Geriatrics

ORLANDO – The burden of osteoporosis and fragility fractures in the United States remains high, particularly in older women and minorities, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

For non-Hispanic Asian, non-Hispanic white, and Hispanic patients of various ethnic groups, as well as in women and older patients, osteoporosis and fragility fractures continue to be a problem, said Nicole C. Wright, PhD, MPH, of the department of epidemiology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“It remains costly; it remains associated with more health care utilization,” Dr. Wright said. “We may be seeing some declines in some fragility fractures, but [we] are seeing increases in hip fractures.”

As part of the fourth edition of the U.S. Bone and Joint Initiative publication, “The Burden of Musculoskeletal Diseases in the United States,” Dr. Wright and colleagues examined the changes in osteoporosis burden between the third and fourth editions of the publication. They used data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) in 2013 and 2014 as well as the National Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) of national ED visits regardless of hospital admission status. In both databases, researchers analyzed data from adults aged 50 years or older where the primary discharge ICD-9 or ICD-10 code was a diagnosis of fracture.

Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, the researchers estimated an 11.0% osteoporosis prevalence for adults aged 50 years or older overall, a 16.5% prevalence in women, and a 5.1% prevalence in men as assessed by femoral neck and lumbar spine bone mineral density. Osteoporosis was most prevalent in Asian women (40.0%) and Asian men (7.5%), while there was a difference in prevalence in patients of Hispanic race depending on their origin; for example, Puerto Rican men had a higher prevalence of osteoporosis at 8.6%, compared with Hispanic men (2.3%) and non-Hispanic white men of other races (3.9%).

Of 19.5 million hospitalizations in the NIS database between 2013 and 2014, there were approximately 540,000 fragility fractures (2.8%), of which about 300,000 were hip fractures and about 100,000 discharges were for spine fractures, Dr. Wright said. In the NEDS database, the estimate of fragility fracture prevalence was 0.9% of 46.7 million ED visits between 2013 and 2014. Fracture prevalence was increased in women and in older age, with patients aged 80 years or older and those of non-Hispanic white race having the highest prevalence of hip fracture. However, she noted that NEDS data also showed higher prevalences of wrist and humerus fractures, which are not normally fractures that a patient visits the hospital as an inpatient for. “We need both data sets to ascertain fractures in the United States,” she said.

When examining fracture site trends over time, Dr. Wright and colleagues found hip fracture prevalence increased by 3.5% between 2010 and 2014, while there was a decrease of 11.9% in the prevalence of spine fractures over the same time period.

According to data from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey, the direct cost of osteoporosis in aggregate was $73.6 billion between 2012 and 2014, which was 118% higher than between 1998 and 2000 when the costs were $28.1 billion. The costs were spread across ambulatory care, inpatient, and prescription costs equally, the researchers said.

Although the study was limited by examining fracture prevalence rather than incidence, the potential for missing some fractures based on methodology, and limited patient characteristics and follow-up information, the goal of the presentation was to highlight the new osteoporosis prevalence data and the continued burden of the disease.

“We hope that these new prevalence estimates continue to increase the awareness of osteoporosis and prevention,” she said.

Dr. Wright reported receiving grants from Amgen and serving as an expert witness for the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Wright NC et al. ASBMR 2019, Abstract 1079.

ORLANDO – The burden of osteoporosis and fragility fractures in the United States remains high, particularly in older women and minorities, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

For non-Hispanic Asian, non-Hispanic white, and Hispanic patients of various ethnic groups, as well as in women and older patients, osteoporosis and fragility fractures continue to be a problem, said Nicole C. Wright, PhD, MPH, of the department of epidemiology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“It remains costly; it remains associated with more health care utilization,” Dr. Wright said. “We may be seeing some declines in some fragility fractures, but [we] are seeing increases in hip fractures.”

As part of the fourth edition of the U.S. Bone and Joint Initiative publication, “The Burden of Musculoskeletal Diseases in the United States,” Dr. Wright and colleagues examined the changes in osteoporosis burden between the third and fourth editions of the publication. They used data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) in 2013 and 2014 as well as the National Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) of national ED visits regardless of hospital admission status. In both databases, researchers analyzed data from adults aged 50 years or older where the primary discharge ICD-9 or ICD-10 code was a diagnosis of fracture.

Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, the researchers estimated an 11.0% osteoporosis prevalence for adults aged 50 years or older overall, a 16.5% prevalence in women, and a 5.1% prevalence in men as assessed by femoral neck and lumbar spine bone mineral density. Osteoporosis was most prevalent in Asian women (40.0%) and Asian men (7.5%), while there was a difference in prevalence in patients of Hispanic race depending on their origin; for example, Puerto Rican men had a higher prevalence of osteoporosis at 8.6%, compared with Hispanic men (2.3%) and non-Hispanic white men of other races (3.9%).

Of 19.5 million hospitalizations in the NIS database between 2013 and 2014, there were approximately 540,000 fragility fractures (2.8%), of which about 300,000 were hip fractures and about 100,000 discharges were for spine fractures, Dr. Wright said. In the NEDS database, the estimate of fragility fracture prevalence was 0.9% of 46.7 million ED visits between 2013 and 2014. Fracture prevalence was increased in women and in older age, with patients aged 80 years or older and those of non-Hispanic white race having the highest prevalence of hip fracture. However, she noted that NEDS data also showed higher prevalences of wrist and humerus fractures, which are not normally fractures that a patient visits the hospital as an inpatient for. “We need both data sets to ascertain fractures in the United States,” she said.

When examining fracture site trends over time, Dr. Wright and colleagues found hip fracture prevalence increased by 3.5% between 2010 and 2014, while there was a decrease of 11.9% in the prevalence of spine fractures over the same time period.

According to data from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey, the direct cost of osteoporosis in aggregate was $73.6 billion between 2012 and 2014, which was 118% higher than between 1998 and 2000 when the costs were $28.1 billion. The costs were spread across ambulatory care, inpatient, and prescription costs equally, the researchers said.

Although the study was limited by examining fracture prevalence rather than incidence, the potential for missing some fractures based on methodology, and limited patient characteristics and follow-up information, the goal of the presentation was to highlight the new osteoporosis prevalence data and the continued burden of the disease.

“We hope that these new prevalence estimates continue to increase the awareness of osteoporosis and prevention,” she said.

Dr. Wright reported receiving grants from Amgen and serving as an expert witness for the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Wright NC et al. ASBMR 2019, Abstract 1079.

ORLANDO – The burden of osteoporosis and fragility fractures in the United States remains high, particularly in older women and minorities, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

For non-Hispanic Asian, non-Hispanic white, and Hispanic patients of various ethnic groups, as well as in women and older patients, osteoporosis and fragility fractures continue to be a problem, said Nicole C. Wright, PhD, MPH, of the department of epidemiology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“It remains costly; it remains associated with more health care utilization,” Dr. Wright said. “We may be seeing some declines in some fragility fractures, but [we] are seeing increases in hip fractures.”

As part of the fourth edition of the U.S. Bone and Joint Initiative publication, “The Burden of Musculoskeletal Diseases in the United States,” Dr. Wright and colleagues examined the changes in osteoporosis burden between the third and fourth editions of the publication. They used data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) in 2013 and 2014 as well as the National Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) of national ED visits regardless of hospital admission status. In both databases, researchers analyzed data from adults aged 50 years or older where the primary discharge ICD-9 or ICD-10 code was a diagnosis of fracture.

Using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, the researchers estimated an 11.0% osteoporosis prevalence for adults aged 50 years or older overall, a 16.5% prevalence in women, and a 5.1% prevalence in men as assessed by femoral neck and lumbar spine bone mineral density. Osteoporosis was most prevalent in Asian women (40.0%) and Asian men (7.5%), while there was a difference in prevalence in patients of Hispanic race depending on their origin; for example, Puerto Rican men had a higher prevalence of osteoporosis at 8.6%, compared with Hispanic men (2.3%) and non-Hispanic white men of other races (3.9%).

Of 19.5 million hospitalizations in the NIS database between 2013 and 2014, there were approximately 540,000 fragility fractures (2.8%), of which about 300,000 were hip fractures and about 100,000 discharges were for spine fractures, Dr. Wright said. In the NEDS database, the estimate of fragility fracture prevalence was 0.9% of 46.7 million ED visits between 2013 and 2014. Fracture prevalence was increased in women and in older age, with patients aged 80 years or older and those of non-Hispanic white race having the highest prevalence of hip fracture. However, she noted that NEDS data also showed higher prevalences of wrist and humerus fractures, which are not normally fractures that a patient visits the hospital as an inpatient for. “We need both data sets to ascertain fractures in the United States,” she said.

When examining fracture site trends over time, Dr. Wright and colleagues found hip fracture prevalence increased by 3.5% between 2010 and 2014, while there was a decrease of 11.9% in the prevalence of spine fractures over the same time period.

According to data from the Medical Expenditures Panel Survey, the direct cost of osteoporosis in aggregate was $73.6 billion between 2012 and 2014, which was 118% higher than between 1998 and 2000 when the costs were $28.1 billion. The costs were spread across ambulatory care, inpatient, and prescription costs equally, the researchers said.

Although the study was limited by examining fracture prevalence rather than incidence, the potential for missing some fractures based on methodology, and limited patient characteristics and follow-up information, the goal of the presentation was to highlight the new osteoporosis prevalence data and the continued burden of the disease.

“We hope that these new prevalence estimates continue to increase the awareness of osteoporosis and prevention,” she said.

Dr. Wright reported receiving grants from Amgen and serving as an expert witness for the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright and Pfizer.

SOURCE: Wright NC et al. ASBMR 2019, Abstract 1079.

Nearly 2.7 million veterans who rely on the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for their health care live in rural communities.¹ Of these, more than half are aged ≥ 65 years. Rural veterans have greater rates of service-related disability and chronic medical conditions than do their urban counterparts.^1,2 Yet because of their rural location, they face unique challenges, including long travel times and distances to health care services, lack of public transportation options, and limited availability of specialized medical and social support services.

Compounding these geographic barriers is a more general lack of workforce infrastructure and a dearth of clinical health care providers (HCPs) skilled in geriatric medicine. The demand for geriatricians is projected to outpace supply and result in a national shortage of nearly 27 000 geriatricians by 2025.³ Moreover, the overwhelming majority (90%) of HCPs identifying as geriatric specialists reside in urban areas.⁴ This creates tremendous pressure on the health care system to provide remote care for older veterans contending with complex conditions, and ultimately these veterans may not receive the specialized care they need.

Telehealth modalities bridge these gaps by bringing health care to veterans in rural communities. They may also hold promise for strengthening community care in rural areas through workforce development and dissemination of educational resources. The VHA has been recognized as a leader in the field of telehealth since it began offering telehealth services to veterans in 1977^5-8 and served more than 677 000 Veterans via telehealth in fiscal year (FY) 2015.⁹ The VHA currently employs multiple modes of telehealth to increase veterans’ access to health care, including: (1) synchronous technology like clinical video telehealth (CVT), which provides live encounters between HCPs and patients using videoconferencing software; and (2) asynchronous technology, such as store-and-forward communication that offers remote transmission and clinical interpretation of veteran health data. The VHA has also strengthened its broad telehealth infrastructure by staffing VHA clinical sites with telehealth clinical technicians and providing telehealth hardware throughout.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care (GEC) and Office of Rural Health (ORH) established the Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Centers (GRECC) Connect project in 2014 to leverage the existing telehealth technologies at the VA to meet the health care needs of older veterans. GRECC Connect builds on the VHA network of geriatrics expertise in GRECCs by providing telehealth-based consultative support for rural primary care provider (PCP) teams, older veterans, and their families. This program profile describes this project’s mission, structure, and activities.

Program Overview

GRECC Connect leverages the clinical expertise and administrative infrastructure of participating GRECCs in order to reach clinicians and veterans in primarily rural communities.¹⁰ GRECCs are VA centers of excellence focused on aging and comprise a large network of interdisciplinary geriatrics expertise. All GRECCs have strong affiliations with local universities and are located in urban VA medical centers (VAMCs). GRECC Connect is based on a hub-and-spoke model in which urban GRECC hub sites are connected to community-based outpatient clinic (CBOC) and VAMC spokes that primarily serve veterans in other communities. CBOCs are stand-alone clinics that are geographically separate from a related VA medical center and provide outpatient primary care, mental health care services, and some specialty care services such as cardiology or neurology. They range in size from small, mainly telehealth clinics with 1 technician to large clinics with several specialty providers. Each GRECC hub site partners with an average of 6 CBOCs (range 3-16), each of which is an average distance of 92.8 miles from the related VA medical center (range 20-406 miles).

GRECC Connect was established under the umbrella of the VA Geriatric Scholars Program, which since 2008 integrates geriatrics into rural primary care practices through tailored education for continuing professional development.¹¹ Through intensive courses in geriatrics and quality improvement methods and through participation in local quality improvement projects benefiting older veterans, the Geriatric Scholars Program trains rural PCPs so that they can more effectively and independently diagnose and manage common geriatric syndromes.¹² The network of clinician scholars developed by the Geriatric Scholars Program, all rural frontline clinicians at VA clinics, has given the GRECC Connect project a well-prepared, geriatrics-trained workforce to act as project champions at rural CBOCs and VAMCs. The GRECC Connect project’s goals are to enhance access to geriatric specialty care among older veterans with complex medical problems, geriatric syndromes, and increased risk for institutionalization, and to provide geriatrics-focused educational support to rural HCP teams.

Geriatric Provider Consultations

The first overarching goal of the GRECC Connect project is to improve access to geriatrics specialty care by facilitating linkages between GRECC hub sites and the CBOCs and VAMCs that primarily serve veterans in rural communities. GRECC hub sites offer consultative support from geriatrics specialty team members (eg, geriatricians, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, gero- or neuropsychologists, registered nurses [RNs], and social workers) to rural PCP in their catchment area. This support is offered through a variety of telehealth modalities readily available in the VA (Table 1). These include CVT, in which a veteran located at a rural CBOC is seen using videoconferencing software by a geriatrics specialty provider who is located at a GRECC hub site. At some GRECC hub sites, CVT has also been used to conduct group visits between a GRECC provider at the hub site and several veterans who participate from a rural CBOC. Electronic consultations, or e-consults, involve a rural provider entering a clinical question in the VA Computerized Patient Record System. The question is then triaged, and a geriatrics provider at a GRECC responds, based on review of that veteran’s chart. At some GRECC hub sites, the e-consults are more extensive and may include telephone contact with the veteran or their caregiver.

Consultations between GRECC-based teams and rural PCPs may cover any aspect of geriatrics care, ranging from broad concerns to subspecialty areas of geriatric medicine. For instance, general geriatrics consultation may address polypharmacy, during either care transitions or ongoing care. Consultation may also reflect the specific focus area of a particular GRECC, such as cognitive assessment (eg, Pittsburgh GRECC), management of osteoporosis to address falls (eg, Durham GRECC, Miami GRECC), and continence care (eg, Birmingham/Atlanta GRECC).¹³ Most consultations are initiated by a remote HCP who is seeking geriatrics expertise from the GRECC team.

Some GRECC hub sites, however, employ case finding strategies, or detailed chart reviews, in order to identify older veterans who may benefit from geriatrics consultation. For veterans identified through those mechanisms, the GRECC clinicians suggest that the rural HCP either request or allow an e-consult or evaluation via CVT for those veterans. The geriatric consultations may help identify additional care needs for older veterans and lead to recommendations, orders, or remote provision of a variety of other actions, including VA or non-VA services (eg, home-based primary care, home nursing service, respite service, social support services such as Meals on Wheels); neuropsychological testing; physical or occupational therapy; audiology or optometry referral; falls and fracture risk assessment and interventions to reduce falls (eg, home safety evaluation, physical therapy); osteoporosis risk assessments (eg, densitometry, recommendations for pharmacologic therapy) to reduce the risk of injury or nontraumatic fractures from falls; palliative care for incontinence and hospice; and counseling on geriatric issues such as dementia caregiving, advanced directives, and driving cessation.

More recently, the Miami GRECC has begun evaluating rural veterans at risk for hypoglycemia, providing patient education and counseling about hypoglycemia, and making recommendations to the veterans’ primary care teams.¹⁴ Consultations may also lead to the appropriate use or discontinuation of medications, related to polypharmacy. GRECC-based teams, for example, have helped rural HCPs modify medication doses, start appropriate medications for dementia and depression, and identify and stop potentially inappropriate medications (eg, those that increase fall risk or that have significant anticholinergic properties).¹⁵

GRECC Connect Geriatric Case Conference Series

The second overarching goal of the GRECC Connect project is to provide geriatrics-focused educational support to equip PCPs to better serve their aging veteran patients. This is achieved through twice-monthly, case-based conferences supported by the VA Employee Education System (EES) and delivered through a webinar interface. Case conferences are targeted to members of the health care team who may provide care for rural older adults, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, RNs, psychologists, social workers, physical and occupational therapists, and pharmacists. The format of these sessions includes a clinical case presentation, a didactic portion to enhance knowledge of participants, and an open question/answer period. The conferences focus on discussions of challenging clinical cases, addressing common problems (eg, driving concerns), and the assessment/management of geriatric syndromes (eg, cognitive decline, falls, polypharmacy). These conferences aim to improve the knowledge and skills of rural clinical teams in taking care of older veterans and to disseminate best practices in geriatric medicine, using case discussions to highlight practical applications of practices to clinical care. Recent GRECC Connect geriatric case conferences are listed in Table 2 and are recorded and archived to ensure that busy clinicians may access these trainings at the time of their choosing. These materials are catalogued and archived on the EES server.

Early Experience

GRECC Connect tracks on an annual basis the number of unique veterans served, number of participating GRECC hub sites and CBOCs, mileage from veteran homes to teleconsultation sites, and number of clinicians and staff engaged in GRECC Connect education programs.¹⁶ Since its inception in 2014, the GRECC Connect project has provided direct clinical support to more than 4000 unique veterans (eFigure), of whom half were seen for a cognition-related issue. Consultations were made on behalf of 1,622 veterans in FY 2018, of whom 60% were from rural or highly rural communities and 56.8% were served by CVT visits. The number of GRECC hub sites has increased from 4 in FY 2014 to 12 (of 20 total GRECCs) in FY 2018. The locations of current GRECC hub sites can be found on the Geriatric Scholars website: www.gerischolars.org. Through this expansion, GRECC Connect provides geriatric consultative and educational support to > 70 rural VA clinics in 10 of the 18 Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs).

To assess the reduction in commute times from teleconsultation, we calculated the difference between the mileage from veteran homes to teleconsultation sites (ie, rural clinics) and the mileage from veteran homes to VAMCs where geriatric teams are located. We estimate that the 1622 veterans served in FY 2018 saved a total of 179 121 miles in travel through GRECC Connect. Veterans traveled 106 fewer miles and on average saved $58 in out-of-pocket savings (based on US General Services Administration 2018 standard mileage reimbursement rate of $0.545 per mile). However, many of the veterans have reported anecdotally that the reduction in mileage traveled was less important than the elimination of stress involved in urban navigating, driving, and parking.

More difficult to measure, GRECC Connect seeks to enhance veteran safety by reducing driving distances for older veterans whose driving abilities may be influenced by many age-related health conditions (eg, visual changes, cognitive impairment). For these and other reasons, surveyed veterans overwhelmingly reported that they would be likely to recommend teleconsultation services to other veterans, and that they preferred telemedicine consultation over traveling long distances for in-person clinical consultations.¹⁶

Since its inception in 2014, GRECC Connect has provided case-based education to a total of 2335 unique clinicians and staff. Participants have included physicians, nurse practitioners, RNs, social workers, and pharmacists. This distribution reflects the interdisciplinary nature of geriatric care. A plurality of participants (39%) were RNs. Surveyed participants in the GRECC Connect geriatrics case conference series report high overall satisfaction with the learning activity, acquisition of new knowledge and skills, and intention to apply new knowledge and skills to improve job performance.¹⁰ In addition, participants agreed that the online training platform was effective for learning and that they would recommend the education series to other HCPs.^10,16

Discussion

During its rapid 4-year scale up, GRECC Connect has established a national network and enhanced relationships between GRECC-based clinical teams and rural provider teams. In doing so, the program has begun to improve rural veterans’ access to geriatric specialty care. By providing continuing education to members of the interprofessional health care team, GRECC Connect develops rural providers’ clinical competency and promotes geriatrics skills and expertise. These activities are synergistic: Clinical support enables rural HCPs to become better at managing their own patients, while formal educational activities highlight the availability of specialized consultation available through GRECC Connect. Through ongoing creation of handbooks, workflows, and data analytic strategies, GRECC Connect aims to disseminate this model to additional GRECCs as well as other GEC programs to promote “anywhere to anywhere” VA health care.¹⁷

Barriers and Facilitators

GRECC Connect has had notable implementation challenges while new consultation relationships have been forged in order to provide geriatric expertise to rural areas where it is not otherwise available. Many GRECCs had already established connections with rural CBOCs. Among GRECCs that had previously established consultative relationships with rural clinics, the use of telehealth modalities to provide geriatric clinical resources has been a natural extension of these partnerships. GRECCs that lacked these connections, however, often had to obtain buy-in from multiple stakeholders, including rural HCPs and teams, administrative leads, and local telehealth coordinators, and they required VISN- and facility-level leadership to encourage and sustain rural team participation.

Depending on the distance of the GRECC hub-site to the CBOC, efforts to establish and sustain partnerships may require multiple contacts over time (eg, via face-to-face meetings, one-on-one outreach) and large-scale advertising of consultative services. Continuous engagement with CBOC-based teams also involves development of case finding strategies (eg, hospital discharge information, diagnoses, clinical criteria) to better identify veterans who may benefit from GRECC Connect consultation. Owing to the heterogeneity of technological resources, space, scheduling capacity, and staffing at CBOCs, GRECC sites continue to have variable engagement with their CBOC partners.

The inclusion of GRECC Connect within the Geriatric Scholars Program helps ensure that clinician scholars can serve as project champions at their respective rural sites. Rural HCPs with full-time clinical duties initially had difficulty carving out time to participate in GRECC Connect’s case-based conferences. However, the webinar platform has improved and sustained provider participation, and enduring recordings of the presentations allow clinicians to participate in the conferences at their convenience. Finally, the project experienced delays in taking certain administrative steps and hiring staff needed to support the establishment of telehealth modalities—even within a single health care system like the VA, each medical center and regional system has unique policies that complicate how telehealth modalities can be set up.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The GRECC Connect project aims to establish and support meaningful partnerships between urban geriatric specialists and rural HCPs to facilitate veterans’ increased access to geriatric specialty care. VA ORH has recognized it as a Rural Promising Practice, and GRECC Connect is currently being disseminated through an enterprise-wide initiative. Early evidence demonstrates that over 4 years, the expansion of GRECC Connect has helped meet critical aims of improving provider confidence and skills in geriatric management, and of increasing direct service provision. We have also used nationwide education platforms (eg, VA EES) to deliver geriatrics-focused education to health care teams.

Older rural veterans and their caregivers may benefit from this program through decreased travel-associated burden and report high satisfaction with these programs. Through a recently established collaboration with the GEC Data Analysis Center, we will use national data to refine our ability to identify at-risk, older rural veterans and to better evaluate their service needs and the GRECC Connect clinical impact. Because the VA is rapidly expanding use of telehealth and other virtual and digital methods to increase access to care, continued investments in telehealth are central to the VA 5-year strategic plan.¹⁸ In this spirit, GRECC Connect will continue to expand its program offerings and to leverage telehealth technologies to meet the needs of older veterans.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge Lisa Tenover, MD, PhD, (Palo Alto GRECC) for her contributions to this manuscript; the VA Rural Health Resource Center–Western Region; and GRECC Connect team members for their tireless work to ensure this project’s success. The GRECC Teams include Atlanta/Birmingham (Julia [Annette] Tedford, RN; Marquitta Cox, LMSW; Lisa Welch, LMSW; Mark Phillips; Lanie Walters, PharmD; Kroshona Tabb, PhD; Robert Langford, and Jason [Thomas] Sanders, HT, TCT); Bronx/NY Harbor (Ab Brody, RN; PhD, GNP-BC; Nick Koufacos, LMSW; and Shatice Jones); Canandaigua (Gary Kochersberger, MD; Suzanne Gillespie, MD; Gary Warner, PhD; Christie Hylwa, RPh CCP; Sharon Fell, LMSW; and Dorian Savino, MPA); Durham (Mamata Yanamadala, MBBS; Christy Knight, LCSW, MSW; and Julie Vognsen); Eastern Colorado (Larry Bourg, MD; Skotti Church, MD; Morgan Elmore, DO; Stephanie Hartz, LCSW; Carolyn Horney, MD; Steven Huart, AuD; Kathryn Nearing, PhD; Elizabeth O’Brien, PharmD; Laurence Robbins, MD; Robert Schwartz, MD; Karen Shea, MD; and Joleen Sussman, PhD); Little Rock (Prasad Padala, MD; and Tanya Taylor, RN); Madison (Ryan Bartkus, MD; Timothy Howell, MD; Lindsay Clark, PhD; Lauren Welch, PharmD, BCGP; Ellen Wanninger, MSW, CAPSW; Stacie Monson, RN, BSN; and Teresa Swader, MSW, LCSW); Miami (Carlos Gomez Orozo); New England (Malissa Kraft, PsyD); Palo Alto (Terri Huh, PhD, ABPP; Philip Choe, DO; Dawna Dougherty, LCSW; Ashley Scales, MPH); Pittsburgh (Stacey Shaffer, MD; Carol Dolbee, CRNP; Nancy Kovell, LCSW; Paul Bulgarelli, DO; Lauren Jost, PsyD; and Marcia Homer, RN-BC); and San Antonio (Becky Powers, MD; Che Kelly, RN, BSN; Cynthia Stewart, LCSW; Rebecca Rottman-Sagebiel, PharmD, BCPS, CGP; Melody Moris; Daniel MacCarthy; and Chen-pin Wang, PhD).

Nearly 2.7 million veterans who rely on the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for their health care live in rural communities.¹ Of these, more than half are aged ≥ 65 years. Rural veterans have greater rates of service-related disability and chronic medical conditions than do their urban counterparts.^1,2 Yet because of their rural location, they face unique challenges, including long travel times and distances to health care services, lack of public transportation options, and limited availability of specialized medical and social support services.

Compounding these geographic barriers is a more general lack of workforce infrastructure and a dearth of clinical health care providers (HCPs) skilled in geriatric medicine. The demand for geriatricians is projected to outpace supply and result in a national shortage of nearly 27 000 geriatricians by 2025.³ Moreover, the overwhelming majority (90%) of HCPs identifying as geriatric specialists reside in urban areas.⁴ This creates tremendous pressure on the health care system to provide remote care for older veterans contending with complex conditions, and ultimately these veterans may not receive the specialized care they need.

Telehealth modalities bridge these gaps by bringing health care to veterans in rural communities. They may also hold promise for strengthening community care in rural areas through workforce development and dissemination of educational resources. The VHA has been recognized as a leader in the field of telehealth since it began offering telehealth services to veterans in 1977^5-8 and served more than 677 000 Veterans via telehealth in fiscal year (FY) 2015.⁹ The VHA currently employs multiple modes of telehealth to increase veterans’ access to health care, including: (1) synchronous technology like clinical video telehealth (CVT), which provides live encounters between HCPs and patients using videoconferencing software; and (2) asynchronous technology, such as store-and-forward communication that offers remote transmission and clinical interpretation of veteran health data. The VHA has also strengthened its broad telehealth infrastructure by staffing VHA clinical sites with telehealth clinical technicians and providing telehealth hardware throughout.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care (GEC) and Office of Rural Health (ORH) established the Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Centers (GRECC) Connect project in 2014 to leverage the existing telehealth technologies at the VA to meet the health care needs of older veterans. GRECC Connect builds on the VHA network of geriatrics expertise in GRECCs by providing telehealth-based consultative support for rural primary care provider (PCP) teams, older veterans, and their families. This program profile describes this project’s mission, structure, and activities.

Program Overview

GRECC Connect leverages the clinical expertise and administrative infrastructure of participating GRECCs in order to reach clinicians and veterans in primarily rural communities.¹⁰ GRECCs are VA centers of excellence focused on aging and comprise a large network of interdisciplinary geriatrics expertise. All GRECCs have strong affiliations with local universities and are located in urban VA medical centers (VAMCs). GRECC Connect is based on a hub-and-spoke model in which urban GRECC hub sites are connected to community-based outpatient clinic (CBOC) and VAMC spokes that primarily serve veterans in other communities. CBOCs are stand-alone clinics that are geographically separate from a related VA medical center and provide outpatient primary care, mental health care services, and some specialty care services such as cardiology or neurology. They range in size from small, mainly telehealth clinics with 1 technician to large clinics with several specialty providers. Each GRECC hub site partners with an average of 6 CBOCs (range 3-16), each of which is an average distance of 92.8 miles from the related VA medical center (range 20-406 miles).

GRECC Connect was established under the umbrella of the VA Geriatric Scholars Program, which since 2008 integrates geriatrics into rural primary care practices through tailored education for continuing professional development.¹¹ Through intensive courses in geriatrics and quality improvement methods and through participation in local quality improvement projects benefiting older veterans, the Geriatric Scholars Program trains rural PCPs so that they can more effectively and independently diagnose and manage common geriatric syndromes.¹² The network of clinician scholars developed by the Geriatric Scholars Program, all rural frontline clinicians at VA clinics, has given the GRECC Connect project a well-prepared, geriatrics-trained workforce to act as project champions at rural CBOCs and VAMCs. The GRECC Connect project’s goals are to enhance access to geriatric specialty care among older veterans with complex medical problems, geriatric syndromes, and increased risk for institutionalization, and to provide geriatrics-focused educational support to rural HCP teams.

Geriatric Provider Consultations

The first overarching goal of the GRECC Connect project is to improve access to geriatrics specialty care by facilitating linkages between GRECC hub sites and the CBOCs and VAMCs that primarily serve veterans in rural communities. GRECC hub sites offer consultative support from geriatrics specialty team members (eg, geriatricians, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, gero- or neuropsychologists, registered nurses [RNs], and social workers) to rural PCP in their catchment area. This support is offered through a variety of telehealth modalities readily available in the VA (Table 1). These include CVT, in which a veteran located at a rural CBOC is seen using videoconferencing software by a geriatrics specialty provider who is located at a GRECC hub site. At some GRECC hub sites, CVT has also been used to conduct group visits between a GRECC provider at the hub site and several veterans who participate from a rural CBOC. Electronic consultations, or e-consults, involve a rural provider entering a clinical question in the VA Computerized Patient Record System. The question is then triaged, and a geriatrics provider at a GRECC responds, based on review of that veteran’s chart. At some GRECC hub sites, the e-consults are more extensive and may include telephone contact with the veteran or their caregiver.

Consultations between GRECC-based teams and rural PCPs may cover any aspect of geriatrics care, ranging from broad concerns to subspecialty areas of geriatric medicine. For instance, general geriatrics consultation may address polypharmacy, during either care transitions or ongoing care. Consultation may also reflect the specific focus area of a particular GRECC, such as cognitive assessment (eg, Pittsburgh GRECC), management of osteoporosis to address falls (eg, Durham GRECC, Miami GRECC), and continence care (eg, Birmingham/Atlanta GRECC).¹³ Most consultations are initiated by a remote HCP who is seeking geriatrics expertise from the GRECC team.

Some GRECC hub sites, however, employ case finding strategies, or detailed chart reviews, in order to identify older veterans who may benefit from geriatrics consultation. For veterans identified through those mechanisms, the GRECC clinicians suggest that the rural HCP either request or allow an e-consult or evaluation via CVT for those veterans. The geriatric consultations may help identify additional care needs for older veterans and lead to recommendations, orders, or remote provision of a variety of other actions, including VA or non-VA services (eg, home-based primary care, home nursing service, respite service, social support services such as Meals on Wheels); neuropsychological testing; physical or occupational therapy; audiology or optometry referral; falls and fracture risk assessment and interventions to reduce falls (eg, home safety evaluation, physical therapy); osteoporosis risk assessments (eg, densitometry, recommendations for pharmacologic therapy) to reduce the risk of injury or nontraumatic fractures from falls; palliative care for incontinence and hospice; and counseling on geriatric issues such as dementia caregiving, advanced directives, and driving cessation.

More recently, the Miami GRECC has begun evaluating rural veterans at risk for hypoglycemia, providing patient education and counseling about hypoglycemia, and making recommendations to the veterans’ primary care teams.¹⁴ Consultations may also lead to the appropriate use or discontinuation of medications, related to polypharmacy. GRECC-based teams, for example, have helped rural HCPs modify medication doses, start appropriate medications for dementia and depression, and identify and stop potentially inappropriate medications (eg, those that increase fall risk or that have significant anticholinergic properties).¹⁵

GRECC Connect Geriatric Case Conference Series

The second overarching goal of the GRECC Connect project is to provide geriatrics-focused educational support to equip PCPs to better serve their aging veteran patients. This is achieved through twice-monthly, case-based conferences supported by the VA Employee Education System (EES) and delivered through a webinar interface. Case conferences are targeted to members of the health care team who may provide care for rural older adults, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, RNs, psychologists, social workers, physical and occupational therapists, and pharmacists. The format of these sessions includes a clinical case presentation, a didactic portion to enhance knowledge of participants, and an open question/answer period. The conferences focus on discussions of challenging clinical cases, addressing common problems (eg, driving concerns), and the assessment/management of geriatric syndromes (eg, cognitive decline, falls, polypharmacy). These conferences aim to improve the knowledge and skills of rural clinical teams in taking care of older veterans and to disseminate best practices in geriatric medicine, using case discussions to highlight practical applications of practices to clinical care. Recent GRECC Connect geriatric case conferences are listed in Table 2 and are recorded and archived to ensure that busy clinicians may access these trainings at the time of their choosing. These materials are catalogued and archived on the EES server.

Early Experience

GRECC Connect tracks on an annual basis the number of unique veterans served, number of participating GRECC hub sites and CBOCs, mileage from veteran homes to teleconsultation sites, and number of clinicians and staff engaged in GRECC Connect education programs.¹⁶ Since its inception in 2014, the GRECC Connect project has provided direct clinical support to more than 4000 unique veterans (eFigure), of whom half were seen for a cognition-related issue. Consultations were made on behalf of 1,622 veterans in FY 2018, of whom 60% were from rural or highly rural communities and 56.8% were served by CVT visits. The number of GRECC hub sites has increased from 4 in FY 2014 to 12 (of 20 total GRECCs) in FY 2018. The locations of current GRECC hub sites can be found on the Geriatric Scholars website: www.gerischolars.org. Through this expansion, GRECC Connect provides geriatric consultative and educational support to > 70 rural VA clinics in 10 of the 18 Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs).

To assess the reduction in commute times from teleconsultation, we calculated the difference between the mileage from veteran homes to teleconsultation sites (ie, rural clinics) and the mileage from veteran homes to VAMCs where geriatric teams are located. We estimate that the 1622 veterans served in FY 2018 saved a total of 179 121 miles in travel through GRECC Connect. Veterans traveled 106 fewer miles and on average saved $58 in out-of-pocket savings (based on US General Services Administration 2018 standard mileage reimbursement rate of $0.545 per mile). However, many of the veterans have reported anecdotally that the reduction in mileage traveled was less important than the elimination of stress involved in urban navigating, driving, and parking.

More difficult to measure, GRECC Connect seeks to enhance veteran safety by reducing driving distances for older veterans whose driving abilities may be influenced by many age-related health conditions (eg, visual changes, cognitive impairment). For these and other reasons, surveyed veterans overwhelmingly reported that they would be likely to recommend teleconsultation services to other veterans, and that they preferred telemedicine consultation over traveling long distances for in-person clinical consultations.¹⁶

Since its inception in 2014, GRECC Connect has provided case-based education to a total of 2335 unique clinicians and staff. Participants have included physicians, nurse practitioners, RNs, social workers, and pharmacists. This distribution reflects the interdisciplinary nature of geriatric care. A plurality of participants (39%) were RNs. Surveyed participants in the GRECC Connect geriatrics case conference series report high overall satisfaction with the learning activity, acquisition of new knowledge and skills, and intention to apply new knowledge and skills to improve job performance.¹⁰ In addition, participants agreed that the online training platform was effective for learning and that they would recommend the education series to other HCPs.^10,16

Discussion

During its rapid 4-year scale up, GRECC Connect has established a national network and enhanced relationships between GRECC-based clinical teams and rural provider teams. In doing so, the program has begun to improve rural veterans’ access to geriatric specialty care. By providing continuing education to members of the interprofessional health care team, GRECC Connect develops rural providers’ clinical competency and promotes geriatrics skills and expertise. These activities are synergistic: Clinical support enables rural HCPs to become better at managing their own patients, while formal educational activities highlight the availability of specialized consultation available through GRECC Connect. Through ongoing creation of handbooks, workflows, and data analytic strategies, GRECC Connect aims to disseminate this model to additional GRECCs as well as other GEC programs to promote “anywhere to anywhere” VA health care.¹⁷

Barriers and Facilitators

GRECC Connect has had notable implementation challenges while new consultation relationships have been forged in order to provide geriatric expertise to rural areas where it is not otherwise available. Many GRECCs had already established connections with rural CBOCs. Among GRECCs that had previously established consultative relationships with rural clinics, the use of telehealth modalities to provide geriatric clinical resources has been a natural extension of these partnerships. GRECCs that lacked these connections, however, often had to obtain buy-in from multiple stakeholders, including rural HCPs and teams, administrative leads, and local telehealth coordinators, and they required VISN- and facility-level leadership to encourage and sustain rural team participation.

Depending on the distance of the GRECC hub-site to the CBOC, efforts to establish and sustain partnerships may require multiple contacts over time (eg, via face-to-face meetings, one-on-one outreach) and large-scale advertising of consultative services. Continuous engagement with CBOC-based teams also involves development of case finding strategies (eg, hospital discharge information, diagnoses, clinical criteria) to better identify veterans who may benefit from GRECC Connect consultation. Owing to the heterogeneity of technological resources, space, scheduling capacity, and staffing at CBOCs, GRECC sites continue to have variable engagement with their CBOC partners.

The inclusion of GRECC Connect within the Geriatric Scholars Program helps ensure that clinician scholars can serve as project champions at their respective rural sites. Rural HCPs with full-time clinical duties initially had difficulty carving out time to participate in GRECC Connect’s case-based conferences. However, the webinar platform has improved and sustained provider participation, and enduring recordings of the presentations allow clinicians to participate in the conferences at their convenience. Finally, the project experienced delays in taking certain administrative steps and hiring staff needed to support the establishment of telehealth modalities—even within a single health care system like the VA, each medical center and regional system has unique policies that complicate how telehealth modalities can be set up.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The GRECC Connect project aims to establish and support meaningful partnerships between urban geriatric specialists and rural HCPs to facilitate veterans’ increased access to geriatric specialty care. VA ORH has recognized it as a Rural Promising Practice, and GRECC Connect is currently being disseminated through an enterprise-wide initiative. Early evidence demonstrates that over 4 years, the expansion of GRECC Connect has helped meet critical aims of improving provider confidence and skills in geriatric management, and of increasing direct service provision. We have also used nationwide education platforms (eg, VA EES) to deliver geriatrics-focused education to health care teams.

Older rural veterans and their caregivers may benefit from this program through decreased travel-associated burden and report high satisfaction with these programs. Through a recently established collaboration with the GEC Data Analysis Center, we will use national data to refine our ability to identify at-risk, older rural veterans and to better evaluate their service needs and the GRECC Connect clinical impact. Because the VA is rapidly expanding use of telehealth and other virtual and digital methods to increase access to care, continued investments in telehealth are central to the VA 5-year strategic plan.¹⁸ In this spirit, GRECC Connect will continue to expand its program offerings and to leverage telehealth technologies to meet the needs of older veterans.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge Lisa Tenover, MD, PhD, (Palo Alto GRECC) for her contributions to this manuscript; the VA Rural Health Resource Center–Western Region; and GRECC Connect team members for their tireless work to ensure this project’s success. The GRECC Teams include Atlanta/Birmingham (Julia [Annette] Tedford, RN; Marquitta Cox, LMSW; Lisa Welch, LMSW; Mark Phillips; Lanie Walters, PharmD; Kroshona Tabb, PhD; Robert Langford, and Jason [Thomas] Sanders, HT, TCT); Bronx/NY Harbor (Ab Brody, RN; PhD, GNP-BC; Nick Koufacos, LMSW; and Shatice Jones); Canandaigua (Gary Kochersberger, MD; Suzanne Gillespie, MD; Gary Warner, PhD; Christie Hylwa, RPh CCP; Sharon Fell, LMSW; and Dorian Savino, MPA); Durham (Mamata Yanamadala, MBBS; Christy Knight, LCSW, MSW; and Julie Vognsen); Eastern Colorado (Larry Bourg, MD; Skotti Church, MD; Morgan Elmore, DO; Stephanie Hartz, LCSW; Carolyn Horney, MD; Steven Huart, AuD; Kathryn Nearing, PhD; Elizabeth O’Brien, PharmD; Laurence Robbins, MD; Robert Schwartz, MD; Karen Shea, MD; and Joleen Sussman, PhD); Little Rock (Prasad Padala, MD; and Tanya Taylor, RN); Madison (Ryan Bartkus, MD; Timothy Howell, MD; Lindsay Clark, PhD; Lauren Welch, PharmD, BCGP; Ellen Wanninger, MSW, CAPSW; Stacie Monson, RN, BSN; and Teresa Swader, MSW, LCSW); Miami (Carlos Gomez Orozo); New England (Malissa Kraft, PsyD); Palo Alto (Terri Huh, PhD, ABPP; Philip Choe, DO; Dawna Dougherty, LCSW; Ashley Scales, MPH); Pittsburgh (Stacey Shaffer, MD; Carol Dolbee, CRNP; Nancy Kovell, LCSW; Paul Bulgarelli, DO; Lauren Jost, PsyD; and Marcia Homer, RN-BC); and San Antonio (Becky Powers, MD; Che Kelly, RN, BSN; Cynthia Stewart, LCSW; Rebecca Rottman-Sagebiel, PharmD, BCPS, CGP; Melody Moris; Daniel MacCarthy; and Chen-pin Wang, PhD).

Nearly 2.7 million veterans who rely on the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) for their health care live in rural communities.¹ Of these, more than half are aged ≥ 65 years. Rural veterans have greater rates of service-related disability and chronic medical conditions than do their urban counterparts.^1,2 Yet because of their rural location, they face unique challenges, including long travel times and distances to health care services, lack of public transportation options, and limited availability of specialized medical and social support services.

Compounding these geographic barriers is a more general lack of workforce infrastructure and a dearth of clinical health care providers (HCPs) skilled in geriatric medicine. The demand for geriatricians is projected to outpace supply and result in a national shortage of nearly 27 000 geriatricians by 2025.³ Moreover, the overwhelming majority (90%) of HCPs identifying as geriatric specialists reside in urban areas.⁴ This creates tremendous pressure on the health care system to provide remote care for older veterans contending with complex conditions, and ultimately these veterans may not receive the specialized care they need.

Telehealth modalities bridge these gaps by bringing health care to veterans in rural communities. They may also hold promise for strengthening community care in rural areas through workforce development and dissemination of educational resources. The VHA has been recognized as a leader in the field of telehealth since it began offering telehealth services to veterans in 1977^5-8 and served more than 677 000 Veterans via telehealth in fiscal year (FY) 2015.⁹ The VHA currently employs multiple modes of telehealth to increase veterans’ access to health care, including: (1) synchronous technology like clinical video telehealth (CVT), which provides live encounters between HCPs and patients using videoconferencing software; and (2) asynchronous technology, such as store-and-forward communication that offers remote transmission and clinical interpretation of veteran health data. The VHA has also strengthened its broad telehealth infrastructure by staffing VHA clinical sites with telehealth clinical technicians and providing telehealth hardware throughout.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Geriatrics and Extended Care (GEC) and Office of Rural Health (ORH) established the Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Centers (GRECC) Connect project in 2014 to leverage the existing telehealth technologies at the VA to meet the health care needs of older veterans. GRECC Connect builds on the VHA network of geriatrics expertise in GRECCs by providing telehealth-based consultative support for rural primary care provider (PCP) teams, older veterans, and their families. This program profile describes this project’s mission, structure, and activities.

Program Overview

GRECC Connect leverages the clinical expertise and administrative infrastructure of participating GRECCs in order to reach clinicians and veterans in primarily rural communities.¹⁰ GRECCs are VA centers of excellence focused on aging and comprise a large network of interdisciplinary geriatrics expertise. All GRECCs have strong affiliations with local universities and are located in urban VA medical centers (VAMCs). GRECC Connect is based on a hub-and-spoke model in which urban GRECC hub sites are connected to community-based outpatient clinic (CBOC) and VAMC spokes that primarily serve veterans in other communities. CBOCs are stand-alone clinics that are geographically separate from a related VA medical center and provide outpatient primary care, mental health care services, and some specialty care services such as cardiology or neurology. They range in size from small, mainly telehealth clinics with 1 technician to large clinics with several specialty providers. Each GRECC hub site partners with an average of 6 CBOCs (range 3-16), each of which is an average distance of 92.8 miles from the related VA medical center (range 20-406 miles).

GRECC Connect was established under the umbrella of the VA Geriatric Scholars Program, which since 2008 integrates geriatrics into rural primary care practices through tailored education for continuing professional development.¹¹ Through intensive courses in geriatrics and quality improvement methods and through participation in local quality improvement projects benefiting older veterans, the Geriatric Scholars Program trains rural PCPs so that they can more effectively and independently diagnose and manage common geriatric syndromes.¹² The network of clinician scholars developed by the Geriatric Scholars Program, all rural frontline clinicians at VA clinics, has given the GRECC Connect project a well-prepared, geriatrics-trained workforce to act as project champions at rural CBOCs and VAMCs. The GRECC Connect project’s goals are to enhance access to geriatric specialty care among older veterans with complex medical problems, geriatric syndromes, and increased risk for institutionalization, and to provide geriatrics-focused educational support to rural HCP teams.

Geriatric Provider Consultations

The first overarching goal of the GRECC Connect project is to improve access to geriatrics specialty care by facilitating linkages between GRECC hub sites and the CBOCs and VAMCs that primarily serve veterans in rural communities. GRECC hub sites offer consultative support from geriatrics specialty team members (eg, geriatricians, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, gero- or neuropsychologists, registered nurses [RNs], and social workers) to rural PCP in their catchment area. This support is offered through a variety of telehealth modalities readily available in the VA (Table 1). These include CVT, in which a veteran located at a rural CBOC is seen using videoconferencing software by a geriatrics specialty provider who is located at a GRECC hub site. At some GRECC hub sites, CVT has also been used to conduct group visits between a GRECC provider at the hub site and several veterans who participate from a rural CBOC. Electronic consultations, or e-consults, involve a rural provider entering a clinical question in the VA Computerized Patient Record System. The question is then triaged, and a geriatrics provider at a GRECC responds, based on review of that veteran’s chart. At some GRECC hub sites, the e-consults are more extensive and may include telephone contact with the veteran or their caregiver.

Consultations between GRECC-based teams and rural PCPs may cover any aspect of geriatrics care, ranging from broad concerns to subspecialty areas of geriatric medicine. For instance, general geriatrics consultation may address polypharmacy, during either care transitions or ongoing care. Consultation may also reflect the specific focus area of a particular GRECC, such as cognitive assessment (eg, Pittsburgh GRECC), management of osteoporosis to address falls (eg, Durham GRECC, Miami GRECC), and continence care (eg, Birmingham/Atlanta GRECC).¹³ Most consultations are initiated by a remote HCP who is seeking geriatrics expertise from the GRECC team.

Some GRECC hub sites, however, employ case finding strategies, or detailed chart reviews, in order to identify older veterans who may benefit from geriatrics consultation. For veterans identified through those mechanisms, the GRECC clinicians suggest that the rural HCP either request or allow an e-consult or evaluation via CVT for those veterans. The geriatric consultations may help identify additional care needs for older veterans and lead to recommendations, orders, or remote provision of a variety of other actions, including VA or non-VA services (eg, home-based primary care, home nursing service, respite service, social support services such as Meals on Wheels); neuropsychological testing; physical or occupational therapy; audiology or optometry referral; falls and fracture risk assessment and interventions to reduce falls (eg, home safety evaluation, physical therapy); osteoporosis risk assessments (eg, densitometry, recommendations for pharmacologic therapy) to reduce the risk of injury or nontraumatic fractures from falls; palliative care for incontinence and hospice; and counseling on geriatric issues such as dementia caregiving, advanced directives, and driving cessation.

More recently, the Miami GRECC has begun evaluating rural veterans at risk for hypoglycemia, providing patient education and counseling about hypoglycemia, and making recommendations to the veterans’ primary care teams.¹⁴ Consultations may also lead to the appropriate use or discontinuation of medications, related to polypharmacy. GRECC-based teams, for example, have helped rural HCPs modify medication doses, start appropriate medications for dementia and depression, and identify and stop potentially inappropriate medications (eg, those that increase fall risk or that have significant anticholinergic properties).¹⁵

GRECC Connect Geriatric Case Conference Series

The second overarching goal of the GRECC Connect project is to provide geriatrics-focused educational support to equip PCPs to better serve their aging veteran patients. This is achieved through twice-monthly, case-based conferences supported by the VA Employee Education System (EES) and delivered through a webinar interface. Case conferences are targeted to members of the health care team who may provide care for rural older adults, including physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, RNs, psychologists, social workers, physical and occupational therapists, and pharmacists. The format of these sessions includes a clinical case presentation, a didactic portion to enhance knowledge of participants, and an open question/answer period. The conferences focus on discussions of challenging clinical cases, addressing common problems (eg, driving concerns), and the assessment/management of geriatric syndromes (eg, cognitive decline, falls, polypharmacy). These conferences aim to improve the knowledge and skills of rural clinical teams in taking care of older veterans and to disseminate best practices in geriatric medicine, using case discussions to highlight practical applications of practices to clinical care. Recent GRECC Connect geriatric case conferences are listed in Table 2 and are recorded and archived to ensure that busy clinicians may access these trainings at the time of their choosing. These materials are catalogued and archived on the EES server.

Early Experience

GRECC Connect tracks on an annual basis the number of unique veterans served, number of participating GRECC hub sites and CBOCs, mileage from veteran homes to teleconsultation sites, and number of clinicians and staff engaged in GRECC Connect education programs.¹⁶ Since its inception in 2014, the GRECC Connect project has provided direct clinical support to more than 4000 unique veterans (eFigure), of whom half were seen for a cognition-related issue. Consultations were made on behalf of 1,622 veterans in FY 2018, of whom 60% were from rural or highly rural communities and 56.8% were served by CVT visits. The number of GRECC hub sites has increased from 4 in FY 2014 to 12 (of 20 total GRECCs) in FY 2018. The locations of current GRECC hub sites can be found on the Geriatric Scholars website: www.gerischolars.org. Through this expansion, GRECC Connect provides geriatric consultative and educational support to > 70 rural VA clinics in 10 of the 18 Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs).

To assess the reduction in commute times from teleconsultation, we calculated the difference between the mileage from veteran homes to teleconsultation sites (ie, rural clinics) and the mileage from veteran homes to VAMCs where geriatric teams are located. We estimate that the 1622 veterans served in FY 2018 saved a total of 179 121 miles in travel through GRECC Connect. Veterans traveled 106 fewer miles and on average saved $58 in out-of-pocket savings (based on US General Services Administration 2018 standard mileage reimbursement rate of $0.545 per mile). However, many of the veterans have reported anecdotally that the reduction in mileage traveled was less important than the elimination of stress involved in urban navigating, driving, and parking.

More difficult to measure, GRECC Connect seeks to enhance veteran safety by reducing driving distances for older veterans whose driving abilities may be influenced by many age-related health conditions (eg, visual changes, cognitive impairment). For these and other reasons, surveyed veterans overwhelmingly reported that they would be likely to recommend teleconsultation services to other veterans, and that they preferred telemedicine consultation over traveling long distances for in-person clinical consultations.¹⁶

Since its inception in 2014, GRECC Connect has provided case-based education to a total of 2335 unique clinicians and staff. Participants have included physicians, nurse practitioners, RNs, social workers, and pharmacists. This distribution reflects the interdisciplinary nature of geriatric care. A plurality of participants (39%) were RNs. Surveyed participants in the GRECC Connect geriatrics case conference series report high overall satisfaction with the learning activity, acquisition of new knowledge and skills, and intention to apply new knowledge and skills to improve job performance.¹⁰ In addition, participants agreed that the online training platform was effective for learning and that they would recommend the education series to other HCPs.^10,16

Discussion

During its rapid 4-year scale up, GRECC Connect has established a national network and enhanced relationships between GRECC-based clinical teams and rural provider teams. In doing so, the program has begun to improve rural veterans’ access to geriatric specialty care. By providing continuing education to members of the interprofessional health care team, GRECC Connect develops rural providers’ clinical competency and promotes geriatrics skills and expertise. These activities are synergistic: Clinical support enables rural HCPs to become better at managing their own patients, while formal educational activities highlight the availability of specialized consultation available through GRECC Connect. Through ongoing creation of handbooks, workflows, and data analytic strategies, GRECC Connect aims to disseminate this model to additional GRECCs as well as other GEC programs to promote “anywhere to anywhere” VA health care.¹⁷

Barriers and Facilitators

GRECC Connect has had notable implementation challenges while new consultation relationships have been forged in order to provide geriatric expertise to rural areas where it is not otherwise available. Many GRECCs had already established connections with rural CBOCs. Among GRECCs that had previously established consultative relationships with rural clinics, the use of telehealth modalities to provide geriatric clinical resources has been a natural extension of these partnerships. GRECCs that lacked these connections, however, often had to obtain buy-in from multiple stakeholders, including rural HCPs and teams, administrative leads, and local telehealth coordinators, and they required VISN- and facility-level leadership to encourage and sustain rural team participation.

Depending on the distance of the GRECC hub-site to the CBOC, efforts to establish and sustain partnerships may require multiple contacts over time (eg, via face-to-face meetings, one-on-one outreach) and large-scale advertising of consultative services. Continuous engagement with CBOC-based teams also involves development of case finding strategies (eg, hospital discharge information, diagnoses, clinical criteria) to better identify veterans who may benefit from GRECC Connect consultation. Owing to the heterogeneity of technological resources, space, scheduling capacity, and staffing at CBOCs, GRECC sites continue to have variable engagement with their CBOC partners.

The inclusion of GRECC Connect within the Geriatric Scholars Program helps ensure that clinician scholars can serve as project champions at their respective rural sites. Rural HCPs with full-time clinical duties initially had difficulty carving out time to participate in GRECC Connect’s case-based conferences. However, the webinar platform has improved and sustained provider participation, and enduring recordings of the presentations allow clinicians to participate in the conferences at their convenience. Finally, the project experienced delays in taking certain administrative steps and hiring staff needed to support the establishment of telehealth modalities—even within a single health care system like the VA, each medical center and regional system has unique policies that complicate how telehealth modalities can be set up.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The GRECC Connect project aims to establish and support meaningful partnerships between urban geriatric specialists and rural HCPs to facilitate veterans’ increased access to geriatric specialty care. VA ORH has recognized it as a Rural Promising Practice, and GRECC Connect is currently being disseminated through an enterprise-wide initiative. Early evidence demonstrates that over 4 years, the expansion of GRECC Connect has helped meet critical aims of improving provider confidence and skills in geriatric management, and of increasing direct service provision. We have also used nationwide education platforms (eg, VA EES) to deliver geriatrics-focused education to health care teams.

Older rural veterans and their caregivers may benefit from this program through decreased travel-associated burden and report high satisfaction with these programs. Through a recently established collaboration with the GEC Data Analysis Center, we will use national data to refine our ability to identify at-risk, older rural veterans and to better evaluate their service needs and the GRECC Connect clinical impact. Because the VA is rapidly expanding use of telehealth and other virtual and digital methods to increase access to care, continued investments in telehealth are central to the VA 5-year strategic plan.¹⁸ In this spirit, GRECC Connect will continue to expand its program offerings and to leverage telehealth technologies to meet the needs of older veterans.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge Lisa Tenover, MD, PhD, (Palo Alto GRECC) for her contributions to this manuscript; the VA Rural Health Resource Center–Western Region; and GRECC Connect team members for their tireless work to ensure this project’s success. The GRECC Teams include Atlanta/Birmingham (Julia [Annette] Tedford, RN; Marquitta Cox, LMSW; Lisa Welch, LMSW; Mark Phillips; Lanie Walters, PharmD; Kroshona Tabb, PhD; Robert Langford, and Jason [Thomas] Sanders, HT, TCT); Bronx/NY Harbor (Ab Brody, RN; PhD, GNP-BC; Nick Koufacos, LMSW; and Shatice Jones); Canandaigua (Gary Kochersberger, MD; Suzanne Gillespie, MD; Gary Warner, PhD; Christie Hylwa, RPh CCP; Sharon Fell, LMSW; and Dorian Savino, MPA); Durham (Mamata Yanamadala, MBBS; Christy Knight, LCSW, MSW; and Julie Vognsen); Eastern Colorado (Larry Bourg, MD; Skotti Church, MD; Morgan Elmore, DO; Stephanie Hartz, LCSW; Carolyn Horney, MD; Steven Huart, AuD; Kathryn Nearing, PhD; Elizabeth O’Brien, PharmD; Laurence Robbins, MD; Robert Schwartz, MD; Karen Shea, MD; and Joleen Sussman, PhD); Little Rock (Prasad Padala, MD; and Tanya Taylor, RN); Madison (Ryan Bartkus, MD; Timothy Howell, MD; Lindsay Clark, PhD; Lauren Welch, PharmD, BCGP; Ellen Wanninger, MSW, CAPSW; Stacie Monson, RN, BSN; and Teresa Swader, MSW, LCSW); Miami (Carlos Gomez Orozo); New England (Malissa Kraft, PsyD); Palo Alto (Terri Huh, PhD, ABPP; Philip Choe, DO; Dawna Dougherty, LCSW; Ashley Scales, MPH); Pittsburgh (Stacey Shaffer, MD; Carol Dolbee, CRNP; Nancy Kovell, LCSW; Paul Bulgarelli, DO; Lauren Jost, PsyD; and Marcia Homer, RN-BC); and San Antonio (Becky Powers, MD; Che Kelly, RN, BSN; Cynthia Stewart, LCSW; Rebecca Rottman-Sagebiel, PharmD, BCPS, CGP; Melody Moris; Daniel MacCarthy; and Chen-pin Wang, PhD).

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) may influence the relationship between alcohol consumption and dementia risk, a study of more than 3,000 adults suggests. In addition, alcohol dose and the frequency of alcohol intake correlate with cognitive decline and the risk of dementia, according to the study, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

Thinkstockphotos.com

“The associations of self-reported alcohol consumption with dementia risk and cognitive decline were more consistently adverse among individuals with MCI than those with normal cognition,” reported Manja Koch, PhD, a researcher in the department of nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues. “This was particularly true for the subset of individuals [with MCI] who drank more than 14.0 servings per week, whose rate of cognitive decline and risk of dementia were the highest of any subgroup.”

Among older adults with normal cognition, the results generally were consistent with those of a recent meta-analysis that found a U-shaped relationship between drinking and dementia, the researchers said (Eur J Epidemiol. 2017 Jan;32[1]:31-42.).

“Our results did not show significant associations and clearly do not suffice to suggest a clinical benefit from even limited alcohol use,” said Dr. Koch and colleagues. “Nonetheless, our findings provide some reassurance that alcohol consumed within recommended limits was not associated with an increased risk of dementia among older adults with normal baseline cognition.”

GEMS data

To study whether alcohol consumption is associated with the risk of dementia and cognitive decline in older adults with and without MCI, the investigators analyzed data from the Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory Study (GEMS). GEMS was a randomized controlled trial conducted between 2000 and 2008 that found no overall association between ginkgo biloba and dementia prevention. During the trial, participants completed the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination, the Clinical Dementia Rating scale, and the cognitive portion of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale.

In the present study, the investigators analyzed data from 3,021 participants aged 72 years and older who were free of dementia at baseline and had provided information about their alcohol intake. Their median age was 78 years, and 46.2% were female. Fifty-eight percent consumed alcohol, including 45% of the participants with MCI at baseline.

During follow-up, 512 cases of dementia occurred. Among the 473 participants with MCI at baseline, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for dementia was 1.72 for those who consumed more than 14 drinks per week, compared with light drinkers who consumed less than 1 drink per week. For participants who consumed between 7 and 14 drinks per week, the adjusted HR for dementia was 0.63 among those without MCI and 0.93 among those with MCI, relative to light drinkers who consumed less than 1 drink per week.

Among adults with normal cognition at baseline, daily low-quantity drinking was associated with lower dementia risk, compared with infrequent higher-quantity drinking (HR, 0.45).
 

Trial excluded adults with excessive alcohol use

Limitations of the study include a lack of data about any changes in alcohol consumption over time. In addition, the original trial excluded people with a known history of excessive alcohol use. Furthermore, it is possible that the “long preclinical phase of dementia” and other health issues affect drinking behavior, the authors said. “At present, our findings cannot be directly translated into clinical recommendations,” the authors said. Nevertheless, the results “suggest that, while caring for older adults, physicians should carefully assess the full dimensions of drinking behavior and cognition when providing guidance to patients about alcohol consumption,” they said.

The study was supported by grants from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine; the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; the Office of Dietary Supplements of the National Institute on Aging; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Pittsburgh Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center; the Roena Kulynych Center for Memory and Cognition Research; and Wake Forest University School of Medicine. In addition, the researchers used plasma samples from the National Cell Repository for Alzheimer’s Disease, which receives support from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Koch had no conflicts of interest. Coauthors disclosed university and government grants and personal fees from pharmaceutical companies outside the study. One author was an employee of Genentech at the time of publication, but Genentech did not contribute to the study.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Koch M et al. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Sep 27. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10319.

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) may influence the relationship between alcohol consumption and dementia risk, a study of more than 3,000 adults suggests. In addition, alcohol dose and the frequency of alcohol intake correlate with cognitive decline and the risk of dementia, according to the study, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

Thinkstockphotos.com

“The associations of self-reported alcohol consumption with dementia risk and cognitive decline were more consistently adverse among individuals with MCI than those with normal cognition,” reported Manja Koch, PhD, a researcher in the department of nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues. “This was particularly true for the subset of individuals [with MCI] who drank more than 14.0 servings per week, whose rate of cognitive decline and risk of dementia were the highest of any subgroup.”

Among older adults with normal cognition, the results generally were consistent with those of a recent meta-analysis that found a U-shaped relationship between drinking and dementia, the researchers said (Eur J Epidemiol. 2017 Jan;32[1]:31-42.).

“Our results did not show significant associations and clearly do not suffice to suggest a clinical benefit from even limited alcohol use,” said Dr. Koch and colleagues. “Nonetheless, our findings provide some reassurance that alcohol consumed within recommended limits was not associated with an increased risk of dementia among older adults with normal baseline cognition.”

GEMS data

To study whether alcohol consumption is associated with the risk of dementia and cognitive decline in older adults with and without MCI, the investigators analyzed data from the Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory Study (GEMS). GEMS was a randomized controlled trial conducted between 2000 and 2008 that found no overall association between ginkgo biloba and dementia prevention. During the trial, participants completed the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination, the Clinical Dementia Rating scale, and the cognitive portion of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale.

In the present study, the investigators analyzed data from 3,021 participants aged 72 years and older who were free of dementia at baseline and had provided information about their alcohol intake. Their median age was 78 years, and 46.2% were female. Fifty-eight percent consumed alcohol, including 45% of the participants with MCI at baseline.

During follow-up, 512 cases of dementia occurred. Among the 473 participants with MCI at baseline, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for dementia was 1.72 for those who consumed more than 14 drinks per week, compared with light drinkers who consumed less than 1 drink per week. For participants who consumed between 7 and 14 drinks per week, the adjusted HR for dementia was 0.63 among those without MCI and 0.93 among those with MCI, relative to light drinkers who consumed less than 1 drink per week.

Among adults with normal cognition at baseline, daily low-quantity drinking was associated with lower dementia risk, compared with infrequent higher-quantity drinking (HR, 0.45).
 

Trial excluded adults with excessive alcohol use

Limitations of the study include a lack of data about any changes in alcohol consumption over time. In addition, the original trial excluded people with a known history of excessive alcohol use. Furthermore, it is possible that the “long preclinical phase of dementia” and other health issues affect drinking behavior, the authors said. “At present, our findings cannot be directly translated into clinical recommendations,” the authors said. Nevertheless, the results “suggest that, while caring for older adults, physicians should carefully assess the full dimensions of drinking behavior and cognition when providing guidance to patients about alcohol consumption,” they said.

The study was supported by grants from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine; the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; the Office of Dietary Supplements of the National Institute on Aging; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Pittsburgh Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center; the Roena Kulynych Center for Memory and Cognition Research; and Wake Forest University School of Medicine. In addition, the researchers used plasma samples from the National Cell Repository for Alzheimer’s Disease, which receives support from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Koch had no conflicts of interest. Coauthors disclosed university and government grants and personal fees from pharmaceutical companies outside the study. One author was an employee of Genentech at the time of publication, but Genentech did not contribute to the study.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Koch M et al. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Sep 27. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10319.

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) may influence the relationship between alcohol consumption and dementia risk, a study of more than 3,000 adults suggests. In addition, alcohol dose and the frequency of alcohol intake correlate with cognitive decline and the risk of dementia, according to the study, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

Thinkstockphotos.com

“The associations of self-reported alcohol consumption with dementia risk and cognitive decline were more consistently adverse among individuals with MCI than those with normal cognition,” reported Manja Koch, PhD, a researcher in the department of nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues. “This was particularly true for the subset of individuals [with MCI] who drank more than 14.0 servings per week, whose rate of cognitive decline and risk of dementia were the highest of any subgroup.”

Among older adults with normal cognition, the results generally were consistent with those of a recent meta-analysis that found a U-shaped relationship between drinking and dementia, the researchers said (Eur J Epidemiol. 2017 Jan;32[1]:31-42.).

“Our results did not show significant associations and clearly do not suffice to suggest a clinical benefit from even limited alcohol use,” said Dr. Koch and colleagues. “Nonetheless, our findings provide some reassurance that alcohol consumed within recommended limits was not associated with an increased risk of dementia among older adults with normal baseline cognition.”

GEMS data

To study whether alcohol consumption is associated with the risk of dementia and cognitive decline in older adults with and without MCI, the investigators analyzed data from the Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory Study (GEMS). GEMS was a randomized controlled trial conducted between 2000 and 2008 that found no overall association between ginkgo biloba and dementia prevention. During the trial, participants completed the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination, the Clinical Dementia Rating scale, and the cognitive portion of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale.

In the present study, the investigators analyzed data from 3,021 participants aged 72 years and older who were free of dementia at baseline and had provided information about their alcohol intake. Their median age was 78 years, and 46.2% were female. Fifty-eight percent consumed alcohol, including 45% of the participants with MCI at baseline.

During follow-up, 512 cases of dementia occurred. Among the 473 participants with MCI at baseline, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for dementia was 1.72 for those who consumed more than 14 drinks per week, compared with light drinkers who consumed less than 1 drink per week. For participants who consumed between 7 and 14 drinks per week, the adjusted HR for dementia was 0.63 among those without MCI and 0.93 among those with MCI, relative to light drinkers who consumed less than 1 drink per week.

Among adults with normal cognition at baseline, daily low-quantity drinking was associated with lower dementia risk, compared with infrequent higher-quantity drinking (HR, 0.45).
 

Trial excluded adults with excessive alcohol use

Limitations of the study include a lack of data about any changes in alcohol consumption over time. In addition, the original trial excluded people with a known history of excessive alcohol use. Furthermore, it is possible that the “long preclinical phase of dementia” and other health issues affect drinking behavior, the authors said. “At present, our findings cannot be directly translated into clinical recommendations,” the authors said. Nevertheless, the results “suggest that, while caring for older adults, physicians should carefully assess the full dimensions of drinking behavior and cognition when providing guidance to patients about alcohol consumption,” they said.

The study was supported by grants from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine; the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; the Office of Dietary Supplements of the National Institute on Aging; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Pittsburgh Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center; the Roena Kulynych Center for Memory and Cognition Research; and Wake Forest University School of Medicine. In addition, the researchers used plasma samples from the National Cell Repository for Alzheimer’s Disease, which receives support from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Koch had no conflicts of interest. Coauthors disclosed university and government grants and personal fees from pharmaceutical companies outside the study. One author was an employee of Genentech at the time of publication, but Genentech did not contribute to the study.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Koch M et al. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Sep 27. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10319.

ORLANDO – Patients who took romosozumab for 12 months and then switched to alendronate continued to see benefits in bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine after 12 months of therapy with alendronate, compared with patients who began taking, and continued to take, alendronate over the same time period, according to findings from a subgroup of the ARCH study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“These effects occurred rapidly, as early as month 6, were sustained beyond 12 months after transitioning to alendronate, and are consistent with greater fracture-risk reduction observed in ARCH with romosozumab to alendronate versus alendronate to alendronate,” Jacques P. Brown, MD, FRCPC, of Laval University, Quebec City, said in his presentation.

In the double-blinded ARCH study, 4,093 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and a previous fracture history were randomized to receive subcutaneous monthly romosozumab 210 mg or oral weekly alendronate 70 mg for 12 months, followed by an open-label period during which romosozumab patients received oral weekly alendronate 70 mg and alendronate patients continued to receive the same dose on the same schedule for an additional 24 months (Saag KG et al. N Eng J Med. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1708322).

Dr. Brown and colleagues performed an imaging substudy of ARCH, which included examining how the romosozumab-to-alendronate and alendronate-only groups improved lumbar spine BMD and lumbar spine bone strength. Lumbar spine BMD was assessed through quantitative CT, and lumbar spine bone strength was measured with finite element analysis. The researchers received quantitative CT images from baseline and at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months, and determined the percentage change at each of those periods to calculate integral, trabecular, and cortical lumbar spine volumetric BMD (vBMD), and to bone mineral content (BMC). They also measured areal BMD (aBMD) at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Overall, 49 romosozumab patients and 41 alendronate patients from the ARCH study were enrolled in the imaging substudy. Of those patients, 76 had vBMD and BMC information available at baseline and one or more time periods post baseline, and 86 patients had finite element analysis data at baseline and one or more postbaseline time periods. Patients in the romosozumab and alendronate groups had similar baseline characteristics with regard to age (73.1 years vs. 72.8 years, respectively), mean lumbar spine BMD T score (–2.82 vs. –3.38), mean total hip BMD T score (–2.65 vs. –2.75), mean femoral neck T score (–2.84 vs. –2.83), mean lumbar spine integral vBMD (130.3 mg/cm³ vs. 120.5 mg/cm³), trabecular vBMD (60.1 mg/cm³ vs. 53.7 mg/cm³) and cortical vBMD (284.6 mg/cm³ vs. 270.9 mg/cm³). Patients in both groups also had similar rates of previous osteoporotic fracture at or after aged 45 years, previous vertebral fracture, and history of hip fracture.

Beginning at 6 months, there were significant least squares mean BMD improvements in both groups, but the romosozumab group had significant improvements in aBMD percentage changes, compared with the alendronate group, which persisted until 24 months (P less than .001 at all time points). Integral, trabecular, and cortical vBMD in the romosozumab group also saw significantly greater increases from baseline, compared with the alendronate group, and those results persisted in the open-label portion of the study for patients in the romosozumab group who transitioned to alendronate and patients in the alendronate to alendronate group (P less than .001 at all time points).

“The rapid and large increases in BMD with romosozumab followed by BMD consolidation where [patients were] transitioning to alendronate, support the important role of romosozumab as a first-line therapy in treating patients who are at very high risk for fracture,” Dr. Brown said.

In regard to BMC, there were larger increases in least squares mean BMC changes from baseline in the cortical compartment than the trabecular compartment, and actual change in bone strength as measured by finite element analysis was highly correlated with integral BMC in the romosozumab group.

Dr. Brown said the study was limited to the small sample size from the imaging substudy of ARCH, and quantitative CT dictated the imaging sites for the substudy, which may have affected patient selection. However, he noted that the characteristics of the ARCH imaging substudy were similar to patients in the overall ARCH study.

Amgen, UCB Pharma, and Astellas Pharma funded the study in part. Amgen and UCB Pharma assisted in the preparation of Dr. Brown’s presentation at ASBMR 2019, including funding costs associated with its development. Dr. Brown and the other coauthors reported relationships with Amgen, UCB Pharma, and other companies in the form of consultancies, grants and research support, speaker’s bureau appointments, paid employment, and stock options.

SOURCE: Brown JP et al. ASBMR 2019, Abstract 1050.

ORLANDO – Patients who took romosozumab for 12 months and then switched to alendronate continued to see benefits in bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine after 12 months of therapy with alendronate, compared with patients who began taking, and continued to take, alendronate over the same time period, according to findings from a subgroup of the ARCH study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“These effects occurred rapidly, as early as month 6, were sustained beyond 12 months after transitioning to alendronate, and are consistent with greater fracture-risk reduction observed in ARCH with romosozumab to alendronate versus alendronate to alendronate,” Jacques P. Brown, MD, FRCPC, of Laval University, Quebec City, said in his presentation.

In the double-blinded ARCH study, 4,093 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and a previous fracture history were randomized to receive subcutaneous monthly romosozumab 210 mg or oral weekly alendronate 70 mg for 12 months, followed by an open-label period during which romosozumab patients received oral weekly alendronate 70 mg and alendronate patients continued to receive the same dose on the same schedule for an additional 24 months (Saag KG et al. N Eng J Med. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1708322).

Dr. Brown and colleagues performed an imaging substudy of ARCH, which included examining how the romosozumab-to-alendronate and alendronate-only groups improved lumbar spine BMD and lumbar spine bone strength. Lumbar spine BMD was assessed through quantitative CT, and lumbar spine bone strength was measured with finite element analysis. The researchers received quantitative CT images from baseline and at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months, and determined the percentage change at each of those periods to calculate integral, trabecular, and cortical lumbar spine volumetric BMD (vBMD), and to bone mineral content (BMC). They also measured areal BMD (aBMD) at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Overall, 49 romosozumab patients and 41 alendronate patients from the ARCH study were enrolled in the imaging substudy. Of those patients, 76 had vBMD and BMC information available at baseline and one or more time periods post baseline, and 86 patients had finite element analysis data at baseline and one or more postbaseline time periods. Patients in the romosozumab and alendronate groups had similar baseline characteristics with regard to age (73.1 years vs. 72.8 years, respectively), mean lumbar spine BMD T score (–2.82 vs. –3.38), mean total hip BMD T score (–2.65 vs. –2.75), mean femoral neck T score (–2.84 vs. –2.83), mean lumbar spine integral vBMD (130.3 mg/cm³ vs. 120.5 mg/cm³), trabecular vBMD (60.1 mg/cm³ vs. 53.7 mg/cm³) and cortical vBMD (284.6 mg/cm³ vs. 270.9 mg/cm³). Patients in both groups also had similar rates of previous osteoporotic fracture at or after aged 45 years, previous vertebral fracture, and history of hip fracture.

Beginning at 6 months, there were significant least squares mean BMD improvements in both groups, but the romosozumab group had significant improvements in aBMD percentage changes, compared with the alendronate group, which persisted until 24 months (P less than .001 at all time points). Integral, trabecular, and cortical vBMD in the romosozumab group also saw significantly greater increases from baseline, compared with the alendronate group, and those results persisted in the open-label portion of the study for patients in the romosozumab group who transitioned to alendronate and patients in the alendronate to alendronate group (P less than .001 at all time points).

“The rapid and large increases in BMD with romosozumab followed by BMD consolidation where [patients were] transitioning to alendronate, support the important role of romosozumab as a first-line therapy in treating patients who are at very high risk for fracture,” Dr. Brown said.

In regard to BMC, there were larger increases in least squares mean BMC changes from baseline in the cortical compartment than the trabecular compartment, and actual change in bone strength as measured by finite element analysis was highly correlated with integral BMC in the romosozumab group.

Dr. Brown said the study was limited to the small sample size from the imaging substudy of ARCH, and quantitative CT dictated the imaging sites for the substudy, which may have affected patient selection. However, he noted that the characteristics of the ARCH imaging substudy were similar to patients in the overall ARCH study.

Amgen, UCB Pharma, and Astellas Pharma funded the study in part. Amgen and UCB Pharma assisted in the preparation of Dr. Brown’s presentation at ASBMR 2019, including funding costs associated with its development. Dr. Brown and the other coauthors reported relationships with Amgen, UCB Pharma, and other companies in the form of consultancies, grants and research support, speaker’s bureau appointments, paid employment, and stock options.

SOURCE: Brown JP et al. ASBMR 2019, Abstract 1050.

ORLANDO – Patients who took romosozumab for 12 months and then switched to alendronate continued to see benefits in bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine after 12 months of therapy with alendronate, compared with patients who began taking, and continued to take, alendronate over the same time period, according to findings from a subgroup of the ARCH study presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“These effects occurred rapidly, as early as month 6, were sustained beyond 12 months after transitioning to alendronate, and are consistent with greater fracture-risk reduction observed in ARCH with romosozumab to alendronate versus alendronate to alendronate,” Jacques P. Brown, MD, FRCPC, of Laval University, Quebec City, said in his presentation.

In the double-blinded ARCH study, 4,093 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and a previous fracture history were randomized to receive subcutaneous monthly romosozumab 210 mg or oral weekly alendronate 70 mg for 12 months, followed by an open-label period during which romosozumab patients received oral weekly alendronate 70 mg and alendronate patients continued to receive the same dose on the same schedule for an additional 24 months (Saag KG et al. N Eng J Med. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1708322).

Dr. Brown and colleagues performed an imaging substudy of ARCH, which included examining how the romosozumab-to-alendronate and alendronate-only groups improved lumbar spine BMD and lumbar spine bone strength. Lumbar spine BMD was assessed through quantitative CT, and lumbar spine bone strength was measured with finite element analysis. The researchers received quantitative CT images from baseline and at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months, and determined the percentage change at each of those periods to calculate integral, trabecular, and cortical lumbar spine volumetric BMD (vBMD), and to bone mineral content (BMC). They also measured areal BMD (aBMD) at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.

Overall, 49 romosozumab patients and 41 alendronate patients from the ARCH study were enrolled in the imaging substudy. Of those patients, 76 had vBMD and BMC information available at baseline and one or more time periods post baseline, and 86 patients had finite element analysis data at baseline and one or more postbaseline time periods. Patients in the romosozumab and alendronate groups had similar baseline characteristics with regard to age (73.1 years vs. 72.8 years, respectively), mean lumbar spine BMD T score (–2.82 vs. –3.38), mean total hip BMD T score (–2.65 vs. –2.75), mean femoral neck T score (–2.84 vs. –2.83), mean lumbar spine integral vBMD (130.3 mg/cm³ vs. 120.5 mg/cm³), trabecular vBMD (60.1 mg/cm³ vs. 53.7 mg/cm³) and cortical vBMD (284.6 mg/cm³ vs. 270.9 mg/cm³). Patients in both groups also had similar rates of previous osteoporotic fracture at or after aged 45 years, previous vertebral fracture, and history of hip fracture.

Beginning at 6 months, there were significant least squares mean BMD improvements in both groups, but the romosozumab group had significant improvements in aBMD percentage changes, compared with the alendronate group, which persisted until 24 months (P less than .001 at all time points). Integral, trabecular, and cortical vBMD in the romosozumab group also saw significantly greater increases from baseline, compared with the alendronate group, and those results persisted in the open-label portion of the study for patients in the romosozumab group who transitioned to alendronate and patients in the alendronate to alendronate group (P less than .001 at all time points).

“The rapid and large increases in BMD with romosozumab followed by BMD consolidation where [patients were] transitioning to alendronate, support the important role of romosozumab as a first-line therapy in treating patients who are at very high risk for fracture,” Dr. Brown said.

In regard to BMC, there were larger increases in least squares mean BMC changes from baseline in the cortical compartment than the trabecular compartment, and actual change in bone strength as measured by finite element analysis was highly correlated with integral BMC in the romosozumab group.

Dr. Brown said the study was limited to the small sample size from the imaging substudy of ARCH, and quantitative CT dictated the imaging sites for the substudy, which may have affected patient selection. However, he noted that the characteristics of the ARCH imaging substudy were similar to patients in the overall ARCH study.

Amgen, UCB Pharma, and Astellas Pharma funded the study in part. Amgen and UCB Pharma assisted in the preparation of Dr. Brown’s presentation at ASBMR 2019, including funding costs associated with its development. Dr. Brown and the other coauthors reported relationships with Amgen, UCB Pharma, and other companies in the form of consultancies, grants and research support, speaker’s bureau appointments, paid employment, and stock options.

SOURCE: Brown JP et al. ASBMR 2019, Abstract 1050.

ORLANDO – Supplemental vitamin D₃ in healthy older men and women did not significantly affect areal bone mineral density in the whole body, femoral neck, total hip, or spine after 2 years of daily use, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“Participants may have already reached the vitamin D level needed for bone health,” Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in her presentation.

Dr. LeBoff presented results from 771 patients (mean age, 63.8 years) in the Bone Health Subcohort of VITAL (Vitamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL) who were not on any bone active medications and were randomized to receive daily vitamin D₃ at a dose of 2,000 IU or placebo. Patients received bone imaging at baseline and at 2 years; areal bone mineral density (aBMD) of the whole body, femoral neck, total hip, and spine was assessed via dual x-ray absorptiometry scan. Total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels were measured via liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, and free 25(OH)D levels were measured via the ELISA assay. The baseline characteristics of the vitamin D₃ supplementation and placebo groups were similar. Overall, 52% of patients had osteopenia and 10.4% had osteoporosis.

Between baseline and 2 years, the vitamin D group’s total 25(OH)D levels increased from a mean 27.0 ng/mL to 39.5 ng/mL (46%) and the free 25(OH)D levels increased from 5.8 pg/mL to 9.0 pg/mL (55%), whereas levels in the placebo stayed the same. The researchers found no significant absolute percentage changes over 2 years in aBMD of the whole body (P = .60), femoral neck (P = .16), total hip (P = .23) and spine (P = .55), compared with patients in the placebo group.

In a secondary analysis, Dr. LeBoff and colleagues found no benefit to volumetric BMD (vBMD) of the radius and the tibia at 2 years, and the results persisted after they performed a sensitivity analysis. Adverse events, such as hypercalciuria, kidney stones, and gastrointestinal symptoms, were not significantly different in the vitamin D group, compared with the placebo group.

Dr. LeBoff noted among the limitations of the study that it evaluated one dose level of vitamin D and was not designed to determine whether vitamin D supplementation was effective in people with vitamin D insufficiency, and the results are not generalizable to patients with osteoporosis or osteomalacia. Future studies should also examine whether free 25(OH)D levels can be used to detect which patients can benefit from vitamin D supplementation, she added.
 

Risk of falls

In a separate abstract, which Dr. LeBoff presented in a different session, 12,927 patients who received vitamin D supplementation for 5 years, were studied for risk of falls, compared with 12,994 individuals in a placebo group. At baseline, 33.3% of patients had fallen at least once in the previous year, and overall 6,605 patients reported 13,235 falls. At 5.3 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences in number of falls between groups, falls leading to injury, and falls leading to a doctor or a hospital visit.

There are ongoing parallel studies examining the incidence of fractures between groups in the total population of the VITAL study (25,871 participants); bone turnover markers; bone microarchitecture measurements through high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography; and examining the connection between free 25(OH)D, parathyroid hormone, and vitamin D binding protein, said Dr. LeBoff.

The study was funded in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the Office of Dietary Supplements, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Dr. LeBoff reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Arthritis Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Two authors reported nonfinancial support Pharmavite LLC of Northridge, Calif., Pronova BioPharma of Norway and BASF, and Quest Diagnostics. The remaining authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: LeBoff M et al. ASBMR 2019, Abstracts 1046 and 1057.

ORLANDO – Supplemental vitamin D₃ in healthy older men and women did not significantly affect areal bone mineral density in the whole body, femoral neck, total hip, or spine after 2 years of daily use, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“Participants may have already reached the vitamin D level needed for bone health,” Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in her presentation.

Dr. LeBoff presented results from 771 patients (mean age, 63.8 years) in the Bone Health Subcohort of VITAL (Vitamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL) who were not on any bone active medications and were randomized to receive daily vitamin D₃ at a dose of 2,000 IU or placebo. Patients received bone imaging at baseline and at 2 years; areal bone mineral density (aBMD) of the whole body, femoral neck, total hip, and spine was assessed via dual x-ray absorptiometry scan. Total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels were measured via liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, and free 25(OH)D levels were measured via the ELISA assay. The baseline characteristics of the vitamin D₃ supplementation and placebo groups were similar. Overall, 52% of patients had osteopenia and 10.4% had osteoporosis.

Between baseline and 2 years, the vitamin D group’s total 25(OH)D levels increased from a mean 27.0 ng/mL to 39.5 ng/mL (46%) and the free 25(OH)D levels increased from 5.8 pg/mL to 9.0 pg/mL (55%), whereas levels in the placebo stayed the same. The researchers found no significant absolute percentage changes over 2 years in aBMD of the whole body (P = .60), femoral neck (P = .16), total hip (P = .23) and spine (P = .55), compared with patients in the placebo group.

In a secondary analysis, Dr. LeBoff and colleagues found no benefit to volumetric BMD (vBMD) of the radius and the tibia at 2 years, and the results persisted after they performed a sensitivity analysis. Adverse events, such as hypercalciuria, kidney stones, and gastrointestinal symptoms, were not significantly different in the vitamin D group, compared with the placebo group.

Dr. LeBoff noted among the limitations of the study that it evaluated one dose level of vitamin D and was not designed to determine whether vitamin D supplementation was effective in people with vitamin D insufficiency, and the results are not generalizable to patients with osteoporosis or osteomalacia. Future studies should also examine whether free 25(OH)D levels can be used to detect which patients can benefit from vitamin D supplementation, she added.
 

Risk of falls

In a separate abstract, which Dr. LeBoff presented in a different session, 12,927 patients who received vitamin D supplementation for 5 years, were studied for risk of falls, compared with 12,994 individuals in a placebo group. At baseline, 33.3% of patients had fallen at least once in the previous year, and overall 6,605 patients reported 13,235 falls. At 5.3 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences in number of falls between groups, falls leading to injury, and falls leading to a doctor or a hospital visit.

There are ongoing parallel studies examining the incidence of fractures between groups in the total population of the VITAL study (25,871 participants); bone turnover markers; bone microarchitecture measurements through high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography; and examining the connection between free 25(OH)D, parathyroid hormone, and vitamin D binding protein, said Dr. LeBoff.

The study was funded in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the Office of Dietary Supplements, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Dr. LeBoff reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Arthritis Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Two authors reported nonfinancial support Pharmavite LLC of Northridge, Calif., Pronova BioPharma of Norway and BASF, and Quest Diagnostics. The remaining authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: LeBoff M et al. ASBMR 2019, Abstracts 1046 and 1057.

ORLANDO – Supplemental vitamin D₃ in healthy older men and women did not significantly affect areal bone mineral density in the whole body, femoral neck, total hip, or spine after 2 years of daily use, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“Participants may have already reached the vitamin D level needed for bone health,” Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in her presentation.

Dr. LeBoff presented results from 771 patients (mean age, 63.8 years) in the Bone Health Subcohort of VITAL (Vitamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL) who were not on any bone active medications and were randomized to receive daily vitamin D₃ at a dose of 2,000 IU or placebo. Patients received bone imaging at baseline and at 2 years; areal bone mineral density (aBMD) of the whole body, femoral neck, total hip, and spine was assessed via dual x-ray absorptiometry scan. Total 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels were measured via liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, and free 25(OH)D levels were measured via the ELISA assay. The baseline characteristics of the vitamin D₃ supplementation and placebo groups were similar. Overall, 52% of patients had osteopenia and 10.4% had osteoporosis.

Between baseline and 2 years, the vitamin D group’s total 25(OH)D levels increased from a mean 27.0 ng/mL to 39.5 ng/mL (46%) and the free 25(OH)D levels increased from 5.8 pg/mL to 9.0 pg/mL (55%), whereas levels in the placebo stayed the same. The researchers found no significant absolute percentage changes over 2 years in aBMD of the whole body (P = .60), femoral neck (P = .16), total hip (P = .23) and spine (P = .55), compared with patients in the placebo group.

In a secondary analysis, Dr. LeBoff and colleagues found no benefit to volumetric BMD (vBMD) of the radius and the tibia at 2 years, and the results persisted after they performed a sensitivity analysis. Adverse events, such as hypercalciuria, kidney stones, and gastrointestinal symptoms, were not significantly different in the vitamin D group, compared with the placebo group.

Dr. LeBoff noted among the limitations of the study that it evaluated one dose level of vitamin D and was not designed to determine whether vitamin D supplementation was effective in people with vitamin D insufficiency, and the results are not generalizable to patients with osteoporosis or osteomalacia. Future studies should also examine whether free 25(OH)D levels can be used to detect which patients can benefit from vitamin D supplementation, she added.
 

Risk of falls

In a separate abstract, which Dr. LeBoff presented in a different session, 12,927 patients who received vitamin D supplementation for 5 years, were studied for risk of falls, compared with 12,994 individuals in a placebo group. At baseline, 33.3% of patients had fallen at least once in the previous year, and overall 6,605 patients reported 13,235 falls. At 5.3 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences in number of falls between groups, falls leading to injury, and falls leading to a doctor or a hospital visit.

There are ongoing parallel studies examining the incidence of fractures between groups in the total population of the VITAL study (25,871 participants); bone turnover markers; bone microarchitecture measurements through high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography; and examining the connection between free 25(OH)D, parathyroid hormone, and vitamin D binding protein, said Dr. LeBoff.

The study was funded in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the Office of Dietary Supplements, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Dr. LeBoff reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Arthritis Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Two authors reported nonfinancial support Pharmavite LLC of Northridge, Calif., Pronova BioPharma of Norway and BASF, and Quest Diagnostics. The remaining authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: LeBoff M et al. ASBMR 2019, Abstracts 1046 and 1057.

ORLANDO – The use of a teleconferencing program to share knowledge about osteoporosis has helped health care professionals learn about the disease and may potentially reduce the osteoporosis treatment gap in underserved communities, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The concept, called “technology-enabled collaborative learning,” is intended to address the problem of there being not enough specialists to see patients who need treatment, and the ineffectiveness of educating primary care providers in how to treat complex medical conditions, E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, the director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center said in his presentation.

“Primary care doctors are busy,” said Dr. Lewiecki. “They have limited time taking care of patients. They don’t have the time or often the skills to manage patients who have any questions or concerns about osteoporosis and treatments for osteoporosis.”

One solution, he said, is to find health care professionals in underserved communities who are already interested in and motivated to learn more about osteoporosis, turn them into near-experts on osteoporosis for their patients as well as in their own community.

Dr. Lewiecki proposed the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO), or Project ECHO, an initiative out of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, as a potential answer. Project ECHO uses videoconferencing to connect experts in a therapeutic area, with Bone Health TeleECHO focusing on raising knowledge of osteoporosis for its participants. “The idea of ECHO is to be a force multiplier to educate health care professionals, each of whom takes care of many patients, and to have many ECHO programs around the world in convenient time zones and convenient languages for people who are interested in participating,” said Dr. Lewiecki.

The idea began when a gastroenterologist at Dr. Lewiecki’s own center was frustrated that patients were not seeking treatment for hepatitis C because of time or travel issues. In response, a pilot program for Project ECHO was developed through a collaboration between the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center and the Osteoporosis Foundation of New Mexico where gastroenterologists at University of New Mexico connected with primary care providers across the state, sharing information about hepatitis C and discussing case studies. The results of the pilot program were published in the New England Journal of Medicine and showed a similar rate of sustained viral response between patients treated at the University of New Mexico clinic (84 of 146 patients; 57.5%) and at 21 ECHO clinics (152 of 261 patients; 58.2%) (Arora S et al. N Eng J Med. 2011. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009370).

“ECHO expands the capacity to deliver best practice medical care through collegial, interactive, case-based discussions with minimal disruption to the office routine,” said Dr. Lewiecki. “Patients benefit from better care, closer to home, with greater convenience and lower cost than referral to a medical center. And the potential is to reduce the osteoporosis treatment gap by having many ECHOs starting up in many places in the world.”

Today, the ECHO program is in 37 countries, with 322 ECHO hubs and 677 ECHO programs. The top three specialties are endocrinology, orthopedics, and rheumatology; 51% of ECHO participants are primary care providers, 24% are advanced care providers, and 19% are health care providers such as nutritionists, physical therapists, and other providers that have an interest in bone health.

In survey results adapted from a 2017 study from his own group, Dr. Lewiecki showed that 263 health care professionals who participated in Bone Health TeleECHO rated themselves as more confident in 20 different domains of osteoporosis treatment, such as secondary osteoporosis and anabolic therapy, after 21 months of using the ECHO program (Lewiecki EM et al. J Endocr Soc. 2017. doi: 10.1210/js.2017-00361). However, he admitted that showing fracture prevention outcomes at these ECHO centers has proven more difficult.

“Of course, we’re all interested in outcomes. The ultimate outcome here is preventing fractures, but it is extraordinarily difficult to design a study to actually show that we’re reducing fractures, but certainly self-confidence in managing osteoporosis has improved,” he said.

There have also been some misconceptions of the Project ECHO. The program is not only for beginners or primary care providers, said Dr. Lewiecki. It is also not limited to providers in rural areas, as the program has many participants at urban centers, he added.

“We are a virtual community of practice. It’s a collegial relationship,” he said. “It’s really recapitulating the way that we learned during our postgraduate training: When we see a patient, we present the case to our attending, the attending pontificates a little bit, we bounce things off of one another, and we go back and then we do some different things with our patients. And that’s exactly what we do with Echo. It makes learning fun again.”

Dr. Lewiecki challenged the attendees in the room who are already experts in osteoporosis to help share their knowledge of the disease to help other health care professionals learn more about how to better care for their patients. “If you have a passion for teaching, if you want to share knowledge and you’re willing to devote a little bit of your time to doing that and reaching out to more people, this is the way that you can do it.”

Dr. Lewiecki reports research grant support from Amgen, consulting fees from Alexion, Amgen, Radius, Shire, and Ultragenyx, speaking fees from Alexion, Radius, and Shire, and is an advisory board member with the National Osteoporosis Foundation, International Society for Clinical Densitometry, and the Osteoporosis Foundation of New Mexico.

SOURCE: Lewiecki ME. ASBMR 2019. Symposia: Cutting Edge Concepts: Novel Approaches to Reducing Fractures. Bone Health TeleECHO.

ORLANDO – The use of a teleconferencing program to share knowledge about osteoporosis has helped health care professionals learn about the disease and may potentially reduce the osteoporosis treatment gap in underserved communities, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The concept, called “technology-enabled collaborative learning,” is intended to address the problem of there being not enough specialists to see patients who need treatment, and the ineffectiveness of educating primary care providers in how to treat complex medical conditions, E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, the director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center said in his presentation.

“Primary care doctors are busy,” said Dr. Lewiecki. “They have limited time taking care of patients. They don’t have the time or often the skills to manage patients who have any questions or concerns about osteoporosis and treatments for osteoporosis.”

One solution, he said, is to find health care professionals in underserved communities who are already interested in and motivated to learn more about osteoporosis, turn them into near-experts on osteoporosis for their patients as well as in their own community.

Dr. Lewiecki proposed the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO), or Project ECHO, an initiative out of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, as a potential answer. Project ECHO uses videoconferencing to connect experts in a therapeutic area, with Bone Health TeleECHO focusing on raising knowledge of osteoporosis for its participants. “The idea of ECHO is to be a force multiplier to educate health care professionals, each of whom takes care of many patients, and to have many ECHO programs around the world in convenient time zones and convenient languages for people who are interested in participating,” said Dr. Lewiecki.

The idea began when a gastroenterologist at Dr. Lewiecki’s own center was frustrated that patients were not seeking treatment for hepatitis C because of time or travel issues. In response, a pilot program for Project ECHO was developed through a collaboration between the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center and the Osteoporosis Foundation of New Mexico where gastroenterologists at University of New Mexico connected with primary care providers across the state, sharing information about hepatitis C and discussing case studies. The results of the pilot program were published in the New England Journal of Medicine and showed a similar rate of sustained viral response between patients treated at the University of New Mexico clinic (84 of 146 patients; 57.5%) and at 21 ECHO clinics (152 of 261 patients; 58.2%) (Arora S et al. N Eng J Med. 2011. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009370).

“ECHO expands the capacity to deliver best practice medical care through collegial, interactive, case-based discussions with minimal disruption to the office routine,” said Dr. Lewiecki. “Patients benefit from better care, closer to home, with greater convenience and lower cost than referral to a medical center. And the potential is to reduce the osteoporosis treatment gap by having many ECHOs starting up in many places in the world.”

Today, the ECHO program is in 37 countries, with 322 ECHO hubs and 677 ECHO programs. The top three specialties are endocrinology, orthopedics, and rheumatology; 51% of ECHO participants are primary care providers, 24% are advanced care providers, and 19% are health care providers such as nutritionists, physical therapists, and other providers that have an interest in bone health.

In survey results adapted from a 2017 study from his own group, Dr. Lewiecki showed that 263 health care professionals who participated in Bone Health TeleECHO rated themselves as more confident in 20 different domains of osteoporosis treatment, such as secondary osteoporosis and anabolic therapy, after 21 months of using the ECHO program (Lewiecki EM et al. J Endocr Soc. 2017. doi: 10.1210/js.2017-00361). However, he admitted that showing fracture prevention outcomes at these ECHO centers has proven more difficult.

“Of course, we’re all interested in outcomes. The ultimate outcome here is preventing fractures, but it is extraordinarily difficult to design a study to actually show that we’re reducing fractures, but certainly self-confidence in managing osteoporosis has improved,” he said.

There have also been some misconceptions of the Project ECHO. The program is not only for beginners or primary care providers, said Dr. Lewiecki. It is also not limited to providers in rural areas, as the program has many participants at urban centers, he added.

“We are a virtual community of practice. It’s a collegial relationship,” he said. “It’s really recapitulating the way that we learned during our postgraduate training: When we see a patient, we present the case to our attending, the attending pontificates a little bit, we bounce things off of one another, and we go back and then we do some different things with our patients. And that’s exactly what we do with Echo. It makes learning fun again.”

Dr. Lewiecki challenged the attendees in the room who are already experts in osteoporosis to help share their knowledge of the disease to help other health care professionals learn more about how to better care for their patients. “If you have a passion for teaching, if you want to share knowledge and you’re willing to devote a little bit of your time to doing that and reaching out to more people, this is the way that you can do it.”

Dr. Lewiecki reports research grant support from Amgen, consulting fees from Alexion, Amgen, Radius, Shire, and Ultragenyx, speaking fees from Alexion, Radius, and Shire, and is an advisory board member with the National Osteoporosis Foundation, International Society for Clinical Densitometry, and the Osteoporosis Foundation of New Mexico.

SOURCE: Lewiecki ME. ASBMR 2019. Symposia: Cutting Edge Concepts: Novel Approaches to Reducing Fractures. Bone Health TeleECHO.

ORLANDO – The use of a teleconferencing program to share knowledge about osteoporosis has helped health care professionals learn about the disease and may potentially reduce the osteoporosis treatment gap in underserved communities, according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

The concept, called “technology-enabled collaborative learning,” is intended to address the problem of there being not enough specialists to see patients who need treatment, and the ineffectiveness of educating primary care providers in how to treat complex medical conditions, E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, the director of the New Mexico Clinical Research & Osteoporosis Center said in his presentation.

“Primary care doctors are busy,” said Dr. Lewiecki. “They have limited time taking care of patients. They don’t have the time or often the skills to manage patients who have any questions or concerns about osteoporosis and treatments for osteoporosis.”

One solution, he said, is to find health care professionals in underserved communities who are already interested in and motivated to learn more about osteoporosis, turn them into near-experts on osteoporosis for their patients as well as in their own community.

Dr. Lewiecki proposed the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO), or Project ECHO, an initiative out of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, as a potential answer. Project ECHO uses videoconferencing to connect experts in a therapeutic area, with Bone Health TeleECHO focusing on raising knowledge of osteoporosis for its participants. “The idea of ECHO is to be a force multiplier to educate health care professionals, each of whom takes care of many patients, and to have many ECHO programs around the world in convenient time zones and convenient languages for people who are interested in participating,” said Dr. Lewiecki.

The idea began when a gastroenterologist at Dr. Lewiecki’s own center was frustrated that patients were not seeking treatment for hepatitis C because of time or travel issues. In response, a pilot program for Project ECHO was developed through a collaboration between the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center and the Osteoporosis Foundation of New Mexico where gastroenterologists at University of New Mexico connected with primary care providers across the state, sharing information about hepatitis C and discussing case studies. The results of the pilot program were published in the New England Journal of Medicine and showed a similar rate of sustained viral response between patients treated at the University of New Mexico clinic (84 of 146 patients; 57.5%) and at 21 ECHO clinics (152 of 261 patients; 58.2%) (Arora S et al. N Eng J Med. 2011. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009370).

“ECHO expands the capacity to deliver best practice medical care through collegial, interactive, case-based discussions with minimal disruption to the office routine,” said Dr. Lewiecki. “Patients benefit from better care, closer to home, with greater convenience and lower cost than referral to a medical center. And the potential is to reduce the osteoporosis treatment gap by having many ECHOs starting up in many places in the world.”

Today, the ECHO program is in 37 countries, with 322 ECHO hubs and 677 ECHO programs. The top three specialties are endocrinology, orthopedics, and rheumatology; 51% of ECHO participants are primary care providers, 24% are advanced care providers, and 19% are health care providers such as nutritionists, physical therapists, and other providers that have an interest in bone health.

In survey results adapted from a 2017 study from his own group, Dr. Lewiecki showed that 263 health care professionals who participated in Bone Health TeleECHO rated themselves as more confident in 20 different domains of osteoporosis treatment, such as secondary osteoporosis and anabolic therapy, after 21 months of using the ECHO program (Lewiecki EM et al. J Endocr Soc. 2017. doi: 10.1210/js.2017-00361). However, he admitted that showing fracture prevention outcomes at these ECHO centers has proven more difficult.

“Of course, we’re all interested in outcomes. The ultimate outcome here is preventing fractures, but it is extraordinarily difficult to design a study to actually show that we’re reducing fractures, but certainly self-confidence in managing osteoporosis has improved,” he said.

There have also been some misconceptions of the Project ECHO. The program is not only for beginners or primary care providers, said Dr. Lewiecki. It is also not limited to providers in rural areas, as the program has many participants at urban centers, he added.

“We are a virtual community of practice. It’s a collegial relationship,” he said. “It’s really recapitulating the way that we learned during our postgraduate training: When we see a patient, we present the case to our attending, the attending pontificates a little bit, we bounce things off of one another, and we go back and then we do some different things with our patients. And that’s exactly what we do with Echo. It makes learning fun again.”

Dr. Lewiecki challenged the attendees in the room who are already experts in osteoporosis to help share their knowledge of the disease to help other health care professionals learn more about how to better care for their patients. “If you have a passion for teaching, if you want to share knowledge and you’re willing to devote a little bit of your time to doing that and reaching out to more people, this is the way that you can do it.”

Dr. Lewiecki reports research grant support from Amgen, consulting fees from Alexion, Amgen, Radius, Shire, and Ultragenyx, speaking fees from Alexion, Radius, and Shire, and is an advisory board member with the National Osteoporosis Foundation, International Society for Clinical Densitometry, and the Osteoporosis Foundation of New Mexico.

SOURCE: Lewiecki ME. ASBMR 2019. Symposia: Cutting Edge Concepts: Novel Approaches to Reducing Fractures. Bone Health TeleECHO.

Long-term outcomes after tracheostomy are generally poor and health care costs are high, especially for older patients, findings of a large retrospective study suggest.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

Current outcome prediction tools to support decision making regarding tracheostomies are limited, wrote Anuj B. Mehta, MD, of National Jewish Health in Denver, and colleagues. “This study provides novel and in-depth insight into mortality and health care utilization following tracheostomy not previously described at the population-level.”

In a study published in Critical Care Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from 8,343 nonsurgical patients seen in California hospitals from 2012 to 2013 who received a tracheostomy for acute respiratory failure.

Overall, the 1-year mortality rate for patients who had tracheostomies (the primary outcome) was 46.5%, with in-hospital mortality of 18.9% and 30-day mortality of 22.1%. Pneumonia was the most common diagnosis for patients with respiratory failure (79%) and some had an additional diagnosis, such as severe sepsis (56%).

Patients aged 65 years and older had significantly higher mortality than those under 65 (54.7% vs. 36.5%). The average age of the patients was 65 years; approximately 46% were women and 48% were white. The median survival for adults aged 65 years and older was 175 days, compared with median survival of more than a year for younger patients.

Secondary outcomes included discharge destination, hospital readmission, and health care utilization. A majority (86%) of patients were discharged to a long-term care facility, while 11% were sent home and approximately 3% were discharged to other destinations.

Nearly two-thirds (60%) of patients were readmitted to the hospital within a year of tracheostomy, and readmission was more common among older adults, compared with younger (66% vs. 55%).

In addition, just over one-third of all patients (36%) spent more than 50% of their days alive in the hospital in short-term acute care, and this rate was significantly higher for patients aged 65 years and older, compared with those under 65 (43% vs. 29%). On average, the total hospital cost for patients who survived the first year after tracheostomy was $215,369, with no significant difference in average cost among age groups.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single state, possible misclassification of billing codes, and inability to measure quality of life, the researchers noted.

However, “our findings of high mortality, low median survival for older patients, high readmission rates, potentially burdensome cost, and informative outcome trajectories provide significant insight into long-term outcomes following tracheostomy,” they concluded.

Dr. Mehta and several colleagues reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Mehta AB et al. Crit Care Med. 2019 Aug 8. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003959.

Long-term outcomes after tracheostomy are generally poor and health care costs are high, especially for older patients, findings of a large retrospective study suggest.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

Current outcome prediction tools to support decision making regarding tracheostomies are limited, wrote Anuj B. Mehta, MD, of National Jewish Health in Denver, and colleagues. “This study provides novel and in-depth insight into mortality and health care utilization following tracheostomy not previously described at the population-level.”

In a study published in Critical Care Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from 8,343 nonsurgical patients seen in California hospitals from 2012 to 2013 who received a tracheostomy for acute respiratory failure.

Overall, the 1-year mortality rate for patients who had tracheostomies (the primary outcome) was 46.5%, with in-hospital mortality of 18.9% and 30-day mortality of 22.1%. Pneumonia was the most common diagnosis for patients with respiratory failure (79%) and some had an additional diagnosis, such as severe sepsis (56%).

Patients aged 65 years and older had significantly higher mortality than those under 65 (54.7% vs. 36.5%). The average age of the patients was 65 years; approximately 46% were women and 48% were white. The median survival for adults aged 65 years and older was 175 days, compared with median survival of more than a year for younger patients.

Secondary outcomes included discharge destination, hospital readmission, and health care utilization. A majority (86%) of patients were discharged to a long-term care facility, while 11% were sent home and approximately 3% were discharged to other destinations.

Nearly two-thirds (60%) of patients were readmitted to the hospital within a year of tracheostomy, and readmission was more common among older adults, compared with younger (66% vs. 55%).

In addition, just over one-third of all patients (36%) spent more than 50% of their days alive in the hospital in short-term acute care, and this rate was significantly higher for patients aged 65 years and older, compared with those under 65 (43% vs. 29%). On average, the total hospital cost for patients who survived the first year after tracheostomy was $215,369, with no significant difference in average cost among age groups.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single state, possible misclassification of billing codes, and inability to measure quality of life, the researchers noted.

However, “our findings of high mortality, low median survival for older patients, high readmission rates, potentially burdensome cost, and informative outcome trajectories provide significant insight into long-term outcomes following tracheostomy,” they concluded.

Dr. Mehta and several colleagues reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Mehta AB et al. Crit Care Med. 2019 Aug 8. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003959.

Long-term outcomes after tracheostomy are generally poor and health care costs are high, especially for older patients, findings of a large retrospective study suggest.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

Current outcome prediction tools to support decision making regarding tracheostomies are limited, wrote Anuj B. Mehta, MD, of National Jewish Health in Denver, and colleagues. “This study provides novel and in-depth insight into mortality and health care utilization following tracheostomy not previously described at the population-level.”

In a study published in Critical Care Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from 8,343 nonsurgical patients seen in California hospitals from 2012 to 2013 who received a tracheostomy for acute respiratory failure.

Overall, the 1-year mortality rate for patients who had tracheostomies (the primary outcome) was 46.5%, with in-hospital mortality of 18.9% and 30-day mortality of 22.1%. Pneumonia was the most common diagnosis for patients with respiratory failure (79%) and some had an additional diagnosis, such as severe sepsis (56%).

Patients aged 65 years and older had significantly higher mortality than those under 65 (54.7% vs. 36.5%). The average age of the patients was 65 years; approximately 46% were women and 48% were white. The median survival for adults aged 65 years and older was 175 days, compared with median survival of more than a year for younger patients.

Secondary outcomes included discharge destination, hospital readmission, and health care utilization. A majority (86%) of patients were discharged to a long-term care facility, while 11% were sent home and approximately 3% were discharged to other destinations.

Nearly two-thirds (60%) of patients were readmitted to the hospital within a year of tracheostomy, and readmission was more common among older adults, compared with younger (66% vs. 55%).

In addition, just over one-third of all patients (36%) spent more than 50% of their days alive in the hospital in short-term acute care, and this rate was significantly higher for patients aged 65 years and older, compared with those under 65 (43% vs. 29%). On average, the total hospital cost for patients who survived the first year after tracheostomy was $215,369, with no significant difference in average cost among age groups.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single state, possible misclassification of billing codes, and inability to measure quality of life, the researchers noted.

However, “our findings of high mortality, low median survival for older patients, high readmission rates, potentially burdensome cost, and informative outcome trajectories provide significant insight into long-term outcomes following tracheostomy,” they concluded.

Dr. Mehta and several colleagues reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Mehta AB et al. Crit Care Med. 2019 Aug 8. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003959.

A daily polypill regimen improved cardiovascular risk factors in a socioeconomically vulnerable minority population, in a randomized controlled trial.

©rasslava/thinkstockphotos.com

Patients at a federally qualified community health center in Alabama who received treatment with a combination pill for 1 year had greater reductions in systolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol than did patients who received usual care, according to results published online on Sept. 19 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The simplicity and low cost of the polypill regimen make this approach attractive” when barriers such as lack of income, underinsurance, and difficulty attending clinic visits are common, said first author Daniel Muñoz, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, and coinvestigators. The investigators obtained the pills at a cost of $26 per month per participant.
 

People with low socioeconomic status and those who are nonwhite have high cardiovascular mortality, and the southeastern United States and rural areas have disproportionately high levels of cardiovascular disease burden, according to the investigators. The rates at which people with low socioeconomic status receive treatment for hypertension and hypercholesterolemia – leading cardiovascular disease risk factors – “are strikingly low,” Dr. Muñoz and colleagues said.

To assess the effectiveness of a polypill-based strategy in an underserved population with low socioeconomic status, the researchers conducted the randomized trial.

They enrolled 303 adults without cardiovascular disease, and 148 of the patients were randomized to receive the polypill, which contained generic versions of atorvastatin (10 mg), amlodipine (2.5 mg), losartan (25 mg), and hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg). The remaining 155 patients received usual care. All participants scheduled 2-month and 12-month follow-up visits.

The participants had an average age of 56 years, 60% were women, and more than 95% were black. More than 70% had an annual household income of less than $15,000. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups did not significantly differ.

At baseline, the average BP was 140/83 mm Hg, and the average LDL cholesterol level was 113 mg/dL.

In all, 91% of the participants completed the 12-month trial visit. Average systolic BP decreased by 9 mm Hg in the group that received the polypill, compared with 2 mm Hg in the group that received usual care. Average LDL cholesterol level decreased by 15 mg/dL in the polypill group, versus 4 mg/dL in the usual-care group.

Changes in other medications

Clinicians discontinued or reduced doses of other antihypertensive or lipid-lowering medications in 44% of the patients in the polypill group and none in the usual-care group. Clinicians escalated therapy in 2% of the participants in the polypill group and in 10% of the usual-care group.

Side effects in participants who received the polypill included a 1% incidence of myalgias and a 1% incidence of hypotension or light-headedness. Liver function test results were normal.

Five serious adverse events that occurred during the trial – two in the polypill group and three in the usual-care group – were judged to be unrelated to the trial by a data and safety monitoring board.

The authors noted that limitations of the trial include its open-label design and that it was conducted at a single center.

“It is important to emphasize that use of the polypill does not preclude individualized, add-on therapies for residual elevations in blood-pressure or cholesterol levels, as judged by a patient’s physician,” said Dr. Muñoz and colleagues. “We recognize that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to cardiovascular disease prevention runs counter to current trends in precision medicine, in which clinical, genomic, and lifestyle factors are used for the development of individualized treatment strategies. Although the precision approach has clear virtues, a broader approach may benefit patients who face barriers to accessing the full advantages of precision medicine.”

The study was supported by grants from the American Heart Association Strategically Focused Prevention Research Network and the National Institutes of Health. One author disclosed personal fees from Novartis outside the study.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Muñoz D et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 18;381(12):1114-23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1815359.

A daily polypill regimen improved cardiovascular risk factors in a socioeconomically vulnerable minority population, in a randomized controlled trial.

©rasslava/thinkstockphotos.com

Patients at a federally qualified community health center in Alabama who received treatment with a combination pill for 1 year had greater reductions in systolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol than did patients who received usual care, according to results published online on Sept. 19 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The simplicity and low cost of the polypill regimen make this approach attractive” when barriers such as lack of income, underinsurance, and difficulty attending clinic visits are common, said first author Daniel Muñoz, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, and coinvestigators. The investigators obtained the pills at a cost of $26 per month per participant.
 

People with low socioeconomic status and those who are nonwhite have high cardiovascular mortality, and the southeastern United States and rural areas have disproportionately high levels of cardiovascular disease burden, according to the investigators. The rates at which people with low socioeconomic status receive treatment for hypertension and hypercholesterolemia – leading cardiovascular disease risk factors – “are strikingly low,” Dr. Muñoz and colleagues said.

To assess the effectiveness of a polypill-based strategy in an underserved population with low socioeconomic status, the researchers conducted the randomized trial.

They enrolled 303 adults without cardiovascular disease, and 148 of the patients were randomized to receive the polypill, which contained generic versions of atorvastatin (10 mg), amlodipine (2.5 mg), losartan (25 mg), and hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg). The remaining 155 patients received usual care. All participants scheduled 2-month and 12-month follow-up visits.

The participants had an average age of 56 years, 60% were women, and more than 95% were black. More than 70% had an annual household income of less than $15,000. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups did not significantly differ.

At baseline, the average BP was 140/83 mm Hg, and the average LDL cholesterol level was 113 mg/dL.

In all, 91% of the participants completed the 12-month trial visit. Average systolic BP decreased by 9 mm Hg in the group that received the polypill, compared with 2 mm Hg in the group that received usual care. Average LDL cholesterol level decreased by 15 mg/dL in the polypill group, versus 4 mg/dL in the usual-care group.

Changes in other medications

Clinicians discontinued or reduced doses of other antihypertensive or lipid-lowering medications in 44% of the patients in the polypill group and none in the usual-care group. Clinicians escalated therapy in 2% of the participants in the polypill group and in 10% of the usual-care group.

Side effects in participants who received the polypill included a 1% incidence of myalgias and a 1% incidence of hypotension or light-headedness. Liver function test results were normal.

Five serious adverse events that occurred during the trial – two in the polypill group and three in the usual-care group – were judged to be unrelated to the trial by a data and safety monitoring board.

The authors noted that limitations of the trial include its open-label design and that it was conducted at a single center.

“It is important to emphasize that use of the polypill does not preclude individualized, add-on therapies for residual elevations in blood-pressure or cholesterol levels, as judged by a patient’s physician,” said Dr. Muñoz and colleagues. “We recognize that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to cardiovascular disease prevention runs counter to current trends in precision medicine, in which clinical, genomic, and lifestyle factors are used for the development of individualized treatment strategies. Although the precision approach has clear virtues, a broader approach may benefit patients who face barriers to accessing the full advantages of precision medicine.”

The study was supported by grants from the American Heart Association Strategically Focused Prevention Research Network and the National Institutes of Health. One author disclosed personal fees from Novartis outside the study.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Muñoz D et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 18;381(12):1114-23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1815359.

A daily polypill regimen improved cardiovascular risk factors in a socioeconomically vulnerable minority population, in a randomized controlled trial.

©rasslava/thinkstockphotos.com

Patients at a federally qualified community health center in Alabama who received treatment with a combination pill for 1 year had greater reductions in systolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol than did patients who received usual care, according to results published online on Sept. 19 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The simplicity and low cost of the polypill regimen make this approach attractive” when barriers such as lack of income, underinsurance, and difficulty attending clinic visits are common, said first author Daniel Muñoz, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, and coinvestigators. The investigators obtained the pills at a cost of $26 per month per participant.
 

People with low socioeconomic status and those who are nonwhite have high cardiovascular mortality, and the southeastern United States and rural areas have disproportionately high levels of cardiovascular disease burden, according to the investigators. The rates at which people with low socioeconomic status receive treatment for hypertension and hypercholesterolemia – leading cardiovascular disease risk factors – “are strikingly low,” Dr. Muñoz and colleagues said.

To assess the effectiveness of a polypill-based strategy in an underserved population with low socioeconomic status, the researchers conducted the randomized trial.

They enrolled 303 adults without cardiovascular disease, and 148 of the patients were randomized to receive the polypill, which contained generic versions of atorvastatin (10 mg), amlodipine (2.5 mg), losartan (25 mg), and hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg). The remaining 155 patients received usual care. All participants scheduled 2-month and 12-month follow-up visits.

The participants had an average age of 56 years, 60% were women, and more than 95% were black. More than 70% had an annual household income of less than $15,000. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups did not significantly differ.

At baseline, the average BP was 140/83 mm Hg, and the average LDL cholesterol level was 113 mg/dL.

In all, 91% of the participants completed the 12-month trial visit. Average systolic BP decreased by 9 mm Hg in the group that received the polypill, compared with 2 mm Hg in the group that received usual care. Average LDL cholesterol level decreased by 15 mg/dL in the polypill group, versus 4 mg/dL in the usual-care group.

Changes in other medications

Clinicians discontinued or reduced doses of other antihypertensive or lipid-lowering medications in 44% of the patients in the polypill group and none in the usual-care group. Clinicians escalated therapy in 2% of the participants in the polypill group and in 10% of the usual-care group.

Side effects in participants who received the polypill included a 1% incidence of myalgias and a 1% incidence of hypotension or light-headedness. Liver function test results were normal.

Five serious adverse events that occurred during the trial – two in the polypill group and three in the usual-care group – were judged to be unrelated to the trial by a data and safety monitoring board.

The authors noted that limitations of the trial include its open-label design and that it was conducted at a single center.

“It is important to emphasize that use of the polypill does not preclude individualized, add-on therapies for residual elevations in blood-pressure or cholesterol levels, as judged by a patient’s physician,” said Dr. Muñoz and colleagues. “We recognize that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to cardiovascular disease prevention runs counter to current trends in precision medicine, in which clinical, genomic, and lifestyle factors are used for the development of individualized treatment strategies. Although the precision approach has clear virtues, a broader approach may benefit patients who face barriers to accessing the full advantages of precision medicine.”

The study was supported by grants from the American Heart Association Strategically Focused Prevention Research Network and the National Institutes of Health. One author disclosed personal fees from Novartis outside the study.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Muñoz D et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 18;381(12):1114-23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1815359.

Hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are most likely to be readmitted for venous thromboembolism (VTE) within 60 days of discharge, according to a new study that analyzed 5 years of U.S. readmissions data.

“Given increased thrombotic risk postdischarge, as well as overall safety of VTE prophylaxis, extending prophylaxis for those at highest risk may have significant benefits,” wrote Adam S. Faye, MD, of Columbia University, and coauthors. The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

To determine which IBD patients would be most in need of postdischarge VTE prophylaxis, as well as when to administer it, the researchers analyzed 2010-2014 data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). They found a total of 872,122 index admissions for IBD patients; 4% of those patients had a prior VTE. Of the index admissions, 1,160 led to a VTE readmission within 90 days. Readmitted patients had a relatively equal proportion of ulcerative colitis (n = 522) and Crohn’s disease (n = 638).

More than 90% of VTE readmissions occurred within 60 days of discharge; the risk was highest over the first 10 days and then decreased in each ensuing 10-day period until a slight increase at the 81- to 90-day period. All patients over age 30 had higher rates of readmission than those of patients under age 18, with the highest risk in patients between the ages of 66 and 80 years (risk ratio 4.04; 95% confidence interval, 2.54-6.44, P less than .01). Women were at lower risk (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92, P less than .01). Higher risks of readmission were also associated with being on Medicare (RR 1.39; 95% CI, 1.23-1.58, P less than .01) compared with being on private insurance and being cared for at a large hospital (RR 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52, P = .02) compared with a small hospital.

The highest risk of VTE readmission was associated with a prior history of VTE (RR 2.89; 95% CI, 2.40-3.48, P less than .01), having two or more comorbidities (RR 2.57; 95% CI, 2.11-3.12, P less than .01) and having a Clostridioides difficile infection as of index admission (RR 1.90; 95% CI, 1.51-2.38, P less than .01). In addition, increased risk was associated with being discharged to a nursing or care facility (RR 1.85; 95% CI, 1.56-2.20, P less than .01) or home with health services (RR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.38, P less than .01) compared with a routine discharge.

In their multivariable analysis, similar factors such as a history of VTE (adjusted RR 2.41; 95% CI, 1.99-2.90, P less than .01), two or more comorbidities (aRR 1.78; 95% CI, 1.44-2.20, P less than .01) and C. difficile infection (aRR 1.47; 95% CI, 1.17-1.85, P less than.01) continued to be associated with higher risk of VTE readmission.

SOURCE: Faye AS et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 July 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.07.028.

Hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are most likely to be readmitted for venous thromboembolism (VTE) within 60 days of discharge, according to a new study that analyzed 5 years of U.S. readmissions data.

“Given increased thrombotic risk postdischarge, as well as overall safety of VTE prophylaxis, extending prophylaxis for those at highest risk may have significant benefits,” wrote Adam S. Faye, MD, of Columbia University, and coauthors. The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

To determine which IBD patients would be most in need of postdischarge VTE prophylaxis, as well as when to administer it, the researchers analyzed 2010-2014 data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). They found a total of 872,122 index admissions for IBD patients; 4% of those patients had a prior VTE. Of the index admissions, 1,160 led to a VTE readmission within 90 days. Readmitted patients had a relatively equal proportion of ulcerative colitis (n = 522) and Crohn’s disease (n = 638).

More than 90% of VTE readmissions occurred within 60 days of discharge; the risk was highest over the first 10 days and then decreased in each ensuing 10-day period until a slight increase at the 81- to 90-day period. All patients over age 30 had higher rates of readmission than those of patients under age 18, with the highest risk in patients between the ages of 66 and 80 years (risk ratio 4.04; 95% confidence interval, 2.54-6.44, P less than .01). Women were at lower risk (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92, P less than .01). Higher risks of readmission were also associated with being on Medicare (RR 1.39; 95% CI, 1.23-1.58, P less than .01) compared with being on private insurance and being cared for at a large hospital (RR 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52, P = .02) compared with a small hospital.

The highest risk of VTE readmission was associated with a prior history of VTE (RR 2.89; 95% CI, 2.40-3.48, P less than .01), having two or more comorbidities (RR 2.57; 95% CI, 2.11-3.12, P less than .01) and having a Clostridioides difficile infection as of index admission (RR 1.90; 95% CI, 1.51-2.38, P less than .01). In addition, increased risk was associated with being discharged to a nursing or care facility (RR 1.85; 95% CI, 1.56-2.20, P less than .01) or home with health services (RR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.38, P less than .01) compared with a routine discharge.

In their multivariable analysis, similar factors such as a history of VTE (adjusted RR 2.41; 95% CI, 1.99-2.90, P less than .01), two or more comorbidities (aRR 1.78; 95% CI, 1.44-2.20, P less than .01) and C. difficile infection (aRR 1.47; 95% CI, 1.17-1.85, P less than.01) continued to be associated with higher risk of VTE readmission.

SOURCE: Faye AS et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 July 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.07.028.

Hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are most likely to be readmitted for venous thromboembolism (VTE) within 60 days of discharge, according to a new study that analyzed 5 years of U.S. readmissions data.

“Given increased thrombotic risk postdischarge, as well as overall safety of VTE prophylaxis, extending prophylaxis for those at highest risk may have significant benefits,” wrote Adam S. Faye, MD, of Columbia University, and coauthors. The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

To determine which IBD patients would be most in need of postdischarge VTE prophylaxis, as well as when to administer it, the researchers analyzed 2010-2014 data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). They found a total of 872,122 index admissions for IBD patients; 4% of those patients had a prior VTE. Of the index admissions, 1,160 led to a VTE readmission within 90 days. Readmitted patients had a relatively equal proportion of ulcerative colitis (n = 522) and Crohn’s disease (n = 638).

More than 90% of VTE readmissions occurred within 60 days of discharge; the risk was highest over the first 10 days and then decreased in each ensuing 10-day period until a slight increase at the 81- to 90-day period. All patients over age 30 had higher rates of readmission than those of patients under age 18, with the highest risk in patients between the ages of 66 and 80 years (risk ratio 4.04; 95% confidence interval, 2.54-6.44, P less than .01). Women were at lower risk (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92, P less than .01). Higher risks of readmission were also associated with being on Medicare (RR 1.39; 95% CI, 1.23-1.58, P less than .01) compared with being on private insurance and being cared for at a large hospital (RR 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52, P = .02) compared with a small hospital.

The highest risk of VTE readmission was associated with a prior history of VTE (RR 2.89; 95% CI, 2.40-3.48, P less than .01), having two or more comorbidities (RR 2.57; 95% CI, 2.11-3.12, P less than .01) and having a Clostridioides difficile infection as of index admission (RR 1.90; 95% CI, 1.51-2.38, P less than .01). In addition, increased risk was associated with being discharged to a nursing or care facility (RR 1.85; 95% CI, 1.56-2.20, P less than .01) or home with health services (RR 2.05; 95% CI, 1.78-2.38, P less than .01) compared with a routine discharge.

In their multivariable analysis, similar factors such as a history of VTE (adjusted RR 2.41; 95% CI, 1.99-2.90, P less than .01), two or more comorbidities (aRR 1.78; 95% CI, 1.44-2.20, P less than .01) and C. difficile infection (aRR 1.47; 95% CI, 1.17-1.85, P less than.01) continued to be associated with higher risk of VTE readmission.

SOURCE: Faye AS et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 July 20. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.07.028.

Choose your answer in the poll below. To check the accuracy of your answer, see Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

[polldaddy:10400221]

Click on page 2 below to find out what the correct answer is...

The correct answer is d.) 500%

To learn more, see this month's Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

Choose your answer in the poll below. To check the accuracy of your answer, see Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

[polldaddy:10400221]

Click on page 2 below to find out what the correct answer is...

The correct answer is d.) 500%

To learn more, see this month's Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

Choose your answer in the poll below. To check the accuracy of your answer, see Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.

[polldaddy:10400221]

Click on page 2 below to find out what the correct answer is...

The correct answer is d.) 500%

To learn more, see this month's Endocrine Consult: 10 (Safe) Ways to Reduce Patients’ Insulin Costs.