Article

The relationship between enthesitis and synovitis is of considerable interest to both clinicians and researchers. This relationship is best evaluated using imaging, particularly ultrasonography, and could provide pathophysiologic insights. Balulu and colleagues recruited 158 patients with PsA who underwent sonographic assessment of 52 joints, 40 tendons, and 14 entheses as well as clinical evaluation. Overall, total sonographic enthesitis scores were significantly associated with total sonographic synovitis and sonographic tenosynovitis scores and also with older age, male sex, swollen joint count, C-reactive protein, physical occupation, and patient-reported outcomes. The association between enthesitis and synovitis was also demonstrated at the elbows, knees, and ankles. This study demonstrates that psoriatic enthesitis and synovitis are closely related and thus may share pathophysiologic mechanisms. Longitudinal studies in very early PsA using ultrasound might provide clues to confirm the hypothesis that psoriatic synovitis is secondary to enthesitis.

Another important domain that is increasingly studied is axial PsA. Currently, the evidence for treatment of axial PsA is extrapolated from that for axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), in the belief that the two diseases are pathophysiologically similar. However, there is increasing evidence for differences between axial PsA and axial SpA that might influence the choice of treatment. In a recent study, de Hooge and colleagues demonstrated that patients with axial PsA have lower severity of damage to the spine compared with those with axial SpA. Using data from 312 patients with PsA and 213 patients with SpA who underwent radiographic imaging assessment in the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS) and the Ghent and Belgian Inflammatory Arthritis and Spondylitis (Be-GIANT) study, respectively, they show that the proportion of patients with PsA vs SpA having spinal damage was comparable. Patients with SpA and spinal damage had higher modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Scores, indicating more severe damage. These results are consistent with other published studies and indicate that patients with PsA have less severe spinal disease compared with other patients with axial SpA. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) specifically investigating the treatment of axial PsA are currently underway. Nevertheless, post hoc analyses of data from PsA RCTs indicate that most drugs efficacious for PsA overall also provide benefit in axial disease.

In a recent report, Baraliakos and colleagues analyzed data from the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials that evaluated the efficacy of upadacitinib in PsA. They show that, compared with placebo, 15 mg upadacitinib led to a greater improvement in axial symptoms. The improvement in overall Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score at week 24 was significantly higher with 15 mg upadacitinib compared with placebo in both trials. However, these results are not definitive because there is yet no consensus on the definition of and outcome measures for axial PsA.

The relationship between enthesitis and synovitis is of considerable interest to both clinicians and researchers. This relationship is best evaluated using imaging, particularly ultrasonography, and could provide pathophysiologic insights. Balulu and colleagues recruited 158 patients with PsA who underwent sonographic assessment of 52 joints, 40 tendons, and 14 entheses as well as clinical evaluation. Overall, total sonographic enthesitis scores were significantly associated with total sonographic synovitis and sonographic tenosynovitis scores and also with older age, male sex, swollen joint count, C-reactive protein, physical occupation, and patient-reported outcomes. The association between enthesitis and synovitis was also demonstrated at the elbows, knees, and ankles. This study demonstrates that psoriatic enthesitis and synovitis are closely related and thus may share pathophysiologic mechanisms. Longitudinal studies in very early PsA using ultrasound might provide clues to confirm the hypothesis that psoriatic synovitis is secondary to enthesitis.

Another important domain that is increasingly studied is axial PsA. Currently, the evidence for treatment of axial PsA is extrapolated from that for axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), in the belief that the two diseases are pathophysiologically similar. However, there is increasing evidence for differences between axial PsA and axial SpA that might influence the choice of treatment. In a recent study, de Hooge and colleagues demonstrated that patients with axial PsA have lower severity of damage to the spine compared with those with axial SpA. Using data from 312 patients with PsA and 213 patients with SpA who underwent radiographic imaging assessment in the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS) and the Ghent and Belgian Inflammatory Arthritis and Spondylitis (Be-GIANT) study, respectively, they show that the proportion of patients with PsA vs SpA having spinal damage was comparable. Patients with SpA and spinal damage had higher modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Scores, indicating more severe damage. These results are consistent with other published studies and indicate that patients with PsA have less severe spinal disease compared with other patients with axial SpA. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) specifically investigating the treatment of axial PsA are currently underway. Nevertheless, post hoc analyses of data from PsA RCTs indicate that most drugs efficacious for PsA overall also provide benefit in axial disease.

In a recent report, Baraliakos and colleagues analyzed data from the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials that evaluated the efficacy of upadacitinib in PsA. They show that, compared with placebo, 15 mg upadacitinib led to a greater improvement in axial symptoms. The improvement in overall Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score at week 24 was significantly higher with 15 mg upadacitinib compared with placebo in both trials. However, these results are not definitive because there is yet no consensus on the definition of and outcome measures for axial PsA.

The relationship between enthesitis and synovitis is of considerable interest to both clinicians and researchers. This relationship is best evaluated using imaging, particularly ultrasonography, and could provide pathophysiologic insights. Balulu and colleagues recruited 158 patients with PsA who underwent sonographic assessment of 52 joints, 40 tendons, and 14 entheses as well as clinical evaluation. Overall, total sonographic enthesitis scores were significantly associated with total sonographic synovitis and sonographic tenosynovitis scores and also with older age, male sex, swollen joint count, C-reactive protein, physical occupation, and patient-reported outcomes. The association between enthesitis and synovitis was also demonstrated at the elbows, knees, and ankles. This study demonstrates that psoriatic enthesitis and synovitis are closely related and thus may share pathophysiologic mechanisms. Longitudinal studies in very early PsA using ultrasound might provide clues to confirm the hypothesis that psoriatic synovitis is secondary to enthesitis.

Another important domain that is increasingly studied is axial PsA. Currently, the evidence for treatment of axial PsA is extrapolated from that for axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), in the belief that the two diseases are pathophysiologically similar. However, there is increasing evidence for differences between axial PsA and axial SpA that might influence the choice of treatment. In a recent study, de Hooge and colleagues demonstrated that patients with axial PsA have lower severity of damage to the spine compared with those with axial SpA. Using data from 312 patients with PsA and 213 patients with SpA who underwent radiographic imaging assessment in the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS) and the Ghent and Belgian Inflammatory Arthritis and Spondylitis (Be-GIANT) study, respectively, they show that the proportion of patients with PsA vs SpA having spinal damage was comparable. Patients with SpA and spinal damage had higher modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Scores, indicating more severe damage. These results are consistent with other published studies and indicate that patients with PsA have less severe spinal disease compared with other patients with axial SpA. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) specifically investigating the treatment of axial PsA are currently underway. Nevertheless, post hoc analyses of data from PsA RCTs indicate that most drugs efficacious for PsA overall also provide benefit in axial disease.

In a recent report, Baraliakos and colleagues analyzed data from the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials that evaluated the efficacy of upadacitinib in PsA. They show that, compared with placebo, 15 mg upadacitinib led to a greater improvement in axial symptoms. The improvement in overall Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score at week 24 was significantly higher with 15 mg upadacitinib compared with placebo in both trials. However, these results are not definitive because there is yet no consensus on the definition of and outcome measures for axial PsA.

The Diagnosis: Syphilis

Histopathology revealed psoriasiform hyperplasia, endothelial cell swelling, and a brisk lichenoid inflammation with plasma cells (Figure, A). There also was pustular folliculitis in association with well-formed granulomatous inflammation and a prominent number of plasma cells (Figure, B). Treponema pallidum immunostaining showed numerous organisms in the epidermal and follicular epithelium. Rapid plasma reagin was found to be positive with a titer of 1:128. Evaluation for neurosyphilis through lumbar puncture was negative; the patient also was HIV negative. All of our patient’s skin lesions cleared after a 3-week course of weekly intramuscular benzathine G injections. Due to his substantial clinical improvement, the patient was subsequently lost to follow-up.

Syphilis, an infectious disease caused by the spirochete bacterium T pallidum, has a well-known natural history defined by various stages classically categorized as primary, secondary, latent, or late (tertiary).¹ The classic lesion in primary syphilis is the chancre, a painless ulcer with raised borders that develops within approximately 3 weeks following the initial inoculation.² Secondary syphilis manifests with mucocutaneous findings in up to 97% of patients, and untreated patients develop secondary syphilis at a rate of approximately 25%.³ Although mucocutaneous findings in secondary syphilis can vary widely, patients most commonly develop a diffuse maculopapular exanthem, and 40% develop mucosal findings including genital ulcers, mucous patches, and condylomata lata.¹ In latent syphilis, there is seroreactivity, but otherwise there are no clinical symptoms. A clear symptomatic history of prior primary or secondary syphilis may be known or unknown. Latent syphilis is divided into early and late phases, and the World Health Organization designates 2 years after the first suspected exposure as the cutoff point for early and late latency.⁴ During the first 4 years of latent syphilis, patients may exhibit mucocutaneous relapses. Our patient denied any sexual activity for more than 3 years prior to presentation. Because of the start of iatrogenic immunosuppression during this period, this case was classified as late latent syphilis with mucocutaneous reactivation.

Behçet disease was included within the differential diagnosis but is characterized by multiorgan systemic vasculitis that causes various mucocutaneous findings including aphthous ulcers, papulopustular lesions, and genital ulcers.⁵ Histopathologic features are nonspecific, and the clinical finding of recurrent genital and oral ulceration should be present for diagnosis. This disease predominantly occurs in East Asian or Mediterranean populations and is otherwise rare in White individuals.

SAPHO (synovitis, acne, pustulosis, hyperostosis, osteitis) syndrome is a rare disorder consisting of skin, joint, and bone manifestations.⁶ Severe acne generally is accompanied by palmoplantar pustulosis along with pain and joint tenderness involving the anterior chest and axial skeleton, both of which were absent in our patient.

Pustular psoriasis can be localized or generalized. Localized presentations frequently are acral and may be associated with a variable degree of nail dystrophy and arthritis. Generalized presentations are characterized by hyperemic, well-defined patches with variable numbers of pustules.⁷ The pustules are the consequence of exuberate neutrophilic exocytosis into the epidermis and are nonfollicular.

Steroid-induced acne may be considered in the proper clinical setting of an acneform eruption with a prior history of systemic steroid treatment. However, additional findings of mucositis would not be expected, and although our patient was prescribed prednisone from his primary care physician prior to presentation to our clinic, this medication was given after the onset of the cutaneous eruption.

Syphilis commonly is referred to as the great mimicker due to its potential diverse morphologic presentations, which can involve acneform eruptions, though rare.⁸ In the setting of mucositis, generalized acneform eruptions should raise suspicion for the possibility of syphilis, even in the absence of other more classic cutaneous features.

The Diagnosis: Syphilis

Histopathology revealed psoriasiform hyperplasia, endothelial cell swelling, and a brisk lichenoid inflammation with plasma cells (Figure, A). There also was pustular folliculitis in association with well-formed granulomatous inflammation and a prominent number of plasma cells (Figure, B). Treponema pallidum immunostaining showed numerous organisms in the epidermal and follicular epithelium. Rapid plasma reagin was found to be positive with a titer of 1:128. Evaluation for neurosyphilis through lumbar puncture was negative; the patient also was HIV negative. All of our patient’s skin lesions cleared after a 3-week course of weekly intramuscular benzathine G injections. Due to his substantial clinical improvement, the patient was subsequently lost to follow-up.

Syphilis, an infectious disease caused by the spirochete bacterium T pallidum, has a well-known natural history defined by various stages classically categorized as primary, secondary, latent, or late (tertiary).¹ The classic lesion in primary syphilis is the chancre, a painless ulcer with raised borders that develops within approximately 3 weeks following the initial inoculation.² Secondary syphilis manifests with mucocutaneous findings in up to 97% of patients, and untreated patients develop secondary syphilis at a rate of approximately 25%.³ Although mucocutaneous findings in secondary syphilis can vary widely, patients most commonly develop a diffuse maculopapular exanthem, and 40% develop mucosal findings including genital ulcers, mucous patches, and condylomata lata.¹ In latent syphilis, there is seroreactivity, but otherwise there are no clinical symptoms. A clear symptomatic history of prior primary or secondary syphilis may be known or unknown. Latent syphilis is divided into early and late phases, and the World Health Organization designates 2 years after the first suspected exposure as the cutoff point for early and late latency.⁴ During the first 4 years of latent syphilis, patients may exhibit mucocutaneous relapses. Our patient denied any sexual activity for more than 3 years prior to presentation. Because of the start of iatrogenic immunosuppression during this period, this case was classified as late latent syphilis with mucocutaneous reactivation.

Behçet disease was included within the differential diagnosis but is characterized by multiorgan systemic vasculitis that causes various mucocutaneous findings including aphthous ulcers, papulopustular lesions, and genital ulcers.⁵ Histopathologic features are nonspecific, and the clinical finding of recurrent genital and oral ulceration should be present for diagnosis. This disease predominantly occurs in East Asian or Mediterranean populations and is otherwise rare in White individuals.

SAPHO (synovitis, acne, pustulosis, hyperostosis, osteitis) syndrome is a rare disorder consisting of skin, joint, and bone manifestations.⁶ Severe acne generally is accompanied by palmoplantar pustulosis along with pain and joint tenderness involving the anterior chest and axial skeleton, both of which were absent in our patient.

Pustular psoriasis can be localized or generalized. Localized presentations frequently are acral and may be associated with a variable degree of nail dystrophy and arthritis. Generalized presentations are characterized by hyperemic, well-defined patches with variable numbers of pustules.⁷ The pustules are the consequence of exuberate neutrophilic exocytosis into the epidermis and are nonfollicular.

Steroid-induced acne may be considered in the proper clinical setting of an acneform eruption with a prior history of systemic steroid treatment. However, additional findings of mucositis would not be expected, and although our patient was prescribed prednisone from his primary care physician prior to presentation to our clinic, this medication was given after the onset of the cutaneous eruption.

Syphilis commonly is referred to as the great mimicker due to its potential diverse morphologic presentations, which can involve acneform eruptions, though rare.⁸ In the setting of mucositis, generalized acneform eruptions should raise suspicion for the possibility of syphilis, even in the absence of other more classic cutaneous features.

The Diagnosis: Syphilis

Histopathology revealed psoriasiform hyperplasia, endothelial cell swelling, and a brisk lichenoid inflammation with plasma cells (Figure, A). There also was pustular folliculitis in association with well-formed granulomatous inflammation and a prominent number of plasma cells (Figure, B). Treponema pallidum immunostaining showed numerous organisms in the epidermal and follicular epithelium. Rapid plasma reagin was found to be positive with a titer of 1:128. Evaluation for neurosyphilis through lumbar puncture was negative; the patient also was HIV negative. All of our patient’s skin lesions cleared after a 3-week course of weekly intramuscular benzathine G injections. Due to his substantial clinical improvement, the patient was subsequently lost to follow-up.

Syphilis, an infectious disease caused by the spirochete bacterium T pallidum, has a well-known natural history defined by various stages classically categorized as primary, secondary, latent, or late (tertiary).¹ The classic lesion in primary syphilis is the chancre, a painless ulcer with raised borders that develops within approximately 3 weeks following the initial inoculation.² Secondary syphilis manifests with mucocutaneous findings in up to 97% of patients, and untreated patients develop secondary syphilis at a rate of approximately 25%.³ Although mucocutaneous findings in secondary syphilis can vary widely, patients most commonly develop a diffuse maculopapular exanthem, and 40% develop mucosal findings including genital ulcers, mucous patches, and condylomata lata.¹ In latent syphilis, there is seroreactivity, but otherwise there are no clinical symptoms. A clear symptomatic history of prior primary or secondary syphilis may be known or unknown. Latent syphilis is divided into early and late phases, and the World Health Organization designates 2 years after the first suspected exposure as the cutoff point for early and late latency.⁴ During the first 4 years of latent syphilis, patients may exhibit mucocutaneous relapses. Our patient denied any sexual activity for more than 3 years prior to presentation. Because of the start of iatrogenic immunosuppression during this period, this case was classified as late latent syphilis with mucocutaneous reactivation.

Behçet disease was included within the differential diagnosis but is characterized by multiorgan systemic vasculitis that causes various mucocutaneous findings including aphthous ulcers, papulopustular lesions, and genital ulcers.⁵ Histopathologic features are nonspecific, and the clinical finding of recurrent genital and oral ulceration should be present for diagnosis. This disease predominantly occurs in East Asian or Mediterranean populations and is otherwise rare in White individuals.

SAPHO (synovitis, acne, pustulosis, hyperostosis, osteitis) syndrome is a rare disorder consisting of skin, joint, and bone manifestations.⁶ Severe acne generally is accompanied by palmoplantar pustulosis along with pain and joint tenderness involving the anterior chest and axial skeleton, both of which were absent in our patient.

Pustular psoriasis can be localized or generalized. Localized presentations frequently are acral and may be associated with a variable degree of nail dystrophy and arthritis. Generalized presentations are characterized by hyperemic, well-defined patches with variable numbers of pustules.⁷ The pustules are the consequence of exuberate neutrophilic exocytosis into the epidermis and are nonfollicular.

Steroid-induced acne may be considered in the proper clinical setting of an acneform eruption with a prior history of systemic steroid treatment. However, additional findings of mucositis would not be expected, and although our patient was prescribed prednisone from his primary care physician prior to presentation to our clinic, this medication was given after the onset of the cutaneous eruption.

Syphilis commonly is referred to as the great mimicker due to its potential diverse morphologic presentations, which can involve acneform eruptions, though rare.⁸ In the setting of mucositis, generalized acneform eruptions should raise suspicion for the possibility of syphilis, even in the absence of other more classic cutaneous features.

The relationship between enthesitis and synovitis is of considerable interest to both clinicians and researchers. This relationship is best evaluated using imaging, particularly ultrasonography, and could provide pathophysiologic insights. Balulu and colleagues recruited 158 patients with PsA who underwent sonographic assessment of 52 joints, 40 tendons, and 14 entheses as well as clinical evaluation. Overall, total sonographic enthesitis scores were significantly associated with total sonographic synovitis and sonographic tenosynovitis scores and also with older age, male sex, swollen joint count, C-reactive protein, physical occupation, and patient-reported outcomes. The association between enthesitis and synovitis was also demonstrated at the elbows, knees, and ankles. This study demonstrates that psoriatic enthesitis and synovitis are closely related and thus may share pathophysiologic mechanisms. Longitudinal studies in very early PsA using ultrasound might provide clues to confirm the hypothesis that psoriatic synovitis is secondary to enthesitis.

Another important domain that is increasingly studied is axial PsA. Currently, the evidence for treatment of axial PsA is extrapolated from that for axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), in the belief that the two diseases are pathophysiologically similar. However, there is increasing evidence for differences between axial PsA and axial SpA that might influence the choice of treatment. In a recent study, de Hooge and colleagues demonstrated that patients with axial PsA have lower severity of damage to the spine compared with those with axial SpA. Using data from 312 patients with PsA and 213 patients with SpA who underwent radiographic imaging assessment in the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS) and the Ghent and Belgian Inflammatory Arthritis and Spondylitis (Be-GIANT) study, respectively, they show that the proportion of patients with PsA vs SpA having spinal damage was comparable. Patients with SpA and spinal damage had higher modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Scores, indicating more severe damage. These results are consistent with other published studies and indicate that patients with PsA have less severe spinal disease compared with other patients with axial SpA. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) specifically investigating the treatment of axial PsA are currently underway. Nevertheless, post hoc analyses of data from PsA RCTs indicate that most drugs efficacious for PsA overall also provide benefit in axial disease.

In a recent report, Baraliakos and colleagues analyzed data from the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials that evaluated the efficacy of upadacitinib in PsA. They show that, compared with placebo, 15 mg upadacitinib led to a greater improvement in axial symptoms. The improvement in overall Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score at week 24 was significantly higher with 15 mg upadacitinib compared with placebo in both trials. However, these results are not definitive because there is yet no consensus on the definition of and outcome measures for axial PsA.

The relationship between enthesitis and synovitis is of considerable interest to both clinicians and researchers. This relationship is best evaluated using imaging, particularly ultrasonography, and could provide pathophysiologic insights. Balulu and colleagues recruited 158 patients with PsA who underwent sonographic assessment of 52 joints, 40 tendons, and 14 entheses as well as clinical evaluation. Overall, total sonographic enthesitis scores were significantly associated with total sonographic synovitis and sonographic tenosynovitis scores and also with older age, male sex, swollen joint count, C-reactive protein, physical occupation, and patient-reported outcomes. The association between enthesitis and synovitis was also demonstrated at the elbows, knees, and ankles. This study demonstrates that psoriatic enthesitis and synovitis are closely related and thus may share pathophysiologic mechanisms. Longitudinal studies in very early PsA using ultrasound might provide clues to confirm the hypothesis that psoriatic synovitis is secondary to enthesitis.

Another important domain that is increasingly studied is axial PsA. Currently, the evidence for treatment of axial PsA is extrapolated from that for axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), in the belief that the two diseases are pathophysiologically similar. However, there is increasing evidence for differences between axial PsA and axial SpA that might influence the choice of treatment. In a recent study, de Hooge and colleagues demonstrated that patients with axial PsA have lower severity of damage to the spine compared with those with axial SpA. Using data from 312 patients with PsA and 213 patients with SpA who underwent radiographic imaging assessment in the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS) and the Ghent and Belgian Inflammatory Arthritis and Spondylitis (Be-GIANT) study, respectively, they show that the proportion of patients with PsA vs SpA having spinal damage was comparable. Patients with SpA and spinal damage had higher modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Scores, indicating more severe damage. These results are consistent with other published studies and indicate that patients with PsA have less severe spinal disease compared with other patients with axial SpA. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) specifically investigating the treatment of axial PsA are currently underway. Nevertheless, post hoc analyses of data from PsA RCTs indicate that most drugs efficacious for PsA overall also provide benefit in axial disease.

In a recent report, Baraliakos and colleagues analyzed data from the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials that evaluated the efficacy of upadacitinib in PsA. They show that, compared with placebo, 15 mg upadacitinib led to a greater improvement in axial symptoms. The improvement in overall Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score at week 24 was significantly higher with 15 mg upadacitinib compared with placebo in both trials. However, these results are not definitive because there is yet no consensus on the definition of and outcome measures for axial PsA.

The relationship between enthesitis and synovitis is of considerable interest to both clinicians and researchers. This relationship is best evaluated using imaging, particularly ultrasonography, and could provide pathophysiologic insights. Balulu and colleagues recruited 158 patients with PsA who underwent sonographic assessment of 52 joints, 40 tendons, and 14 entheses as well as clinical evaluation. Overall, total sonographic enthesitis scores were significantly associated with total sonographic synovitis and sonographic tenosynovitis scores and also with older age, male sex, swollen joint count, C-reactive protein, physical occupation, and patient-reported outcomes. The association between enthesitis and synovitis was also demonstrated at the elbows, knees, and ankles. This study demonstrates that psoriatic enthesitis and synovitis are closely related and thus may share pathophysiologic mechanisms. Longitudinal studies in very early PsA using ultrasound might provide clues to confirm the hypothesis that psoriatic synovitis is secondary to enthesitis.

Another important domain that is increasingly studied is axial PsA. Currently, the evidence for treatment of axial PsA is extrapolated from that for axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), in the belief that the two diseases are pathophysiologically similar. However, there is increasing evidence for differences between axial PsA and axial SpA that might influence the choice of treatment. In a recent study, de Hooge and colleagues demonstrated that patients with axial PsA have lower severity of damage to the spine compared with those with axial SpA. Using data from 312 patients with PsA and 213 patients with SpA who underwent radiographic imaging assessment in the Belgian Epidemiological Psoriatic Arthritis Study (BEPAS) and the Ghent and Belgian Inflammatory Arthritis and Spondylitis (Be-GIANT) study, respectively, they show that the proportion of patients with PsA vs SpA having spinal damage was comparable. Patients with SpA and spinal damage had higher modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Scores, indicating more severe damage. These results are consistent with other published studies and indicate that patients with PsA have less severe spinal disease compared with other patients with axial SpA. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) specifically investigating the treatment of axial PsA are currently underway. Nevertheless, post hoc analyses of data from PsA RCTs indicate that most drugs efficacious for PsA overall also provide benefit in axial disease.

In a recent report, Baraliakos and colleagues analyzed data from the SELECT-PsA 1 and SELECT-PsA 2 trials that evaluated the efficacy of upadacitinib in PsA. They show that, compared with placebo, 15 mg upadacitinib led to a greater improvement in axial symptoms. The improvement in overall Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score at week 24 was significantly higher with 15 mg upadacitinib compared with placebo in both trials. However, these results are not definitive because there is yet no consensus on the definition of and outcome measures for axial PsA.

The advantages of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), including the downstaging of the primary tumor/nodal burden and assessment of the tumor biology via response to chemotherapy, can have prognostic and therapeutic implications in the adjuvant setting. Additionally, trials in the neoadjuvant space allow rapid assessment of new agents that can help patients gain access to these therapies in an expedited fashion. Three-year outcomes from the neoadjuvant I-SPY2 trial have shown that achievement of pathologic complete response (pCR) after NAT is associated with an approximately 80% reduction in recurrence rate, regardless of molecular subtype or treatment regimen (including various novel therapy combinations).³ An analysis of individual data from 3710 patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive early BC from 11 neoadjuvant trials evaluated additional prognostic factors to better characterize pCR (van Mackelenbergh et al). A total of 1497 patients (40%) had pCR, and these patients had improved event-free survival (hazard ratio 0.39; P < .001) and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.32 P < .001) compared to those with residual disease after NAT. Among patients who had pCR, tumor size at presentation (cT1-2 vs cT3-4) and nodal status (cN0 vs cN+) were independent prognostic factors for event-free survival (hazard ratio 0.67 [P = .007] and 0.72 [P = .039], respectively). These data support the role of pCR as an indicator of outcome post-NAT and, furthermore, identify additional features beyond pCR that can affect recurrence risk. It is valuable to take these other factors into account when considering patients for adjuvant therapies, even in the context of pCR.

Advances in detection modalities and treatments have led to improved survival after BC diagnosis, and as a result, more women in the survivorship setting are experiencing side effects that affect quality of life. The prevalence of sexual dysfunction is variable, perhaps owing to how this variable is defined and reported, and includes symptoms of low libido, dyspareunia, vaginal dryness, and anorgasmia.⁴ Chang and colleagues performed a population-based study evaluating sexual dysfunction among a cohort of 19,709 BC survivors ≥ 18 years of age from the Utah Cancer Registry and 93,389 cancer-free women matched by age and birth state from the general population. BC survivors had a higher risk for sexual dysfunction (hazard ratio 1.60; 95% CI 1.51-1.70) compared with the general population, and this effect was more prominent within 1-5 years after diagnosis (hazard ratio 2.05; 95% CI 1.89-2.22) and in those < 50 years of age (hazard ratio 3.05; 95% CI 2.65-3.51). Furthermore, BC survivors who received chemotherapy and ET had an increased risk for sexual dysfunction (hazard ratio 1.16 and 1.46, respectively). These findings underscore the importance of recognition and communication regarding survivorship issues, such as sexual health, which can affect medication adherence, quality of life, and outcomes for patients.

Additional References

1. Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3293-3305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.200535
2. Anderson RA, Lambertini M, Hall PS, et al. Survival after breast cancer in women with a subsequent live birth: Influence of age at diagnosis and interval to subsequent pregnancy. Eur J Cancer. 2022;173:113-12 doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.20206.048
3. I-SPY2 Trial Consortium. Association of event-free and distant recurrence-free survival with individual-level pathologic complete response in neoadjuvant treatment of stages 2 and 3 breast cancer: three-year follow-up analysis for the I-SPY2 adaptively randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:1355-1362. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2535
4. Panjari M, Bell RJ, Davis SR. Sexual function after breast cancer. J Sex Med. 2011;8:294-302. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.0203x

The advantages of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), including the downstaging of the primary tumor/nodal burden and assessment of the tumor biology via response to chemotherapy, can have prognostic and therapeutic implications in the adjuvant setting. Additionally, trials in the neoadjuvant space allow rapid assessment of new agents that can help patients gain access to these therapies in an expedited fashion. Three-year outcomes from the neoadjuvant I-SPY2 trial have shown that achievement of pathologic complete response (pCR) after NAT is associated with an approximately 80% reduction in recurrence rate, regardless of molecular subtype or treatment regimen (including various novel therapy combinations).³ An analysis of individual data from 3710 patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive early BC from 11 neoadjuvant trials evaluated additional prognostic factors to better characterize pCR (van Mackelenbergh et al). A total of 1497 patients (40%) had pCR, and these patients had improved event-free survival (hazard ratio 0.39; P < .001) and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.32 P < .001) compared to those with residual disease after NAT. Among patients who had pCR, tumor size at presentation (cT1-2 vs cT3-4) and nodal status (cN0 vs cN+) were independent prognostic factors for event-free survival (hazard ratio 0.67 [P = .007] and 0.72 [P = .039], respectively). These data support the role of pCR as an indicator of outcome post-NAT and, furthermore, identify additional features beyond pCR that can affect recurrence risk. It is valuable to take these other factors into account when considering patients for adjuvant therapies, even in the context of pCR.

Advances in detection modalities and treatments have led to improved survival after BC diagnosis, and as a result, more women in the survivorship setting are experiencing side effects that affect quality of life. The prevalence of sexual dysfunction is variable, perhaps owing to how this variable is defined and reported, and includes symptoms of low libido, dyspareunia, vaginal dryness, and anorgasmia.⁴ Chang and colleagues performed a population-based study evaluating sexual dysfunction among a cohort of 19,709 BC survivors ≥ 18 years of age from the Utah Cancer Registry and 93,389 cancer-free women matched by age and birth state from the general population. BC survivors had a higher risk for sexual dysfunction (hazard ratio 1.60; 95% CI 1.51-1.70) compared with the general population, and this effect was more prominent within 1-5 years after diagnosis (hazard ratio 2.05; 95% CI 1.89-2.22) and in those < 50 years of age (hazard ratio 3.05; 95% CI 2.65-3.51). Furthermore, BC survivors who received chemotherapy and ET had an increased risk for sexual dysfunction (hazard ratio 1.16 and 1.46, respectively). These findings underscore the importance of recognition and communication regarding survivorship issues, such as sexual health, which can affect medication adherence, quality of life, and outcomes for patients.

Additional References

1. Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3293-3305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.200535
2. Anderson RA, Lambertini M, Hall PS, et al. Survival after breast cancer in women with a subsequent live birth: Influence of age at diagnosis and interval to subsequent pregnancy. Eur J Cancer. 2022;173:113-12 doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.20206.048
3. I-SPY2 Trial Consortium. Association of event-free and distant recurrence-free survival with individual-level pathologic complete response in neoadjuvant treatment of stages 2 and 3 breast cancer: three-year follow-up analysis for the I-SPY2 adaptively randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:1355-1362. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2535
4. Panjari M, Bell RJ, Davis SR. Sexual function after breast cancer. J Sex Med. 2011;8:294-302. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.0203x

The advantages of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT), including the downstaging of the primary tumor/nodal burden and assessment of the tumor biology via response to chemotherapy, can have prognostic and therapeutic implications in the adjuvant setting. Additionally, trials in the neoadjuvant space allow rapid assessment of new agents that can help patients gain access to these therapies in an expedited fashion. Three-year outcomes from the neoadjuvant I-SPY2 trial have shown that achievement of pathologic complete response (pCR) after NAT is associated with an approximately 80% reduction in recurrence rate, regardless of molecular subtype or treatment regimen (including various novel therapy combinations).³ An analysis of individual data from 3710 patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive early BC from 11 neoadjuvant trials evaluated additional prognostic factors to better characterize pCR (van Mackelenbergh et al). A total of 1497 patients (40%) had pCR, and these patients had improved event-free survival (hazard ratio 0.39; P < .001) and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.32 P < .001) compared to those with residual disease after NAT. Among patients who had pCR, tumor size at presentation (cT1-2 vs cT3-4) and nodal status (cN0 vs cN+) were independent prognostic factors for event-free survival (hazard ratio 0.67 [P = .007] and 0.72 [P = .039], respectively). These data support the role of pCR as an indicator of outcome post-NAT and, furthermore, identify additional features beyond pCR that can affect recurrence risk. It is valuable to take these other factors into account when considering patients for adjuvant therapies, even in the context of pCR.

Advances in detection modalities and treatments have led to improved survival after BC diagnosis, and as a result, more women in the survivorship setting are experiencing side effects that affect quality of life. The prevalence of sexual dysfunction is variable, perhaps owing to how this variable is defined and reported, and includes symptoms of low libido, dyspareunia, vaginal dryness, and anorgasmia.⁴ Chang and colleagues performed a population-based study evaluating sexual dysfunction among a cohort of 19,709 BC survivors ≥ 18 years of age from the Utah Cancer Registry and 93,389 cancer-free women matched by age and birth state from the general population. BC survivors had a higher risk for sexual dysfunction (hazard ratio 1.60; 95% CI 1.51-1.70) compared with the general population, and this effect was more prominent within 1-5 years after diagnosis (hazard ratio 2.05; 95% CI 1.89-2.22) and in those < 50 years of age (hazard ratio 3.05; 95% CI 2.65-3.51). Furthermore, BC survivors who received chemotherapy and ET had an increased risk for sexual dysfunction (hazard ratio 1.16 and 1.46, respectively). These findings underscore the importance of recognition and communication regarding survivorship issues, such as sexual health, which can affect medication adherence, quality of life, and outcomes for patients.

Additional References

1. Lambertini M, Blondeaux E, Bruzzone M, et al. Pregnancy after breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3293-3305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.200535
2. Anderson RA, Lambertini M, Hall PS, et al. Survival after breast cancer in women with a subsequent live birth: Influence of age at diagnosis and interval to subsequent pregnancy. Eur J Cancer. 2022;173:113-12 doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.20206.048
3. I-SPY2 Trial Consortium. Association of event-free and distant recurrence-free survival with individual-level pathologic complete response in neoadjuvant treatment of stages 2 and 3 breast cancer: three-year follow-up analysis for the I-SPY2 adaptively randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:1355-1362. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2535
4. Panjari M, Bell RJ, Davis SR. Sexual function after breast cancer. J Sex Med. 2011;8:294-302. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.0203x

Thoma ME, Declercq ER. Changes in pregnancy-related mortality associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2023. doi:10.1097/AOG0000000000005182.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Maternal mortality rates in the United States were embarrassingly high and rising compared with other high-income countries prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recently, Thoma and Declercq aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy-related deaths within 42 days of childbirth as well as out to 12 months postpartum.¹

During the pandemic, many issues may have affected maternity care and birthing experiences, including changes in prenatal care, restrictions that prevented support people from attending labor, and staffing shortages related to hospital overcrowding with personnel assignments away from labor and delivery. The study by Thoma and Declercq looked at maternal mortality from prior to the onset of the pandemic through changes in the health care environment, availability of vaccines, and emergence of more highly contagious and potentially more lethal viral variants.¹ All data were stratified by race, ethnicity, and locale. Death rates were compared between urban, metropolitan regions; suburban, mid-size regions; and rural locations.

Details of the study

Data were collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) publicly available WONDER database from 2019 to 2021. Because the absolute number of deaths within the American Indian/Alaska Native community was relatively small during that timeframe, data from 2018 also were accessed in order to verify reliability. The authors used the CDC’s definition of pregnancy-related death as “a death while pregnant or within 1 year of the end of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy.”² International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes were used to identify maternal deaths. The multiple causes of death file was queried to match maternal deaths with COVID-19 as a contributory cause.

Patterns of maternal deaths were compared with overall COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 death rates for reproductive-age women (ages 15 to 44) by quarters beginning in quarter 1 of 2019. Quarters through the first quarter of 2020 were prepandemic, then quarterly statistics were analyzed from the second quarter of 2020 through the end of 2021 to assess the impact of COVID-19 on early and late maternal mortality.

Findings. Overall maternal mortality rose by 26% from the beginning of 2020 to the second quarter, remained stable through mid-2021, then increased dramatically in the second half of 2021. Maternal mortality unrelated to COVID-19 remained fairly consistent at prior levels, whereas the COVID-19 associateddeaths mirrored the pattern of mortality among reproductive-age nonpregnant women attributed to COVID-19. In addition, the disparities in health outcomes observed in the population at large related to COVID-19 were similar among pregnant people.

American Indian/Alaska Native populations had the largest increase in mortality—more than doubling between early 2020 and the end of 2021. Black people experienced the largest absolute increase in mortality (up to 97.7/100,000 births) while Hispanic birthing people had the highest relative increase (from 19.3 to 29.8/100,000 births). While there were increases in maternal mortality among White and Asian birthing people, these variances were much smaller than for Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native populations.

When comparing mortality stratified by residence areas, early pandemic deaths were higher among birthing people in large urban areas (a 33% increase in 2020); however, later in the pandemic the rates increased substantially in medium-small metropolitan areas (39%) and rural areas (21%).

Study strengths and limitations

The administrative data used to inform this study is a relatively reliable dataset, although errors in both coding for COVID-19 as a contributory cause of maternal death and appropriate ascertainment of race and ethnicity may have occurred. Administrative data can highlight the trends in maternal mortality but cannot identify the root causes of these deaths. We are left with many questions regarding the contribution of staffing, support in labor, changes in prenatal care, and instability in food, housing, and comorbid medical conditions to this devastating rise in maternal mortality. ●

Thoma ME, Declercq ER. Changes in pregnancy-related mortality associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2023. doi:10.1097/AOG0000000000005182.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Maternal mortality rates in the United States were embarrassingly high and rising compared with other high-income countries prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recently, Thoma and Declercq aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy-related deaths within 42 days of childbirth as well as out to 12 months postpartum.¹

During the pandemic, many issues may have affected maternity care and birthing experiences, including changes in prenatal care, restrictions that prevented support people from attending labor, and staffing shortages related to hospital overcrowding with personnel assignments away from labor and delivery. The study by Thoma and Declercq looked at maternal mortality from prior to the onset of the pandemic through changes in the health care environment, availability of vaccines, and emergence of more highly contagious and potentially more lethal viral variants.¹ All data were stratified by race, ethnicity, and locale. Death rates were compared between urban, metropolitan regions; suburban, mid-size regions; and rural locations.

Details of the study

Data were collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) publicly available WONDER database from 2019 to 2021. Because the absolute number of deaths within the American Indian/Alaska Native community was relatively small during that timeframe, data from 2018 also were accessed in order to verify reliability. The authors used the CDC’s definition of pregnancy-related death as “a death while pregnant or within 1 year of the end of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy.”² International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes were used to identify maternal deaths. The multiple causes of death file was queried to match maternal deaths with COVID-19 as a contributory cause.

Patterns of maternal deaths were compared with overall COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 death rates for reproductive-age women (ages 15 to 44) by quarters beginning in quarter 1 of 2019. Quarters through the first quarter of 2020 were prepandemic, then quarterly statistics were analyzed from the second quarter of 2020 through the end of 2021 to assess the impact of COVID-19 on early and late maternal mortality.

Findings. Overall maternal mortality rose by 26% from the beginning of 2020 to the second quarter, remained stable through mid-2021, then increased dramatically in the second half of 2021. Maternal mortality unrelated to COVID-19 remained fairly consistent at prior levels, whereas the COVID-19 associateddeaths mirrored the pattern of mortality among reproductive-age nonpregnant women attributed to COVID-19. In addition, the disparities in health outcomes observed in the population at large related to COVID-19 were similar among pregnant people.

American Indian/Alaska Native populations had the largest increase in mortality—more than doubling between early 2020 and the end of 2021. Black people experienced the largest absolute increase in mortality (up to 97.7/100,000 births) while Hispanic birthing people had the highest relative increase (from 19.3 to 29.8/100,000 births). While there were increases in maternal mortality among White and Asian birthing people, these variances were much smaller than for Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native populations.

When comparing mortality stratified by residence areas, early pandemic deaths were higher among birthing people in large urban areas (a 33% increase in 2020); however, later in the pandemic the rates increased substantially in medium-small metropolitan areas (39%) and rural areas (21%).

Study strengths and limitations

The administrative data used to inform this study is a relatively reliable dataset, although errors in both coding for COVID-19 as a contributory cause of maternal death and appropriate ascertainment of race and ethnicity may have occurred. Administrative data can highlight the trends in maternal mortality but cannot identify the root causes of these deaths. We are left with many questions regarding the contribution of staffing, support in labor, changes in prenatal care, and instability in food, housing, and comorbid medical conditions to this devastating rise in maternal mortality. ●

Thoma ME, Declercq ER. Changes in pregnancy-related mortality associated with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2023. doi:10.1097/AOG0000000000005182.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Maternal mortality rates in the United States were embarrassingly high and rising compared with other high-income countries prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recently, Thoma and Declercq aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy-related deaths within 42 days of childbirth as well as out to 12 months postpartum.¹

During the pandemic, many issues may have affected maternity care and birthing experiences, including changes in prenatal care, restrictions that prevented support people from attending labor, and staffing shortages related to hospital overcrowding with personnel assignments away from labor and delivery. The study by Thoma and Declercq looked at maternal mortality from prior to the onset of the pandemic through changes in the health care environment, availability of vaccines, and emergence of more highly contagious and potentially more lethal viral variants.¹ All data were stratified by race, ethnicity, and locale. Death rates were compared between urban, metropolitan regions; suburban, mid-size regions; and rural locations.

Details of the study

Data were collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) publicly available WONDER database from 2019 to 2021. Because the absolute number of deaths within the American Indian/Alaska Native community was relatively small during that timeframe, data from 2018 also were accessed in order to verify reliability. The authors used the CDC’s definition of pregnancy-related death as “a death while pregnant or within 1 year of the end of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy.”² International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes were used to identify maternal deaths. The multiple causes of death file was queried to match maternal deaths with COVID-19 as a contributory cause.

Patterns of maternal deaths were compared with overall COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 death rates for reproductive-age women (ages 15 to 44) by quarters beginning in quarter 1 of 2019. Quarters through the first quarter of 2020 were prepandemic, then quarterly statistics were analyzed from the second quarter of 2020 through the end of 2021 to assess the impact of COVID-19 on early and late maternal mortality.

Findings. Overall maternal mortality rose by 26% from the beginning of 2020 to the second quarter, remained stable through mid-2021, then increased dramatically in the second half of 2021. Maternal mortality unrelated to COVID-19 remained fairly consistent at prior levels, whereas the COVID-19 associateddeaths mirrored the pattern of mortality among reproductive-age nonpregnant women attributed to COVID-19. In addition, the disparities in health outcomes observed in the population at large related to COVID-19 were similar among pregnant people.

American Indian/Alaska Native populations had the largest increase in mortality—more than doubling between early 2020 and the end of 2021. Black people experienced the largest absolute increase in mortality (up to 97.7/100,000 births) while Hispanic birthing people had the highest relative increase (from 19.3 to 29.8/100,000 births). While there were increases in maternal mortality among White and Asian birthing people, these variances were much smaller than for Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native populations.

When comparing mortality stratified by residence areas, early pandemic deaths were higher among birthing people in large urban areas (a 33% increase in 2020); however, later in the pandemic the rates increased substantially in medium-small metropolitan areas (39%) and rural areas (21%).

Study strengths and limitations

The administrative data used to inform this study is a relatively reliable dataset, although errors in both coding for COVID-19 as a contributory cause of maternal death and appropriate ascertainment of race and ethnicity may have occurred. Administrative data can highlight the trends in maternal mortality but cannot identify the root causes of these deaths. We are left with many questions regarding the contribution of staffing, support in labor, changes in prenatal care, and instability in food, housing, and comorbid medical conditions to this devastating rise in maternal mortality. ●

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Ending the HIV Epidemic framework aims to decrease HIV infections in the United States by 90% before 2030.¹ Achieving this goal requires identifying persons at high risk for HIV and ensuring timely and efficient access to HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).^2-5 However, despite its commercial availability since 2012, community uptake of PrEP is low.⁶ In 2019, < 25% of Americans who could benefit from PrEP were using this preventive therapy.⁷ Poor uptake of PrEP has also been documented among veterans and US military service members. National data on men in the military and men who have sex with men (MSM) in the military suggest that about 12,000 service members are eligible for PrEP; however, only 2000 service members and their beneficiaries accessed PrEP in February 2017.⁸

A review of health records of US military service members conducted from 2014 to 2016 indicated that most patients who received PrEP did not receive recommended monitoring in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. Furthermore, 16% of these individuals did not have HIV testing within 14 days of initiating PrEP, and 13% were never evaluated for hepatitis B infection.⁸

Pharmacists are highly accessible health care professionals (HCPs): More than 90% of Americans live within 5 miles of a community pharmacy.⁹ Pharmacists play an integral role within the outpatient health care team and have been responsible for improvements in health care outcomes for a variety of chronic conditions and immunization practices.^10-13 Additionally, community pharmacists have provided vital access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁴ The clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) is an innovative and advanced role within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), functioning with a scope of practice and prescribing privileges to provide direct patient care.¹⁵

CPPs are well suited to address the need for increased access, capacity, and timely provision of PrEP, especially in areas where HIV acquisition rates are high or in areas with reduced access to care. We describe a model for a pharmacist-led HIV PrEP program (Pharm-PrEP) to increase access to PrEP. A similar program could be adapted to further expand the use of PrEP in other health care systems and community settings.

Pharm-PrEP Program Description

The Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHCS) provides health care services at 11 locations in southern California and serves > 86,000 veterans. The VAGLAHCS pharmacy staff includes 33 CPPs who practice in more than 9 clinical service lines. HIV PrEP services are available through the infectious diseases (ID) service for veterans wishing to begin or continue PrEP or for those identified as high risk. HIV PrEP consultations are placed by the referring HCP to the ID service for scheduling and evaluation. Prior to implementation of the pharmacist-managed PrEP clinic, 2 ID physician assistants (PAs) were responsible for PrEP evaluation, initiation, and follow-up. Each PA had 1 half-day face-to-face clinic and 1 PA had an additional half-day telehealth clinic. About 100 PrEP patients were followed by the ID group.

In July 2019, through collaboration with the ID service, a pharmacy PrEP clinic was created to increase access for veterans to initiate or continue PrEP. This clinic included 1 ID-trained CPP and 1 postgraduate-year-2 pharmacy resident. The CPP initiates and monitors veterans for HIV PrEP with prescribing privileges under a defined scope of practice.

Awareness of this novel service was raised through in-service training sessions for primary care and women’s health clinics. Referrals are generated directly from primary care practitioners (PCPs) or emergency department (ED) visits and are accepted on a continuing basis. Visits with the CPP are conducted in person or through telehealth services based on patient preference. Direct CPP patient care appointments involve a standardized assessment and discussion of patient HIV transmission risk, a review of social and sexual history, sexual practices and HIV risk, clinical evidence of acute HIV or other sexually transmitted infection (STI) symptoms, follow-up PrEP monitoring requirements, and counseling on appropriate PrEP use. CPPs can order laboratory tests, bone densitometry (DEXA scan), immunizations, PrEP, and STI treatment as required. ID service physicians are available during CPP visits for further assessment or consultation. While initially most visits are conducted in person, follow-up visits by telehealth or video have become predominant; most patients prefer these modalities, citing convenience, flexibility, and the ability to obtain laboratory tests in advance. Use of telephone and video is intended to reduce patient loss to follow-up.

All required baseline laboratory panels for PrEP monitoring are ordered and interpreted by the CPP in accordance with CDC guidelines.¹⁶ These include screening for syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia; fourth-generation antibody-antigen HIV tests; renal function; viral hepatitis; and pregnancy. After reviewing screening results, the CPP will prescribe tenofovir disproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) or tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (TAF/FTC) based on individual patient clinical characteristics, US Food and Drug Administration–approved labeling, and VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Criteria for Use. Initial prescriptions are for a 30-day supply with subsequent prescriptions for 90 days (no refills), providing follow-up HIV testing is completed.

Follow-up PrEP visits are scheduled about every 3 months with some overlap to avoid gaps in medication due to late laboratory testing or delayed receipt of mailed medications. The only laboratory testing strictly required each quarter before PrEP renewal is HIV and pregnancy testing. Other screenings, including STIs and renal function are completed at least every 6 months or more frequently, if indicated, based on individual risk factors. Hepatitis C antibody testing is conducted annually if the patient has ongoing risk factors. Treatment of gonorrhea/chlamydia and syphilis for patients with positive test results is also initiated by the CPP, including recommending antimicrobial regimens. Additional interventions conducted as part of the clinic include indicated vaccinations (meningococcal, human papillomavirus, hepatitis A and B), and DEXA scans. Collaboration with ID service attendings and PAs is conducted on an as-needed basis via direct consultation in the colocated clinic or through email or messaging.

Periodic surveillance of a local dashboard of veterans eligible for HIV PrEP is conducted to re-engage veterans in care who may have been lost to follow-up, along with periodic review of a local STI dashboard. These dashboards capture population-based data to identify patients who may benefit from additional STI screenings as well as potential candidates for HIV PrEP. Clinicians can review their patient panel to target individuals who may be due for specific actions. Patients are identified as needing cotesting if they screen positive for ≥ 1 STIs but have not had a concurrent or subsequent full screening panel (gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV). Cotesting for bacterial STIs and HIV at the time of an encounter has been promoted to expedite STI identification and treatment and limit community transmission. These reports also identify patients who may be potential candidates for HIV PrEP, based on a history of positive screenings, frequent STI testing, recent prescriptions for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) or encounters with specific International Classification of Diseases codes associated with high-risk practices.

Clinic Quality of Care

From July 2019 to March 2020, 53 veterans were managed by the pharm-PrEP clinic in 98 encounters. Seventy percent of encounters were in-person (Table 1).

Baseline information collected included demographics, documented patient-reported risk factors, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, STI status, viral hepatitis serologies, and renal function test results. Information collected every 3 to 6 months included STI status, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, renal function test results, adherence to therapy, changes in risk factors, and prescription refill data. Additional interventions conducted as part of clinic workflow included DEXA scans, vaccinations, and active prescriptions for condoms.

Baseline Characteristics

Pharm-PrEP clinic patients were predominantly male (94%), and a majority indicated White race with a median age of 38 years (range, 24-80 years).

Veterans referred to the clinic had up to 5 risk factors for PrEP initiation. The most common risk factors were inconsistent condom use (62%), multiple sexual partners of unknown HIV status (62%), MSM (57%), STI history (38%), bisexual partners (25%), and HIV-positive sexual partners (11%). One of the 53 individuals referred for PrEP had no risk factors and did not initiate PrEP. Two individuals declined initiation of PrEP after consultation. Twenty six of 53 veterans at baseline continued their use of PrEP following transfer to clinic CPP management; 24 of 27 veterans not currently using PrEP (89%) started or restarted lapsed PrEP use following CPP consultation.

HIV and STI Screening

No individuals tested positive for HIV at baseline (n = 52) or while on PrEP. PrEP was not renewed for 3 patients that did follow through with HIV testing. The median number of days an HIV test was completed prior to initial PrEP and PrEP renewal was 4 days and < 7 days, respectively, both of which are below the recommended maximal interval of 7 days, according to CDC PrEP guidelines. Some postinitiation HIV testing occurred using a longer interval of 14 days, in accordance with VA National Criteria for Use of PrEP. This modification allowed more flexibility as a majority of PrEP prescriptions are sent to veterans via mail. The CPP reviewing HIV test results was able to expedite the processing and mailing of PrEP prescriptions if deemed appropriate, ie, the HIV test was negative. This approach was not used if a patient had high-risk exposures without PrEP during the time between collection of the HIV test and mailing of the prescription.

STI screening is a vital component of the Pharm-PrEP clinic and helped identify 4 patients with gonorrhea/chlamydia at baseline and 1 with syphilis after initiation of PrEP. All patients were prescribed antibiotics at the screening. Los Angeles County has high rates of STI transmission; thus implementation of clinic processes allowing the CPP to screen for STIs, interpret test results, and treat patients with STIs is vital to limit spread in the community.¹⁷

Selection of PrEP Regimen

The majority of individuals in the cohort received TDF/FTC for PrEP; TAF/FTC was restricted to individuals who had documented renal dysfunction or bone loss (Table 3).

Six DEXA scans were completed by the end of the evaluation period and 2 had abnormal results. One patient discontinued TDF/FTC and reinitiated with TAF/FTC. The other was switched to TAF/FTC 1 month after initiation.

Follow-Up Visits

The median number of visits per patient was 2. The median time between visits was in accordance with recommended follow-up intervals with 35 days between visits 1 and 2, 60 days between visits 2 and 3, and 88 days thereafter. In all, 10 veterans (20%) stopped PrEP: 4 (8%) were lost to follow-up; 3 (6%) had sustained behavior changes decreasing their HIV exposure risk; 2 (4%) were concerned about ADRs; and 1 (2%) moved out of state. Even after including those patients with a decrease in HIV exposure risk who no longer required PrEP, our 20% discontinuation rate was lower than those reported in other studies that showed a wide variation in PrEP discontinuation rates ranging from 33% to 62%.^18-20

Challenges

Some challenges with the implementation of the clinic included logistic and operational barriers, such as developing clinical pathways and managing workflow to facilitate vaccinations or STI treatment for individuals using video or telehealth services, as well as encouraging referrals from PCPs. These challenges were addressed by providing periodic targeted in-service training sessions to primary care teams to increase awareness of the Pharm-PrEP clinic. Collaboration with the ID service and ED allowed implementation of a direct pathway for patients initiated on nonoccupational HIV PEP after a high-risk exposure to be evaluated for transition to HIV PrEP. This PEP-2-PrEP pathway was designed to decrease barriers to follow-up for high-risk individuals who had recently received PEP in the ED. The CPP plays an active, integral role in managing patient care in the PEP-2-PrEP pathway.

Pharmacist-Led PrEP Care

The implementation of the VAGLAHCS Pharm-PrEP clinic demonstrates how CPPs can expand access and manage HIV PrEP with high reliability. Key factors for successfully integrating CPPs as PrEP prescribers include identifying physician champions; using in-services or other training platforms to raise awareness among potential referring HCPs and stimulate referrals; and developing processes to identify high-risk veterans. Also, nontraditional modes of care, such as video or telehealth appointments, can increase access and expand the volume of patient care visits. Such modalities are useful for PrEP management when combined with a well-defined operational process for laboratory specimen collection before appointments. This system is particularly well suited to increasing access to PrEP for patients who live in rural or highly rural areas that are medically underserved or who have difficulty traveling to a clinical facility for an in-person visit.

Although community health care organizations and HCPs face pay barriers not present in the VHA system, several studies have demonstrated feasability of pharmacist-led clinics in private health care systems.^21-24 Havens and colleagues described a PrEP program affilitated with an university that assessed patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability with this new service.²² The results of surveys reported high patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability.²³ Tung and colleagues described a PrEP clinic located in a community pharmacy with the ability to bill for pharmacist and laboratory services in addition to medication costs.²⁴ These studies, along with our findings, demonstrate that CPPs are well positioned to manage HIV PrEP in the community. Leveraging the skills and experience of CPPs to address poor uptake and access to PrEP should be a central component in achieving the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, given that pharmacists are one of the most accessible groups of HCPs nationally.

Pharmacist prescriptive authority varies across different states and may depend on collaborative practice agreements, statewide protocols, or class-specific prescribing.²⁵ For example, California was among the first states to authorize initiation and prescription of HIV PrEP and PEP by pharmacists in specified amounts after appropriate training.²⁶ Nationwide support for similar policies in the community and within health care systems will be critical to the successful implementation and functioning of pharmacy-led PrEP clinics.

Conclusions

The success of this Pharm-PrEP clinic was largely due to a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort to implement this new clinic process and incorporate the CPP into the general ID outpatient clinic, while allowing flexibility in scheduling and use of different encounter modalities for patients. Deploying pharmacists as PrEP prescribers can help health care systems increase PrEP access and capacity and improve efforts to achieve the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic. This type of program can be a model for other health care organizations and systems to implement pharmacy-led PrEP clinics and expand telehealth modalities to deliver PrEP.

Acknowledgments

The infectious diseases service at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the veterans we serve.

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Ending the HIV Epidemic framework aims to decrease HIV infections in the United States by 90% before 2030.¹ Achieving this goal requires identifying persons at high risk for HIV and ensuring timely and efficient access to HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).^2-5 However, despite its commercial availability since 2012, community uptake of PrEP is low.⁶ In 2019, < 25% of Americans who could benefit from PrEP were using this preventive therapy.⁷ Poor uptake of PrEP has also been documented among veterans and US military service members. National data on men in the military and men who have sex with men (MSM) in the military suggest that about 12,000 service members are eligible for PrEP; however, only 2000 service members and their beneficiaries accessed PrEP in February 2017.⁸

A review of health records of US military service members conducted from 2014 to 2016 indicated that most patients who received PrEP did not receive recommended monitoring in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. Furthermore, 16% of these individuals did not have HIV testing within 14 days of initiating PrEP, and 13% were never evaluated for hepatitis B infection.⁸

Pharmacists are highly accessible health care professionals (HCPs): More than 90% of Americans live within 5 miles of a community pharmacy.⁹ Pharmacists play an integral role within the outpatient health care team and have been responsible for improvements in health care outcomes for a variety of chronic conditions and immunization practices.^10-13 Additionally, community pharmacists have provided vital access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁴ The clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) is an innovative and advanced role within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), functioning with a scope of practice and prescribing privileges to provide direct patient care.¹⁵

CPPs are well suited to address the need for increased access, capacity, and timely provision of PrEP, especially in areas where HIV acquisition rates are high or in areas with reduced access to care. We describe a model for a pharmacist-led HIV PrEP program (Pharm-PrEP) to increase access to PrEP. A similar program could be adapted to further expand the use of PrEP in other health care systems and community settings.

Pharm-PrEP Program Description

The Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHCS) provides health care services at 11 locations in southern California and serves > 86,000 veterans. The VAGLAHCS pharmacy staff includes 33 CPPs who practice in more than 9 clinical service lines. HIV PrEP services are available through the infectious diseases (ID) service for veterans wishing to begin or continue PrEP or for those identified as high risk. HIV PrEP consultations are placed by the referring HCP to the ID service for scheduling and evaluation. Prior to implementation of the pharmacist-managed PrEP clinic, 2 ID physician assistants (PAs) were responsible for PrEP evaluation, initiation, and follow-up. Each PA had 1 half-day face-to-face clinic and 1 PA had an additional half-day telehealth clinic. About 100 PrEP patients were followed by the ID group.

In July 2019, through collaboration with the ID service, a pharmacy PrEP clinic was created to increase access for veterans to initiate or continue PrEP. This clinic included 1 ID-trained CPP and 1 postgraduate-year-2 pharmacy resident. The CPP initiates and monitors veterans for HIV PrEP with prescribing privileges under a defined scope of practice.

Awareness of this novel service was raised through in-service training sessions for primary care and women’s health clinics. Referrals are generated directly from primary care practitioners (PCPs) or emergency department (ED) visits and are accepted on a continuing basis. Visits with the CPP are conducted in person or through telehealth services based on patient preference. Direct CPP patient care appointments involve a standardized assessment and discussion of patient HIV transmission risk, a review of social and sexual history, sexual practices and HIV risk, clinical evidence of acute HIV or other sexually transmitted infection (STI) symptoms, follow-up PrEP monitoring requirements, and counseling on appropriate PrEP use. CPPs can order laboratory tests, bone densitometry (DEXA scan), immunizations, PrEP, and STI treatment as required. ID service physicians are available during CPP visits for further assessment or consultation. While initially most visits are conducted in person, follow-up visits by telehealth or video have become predominant; most patients prefer these modalities, citing convenience, flexibility, and the ability to obtain laboratory tests in advance. Use of telephone and video is intended to reduce patient loss to follow-up.

All required baseline laboratory panels for PrEP monitoring are ordered and interpreted by the CPP in accordance with CDC guidelines.¹⁶ These include screening for syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia; fourth-generation antibody-antigen HIV tests; renal function; viral hepatitis; and pregnancy. After reviewing screening results, the CPP will prescribe tenofovir disproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) or tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (TAF/FTC) based on individual patient clinical characteristics, US Food and Drug Administration–approved labeling, and VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Criteria for Use. Initial prescriptions are for a 30-day supply with subsequent prescriptions for 90 days (no refills), providing follow-up HIV testing is completed.

Follow-up PrEP visits are scheduled about every 3 months with some overlap to avoid gaps in medication due to late laboratory testing or delayed receipt of mailed medications. The only laboratory testing strictly required each quarter before PrEP renewal is HIV and pregnancy testing. Other screenings, including STIs and renal function are completed at least every 6 months or more frequently, if indicated, based on individual risk factors. Hepatitis C antibody testing is conducted annually if the patient has ongoing risk factors. Treatment of gonorrhea/chlamydia and syphilis for patients with positive test results is also initiated by the CPP, including recommending antimicrobial regimens. Additional interventions conducted as part of the clinic include indicated vaccinations (meningococcal, human papillomavirus, hepatitis A and B), and DEXA scans. Collaboration with ID service attendings and PAs is conducted on an as-needed basis via direct consultation in the colocated clinic or through email or messaging.

Periodic surveillance of a local dashboard of veterans eligible for HIV PrEP is conducted to re-engage veterans in care who may have been lost to follow-up, along with periodic review of a local STI dashboard. These dashboards capture population-based data to identify patients who may benefit from additional STI screenings as well as potential candidates for HIV PrEP. Clinicians can review their patient panel to target individuals who may be due for specific actions. Patients are identified as needing cotesting if they screen positive for ≥ 1 STIs but have not had a concurrent or subsequent full screening panel (gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV). Cotesting for bacterial STIs and HIV at the time of an encounter has been promoted to expedite STI identification and treatment and limit community transmission. These reports also identify patients who may be potential candidates for HIV PrEP, based on a history of positive screenings, frequent STI testing, recent prescriptions for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) or encounters with specific International Classification of Diseases codes associated with high-risk practices.

Clinic Quality of Care

From July 2019 to March 2020, 53 veterans were managed by the pharm-PrEP clinic in 98 encounters. Seventy percent of encounters were in-person (Table 1).

Baseline information collected included demographics, documented patient-reported risk factors, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, STI status, viral hepatitis serologies, and renal function test results. Information collected every 3 to 6 months included STI status, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, renal function test results, adherence to therapy, changes in risk factors, and prescription refill data. Additional interventions conducted as part of clinic workflow included DEXA scans, vaccinations, and active prescriptions for condoms.

Baseline Characteristics

Pharm-PrEP clinic patients were predominantly male (94%), and a majority indicated White race with a median age of 38 years (range, 24-80 years).

Veterans referred to the clinic had up to 5 risk factors for PrEP initiation. The most common risk factors were inconsistent condom use (62%), multiple sexual partners of unknown HIV status (62%), MSM (57%), STI history (38%), bisexual partners (25%), and HIV-positive sexual partners (11%). One of the 53 individuals referred for PrEP had no risk factors and did not initiate PrEP. Two individuals declined initiation of PrEP after consultation. Twenty six of 53 veterans at baseline continued their use of PrEP following transfer to clinic CPP management; 24 of 27 veterans not currently using PrEP (89%) started or restarted lapsed PrEP use following CPP consultation.

HIV and STI Screening

No individuals tested positive for HIV at baseline (n = 52) or while on PrEP. PrEP was not renewed for 3 patients that did follow through with HIV testing. The median number of days an HIV test was completed prior to initial PrEP and PrEP renewal was 4 days and < 7 days, respectively, both of which are below the recommended maximal interval of 7 days, according to CDC PrEP guidelines. Some postinitiation HIV testing occurred using a longer interval of 14 days, in accordance with VA National Criteria for Use of PrEP. This modification allowed more flexibility as a majority of PrEP prescriptions are sent to veterans via mail. The CPP reviewing HIV test results was able to expedite the processing and mailing of PrEP prescriptions if deemed appropriate, ie, the HIV test was negative. This approach was not used if a patient had high-risk exposures without PrEP during the time between collection of the HIV test and mailing of the prescription.

STI screening is a vital component of the Pharm-PrEP clinic and helped identify 4 patients with gonorrhea/chlamydia at baseline and 1 with syphilis after initiation of PrEP. All patients were prescribed antibiotics at the screening. Los Angeles County has high rates of STI transmission; thus implementation of clinic processes allowing the CPP to screen for STIs, interpret test results, and treat patients with STIs is vital to limit spread in the community.¹⁷

Selection of PrEP Regimen

The majority of individuals in the cohort received TDF/FTC for PrEP; TAF/FTC was restricted to individuals who had documented renal dysfunction or bone loss (Table 3).

Six DEXA scans were completed by the end of the evaluation period and 2 had abnormal results. One patient discontinued TDF/FTC and reinitiated with TAF/FTC. The other was switched to TAF/FTC 1 month after initiation.

Follow-Up Visits

The median number of visits per patient was 2. The median time between visits was in accordance with recommended follow-up intervals with 35 days between visits 1 and 2, 60 days between visits 2 and 3, and 88 days thereafter. In all, 10 veterans (20%) stopped PrEP: 4 (8%) were lost to follow-up; 3 (6%) had sustained behavior changes decreasing their HIV exposure risk; 2 (4%) were concerned about ADRs; and 1 (2%) moved out of state. Even after including those patients with a decrease in HIV exposure risk who no longer required PrEP, our 20% discontinuation rate was lower than those reported in other studies that showed a wide variation in PrEP discontinuation rates ranging from 33% to 62%.^18-20

Challenges

Some challenges with the implementation of the clinic included logistic and operational barriers, such as developing clinical pathways and managing workflow to facilitate vaccinations or STI treatment for individuals using video or telehealth services, as well as encouraging referrals from PCPs. These challenges were addressed by providing periodic targeted in-service training sessions to primary care teams to increase awareness of the Pharm-PrEP clinic. Collaboration with the ID service and ED allowed implementation of a direct pathway for patients initiated on nonoccupational HIV PEP after a high-risk exposure to be evaluated for transition to HIV PrEP. This PEP-2-PrEP pathway was designed to decrease barriers to follow-up for high-risk individuals who had recently received PEP in the ED. The CPP plays an active, integral role in managing patient care in the PEP-2-PrEP pathway.

Pharmacist-Led PrEP Care

The implementation of the VAGLAHCS Pharm-PrEP clinic demonstrates how CPPs can expand access and manage HIV PrEP with high reliability. Key factors for successfully integrating CPPs as PrEP prescribers include identifying physician champions; using in-services or other training platforms to raise awareness among potential referring HCPs and stimulate referrals; and developing processes to identify high-risk veterans. Also, nontraditional modes of care, such as video or telehealth appointments, can increase access and expand the volume of patient care visits. Such modalities are useful for PrEP management when combined with a well-defined operational process for laboratory specimen collection before appointments. This system is particularly well suited to increasing access to PrEP for patients who live in rural or highly rural areas that are medically underserved or who have difficulty traveling to a clinical facility for an in-person visit.

Although community health care organizations and HCPs face pay barriers not present in the VHA system, several studies have demonstrated feasability of pharmacist-led clinics in private health care systems.^21-24 Havens and colleagues described a PrEP program affilitated with an university that assessed patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability with this new service.²² The results of surveys reported high patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability.²³ Tung and colleagues described a PrEP clinic located in a community pharmacy with the ability to bill for pharmacist and laboratory services in addition to medication costs.²⁴ These studies, along with our findings, demonstrate that CPPs are well positioned to manage HIV PrEP in the community. Leveraging the skills and experience of CPPs to address poor uptake and access to PrEP should be a central component in achieving the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, given that pharmacists are one of the most accessible groups of HCPs nationally.

Pharmacist prescriptive authority varies across different states and may depend on collaborative practice agreements, statewide protocols, or class-specific prescribing.²⁵ For example, California was among the first states to authorize initiation and prescription of HIV PrEP and PEP by pharmacists in specified amounts after appropriate training.²⁶ Nationwide support for similar policies in the community and within health care systems will be critical to the successful implementation and functioning of pharmacy-led PrEP clinics.

Conclusions

The success of this Pharm-PrEP clinic was largely due to a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort to implement this new clinic process and incorporate the CPP into the general ID outpatient clinic, while allowing flexibility in scheduling and use of different encounter modalities for patients. Deploying pharmacists as PrEP prescribers can help health care systems increase PrEP access and capacity and improve efforts to achieve the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic. This type of program can be a model for other health care organizations and systems to implement pharmacy-led PrEP clinics and expand telehealth modalities to deliver PrEP.

Acknowledgments

The infectious diseases service at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the veterans we serve.

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Ending the HIV Epidemic framework aims to decrease HIV infections in the United States by 90% before 2030.¹ Achieving this goal requires identifying persons at high risk for HIV and ensuring timely and efficient access to HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP).^2-5 However, despite its commercial availability since 2012, community uptake of PrEP is low.⁶ In 2019, < 25% of Americans who could benefit from PrEP were using this preventive therapy.⁷ Poor uptake of PrEP has also been documented among veterans and US military service members. National data on men in the military and men who have sex with men (MSM) in the military suggest that about 12,000 service members are eligible for PrEP; however, only 2000 service members and their beneficiaries accessed PrEP in February 2017.⁸

A review of health records of US military service members conducted from 2014 to 2016 indicated that most patients who received PrEP did not receive recommended monitoring in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. Furthermore, 16% of these individuals did not have HIV testing within 14 days of initiating PrEP, and 13% were never evaluated for hepatitis B infection.⁸

Pharmacists are highly accessible health care professionals (HCPs): More than 90% of Americans live within 5 miles of a community pharmacy.⁹ Pharmacists play an integral role within the outpatient health care team and have been responsible for improvements in health care outcomes for a variety of chronic conditions and immunization practices.^10-13 Additionally, community pharmacists have provided vital access to care during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹⁴ The clinical pharmacist practitioner (CPP) is an innovative and advanced role within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), functioning with a scope of practice and prescribing privileges to provide direct patient care.¹⁵

CPPs are well suited to address the need for increased access, capacity, and timely provision of PrEP, especially in areas where HIV acquisition rates are high or in areas with reduced access to care. We describe a model for a pharmacist-led HIV PrEP program (Pharm-PrEP) to increase access to PrEP. A similar program could be adapted to further expand the use of PrEP in other health care systems and community settings.

Pharm-PrEP Program Description

The Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHCS) provides health care services at 11 locations in southern California and serves > 86,000 veterans. The VAGLAHCS pharmacy staff includes 33 CPPs who practice in more than 9 clinical service lines. HIV PrEP services are available through the infectious diseases (ID) service for veterans wishing to begin or continue PrEP or for those identified as high risk. HIV PrEP consultations are placed by the referring HCP to the ID service for scheduling and evaluation. Prior to implementation of the pharmacist-managed PrEP clinic, 2 ID physician assistants (PAs) were responsible for PrEP evaluation, initiation, and follow-up. Each PA had 1 half-day face-to-face clinic and 1 PA had an additional half-day telehealth clinic. About 100 PrEP patients were followed by the ID group.

In July 2019, through collaboration with the ID service, a pharmacy PrEP clinic was created to increase access for veterans to initiate or continue PrEP. This clinic included 1 ID-trained CPP and 1 postgraduate-year-2 pharmacy resident. The CPP initiates and monitors veterans for HIV PrEP with prescribing privileges under a defined scope of practice.

Awareness of this novel service was raised through in-service training sessions for primary care and women’s health clinics. Referrals are generated directly from primary care practitioners (PCPs) or emergency department (ED) visits and are accepted on a continuing basis. Visits with the CPP are conducted in person or through telehealth services based on patient preference. Direct CPP patient care appointments involve a standardized assessment and discussion of patient HIV transmission risk, a review of social and sexual history, sexual practices and HIV risk, clinical evidence of acute HIV or other sexually transmitted infection (STI) symptoms, follow-up PrEP monitoring requirements, and counseling on appropriate PrEP use. CPPs can order laboratory tests, bone densitometry (DEXA scan), immunizations, PrEP, and STI treatment as required. ID service physicians are available during CPP visits for further assessment or consultation. While initially most visits are conducted in person, follow-up visits by telehealth or video have become predominant; most patients prefer these modalities, citing convenience, flexibility, and the ability to obtain laboratory tests in advance. Use of telephone and video is intended to reduce patient loss to follow-up.

All required baseline laboratory panels for PrEP monitoring are ordered and interpreted by the CPP in accordance with CDC guidelines.¹⁶ These include screening for syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia; fourth-generation antibody-antigen HIV tests; renal function; viral hepatitis; and pregnancy. After reviewing screening results, the CPP will prescribe tenofovir disproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) or tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (TAF/FTC) based on individual patient clinical characteristics, US Food and Drug Administration–approved labeling, and VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Criteria for Use. Initial prescriptions are for a 30-day supply with subsequent prescriptions for 90 days (no refills), providing follow-up HIV testing is completed.

Follow-up PrEP visits are scheduled about every 3 months with some overlap to avoid gaps in medication due to late laboratory testing or delayed receipt of mailed medications. The only laboratory testing strictly required each quarter before PrEP renewal is HIV and pregnancy testing. Other screenings, including STIs and renal function are completed at least every 6 months or more frequently, if indicated, based on individual risk factors. Hepatitis C antibody testing is conducted annually if the patient has ongoing risk factors. Treatment of gonorrhea/chlamydia and syphilis for patients with positive test results is also initiated by the CPP, including recommending antimicrobial regimens. Additional interventions conducted as part of the clinic include indicated vaccinations (meningococcal, human papillomavirus, hepatitis A and B), and DEXA scans. Collaboration with ID service attendings and PAs is conducted on an as-needed basis via direct consultation in the colocated clinic or through email or messaging.

Periodic surveillance of a local dashboard of veterans eligible for HIV PrEP is conducted to re-engage veterans in care who may have been lost to follow-up, along with periodic review of a local STI dashboard. These dashboards capture population-based data to identify patients who may benefit from additional STI screenings as well as potential candidates for HIV PrEP. Clinicians can review their patient panel to target individuals who may be due for specific actions. Patients are identified as needing cotesting if they screen positive for ≥ 1 STIs but have not had a concurrent or subsequent full screening panel (gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and HIV). Cotesting for bacterial STIs and HIV at the time of an encounter has been promoted to expedite STI identification and treatment and limit community transmission. These reports also identify patients who may be potential candidates for HIV PrEP, based on a history of positive screenings, frequent STI testing, recent prescriptions for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) or encounters with specific International Classification of Diseases codes associated with high-risk practices.

Clinic Quality of Care

From July 2019 to March 2020, 53 veterans were managed by the pharm-PrEP clinic in 98 encounters. Seventy percent of encounters were in-person (Table 1).

Baseline information collected included demographics, documented patient-reported risk factors, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, STI status, viral hepatitis serologies, and renal function test results. Information collected every 3 to 6 months included STI status, fourth-generation HIV screening test results, renal function test results, adherence to therapy, changes in risk factors, and prescription refill data. Additional interventions conducted as part of clinic workflow included DEXA scans, vaccinations, and active prescriptions for condoms.

Baseline Characteristics

Pharm-PrEP clinic patients were predominantly male (94%), and a majority indicated White race with a median age of 38 years (range, 24-80 years).

Veterans referred to the clinic had up to 5 risk factors for PrEP initiation. The most common risk factors were inconsistent condom use (62%), multiple sexual partners of unknown HIV status (62%), MSM (57%), STI history (38%), bisexual partners (25%), and HIV-positive sexual partners (11%). One of the 53 individuals referred for PrEP had no risk factors and did not initiate PrEP. Two individuals declined initiation of PrEP after consultation. Twenty six of 53 veterans at baseline continued their use of PrEP following transfer to clinic CPP management; 24 of 27 veterans not currently using PrEP (89%) started or restarted lapsed PrEP use following CPP consultation.

HIV and STI Screening

No individuals tested positive for HIV at baseline (n = 52) or while on PrEP. PrEP was not renewed for 3 patients that did follow through with HIV testing. The median number of days an HIV test was completed prior to initial PrEP and PrEP renewal was 4 days and < 7 days, respectively, both of which are below the recommended maximal interval of 7 days, according to CDC PrEP guidelines. Some postinitiation HIV testing occurred using a longer interval of 14 days, in accordance with VA National Criteria for Use of PrEP. This modification allowed more flexibility as a majority of PrEP prescriptions are sent to veterans via mail. The CPP reviewing HIV test results was able to expedite the processing and mailing of PrEP prescriptions if deemed appropriate, ie, the HIV test was negative. This approach was not used if a patient had high-risk exposures without PrEP during the time between collection of the HIV test and mailing of the prescription.

STI screening is a vital component of the Pharm-PrEP clinic and helped identify 4 patients with gonorrhea/chlamydia at baseline and 1 with syphilis after initiation of PrEP. All patients were prescribed antibiotics at the screening. Los Angeles County has high rates of STI transmission; thus implementation of clinic processes allowing the CPP to screen for STIs, interpret test results, and treat patients with STIs is vital to limit spread in the community.¹⁷

Selection of PrEP Regimen

The majority of individuals in the cohort received TDF/FTC for PrEP; TAF/FTC was restricted to individuals who had documented renal dysfunction or bone loss (Table 3).

Six DEXA scans were completed by the end of the evaluation period and 2 had abnormal results. One patient discontinued TDF/FTC and reinitiated with TAF/FTC. The other was switched to TAF/FTC 1 month after initiation.

Follow-Up Visits

The median number of visits per patient was 2. The median time between visits was in accordance with recommended follow-up intervals with 35 days between visits 1 and 2, 60 days between visits 2 and 3, and 88 days thereafter. In all, 10 veterans (20%) stopped PrEP: 4 (8%) were lost to follow-up; 3 (6%) had sustained behavior changes decreasing their HIV exposure risk; 2 (4%) were concerned about ADRs; and 1 (2%) moved out of state. Even after including those patients with a decrease in HIV exposure risk who no longer required PrEP, our 20% discontinuation rate was lower than those reported in other studies that showed a wide variation in PrEP discontinuation rates ranging from 33% to 62%.^18-20

Challenges

Some challenges with the implementation of the clinic included logistic and operational barriers, such as developing clinical pathways and managing workflow to facilitate vaccinations or STI treatment for individuals using video or telehealth services, as well as encouraging referrals from PCPs. These challenges were addressed by providing periodic targeted in-service training sessions to primary care teams to increase awareness of the Pharm-PrEP clinic. Collaboration with the ID service and ED allowed implementation of a direct pathway for patients initiated on nonoccupational HIV PEP after a high-risk exposure to be evaluated for transition to HIV PrEP. This PEP-2-PrEP pathway was designed to decrease barriers to follow-up for high-risk individuals who had recently received PEP in the ED. The CPP plays an active, integral role in managing patient care in the PEP-2-PrEP pathway.

Pharmacist-Led PrEP Care

The implementation of the VAGLAHCS Pharm-PrEP clinic demonstrates how CPPs can expand access and manage HIV PrEP with high reliability. Key factors for successfully integrating CPPs as PrEP prescribers include identifying physician champions; using in-services or other training platforms to raise awareness among potential referring HCPs and stimulate referrals; and developing processes to identify high-risk veterans. Also, nontraditional modes of care, such as video or telehealth appointments, can increase access and expand the volume of patient care visits. Such modalities are useful for PrEP management when combined with a well-defined operational process for laboratory specimen collection before appointments. This system is particularly well suited to increasing access to PrEP for patients who live in rural or highly rural areas that are medically underserved or who have difficulty traveling to a clinical facility for an in-person visit.

Although community health care organizations and HCPs face pay barriers not present in the VHA system, several studies have demonstrated feasability of pharmacist-led clinics in private health care systems.^21-24 Havens and colleagues described a PrEP program affilitated with an university that assessed patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability with this new service.²² The results of surveys reported high patient satisfaction and pharmacist acceptability.²³ Tung and colleagues described a PrEP clinic located in a community pharmacy with the ability to bill for pharmacist and laboratory services in addition to medication costs.²⁴ These studies, along with our findings, demonstrate that CPPs are well positioned to manage HIV PrEP in the community. Leveraging the skills and experience of CPPs to address poor uptake and access to PrEP should be a central component in achieving the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, given that pharmacists are one of the most accessible groups of HCPs nationally.

Pharmacist prescriptive authority varies across different states and may depend on collaborative practice agreements, statewide protocols, or class-specific prescribing.²⁵ For example, California was among the first states to authorize initiation and prescription of HIV PrEP and PEP by pharmacists in specified amounts after appropriate training.²⁶ Nationwide support for similar policies in the community and within health care systems will be critical to the successful implementation and functioning of pharmacy-led PrEP clinics.

Conclusions

The success of this Pharm-PrEP clinic was largely due to a collaborative, interdisciplinary effort to implement this new clinic process and incorporate the CPP into the general ID outpatient clinic, while allowing flexibility in scheduling and use of different encounter modalities for patients. Deploying pharmacists as PrEP prescribers can help health care systems increase PrEP access and capacity and improve efforts to achieve the goals of the Ending the HIV Epidemic. This type of program can be a model for other health care organizations and systems to implement pharmacy-led PrEP clinics and expand telehealth modalities to deliver PrEP.

Acknowledgments

The infectious diseases service at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and the veterans we serve.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare, B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma whose biological heterogeneity has long challenged researchers and clinicians. There are no firmly-established therapies, and many individuals experience relapse even after successful treatment. There is a clear unmet need in MCL in the relapsed setting. In recent years, researchers have worked to address this need, demonstrating efficacy with covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, led by ibrutinib, and anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. While these are helpful additions, relapse remains a challenge. 

Fortunately, progress continues. Owing to encouraging results in recent trials, individuals with relapsed/refractory MCL are now experiencing clinical benefit from the noncovalent BTK inhibitor pirtrobrutinib. Investigational bispecific antibody (bsAb) therapy awaits in the wings. 

Similarly, both younger and older patients with treatment naïve MCL could soon see improvement from the addition of BTK inhibitors to each age group’s standard treatment option. The following is a description of recent developments and their potential implications for practice.  

One of the most exciting developments is the US Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approval of pirtrobrutinib. A noncovalent BTK inhibitor, pirtrobrutinib has been found to have activity in individuals with MCL who have failed on multiple therapies, including standard BTK inhibitors. Pirtrobrutinib targets certain mutations in the BTK protein that are associated with resistance to covalent BTK inhibitors. In addition to resistance, some patients discontinue treatment with non-reversible BTK inhibitors because of intolerable toxicity. 

Approval of pirtrobrutinib was based on an evaluation involving 120 individuals (median age 71) who were previously treated with a non-reversible BTK inhibitor. Two-thirds were previously treated with ibrutinib; 30% with acalabrutinib, and 8% zanubrutinib (some received more than one BTK inhibitor previously). The vast majority (83%) discontinued treatment due to refractory or progressive disease; 10% stopped due to toxicity; and the remainder halted treatment for other reasons. 

Six in every 10 of the participants were classified on the MCL International Prognostic Index as intermediate; one-fourth were classified as high; and the remainder low. Patients received 200 mg of pirtrobrutinib once a day until disease either progressed or they experienced intolerable toxicity. Among the results:

• Overall response rate was 50%; 13% responded completely

• Median duration of response was 8.3 months

• Duration of response rate at 6 months was 65%

• Grade 3 or 4 abnormalities experienced by 10% or more of participants included decreased neutrophil counts, lymphocyte counts, and platelet counts

Further, bsAb therapy targeting CD20-CD3 is not yet approved but is showing promise as a potential therapy following BTK inhibitor failure. The treatment consists of an antibody containing two prongs. One is a CD20 protein that attaches to the lymphoma cell. The other is an anti-CD3 antibody that attaches to the T cell to bring the patient’s own T cells closer to the lymphoma to increase the cell kill. 

Preliminary studies evaluating bsAbs in individuals with MCL, many of whom have failed on multiple other types of therapies, show a remarkably high response rate. In one such investigation, the bsAb glofitamab was given to 21 individuals as monotherapy following pretreatment with obinutuzumab. The regimen produced an overall response rate of 81% (n = 17) and a complete response rate of 68% (n = 14). Response was similar in participants who had and had not received prior BTK therapy. Among those who achieved a complete response, median duration was 2.4 months, and 12 of those who reached a complete response were still in remission at the study’s data cutoff point. 

For younger individuals with treatment-naïve MCL, the current standard is chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT). For older individuals the standard is chemoimmunotherapy. The replacement or addition of the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib to these regimens is showing the promise of added clinical benefit in both age contingents. 

Investigators presented results of the three-arm TRIANGLE trial at the 64th ASH Annual Meeting in December 2022. The study compared 1) chemotherapy followed by ASCT; 2) ibrutinib plus chemotherapy followed by ASCT and ibrutinib maintenance; and 3) ibrutinib plus chemotherapy followed by ibrutinib maintenance. Participants (n = 870) ≤ 65 years of age (median age 57) with previously untreated advanced-stage MCL were randomized to 1 of the 3 regimens. Investigators looked at overall response, complete response, and failure-free survival rates (FFS). Among the results: 

• Overall response rates were 98% in the 2 groups whose treatments included ibrutinib, versus 94% in the chemotherapy followed by ASCT group. 

• Complete response rates were 45% and 36%, respectively.

• The non-ibrutinib regimen did not attain FFS superiority over ibrutinib plus chemotherapy, with a 3-year FFS rate of 72% and 86%, respectively (p=0.9979, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.77).

• Ibrutinib plus chemotherapy was shown to be superior to chemotherapy/ASCT, with a 3-year FFS rate of 88% and 72%, respectively (p=0.0008, HR: 0.52).

• The only adverse event differences of note occurred during maintenance treatment; there were significantly more grade 3-5 adverse events in the ibrutinib/chemotherapy/ASCT group, compared with the other 2 contingents.

Researchers noted in materials accompanying their presentation that, “It has been clearly demonstrated that the current standard high-dose regimen is not superior to the new ibrutinib-containing regimen without ASCT. More follow-up is needed to clarify the role of ASCT in the context of ibrutinib-containing treatment. However, the current results already support the use of ibrutinib in the first-line treatment of younger MCL patients.”

It also appears that ibrutinib added to standard chemoimmunotherapy can improve outcomes in older individuals with treatment-naïve MCL. In 2022, researchers published results from the international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 SHINE trial. Participants (n = 523) were ≥ 65 years of age with previously untreated MCL and were randomized to receive either ibrutinib 560 mg daily or placebo added to chemoimmunotherapy consisting of bendamustine and rituximab every 4 weeks for 6 cycles. Individuals with a partial or complete response continued treatment every 8 weeks for up to 12 more doses. Investigators looked primarily at progression-free survival (PFS), as well as complete response, undetectable minimal residual disease, and time to worsening. Among the results: 

• 116 participants (44%) in the ibrutinib group experienced disease progression or died, compared with 152 (58%) in the placebo contingent. 

• Median PFS was 80.6 months and 52.9 months, respectively.

• PFS benefit was seen across most subgroups (patients categorized as high risk, and those with TP53 mutations did not benefit).

• Complete response was seen in 66% and 58% of participants, respectively.

• Undetectable minimal residual disease was observed in 62% and 57%, respectively.

• Deaths attributed to disease progression or adverse events occurred in 22% and 28%, respectively.

• Grade 3 or 4 adverse event incident rates were 82% and 77%, respectively.

Researchers noted that, “Given the shorter progression-free survival with current standard-care chemoimmunotherapy options, a prolongation of progression-free survival in response to primary therapy may provide patients with an improved opportunity for durable disease control in order to prevent or delay relapse.”

Data on the use of other BTK inhibitors as first-line treatment for MCL are forthcoming, including: 

• ECHO, a phase 3 trial assessing the efficacy of acalabrutinib versus placebo added to bendamustine and rituximab.

• MANGROVE, a phase 3 study comparing zanubrutinib plus rituximab versus bendamustine plus rituximab.

• ENRICH, a phase 2 study evaluating a chemotherapy-free option–ibrutinib and rituximab in older individuals.

• OASIS, a randomized, phase 2 trial comparing ibrutinib/anti-CD20 antibodies (Ab) and Ibrutinib/anti-CD20 Ab/venetoclax given as fixed duration combinations. 

The evolution of BTK inhibitors for relapsed MCL has great potential; further benefits continue to be explored.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare, B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma whose biological heterogeneity has long challenged researchers and clinicians. There are no firmly-established therapies, and many individuals experience relapse even after successful treatment. There is a clear unmet need in MCL in the relapsed setting. In recent years, researchers have worked to address this need, demonstrating efficacy with covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, led by ibrutinib, and anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. While these are helpful additions, relapse remains a challenge. 

Fortunately, progress continues. Owing to encouraging results in recent trials, individuals with relapsed/refractory MCL are now experiencing clinical benefit from the noncovalent BTK inhibitor pirtrobrutinib. Investigational bispecific antibody (bsAb) therapy awaits in the wings. 

Similarly, both younger and older patients with treatment naïve MCL could soon see improvement from the addition of BTK inhibitors to each age group’s standard treatment option. The following is a description of recent developments and their potential implications for practice.  

One of the most exciting developments is the US Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approval of pirtrobrutinib. A noncovalent BTK inhibitor, pirtrobrutinib has been found to have activity in individuals with MCL who have failed on multiple therapies, including standard BTK inhibitors. Pirtrobrutinib targets certain mutations in the BTK protein that are associated with resistance to covalent BTK inhibitors. In addition to resistance, some patients discontinue treatment with non-reversible BTK inhibitors because of intolerable toxicity. 

Approval of pirtrobrutinib was based on an evaluation involving 120 individuals (median age 71) who were previously treated with a non-reversible BTK inhibitor. Two-thirds were previously treated with ibrutinib; 30% with acalabrutinib, and 8% zanubrutinib (some received more than one BTK inhibitor previously). The vast majority (83%) discontinued treatment due to refractory or progressive disease; 10% stopped due to toxicity; and the remainder halted treatment for other reasons. 

Six in every 10 of the participants were classified on the MCL International Prognostic Index as intermediate; one-fourth were classified as high; and the remainder low. Patients received 200 mg of pirtrobrutinib once a day until disease either progressed or they experienced intolerable toxicity. Among the results:

• Overall response rate was 50%; 13% responded completely

• Median duration of response was 8.3 months

• Duration of response rate at 6 months was 65%

• Grade 3 or 4 abnormalities experienced by 10% or more of participants included decreased neutrophil counts, lymphocyte counts, and platelet counts

Further, bsAb therapy targeting CD20-CD3 is not yet approved but is showing promise as a potential therapy following BTK inhibitor failure. The treatment consists of an antibody containing two prongs. One is a CD20 protein that attaches to the lymphoma cell. The other is an anti-CD3 antibody that attaches to the T cell to bring the patient’s own T cells closer to the lymphoma to increase the cell kill. 

Preliminary studies evaluating bsAbs in individuals with MCL, many of whom have failed on multiple other types of therapies, show a remarkably high response rate. In one such investigation, the bsAb glofitamab was given to 21 individuals as monotherapy following pretreatment with obinutuzumab. The regimen produced an overall response rate of 81% (n = 17) and a complete response rate of 68% (n = 14). Response was similar in participants who had and had not received prior BTK therapy. Among those who achieved a complete response, median duration was 2.4 months, and 12 of those who reached a complete response were still in remission at the study’s data cutoff point. 

For younger individuals with treatment-naïve MCL, the current standard is chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT). For older individuals the standard is chemoimmunotherapy. The replacement or addition of the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib to these regimens is showing the promise of added clinical benefit in both age contingents. 

Investigators presented results of the three-arm TRIANGLE trial at the 64th ASH Annual Meeting in December 2022. The study compared 1) chemotherapy followed by ASCT; 2) ibrutinib plus chemotherapy followed by ASCT and ibrutinib maintenance; and 3) ibrutinib plus chemotherapy followed by ibrutinib maintenance. Participants (n = 870) ≤ 65 years of age (median age 57) with previously untreated advanced-stage MCL were randomized to 1 of the 3 regimens. Investigators looked at overall response, complete response, and failure-free survival rates (FFS). Among the results: 

• Overall response rates were 98% in the 2 groups whose treatments included ibrutinib, versus 94% in the chemotherapy followed by ASCT group. 

• Complete response rates were 45% and 36%, respectively.

• The non-ibrutinib regimen did not attain FFS superiority over ibrutinib plus chemotherapy, with a 3-year FFS rate of 72% and 86%, respectively (p=0.9979, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.77).

• Ibrutinib plus chemotherapy was shown to be superior to chemotherapy/ASCT, with a 3-year FFS rate of 88% and 72%, respectively (p=0.0008, HR: 0.52).

• The only adverse event differences of note occurred during maintenance treatment; there were significantly more grade 3-5 adverse events in the ibrutinib/chemotherapy/ASCT group, compared with the other 2 contingents.

Researchers noted in materials accompanying their presentation that, “It has been clearly demonstrated that the current standard high-dose regimen is not superior to the new ibrutinib-containing regimen without ASCT. More follow-up is needed to clarify the role of ASCT in the context of ibrutinib-containing treatment. However, the current results already support the use of ibrutinib in the first-line treatment of younger MCL patients.”

It also appears that ibrutinib added to standard chemoimmunotherapy can improve outcomes in older individuals with treatment-naïve MCL. In 2022, researchers published results from the international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 SHINE trial. Participants (n = 523) were ≥ 65 years of age with previously untreated MCL and were randomized to receive either ibrutinib 560 mg daily or placebo added to chemoimmunotherapy consisting of bendamustine and rituximab every 4 weeks for 6 cycles. Individuals with a partial or complete response continued treatment every 8 weeks for up to 12 more doses. Investigators looked primarily at progression-free survival (PFS), as well as complete response, undetectable minimal residual disease, and time to worsening. Among the results: 

• 116 participants (44%) in the ibrutinib group experienced disease progression or died, compared with 152 (58%) in the placebo contingent. 

• Median PFS was 80.6 months and 52.9 months, respectively.

• PFS benefit was seen across most subgroups (patients categorized as high risk, and those with TP53 mutations did not benefit).

• Complete response was seen in 66% and 58% of participants, respectively.

• Undetectable minimal residual disease was observed in 62% and 57%, respectively.

• Deaths attributed to disease progression or adverse events occurred in 22% and 28%, respectively.

• Grade 3 or 4 adverse event incident rates were 82% and 77%, respectively.

Researchers noted that, “Given the shorter progression-free survival with current standard-care chemoimmunotherapy options, a prolongation of progression-free survival in response to primary therapy may provide patients with an improved opportunity for durable disease control in order to prevent or delay relapse.”

Data on the use of other BTK inhibitors as first-line treatment for MCL are forthcoming, including: 

• ECHO, a phase 3 trial assessing the efficacy of acalabrutinib versus placebo added to bendamustine and rituximab.

• MANGROVE, a phase 3 study comparing zanubrutinib plus rituximab versus bendamustine plus rituximab.

• ENRICH, a phase 2 study evaluating a chemotherapy-free option–ibrutinib and rituximab in older individuals.

• OASIS, a randomized, phase 2 trial comparing ibrutinib/anti-CD20 antibodies (Ab) and Ibrutinib/anti-CD20 Ab/venetoclax given as fixed duration combinations. 

The evolution of BTK inhibitors for relapsed MCL has great potential; further benefits continue to be explored.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare, B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma whose biological heterogeneity has long challenged researchers and clinicians. There are no firmly-established therapies, and many individuals experience relapse even after successful treatment. There is a clear unmet need in MCL in the relapsed setting. In recent years, researchers have worked to address this need, demonstrating efficacy with covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, led by ibrutinib, and anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. While these are helpful additions, relapse remains a challenge. 

Fortunately, progress continues. Owing to encouraging results in recent trials, individuals with relapsed/refractory MCL are now experiencing clinical benefit from the noncovalent BTK inhibitor pirtrobrutinib. Investigational bispecific antibody (bsAb) therapy awaits in the wings. 

Similarly, both younger and older patients with treatment naïve MCL could soon see improvement from the addition of BTK inhibitors to each age group’s standard treatment option. The following is a description of recent developments and their potential implications for practice.  

One of the most exciting developments is the US Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approval of pirtrobrutinib. A noncovalent BTK inhibitor, pirtrobrutinib has been found to have activity in individuals with MCL who have failed on multiple therapies, including standard BTK inhibitors. Pirtrobrutinib targets certain mutations in the BTK protein that are associated with resistance to covalent BTK inhibitors. In addition to resistance, some patients discontinue treatment with non-reversible BTK inhibitors because of intolerable toxicity. 

Approval of pirtrobrutinib was based on an evaluation involving 120 individuals (median age 71) who were previously treated with a non-reversible BTK inhibitor. Two-thirds were previously treated with ibrutinib; 30% with acalabrutinib, and 8% zanubrutinib (some received more than one BTK inhibitor previously). The vast majority (83%) discontinued treatment due to refractory or progressive disease; 10% stopped due to toxicity; and the remainder halted treatment for other reasons. 

Six in every 10 of the participants were classified on the MCL International Prognostic Index as intermediate; one-fourth were classified as high; and the remainder low. Patients received 200 mg of pirtrobrutinib once a day until disease either progressed or they experienced intolerable toxicity. Among the results:

• Overall response rate was 50%; 13% responded completely

• Median duration of response was 8.3 months

• Duration of response rate at 6 months was 65%

• Grade 3 or 4 abnormalities experienced by 10% or more of participants included decreased neutrophil counts, lymphocyte counts, and platelet counts

Further, bsAb therapy targeting CD20-CD3 is not yet approved but is showing promise as a potential therapy following BTK inhibitor failure. The treatment consists of an antibody containing two prongs. One is a CD20 protein that attaches to the lymphoma cell. The other is an anti-CD3 antibody that attaches to the T cell to bring the patient’s own T cells closer to the lymphoma to increase the cell kill. 

Preliminary studies evaluating bsAbs in individuals with MCL, many of whom have failed on multiple other types of therapies, show a remarkably high response rate. In one such investigation, the bsAb glofitamab was given to 21 individuals as monotherapy following pretreatment with obinutuzumab. The regimen produced an overall response rate of 81% (n = 17) and a complete response rate of 68% (n = 14). Response was similar in participants who had and had not received prior BTK therapy. Among those who achieved a complete response, median duration was 2.4 months, and 12 of those who reached a complete response were still in remission at the study’s data cutoff point. 

For younger individuals with treatment-naïve MCL, the current standard is chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT). For older individuals the standard is chemoimmunotherapy. The replacement or addition of the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib to these regimens is showing the promise of added clinical benefit in both age contingents. 

Investigators presented results of the three-arm TRIANGLE trial at the 64th ASH Annual Meeting in December 2022. The study compared 1) chemotherapy followed by ASCT; 2) ibrutinib plus chemotherapy followed by ASCT and ibrutinib maintenance; and 3) ibrutinib plus chemotherapy followed by ibrutinib maintenance. Participants (n = 870) ≤ 65 years of age (median age 57) with previously untreated advanced-stage MCL were randomized to 1 of the 3 regimens. Investigators looked at overall response, complete response, and failure-free survival rates (FFS). Among the results: 

• Overall response rates were 98% in the 2 groups whose treatments included ibrutinib, versus 94% in the chemotherapy followed by ASCT group. 

• Complete response rates were 45% and 36%, respectively.

• The non-ibrutinib regimen did not attain FFS superiority over ibrutinib plus chemotherapy, with a 3-year FFS rate of 72% and 86%, respectively (p=0.9979, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.77).

• Ibrutinib plus chemotherapy was shown to be superior to chemotherapy/ASCT, with a 3-year FFS rate of 88% and 72%, respectively (p=0.0008, HR: 0.52).

• The only adverse event differences of note occurred during maintenance treatment; there were significantly more grade 3-5 adverse events in the ibrutinib/chemotherapy/ASCT group, compared with the other 2 contingents.

Researchers noted in materials accompanying their presentation that, “It has been clearly demonstrated that the current standard high-dose regimen is not superior to the new ibrutinib-containing regimen without ASCT. More follow-up is needed to clarify the role of ASCT in the context of ibrutinib-containing treatment. However, the current results already support the use of ibrutinib in the first-line treatment of younger MCL patients.”

It also appears that ibrutinib added to standard chemoimmunotherapy can improve outcomes in older individuals with treatment-naïve MCL. In 2022, researchers published results from the international, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 SHINE trial. Participants (n = 523) were ≥ 65 years of age with previously untreated MCL and were randomized to receive either ibrutinib 560 mg daily or placebo added to chemoimmunotherapy consisting of bendamustine and rituximab every 4 weeks for 6 cycles. Individuals with a partial or complete response continued treatment every 8 weeks for up to 12 more doses. Investigators looked primarily at progression-free survival (PFS), as well as complete response, undetectable minimal residual disease, and time to worsening. Among the results: 

• 116 participants (44%) in the ibrutinib group experienced disease progression or died, compared with 152 (58%) in the placebo contingent. 

• Median PFS was 80.6 months and 52.9 months, respectively.

• PFS benefit was seen across most subgroups (patients categorized as high risk, and those with TP53 mutations did not benefit).

• Complete response was seen in 66% and 58% of participants, respectively.

• Undetectable minimal residual disease was observed in 62% and 57%, respectively.

• Deaths attributed to disease progression or adverse events occurred in 22% and 28%, respectively.

• Grade 3 or 4 adverse event incident rates were 82% and 77%, respectively.

Researchers noted that, “Given the shorter progression-free survival with current standard-care chemoimmunotherapy options, a prolongation of progression-free survival in response to primary therapy may provide patients with an improved opportunity for durable disease control in order to prevent or delay relapse.”

Data on the use of other BTK inhibitors as first-line treatment for MCL are forthcoming, including: 

• ECHO, a phase 3 trial assessing the efficacy of acalabrutinib versus placebo added to bendamustine and rituximab.

• MANGROVE, a phase 3 study comparing zanubrutinib plus rituximab versus bendamustine plus rituximab.

• ENRICH, a phase 2 study evaluating a chemotherapy-free option–ibrutinib and rituximab in older individuals.

• OASIS, a randomized, phase 2 trial comparing ibrutinib/anti-CD20 antibodies (Ab) and Ibrutinib/anti-CD20 Ab/venetoclax given as fixed duration combinations. 

The evolution of BTK inhibitors for relapsed MCL has great potential; further benefits continue to be explored.

From the Division of Hospital Medicine, University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque (Drs. Bartlett, Pizanis, Angeli, Lacy, and Rogers), Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque (Dr. Scott), and University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque (Ms. Baca).

ABSTRACT

Background: Emergency department (ED) crowding is associated with deleterious consequences for patient care and throughput. Admission delays worsen ED crowding. Time to admission (TTA)—the time between an ED admission request and internal medicine (IM) admission orders—can be shortened through implementation of a triage hospitalist role. Limited research is available highlighting the impact of triage hospitalists on throughput, care quality, interprofessional practice, and clinician experience of care.

Methods: A triage hospitalist role was piloted and implemented. Run charts were interpreted using accepted rules for deriving statistically significant conclusions. Statistical analysis was applied to interprofessional practice and clinician experience-of-care survey results.

Results: Following implementation, TTA decreased from 5 hours 19 minutes to 2 hours 8 minutes. Emergency department crowding increased from baseline. The reduction in TTA was associated with decreased time from ED arrival to IM admission request, no change in critical care transfers during the initial 24 hours, and increased admissions to inpatient status. Additionally, decreased TTA was associated with no change in referring hospital transfer rates and no change in hospital medicine length of stay. Interprofessional practice attitudes improved among ED clinicians but not IM clinicians. Clinician experience-of-care results were mixed.

Conclusion: A triage hospitalist role is an effective approach for mitigating admission delays, with no evident adverse clinical consequences. A triage hospitalist alone was incapable of resolving ED crowding issues without a complementary focus on downstream bottlenecks.

Keywords: triage hospitalist, admission delay, quality improvement.

Excess time to admission (TTA), defined as the time between an emergency department (ED) admission request and internal medicine (IM) admission orders, contributes to ED crowding, which is associated with deleterious impacts on patient care and throughput. Prior research has correlated ED crowding with an increase in length of stay (LOS)^1-3 and total inpatient cost,¹ as well as increased inpatient mortality, higher left-without-being-seen rates,⁴ delays in clinically meaningful care,^5,6 and poor patient and clinician satisfaction.^6,7 While various solutions have been proposed to alleviate ED crowding,⁸ excess TTA is one aspect that IM can directly address.

Like many institutions, ours is challenged by ED crowding. Time to admission is a known bottleneck. Underlying factors that contribute to excess TTA include varied admission request volumes in relation to fixed admitting capacity; learner-focused admitting processes; and unreliable strategies for determining whether patients are eligible for ED observation, transfer to an alternative facility, or admission to an alternative primary service.

To address excess TTA, we piloted then implemented a triage hospitalist role, envisioned as responsible for evaluating ED admission requests to IM, making timely determinations of admission appropriateness, and distributing patients to admitting teams. This intervention was selected because of its strengths, including the ability to standardize admission processes, improve the proximity of clinical decision-makers to patient care to reduce delays, and decrease hierarchical imbalances experienced by trainees, and also because the institution expressed a willingness to mitigate its primary weakness (ie, ongoing financial support for sustainability) should it prove successful.

Previously, a triage hospitalist has been defined as “a physician who assesses patients for admission, actively supporting the transition of the patient from the outpatient to the inpatient setting.”⁹ Velásquez et al surveyed 10 academic medical centers and identified significant heterogeneity in the roles and responsibilities of a triage hospitalist.⁹ Limited research addresses the impact of this role on throughput. One report described the volume and source of requests evaluated by a triage hospitalist and the frequency with which the triage hospitalists’ assessment of admission appropriateness aligned with that of the referring clinicians.¹⁰ No prior research is available demonstrating the impact of this role on care quality, interprofessional practice, or clinician experience of care. This article is intended to address these gaps in the literature.

Methods

Setting

The University of New Mexico Hospital has 537 beds and is the only level-1 trauma and academic medical center in the state. On average, approximately 8000 patients register to be seen in the ED per month. Roughly 600 are admitted to IM per month. This study coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, with low patient volumes in April 2020, overcapacity census starting in May 2020, and markedly high patient volumes in May/June 2020 and November/December 2020. All authors participated in project development, implementation, and analysis.

Preintervention IM Admission Process

When requesting IM admission, ED clinicians (resident, advanced practice provider [APP], or attending) contacted the IM triage person (typically an IM resident physician) by phone or in person. The IM triage person would then assess whether the patient needed critical care consultation (a unique and separate admission pathway), was eligible for ED observation or transfer to an outside hospital, or was clinically appropriate for IM subacute and floor admission. Pending admissions were evaluated in order of severity of illness or based on wait time if severity of illness was equal. Transfers from the intensive care unit (ICU) and referring hospitals were prioritized. Between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, patients were typically evaluated by junior team members, with subsequent presentation to an attending, at which time a final admission decision was made. At night, between 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, 2 IM residents managed triage, admissions, and transfers with an on-call attending physician.

Triage Hospitalist Pilot

Key changes made during the pilot included scheduling an IM attending to serve as triage hospitalist for all IM admission requests from the ED between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM; requiring that all IM admission requests be initiated by the ED attending and directed to the triage hospitalist; requiring ED attendings to enter into the electronic medical record (EMR) an admission request order (subsequently referred to as ED admission request [EDAR] order); and encouraging bedside handoffs. Eight pilot shifts were completed in November and December 2019.

Measures for Triage Hospitalist Pilot

Data collected included request type (new vs overflow from night) and patient details (name, medical record number). Two time points were recorded: when the EDAR order was entered and when admission orders were entered. Process indicators, including whether the EDAR order was entered and the final triage decision (eg, discharge, IM), were recorded. General feedback was requested at the end of each shift.

Phased Implementation of Triage Hospitalist Role

Triage hospitalist role implementation was approved following the pilot, with additional salary support funded by the institution. A new performance measure (time from admission request to admission order, self-identified goal < 3 hours) was approved by all parties.

In January 2020, the role was scheduled from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM daily. All hospitalists participated. Based on pilot feedback, IM admission requests could be initiated by an ED attending or an ED APP. In addition to admissions from the ED, the triage hospitalist was tasked with managing ICU, subspecialty, and referring facility transfer requests, as well as staffing some admissions with residents.

In March 2020, to create a single communication pathway while simultaneously hardwiring our measurement strategy, the EDAR order was modified such that it would automatically prompt a 1-way communication to the triage hospitalist using the institution’s secure messaging software. The message included patient name, medical record number, location, ED attending, reason for admission, and consultation priority, as well as 2 questions prompting ED clinicians to reflect on the most common reasons for the triage hospitalist to recommend against IM admission (eligible for admission to other primary service, transfer to alternative hospital).

In July 2020, the triage hospitalist role was scheduled 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to meet an institutional request. The schedule was divided into a daytime 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift, a 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM shift covered by a resident ward team IM attending with additional cross-cover responsibility, and a 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift covered by a nocturnist.

Measures for Triage Hospitalist Role

The primary outcome measure was TTA, defined as the time between EDAR (operationalized using EDAR order timestamp) and IM admission decision (operationalized using inpatient bed request order timestamp). Additional outcome measures included the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Electronic Clinical Quality Measure ED-2 (eCQM ED-2), defined as the median time from admit decision to departure from the ED for patients admitted to inpatient status.

Process measures included time between patient arrival to the ED (operationalized using ED registration timestamp) and EDAR and percentage of IM admissions with an EDAR order. Balancing measures included time between bed request order (referred to as the IM admission order) and subsequent admission orders. While the IM admission order prompts an inpatient clinical encounter and inpatient bed assignment, subsequent admission orders are necessary for clinical care. Additional balancing measures included ICU transfer rate within the first 24 hours, referring facility transfer frequency to IM (an indicator of access for patients at outside hospitals), average hospital medicine LOS (operationalized using ED registration timestamp to discharge timestamp), and admission status (inpatient vs observation).

An anonymous preintervention (December 2019) and postintervention (August 2020) survey focusing on interprofessional practice and clinician experience of care was used to obtain feedback from ED and IM attendings, APPs, and trainees. Emergency department clinicians were asked questions pertaining to their IM colleagues and vice versa. A Likert 5-point scale was used to respond.

Data Analysis

The preintervention period was June 1, 2019, to October 31, 2019; the pilot period was November 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019; the staged implementation period was January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020; and the postintervention period was July 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. Run charts for outcome, process, and balancing measures were interpreted using rules for deriving statistically significant conclusions.¹¹ Statistical analysis using a t test assuming unequal variances with P < . 05 to indicate statistical significance was applied to experience-of-care results. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

 

 

Results

Triage Hospitalist Pilot Time Period

Seventy-four entries were recorded, 56 (75.7%) reflecting new admission requests. Average time between EDAR order and IM admission order was 40 minutes. The EDAR order was entered into the EMR without prompting in 22 (29.7%) cases. In 56 (75.7%) cases, the final triage decision was IM admission. Other dispositions included 3 discharges, 4 transfers, 3 alternative primary service admissions, 1 ED observation, and 7 triage deferrals pending additional workup or stabilization.

Feedback substantiated several benefits, including improved coordination among IM, ED, and consultant clinicians, as well as early admission of seriously ill patients. Feedback also confirmed several expected challenges, including evidence of communication lapses, difficulty with transfer coordinator integration, difficulty hardwiring elements of the verbal and bedside handoff, and perceived high cognitive load for the triage hospitalist. Several unexpected issues included whether ED APPs can request admission independently and how reconsultation is expected to occur if admission is initially deferred.

Triage Hospitalist Implementation Time Period

Time to admission decreased from a baseline pre-pilot average of 5 hours 19 minutes (median, 4 hours 45 minutes) to a postintervention average of 2 hours 8 minutes, with a statistically significant downward shift post intervention (Figure 1).

ED-2 increased from a baseline average of 3 hours 40 minutes (median, 2 hours 39 minutes), with a statistically significant upward shift starting in May 2020 (Figure 2). Time between patient arrival to the ED and EDAR order decreased from a baseline average of 8 hours 47 minutes (median, 8 hours 37 minutes) to a postintervention average of 5 hours 57 minutes, with a statistically significant downward shift post intervention. Percentage of IM admissions with an EDAR order increased from a baseline average of 47% (median, 47%) to 97%, with a statistically significant upward shift starting in January 2020 (Figure 3).

There was no change in observed average time between IM admission order and subsequent admission orders pre and post intervention (16 minutes vs 18 minutes). However, there was a statistically significant shift up to an average of 40 minutes from January through June 2020, which then resolved. The percentage of patients transferred to the ICU within 24 hours of admission to IM did not change (1.1% pre vs 1.4% post intervention). Frequency of patients transferred in from a referring facility also did not change (26/month vs 22/month). Average hospital medicine LOS did not change to a statistically significant degree (6.48 days vs 6.62 days). The percentage of inpatient admissions relative to short stays increased from a baseline of 74.0% (median, 73.6%) to a postintervention average of 82.4%, with a statistically significant shift upward starting March 2020.

Regarding interprofessional practice and clinician experience of care, 122 of 309 preintervention surveys (39.5% response rate) and 98 of 309 postintervention surveys (31.7% response rate) were completed. Pre- and postintervention responses were not linked.

Regarding interprofessional practice, EM residents and EM attendings experienced statistically significant improvements in all interprofessional practice domains (Table 1). Emergency medicine APPs experienced statistically significant improvements post intervention with “I am satisfied with the level of communication with IM hospitalist clinicians” and “Interactions with IM hospitalist clinicians are collaborative” and nonstatistically significant improvement in “Interactions with IM hospitalist clinicians are professional” and “IM hospitalist clinicians treat me with respect.” All EM groups experienced a small but not statistically significant worsening for “Efficiency is more valued than good patient care.” Internal medicine residents experienced statistically significant improvements for “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians” and nonstatistically significant improvements for the other 3 domains. Internal medicine attendings experienced nonstatistically significant improvements for “My interactions with ED clinicians are professional,” “EM clinicians treat me with respect,” and “Interactions with EM clinicians are collaborative,” but a nonstatistically significant worsening in “I am satisfied with level of communication with EM clinicians.” Internal medicine residents experienced a nonstatistically significant worsening in “Efficiency is more valued than good patient care,” while IM attendings experienced a nonstatistically significant improvement.

For clinician experience of care, EM residents (P < .001) and attendings (P < .001) experienced statistically significant improvements in “Patients are well informed and involved in the decision to admit,” whereas IM residents and attendings, as well as EM APPs, experienced nonstatistically significant improvements (Table 2). All groups except IM attendings experienced a statistically significant improvement (IM resident P = .011, EM resident P < .001, EM APP P = .001, EM attending P < .001) in “I believe that my patients are evaluated and treated within an appropriate time frame.” Internal medicine attendings felt that this indicator worsened to a nonstatistically significant degree. Post intervention, EM groups experienced a statistically significant worsening in “The process of admitting patients to a UNM IM hospitalist service is difficult,” while IM groups experienced a nonstatistically significant worsening.

Discussion

Implementation of the triage hospitalist role led to a significant reduction in average TTA, from 5 hours 19 minutes to 2 hours 8 minutes. Performance has been sustained at 1 hour 42 minutes on average over the past 6 months. The triage hospitalist was successful at reducing TTA because of their focus on evaluating new admission and transfer requests, deferring other admission responsibilities to on-call admitting teams. Early admission led to no increase in ICU transfers or hospitalist LOS. To ensure that earlier admission reflected improved timeliness of care and that new sources of delay were not being created, we measured the time between IM admission and subsequent admission orders. A statistically significant increase to 40 minutes from January through June 2020 was attributable to the hospitalist acclimating to their new role and the need to standardize workflow. This delay subsequently resolved. An additional benefit of the triage hospitalist was an increase in the proportion of inpatient admissions compared with short stays.

ED-2, an indicator of ED crowding, increased from 3 hours 40 minutes, with a statistically significant upward shift starting May 2020. Increasing ED-2 associated with the triage hospitalist role makes intuitive sense. Patients are admitted 2 hours 40 minutes earlier in their hospital course while downstream bottlenecks preventing patient movement to an inpatient bed remained unchanged. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic complicates interpretation of ED-2 because the measure reflects institutional capacity to match demand for inpatient beds. Fewer ED registrations and lower hospital medicine census (and resulting inpatient bed availability) in April 2020 during the first COVID-19 surge coincided with an ED-2 nadir of 1 hour 46 minutes. The statistically significant upward shift from May onward reflects ongoing and unprecedented patient volumes. It remains difficult to tease apart the presumed lesser contribution of the triage hospitalist role and presumed larger contribution of high patient volumes on ED-2 increases.

An important complementary change was linkage between the EDAR order and our secure messaging software, creating a single source of admission and transfer requests, prompting early ED clinician consideration of factors that could result in alternative disposition, and ensuring a sustainable data source for TTA. The order did not replace direct communication and included guidance for how triage hospitalists should connect with their ED colleagues. Percentage of IM admissions with the EDAR order increased to 97%. Fallouts are attributed to admissions from non-ED sources (eg, referring facility, endoscopy suite transfers). This communication strategy has been expanded as the primary mechanism of initiating consultation requests between IM and all consulting services.

This intervention was successful from the perspective of ED clinicians. Improvements can be attributed to the simplified admission process, timely patient assessment, a perception that patients are better informed of the decision to admit, and the ability to communicate with the triage hospitalist. Emergency medicine APPs may not have experienced similar improvements due to ongoing perceptions of a hierarchical imbalance. Unfortunately, the small but not statistically significant worsening perspective among ED clinicians that “efficiency is more valued than good patient care” and the statistically significant worsening perspective that “admitting patients to a UNM IM hospitalist service is difficult” may be due to the triage hospitalist responsibility for identifying the roughly 25% of patients who are safe for an alternative disposition.

Internal medicine clinicians experienced no significant changes in attitudes. Underlying causes are likely multifactorial and a focus of ongoing work. Internal medicine residents experienced statistically significant improvements for “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians” and nonstatistically significant improvements for the other 3 domains, likely because the intervention enabled them to focus on clinical care rather than the administrative tasks and decision-making complexities inherent to the IM admission process. Internal medicine attendings reported a nonstatistically significant worsening in “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians,” which is possibly attributable to challenges connecting with ED attendings after being notified that a new admission is pending. Unfortunately, bedside handoff was not hardwired and is done sporadically. Independent of the data, we believe that the triage hospitalist role has facilitated closer ED-IM relationships by aligning clinical priorities, standardizing processes, improving communication, and reducing sources of hierarchical imbalance and conflict. We expected IM attendings and residents to experience some degree of resolution of the perception that “efficiency is more valued than good patient care” because of the addition of a dedicated triage role. Our data also suggest that IM attendings are less likely to agree that “patients are evaluated and treated within an appropriate time frame.” Both concerns may be linked to the triage hospitalist facing multiple admission and transfer sources with variable arrival rates and variable patient complexity, resulting in high cognitive load and the perception that individual tasks are not completed to the best of their abilities.

To our knowledge, this is the first study assessing the impact of the triage hospitalist role on throughput, clinical care quality, interprofessional practice, and clinician experience of care. In the cross-sectional survey of 10 academic medical centers, 8 had defined triage roles filled by IM attendings, while the remainder had IM attendings supervising trainees.⁹ A complete picture of the prevalence and varying approaches of triage hospitalists models is unknown. Howell et al¹² reported on an approach that reduced admission delays without a resulting increase in mortality or LOS. Our approach differed in several ways, with greater involvement of the triage hospitalist in determining a final admission decision, incorporation of EMR communication, and presence of existing throughput challenges preventing patients from moving seamlessly to an inpatient unit.

Conclusion

We believe this effort was successful for several reasons, including adherence to quality improvement best practices, such as engagement of stakeholders early on, the use of data to inform decision-making, the application of technology to hardwire process, and alignment with institutional priorities. Spread of this intervention will be limited by the financial investment required to start and maintain a triage hospitalist role. A primary limitation of this study is the confounding effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on our analysis. Next steps include identification of clinicians wishing to specialize in triage and expanding triage to include non-IM primary services. Additional research to optimize the triage hospitalist experience of care, as well as to measure improvements in patient-centered outcomes, is necessary.

Corresponding author: Christopher Bartlett, MD, MPH; MSC10 5550, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131; CSBartlett@salud.unm.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

From the Division of Hospital Medicine, University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque (Drs. Bartlett, Pizanis, Angeli, Lacy, and Rogers), Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque (Dr. Scott), and University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque (Ms. Baca).

ABSTRACT

Background: Emergency department (ED) crowding is associated with deleterious consequences for patient care and throughput. Admission delays worsen ED crowding. Time to admission (TTA)—the time between an ED admission request and internal medicine (IM) admission orders—can be shortened through implementation of a triage hospitalist role. Limited research is available highlighting the impact of triage hospitalists on throughput, care quality, interprofessional practice, and clinician experience of care.

Methods: A triage hospitalist role was piloted and implemented. Run charts were interpreted using accepted rules for deriving statistically significant conclusions. Statistical analysis was applied to interprofessional practice and clinician experience-of-care survey results.

Results: Following implementation, TTA decreased from 5 hours 19 minutes to 2 hours 8 minutes. Emergency department crowding increased from baseline. The reduction in TTA was associated with decreased time from ED arrival to IM admission request, no change in critical care transfers during the initial 24 hours, and increased admissions to inpatient status. Additionally, decreased TTA was associated with no change in referring hospital transfer rates and no change in hospital medicine length of stay. Interprofessional practice attitudes improved among ED clinicians but not IM clinicians. Clinician experience-of-care results were mixed.

Conclusion: A triage hospitalist role is an effective approach for mitigating admission delays, with no evident adverse clinical consequences. A triage hospitalist alone was incapable of resolving ED crowding issues without a complementary focus on downstream bottlenecks.

Keywords: triage hospitalist, admission delay, quality improvement.

Excess time to admission (TTA), defined as the time between an emergency department (ED) admission request and internal medicine (IM) admission orders, contributes to ED crowding, which is associated with deleterious impacts on patient care and throughput. Prior research has correlated ED crowding with an increase in length of stay (LOS)^1-3 and total inpatient cost,¹ as well as increased inpatient mortality, higher left-without-being-seen rates,⁴ delays in clinically meaningful care,^5,6 and poor patient and clinician satisfaction.^6,7 While various solutions have been proposed to alleviate ED crowding,⁸ excess TTA is one aspect that IM can directly address.

Like many institutions, ours is challenged by ED crowding. Time to admission is a known bottleneck. Underlying factors that contribute to excess TTA include varied admission request volumes in relation to fixed admitting capacity; learner-focused admitting processes; and unreliable strategies for determining whether patients are eligible for ED observation, transfer to an alternative facility, or admission to an alternative primary service.

To address excess TTA, we piloted then implemented a triage hospitalist role, envisioned as responsible for evaluating ED admission requests to IM, making timely determinations of admission appropriateness, and distributing patients to admitting teams. This intervention was selected because of its strengths, including the ability to standardize admission processes, improve the proximity of clinical decision-makers to patient care to reduce delays, and decrease hierarchical imbalances experienced by trainees, and also because the institution expressed a willingness to mitigate its primary weakness (ie, ongoing financial support for sustainability) should it prove successful.

Previously, a triage hospitalist has been defined as “a physician who assesses patients for admission, actively supporting the transition of the patient from the outpatient to the inpatient setting.”⁹ Velásquez et al surveyed 10 academic medical centers and identified significant heterogeneity in the roles and responsibilities of a triage hospitalist.⁹ Limited research addresses the impact of this role on throughput. One report described the volume and source of requests evaluated by a triage hospitalist and the frequency with which the triage hospitalists’ assessment of admission appropriateness aligned with that of the referring clinicians.¹⁰ No prior research is available demonstrating the impact of this role on care quality, interprofessional practice, or clinician experience of care. This article is intended to address these gaps in the literature.

Methods

Setting

The University of New Mexico Hospital has 537 beds and is the only level-1 trauma and academic medical center in the state. On average, approximately 8000 patients register to be seen in the ED per month. Roughly 600 are admitted to IM per month. This study coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, with low patient volumes in April 2020, overcapacity census starting in May 2020, and markedly high patient volumes in May/June 2020 and November/December 2020. All authors participated in project development, implementation, and analysis.

Preintervention IM Admission Process

When requesting IM admission, ED clinicians (resident, advanced practice provider [APP], or attending) contacted the IM triage person (typically an IM resident physician) by phone or in person. The IM triage person would then assess whether the patient needed critical care consultation (a unique and separate admission pathway), was eligible for ED observation or transfer to an outside hospital, or was clinically appropriate for IM subacute and floor admission. Pending admissions were evaluated in order of severity of illness or based on wait time if severity of illness was equal. Transfers from the intensive care unit (ICU) and referring hospitals were prioritized. Between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, patients were typically evaluated by junior team members, with subsequent presentation to an attending, at which time a final admission decision was made. At night, between 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, 2 IM residents managed triage, admissions, and transfers with an on-call attending physician.

Triage Hospitalist Pilot

Key changes made during the pilot included scheduling an IM attending to serve as triage hospitalist for all IM admission requests from the ED between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM; requiring that all IM admission requests be initiated by the ED attending and directed to the triage hospitalist; requiring ED attendings to enter into the electronic medical record (EMR) an admission request order (subsequently referred to as ED admission request [EDAR] order); and encouraging bedside handoffs. Eight pilot shifts were completed in November and December 2019.

Measures for Triage Hospitalist Pilot

Data collected included request type (new vs overflow from night) and patient details (name, medical record number). Two time points were recorded: when the EDAR order was entered and when admission orders were entered. Process indicators, including whether the EDAR order was entered and the final triage decision (eg, discharge, IM), were recorded. General feedback was requested at the end of each shift.

Phased Implementation of Triage Hospitalist Role

Triage hospitalist role implementation was approved following the pilot, with additional salary support funded by the institution. A new performance measure (time from admission request to admission order, self-identified goal < 3 hours) was approved by all parties.

In January 2020, the role was scheduled from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM daily. All hospitalists participated. Based on pilot feedback, IM admission requests could be initiated by an ED attending or an ED APP. In addition to admissions from the ED, the triage hospitalist was tasked with managing ICU, subspecialty, and referring facility transfer requests, as well as staffing some admissions with residents.

In March 2020, to create a single communication pathway while simultaneously hardwiring our measurement strategy, the EDAR order was modified such that it would automatically prompt a 1-way communication to the triage hospitalist using the institution’s secure messaging software. The message included patient name, medical record number, location, ED attending, reason for admission, and consultation priority, as well as 2 questions prompting ED clinicians to reflect on the most common reasons for the triage hospitalist to recommend against IM admission (eligible for admission to other primary service, transfer to alternative hospital).

In July 2020, the triage hospitalist role was scheduled 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to meet an institutional request. The schedule was divided into a daytime 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift, a 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM shift covered by a resident ward team IM attending with additional cross-cover responsibility, and a 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift covered by a nocturnist.

Measures for Triage Hospitalist Role

The primary outcome measure was TTA, defined as the time between EDAR (operationalized using EDAR order timestamp) and IM admission decision (operationalized using inpatient bed request order timestamp). Additional outcome measures included the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Electronic Clinical Quality Measure ED-2 (eCQM ED-2), defined as the median time from admit decision to departure from the ED for patients admitted to inpatient status.

Process measures included time between patient arrival to the ED (operationalized using ED registration timestamp) and EDAR and percentage of IM admissions with an EDAR order. Balancing measures included time between bed request order (referred to as the IM admission order) and subsequent admission orders. While the IM admission order prompts an inpatient clinical encounter and inpatient bed assignment, subsequent admission orders are necessary for clinical care. Additional balancing measures included ICU transfer rate within the first 24 hours, referring facility transfer frequency to IM (an indicator of access for patients at outside hospitals), average hospital medicine LOS (operationalized using ED registration timestamp to discharge timestamp), and admission status (inpatient vs observation).

An anonymous preintervention (December 2019) and postintervention (August 2020) survey focusing on interprofessional practice and clinician experience of care was used to obtain feedback from ED and IM attendings, APPs, and trainees. Emergency department clinicians were asked questions pertaining to their IM colleagues and vice versa. A Likert 5-point scale was used to respond.

Data Analysis

The preintervention period was June 1, 2019, to October 31, 2019; the pilot period was November 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019; the staged implementation period was January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020; and the postintervention period was July 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. Run charts for outcome, process, and balancing measures were interpreted using rules for deriving statistically significant conclusions.¹¹ Statistical analysis using a t test assuming unequal variances with P < . 05 to indicate statistical significance was applied to experience-of-care results. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

 

 

Results

Triage Hospitalist Pilot Time Period

Seventy-four entries were recorded, 56 (75.7%) reflecting new admission requests. Average time between EDAR order and IM admission order was 40 minutes. The EDAR order was entered into the EMR without prompting in 22 (29.7%) cases. In 56 (75.7%) cases, the final triage decision was IM admission. Other dispositions included 3 discharges, 4 transfers, 3 alternative primary service admissions, 1 ED observation, and 7 triage deferrals pending additional workup or stabilization.

Feedback substantiated several benefits, including improved coordination among IM, ED, and consultant clinicians, as well as early admission of seriously ill patients. Feedback also confirmed several expected challenges, including evidence of communication lapses, difficulty with transfer coordinator integration, difficulty hardwiring elements of the verbal and bedside handoff, and perceived high cognitive load for the triage hospitalist. Several unexpected issues included whether ED APPs can request admission independently and how reconsultation is expected to occur if admission is initially deferred.

Triage Hospitalist Implementation Time Period

Time to admission decreased from a baseline pre-pilot average of 5 hours 19 minutes (median, 4 hours 45 minutes) to a postintervention average of 2 hours 8 minutes, with a statistically significant downward shift post intervention (Figure 1).

ED-2 increased from a baseline average of 3 hours 40 minutes (median, 2 hours 39 minutes), with a statistically significant upward shift starting in May 2020 (Figure 2). Time between patient arrival to the ED and EDAR order decreased from a baseline average of 8 hours 47 minutes (median, 8 hours 37 minutes) to a postintervention average of 5 hours 57 minutes, with a statistically significant downward shift post intervention. Percentage of IM admissions with an EDAR order increased from a baseline average of 47% (median, 47%) to 97%, with a statistically significant upward shift starting in January 2020 (Figure 3).

There was no change in observed average time between IM admission order and subsequent admission orders pre and post intervention (16 minutes vs 18 minutes). However, there was a statistically significant shift up to an average of 40 minutes from January through June 2020, which then resolved. The percentage of patients transferred to the ICU within 24 hours of admission to IM did not change (1.1% pre vs 1.4% post intervention). Frequency of patients transferred in from a referring facility also did not change (26/month vs 22/month). Average hospital medicine LOS did not change to a statistically significant degree (6.48 days vs 6.62 days). The percentage of inpatient admissions relative to short stays increased from a baseline of 74.0% (median, 73.6%) to a postintervention average of 82.4%, with a statistically significant shift upward starting March 2020.

Regarding interprofessional practice and clinician experience of care, 122 of 309 preintervention surveys (39.5% response rate) and 98 of 309 postintervention surveys (31.7% response rate) were completed. Pre- and postintervention responses were not linked.

Regarding interprofessional practice, EM residents and EM attendings experienced statistically significant improvements in all interprofessional practice domains (Table 1). Emergency medicine APPs experienced statistically significant improvements post intervention with “I am satisfied with the level of communication with IM hospitalist clinicians” and “Interactions with IM hospitalist clinicians are collaborative” and nonstatistically significant improvement in “Interactions with IM hospitalist clinicians are professional” and “IM hospitalist clinicians treat me with respect.” All EM groups experienced a small but not statistically significant worsening for “Efficiency is more valued than good patient care.” Internal medicine residents experienced statistically significant improvements for “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians” and nonstatistically significant improvements for the other 3 domains. Internal medicine attendings experienced nonstatistically significant improvements for “My interactions with ED clinicians are professional,” “EM clinicians treat me with respect,” and “Interactions with EM clinicians are collaborative,” but a nonstatistically significant worsening in “I am satisfied with level of communication with EM clinicians.” Internal medicine residents experienced a nonstatistically significant worsening in “Efficiency is more valued than good patient care,” while IM attendings experienced a nonstatistically significant improvement.

For clinician experience of care, EM residents (P < .001) and attendings (P < .001) experienced statistically significant improvements in “Patients are well informed and involved in the decision to admit,” whereas IM residents and attendings, as well as EM APPs, experienced nonstatistically significant improvements (Table 2). All groups except IM attendings experienced a statistically significant improvement (IM resident P = .011, EM resident P < .001, EM APP P = .001, EM attending P < .001) in “I believe that my patients are evaluated and treated within an appropriate time frame.” Internal medicine attendings felt that this indicator worsened to a nonstatistically significant degree. Post intervention, EM groups experienced a statistically significant worsening in “The process of admitting patients to a UNM IM hospitalist service is difficult,” while IM groups experienced a nonstatistically significant worsening.

Discussion

Implementation of the triage hospitalist role led to a significant reduction in average TTA, from 5 hours 19 minutes to 2 hours 8 minutes. Performance has been sustained at 1 hour 42 minutes on average over the past 6 months. The triage hospitalist was successful at reducing TTA because of their focus on evaluating new admission and transfer requests, deferring other admission responsibilities to on-call admitting teams. Early admission led to no increase in ICU transfers or hospitalist LOS. To ensure that earlier admission reflected improved timeliness of care and that new sources of delay were not being created, we measured the time between IM admission and subsequent admission orders. A statistically significant increase to 40 minutes from January through June 2020 was attributable to the hospitalist acclimating to their new role and the need to standardize workflow. This delay subsequently resolved. An additional benefit of the triage hospitalist was an increase in the proportion of inpatient admissions compared with short stays.

ED-2, an indicator of ED crowding, increased from 3 hours 40 minutes, with a statistically significant upward shift starting May 2020. Increasing ED-2 associated with the triage hospitalist role makes intuitive sense. Patients are admitted 2 hours 40 minutes earlier in their hospital course while downstream bottlenecks preventing patient movement to an inpatient bed remained unchanged. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic complicates interpretation of ED-2 because the measure reflects institutional capacity to match demand for inpatient beds. Fewer ED registrations and lower hospital medicine census (and resulting inpatient bed availability) in April 2020 during the first COVID-19 surge coincided with an ED-2 nadir of 1 hour 46 minutes. The statistically significant upward shift from May onward reflects ongoing and unprecedented patient volumes. It remains difficult to tease apart the presumed lesser contribution of the triage hospitalist role and presumed larger contribution of high patient volumes on ED-2 increases.

An important complementary change was linkage between the EDAR order and our secure messaging software, creating a single source of admission and transfer requests, prompting early ED clinician consideration of factors that could result in alternative disposition, and ensuring a sustainable data source for TTA. The order did not replace direct communication and included guidance for how triage hospitalists should connect with their ED colleagues. Percentage of IM admissions with the EDAR order increased to 97%. Fallouts are attributed to admissions from non-ED sources (eg, referring facility, endoscopy suite transfers). This communication strategy has been expanded as the primary mechanism of initiating consultation requests between IM and all consulting services.

This intervention was successful from the perspective of ED clinicians. Improvements can be attributed to the simplified admission process, timely patient assessment, a perception that patients are better informed of the decision to admit, and the ability to communicate with the triage hospitalist. Emergency medicine APPs may not have experienced similar improvements due to ongoing perceptions of a hierarchical imbalance. Unfortunately, the small but not statistically significant worsening perspective among ED clinicians that “efficiency is more valued than good patient care” and the statistically significant worsening perspective that “admitting patients to a UNM IM hospitalist service is difficult” may be due to the triage hospitalist responsibility for identifying the roughly 25% of patients who are safe for an alternative disposition.

Internal medicine clinicians experienced no significant changes in attitudes. Underlying causes are likely multifactorial and a focus of ongoing work. Internal medicine residents experienced statistically significant improvements for “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians” and nonstatistically significant improvements for the other 3 domains, likely because the intervention enabled them to focus on clinical care rather than the administrative tasks and decision-making complexities inherent to the IM admission process. Internal medicine attendings reported a nonstatistically significant worsening in “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians,” which is possibly attributable to challenges connecting with ED attendings after being notified that a new admission is pending. Unfortunately, bedside handoff was not hardwired and is done sporadically. Independent of the data, we believe that the triage hospitalist role has facilitated closer ED-IM relationships by aligning clinical priorities, standardizing processes, improving communication, and reducing sources of hierarchical imbalance and conflict. We expected IM attendings and residents to experience some degree of resolution of the perception that “efficiency is more valued than good patient care” because of the addition of a dedicated triage role. Our data also suggest that IM attendings are less likely to agree that “patients are evaluated and treated within an appropriate time frame.” Both concerns may be linked to the triage hospitalist facing multiple admission and transfer sources with variable arrival rates and variable patient complexity, resulting in high cognitive load and the perception that individual tasks are not completed to the best of their abilities.

To our knowledge, this is the first study assessing the impact of the triage hospitalist role on throughput, clinical care quality, interprofessional practice, and clinician experience of care. In the cross-sectional survey of 10 academic medical centers, 8 had defined triage roles filled by IM attendings, while the remainder had IM attendings supervising trainees.⁹ A complete picture of the prevalence and varying approaches of triage hospitalists models is unknown. Howell et al¹² reported on an approach that reduced admission delays without a resulting increase in mortality or LOS. Our approach differed in several ways, with greater involvement of the triage hospitalist in determining a final admission decision, incorporation of EMR communication, and presence of existing throughput challenges preventing patients from moving seamlessly to an inpatient unit.

Conclusion

We believe this effort was successful for several reasons, including adherence to quality improvement best practices, such as engagement of stakeholders early on, the use of data to inform decision-making, the application of technology to hardwire process, and alignment with institutional priorities. Spread of this intervention will be limited by the financial investment required to start and maintain a triage hospitalist role. A primary limitation of this study is the confounding effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on our analysis. Next steps include identification of clinicians wishing to specialize in triage and expanding triage to include non-IM primary services. Additional research to optimize the triage hospitalist experience of care, as well as to measure improvements in patient-centered outcomes, is necessary.

Corresponding author: Christopher Bartlett, MD, MPH; MSC10 5550, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131; CSBartlett@salud.unm.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

From the Division of Hospital Medicine, University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque (Drs. Bartlett, Pizanis, Angeli, Lacy, and Rogers), Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque (Dr. Scott), and University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque (Ms. Baca).

ABSTRACT

Background: Emergency department (ED) crowding is associated with deleterious consequences for patient care and throughput. Admission delays worsen ED crowding. Time to admission (TTA)—the time between an ED admission request and internal medicine (IM) admission orders—can be shortened through implementation of a triage hospitalist role. Limited research is available highlighting the impact of triage hospitalists on throughput, care quality, interprofessional practice, and clinician experience of care.

Methods: A triage hospitalist role was piloted and implemented. Run charts were interpreted using accepted rules for deriving statistically significant conclusions. Statistical analysis was applied to interprofessional practice and clinician experience-of-care survey results.

Results: Following implementation, TTA decreased from 5 hours 19 minutes to 2 hours 8 minutes. Emergency department crowding increased from baseline. The reduction in TTA was associated with decreased time from ED arrival to IM admission request, no change in critical care transfers during the initial 24 hours, and increased admissions to inpatient status. Additionally, decreased TTA was associated with no change in referring hospital transfer rates and no change in hospital medicine length of stay. Interprofessional practice attitudes improved among ED clinicians but not IM clinicians. Clinician experience-of-care results were mixed.

Conclusion: A triage hospitalist role is an effective approach for mitigating admission delays, with no evident adverse clinical consequences. A triage hospitalist alone was incapable of resolving ED crowding issues without a complementary focus on downstream bottlenecks.

Keywords: triage hospitalist, admission delay, quality improvement.

Excess time to admission (TTA), defined as the time between an emergency department (ED) admission request and internal medicine (IM) admission orders, contributes to ED crowding, which is associated with deleterious impacts on patient care and throughput. Prior research has correlated ED crowding with an increase in length of stay (LOS)^1-3 and total inpatient cost,¹ as well as increased inpatient mortality, higher left-without-being-seen rates,⁴ delays in clinically meaningful care,^5,6 and poor patient and clinician satisfaction.^6,7 While various solutions have been proposed to alleviate ED crowding,⁸ excess TTA is one aspect that IM can directly address.

Like many institutions, ours is challenged by ED crowding. Time to admission is a known bottleneck. Underlying factors that contribute to excess TTA include varied admission request volumes in relation to fixed admitting capacity; learner-focused admitting processes; and unreliable strategies for determining whether patients are eligible for ED observation, transfer to an alternative facility, or admission to an alternative primary service.

To address excess TTA, we piloted then implemented a triage hospitalist role, envisioned as responsible for evaluating ED admission requests to IM, making timely determinations of admission appropriateness, and distributing patients to admitting teams. This intervention was selected because of its strengths, including the ability to standardize admission processes, improve the proximity of clinical decision-makers to patient care to reduce delays, and decrease hierarchical imbalances experienced by trainees, and also because the institution expressed a willingness to mitigate its primary weakness (ie, ongoing financial support for sustainability) should it prove successful.

Previously, a triage hospitalist has been defined as “a physician who assesses patients for admission, actively supporting the transition of the patient from the outpatient to the inpatient setting.”⁹ Velásquez et al surveyed 10 academic medical centers and identified significant heterogeneity in the roles and responsibilities of a triage hospitalist.⁹ Limited research addresses the impact of this role on throughput. One report described the volume and source of requests evaluated by a triage hospitalist and the frequency with which the triage hospitalists’ assessment of admission appropriateness aligned with that of the referring clinicians.¹⁰ No prior research is available demonstrating the impact of this role on care quality, interprofessional practice, or clinician experience of care. This article is intended to address these gaps in the literature.

Methods

Setting

The University of New Mexico Hospital has 537 beds and is the only level-1 trauma and academic medical center in the state. On average, approximately 8000 patients register to be seen in the ED per month. Roughly 600 are admitted to IM per month. This study coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, with low patient volumes in April 2020, overcapacity census starting in May 2020, and markedly high patient volumes in May/June 2020 and November/December 2020. All authors participated in project development, implementation, and analysis.

Preintervention IM Admission Process

When requesting IM admission, ED clinicians (resident, advanced practice provider [APP], or attending) contacted the IM triage person (typically an IM resident physician) by phone or in person. The IM triage person would then assess whether the patient needed critical care consultation (a unique and separate admission pathway), was eligible for ED observation or transfer to an outside hospital, or was clinically appropriate for IM subacute and floor admission. Pending admissions were evaluated in order of severity of illness or based on wait time if severity of illness was equal. Transfers from the intensive care unit (ICU) and referring hospitals were prioritized. Between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, patients were typically evaluated by junior team members, with subsequent presentation to an attending, at which time a final admission decision was made. At night, between 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, 2 IM residents managed triage, admissions, and transfers with an on-call attending physician.

Triage Hospitalist Pilot

Key changes made during the pilot included scheduling an IM attending to serve as triage hospitalist for all IM admission requests from the ED between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM; requiring that all IM admission requests be initiated by the ED attending and directed to the triage hospitalist; requiring ED attendings to enter into the electronic medical record (EMR) an admission request order (subsequently referred to as ED admission request [EDAR] order); and encouraging bedside handoffs. Eight pilot shifts were completed in November and December 2019.

Measures for Triage Hospitalist Pilot

Data collected included request type (new vs overflow from night) and patient details (name, medical record number). Two time points were recorded: when the EDAR order was entered and when admission orders were entered. Process indicators, including whether the EDAR order was entered and the final triage decision (eg, discharge, IM), were recorded. General feedback was requested at the end of each shift.

Phased Implementation of Triage Hospitalist Role

Triage hospitalist role implementation was approved following the pilot, with additional salary support funded by the institution. A new performance measure (time from admission request to admission order, self-identified goal < 3 hours) was approved by all parties.

In January 2020, the role was scheduled from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM daily. All hospitalists participated. Based on pilot feedback, IM admission requests could be initiated by an ED attending or an ED APP. In addition to admissions from the ED, the triage hospitalist was tasked with managing ICU, subspecialty, and referring facility transfer requests, as well as staffing some admissions with residents.

In March 2020, to create a single communication pathway while simultaneously hardwiring our measurement strategy, the EDAR order was modified such that it would automatically prompt a 1-way communication to the triage hospitalist using the institution’s secure messaging software. The message included patient name, medical record number, location, ED attending, reason for admission, and consultation priority, as well as 2 questions prompting ED clinicians to reflect on the most common reasons for the triage hospitalist to recommend against IM admission (eligible for admission to other primary service, transfer to alternative hospital).

In July 2020, the triage hospitalist role was scheduled 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to meet an institutional request. The schedule was divided into a daytime 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift, a 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM shift covered by a resident ward team IM attending with additional cross-cover responsibility, and a 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift covered by a nocturnist.

Measures for Triage Hospitalist Role

The primary outcome measure was TTA, defined as the time between EDAR (operationalized using EDAR order timestamp) and IM admission decision (operationalized using inpatient bed request order timestamp). Additional outcome measures included the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Electronic Clinical Quality Measure ED-2 (eCQM ED-2), defined as the median time from admit decision to departure from the ED for patients admitted to inpatient status.

Process measures included time between patient arrival to the ED (operationalized using ED registration timestamp) and EDAR and percentage of IM admissions with an EDAR order. Balancing measures included time between bed request order (referred to as the IM admission order) and subsequent admission orders. While the IM admission order prompts an inpatient clinical encounter and inpatient bed assignment, subsequent admission orders are necessary for clinical care. Additional balancing measures included ICU transfer rate within the first 24 hours, referring facility transfer frequency to IM (an indicator of access for patients at outside hospitals), average hospital medicine LOS (operationalized using ED registration timestamp to discharge timestamp), and admission status (inpatient vs observation).

An anonymous preintervention (December 2019) and postintervention (August 2020) survey focusing on interprofessional practice and clinician experience of care was used to obtain feedback from ED and IM attendings, APPs, and trainees. Emergency department clinicians were asked questions pertaining to their IM colleagues and vice versa. A Likert 5-point scale was used to respond.

Data Analysis

The preintervention period was June 1, 2019, to October 31, 2019; the pilot period was November 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019; the staged implementation period was January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020; and the postintervention period was July 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. Run charts for outcome, process, and balancing measures were interpreted using rules for deriving statistically significant conclusions.¹¹ Statistical analysis using a t test assuming unequal variances with P < . 05 to indicate statistical significance was applied to experience-of-care results. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

 

 

Results

Triage Hospitalist Pilot Time Period

Seventy-four entries were recorded, 56 (75.7%) reflecting new admission requests. Average time between EDAR order and IM admission order was 40 minutes. The EDAR order was entered into the EMR without prompting in 22 (29.7%) cases. In 56 (75.7%) cases, the final triage decision was IM admission. Other dispositions included 3 discharges, 4 transfers, 3 alternative primary service admissions, 1 ED observation, and 7 triage deferrals pending additional workup or stabilization.

Feedback substantiated several benefits, including improved coordination among IM, ED, and consultant clinicians, as well as early admission of seriously ill patients. Feedback also confirmed several expected challenges, including evidence of communication lapses, difficulty with transfer coordinator integration, difficulty hardwiring elements of the verbal and bedside handoff, and perceived high cognitive load for the triage hospitalist. Several unexpected issues included whether ED APPs can request admission independently and how reconsultation is expected to occur if admission is initially deferred.

Triage Hospitalist Implementation Time Period

Time to admission decreased from a baseline pre-pilot average of 5 hours 19 minutes (median, 4 hours 45 minutes) to a postintervention average of 2 hours 8 minutes, with a statistically significant downward shift post intervention (Figure 1).

ED-2 increased from a baseline average of 3 hours 40 minutes (median, 2 hours 39 minutes), with a statistically significant upward shift starting in May 2020 (Figure 2). Time between patient arrival to the ED and EDAR order decreased from a baseline average of 8 hours 47 minutes (median, 8 hours 37 minutes) to a postintervention average of 5 hours 57 minutes, with a statistically significant downward shift post intervention. Percentage of IM admissions with an EDAR order increased from a baseline average of 47% (median, 47%) to 97%, with a statistically significant upward shift starting in January 2020 (Figure 3).

There was no change in observed average time between IM admission order and subsequent admission orders pre and post intervention (16 minutes vs 18 minutes). However, there was a statistically significant shift up to an average of 40 minutes from January through June 2020, which then resolved. The percentage of patients transferred to the ICU within 24 hours of admission to IM did not change (1.1% pre vs 1.4% post intervention). Frequency of patients transferred in from a referring facility also did not change (26/month vs 22/month). Average hospital medicine LOS did not change to a statistically significant degree (6.48 days vs 6.62 days). The percentage of inpatient admissions relative to short stays increased from a baseline of 74.0% (median, 73.6%) to a postintervention average of 82.4%, with a statistically significant shift upward starting March 2020.

Regarding interprofessional practice and clinician experience of care, 122 of 309 preintervention surveys (39.5% response rate) and 98 of 309 postintervention surveys (31.7% response rate) were completed. Pre- and postintervention responses were not linked.

Regarding interprofessional practice, EM residents and EM attendings experienced statistically significant improvements in all interprofessional practice domains (Table 1). Emergency medicine APPs experienced statistically significant improvements post intervention with “I am satisfied with the level of communication with IM hospitalist clinicians” and “Interactions with IM hospitalist clinicians are collaborative” and nonstatistically significant improvement in “Interactions with IM hospitalist clinicians are professional” and “IM hospitalist clinicians treat me with respect.” All EM groups experienced a small but not statistically significant worsening for “Efficiency is more valued than good patient care.” Internal medicine residents experienced statistically significant improvements for “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians” and nonstatistically significant improvements for the other 3 domains. Internal medicine attendings experienced nonstatistically significant improvements for “My interactions with ED clinicians are professional,” “EM clinicians treat me with respect,” and “Interactions with EM clinicians are collaborative,” but a nonstatistically significant worsening in “I am satisfied with level of communication with EM clinicians.” Internal medicine residents experienced a nonstatistically significant worsening in “Efficiency is more valued than good patient care,” while IM attendings experienced a nonstatistically significant improvement.

For clinician experience of care, EM residents (P < .001) and attendings (P < .001) experienced statistically significant improvements in “Patients are well informed and involved in the decision to admit,” whereas IM residents and attendings, as well as EM APPs, experienced nonstatistically significant improvements (Table 2). All groups except IM attendings experienced a statistically significant improvement (IM resident P = .011, EM resident P < .001, EM APP P = .001, EM attending P < .001) in “I believe that my patients are evaluated and treated within an appropriate time frame.” Internal medicine attendings felt that this indicator worsened to a nonstatistically significant degree. Post intervention, EM groups experienced a statistically significant worsening in “The process of admitting patients to a UNM IM hospitalist service is difficult,” while IM groups experienced a nonstatistically significant worsening.

Discussion

Implementation of the triage hospitalist role led to a significant reduction in average TTA, from 5 hours 19 minutes to 2 hours 8 minutes. Performance has been sustained at 1 hour 42 minutes on average over the past 6 months. The triage hospitalist was successful at reducing TTA because of their focus on evaluating new admission and transfer requests, deferring other admission responsibilities to on-call admitting teams. Early admission led to no increase in ICU transfers or hospitalist LOS. To ensure that earlier admission reflected improved timeliness of care and that new sources of delay were not being created, we measured the time between IM admission and subsequent admission orders. A statistically significant increase to 40 minutes from January through June 2020 was attributable to the hospitalist acclimating to their new role and the need to standardize workflow. This delay subsequently resolved. An additional benefit of the triage hospitalist was an increase in the proportion of inpatient admissions compared with short stays.

ED-2, an indicator of ED crowding, increased from 3 hours 40 minutes, with a statistically significant upward shift starting May 2020. Increasing ED-2 associated with the triage hospitalist role makes intuitive sense. Patients are admitted 2 hours 40 minutes earlier in their hospital course while downstream bottlenecks preventing patient movement to an inpatient bed remained unchanged. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic complicates interpretation of ED-2 because the measure reflects institutional capacity to match demand for inpatient beds. Fewer ED registrations and lower hospital medicine census (and resulting inpatient bed availability) in April 2020 during the first COVID-19 surge coincided with an ED-2 nadir of 1 hour 46 minutes. The statistically significant upward shift from May onward reflects ongoing and unprecedented patient volumes. It remains difficult to tease apart the presumed lesser contribution of the triage hospitalist role and presumed larger contribution of high patient volumes on ED-2 increases.

An important complementary change was linkage between the EDAR order and our secure messaging software, creating a single source of admission and transfer requests, prompting early ED clinician consideration of factors that could result in alternative disposition, and ensuring a sustainable data source for TTA. The order did not replace direct communication and included guidance for how triage hospitalists should connect with their ED colleagues. Percentage of IM admissions with the EDAR order increased to 97%. Fallouts are attributed to admissions from non-ED sources (eg, referring facility, endoscopy suite transfers). This communication strategy has been expanded as the primary mechanism of initiating consultation requests between IM and all consulting services.

This intervention was successful from the perspective of ED clinicians. Improvements can be attributed to the simplified admission process, timely patient assessment, a perception that patients are better informed of the decision to admit, and the ability to communicate with the triage hospitalist. Emergency medicine APPs may not have experienced similar improvements due to ongoing perceptions of a hierarchical imbalance. Unfortunately, the small but not statistically significant worsening perspective among ED clinicians that “efficiency is more valued than good patient care” and the statistically significant worsening perspective that “admitting patients to a UNM IM hospitalist service is difficult” may be due to the triage hospitalist responsibility for identifying the roughly 25% of patients who are safe for an alternative disposition.

Internal medicine clinicians experienced no significant changes in attitudes. Underlying causes are likely multifactorial and a focus of ongoing work. Internal medicine residents experienced statistically significant improvements for “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians” and nonstatistically significant improvements for the other 3 domains, likely because the intervention enabled them to focus on clinical care rather than the administrative tasks and decision-making complexities inherent to the IM admission process. Internal medicine attendings reported a nonstatistically significant worsening in “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians,” which is possibly attributable to challenges connecting with ED attendings after being notified that a new admission is pending. Unfortunately, bedside handoff was not hardwired and is done sporadically. Independent of the data, we believe that the triage hospitalist role has facilitated closer ED-IM relationships by aligning clinical priorities, standardizing processes, improving communication, and reducing sources of hierarchical imbalance and conflict. We expected IM attendings and residents to experience some degree of resolution of the perception that “efficiency is more valued than good patient care” because of the addition of a dedicated triage role. Our data also suggest that IM attendings are less likely to agree that “patients are evaluated and treated within an appropriate time frame.” Both concerns may be linked to the triage hospitalist facing multiple admission and transfer sources with variable arrival rates and variable patient complexity, resulting in high cognitive load and the perception that individual tasks are not completed to the best of their abilities.

To our knowledge, this is the first study assessing the impact of the triage hospitalist role on throughput, clinical care quality, interprofessional practice, and clinician experience of care. In the cross-sectional survey of 10 academic medical centers, 8 had defined triage roles filled by IM attendings, while the remainder had IM attendings supervising trainees.⁹ A complete picture of the prevalence and varying approaches of triage hospitalists models is unknown. Howell et al¹² reported on an approach that reduced admission delays without a resulting increase in mortality or LOS. Our approach differed in several ways, with greater involvement of the triage hospitalist in determining a final admission decision, incorporation of EMR communication, and presence of existing throughput challenges preventing patients from moving seamlessly to an inpatient unit.

Conclusion

We believe this effort was successful for several reasons, including adherence to quality improvement best practices, such as engagement of stakeholders early on, the use of data to inform decision-making, the application of technology to hardwire process, and alignment with institutional priorities. Spread of this intervention will be limited by the financial investment required to start and maintain a triage hospitalist role. A primary limitation of this study is the confounding effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on our analysis. Next steps include identification of clinicians wishing to specialize in triage and expanding triage to include non-IM primary services. Additional research to optimize the triage hospitalist experience of care, as well as to measure improvements in patient-centered outcomes, is necessary.

Corresponding author: Christopher Bartlett, MD, MPH; MSC10 5550, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131; CSBartlett@salud.unm.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

From Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.

ABSTRACT

Objective: Severe hypoglycemia can alter consciousness and inhibit oral intake, requiring nonoral rescue glucagon administration to raise blood glucose to safe levels. Thus, current guidelines recommend glucagon kit prescriptions for all patients at risk for hypoglycemia, especially patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). At the diabetes outpatient clinic at a tertiary medical center, glucagon prescription rates for T1DM patients remained suboptimal.

Methods: A quality improvement team analyzed patient flow through the endocrinology clinic and identified the lack of a systematic approach to assessing patients for home glucagon prescriptions as a major barrier. The team implemented 2 successive interventions. First, intake staff indicated whether patients lacked an active glucagon prescription on patients’ face sheets. Second, clinical pharmacists reviewed patient prescriptions prior to scheduled visits and pended glucagon orders for patients without active prescriptions. Of note, when a pharmacy pends an order, the pharmacist enters an order into the electronic health record (EHR) but does not sign it. The order is saved for a provider to later access and sign. A statistical process control p-chart tracked monthly prescription rates.

Results: After 7 months, glucagon prescription rates increased from a baseline of 59% to 72% as the new steady state.

Conclusion: This project demonstrates that a series of interventions can improve glucagon prescription rates for patients at risk for hypoglycemia. The project’s success stemmed from combining an EHR-generated report and interdisciplinary staff members’ involvement. Other endocrinology clinics may incorporate this approach to implement similar processes and improve glucagon prescription rates.

Keywords: diabetes, hypoglycemia, glucagon, quality improvement, prescription rates, medical student.

Hypoglycemia limits the management of blood glucose in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Severe hypoglycemia, characterized by altered mental status (AMS) or physical status requiring assistance for recovery, can lead to seizure, coma, or death.¹ Hypoglycemia in diabetes often occurs iatrogenically, primarily from insulin therapy: 30% to 40% of patients with T1DM and 10% to 30% of patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus experience severe hypoglycemia in a given year.² One study estimated that nearly 100,000 emergency department visits for hypoglycemia occur in the United States per year, with almost one-third resulting in hospitalization.³

Most patients self-treat mild hypoglycemia with oral intake of carbohydrates. However, since hypoglycemia-induced nausea and AMS can make oral intake more difficult or prevent it entirely, patients require a treatment that family, friends, or coworkers can administer. Rescue glucagon, prescribed as intramuscular injections or intranasal sprays, raises blood glucose to safe levels in 10 to 15 minutes.⁴ Therefore, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends glucagon for all patients at risk for hypoglycemia, especially patients with T1DM.⁵ Despite the ADA’s recommendation, current evidence suggests suboptimal glucagon prescription rates, particularly in patients with T1DM. One study reported that, although 85% of US adults with T1DM had formerly been prescribed glucagon, only 68% of these patients (57.8% overall) had a current prescription.⁴ Few quality improvement efforts have tackled increasing prescription rates. Prior successful studies have attempted to do so via pharmacist-led educational interventions for providers⁶ and via electronic health record (EHR) notifications for patient risk.⁷ The project described here aimed to expand upon prior studies with a quality improvement project to increase glucagon prescription rates among patients at risk for severe hypoglycemia.

Methods

Setting

This study was conducted at a tertiary medical center’s outpatient diabetes clinic; the clinic treats more than 9500 patients with DM annually, more than 2700 of whom have T1DM. In the clinic’s multidisciplinary care model, patients typically follow up every 3 to 6 months, alternating between appointments with fellowship-trained endocrinologists and advanced practice providers (APPs). In addition to having certified diabetes educators, the clinic employs 2 dedicated clinical pharmacists whose duties include assisting providers in prescription management, helping patients identify the most affordable way to obtain their medications, and educating patients regarding their medications.

Patient flow through the clinic involves close coordination with multiple health professionals. Medical assistants (MAs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) perform patient intake, document vital signs, and ask screening questions, including dates of patients’ last hemoglobin A1c tests and diabetic eye examination. After intake, the provider (endocrinologist or APP) sees the patient. Once the appointment concludes, patients proceed to the in-house phlebotomy laboratory as indicated and check out with administrative staff to schedule future appointments.

Project Design

From August 2021 through June 2022, teams of medical students at the tertiary center completed this project as part of a 4-week integrated science course on diabetes. Longitudinal supervision by an endocrinology faculty member ensured project continuity. The project employed the Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) method for reporting.⁸

Stakeholder analysis took place in August 2021. Surveyed clinic providers identified patients with T1DM as the most appropriate population and the outpatient setting as the most appropriate site for intervention. A fishbone diagram illustrated stakeholders to interview, impacts of the clinical flow, information technology to leverage, and potential holes contributing to glucagon prescription conversations falling through.

Interviews with T1DM patients, clinical pharmacists, APPs, MAs/LPNs, and endocrinologists identified barriers to glucagon prescription. The interviews and a process map analysis revealed several themes. While patients and providers understood the importance of glucagon prescription, barriers included glucagon cost, prescription fill burden, and, most pervasively, providers forgetting to ask patients whether they have a glucagon prescription and failing to consider glucagon prescriptions.For this study, each team of medical students worked on the project for 1 month. The revolving teams of medical students met approximately once per week for the duration of the project to review data and implementation phases. At the end of each month, the current team recorded the steps they had taken and information they had analyzed in a shared document, prepared short videos summarizing the work completed, and proposed next steps for the incoming team to support knowledge generation and continuity. Students from outgoing teams were available to contact if incoming teams had any questions.

Interventions

In the first implementation phase, which was carried out over 4 months (December 2021 to March 2022), the patient care manager trained MAs/LPNs to write a glucagon reminder on patients’ face sheets. At check-in, MAs/LPNs screened for a current glucagon prescription. If the patient lacked an up-to-date prescription, the MAs/LPNs hand-wrote a reminder on the patient’s face sheet, which was given to the provider immediately prior to seeing the patient. The clinical staff received an email explaining the intervention beforehand; the daily intake staff email included project reminders.

In the second implementation phase, which started in April 2022, had been carried out for 3 months at the time of this report, and is ongoing, clinical pharmacists have been pending glucagon prescriptions ahead of patients’ appointments. Each week, the pharmacists generate an EHR report that includes all patients with T1DM who have attended at least 1 appointment at the clinic within the past year (regardless of whether each patient possessed an active and up-to-date glucagon prescription) and the date of each patient’s next appointment. For patients who have an appointment in the upcoming week and lack an active glucagon prescription, the pharmacists run a benefits investigation to determine the insurance-preferred glucagon formulation and then pend the appropriate order in the EHR. During the patient’s next appointment, the EHR prompts the provider to review and sign the pharmacist’s pended order (Figure 1).

Measures

This project used a process measure in its analysis: the percentage of patients with T1DM with an active glucagon prescription at the time of their visit to the clinic. The patient population included all patients with a visit diagnosis of T1DM seen by an APP at the clinic during the time scope of the project. The project’s scope was limited to patients seen by APPs to help standardize appointment comparisons, with the intent to expand to the endocrinologist staff if the interventions proved successful with APPs. Patients seen by APPs were also under the care of endocrinologists and seen by them during this time period. The project excluded no patients.

Each individual patient appointment represented a data point: a time at which an APP could prescribe glucagon for a patient with T1DM. Thus, a single patient who had multiple appointments during the study period would generate multiple data points in this study.

Specific Aims and Analysis

For all T1DM patients at the clinic seen by an APP during the study period, the project aimed to increase the percentage with an active and up-to-date glucagon prescription from 58.8% to 70% over a 6-month period, a relatively modest goal appropriate for the time constraints and that would be similar to the changes seen in previous work in the same clinic.⁹

This project analyzed de-identified data using a statistical process control chart (specifically, a p-chart) and standard rules for assessing special-cause signals and thus statistical significance.

Results

Baseline data were collected from October 2020 to September 2021. During this time, APPs saw 1959 T1DM patients, of whom 1152 (58.8%) had an active glucagon prescription at the time of visit and 41.2% lacked a glucagon prescription (Figure 2). During the 4 months of implementation phase 1, analysis of the statistical process control chart identified no special cause signal. Therefore, the project moved to a second intervention with implementation phase 2 in April 2022 (3 months of postintervention data are reported). During the entire intervention, 731 of 1080 (67.7%) patients had a glucagon prescription. The average for the last 2 months, with phase 2 fully implemented, was 72.3%, surpassing the 70% threshold identified as the study target (Figure 3).

Interviews with clinical pharmacists during implementation phase 2 revealed that generating the EHR report and reviewing patients with glucagon prescription indications resulted in variable daily workload increases ranging from approximately 15 to 45 minutes, depending on the number of patients requiring intervention that day. During the first month of implementation phase 2, the EHR report required repeated modification to fulfill the intervention needs. Staffing changes over the intervention period potentially impacted the pattern of glucagon prescribing. This project excluded the 2 months immediately prior to implementation phase 1, from October 2021 to November 2021, because the staff had begun having discussions about this initiative, which may have influenced glucagon prescription rates.

Discussion

This project evaluated 2 interventions over the course of 7 months to determine their efficacy in increasing the frequency of glucagon prescribing for individuals with T1DM in an endocrinology clinic. These interventions were associated with increased prescribing from a baseline of 58.8% to 72.3% over the last 2 months of the project. In the first intervention, performed over 4 months, MAs/LPNs wrote reminders on the appropriate patients’ face sheets, which were given to providers prior to appointments. This project adapted the approach from a successful previous quality improvement study on increasing microalbuminuria screening rates.⁹ However, glucagon prescription rates did not increase significantly, likely because, unlike with microalbuminuria screenings, MAs/LPNs could not pend glucagon prescriptions.

In the second intervention, performed over 3 months, clinical pharmacists pended glucagon prescriptions for identified eligible patients. Glucagon prescribing rates increased considerably, with rates of 72.3% and 72.4% over May and June 2021, respectively, indicating that the intervention successfully established a new higher steady state of proportion of patient visits with active glucagon prescriptions compared with the baseline rate of 58.8%. Given that the baseline data for this clinic were higher than the baseline glucagon prescription rates reported in other studies (49.3%),¹⁰ this intervention could have a major impact in clinics with a baseline more comparable to conditions in that study.

This project demonstrated how a combination of an EHR-generated report and interdisciplinary involvement provides an actionable process to increase glucagon prescription rates for patients with T1DM. Compared to prior studies that implemented passive interventions, such as a note template that relies on provider adherence,⁷ this project emphasizes the benefit of implementing an active systems-level intervention with a pre-pended order.

Regarding prior studies, 1 large, 2-arm study of clinical pharmacists proactively pending orders for appropriate patients showed a 56% glucagon prescription rate in the intervention group, compared with 0.9% in the control group with no pharmacist intervention.¹¹ Our project had a much higher baseline rate: 58.8% prior to intervention vs 0.9% in the nonintervention group for the previous study—likely due to its chosen location’s status as an endocrinology clinic rather than a general health care setting.

A different study that focused on patient education rather than glucagon prescription rates used similar EHR-generated reports to identify appropriate patients and assessed glucagon prescription needs during check-in. Following the educational interventions in that study, patients reporting self-comfort and education with glucagon administration significantly increased from 66.2% to 83.2%, and household member comfort and education with glucagon administration increased from 50.8% to 79.7%. This suggests the possibility of expanding the use of the EHR-generated report to assist not only with increasing glucagon prescription rates, but also with patient education on glucagon use rates and possibly fill rates.⁷ While novel glucagon products may change uptake rates, no new glucagon products arose or were prescribed at this clinic during the course of data collection.

Of note, our project increased the workload on clinical pharmacists. The pharmacists agreed to participate, despite the increased work, after a collaborative discussion about how to best address the need to increase glucagon prescriptions or patient safety; the pharmacy department had initially agreed to collaborate specifically to identify and attend to unmet needs such as this one. Although this project greatly benefited from the expertise and enthusiasm of the clinical pharmacists involved, this tradeoff requires further study to determine sustainability.

Limitations

This project had several limitations. Because of the structure in which this intervention occurred (a year-long course with rotating groups of medical students), there was a necessary component of time constraint, and this project had just 2 implementation phases, for a total of 7 months of postintervention data. The clinic has permanently implemented these changes into its workflow, but subsequent assessments are needed to monitor the effects and assess sustainability.

The specific clinical site chosen for this study benefited from dedicated onsite clinical pharmacists, who are not available at all comparable clinical sites. Due to feasibility, this project only assessed whether the providers prescribed the glucagon, not whether the patients filled the prescriptions and used the glucagon when necessary. Although prescribing rates increased in our study, it cannot be assumed that fill rates increased identically.

Finally, interventions relying on EHR-generated reports carry inherent limitations, such as the risk of misidentification or omission of patients who had indications for a glucagon prescription. The project attempted to mitigate this limitation through random sampling of the EHR report to ensure accuracy. Additionally, EHR-generated reports encourage sustainability and expansion to all clinic patients, with far less required overhead work compared to manually derived data.

Future investigations may focus on expanding this intervention to all patients at risk for hypoglycemia, as well as to study further interventions into prescription fill rates and glucagon use rates.

Conclusion

This project indicates that a proactive, interdisciplinary quality improvement project can increase glucagon prescription rates for patients with T1DM in the outpatient setting. The most effective intervention mobilized clinical pharmacists to identify patients with indications for a glucagon prescription using an integrated EHR-generated report and subsequently pend a glucagon order for the endocrinology provider to sign during the visit. The strengths of the approach included using a multidisciplinary team, minimizing costs to patients by leveraging the pharmacists’ expertise to ensure insurance coverage of specific formulations, and utilizing automatic EHR reporting to streamline patient identification. Ideally, improvements in glucagon prescription rates should ultimately decrease hospitalizations and improve treatment of severe hypoglycemia for at-risk patients.

Corresponding author: Chase D. Hendrickson, MD, MPH; chase.d.hendrickson@vanderbilt.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

From Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.

ABSTRACT

Objective: Severe hypoglycemia can alter consciousness and inhibit oral intake, requiring nonoral rescue glucagon administration to raise blood glucose to safe levels. Thus, current guidelines recommend glucagon kit prescriptions for all patients at risk for hypoglycemia, especially patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). At the diabetes outpatient clinic at a tertiary medical center, glucagon prescription rates for T1DM patients remained suboptimal.

Methods: A quality improvement team analyzed patient flow through the endocrinology clinic and identified the lack of a systematic approach to assessing patients for home glucagon prescriptions as a major barrier. The team implemented 2 successive interventions. First, intake staff indicated whether patients lacked an active glucagon prescription on patients’ face sheets. Second, clinical pharmacists reviewed patient prescriptions prior to scheduled visits and pended glucagon orders for patients without active prescriptions. Of note, when a pharmacy pends an order, the pharmacist enters an order into the electronic health record (EHR) but does not sign it. The order is saved for a provider to later access and sign. A statistical process control p-chart tracked monthly prescription rates.

Results: After 7 months, glucagon prescription rates increased from a baseline of 59% to 72% as the new steady state.

Conclusion: This project demonstrates that a series of interventions can improve glucagon prescription rates for patients at risk for hypoglycemia. The project’s success stemmed from combining an EHR-generated report and interdisciplinary staff members’ involvement. Other endocrinology clinics may incorporate this approach to implement similar processes and improve glucagon prescription rates.

Keywords: diabetes, hypoglycemia, glucagon, quality improvement, prescription rates, medical student.

Hypoglycemia limits the management of blood glucose in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Severe hypoglycemia, characterized by altered mental status (AMS) or physical status requiring assistance for recovery, can lead to seizure, coma, or death.¹ Hypoglycemia in diabetes often occurs iatrogenically, primarily from insulin therapy: 30% to 40% of patients with T1DM and 10% to 30% of patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus experience severe hypoglycemia in a given year.² One study estimated that nearly 100,000 emergency department visits for hypoglycemia occur in the United States per year, with almost one-third resulting in hospitalization.³

Most patients self-treat mild hypoglycemia with oral intake of carbohydrates. However, since hypoglycemia-induced nausea and AMS can make oral intake more difficult or prevent it entirely, patients require a treatment that family, friends, or coworkers can administer. Rescue glucagon, prescribed as intramuscular injections or intranasal sprays, raises blood glucose to safe levels in 10 to 15 minutes.⁴ Therefore, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends glucagon for all patients at risk for hypoglycemia, especially patients with T1DM.⁵ Despite the ADA’s recommendation, current evidence suggests suboptimal glucagon prescription rates, particularly in patients with T1DM. One study reported that, although 85% of US adults with T1DM had formerly been prescribed glucagon, only 68% of these patients (57.8% overall) had a current prescription.⁴ Few quality improvement efforts have tackled increasing prescription rates. Prior successful studies have attempted to do so via pharmacist-led educational interventions for providers⁶ and via electronic health record (EHR) notifications for patient risk.⁷ The project described here aimed to expand upon prior studies with a quality improvement project to increase glucagon prescription rates among patients at risk for severe hypoglycemia.

Methods

Setting

This study was conducted at a tertiary medical center’s outpatient diabetes clinic; the clinic treats more than 9500 patients with DM annually, more than 2700 of whom have T1DM. In the clinic’s multidisciplinary care model, patients typically follow up every 3 to 6 months, alternating between appointments with fellowship-trained endocrinologists and advanced practice providers (APPs). In addition to having certified diabetes educators, the clinic employs 2 dedicated clinical pharmacists whose duties include assisting providers in prescription management, helping patients identify the most affordable way to obtain their medications, and educating patients regarding their medications.

Patient flow through the clinic involves close coordination with multiple health professionals. Medical assistants (MAs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) perform patient intake, document vital signs, and ask screening questions, including dates of patients’ last hemoglobin A1c tests and diabetic eye examination. After intake, the provider (endocrinologist or APP) sees the patient. Once the appointment concludes, patients proceed to the in-house phlebotomy laboratory as indicated and check out with administrative staff to schedule future appointments.

Project Design

From August 2021 through June 2022, teams of medical students at the tertiary center completed this project as part of a 4-week integrated science course on diabetes. Longitudinal supervision by an endocrinology faculty member ensured project continuity. The project employed the Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) method for reporting.⁸

Stakeholder analysis took place in August 2021. Surveyed clinic providers identified patients with T1DM as the most appropriate population and the outpatient setting as the most appropriate site for intervention. A fishbone diagram illustrated stakeholders to interview, impacts of the clinical flow, information technology to leverage, and potential holes contributing to glucagon prescription conversations falling through.

Interviews with T1DM patients, clinical pharmacists, APPs, MAs/LPNs, and endocrinologists identified barriers to glucagon prescription. The interviews and a process map analysis revealed several themes. While patients and providers understood the importance of glucagon prescription, barriers included glucagon cost, prescription fill burden, and, most pervasively, providers forgetting to ask patients whether they have a glucagon prescription and failing to consider glucagon prescriptions.For this study, each team of medical students worked on the project for 1 month. The revolving teams of medical students met approximately once per week for the duration of the project to review data and implementation phases. At the end of each month, the current team recorded the steps they had taken and information they had analyzed in a shared document, prepared short videos summarizing the work completed, and proposed next steps for the incoming team to support knowledge generation and continuity. Students from outgoing teams were available to contact if incoming teams had any questions.

Interventions

In the first implementation phase, which was carried out over 4 months (December 2021 to March 2022), the patient care manager trained MAs/LPNs to write a glucagon reminder on patients’ face sheets. At check-in, MAs/LPNs screened for a current glucagon prescription. If the patient lacked an up-to-date prescription, the MAs/LPNs hand-wrote a reminder on the patient’s face sheet, which was given to the provider immediately prior to seeing the patient. The clinical staff received an email explaining the intervention beforehand; the daily intake staff email included project reminders.

In the second implementation phase, which started in April 2022, had been carried out for 3 months at the time of this report, and is ongoing, clinical pharmacists have been pending glucagon prescriptions ahead of patients’ appointments. Each week, the pharmacists generate an EHR report that includes all patients with T1DM who have attended at least 1 appointment at the clinic within the past year (regardless of whether each patient possessed an active and up-to-date glucagon prescription) and the date of each patient’s next appointment. For patients who have an appointment in the upcoming week and lack an active glucagon prescription, the pharmacists run a benefits investigation to determine the insurance-preferred glucagon formulation and then pend the appropriate order in the EHR. During the patient’s next appointment, the EHR prompts the provider to review and sign the pharmacist’s pended order (Figure 1).

Measures

This project used a process measure in its analysis: the percentage of patients with T1DM with an active glucagon prescription at the time of their visit to the clinic. The patient population included all patients with a visit diagnosis of T1DM seen by an APP at the clinic during the time scope of the project. The project’s scope was limited to patients seen by APPs to help standardize appointment comparisons, with the intent to expand to the endocrinologist staff if the interventions proved successful with APPs. Patients seen by APPs were also under the care of endocrinologists and seen by them during this time period. The project excluded no patients.

Each individual patient appointment represented a data point: a time at which an APP could prescribe glucagon for a patient with T1DM. Thus, a single patient who had multiple appointments during the study period would generate multiple data points in this study.

Specific Aims and Analysis

For all T1DM patients at the clinic seen by an APP during the study period, the project aimed to increase the percentage with an active and up-to-date glucagon prescription from 58.8% to 70% over a 6-month period, a relatively modest goal appropriate for the time constraints and that would be similar to the changes seen in previous work in the same clinic.⁹

This project analyzed de-identified data using a statistical process control chart (specifically, a p-chart) and standard rules for assessing special-cause signals and thus statistical significance.

Results

Baseline data were collected from October 2020 to September 2021. During this time, APPs saw 1959 T1DM patients, of whom 1152 (58.8%) had an active glucagon prescription at the time of visit and 41.2% lacked a glucagon prescription (Figure 2). During the 4 months of implementation phase 1, analysis of the statistical process control chart identified no special cause signal. Therefore, the project moved to a second intervention with implementation phase 2 in April 2022 (3 months of postintervention data are reported). During the entire intervention, 731 of 1080 (67.7%) patients had a glucagon prescription. The average for the last 2 months, with phase 2 fully implemented, was 72.3%, surpassing the 70% threshold identified as the study target (Figure 3).

Interviews with clinical pharmacists during implementation phase 2 revealed that generating the EHR report and reviewing patients with glucagon prescription indications resulted in variable daily workload increases ranging from approximately 15 to 45 minutes, depending on the number of patients requiring intervention that day. During the first month of implementation phase 2, the EHR report required repeated modification to fulfill the intervention needs. Staffing changes over the intervention period potentially impacted the pattern of glucagon prescribing. This project excluded the 2 months immediately prior to implementation phase 1, from October 2021 to November 2021, because the staff had begun having discussions about this initiative, which may have influenced glucagon prescription rates.

Discussion

This project evaluated 2 interventions over the course of 7 months to determine their efficacy in increasing the frequency of glucagon prescribing for individuals with T1DM in an endocrinology clinic. These interventions were associated with increased prescribing from a baseline of 58.8% to 72.3% over the last 2 months of the project. In the first intervention, performed over 4 months, MAs/LPNs wrote reminders on the appropriate patients’ face sheets, which were given to providers prior to appointments. This project adapted the approach from a successful previous quality improvement study on increasing microalbuminuria screening rates.⁹ However, glucagon prescription rates did not increase significantly, likely because, unlike with microalbuminuria screenings, MAs/LPNs could not pend glucagon prescriptions.

In the second intervention, performed over 3 months, clinical pharmacists pended glucagon prescriptions for identified eligible patients. Glucagon prescribing rates increased considerably, with rates of 72.3% and 72.4% over May and June 2021, respectively, indicating that the intervention successfully established a new higher steady state of proportion of patient visits with active glucagon prescriptions compared with the baseline rate of 58.8%. Given that the baseline data for this clinic were higher than the baseline glucagon prescription rates reported in other studies (49.3%),¹⁰ this intervention could have a major impact in clinics with a baseline more comparable to conditions in that study.

This project demonstrated how a combination of an EHR-generated report and interdisciplinary involvement provides an actionable process to increase glucagon prescription rates for patients with T1DM. Compared to prior studies that implemented passive interventions, such as a note template that relies on provider adherence,⁷ this project emphasizes the benefit of implementing an active systems-level intervention with a pre-pended order.

Regarding prior studies, 1 large, 2-arm study of clinical pharmacists proactively pending orders for appropriate patients showed a 56% glucagon prescription rate in the intervention group, compared with 0.9% in the control group with no pharmacist intervention.¹¹ Our project had a much higher baseline rate: 58.8% prior to intervention vs 0.9% in the nonintervention group for the previous study—likely due to its chosen location’s status as an endocrinology clinic rather than a general health care setting.

A different study that focused on patient education rather than glucagon prescription rates used similar EHR-generated reports to identify appropriate patients and assessed glucagon prescription needs during check-in. Following the educational interventions in that study, patients reporting self-comfort and education with glucagon administration significantly increased from 66.2% to 83.2%, and household member comfort and education with glucagon administration increased from 50.8% to 79.7%. This suggests the possibility of expanding the use of the EHR-generated report to assist not only with increasing glucagon prescription rates, but also with patient education on glucagon use rates and possibly fill rates.⁷ While novel glucagon products may change uptake rates, no new glucagon products arose or were prescribed at this clinic during the course of data collection.

Of note, our project increased the workload on clinical pharmacists. The pharmacists agreed to participate, despite the increased work, after a collaborative discussion about how to best address the need to increase glucagon prescriptions or patient safety; the pharmacy department had initially agreed to collaborate specifically to identify and attend to unmet needs such as this one. Although this project greatly benefited from the expertise and enthusiasm of the clinical pharmacists involved, this tradeoff requires further study to determine sustainability.

Limitations

This project had several limitations. Because of the structure in which this intervention occurred (a year-long course with rotating groups of medical students), there was a necessary component of time constraint, and this project had just 2 implementation phases, for a total of 7 months of postintervention data. The clinic has permanently implemented these changes into its workflow, but subsequent assessments are needed to monitor the effects and assess sustainability.

The specific clinical site chosen for this study benefited from dedicated onsite clinical pharmacists, who are not available at all comparable clinical sites. Due to feasibility, this project only assessed whether the providers prescribed the glucagon, not whether the patients filled the prescriptions and used the glucagon when necessary. Although prescribing rates increased in our study, it cannot be assumed that fill rates increased identically.

Finally, interventions relying on EHR-generated reports carry inherent limitations, such as the risk of misidentification or omission of patients who had indications for a glucagon prescription. The project attempted to mitigate this limitation through random sampling of the EHR report to ensure accuracy. Additionally, EHR-generated reports encourage sustainability and expansion to all clinic patients, with far less required overhead work compared to manually derived data.

Future investigations may focus on expanding this intervention to all patients at risk for hypoglycemia, as well as to study further interventions into prescription fill rates and glucagon use rates.

Conclusion

This project indicates that a proactive, interdisciplinary quality improvement project can increase glucagon prescription rates for patients with T1DM in the outpatient setting. The most effective intervention mobilized clinical pharmacists to identify patients with indications for a glucagon prescription using an integrated EHR-generated report and subsequently pend a glucagon order for the endocrinology provider to sign during the visit. The strengths of the approach included using a multidisciplinary team, minimizing costs to patients by leveraging the pharmacists’ expertise to ensure insurance coverage of specific formulations, and utilizing automatic EHR reporting to streamline patient identification. Ideally, improvements in glucagon prescription rates should ultimately decrease hospitalizations and improve treatment of severe hypoglycemia for at-risk patients.

Corresponding author: Chase D. Hendrickson, MD, MPH; chase.d.hendrickson@vanderbilt.edu

Disclosures: None reported.

From Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.

ABSTRACT

Objective: Severe hypoglycemia can alter consciousness and inhibit oral intake, requiring nonoral rescue glucagon administration to raise blood glucose to safe levels. Thus, current guidelines recommend glucagon kit prescriptions for all patients at risk for hypoglycemia, especially patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). At the diabetes outpatient clinic at a tertiary medical center, glucagon prescription rates for T1DM patients remained suboptimal.

Methods: A quality improvement team analyzed patient flow through the endocrinology clinic and identified the lack of a systematic approach to assessing patients for home glucagon prescriptions as a major barrier. The team implemented 2 successive interventions. First, intake staff indicated whether patients lacked an active glucagon prescription on patients’ face sheets. Second, clinical pharmacists reviewed patient prescriptions prior to scheduled visits and pended glucagon orders for patients without active prescriptions. Of note, when a pharmacy pends an order, the pharmacist enters an order into the electronic health record (EHR) but does not sign it. The order is saved for a provider to later access and sign. A statistical process control p-chart tracked monthly prescription rates.

Results: After 7 months, glucagon prescription rates increased from a baseline of 59% to 72% as the new steady state.

Conclusion: This project demonstrates that a series of interventions can improve glucagon prescription rates for patients at risk for hypoglycemia. The project’s success stemmed from combining an EHR-generated report and interdisciplinary staff members’ involvement. Other endocrinology clinics may incorporate this approach to implement similar processes and improve glucagon prescription rates.

Keywords: diabetes, hypoglycemia, glucagon, quality improvement, prescription rates, medical student.

Hypoglycemia limits the management of blood glucose in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Severe hypoglycemia, characterized by altered mental status (AMS) or physical status requiring assistance for recovery, can lead to seizure, coma, or death.¹ Hypoglycemia in diabetes often occurs iatrogenically, primarily from insulin therapy: 30% to 40% of patients with T1DM and 10% to 30% of patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus experience severe hypoglycemia in a given year.² One study estimated that nearly 100,000 emergency department visits for hypoglycemia occur in the United States per year, with almost one-third resulting in hospitalization.³

Most patients self-treat mild hypoglycemia with oral intake of carbohydrates. However, since hypoglycemia-induced nausea and AMS can make oral intake more difficult or prevent it entirely, patients require a treatment that family, friends, or coworkers can administer. Rescue glucagon, prescribed as intramuscular injections or intranasal sprays, raises blood glucose to safe levels in 10 to 15 minutes.⁴ Therefore, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends glucagon for all patients at risk for hypoglycemia, especially patients with T1DM.⁵ Despite the ADA’s recommendation, current evidence suggests suboptimal glucagon prescription rates, particularly in patients with T1DM. One study reported that, although 85% of US adults with T1DM had formerly been prescribed glucagon, only 68% of these patients (57.8% overall) had a current prescription.⁴ Few quality improvement efforts have tackled increasing prescription rates. Prior successful studies have attempted to do so via pharmacist-led educational interventions for providers⁶ and via electronic health record (EHR) notifications for patient risk.⁷ The project described here aimed to expand upon prior studies with a quality improvement project to increase glucagon prescription rates among patients at risk for severe hypoglycemia.

Methods

Setting

This study was conducted at a tertiary medical center’s outpatient diabetes clinic; the clinic treats more than 9500 patients with DM annually, more than 2700 of whom have T1DM. In the clinic’s multidisciplinary care model, patients typically follow up every 3 to 6 months, alternating between appointments with fellowship-trained endocrinologists and advanced practice providers (APPs). In addition to having certified diabetes educators, the clinic employs 2 dedicated clinical pharmacists whose duties include assisting providers in prescription management, helping patients identify the most affordable way to obtain their medications, and educating patients regarding their medications.

Patient flow through the clinic involves close coordination with multiple health professionals. Medical assistants (MAs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) perform patient intake, document vital signs, and ask screening questions, including dates of patients’ last hemoglobin A1c tests and diabetic eye examination. After intake, the provider (endocrinologist or APP) sees the patient. Once the appointment concludes, patients proceed to the in-house phlebotomy laboratory as indicated and check out with administrative staff to schedule future appointments.

Project Design

From August 2021 through June 2022, teams of medical students at the tertiary center completed this project as part of a 4-week integrated science course on diabetes. Longitudinal supervision by an endocrinology faculty member ensured project continuity. The project employed the Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) method for reporting.⁸

Stakeholder analysis took place in August 2021. Surveyed clinic providers identified patients with T1DM as the most appropriate population and the outpatient setting as the most appropriate site for intervention. A fishbone diagram illustrated stakeholders to interview, impacts of the clinical flow, information technology to leverage, and potential holes contributing to glucagon prescription conversations falling through.

Interviews with T1DM patients, clinical pharmacists, APPs, MAs/LPNs, and endocrinologists identified barriers to glucagon prescription. The interviews and a process map analysis revealed several themes. While patients and providers understood the importance of glucagon prescription, barriers included glucagon cost, prescription fill burden, and, most pervasively, providers forgetting to ask patients whether they have a glucagon prescription and failing to consider glucagon prescriptions.For this study, each team of medical students worked on the project for 1 month. The revolving teams of medical students met approximately once per week for the duration of the project to review data and implementation phases. At the end of each month, the current team recorded the steps they had taken and information they had analyzed in a shared document, prepared short videos summarizing the work completed, and proposed next steps for the incoming team to support knowledge generation and continuity. Students from outgoing teams were available to contact if incoming teams had any questions.

Interventions

In the first implementation phase, which was carried out over 4 months (December 2021 to March 2022), the patient care manager trained MAs/LPNs to write a glucagon reminder on patients’ face sheets. At check-in, MAs/LPNs screened for a current glucagon prescription. If the patient lacked an up-to-date prescription, the MAs/LPNs hand-wrote a reminder on the patient’s face sheet, which was given to the provider immediately prior to seeing the patient. The clinical staff received an email explaining the intervention beforehand; the daily intake staff email included project reminders.

In the second implementation phase, which started in April 2022, had been carried out for 3 months at the time of this report, and is ongoing, clinical pharmacists have been pending glucagon prescriptions ahead of patients’ appointments. Each week, the pharmacists generate an EHR report that includes all patients with T1DM who have attended at least 1 appointment at the clinic within the past year (regardless of whether each patient possessed an active and up-to-date glucagon prescription) and the date of each patient’s next appointment. For patients who have an appointment in the upcoming week and lack an active glucagon prescription, the pharmacists run a benefits investigation to determine the insurance-preferred glucagon formulation and then pend the appropriate order in the EHR. During the patient’s next appointment, the EHR prompts the provider to review and sign the pharmacist’s pended order (Figure 1).

Measures

This project used a process measure in its analysis: the percentage of patients with T1DM with an active glucagon prescription at the time of their visit to the clinic. The patient population included all patients with a visit diagnosis of T1DM seen by an APP at the clinic during the time scope of the project. The project’s scope was limited to patients seen by APPs to help standardize appointment comparisons, with the intent to expand to the endocrinologist staff if the interventions proved successful with APPs. Patients seen by APPs were also under the care of endocrinologists and seen by them during this time period. The project excluded no patients.

Each individual patient appointment represented a data point: a time at which an APP could prescribe glucagon for a patient with T1DM. Thus, a single patient who had multiple appointments during the study period would generate multiple data points in this study.

Specific Aims and Analysis

For all T1DM patients at the clinic seen by an APP during the study period, the project aimed to increase the percentage with an active and up-to-date glucagon prescription from 58.8% to 70% over a 6-month period, a relatively modest goal appropriate for the time constraints and that would be similar to the changes seen in previous work in the same clinic.⁹

This project analyzed de-identified data using a statistical process control chart (specifically, a p-chart) and standard rules for assessing special-cause signals and thus statistical significance.

Results

Baseline data were collected from October 2020 to September 2021. During this time, APPs saw 1959 T1DM patients, of whom 1152 (58.8%) had an active glucagon prescription at the time of visit and 41.2% lacked a glucagon prescription (Figure 2). During the 4 months of implementation phase 1, analysis of the statistical process control chart identified no special cause signal. Therefore, the project moved to a second intervention with implementation phase 2 in April 2022 (3 months of postintervention data are reported). During the entire intervention, 731 of 1080 (67.7%) patients had a glucagon prescription. The average for the last 2 months, with phase 2 fully implemented, was 72.3%, surpassing the 70% threshold identified as the study target (Figure 3).

Interviews with clinical pharmacists during implementation phase 2 revealed that generating the EHR report and reviewing patients with glucagon prescription indications resulted in variable daily workload increases ranging from approximately 15 to 45 minutes, depending on the number of patients requiring intervention that day. During the first month of implementation phase 2, the EHR report required repeated modification to fulfill the intervention needs. Staffing changes over the intervention period potentially impacted the pattern of glucagon prescribing. This project excluded the 2 months immediately prior to implementation phase 1, from October 2021 to November 2021, because the staff had begun having discussions about this initiative, which may have influenced glucagon prescription rates.

Discussion

This project evaluated 2 interventions over the course of 7 months to determine their efficacy in increasing the frequency of glucagon prescribing for individuals with T1DM in an endocrinology clinic. These interventions were associated with increased prescribing from a baseline of 58.8% to 72.3% over the last 2 months of the project. In the first intervention, performed over 4 months, MAs/LPNs wrote reminders on the appropriate patients’ face sheets, which were given to providers prior to appointments. This project adapted the approach from a successful previous quality improvement study on increasing microalbuminuria screening rates.⁹ However, glucagon prescription rates did not increase significantly, likely because, unlike with microalbuminuria screenings, MAs/LPNs could not pend glucagon prescriptions.

In the second intervention, performed over 3 months, clinical pharmacists pended glucagon prescriptions for identified eligible patients. Glucagon prescribing rates increased considerably, with rates of 72.3% and 72.4% over May and June 2021, respectively, indicating that the intervention successfully established a new higher steady state of proportion of patient visits with active glucagon prescriptions compared with the baseline rate of 58.8%. Given that the baseline data for this clinic were higher than the baseline glucagon prescription rates reported in other studies (49.3%),¹⁰ this intervention could have a major impact in clinics with a baseline more comparable to conditions in that study.

This project demonstrated how a combination of an EHR-generated report and interdisciplinary involvement provides an actionable process to increase glucagon prescription rates for patients with T1DM. Compared to prior studies that implemented passive interventions, such as a note template that relies on provider adherence,⁷ this project emphasizes the benefit of implementing an active systems-level intervention with a pre-pended order.

Regarding prior studies, 1 large, 2-arm study of clinical pharmacists proactively pending orders for appropriate patients showed a 56% glucagon prescription rate in the intervention group, compared with 0.9% in the control group with no pharmacist intervention.¹¹ Our project had a much higher baseline rate: 58.8% prior to intervention vs 0.9% in the nonintervention group for the previous study—likely due to its chosen location’s status as an endocrinology clinic rather than a general health care setting.

A different study that focused on patient education rather than glucagon prescription rates used similar EHR-generated reports to identify appropriate patients and assessed glucagon prescription needs during check-in. Following the educational interventions in that study, patients reporting self-comfort and education with glucagon administration significantly increased from 66.2% to 83.2%, and household member comfort and education with glucagon administration increased from 50.8% to 79.7%. This suggests the possibility of expanding the use of the EHR-generated report to assist not only with increasing glucagon prescription rates, but also with patient education on glucagon use rates and possibly fill rates.⁷ While novel glucagon products may change uptake rates, no new glucagon products arose or were prescribed at this clinic during the course of data collection.

Of note, our project increased the workload on clinical pharmacists. The pharmacists agreed to participate, despite the increased work, after a collaborative discussion about how to best address the need to increase glucagon prescriptions or patient safety; the pharmacy department had initially agreed to collaborate specifically to identify and attend to unmet needs such as this one. Although this project greatly benefited from the expertise and enthusiasm of the clinical pharmacists involved, this tradeoff requires further study to determine sustainability.

Limitations

This project had several limitations. Because of the structure in which this intervention occurred (a year-long course with rotating groups of medical students), there was a necessary component of time constraint, and this project had just 2 implementation phases, for a total of 7 months of postintervention data. The clinic has permanently implemented these changes into its workflow, but subsequent assessments are needed to monitor the effects and assess sustainability.

The specific clinical site chosen for this study benefited from dedicated onsite clinical pharmacists, who are not available at all comparable clinical sites. Due to feasibility, this project only assessed whether the providers prescribed the glucagon, not whether the patients filled the prescriptions and used the glucagon when necessary. Although prescribing rates increased in our study, it cannot be assumed that fill rates increased identically.

Finally, interventions relying on EHR-generated reports carry inherent limitations, such as the risk of misidentification or omission of patients who had indications for a glucagon prescription. The project attempted to mitigate this limitation through random sampling of the EHR report to ensure accuracy. Additionally, EHR-generated reports encourage sustainability and expansion to all clinic patients, with far less required overhead work compared to manually derived data.

Future investigations may focus on expanding this intervention to all patients at risk for hypoglycemia, as well as to study further interventions into prescription fill rates and glucagon use rates.

Conclusion

This project indicates that a proactive, interdisciplinary quality improvement project can increase glucagon prescription rates for patients with T1DM in the outpatient setting. The most effective intervention mobilized clinical pharmacists to identify patients with indications for a glucagon prescription using an integrated EHR-generated report and subsequently pend a glucagon order for the endocrinology provider to sign during the visit. The strengths of the approach included using a multidisciplinary team, minimizing costs to patients by leveraging the pharmacists’ expertise to ensure insurance coverage of specific formulations, and utilizing automatic EHR reporting to streamline patient identification. Ideally, improvements in glucagon prescription rates should ultimately decrease hospitalizations and improve treatment of severe hypoglycemia for at-risk patients.

Corresponding author: Chase D. Hendrickson, MD, MPH; chase.d.hendrickson@vanderbilt.edu

Disclosures: None reported.