which is about 78% of all medication reconciliations completed. Medication doses were changed based on patients’ renal function. Additional laboratory tests were recommended after discharge to ensure safety of therapy. Medications were discontinued if inappropriate or if patients were no longer on them to simplify their medication list and limit polypharmacy. New medication education was provided, including drug name, dose, route of administration, time of administration, frequency, indication, mechanism of action, adverse effect profile, monitoring parameters, and more. The HBPC pharmacists were able to make suitable interventions in a timely fashion as the average time to contact patients postdischarge was 3 days.

Areas for Improvement

The PCP was notified on the discharge note only in 68 (38.9%) patients. This could lead to gaps in care if other mechanisms are not in place to notify the PCP of the patient’s discharge. For this reason, it is imperative not only to implement a streamlined discharge process, but to review it and determine methods for continued improvement.⁹ The streamlined discharge process implemented by the HBPC team highlights when each team member should contact the patient postdischarge. However, it may be beneficial for each team member to have a list of vital information that should be communicated to the patient postdischarge and to other HCPs. For pharmacists, a standardized discharge note template may aid in the consistency of the medication reconciliation process postdischarge and may also increase interventions from pharmacists. For example, only some HBPC pharmacists inserted a new medication template in their discharge follow-up note. In addition, 23 (13.1%) patients were unreachable, and although a complete medication reconciliation was not feasible, a standardized note to review inpatient and outpatient medications along with the discharge plan may still serve as an asset for HCPs.

As the HBPC team continues to improve the discharge process, it is also important to highlight roles of the inpatient team who may assist with a smoother transition. For example, discharge summaries should be clear, complete, and concise, incorporating key elements from the hospital visit. Methods of communication on discharge should be efficient and understood by both inpatient and outpatient teams. Patients’ health literacy status should be considered when providing discharge instructions. Finally, patients should have a clear understanding of who is included in their primary care team should any questions arise. The potential interventions for HCPs highlighted in this study are critical for preventing adverse outcomes, improving patients’ quality of life, and decreasing hospital readmissions. However, implementing the streamlined discharge process was only step 1. Areas of improvement still exist to provide exceptional patient care.

Our goal is to increase pharmacist-led medication reconciliation after discharge to ≥ 80%. This will be assessed monthly after providing education to the HBPC team regarding the study results. The second goal is to maintain hospital readmission rates to ≤ 10%, which will be assessed with each quarterly review.

Strengths and Limitations

This study was one of the first to evaluate the impact of pharmacist intervention on improving patient outcomes in HBPC veterans. Additionally, only 1 investigator conducted the data collection, which decreased the opportunity for errors.

A notable limitation of this study is that the discharge processes may not be able to be duplicated in other HBPC settings due to variability in programs. Additionally, as this was a new discharge process, there were a few aspects that needed to be worked out in the beginning as it was established. Furthermore, this study did not clarify whether a medication reconciliation was conducted by a physician or nurse after discharge; therefore, this study cannot conclude that the medication interventions were solely attributed to pharmacists. Also this study did not assess readmissions for recurrent events only, which may have impacted the results in a different way from the current results that assessed readmission rates for any hospitalization. Other limitations include the retrospective study design at a single center.

Conclusions

This study outlines several opportunities for interventions to improve patient outcomes and aid in decreasing hospital readmission rates. Using the results from this study, education has been provided for the HBPC Service and its readmission committee. Additionally, the safety concerns identified have been addressed with inpatient and outpatient pharmacy leadership to improve the practices in both settings, prevent delays in patient care, and avoid future adverse outcomes. This project highlights the advantages of having pharmacists involved in transitions of care and demonstrates the benefit of HBPC pharmacists’ role in the streamlined discharge process. This project will be reviewed biannually to further improve the discharge process and quality of care for our veterans.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA)—along with systems across the world—has spent the past 2 years continuously adapting to meet the emerging needs of persons infected with COVID-19. With the development of effective vaccines and global efforts to mitigate transmission, attention has now shifted to long COVID care as the need for further outpatient health care becomes increasingly apparent.^1,2

Background

Multiple terms describe the lingering, multisystem sequelae of COVID-19 that last longer than 4 weeks: long COVID, postacute COVID-19 syndrome, post-COVID condition, postacute sequalae of COVID-19, and COVID long hauler.^1,3 Common symptoms include fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, sleep disorders, brain fog or cognitive dysfunction, depression, anxiety, pain, and changes in taste or smell that impact a person’s functioning.^4,5 The multisystem nature of the postacute course of COVID-19 necessitates an interdisciplinary approach to devise comprehensive and individualized care plans.^6-9 Research is needed to better understand this postacute state (eg, prevalence, underlying effects, characteristics of those who experience long COVID) to establish and evaluate cost-effective treatment approaches.

Many patients who are experiencing symptoms beyond the acute course of COVID-19 have been referred to general outpatient clinics or home health, which may lack the capacity and knowledge of this novel disease to effectively manage complex long COVID cases.^2,3 To address this growing need, clinicians and leadership across a variety of disciplines and settings in the VHA created a community of practice (CoP) to create a mechanism for cross-facility communication, identify gaps in long COVID care and research, and cocreate knowledge on best practices for care delivery.

In this spirit, we are embracing a learning health system (LHS) approach that uses rapid-cycle methods to integrate data and real-world experience to iteratively evaluate and adapt models of long COVID care.¹⁰ Our clinically identified and data-driven objective is to provide high value health care to patients with long COVID sequalae by creating a framework to learn about this novel condition and develop innovative care models. This article provides an overview of our emerging LHS approach to the study of long COVID care that is fostering innovation and adaptability within the VHA. We describe 3 aspects of our engagement approach central to LHS: the ongoing development of a long COVID CoP dedicated to iteratively informing the bidirectional cycle of data from practice to research, results of a broad environmental scan of VHA long COVID care, and results of a survey administered to CoP members to inform ongoing needs of the community and identify early successful outcomes from participation.

Learning Health System Approach

The VHA is one of the largest integrated health care systems in the United States serving more than 9 million veterans.¹¹ Since 2017, the VHA has articulated a vision to become an LHS that informs and improves patient-centered care through practice-based and data-driven research (eAppendix).¹² During the early COVID-19 pandemic, an LHS approach in the VHA was critical to rapidly establishing a data infrastructure for disease surveillance, coordinating data-driven solutions, leveraging use of technology, collaborating across the globe to identify best practices, and implementing systematic responses (eg, policies, workforce adjustments).

Our long COVID CoP was developed as clinical observations and ongoing conversations with stakeholders (eg, veterans, health care practitioners [HCPs], leadership) identified a need to effectively identify and treat the growing number of veterans with long COVID. This clinical issue is compounded by the limited but emerging evidence on the clinical presentation of prolonged COVID-19 symptoms, treatment, and subsequent care pathways. The VHA’s efforts and lessons learned within the lens of an LHS are applicable to other systems confronting the complex identification and management of patients with persistent and encumbering long COVID symptoms. The VHA is building upon the LHS approach to proactively prepare for and address future clinical or public health challenges that require cross-system and sector collaborations, expediency, inclusivity, and patient/family centeredness.¹¹

Community of Practice

As of January 25, 2022, our workgroup consisted of 128 VHA employees representing 29 VHA medical centers. Members of the multidisciplinary workgroup have diverse backgrounds with HCPs from primary care (eg, physicians, nurse practitioners), rehabilitation (eg, physical therapists), specialty care (eg, pulmonologists, physiatrists), mental health (eg, psychologists), and complementary and integrated health/Whole Health services (eg, practitoners of services such as yoga, tai chi, mindfulness, acupuncture). Members also include clinical, operations, and research leadership at local, regional, and national VHA levels. Our first objective as a large, diverse group was to establish shared goals, which included: (1) determining efficient communication pathways; (2) identifying gaps in care or research; and (3) cocreating knowledge to provide solutions to identified gaps.

Communication Mechanisms

Our first goal was to create an efficient mechanism for cross-facility communication. The initial CoP was formed in April 2021 and the first virtual meeting focused on reaching a consensus regarding the best way to communicate and proceed. We agreed to convene weekly at a consistent time, created a standard agenda template, and elected a lead facilitator of meeting proceedings. In addition, a member of the CoP recorded and took extensive meeting notes, which were later distributed to the entire CoP to accommodate varying schedules and ability to attend live meetings. Approximately 20 to 30 participants attend the meetings in real-time.

To consolidate working documents, information, and resources in one location, we created a platform to communicate via a Microsoft Teams channel. All CoP members are given access to the folders and allowed to add to the growing library of resources. Resources include clinical assessment and note templates for electronic documentation of care, site-specific process maps, relevant literature on screening and interventions identified by practice members, and meeting notes along with the recordings. A chat feature alerts CoP members to questions posed by other members. Any resources or information shared on the chat discussion are curated by CoP leaders to disseminate to all members. Importantly, this platform allowed us to communicate efficiently within the VHA organization by creating a centralized space for documents and the ability to correspond with all or select members of the CoP. Additional VHA employees can easily be referred and request access.

To increase awareness of the CoP, expand reach, and diversify perspectives, every participant was encouraged to invite colleagues and stakeholders with interest or experience in long COVID care to join. While patients are not included in this CoP, we are working closely with the VHA user experience workgroup (many members overlap) that is gathering patient and caregiver perspectives on their COVID-19 experience and long COVID care. Concurrently, CoP members and leadership facilitate communication and set up formal collaborations with other non-VHA health care systems to create an intersystem network of collaboration for long COVID care. This approach further enhances the speed at which we can work together to share lessons learned and stay up-to-date on emerging evidence surrounding long COVID care.

Identifying Gaps in Care and Research

Our second goal was to identify gaps in care or knowledge to inform future research and quality improvement initiatives, while also creating a foundation to cocreate knowledge about safe, effective care management of the novel long COVID sequelae. To translate knowledge, we must first identify and understand the gaps between the current, best available evidence and current care practices or policies impacting that delivery.¹³ As such, the structured meeting agenda and facilitated meeting discussions focused on understanding current clinical decision making and the evidence base. We shared VHA evidence synthesis reports and living rapid reviews on complications following COVID-19 illness (ie, major organ damage and posthospitalization health care use) that provided an objective evidence base on common long COVID complications.^14,15

Since long COVID is a novel condition, we drew from literature in similar patient populations and translated that information in the context of our current knowledge of this unique syndrome. For example, we discussed the predominant and persistent symptom of fatigue post-COVID.⁵ In particular, the CoP discussed challenges in identifying and treating post-COVID fatigue, which is often a vague symptom with multiple or interacting etiologies that require a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach. As such, we reviewed, adapted, and translated identification and treatment strategies from the literature on chronic fatigue syndrome to patients with post-COVID syndrome.^16,17 We continue to work collaboratively and engage the appropriate stakeholders to provide input on the gaps to prioritize targeting.

Cocreate Knowledge

Our third goal was to cocreate knowledge regarding the care of patients with long COVID. To accomplish this, our structured meetings and communication pathways invited members to share experiences on the who (delivers and receives care), what (type of care or HCPs), when (identification of post-COVID and access), and how (eg, telehealth) of care to patients post-COVID. As part of the workgroup, we identified and shared resources on standardized, facility-level practices to reduce variability across the VHA system. These resources included intake/assessment forms, care processes, and batteries of tests/measures used for screening and assessment. The knowledge obtained from outside the CoP and cocreated within is being used to inform data-driven tools to support and evaluate care for patients with long COVID. As such, members of the workgroup are in the formative stages of participating in quality improvement innovation pilots to test technologies and processes designed to improve and validate long COVID care pathways. These technologies include screening tools, clinical decision support tools, and population health management technologies. In addition, we are developing a formal collaboration with the VHA Office of Research and Development to create standardized intake forms across VHA long COVID clinics to facilitate both clinical monitoring and research.

Surveys

The US Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office collaborated with our workgroup to draft an initial set of survey questions designed to understand how each VHA facility defines, identifies, and provides care to veterans experiencing post-COVID sequalae. The 41-question survey was distributed through regional directors and chief medical officers at 139 VHA facilities in August 2021. One hundred nineteen responses (86%) were received. Sixteen facilities indicated they had established programs and 26 facilities were considering a program. Our CoP had representation from the 16 facilities with established programs indicating the deep and well-connected nature of our grassroots efforts to bring together stakeholders to learn as part of a CoP.

A separate, follow-up survey generated responses from 18 facilities and identified the need to capture evolving innovations and to develop smaller workstreams (eg, best practices, electronic documentation templates, pathway for referrals, veteran engagement, outcome measures). The survey not only exposed ongoing challenges to providing long COVID care, but importantly, outlined the ways in which CoP members were leveraging community knowledge and resources to inform innovations and processes of care changes at their specific sites. Fourteen of 18 facilities with long COVID programs in place explicitly identified the CoP as a resource they have found most beneficial when employing such innovations. Specific innovations reported included changes in care delivery, engagement in active outreach with veterans and local facility, and infrastructure development to sustain local long COVID clinics (Table).

Future Directions

Our CoP strives to contribute to an evidence base for long COVID care. At the system level, the CoP has the potential to impact access and continuity of care by identifying appropriate processes and ensuring that VHA patients receive outreach and an opportunity for post-COVID care. Comprehensive care requires input from HCP, clinical leadership, and operations levels. In this sense, our CoP provides an opportunity for diverse stakeholders to come together, discuss barriers to screening and delivering post-COVID care, and create an action plan to remove or lessen such barriers.¹⁸ Part of the process to remove barriers is to identify and support efficient resource allocation. Our CoP has worked to address issues in resource allocation (eg, space, personnel) for post-COVID care. For example, one facility is currently implementing interdisciplinary virtual post-COVID care. Another facility identified and restructured working assignments for psychologists who served in different capacities throughout the system to fill the need within the long COVID team.

At the HCP level, the CoP is currently developing workshops, media campaigns, written clinical resources, skills training, publications, and webinars/seminars with continuing medical education credits.¹⁹ The CoP may also provide learning and growth opportunities, such as clinical or VHA operational fellowships and research grants.

We are still in the formative stages of post-COVID care and future efforts will explore patient-centered outcomes. We are drawing on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance for evaluating patients with long COVID symptoms and examining the feasibility within VHA, as well as patient perspectives on post-COVID sequalae, to ensure we are selecting assessments that measure patient-centered constructs.¹⁸

Conclusions

A VHA-wide LHS approach is identifying issues related to the identification, delivery, and evaluation of long COVID care. This long COVID CoP has developed an infrastructure for communication, identified gaps in care, and cocreated knowledge related to best current practices for post-COVID care. This work is contributing to systemwide LHS efforts dedicated to creating a culture of quality care and innovation and is a process that is transferrable to other areas of care in the VHA, as well as other health care systems. The LHS approach continues to be highly relevant as we persist through the COVID-19 pandemic and reimagine a postpandemic world.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the members of the Veterans Health Administration long COVID Community of Practice who participate in the meetings and contribute to the sharing and spread of knowledge.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA)—along with systems across the world—has spent the past 2 years continuously adapting to meet the emerging needs of persons infected with COVID-19. With the development of effective vaccines and global efforts to mitigate transmission, attention has now shifted to long COVID care as the need for further outpatient health care becomes increasingly apparent.^1,2

Background

Multiple terms describe the lingering, multisystem sequelae of COVID-19 that last longer than 4 weeks: long COVID, postacute COVID-19 syndrome, post-COVID condition, postacute sequalae of COVID-19, and COVID long hauler.^1,3 Common symptoms include fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, sleep disorders, brain fog or cognitive dysfunction, depression, anxiety, pain, and changes in taste or smell that impact a person’s functioning.^4,5 The multisystem nature of the postacute course of COVID-19 necessitates an interdisciplinary approach to devise comprehensive and individualized care plans.^6-9 Research is needed to better understand this postacute state (eg, prevalence, underlying effects, characteristics of those who experience long COVID) to establish and evaluate cost-effective treatment approaches.

Many patients who are experiencing symptoms beyond the acute course of COVID-19 have been referred to general outpatient clinics or home health, which may lack the capacity and knowledge of this novel disease to effectively manage complex long COVID cases.^2,3 To address this growing need, clinicians and leadership across a variety of disciplines and settings in the VHA created a community of practice (CoP) to create a mechanism for cross-facility communication, identify gaps in long COVID care and research, and cocreate knowledge on best practices for care delivery.

In this spirit, we are embracing a learning health system (LHS) approach that uses rapid-cycle methods to integrate data and real-world experience to iteratively evaluate and adapt models of long COVID care.¹⁰ Our clinically identified and data-driven objective is to provide high value health care to patients with long COVID sequalae by creating a framework to learn about this novel condition and develop innovative care models. This article provides an overview of our emerging LHS approach to the study of long COVID care that is fostering innovation and adaptability within the VHA. We describe 3 aspects of our engagement approach central to LHS: the ongoing development of a long COVID CoP dedicated to iteratively informing the bidirectional cycle of data from practice to research, results of a broad environmental scan of VHA long COVID care, and results of a survey administered to CoP members to inform ongoing needs of the community and identify early successful outcomes from participation.

Learning Health System Approach

The VHA is one of the largest integrated health care systems in the United States serving more than 9 million veterans.¹¹ Since 2017, the VHA has articulated a vision to become an LHS that informs and improves patient-centered care through practice-based and data-driven research (eAppendix).¹² During the early COVID-19 pandemic, an LHS approach in the VHA was critical to rapidly establishing a data infrastructure for disease surveillance, coordinating data-driven solutions, leveraging use of technology, collaborating across the globe to identify best practices, and implementing systematic responses (eg, policies, workforce adjustments).

Our long COVID CoP was developed as clinical observations and ongoing conversations with stakeholders (eg, veterans, health care practitioners [HCPs], leadership) identified a need to effectively identify and treat the growing number of veterans with long COVID. This clinical issue is compounded by the limited but emerging evidence on the clinical presentation of prolonged COVID-19 symptoms, treatment, and subsequent care pathways. The VHA’s efforts and lessons learned within the lens of an LHS are applicable to other systems confronting the complex identification and management of patients with persistent and encumbering long COVID symptoms. The VHA is building upon the LHS approach to proactively prepare for and address future clinical or public health challenges that require cross-system and sector collaborations, expediency, inclusivity, and patient/family centeredness.¹¹

Community of Practice

As of January 25, 2022, our workgroup consisted of 128 VHA employees representing 29 VHA medical centers. Members of the multidisciplinary workgroup have diverse backgrounds with HCPs from primary care (eg, physicians, nurse practitioners), rehabilitation (eg, physical therapists), specialty care (eg, pulmonologists, physiatrists), mental health (eg, psychologists), and complementary and integrated health/Whole Health services (eg, practitoners of services such as yoga, tai chi, mindfulness, acupuncture). Members also include clinical, operations, and research leadership at local, regional, and national VHA levels. Our first objective as a large, diverse group was to establish shared goals, which included: (1) determining efficient communication pathways; (2) identifying gaps in care or research; and (3) cocreating knowledge to provide solutions to identified gaps.

Communication Mechanisms

Our first goal was to create an efficient mechanism for cross-facility communication. The initial CoP was formed in April 2021 and the first virtual meeting focused on reaching a consensus regarding the best way to communicate and proceed. We agreed to convene weekly at a consistent time, created a standard agenda template, and elected a lead facilitator of meeting proceedings. In addition, a member of the CoP recorded and took extensive meeting notes, which were later distributed to the entire CoP to accommodate varying schedules and ability to attend live meetings. Approximately 20 to 30 participants attend the meetings in real-time.

To consolidate working documents, information, and resources in one location, we created a platform to communicate via a Microsoft Teams channel. All CoP members are given access to the folders and allowed to add to the growing library of resources. Resources include clinical assessment and note templates for electronic documentation of care, site-specific process maps, relevant literature on screening and interventions identified by practice members, and meeting notes along with the recordings. A chat feature alerts CoP members to questions posed by other members. Any resources or information shared on the chat discussion are curated by CoP leaders to disseminate to all members. Importantly, this platform allowed us to communicate efficiently within the VHA organization by creating a centralized space for documents and the ability to correspond with all or select members of the CoP. Additional VHA employees can easily be referred and request access.

To increase awareness of the CoP, expand reach, and diversify perspectives, every participant was encouraged to invite colleagues and stakeholders with interest or experience in long COVID care to join. While patients are not included in this CoP, we are working closely with the VHA user experience workgroup (many members overlap) that is gathering patient and caregiver perspectives on their COVID-19 experience and long COVID care. Concurrently, CoP members and leadership facilitate communication and set up formal collaborations with other non-VHA health care systems to create an intersystem network of collaboration for long COVID care. This approach further enhances the speed at which we can work together to share lessons learned and stay up-to-date on emerging evidence surrounding long COVID care.

Identifying Gaps in Care and Research

Our second goal was to identify gaps in care or knowledge to inform future research and quality improvement initiatives, while also creating a foundation to cocreate knowledge about safe, effective care management of the novel long COVID sequelae. To translate knowledge, we must first identify and understand the gaps between the current, best available evidence and current care practices or policies impacting that delivery.¹³ As such, the structured meeting agenda and facilitated meeting discussions focused on understanding current clinical decision making and the evidence base. We shared VHA evidence synthesis reports and living rapid reviews on complications following COVID-19 illness (ie, major organ damage and posthospitalization health care use) that provided an objective evidence base on common long COVID complications.^14,15

Since long COVID is a novel condition, we drew from literature in similar patient populations and translated that information in the context of our current knowledge of this unique syndrome. For example, we discussed the predominant and persistent symptom of fatigue post-COVID.⁵ In particular, the CoP discussed challenges in identifying and treating post-COVID fatigue, which is often a vague symptom with multiple or interacting etiologies that require a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach. As such, we reviewed, adapted, and translated identification and treatment strategies from the literature on chronic fatigue syndrome to patients with post-COVID syndrome.^16,17 We continue to work collaboratively and engage the appropriate stakeholders to provide input on the gaps to prioritize targeting.

Cocreate Knowledge

Our third goal was to cocreate knowledge regarding the care of patients with long COVID. To accomplish this, our structured meetings and communication pathways invited members to share experiences on the who (delivers and receives care), what (type of care or HCPs), when (identification of post-COVID and access), and how (eg, telehealth) of care to patients post-COVID. As part of the workgroup, we identified and shared resources on standardized, facility-level practices to reduce variability across the VHA system. These resources included intake/assessment forms, care processes, and batteries of tests/measures used for screening and assessment. The knowledge obtained from outside the CoP and cocreated within is being used to inform data-driven tools to support and evaluate care for patients with long COVID. As such, members of the workgroup are in the formative stages of participating in quality improvement innovation pilots to test technologies and processes designed to improve and validate long COVID care pathways. These technologies include screening tools, clinical decision support tools, and population health management technologies. In addition, we are developing a formal collaboration with the VHA Office of Research and Development to create standardized intake forms across VHA long COVID clinics to facilitate both clinical monitoring and research.

Surveys

The US Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office collaborated with our workgroup to draft an initial set of survey questions designed to understand how each VHA facility defines, identifies, and provides care to veterans experiencing post-COVID sequalae. The 41-question survey was distributed through regional directors and chief medical officers at 139 VHA facilities in August 2021. One hundred nineteen responses (86%) were received. Sixteen facilities indicated they had established programs and 26 facilities were considering a program. Our CoP had representation from the 16 facilities with established programs indicating the deep and well-connected nature of our grassroots efforts to bring together stakeholders to learn as part of a CoP.

A separate, follow-up survey generated responses from 18 facilities and identified the need to capture evolving innovations and to develop smaller workstreams (eg, best practices, electronic documentation templates, pathway for referrals, veteran engagement, outcome measures). The survey not only exposed ongoing challenges to providing long COVID care, but importantly, outlined the ways in which CoP members were leveraging community knowledge and resources to inform innovations and processes of care changes at their specific sites. Fourteen of 18 facilities with long COVID programs in place explicitly identified the CoP as a resource they have found most beneficial when employing such innovations. Specific innovations reported included changes in care delivery, engagement in active outreach with veterans and local facility, and infrastructure development to sustain local long COVID clinics (Table).

Future Directions

Our CoP strives to contribute to an evidence base for long COVID care. At the system level, the CoP has the potential to impact access and continuity of care by identifying appropriate processes and ensuring that VHA patients receive outreach and an opportunity for post-COVID care. Comprehensive care requires input from HCP, clinical leadership, and operations levels. In this sense, our CoP provides an opportunity for diverse stakeholders to come together, discuss barriers to screening and delivering post-COVID care, and create an action plan to remove or lessen such barriers.¹⁸ Part of the process to remove barriers is to identify and support efficient resource allocation. Our CoP has worked to address issues in resource allocation (eg, space, personnel) for post-COVID care. For example, one facility is currently implementing interdisciplinary virtual post-COVID care. Another facility identified and restructured working assignments for psychologists who served in different capacities throughout the system to fill the need within the long COVID team.

At the HCP level, the CoP is currently developing workshops, media campaigns, written clinical resources, skills training, publications, and webinars/seminars with continuing medical education credits.¹⁹ The CoP may also provide learning and growth opportunities, such as clinical or VHA operational fellowships and research grants.

We are still in the formative stages of post-COVID care and future efforts will explore patient-centered outcomes. We are drawing on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance for evaluating patients with long COVID symptoms and examining the feasibility within VHA, as well as patient perspectives on post-COVID sequalae, to ensure we are selecting assessments that measure patient-centered constructs.¹⁸

Conclusions

A VHA-wide LHS approach is identifying issues related to the identification, delivery, and evaluation of long COVID care. This long COVID CoP has developed an infrastructure for communication, identified gaps in care, and cocreated knowledge related to best current practices for post-COVID care. This work is contributing to systemwide LHS efforts dedicated to creating a culture of quality care and innovation and is a process that is transferrable to other areas of care in the VHA, as well as other health care systems. The LHS approach continues to be highly relevant as we persist through the COVID-19 pandemic and reimagine a postpandemic world.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the members of the Veterans Health Administration long COVID Community of Practice who participate in the meetings and contribute to the sharing and spread of knowledge.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA)—along with systems across the world—has spent the past 2 years continuously adapting to meet the emerging needs of persons infected with COVID-19. With the development of effective vaccines and global efforts to mitigate transmission, attention has now shifted to long COVID care as the need for further outpatient health care becomes increasingly apparent.^1,2

Background

Multiple terms describe the lingering, multisystem sequelae of COVID-19 that last longer than 4 weeks: long COVID, postacute COVID-19 syndrome, post-COVID condition, postacute sequalae of COVID-19, and COVID long hauler.^1,3 Common symptoms include fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, sleep disorders, brain fog or cognitive dysfunction, depression, anxiety, pain, and changes in taste or smell that impact a person’s functioning.^4,5 The multisystem nature of the postacute course of COVID-19 necessitates an interdisciplinary approach to devise comprehensive and individualized care plans.^6-9 Research is needed to better understand this postacute state (eg, prevalence, underlying effects, characteristics of those who experience long COVID) to establish and evaluate cost-effective treatment approaches.

Many patients who are experiencing symptoms beyond the acute course of COVID-19 have been referred to general outpatient clinics or home health, which may lack the capacity and knowledge of this novel disease to effectively manage complex long COVID cases.^2,3 To address this growing need, clinicians and leadership across a variety of disciplines and settings in the VHA created a community of practice (CoP) to create a mechanism for cross-facility communication, identify gaps in long COVID care and research, and cocreate knowledge on best practices for care delivery.

In this spirit, we are embracing a learning health system (LHS) approach that uses rapid-cycle methods to integrate data and real-world experience to iteratively evaluate and adapt models of long COVID care.¹⁰ Our clinically identified and data-driven objective is to provide high value health care to patients with long COVID sequalae by creating a framework to learn about this novel condition and develop innovative care models. This article provides an overview of our emerging LHS approach to the study of long COVID care that is fostering innovation and adaptability within the VHA. We describe 3 aspects of our engagement approach central to LHS: the ongoing development of a long COVID CoP dedicated to iteratively informing the bidirectional cycle of data from practice to research, results of a broad environmental scan of VHA long COVID care, and results of a survey administered to CoP members to inform ongoing needs of the community and identify early successful outcomes from participation.

Learning Health System Approach

The VHA is one of the largest integrated health care systems in the United States serving more than 9 million veterans.¹¹ Since 2017, the VHA has articulated a vision to become an LHS that informs and improves patient-centered care through practice-based and data-driven research (eAppendix).¹² During the early COVID-19 pandemic, an LHS approach in the VHA was critical to rapidly establishing a data infrastructure for disease surveillance, coordinating data-driven solutions, leveraging use of technology, collaborating across the globe to identify best practices, and implementing systematic responses (eg, policies, workforce adjustments).

Our long COVID CoP was developed as clinical observations and ongoing conversations with stakeholders (eg, veterans, health care practitioners [HCPs], leadership) identified a need to effectively identify and treat the growing number of veterans with long COVID. This clinical issue is compounded by the limited but emerging evidence on the clinical presentation of prolonged COVID-19 symptoms, treatment, and subsequent care pathways. The VHA’s efforts and lessons learned within the lens of an LHS are applicable to other systems confronting the complex identification and management of patients with persistent and encumbering long COVID symptoms. The VHA is building upon the LHS approach to proactively prepare for and address future clinical or public health challenges that require cross-system and sector collaborations, expediency, inclusivity, and patient/family centeredness.¹¹

Community of Practice

As of January 25, 2022, our workgroup consisted of 128 VHA employees representing 29 VHA medical centers. Members of the multidisciplinary workgroup have diverse backgrounds with HCPs from primary care (eg, physicians, nurse practitioners), rehabilitation (eg, physical therapists), specialty care (eg, pulmonologists, physiatrists), mental health (eg, psychologists), and complementary and integrated health/Whole Health services (eg, practitoners of services such as yoga, tai chi, mindfulness, acupuncture). Members also include clinical, operations, and research leadership at local, regional, and national VHA levels. Our first objective as a large, diverse group was to establish shared goals, which included: (1) determining efficient communication pathways; (2) identifying gaps in care or research; and (3) cocreating knowledge to provide solutions to identified gaps.

Communication Mechanisms

Our first goal was to create an efficient mechanism for cross-facility communication. The initial CoP was formed in April 2021 and the first virtual meeting focused on reaching a consensus regarding the best way to communicate and proceed. We agreed to convene weekly at a consistent time, created a standard agenda template, and elected a lead facilitator of meeting proceedings. In addition, a member of the CoP recorded and took extensive meeting notes, which were later distributed to the entire CoP to accommodate varying schedules and ability to attend live meetings. Approximately 20 to 30 participants attend the meetings in real-time.

To consolidate working documents, information, and resources in one location, we created a platform to communicate via a Microsoft Teams channel. All CoP members are given access to the folders and allowed to add to the growing library of resources. Resources include clinical assessment and note templates for electronic documentation of care, site-specific process maps, relevant literature on screening and interventions identified by practice members, and meeting notes along with the recordings. A chat feature alerts CoP members to questions posed by other members. Any resources or information shared on the chat discussion are curated by CoP leaders to disseminate to all members. Importantly, this platform allowed us to communicate efficiently within the VHA organization by creating a centralized space for documents and the ability to correspond with all or select members of the CoP. Additional VHA employees can easily be referred and request access.

To increase awareness of the CoP, expand reach, and diversify perspectives, every participant was encouraged to invite colleagues and stakeholders with interest or experience in long COVID care to join. While patients are not included in this CoP, we are working closely with the VHA user experience workgroup (many members overlap) that is gathering patient and caregiver perspectives on their COVID-19 experience and long COVID care. Concurrently, CoP members and leadership facilitate communication and set up formal collaborations with other non-VHA health care systems to create an intersystem network of collaboration for long COVID care. This approach further enhances the speed at which we can work together to share lessons learned and stay up-to-date on emerging evidence surrounding long COVID care.

Identifying Gaps in Care and Research

Our second goal was to identify gaps in care or knowledge to inform future research and quality improvement initiatives, while also creating a foundation to cocreate knowledge about safe, effective care management of the novel long COVID sequelae. To translate knowledge, we must first identify and understand the gaps between the current, best available evidence and current care practices or policies impacting that delivery.¹³ As such, the structured meeting agenda and facilitated meeting discussions focused on understanding current clinical decision making and the evidence base. We shared VHA evidence synthesis reports and living rapid reviews on complications following COVID-19 illness (ie, major organ damage and posthospitalization health care use) that provided an objective evidence base on common long COVID complications.^14,15

Since long COVID is a novel condition, we drew from literature in similar patient populations and translated that information in the context of our current knowledge of this unique syndrome. For example, we discussed the predominant and persistent symptom of fatigue post-COVID.⁵ In particular, the CoP discussed challenges in identifying and treating post-COVID fatigue, which is often a vague symptom with multiple or interacting etiologies that require a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach. As such, we reviewed, adapted, and translated identification and treatment strategies from the literature on chronic fatigue syndrome to patients with post-COVID syndrome.^16,17 We continue to work collaboratively and engage the appropriate stakeholders to provide input on the gaps to prioritize targeting.

Cocreate Knowledge

Our third goal was to cocreate knowledge regarding the care of patients with long COVID. To accomplish this, our structured meetings and communication pathways invited members to share experiences on the who (delivers and receives care), what (type of care or HCPs), when (identification of post-COVID and access), and how (eg, telehealth) of care to patients post-COVID. As part of the workgroup, we identified and shared resources on standardized, facility-level practices to reduce variability across the VHA system. These resources included intake/assessment forms, care processes, and batteries of tests/measures used for screening and assessment. The knowledge obtained from outside the CoP and cocreated within is being used to inform data-driven tools to support and evaluate care for patients with long COVID. As such, members of the workgroup are in the formative stages of participating in quality improvement innovation pilots to test technologies and processes designed to improve and validate long COVID care pathways. These technologies include screening tools, clinical decision support tools, and population health management technologies. In addition, we are developing a formal collaboration with the VHA Office of Research and Development to create standardized intake forms across VHA long COVID clinics to facilitate both clinical monitoring and research.

Surveys

The US Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office collaborated with our workgroup to draft an initial set of survey questions designed to understand how each VHA facility defines, identifies, and provides care to veterans experiencing post-COVID sequalae. The 41-question survey was distributed through regional directors and chief medical officers at 139 VHA facilities in August 2021. One hundred nineteen responses (86%) were received. Sixteen facilities indicated they had established programs and 26 facilities were considering a program. Our CoP had representation from the 16 facilities with established programs indicating the deep and well-connected nature of our grassroots efforts to bring together stakeholders to learn as part of a CoP.

A separate, follow-up survey generated responses from 18 facilities and identified the need to capture evolving innovations and to develop smaller workstreams (eg, best practices, electronic documentation templates, pathway for referrals, veteran engagement, outcome measures). The survey not only exposed ongoing challenges to providing long COVID care, but importantly, outlined the ways in which CoP members were leveraging community knowledge and resources to inform innovations and processes of care changes at their specific sites. Fourteen of 18 facilities with long COVID programs in place explicitly identified the CoP as a resource they have found most beneficial when employing such innovations. Specific innovations reported included changes in care delivery, engagement in active outreach with veterans and local facility, and infrastructure development to sustain local long COVID clinics (Table).

Future Directions

Our CoP strives to contribute to an evidence base for long COVID care. At the system level, the CoP has the potential to impact access and continuity of care by identifying appropriate processes and ensuring that VHA patients receive outreach and an opportunity for post-COVID care. Comprehensive care requires input from HCP, clinical leadership, and operations levels. In this sense, our CoP provides an opportunity for diverse stakeholders to come together, discuss barriers to screening and delivering post-COVID care, and create an action plan to remove or lessen such barriers.¹⁸ Part of the process to remove barriers is to identify and support efficient resource allocation. Our CoP has worked to address issues in resource allocation (eg, space, personnel) for post-COVID care. For example, one facility is currently implementing interdisciplinary virtual post-COVID care. Another facility identified and restructured working assignments for psychologists who served in different capacities throughout the system to fill the need within the long COVID team.

At the HCP level, the CoP is currently developing workshops, media campaigns, written clinical resources, skills training, publications, and webinars/seminars with continuing medical education credits.¹⁹ The CoP may also provide learning and growth opportunities, such as clinical or VHA operational fellowships and research grants.

We are still in the formative stages of post-COVID care and future efforts will explore patient-centered outcomes. We are drawing on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance for evaluating patients with long COVID symptoms and examining the feasibility within VHA, as well as patient perspectives on post-COVID sequalae, to ensure we are selecting assessments that measure patient-centered constructs.¹⁸

Conclusions

A VHA-wide LHS approach is identifying issues related to the identification, delivery, and evaluation of long COVID care. This long COVID CoP has developed an infrastructure for communication, identified gaps in care, and cocreated knowledge related to best current practices for post-COVID care. This work is contributing to systemwide LHS efforts dedicated to creating a culture of quality care and innovation and is a process that is transferrable to other areas of care in the VHA, as well as other health care systems. The LHS approach continues to be highly relevant as we persist through the COVID-19 pandemic and reimagine a postpandemic world.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the members of the Veterans Health Administration long COVID Community of Practice who participate in the meetings and contribute to the sharing and spread of knowledge.

Tobacco smoking remains the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States, accounting for more than 480,000 deaths annually.¹ An estimated 50.6 million US adults (20.8%) identify as tobacco users, with even higher rates among veterans (29.2%).^2,3 Tobacco use is estimated to cost the US more than $300 billion annually in direct and indirect medical costs.⁴ According to a 2015 report, more than two-thirds of adult smokers reported a desire to quit, while only 7.5% reported successfully quitting in the past year.⁵ According to that same report, only 57.2% of smokers who had seen a health professional in the past year reported receiving advice to quit.⁵ This statistic is unfortunate, as interventions that combine behavioral and pharmacologic support can drastically increase tobacco cessation rates compared with self-help materials or no treatment.⁶

Currently, 7 first-line medications (5 nicotine, 2 nonnicotine) have been shown to increase long-term smoking abstinence rates. Varenicline was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006 for use in adults as an aid to smoking cessation treatment. As a partial agonist of the α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, varenicline’s mechanism of action is believed to involve reduction of nicotine’s rewarding capacity.⁷ Varenicline not only aids in complete tobacco cessation but also has been found to be effective for reducing cigarette consumption among smokers not yet willing or able to make a quit attempt.⁸ Furthermore, varenicline has demonstrated efficacy among users of smokeless tobacco in achieving continuous abstinence.⁹

Widespread adoption of varenicline into clinical practice was perhaps slowed by early concerns of psychiatric complications, prompting the FDA to issue a boxed warning for risk of serious neuropsychiatric events. This boxed warning was removed in 2016 in response to publication of the Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study (EAGLES). In this randomized controlled trial of more than 8000 participants, among whom 50.5% had a psychiatric disorder determined to be stable, varenicline significantly increased rates of continuous tobacco cessation compared with bupropion or the nicotine patch without an increased risk of neuropsychiatric events.¹⁰ This study underscored not only the safety of varenicline, but also its superiority over other first-line cessation products. The most recently published clinical practice guidelines recommend varenicline as a first-line agent for helping patients achieve long-term smoking cessation.^11,12

Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to provide tobacco cessation interventions given their medication expertise and accessibility to the public. Indeed, multiple studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of pharmacist-led interventions on tobacco cessation.^13-15 As of 2019, only 12 states had statutes or regulations addressing pharmacist prescribing of tobacco cessation aids without a collaborative practice agreement or local standing order.¹⁶ Until recently, most of these states limited pharmacists’ prescriptive authority to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). New Mexico serves as the outlier, as pharmacists have been authorized to prescribe all FDA-approved tobacco cessation products since 2004. A 2014 New Mexico study consisting of > 1400 patients showed that pharmacist-provided tobacco cessation interventions, which included management of varenicline, resulted in quit rates similar to those seen with management by other health care professionals.¹⁷ Aside from this study, there is a paucity of data available to assess the impact of pharmacist management of varenicline, let alone provide a head-to-head comparison with management by other clinicians.

Within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the clinical pharmacy specialist (CPS) is credentialed as an advanced practitioner with authority to independently manage patient medication therapy for a variety of diseases specified under a scope of practice. Although CPSs have provided tobacco cessation services for years, expansion of their scope to include varenicline did not occur until June 26, 2019, at the Southern Arizona VA Health Care System (SAVAHCS). All VA prescribers must follow the same criteria for prescribing varenicline. Unless previously trialed on varenicline, patients must have failed an appropriate trial of first-line agents (NRT, bupropion, or combination therapy) or have a contraindication to use of these first-line therapies before varenicline can be considered. Exclusions to therapy would include history of serious hypersensitivity to varenicline; suicidal intent, plan, or attempt within the past 12 months; current substance use disorder other than nicotine (unless varenicline recommended or prescribed by mental health professional); or unstable mental health disorder.¹⁸

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CPS management of varenicline compared with other clinicians. We hope that this study provides insight regarding how the expansion of CPS scope to include prescriptive authority for varenicline has affected patient outcomes.

Methods

This retrospective chart review was conducted using SAVAHCS electronic health records. This study was granted approval by the institutional review board and the research and development committee at SAVAHCS. Data were obtained through the Computerized Patient Record System from the information provided by the pharmacist informatics department and was recorded electronically on a secure Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

To be eligible for this study, patients must have been aged ≥ 18 years with a varenicline prescription between July 1, 2019, and July 31, 2020. Patients were excluded if tobacco cessation was managed by community-based (non-VA) clincians or if there was a lack of documentation of tobacco use at baseline and after at least 12 weeks of varenicline therapy. Sample size was not designed to achieve statistical power. Potential patients were queried by a pharmacist specializing in clinical informatics. All patients meeting initial inclusion criteria were then screened individually to evaluate for exclusion criteria.

Data collected included baseline age, sex, race, type of tobacco use (cigarettes, smokeless, both), mean daily tobacco use, prespecified comorbidities (depression, anxiety, or other psychiatric condition), and previous cessation medications prescribed (NRT, bupropion, and previous trials of varenicline).

The primary outcomes were reduction in tobacco use calculated as change at 12 weeks from baseline (and 24 weeks if available), continuous abstinence at 12 weeks (and 24 weeks if available), adherence to varenicline therapy measured by proportion of days covered (days covered by refills during the measurement period divided by days between the first fill and the end of the measurement period), and time to first follow-up in days. For safety evaluation, charts were reviewed for documented adverse events (AEs) in the health record. These AEs were categorized as follows: gastrointestinal, mood disturbance, sleep disturbance, headache, seizures, allergy, or other.

Statistical analyses regarding veteran baseline characteristics were descriptive in nature. χ² test was used to analyze differences in complete cessation rates and AEs, whereas a Student t test was used to compare reductions of tobacco use, proportion of days covered (ie, adherence), and time to first follow-up. An α of .05 was used to determine significance.

Results

From the initial search, 255 charts met general inclusion criteria. After chart review, only 50 patients from the CPS group and 93 patients from the other clinician group met criteria to be included (Figure 1). The CPS group included pharmacists specializing in ambulatory care and outpatient mental health. The other clinician group was composed primarily of primary care practitioners, psychiatrists, and pulmonologists.

Overall, baseline characteristics were similar between the groups (Table 1). In the overall study population, the mean age was 57.5 years, 90% of patients were male, and 99% of patients were cigarette smokers. Baseline mean (SD) tobacco use was similar between the groups: 14.5 (10.8) vs 14.8 (8.6) cigarettes daily for the CPS and other clinician group, respectively.

Discussion

The results of this single center study suggest that management of varenicline by CPSs is associated with similar reductions in tobacco use and abstinence rates compared with management by other clinicians. These results provide evidence that CPS management of varenicline may be as safe and effective as management by other clinicians.

Adherence rates (reported as proportion of days covered when assessing varenicline refill data) were higher on average among patients managed by a CPS compared with patients managed by other clinicians. However, this outcome may not be as reflective of adherence as initially intended, given delays in follow-up (see limitations section). Time to first follow-up was drastically different between the groups, with much sooner follow-up by CPSs compared with other clinicians. Despite similar tobacco cessation rates between groups, more frequent follow-up by CPSs helps to assess patient barriers to cessation, adherence to therapy, and AEs with varenicline. A higher percentage of AEs were documented within the CPS group that could be attributed to disparities in documentation rather than true rates of AEs. While rates of AEs were initially intended to serve as the primary safety outcome, they may instead reflect pharmacists’ diligence in monitoring and documenting tolerability of medication therapy.

Limitations

Several limitations to this study should be noted. First, the data collected were only as detailed as the extent to which prescribers documented tobacco use, previous cessation trials, and AEs; thus, various data points are likely missing within this study that could impact the results presented. In line with lack of documentation, delays in follow-up (ie, annual primary care visits) sorely undermined proportion of days covered, making these data less indicative of true medication adherence. Furthermore, this study did not account for concurrent therapies, such as combination varenicline and nicotine gum/lozenges, or behavioral treatment strategies like cessation classes.

Another limitation was that some primary care practitioners prescribed varenicline but then referred these patients to a CPS for tobacco cessation follow-up. Per the study’s protocol, these patients were included within the other clinician group, which could have brought results closer to the null. Finally, the timing of this chart review (July 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020) intersects with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, presenting a possible confounding factor if patients’ quit attempts were hindered by the stress and isolation of the pandemic.¹⁹ All pharmacist visits during the pandemic were conducted by telephone, which may have affected results.

Conclusions

In this study of veterans receiving varenicline, management by CPSs resulted in similar reductions of tobacco use and rates of complete abstinence compared with management by other clinicians. Pharmacist management was associated with greater adherence and shorter time to first follow-up compared with other clinicians. Additional research is needed to fully characterize the impact of pharmacist management of varenicline, justify expansion of clinical pharmacist scope of practice, and ultimately enhance patient outcomes regarding tobacco cessation.

It would be interesting to see more studies outside of the VA system to determine the impact of pharmacist management of varenicline for a more heterogenous patient population. At some point, a prospective controlled trial should be conducted to overcome the various confounding factors that limit the results of retrospective chart reviews

Acknowledgments

This article was prepared, and research was conducted with resources and the use of facilities at the Southern Arizona Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Tucson.

Tobacco smoking remains the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States, accounting for more than 480,000 deaths annually.¹ An estimated 50.6 million US adults (20.8%) identify as tobacco users, with even higher rates among veterans (29.2%).^2,3 Tobacco use is estimated to cost the US more than $300 billion annually in direct and indirect medical costs.⁴ According to a 2015 report, more than two-thirds of adult smokers reported a desire to quit, while only 7.5% reported successfully quitting in the past year.⁵ According to that same report, only 57.2% of smokers who had seen a health professional in the past year reported receiving advice to quit.⁵ This statistic is unfortunate, as interventions that combine behavioral and pharmacologic support can drastically increase tobacco cessation rates compared with self-help materials or no treatment.⁶

Currently, 7 first-line medications (5 nicotine, 2 nonnicotine) have been shown to increase long-term smoking abstinence rates. Varenicline was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006 for use in adults as an aid to smoking cessation treatment. As a partial agonist of the α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, varenicline’s mechanism of action is believed to involve reduction of nicotine’s rewarding capacity.⁷ Varenicline not only aids in complete tobacco cessation but also has been found to be effective for reducing cigarette consumption among smokers not yet willing or able to make a quit attempt.⁸ Furthermore, varenicline has demonstrated efficacy among users of smokeless tobacco in achieving continuous abstinence.⁹

Widespread adoption of varenicline into clinical practice was perhaps slowed by early concerns of psychiatric complications, prompting the FDA to issue a boxed warning for risk of serious neuropsychiatric events. This boxed warning was removed in 2016 in response to publication of the Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study (EAGLES). In this randomized controlled trial of more than 8000 participants, among whom 50.5% had a psychiatric disorder determined to be stable, varenicline significantly increased rates of continuous tobacco cessation compared with bupropion or the nicotine patch without an increased risk of neuropsychiatric events.¹⁰ This study underscored not only the safety of varenicline, but also its superiority over other first-line cessation products. The most recently published clinical practice guidelines recommend varenicline as a first-line agent for helping patients achieve long-term smoking cessation.^11,12

Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to provide tobacco cessation interventions given their medication expertise and accessibility to the public. Indeed, multiple studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of pharmacist-led interventions on tobacco cessation.^13-15 As of 2019, only 12 states had statutes or regulations addressing pharmacist prescribing of tobacco cessation aids without a collaborative practice agreement or local standing order.¹⁶ Until recently, most of these states limited pharmacists’ prescriptive authority to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). New Mexico serves as the outlier, as pharmacists have been authorized to prescribe all FDA-approved tobacco cessation products since 2004. A 2014 New Mexico study consisting of > 1400 patients showed that pharmacist-provided tobacco cessation interventions, which included management of varenicline, resulted in quit rates similar to those seen with management by other health care professionals.¹⁷ Aside from this study, there is a paucity of data available to assess the impact of pharmacist management of varenicline, let alone provide a head-to-head comparison with management by other clinicians.

Within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the clinical pharmacy specialist (CPS) is credentialed as an advanced practitioner with authority to independently manage patient medication therapy for a variety of diseases specified under a scope of practice. Although CPSs have provided tobacco cessation services for years, expansion of their scope to include varenicline did not occur until June 26, 2019, at the Southern Arizona VA Health Care System (SAVAHCS). All VA prescribers must follow the same criteria for prescribing varenicline. Unless previously trialed on varenicline, patients must have failed an appropriate trial of first-line agents (NRT, bupropion, or combination therapy) or have a contraindication to use of these first-line therapies before varenicline can be considered. Exclusions to therapy would include history of serious hypersensitivity to varenicline; suicidal intent, plan, or attempt within the past 12 months; current substance use disorder other than nicotine (unless varenicline recommended or prescribed by mental health professional); or unstable mental health disorder.¹⁸

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CPS management of varenicline compared with other clinicians. We hope that this study provides insight regarding how the expansion of CPS scope to include prescriptive authority for varenicline has affected patient outcomes.

Methods

This retrospective chart review was conducted using SAVAHCS electronic health records. This study was granted approval by the institutional review board and the research and development committee at SAVAHCS. Data were obtained through the Computerized Patient Record System from the information provided by the pharmacist informatics department and was recorded electronically on a secure Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

To be eligible for this study, patients must have been aged ≥ 18 years with a varenicline prescription between July 1, 2019, and July 31, 2020. Patients were excluded if tobacco cessation was managed by community-based (non-VA) clincians or if there was a lack of documentation of tobacco use at baseline and after at least 12 weeks of varenicline therapy. Sample size was not designed to achieve statistical power. Potential patients were queried by a pharmacist specializing in clinical informatics. All patients meeting initial inclusion criteria were then screened individually to evaluate for exclusion criteria.

Data collected included baseline age, sex, race, type of tobacco use (cigarettes, smokeless, both), mean daily tobacco use, prespecified comorbidities (depression, anxiety, or other psychiatric condition), and previous cessation medications prescribed (NRT, bupropion, and previous trials of varenicline).

The primary outcomes were reduction in tobacco use calculated as change at 12 weeks from baseline (and 24 weeks if available), continuous abstinence at 12 weeks (and 24 weeks if available), adherence to varenicline therapy measured by proportion of days covered (days covered by refills during the measurement period divided by days between the first fill and the end of the measurement period), and time to first follow-up in days. For safety evaluation, charts were reviewed for documented adverse events (AEs) in the health record. These AEs were categorized as follows: gastrointestinal, mood disturbance, sleep disturbance, headache, seizures, allergy, or other.

Statistical analyses regarding veteran baseline characteristics were descriptive in nature. χ² test was used to analyze differences in complete cessation rates and AEs, whereas a Student t test was used to compare reductions of tobacco use, proportion of days covered (ie, adherence), and time to first follow-up. An α of .05 was used to determine significance.

Results

From the initial search, 255 charts met general inclusion criteria. After chart review, only 50 patients from the CPS group and 93 patients from the other clinician group met criteria to be included (Figure 1). The CPS group included pharmacists specializing in ambulatory care and outpatient mental health. The other clinician group was composed primarily of primary care practitioners, psychiatrists, and pulmonologists.

Overall, baseline characteristics were similar between the groups (Table 1). In the overall study population, the mean age was 57.5 years, 90% of patients were male, and 99% of patients were cigarette smokers. Baseline mean (SD) tobacco use was similar between the groups: 14.5 (10.8) vs 14.8 (8.6) cigarettes daily for the CPS and other clinician group, respectively.

Discussion

The results of this single center study suggest that management of varenicline by CPSs is associated with similar reductions in tobacco use and abstinence rates compared with management by other clinicians. These results provide evidence that CPS management of varenicline may be as safe and effective as management by other clinicians.

Adherence rates (reported as proportion of days covered when assessing varenicline refill data) were higher on average among patients managed by a CPS compared with patients managed by other clinicians. However, this outcome may not be as reflective of adherence as initially intended, given delays in follow-up (see limitations section). Time to first follow-up was drastically different between the groups, with much sooner follow-up by CPSs compared with other clinicians. Despite similar tobacco cessation rates between groups, more frequent follow-up by CPSs helps to assess patient barriers to cessation, adherence to therapy, and AEs with varenicline. A higher percentage of AEs were documented within the CPS group that could be attributed to disparities in documentation rather than true rates of AEs. While rates of AEs were initially intended to serve as the primary safety outcome, they may instead reflect pharmacists’ diligence in monitoring and documenting tolerability of medication therapy.

Limitations

Several limitations to this study should be noted. First, the data collected were only as detailed as the extent to which prescribers documented tobacco use, previous cessation trials, and AEs; thus, various data points are likely missing within this study that could impact the results presented. In line with lack of documentation, delays in follow-up (ie, annual primary care visits) sorely undermined proportion of days covered, making these data less indicative of true medication adherence. Furthermore, this study did not account for concurrent therapies, such as combination varenicline and nicotine gum/lozenges, or behavioral treatment strategies like cessation classes.

Another limitation was that some primary care practitioners prescribed varenicline but then referred these patients to a CPS for tobacco cessation follow-up. Per the study’s protocol, these patients were included within the other clinician group, which could have brought results closer to the null. Finally, the timing of this chart review (July 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020) intersects with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, presenting a possible confounding factor if patients’ quit attempts were hindered by the stress and isolation of the pandemic.¹⁹ All pharmacist visits during the pandemic were conducted by telephone, which may have affected results.

Conclusions

In this study of veterans receiving varenicline, management by CPSs resulted in similar reductions of tobacco use and rates of complete abstinence compared with management by other clinicians. Pharmacist management was associated with greater adherence and shorter time to first follow-up compared with other clinicians. Additional research is needed to fully characterize the impact of pharmacist management of varenicline, justify expansion of clinical pharmacist scope of practice, and ultimately enhance patient outcomes regarding tobacco cessation.

It would be interesting to see more studies outside of the VA system to determine the impact of pharmacist management of varenicline for a more heterogenous patient population. At some point, a prospective controlled trial should be conducted to overcome the various confounding factors that limit the results of retrospective chart reviews

Acknowledgments

This article was prepared, and research was conducted with resources and the use of facilities at the Southern Arizona Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Tucson.

Tobacco smoking remains the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States, accounting for more than 480,000 deaths annually.¹ An estimated 50.6 million US adults (20.8%) identify as tobacco users, with even higher rates among veterans (29.2%).^2,3 Tobacco use is estimated to cost the US more than $300 billion annually in direct and indirect medical costs.⁴ According to a 2015 report, more than two-thirds of adult smokers reported a desire to quit, while only 7.5% reported successfully quitting in the past year.⁵ According to that same report, only 57.2% of smokers who had seen a health professional in the past year reported receiving advice to quit.⁵ This statistic is unfortunate, as interventions that combine behavioral and pharmacologic support can drastically increase tobacco cessation rates compared with self-help materials or no treatment.⁶

Currently, 7 first-line medications (5 nicotine, 2 nonnicotine) have been shown to increase long-term smoking abstinence rates. Varenicline was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006 for use in adults as an aid to smoking cessation treatment. As a partial agonist of the α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, varenicline’s mechanism of action is believed to involve reduction of nicotine’s rewarding capacity.⁷ Varenicline not only aids in complete tobacco cessation but also has been found to be effective for reducing cigarette consumption among smokers not yet willing or able to make a quit attempt.⁸ Furthermore, varenicline has demonstrated efficacy among users of smokeless tobacco in achieving continuous abstinence.⁹

Widespread adoption of varenicline into clinical practice was perhaps slowed by early concerns of psychiatric complications, prompting the FDA to issue a boxed warning for risk of serious neuropsychiatric events. This boxed warning was removed in 2016 in response to publication of the Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study (EAGLES). In this randomized controlled trial of more than 8000 participants, among whom 50.5% had a psychiatric disorder determined to be stable, varenicline significantly increased rates of continuous tobacco cessation compared with bupropion or the nicotine patch without an increased risk of neuropsychiatric events.¹⁰ This study underscored not only the safety of varenicline, but also its superiority over other first-line cessation products. The most recently published clinical practice guidelines recommend varenicline as a first-line agent for helping patients achieve long-term smoking cessation.^11,12

Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to provide tobacco cessation interventions given their medication expertise and accessibility to the public. Indeed, multiple studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of pharmacist-led interventions on tobacco cessation.^13-15 As of 2019, only 12 states had statutes or regulations addressing pharmacist prescribing of tobacco cessation aids without a collaborative practice agreement or local standing order.¹⁶ Until recently, most of these states limited pharmacists’ prescriptive authority to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). New Mexico serves as the outlier, as pharmacists have been authorized to prescribe all FDA-approved tobacco cessation products since 2004. A 2014 New Mexico study consisting of > 1400 patients showed that pharmacist-provided tobacco cessation interventions, which included management of varenicline, resulted in quit rates similar to those seen with management by other health care professionals.¹⁷ Aside from this study, there is a paucity of data available to assess the impact of pharmacist management of varenicline, let alone provide a head-to-head comparison with management by other clinicians.

Within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the clinical pharmacy specialist (CPS) is credentialed as an advanced practitioner with authority to independently manage patient medication therapy for a variety of diseases specified under a scope of practice. Although CPSs have provided tobacco cessation services for years, expansion of their scope to include varenicline did not occur until June 26, 2019, at the Southern Arizona VA Health Care System (SAVAHCS). All VA prescribers must follow the same criteria for prescribing varenicline. Unless previously trialed on varenicline, patients must have failed an appropriate trial of first-line agents (NRT, bupropion, or combination therapy) or have a contraindication to use of these first-line therapies before varenicline can be considered. Exclusions to therapy would include history of serious hypersensitivity to varenicline; suicidal intent, plan, or attempt within the past 12 months; current substance use disorder other than nicotine (unless varenicline recommended or prescribed by mental health professional); or unstable mental health disorder.¹⁸

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CPS management of varenicline compared with other clinicians. We hope that this study provides insight regarding how the expansion of CPS scope to include prescriptive authority for varenicline has affected patient outcomes.

Methods

This retrospective chart review was conducted using SAVAHCS electronic health records. This study was granted approval by the institutional review board and the research and development committee at SAVAHCS. Data were obtained through the Computerized Patient Record System from the information provided by the pharmacist informatics department and was recorded electronically on a secure Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

To be eligible for this study, patients must have been aged ≥ 18 years with a varenicline prescription between July 1, 2019, and July 31, 2020. Patients were excluded if tobacco cessation was managed by community-based (non-VA) clincians or if there was a lack of documentation of tobacco use at baseline and after at least 12 weeks of varenicline therapy. Sample size was not designed to achieve statistical power. Potential patients were queried by a pharmacist specializing in clinical informatics. All patients meeting initial inclusion criteria were then screened individually to evaluate for exclusion criteria.

Data collected included baseline age, sex, race, type of tobacco use (cigarettes, smokeless, both), mean daily tobacco use, prespecified comorbidities (depression, anxiety, or other psychiatric condition), and previous cessation medications prescribed (NRT, bupropion, and previous trials of varenicline).

The primary outcomes were reduction in tobacco use calculated as change at 12 weeks from baseline (and 24 weeks if available), continuous abstinence at 12 weeks (and 24 weeks if available), adherence to varenicline therapy measured by proportion of days covered (days covered by refills during the measurement period divided by days between the first fill and the end of the measurement period), and time to first follow-up in days. For safety evaluation, charts were reviewed for documented adverse events (AEs) in the health record. These AEs were categorized as follows: gastrointestinal, mood disturbance, sleep disturbance, headache, seizures, allergy, or other.

Statistical analyses regarding veteran baseline characteristics were descriptive in nature. χ² test was used to analyze differences in complete cessation rates and AEs, whereas a Student t test was used to compare reductions of tobacco use, proportion of days covered (ie, adherence), and time to first follow-up. An α of .05 was used to determine significance.

Results

From the initial search, 255 charts met general inclusion criteria. After chart review, only 50 patients from the CPS group and 93 patients from the other clinician group met criteria to be included (Figure 1). The CPS group included pharmacists specializing in ambulatory care and outpatient mental health. The other clinician group was composed primarily of primary care practitioners, psychiatrists, and pulmonologists.

Overall, baseline characteristics were similar between the groups (Table 1). In the overall study population, the mean age was 57.5 years, 90% of patients were male, and 99% of patients were cigarette smokers. Baseline mean (SD) tobacco use was similar between the groups: 14.5 (10.8) vs 14.8 (8.6) cigarettes daily for the CPS and other clinician group, respectively.

Discussion

The results of this single center study suggest that management of varenicline by CPSs is associated with similar reductions in tobacco use and abstinence rates compared with management by other clinicians. These results provide evidence that CPS management of varenicline may be as safe and effective as management by other clinicians.

Adherence rates (reported as proportion of days covered when assessing varenicline refill data) were higher on average among patients managed by a CPS compared with patients managed by other clinicians. However, this outcome may not be as reflective of adherence as initially intended, given delays in follow-up (see limitations section). Time to first follow-up was drastically different between the groups, with much sooner follow-up by CPSs compared with other clinicians. Despite similar tobacco cessation rates between groups, more frequent follow-up by CPSs helps to assess patient barriers to cessation, adherence to therapy, and AEs with varenicline. A higher percentage of AEs were documented within the CPS group that could be attributed to disparities in documentation rather than true rates of AEs. While rates of AEs were initially intended to serve as the primary safety outcome, they may instead reflect pharmacists’ diligence in monitoring and documenting tolerability of medication therapy.

Limitations

Several limitations to this study should be noted. First, the data collected were only as detailed as the extent to which prescribers documented tobacco use, previous cessation trials, and AEs; thus, various data points are likely missing within this study that could impact the results presented. In line with lack of documentation, delays in follow-up (ie, annual primary care visits) sorely undermined proportion of days covered, making these data less indicative of true medication adherence. Furthermore, this study did not account for concurrent therapies, such as combination varenicline and nicotine gum/lozenges, or behavioral treatment strategies like cessation classes.

Another limitation was that some primary care practitioners prescribed varenicline but then referred these patients to a CPS for tobacco cessation follow-up. Per the study’s protocol, these patients were included within the other clinician group, which could have brought results closer to the null. Finally, the timing of this chart review (July 1, 2019, to July 31, 2020) intersects with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, presenting a possible confounding factor if patients’ quit attempts were hindered by the stress and isolation of the pandemic.¹⁹ All pharmacist visits during the pandemic were conducted by telephone, which may have affected results.

Conclusions

In this study of veterans receiving varenicline, management by CPSs resulted in similar reductions of tobacco use and rates of complete abstinence compared with management by other clinicians. Pharmacist management was associated with greater adherence and shorter time to first follow-up compared with other clinicians. Additional research is needed to fully characterize the impact of pharmacist management of varenicline, justify expansion of clinical pharmacist scope of practice, and ultimately enhance patient outcomes regarding tobacco cessation.

It would be interesting to see more studies outside of the VA system to determine the impact of pharmacist management of varenicline for a more heterogenous patient population. At some point, a prospective controlled trial should be conducted to overcome the various confounding factors that limit the results of retrospective chart reviews

Acknowledgments

This article was prepared, and research was conducted with resources and the use of facilities at the Southern Arizona Veterans Affairs Health Care System in Tucson.

Case Presentation: A 39-year-old Air Force veteran was admitted to the US Department of Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System (VABHS) for evaluation of recurrent, painful right knee effusions. On presentation, his vital signs were stable, and the examination was significant for a right knee with a large effusion and tenderness to palpation without erythema or warmth. His white blood cell count was 12.0 cells/L with an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 23 mm/h and C-reactive protein of 11.87 mg/L. He was in remission from alcohol use but had relapsed on alcohol in the past day to treat the pain. He had a history of IV drug use but was in remission. He was previously active and enjoyed long hikes. Nine months prior to presentation, he developed his first large right knee effusion associated with pain. He reported no antecedent trauma. At that time, he presented to another hospital and underwent arthrocentesis with orthopedic surgery, but this did not lead to a diagnosis, and the effusion reaccumulated within 24 hours. Four months later, he received a corticosteroid injection that provided only minor, temporary relief. He received 5 additional arthrocenteses over 9 months, all without definitive diagnosis and with rapid reaccumulation of the fluid. His most recent arthrocentesis was 3 weeks before admission.

►Lauren E. Merz, MD, MSc, Chief Medical Resident, VABHS: Dr. Jindal, what is your approach and differential diagnosis for joint effusions in hospitalized patients?

►Shivani Jindal, MD, MPH, Hospitalist, VABHS, Instructor in Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM): A thorough history and physical examination are important. I specifically ask about chronicity, pain, and trauma. A medical history of potential infectious exposures and the history of the present illness are also important, such as the risk of sexually transmitted infections, exposure to Lyme disease or other viral illnesses. Gonococcal arthritis is one of the most common causes of nontraumatic monoarthritis in young adults but can also present as a migratory polyarthritis.¹

It sounds like he was quite active and liked to hike so a history of tick exposure is important to ascertain. I would also ask about eye inflammation and back pain to assess possible ankylosing spondyarthritis. Other inflammatory etiologies, such as gout are common, but it would be surprising to miss this diagnosis on repeated arthocenteses. A physical examination can confirm monoarthritis over polyarthritis and assess for signs of inflammatory arthritis (eg, warmth and erythema). The most important etiology to assess for and rule out in a person admitted to the hospital is septic arthritis. The severe pain, mild leukocytosis, and mildly elevated inflammatory markers could be consistent with this diagnosis but are nonspecific. However, the chronicity of this patient’s presentation and hemodynamic stability make septic arthritis less likely overall and a more indolent infection or other inflammatory process more likely.

►Dr. Merz: The patient’s medical history included posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and antisocial personality disorder with multiple prior suicide attempts. He also had a history of opioid use disorder (OUD) with prior overdose and alcohol use disorder (AUD). Given his stated preference to avoid opioids and normal liver function and liver chemistry testing, the initial treatment was with acetaminophen. After this failed to provide satisfactory pain control, IV hydromorphone was added.

Dr. Jindal, how do you approach pain control in the hospital for musculoskeletal issues like this?

►Dr. Jindal: Typically, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs) are most effective for musculoskeletal pain, often in the form of ketorolac or ibuprofen. However, we are often limited in our NSAID use by kidney disease, gastritis, or cardiovascular disease. Selective COX-2 inhibitors (eg, celecoxib) have the advantage of a lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Topical formulations (eg, diclofenac) may also come with a lower adverse effect profile. Corticosteroids are also an option but come with their own adverse effect profile. This patient does not have any of these comorbidities. Adjuvant therapies such as lidocaine patches or capsaicin cream can also provide relief. Gabapentin or pregabalin are indicated for any component of neuropathic pain. Opioids can be helpful for acute musculoskeletal pain, but there is no long-term benefit in chronic musculoskeletal pain.² The experience of pain is also multifactorial so ensuring that anxiety and insomnia are addressed is key.

►Dr. Merz: On hospital day 1, the patient asked to leave to consume alcohol to ease unremitting pain. He also expressed suicidal ideation and discharge was therefore felt to be unsafe. He was reluctant to engage with psychiatry and became physically combative while attempting to leave the hospital, necessitating the use of sedating medications and physical restraints.

Dr. Shahal, what factors led to the decision to place an involuntary hold, and how do you balance patient autonomy and patient safety?

►Dr. Talya Shahal, MD, Consult-Liaison Psychiatry Service, VABHS, Instructor in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School: This is a delicate balance that requires constant reassessment. The patient initially presented to the emergency department with suicidal ideation, stating he was not able to tolerate the pain and thus resumed alcohol consumption after a period of nonuse. He had multiple risk factors for suicide, including 9 prior suicide attempts with the latest less than a year before presentation, active substance use with alcohol and other recreational drugs, PTSD, pain, veteran status, male sex, single status, and a history of trauma.^3,4 He was also displaying impulsivity and limited insight, did not engage in his psychiatric assessment, and attempted to assault staff. As such, his suicide risk was assessed to be high at the time of the evaluation, which led to the decision to place an involuntary hold. However, we reevaluate this decision at least daily in order to reassess the risk and ensure that the balance between patient safety and autonomy are maintained.

►Dr. Merz: The involuntary hold was removed within 48 hours as the patient remained calm and engaged with the primary and consulting teams. He requested escalating doses of opioids as he felt the short-acting IV medications were not providing sustained relief. However, he was also noted to be walking outside of the hospital without assistance, and he repeatedly declined nonopioid pain modalities as well as buprenorphine/naloxone. The chronic pain service was consulted but was unable to see the patient as he was frequently outside of his room.

Dr. Shahal, how do you address OUD, pain, and stigma in the hospital?

►Dr. Shahal: It is important to remember that patients with substance use disorder (SUD) and mental illness frequently have physical causes for pain and are often undertreated.⁵ Patients with SUD may also have higher tolerance for opioids and may need higher doses to treat the pain.⁵ Modalities like buprenorphine/naloxone can be effective to treat OUD and pain, but these usually cannot be initiated while the patient is on short-acting opioids as this would precipitate withdrawal.⁶ However, withdrawal can be managed while inpatient, and this can be a good time to start these medications as practitioners can aggressively help with symptom control. Proactively addressing mental health concerns, particularly anxiety, AUD, insomnia, PTSD, and depression, can also have a direct impact on the perception of pain and assist with better control.² In addition, nonpharmacologic options, such as meditation, deep breathing, and even acupuncture and Reiki can be helpful and of course less harmful to treat pain.²

► Dr. Merz: An X-ray of the knee showed no acute fracture or joint space narrowing. Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed a large knee effusion with no evidence of ligament injury. Synovial fluid showed turbid, yellow fluid with 14,110 nucleated cells (84% segmented cells and 4000 RBCs). Gram stain was negative, culture had no growth, and there were no crystals. Anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP), rheumatoid factor, HIV testing, and HLA-B27 were negative.

Dr. Serrao, what do these studies tell us about the joint effusion and the possible diagnoses?

► Dr. Richard Serrao, MD, Infectious Disease, VABHS, Clinical Associate Professor in Medicine, BUSM: I would expect the white blood cell (WBC) count to be > 50,000 cells with > 75% polymorphonuclear cells and a positive Gram stain if this was a bacterial infection resulting in septic arthritis.⁷ This patient’s studies are not consistent with this diagnosis nor is the chronicity of his presentation. There are 2 important bacteria that can present with inflammatory arthritis and less pronounced findings on arthrocentesis: Borrelia burgdorferi (the bacteria causing Lyme arthritis) and Neisseria gonorrhea. Lyme arthritis could be consistent with this relapsing remitting presentation as you expect a WBC count between 3000 and 100,000 cells with a mean value between 10,000 and 25,000 cells, > 50% polymorphonuclear leukocytes, and negative Gram stains.⁸ Gonococcal infections often do not have marked elevations in the WBC count and the Gram stain can be variable, but you still expect the WBC count to be > 30,000 cells.⁷ Inflammatory causes such as gout or autoimmune conditions such as lupus often have a WBC count between 2000 and 100,000 with a negative Gram stain, which could be consistent with this patient’s presentation.⁷ However, the lack of crystals rules out gout and the negative anti-CCP, rheumatoid factor, and HLA-B27 make rheumatologic diseases less likely.

►Dr. Merz: The patient received a phone call from another hospital where an arthrocentesis had been performed 3 weeks before. The results included a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for Lyme disease in the synovial fluid. A subsequent serum Lyme screen was positive for 1 of 3 immunoglobulin (Ig) M bands and 10 of 10 IgG bands.

Dr. Serrao, how does Lyme arthritis typically present, and are there aspects of this case that make you suspect the diagnosis? Does the serum Lyme test give us any additional information?

►Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of Lyme disease. Patients typically have persistent or intermittent arthritis, and large joints are more commonly impacted than small joints. Monoarthritis of the knee is the most common, but oligoarthritis is possible as well. The swelling usually begins abruptly, lasts for weeks to months, and effusions typically recur quickly after aspiration. These findings are consistent with the patient’s clinical history.

For diagnostics, the IgG Western blot is positive if 5 of the 10 bands are positive.⁹ This patient far exceeds the IgG band number to diagnose Lyme disease. All patients with Lyme arthritis will have positive IgG serologies since Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of the infection. IgM reactivity may be present, but are not necessary to diagnose Lyme arthritis.¹⁰ Synovial fluid is often not analyzed for antibody responses as they are susceptible to false positive results, but synovial PCR testing like this patient had detects approximately 70% of patients with untreated Lyme arthritis.¹¹ However, PCR positivity does not necessarily equate with active infection. Serologic testing for Lyme disease by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and Western blot as well as careful history and the exclusion of other diagnoses are usually sufficient to make the diagnosis.

► Dr. Merz: On further history the patient reported that 5 years prior he found a tick on his skin with a bull’s-eye rash. He was treated with 28 days of doxycycline at that time. He did not recall any tick bites or rashes in the years since.

Dr. Serrao, is it surprising that he developed Lyme arthritis 5 years after exposure and after being treated appropriately? What is the typical treatment approach for a patient like this?

►Dr. Serrao: It is atypical to develop Lyme arthritis 5 years after reported treatment of what appeared to be early localized disease, namely, erythema migrans. This stage is usually cured with 10 days of treatment alone (he received 28 days) and is generally abortive of subsequent stages, including Lyme arthritis. Furthermore, the patient reported no symptoms of arthritis until recently since that time. Therefore, one can argue that the excessively long span of time from treatment to these first episodes of arthritis suggests the patient could have been reinfected. When available, comparing the types and number of Western blot bands (eg, new and/or more bands on subsequent serologic testing) can support a reinfection diagnosis. A delayed postinfectious inflammatory process from excessive proinflammatory immune responses that block wound repair resulting in proliferative synovitis is also possible.¹² This is defined as the postinfectious, postantibiotic, or antibiotic-refractory Lyme arthritis, a diagnosis of exclusion more apparent only after patients receive appropriate antibiotic courses for the possibility of untreated Lyme as an active infection.¹²

Given the inherent diagnostic uncertainty between an active infection and posttreatment Lyme arthritis syndromes, it is best to approach most cases of Lyme arthritis as an active infection first especially if not yet treated with antibiotics. Diagnosis of postinflammatory processes should be considered if symptoms persist after appropriate antibiotics, and then short-term use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, rather than further courses of antibiotics, is recommended.

► Dr. Merz: The patient was initiated on doxycycline with the plan to transition to ceftriaxone if there was no response. One day after diagnosis and treatment initiation and in the setting of continued pain, the patient again asked to leave the hospital to drink alcohol. After eloping and becoming intoxicated with alcohol, he returned to his room. He remained concerned about his continued pain and lack of adequate pain control. At the time, he was receiving hydromorphone, ketorolac, lorazepam, gabapentin, and quetiapine.

Dr. Serrao, do you expect this degree of pain from Lyme arthritis?

► Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is typically less painful than other forms of infectious or inflammatory arthritis. Pain is usually caused by the pressure from the acute accumulation and reaccumulation of fluid. In this case, the rapid accumulation of fluid that this patient experienced as well as relief with arthrocentesis suggests that the size and acuity of the effusion was causing great discomfort. Repeated arthrocentesis can prove to be a preventative strategy to minimize synovial herniation.

►Dr. Merz: Dr. Shahal, how do you balance the patient subjectively telling you that they are in pain with objective signs that they may be tolerating the pain like walking around unassisted? Is there anything else that could have been done to prevent this adverse outcome?

►Dr. Shahal: This is one of the hardest pieces of pain management. We want to practice beneficence by believing our patients and addressing their discomfort, but we also want to practice nonmaleficence by avoiding inappropriate long-term pain treatments like opioids that have significant harm as well as avoiding exacerbating this patient’s underlying SUD. An agent like buprenorphine/naloxone could have been an excellent fit to treat pain and SUD, but the patient’s lack of interest and the frequent use of short-acting opioids were major barriers. A chronic pain consult early on is helpful in cases like this as well, but they were unable to see him since he was often out of his room. Repeated arthrocentesis may also have helped the pain. Treatment of anxiety and insomnia with medications like hydroxyzine, trazodone, melatonin, gabapentin, or buspirone as well as interventions like sleep hygiene protocols or spiritual care may have helped somewhat as well.

We know that there is a vicious cycle between pain and poorly controlled mood symptoms. Many of our veterans have PTSD, anxiety, and SUD that are exacerbated by hospitalization and pain. Maintaining optimal communication between the patient and the practitioners, using trauma-informed care, understanding the patient’s goals of care, setting expectations and limits, and attempting to address the patient’s needs while attempting to minimize stigma might be helpful. However, despite optimal care, sometimes these events cannot be avoided.

►Dr. Merz: The patient was ultimately transferred to an inpatient psychiatric unit where a taper plan for the short-acting opioids was implemented. He was psychiatrically stabilized and discharged a few days later off opioids and on doxycycline. On follow-up a few weeks later, his pain had markedly improved, and the effusion was significantly reduced in size. His mood and impulsivity had stabilized. He continues to follow-up in the infectious disease clinic.

Case Presentation: A 39-year-old Air Force veteran was admitted to the US Department of Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System (VABHS) for evaluation of recurrent, painful right knee effusions. On presentation, his vital signs were stable, and the examination was significant for a right knee with a large effusion and tenderness to palpation without erythema or warmth. His white blood cell count was 12.0 cells/L with an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 23 mm/h and C-reactive protein of 11.87 mg/L. He was in remission from alcohol use but had relapsed on alcohol in the past day to treat the pain. He had a history of IV drug use but was in remission. He was previously active and enjoyed long hikes. Nine months prior to presentation, he developed his first large right knee effusion associated with pain. He reported no antecedent trauma. At that time, he presented to another hospital and underwent arthrocentesis with orthopedic surgery, but this did not lead to a diagnosis, and the effusion reaccumulated within 24 hours. Four months later, he received a corticosteroid injection that provided only minor, temporary relief. He received 5 additional arthrocenteses over 9 months, all without definitive diagnosis and with rapid reaccumulation of the fluid. His most recent arthrocentesis was 3 weeks before admission.

►Lauren E. Merz, MD, MSc, Chief Medical Resident, VABHS: Dr. Jindal, what is your approach and differential diagnosis for joint effusions in hospitalized patients?

►Shivani Jindal, MD, MPH, Hospitalist, VABHS, Instructor in Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM): A thorough history and physical examination are important. I specifically ask about chronicity, pain, and trauma. A medical history of potential infectious exposures and the history of the present illness are also important, such as the risk of sexually transmitted infections, exposure to Lyme disease or other viral illnesses. Gonococcal arthritis is one of the most common causes of nontraumatic monoarthritis in young adults but can also present as a migratory polyarthritis.¹

It sounds like he was quite active and liked to hike so a history of tick exposure is important to ascertain. I would also ask about eye inflammation and back pain to assess possible ankylosing spondyarthritis. Other inflammatory etiologies, such as gout are common, but it would be surprising to miss this diagnosis on repeated arthocenteses. A physical examination can confirm monoarthritis over polyarthritis and assess for signs of inflammatory arthritis (eg, warmth and erythema). The most important etiology to assess for and rule out in a person admitted to the hospital is septic arthritis. The severe pain, mild leukocytosis, and mildly elevated inflammatory markers could be consistent with this diagnosis but are nonspecific. However, the chronicity of this patient’s presentation and hemodynamic stability make septic arthritis less likely overall and a more indolent infection or other inflammatory process more likely.

►Dr. Merz: The patient’s medical history included posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and antisocial personality disorder with multiple prior suicide attempts. He also had a history of opioid use disorder (OUD) with prior overdose and alcohol use disorder (AUD). Given his stated preference to avoid opioids and normal liver function and liver chemistry testing, the initial treatment was with acetaminophen. After this failed to provide satisfactory pain control, IV hydromorphone was added.

Dr. Jindal, how do you approach pain control in the hospital for musculoskeletal issues like this?

►Dr. Jindal: Typically, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs) are most effective for musculoskeletal pain, often in the form of ketorolac or ibuprofen. However, we are often limited in our NSAID use by kidney disease, gastritis, or cardiovascular disease. Selective COX-2 inhibitors (eg, celecoxib) have the advantage of a lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Topical formulations (eg, diclofenac) may also come with a lower adverse effect profile. Corticosteroids are also an option but come with their own adverse effect profile. This patient does not have any of these comorbidities. Adjuvant therapies such as lidocaine patches or capsaicin cream can also provide relief. Gabapentin or pregabalin are indicated for any component of neuropathic pain. Opioids can be helpful for acute musculoskeletal pain, but there is no long-term benefit in chronic musculoskeletal pain.² The experience of pain is also multifactorial so ensuring that anxiety and insomnia are addressed is key.

►Dr. Merz: On hospital day 1, the patient asked to leave to consume alcohol to ease unremitting pain. He also expressed suicidal ideation and discharge was therefore felt to be unsafe. He was reluctant to engage with psychiatry and became physically combative while attempting to leave the hospital, necessitating the use of sedating medications and physical restraints.

Dr. Shahal, what factors led to the decision to place an involuntary hold, and how do you balance patient autonomy and patient safety?

►Dr. Talya Shahal, MD, Consult-Liaison Psychiatry Service, VABHS, Instructor in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School: This is a delicate balance that requires constant reassessment. The patient initially presented to the emergency department with suicidal ideation, stating he was not able to tolerate the pain and thus resumed alcohol consumption after a period of nonuse. He had multiple risk factors for suicide, including 9 prior suicide attempts with the latest less than a year before presentation, active substance use with alcohol and other recreational drugs, PTSD, pain, veteran status, male sex, single status, and a history of trauma.^3,4 He was also displaying impulsivity and limited insight, did not engage in his psychiatric assessment, and attempted to assault staff. As such, his suicide risk was assessed to be high at the time of the evaluation, which led to the decision to place an involuntary hold. However, we reevaluate this decision at least daily in order to reassess the risk and ensure that the balance between patient safety and autonomy are maintained.

►Dr. Merz: The involuntary hold was removed within 48 hours as the patient remained calm and engaged with the primary and consulting teams. He requested escalating doses of opioids as he felt the short-acting IV medications were not providing sustained relief. However, he was also noted to be walking outside of the hospital without assistance, and he repeatedly declined nonopioid pain modalities as well as buprenorphine/naloxone. The chronic pain service was consulted but was unable to see the patient as he was frequently outside of his room.

Dr. Shahal, how do you address OUD, pain, and stigma in the hospital?

►Dr. Shahal: It is important to remember that patients with substance use disorder (SUD) and mental illness frequently have physical causes for pain and are often undertreated.⁵ Patients with SUD may also have higher tolerance for opioids and may need higher doses to treat the pain.⁵ Modalities like buprenorphine/naloxone can be effective to treat OUD and pain, but these usually cannot be initiated while the patient is on short-acting opioids as this would precipitate withdrawal.⁶ However, withdrawal can be managed while inpatient, and this can be a good time to start these medications as practitioners can aggressively help with symptom control. Proactively addressing mental health concerns, particularly anxiety, AUD, insomnia, PTSD, and depression, can also have a direct impact on the perception of pain and assist with better control.² In addition, nonpharmacologic options, such as meditation, deep breathing, and even acupuncture and Reiki can be helpful and of course less harmful to treat pain.²

► Dr. Merz: An X-ray of the knee showed no acute fracture or joint space narrowing. Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed a large knee effusion with no evidence of ligament injury. Synovial fluid showed turbid, yellow fluid with 14,110 nucleated cells (84% segmented cells and 4000 RBCs). Gram stain was negative, culture had no growth, and there were no crystals. Anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP), rheumatoid factor, HIV testing, and HLA-B27 were negative.

Dr. Serrao, what do these studies tell us about the joint effusion and the possible diagnoses?

► Dr. Richard Serrao, MD, Infectious Disease, VABHS, Clinical Associate Professor in Medicine, BUSM: I would expect the white blood cell (WBC) count to be > 50,000 cells with > 75% polymorphonuclear cells and a positive Gram stain if this was a bacterial infection resulting in septic arthritis.⁷ This patient’s studies are not consistent with this diagnosis nor is the chronicity of his presentation. There are 2 important bacteria that can present with inflammatory arthritis and less pronounced findings on arthrocentesis: Borrelia burgdorferi (the bacteria causing Lyme arthritis) and Neisseria gonorrhea. Lyme arthritis could be consistent with this relapsing remitting presentation as you expect a WBC count between 3000 and 100,000 cells with a mean value between 10,000 and 25,000 cells, > 50% polymorphonuclear leukocytes, and negative Gram stains.⁸ Gonococcal infections often do not have marked elevations in the WBC count and the Gram stain can be variable, but you still expect the WBC count to be > 30,000 cells.⁷ Inflammatory causes such as gout or autoimmune conditions such as lupus often have a WBC count between 2000 and 100,000 with a negative Gram stain, which could be consistent with this patient’s presentation.⁷ However, the lack of crystals rules out gout and the negative anti-CCP, rheumatoid factor, and HLA-B27 make rheumatologic diseases less likely.

►Dr. Merz: The patient received a phone call from another hospital where an arthrocentesis had been performed 3 weeks before. The results included a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for Lyme disease in the synovial fluid. A subsequent serum Lyme screen was positive for 1 of 3 immunoglobulin (Ig) M bands and 10 of 10 IgG bands.

Dr. Serrao, how does Lyme arthritis typically present, and are there aspects of this case that make you suspect the diagnosis? Does the serum Lyme test give us any additional information?

►Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of Lyme disease. Patients typically have persistent or intermittent arthritis, and large joints are more commonly impacted than small joints. Monoarthritis of the knee is the most common, but oligoarthritis is possible as well. The swelling usually begins abruptly, lasts for weeks to months, and effusions typically recur quickly after aspiration. These findings are consistent with the patient’s clinical history.

For diagnostics, the IgG Western blot is positive if 5 of the 10 bands are positive.⁹ This patient far exceeds the IgG band number to diagnose Lyme disease. All patients with Lyme arthritis will have positive IgG serologies since Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of the infection. IgM reactivity may be present, but are not necessary to diagnose Lyme arthritis.¹⁰ Synovial fluid is often not analyzed for antibody responses as they are susceptible to false positive results, but synovial PCR testing like this patient had detects approximately 70% of patients with untreated Lyme arthritis.¹¹ However, PCR positivity does not necessarily equate with active infection. Serologic testing for Lyme disease by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and Western blot as well as careful history and the exclusion of other diagnoses are usually sufficient to make the diagnosis.

► Dr. Merz: On further history the patient reported that 5 years prior he found a tick on his skin with a bull’s-eye rash. He was treated with 28 days of doxycycline at that time. He did not recall any tick bites or rashes in the years since.

Dr. Serrao, is it surprising that he developed Lyme arthritis 5 years after exposure and after being treated appropriately? What is the typical treatment approach for a patient like this?

►Dr. Serrao: It is atypical to develop Lyme arthritis 5 years after reported treatment of what appeared to be early localized disease, namely, erythema migrans. This stage is usually cured with 10 days of treatment alone (he received 28 days) and is generally abortive of subsequent stages, including Lyme arthritis. Furthermore, the patient reported no symptoms of arthritis until recently since that time. Therefore, one can argue that the excessively long span of time from treatment to these first episodes of arthritis suggests the patient could have been reinfected. When available, comparing the types and number of Western blot bands (eg, new and/or more bands on subsequent serologic testing) can support a reinfection diagnosis. A delayed postinfectious inflammatory process from excessive proinflammatory immune responses that block wound repair resulting in proliferative synovitis is also possible.¹² This is defined as the postinfectious, postantibiotic, or antibiotic-refractory Lyme arthritis, a diagnosis of exclusion more apparent only after patients receive appropriate antibiotic courses for the possibility of untreated Lyme as an active infection.¹²

Given the inherent diagnostic uncertainty between an active infection and posttreatment Lyme arthritis syndromes, it is best to approach most cases of Lyme arthritis as an active infection first especially if not yet treated with antibiotics. Diagnosis of postinflammatory processes should be considered if symptoms persist after appropriate antibiotics, and then short-term use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, rather than further courses of antibiotics, is recommended.

► Dr. Merz: The patient was initiated on doxycycline with the plan to transition to ceftriaxone if there was no response. One day after diagnosis and treatment initiation and in the setting of continued pain, the patient again asked to leave the hospital to drink alcohol. After eloping and becoming intoxicated with alcohol, he returned to his room. He remained concerned about his continued pain and lack of adequate pain control. At the time, he was receiving hydromorphone, ketorolac, lorazepam, gabapentin, and quetiapine.

Dr. Serrao, do you expect this degree of pain from Lyme arthritis?

► Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is typically less painful than other forms of infectious or inflammatory arthritis. Pain is usually caused by the pressure from the acute accumulation and reaccumulation of fluid. In this case, the rapid accumulation of fluid that this patient experienced as well as relief with arthrocentesis suggests that the size and acuity of the effusion was causing great discomfort. Repeated arthrocentesis can prove to be a preventative strategy to minimize synovial herniation.

►Dr. Merz: Dr. Shahal, how do you balance the patient subjectively telling you that they are in pain with objective signs that they may be tolerating the pain like walking around unassisted? Is there anything else that could have been done to prevent this adverse outcome?

►Dr. Shahal: This is one of the hardest pieces of pain management. We want to practice beneficence by believing our patients and addressing their discomfort, but we also want to practice nonmaleficence by avoiding inappropriate long-term pain treatments like opioids that have significant harm as well as avoiding exacerbating this patient’s underlying SUD. An agent like buprenorphine/naloxone could have been an excellent fit to treat pain and SUD, but the patient’s lack of interest and the frequent use of short-acting opioids were major barriers. A chronic pain consult early on is helpful in cases like this as well, but they were unable to see him since he was often out of his room. Repeated arthrocentesis may also have helped the pain. Treatment of anxiety and insomnia with medications like hydroxyzine, trazodone, melatonin, gabapentin, or buspirone as well as interventions like sleep hygiene protocols or spiritual care may have helped somewhat as well.

We know that there is a vicious cycle between pain and poorly controlled mood symptoms. Many of our veterans have PTSD, anxiety, and SUD that are exacerbated by hospitalization and pain. Maintaining optimal communication between the patient and the practitioners, using trauma-informed care, understanding the patient’s goals of care, setting expectations and limits, and attempting to address the patient’s needs while attempting to minimize stigma might be helpful. However, despite optimal care, sometimes these events cannot be avoided.

►Dr. Merz: The patient was ultimately transferred to an inpatient psychiatric unit where a taper plan for the short-acting opioids was implemented. He was psychiatrically stabilized and discharged a few days later off opioids and on doxycycline. On follow-up a few weeks later, his pain had markedly improved, and the effusion was significantly reduced in size. His mood and impulsivity had stabilized. He continues to follow-up in the infectious disease clinic.

Case Presentation: A 39-year-old Air Force veteran was admitted to the US Department of Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System (VABHS) for evaluation of recurrent, painful right knee effusions. On presentation, his vital signs were stable, and the examination was significant for a right knee with a large effusion and tenderness to palpation without erythema or warmth. His white blood cell count was 12.0 cells/L with an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 23 mm/h and C-reactive protein of 11.87 mg/L. He was in remission from alcohol use but had relapsed on alcohol in the past day to treat the pain. He had a history of IV drug use but was in remission. He was previously active and enjoyed long hikes. Nine months prior to presentation, he developed his first large right knee effusion associated with pain. He reported no antecedent trauma. At that time, he presented to another hospital and underwent arthrocentesis with orthopedic surgery, but this did not lead to a diagnosis, and the effusion reaccumulated within 24 hours. Four months later, he received a corticosteroid injection that provided only minor, temporary relief. He received 5 additional arthrocenteses over 9 months, all without definitive diagnosis and with rapid reaccumulation of the fluid. His most recent arthrocentesis was 3 weeks before admission.

►Lauren E. Merz, MD, MSc, Chief Medical Resident, VABHS: Dr. Jindal, what is your approach and differential diagnosis for joint effusions in hospitalized patients?

►Shivani Jindal, MD, MPH, Hospitalist, VABHS, Instructor in Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM): A thorough history and physical examination are important. I specifically ask about chronicity, pain, and trauma. A medical history of potential infectious exposures and the history of the present illness are also important, such as the risk of sexually transmitted infections, exposure to Lyme disease or other viral illnesses. Gonococcal arthritis is one of the most common causes of nontraumatic monoarthritis in young adults but can also present as a migratory polyarthritis.¹

It sounds like he was quite active and liked to hike so a history of tick exposure is important to ascertain. I would also ask about eye inflammation and back pain to assess possible ankylosing spondyarthritis. Other inflammatory etiologies, such as gout are common, but it would be surprising to miss this diagnosis on repeated arthocenteses. A physical examination can confirm monoarthritis over polyarthritis and assess for signs of inflammatory arthritis (eg, warmth and erythema). The most important etiology to assess for and rule out in a person admitted to the hospital is septic arthritis. The severe pain, mild leukocytosis, and mildly elevated inflammatory markers could be consistent with this diagnosis but are nonspecific. However, the chronicity of this patient’s presentation and hemodynamic stability make septic arthritis less likely overall and a more indolent infection or other inflammatory process more likely.

►Dr. Merz: The patient’s medical history included posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and antisocial personality disorder with multiple prior suicide attempts. He also had a history of opioid use disorder (OUD) with prior overdose and alcohol use disorder (AUD). Given his stated preference to avoid opioids and normal liver function and liver chemistry testing, the initial treatment was with acetaminophen. After this failed to provide satisfactory pain control, IV hydromorphone was added.

Dr. Jindal, how do you approach pain control in the hospital for musculoskeletal issues like this?

►Dr. Jindal: Typically, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs) are most effective for musculoskeletal pain, often in the form of ketorolac or ibuprofen. However, we are often limited in our NSAID use by kidney disease, gastritis, or cardiovascular disease. Selective COX-2 inhibitors (eg, celecoxib) have the advantage of a lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Topical formulations (eg, diclofenac) may also come with a lower adverse effect profile. Corticosteroids are also an option but come with their own adverse effect profile. This patient does not have any of these comorbidities. Adjuvant therapies such as lidocaine patches or capsaicin cream can also provide relief. Gabapentin or pregabalin are indicated for any component of neuropathic pain. Opioids can be helpful for acute musculoskeletal pain, but there is no long-term benefit in chronic musculoskeletal pain.² The experience of pain is also multifactorial so ensuring that anxiety and insomnia are addressed is key.

►Dr. Merz: On hospital day 1, the patient asked to leave to consume alcohol to ease unremitting pain. He also expressed suicidal ideation and discharge was therefore felt to be unsafe. He was reluctant to engage with psychiatry and became physically combative while attempting to leave the hospital, necessitating the use of sedating medications and physical restraints.

Dr. Shahal, what factors led to the decision to place an involuntary hold, and how do you balance patient autonomy and patient safety?

►Dr. Talya Shahal, MD, Consult-Liaison Psychiatry Service, VABHS, Instructor in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School: This is a delicate balance that requires constant reassessment. The patient initially presented to the emergency department with suicidal ideation, stating he was not able to tolerate the pain and thus resumed alcohol consumption after a period of nonuse. He had multiple risk factors for suicide, including 9 prior suicide attempts with the latest less than a year before presentation, active substance use with alcohol and other recreational drugs, PTSD, pain, veteran status, male sex, single status, and a history of trauma.^3,4 He was also displaying impulsivity and limited insight, did not engage in his psychiatric assessment, and attempted to assault staff. As such, his suicide risk was assessed to be high at the time of the evaluation, which led to the decision to place an involuntary hold. However, we reevaluate this decision at least daily in order to reassess the risk and ensure that the balance between patient safety and autonomy are maintained.

►Dr. Merz: The involuntary hold was removed within 48 hours as the patient remained calm and engaged with the primary and consulting teams. He requested escalating doses of opioids as he felt the short-acting IV medications were not providing sustained relief. However, he was also noted to be walking outside of the hospital without assistance, and he repeatedly declined nonopioid pain modalities as well as buprenorphine/naloxone. The chronic pain service was consulted but was unable to see the patient as he was frequently outside of his room.

Dr. Shahal, how do you address OUD, pain, and stigma in the hospital?

►Dr. Shahal: It is important to remember that patients with substance use disorder (SUD) and mental illness frequently have physical causes for pain and are often undertreated.⁵ Patients with SUD may also have higher tolerance for opioids and may need higher doses to treat the pain.⁵ Modalities like buprenorphine/naloxone can be effective to treat OUD and pain, but these usually cannot be initiated while the patient is on short-acting opioids as this would precipitate withdrawal.⁶ However, withdrawal can be managed while inpatient, and this can be a good time to start these medications as practitioners can aggressively help with symptom control. Proactively addressing mental health concerns, particularly anxiety, AUD, insomnia, PTSD, and depression, can also have a direct impact on the perception of pain and assist with better control.² In addition, nonpharmacologic options, such as meditation, deep breathing, and even acupuncture and Reiki can be helpful and of course less harmful to treat pain.²

► Dr. Merz: An X-ray of the knee showed no acute fracture or joint space narrowing. Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed a large knee effusion with no evidence of ligament injury. Synovial fluid showed turbid, yellow fluid with 14,110 nucleated cells (84% segmented cells and 4000 RBCs). Gram stain was negative, culture had no growth, and there were no crystals. Anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP), rheumatoid factor, HIV testing, and HLA-B27 were negative.

Dr. Serrao, what do these studies tell us about the joint effusion and the possible diagnoses?

► Dr. Richard Serrao, MD, Infectious Disease, VABHS, Clinical Associate Professor in Medicine, BUSM: I would expect the white blood cell (WBC) count to be > 50,000 cells with > 75% polymorphonuclear cells and a positive Gram stain if this was a bacterial infection resulting in septic arthritis.⁷ This patient’s studies are not consistent with this diagnosis nor is the chronicity of his presentation. There are 2 important bacteria that can present with inflammatory arthritis and less pronounced findings on arthrocentesis: Borrelia burgdorferi (the bacteria causing Lyme arthritis) and Neisseria gonorrhea. Lyme arthritis could be consistent with this relapsing remitting presentation as you expect a WBC count between 3000 and 100,000 cells with a mean value between 10,000 and 25,000 cells, > 50% polymorphonuclear leukocytes, and negative Gram stains.⁸ Gonococcal infections often do not have marked elevations in the WBC count and the Gram stain can be variable, but you still expect the WBC count to be > 30,000 cells.⁷ Inflammatory causes such as gout or autoimmune conditions such as lupus often have a WBC count between 2000 and 100,000 with a negative Gram stain, which could be consistent with this patient’s presentation.⁷ However, the lack of crystals rules out gout and the negative anti-CCP, rheumatoid factor, and HLA-B27 make rheumatologic diseases less likely.

►Dr. Merz: The patient received a phone call from another hospital where an arthrocentesis had been performed 3 weeks before. The results included a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for Lyme disease in the synovial fluid. A subsequent serum Lyme screen was positive for 1 of 3 immunoglobulin (Ig) M bands and 10 of 10 IgG bands.

Dr. Serrao, how does Lyme arthritis typically present, and are there aspects of this case that make you suspect the diagnosis? Does the serum Lyme test give us any additional information?

►Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of Lyme disease. Patients typically have persistent or intermittent arthritis, and large joints are more commonly impacted than small joints. Monoarthritis of the knee is the most common, but oligoarthritis is possible as well. The swelling usually begins abruptly, lasts for weeks to months, and effusions typically recur quickly after aspiration. These findings are consistent with the patient’s clinical history.

For diagnostics, the IgG Western blot is positive if 5 of the 10 bands are positive.⁹ This patient far exceeds the IgG band number to diagnose Lyme disease. All patients with Lyme arthritis will have positive IgG serologies since Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of the infection. IgM reactivity may be present, but are not necessary to diagnose Lyme arthritis.¹⁰ Synovial fluid is often not analyzed for antibody responses as they are susceptible to false positive results, but synovial PCR testing like this patient had detects approximately 70% of patients with untreated Lyme arthritis.¹¹ However, PCR positivity does not necessarily equate with active infection. Serologic testing for Lyme disease by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and Western blot as well as careful history and the exclusion of other diagnoses are usually sufficient to make the diagnosis.

► Dr. Merz: On further history the patient reported that 5 years prior he found a tick on his skin with a bull’s-eye rash. He was treated with 28 days of doxycycline at that time. He did not recall any tick bites or rashes in the years since.

Dr. Serrao, is it surprising that he developed Lyme arthritis 5 years after exposure and after being treated appropriately? What is the typical treatment approach for a patient like this?

►Dr. Serrao: It is atypical to develop Lyme arthritis 5 years after reported treatment of what appeared to be early localized disease, namely, erythema migrans. This stage is usually cured with 10 days of treatment alone (he received 28 days) and is generally abortive of subsequent stages, including Lyme arthritis. Furthermore, the patient reported no symptoms of arthritis until recently since that time. Therefore, one can argue that the excessively long span of time from treatment to these first episodes of arthritis suggests the patient could have been reinfected. When available, comparing the types and number of Western blot bands (eg, new and/or more bands on subsequent serologic testing) can support a reinfection diagnosis. A delayed postinfectious inflammatory process from excessive proinflammatory immune responses that block wound repair resulting in proliferative synovitis is also possible.¹² This is defined as the postinfectious, postantibiotic, or antibiotic-refractory Lyme arthritis, a diagnosis of exclusion more apparent only after patients receive appropriate antibiotic courses for the possibility of untreated Lyme as an active infection.¹²

Given the inherent diagnostic uncertainty between an active infection and posttreatment Lyme arthritis syndromes, it is best to approach most cases of Lyme arthritis as an active infection first especially if not yet treated with antibiotics. Diagnosis of postinflammatory processes should be considered if symptoms persist after appropriate antibiotics, and then short-term use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, rather than further courses of antibiotics, is recommended.

► Dr. Merz: The patient was initiated on doxycycline with the plan to transition to ceftriaxone if there was no response. One day after diagnosis and treatment initiation and in the setting of continued pain, the patient again asked to leave the hospital to drink alcohol. After eloping and becoming intoxicated with alcohol, he returned to his room. He remained concerned about his continued pain and lack of adequate pain control. At the time, he was receiving hydromorphone, ketorolac, lorazepam, gabapentin, and quetiapine.

Dr. Serrao, do you expect this degree of pain from Lyme arthritis?

► Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is typically less painful than other forms of infectious or inflammatory arthritis. Pain is usually caused by the pressure from the acute accumulation and reaccumulation of fluid. In this case, the rapid accumulation of fluid that this patient experienced as well as relief with arthrocentesis suggests that the size and acuity of the effusion was causing great discomfort. Repeated arthrocentesis can prove to be a preventative strategy to minimize synovial herniation.

►Dr. Merz: Dr. Shahal, how do you balance the patient subjectively telling you that they are in pain with objective signs that they may be tolerating the pain like walking around unassisted? Is there anything else that could have been done to prevent this adverse outcome?

►Dr. Shahal: This is one of the hardest pieces of pain management. We want to practice beneficence by believing our patients and addressing their discomfort, but we also want to practice nonmaleficence by avoiding inappropriate long-term pain treatments like opioids that have significant harm as well as avoiding exacerbating this patient’s underlying SUD. An agent like buprenorphine/naloxone could have been an excellent fit to treat pain and SUD, but the patient’s lack of interest and the frequent use of short-acting opioids were major barriers. A chronic pain consult early on is helpful in cases like this as well, but they were unable to see him since he was often out of his room. Repeated arthrocentesis may also have helped the pain. Treatment of anxiety and insomnia with medications like hydroxyzine, trazodone, melatonin, gabapentin, or buspirone as well as interventions like sleep hygiene protocols or spiritual care may have helped somewhat as well.

We know that there is a vicious cycle between pain and poorly controlled mood symptoms. Many of our veterans have PTSD, anxiety, and SUD that are exacerbated by hospitalization and pain. Maintaining optimal communication between the patient and the practitioners, using trauma-informed care, understanding the patient’s goals of care, setting expectations and limits, and attempting to address the patient’s needs while attempting to minimize stigma might be helpful. However, despite optimal care, sometimes these events cannot be avoided.

►Dr. Merz: The patient was ultimately transferred to an inpatient psychiatric unit where a taper plan for the short-acting opioids was implemented. He was psychiatrically stabilized and discharged a few days later off opioids and on doxycycline. On follow-up a few weeks later, his pain had markedly improved, and the effusion was significantly reduced in size. His mood and impulsivity had stabilized. He continues to follow-up in the infectious disease clinic.