Skip to content

Improving Transplant Medication Safety Through A Technology and Pharmacist Intervention

Improving Transplant Medication Safety Through a Technology and Pharmacist (ISTEP) Intervention in Veterans

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03860818
Acronym
ISTEP
Enrollment
2196
Registered
2019-03-04
Start date
2019-03-18
Completion date
2021-06-14
Last updated
2024-08-01

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Transplant

Keywords

medication safety

Brief summary

Medication safety issues in Veteran organ transplant recipients, including side effects and errors, are a major issue leading to graft failure and death. The causes of these events are complicated and involve fragmented care, communication breakdowns between the Veterans, providers and the different health care systems. This grant proposal seeks to improve medication safety within these high-risk Veterans, using two innovative components; the application of technology to leverage the massive amount of data contained within the electronic medical record in identifying Veterans with potential medication safety issues, coupled with a pharmacist-led intervention to improve the management and coordination of immunosuppression therapy. The completion of this prospective, multicenter, cluster randomized controlled clinical trial will provide evidence that these interventions can improve medication safety, clinical outcomes and costs and will be used to justify the dissemination of these interventions to all VAs caring for Veteran transplant recipients across the U.S.

Detailed description

Anticipated Impacts on Veterans Health Care: The first three essential strategies listed within the VA's Blueprint for Excellence encompass plans to improve care to vulnerable Veterans, deliver high quality care through achieving the Triple Aim and leverage the use of technology to improve the efficiency of care delivery. The intervention this grant proposes focuses on improving medication safety and care coordination within a high risk vulnerable Veteran population, leverages the use of informatics and analytics to support this intervention, and aims to demonstrate improved care at reduced costs through the pharmacist intervention; thus, perfectly aligning with these three essential components of the Blueprint. The overarching goal of this study is to develop a feasibly deployable, technology-enabled intervention that will demonstrate substantial improvements in immunosuppressant medication safety, clinical outcomes and health care costs in Veteran organ transplant recipients; demonstrating this through a randomized controlled trial will provide sufficient evidence to further develop a VA-specific pharmacist learning collaborative aimed at improving care and reducing costs for Veteran organ transplant recipients across the entire VA system. Background: Organ transplant is the gold-standard treatment for patients with end organ diseases of the kidney, liver, heart and lungs, as it substantially improves survival and quality of life. Over the past 20 years, the use of contemporary immunosuppression has reduced the risk of acute rejection rates by upwards of 80%; yet long-term allograft survival remains suboptimal. Studies have demonstrated that causes of late graft loss is predominantly driven by immunosuppression adverse events and late allograft rejection episodes from medication errors and non-adherence, which encompass issues directly related to medication safety. The investigators' research demonstrates that medication errors occur in nearly two-thirds of transplant recipients, leading to hospitalization in 1 in 8 recipients. Recipients that develop significant medication errors are at considerably higher risk of graft loss, leading to higher costs and mortality. Thus, in order to improve medication safety and long-term outcomes in transplant recipients, enhancements in immunosuppressant therapy management is needed. Objectives: The central hypothesis for the ISTEP study (Improving Transplant Medication Safety through a TEchnology and Pharmacist Intervention) is that pharmacist-led immunosuppressant therapy management, facilitated through the use of innovative technology, will significantly improve immunosuppressant safety and clinical outcomes in Veteran transplant recipients. Methods: This is a 24-month, prospective, cluster-randomized controlled clinical trial at 10 sites, randomizing 5 sites to standard clinical care and 5 to standard care and the technology-enabled pharmacist intervention. The technology component of this intervention consists of the use of an expanded dashboard system that has already demonstrated effectiveness in improving immunosuppression monitoring. The dashboard performs population-level surveillance of transplant recipients and identifies those with potential drug-related problems, including non-adherence, drug interactions, missing and worrisome trends in labs; then providing a real-time alert to the pharmacist, who will determine its relevance and intervene in an appropriate protocol-guided manner. Effectiveness will be determined by comparing the rates of hospitalizations and ER visits between groups, while adjusting for baseline patient, provider and facility characteristics. Secondary measures include comparing healthcare costs and determining dashboard functionality, dashboard actionability and pharmacist intervention types and acceptance rates. The investigators will also assess the overall incidence and severity of drug-related problems and graft and patient survival rates and compare these between the intervention and control sites.

Interventions

OTHERHealth services delivery

Technology-enabled pharmacist intervention

Sponsors

VA Office of Research and Development
Lead SponsorFED

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Prospective, cluster-randomized controlled clinical trial at 10 sites, randomizing 5 sites to standard clinical care and 5 to the intervention.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Veteran organ transplant recipients will be identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9/10 codes from the VA electronic health record (CPRS). * Patients must have an active code stating they are a recipient of an organ transplant. * The following codes will be utilized - ICD-9 codes: * V42.0 * V42.1 * V42.6 * V42.7 * V42.83 * V42.84 * 996.81 * 996.82 * 996.83 * 996.84 * 996.86 * 52.80 OR * oICD-10 codes: * C80.2 * T86.1 * T86.10 * T86.11 * T86.12 * T86.13 * T86.19 * T86.2 * T86.20 * T86.21 * T86.22 * T86.23 * T86.290 * T86.298 * T86.3 * T86.30 * T86.31 * T86.32 * T86.33 * T86.39 * T86.4 * T86.40 * T86.41 * T86.42 * T86.43 * T86.49 * T86.810 * T86.811 * T86.812 * T86.818 * T86.819 * T86.9 * Z48.2 * Z48.21 * Z48.22 * Z48.23 * Z48.24 * Z48.280 * Z48.288 * Z48.298 * Z94.0 * Z94.1 * Z94.2 * Z94.3 * Z94.4 * Z94.83 AND * Actively receiving at least one anti-rejection medication dispensed by the VA site. * These medications include: * tacrolimus * cyclosporine * azathioprine * mycophenolate * sirolimus * everolimus * belatacept

Exclusion criteria

* There are no

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Any Hospitalization or Any Emergency Room Visits24-months24-month count hospitalization and emergency room visits compared between the intervention and usual care groups

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of Participants With Graft Survival27-monthsEstimated graft survival rates, compared between the intervention and usual care groups and defined as the proportion of patients that continue to have a functioning allograft at the end of the 27-month study
Patient Survival- Percentage of Patients That Died During Study27-monthsEstimated patient survival rates, compared between the intervention and usual care groups and defined as the proportion of patients alive at the end of the 27-month study. Number of patients who died during the study (March 2019 - June 2021), Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) or VA reported.
Medication Safety Issues23-months23-months, (August 2019-June 2021) Potential medication safety issues, defined as the proportion of patients with the following, based on automated reports for the transplant medication dashboard: 1. Percent of patients with missing labs 2. Percent of patients alarming lab values without follow up scheduled 3. Immunosuppression adherence, estimated using the proportion of days covered (PDC) 4. Percent of patients on significant drug interaction without a immunosuppressant level 5. Percent of patients with hospital discharge or ED visit without follow up scheduled
Total Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control Groups27-months27-month total estimated health care costs, compared between the intervention and control groups (non-zero cost). Inpatient cost, outpatient cost, pharmacy cost, total cost Time Period (start to censor date) March 01, 2019 to June 30, 2021.
Dashboard-Accepted Interventions23-monthsProportion of interventions that were deemed to be accepted when made to other providers based on dashboard reporting information Percentage of patients that had an alert accepted and addressed by a clinician 23 months, August 2019 - June 2021
Average Time Responding to Dashboard Alerts23-monthsAverage time each intervention pharmacist spent on assessing the dashboard alerts per week over the course of 23 months.
Clinically Relevant Alerts22-monthsProportion of alerts that were deemed clinical relevant and actionable by the intervention pharmacists 22 months (August 2019-June 2021)

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Control Arm
Usual Care. The control arm received usual care. Usual care for veteran organ transplant recipients across the 10 study sites is not standardized but generally includes the following: at most sites, nurse coordinators and/or midlevel practitioners are responsible for general transplant patient oversight, including ensuring laboratory assessments are scheduled/reviewed and medication regimens are accurate and up to date. However, large patient numbers and workload constraints preclude these health care professionals from prospective detailed daily monitoring of patients. Within usual follow-up care, pharmacists do not conduct routine daily surveillance of all transplant patients.
896
Intervention Arm
Technology-enabled pharmacist intervention Health services delivery: Technology-enabled pharmacist intervention The intervention consists of increased review of patients by a pharmacist and increased scrutiny of patients' medication regimens and laboratory values using a dashboard surveillance system.
1,300
Total2,196

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyDeath144195
Overall StudyGraft Loss3245

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicIntervention ArmTotalControl Arm
Age, Continuous66 years66 years67 years
Emergency department visits year prior to study0.9 visits
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.7
1.0 visits
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.8
1.1 visits
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.9
Inpatient stays year prior to study0.4 stays
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.1
0.6 stays
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.3
0.8 stays
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.6
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
Hispanic
47 Participants86 Participants39 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic Black
386 Participants592 Participants206 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic White
834 Participants1442 Participants608 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity
Other or Missing
33 Participants76 Participants43 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
Midwest
961 Participants1109 Participants148 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
Northeast
0 Participants269 Participants269 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
Northwest
0 Participants274 Participants274 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
Southeast
339 Participants544 Participants205 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
57 Participants98 Participants41 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
1243 Participants2098 Participants855 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
144 / 896195 / 1,300
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 00 / 0
serious
Total, serious adverse events
412 / 896436 / 1,300

Outcome results

Primary

Any Hospitalization or Any Emergency Room Visits

24-month count hospitalization and emergency room visits compared between the intervention and usual care groups

Time frame: 24-months

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Control ArmAny Hospitalization or Any Emergency Room VisitsAny ED Visit During Study497 Participants
Control ArmAny Hospitalization or Any Emergency Room VisitsAny Inpatient stay During Study380 Participants
Intervention ArmAny Hospitalization or Any Emergency Room VisitsAny ED Visit During Study574 Participants
Intervention ArmAny Hospitalization or Any Emergency Room VisitsAny Inpatient stay During Study391 Participants
Comparison: Rate of inpatient hospitalization during studyp-value: <0.001Chi-squared
p-value: <0.0001Chi-squared
Secondary

Average Time Responding to Dashboard Alerts

Average time each intervention pharmacist spent on assessing the dashboard alerts per week over the course of 23 months.

Time frame: 23-months

Population: The dashboard intervention was not utilized in the control group and therefore could not be analyzed for this measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control ArmAverage Time Responding to Dashboard Alerts70 MinutesStandard Deviation 188
Secondary

Clinically Relevant Alerts

Proportion of alerts that were deemed clinical relevant and actionable by the intervention pharmacists 22 months (August 2019-June 2021)

Time frame: 22-months

Population: The dashboard intervention was not utilized in the control group and therefore could not be analyzed for this measure. The number of participants reported in here is inconsistent with total number of participants reported in this arm because there are two levels of analysis, the patient level and at the transplant level. Some patients had multiple transplants. Also, not every patient triggered an alert in the dashboard, so the alert numbers may differ from the number of clinical participants.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_UNITS)
Control ArmClinically Relevant Alerts15013 Dashboard alerts
Secondary

Dashboard-Accepted Interventions

Proportion of interventions that were deemed to be accepted when made to other providers based on dashboard reporting information Percentage of patients that had an alert accepted and addressed by a clinician 23 months, August 2019 - June 2021

Time frame: 23-months

Population: The dashboard intervention was not utilized in the control group and therefore could not be analyzed for this measure. The number of participants reported in here is inconsistent with total number of participants reported in this arm because there are two levels of analysis, the patient level and at the transplant level. Some patients had multiple transplants. Also, not every patient triggered an alert in the dashboard, so the alert numbers may differ from the number of clinical participants.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Control ArmDashboard-Accepted InterventionsPatients with an alert addressed by a non-pharmacist570 Participants
Control ArmDashboard-Accepted InterventionsPatients with an alert that led to a pharmacist conducting a medication change102 Participants
Secondary

Medication Safety Issues

23-months, (August 2019-June 2021) Potential medication safety issues, defined as the proportion of patients with the following, based on automated reports for the transplant medication dashboard: 1. Percent of patients with missing labs 2. Percent of patients alarming lab values without follow up scheduled 3. Immunosuppression adherence, estimated using the proportion of days covered (PDC) 4. Percent of patients on significant drug interaction without a immunosuppressant level 5. Percent of patients with hospital discharge or ED visit without follow up scheduled

Time frame: 23-months

Population: The dashboard intervention was not utilized in the control group and therefore could not be analyzed for this measure. The number of participants reported in here is inconsistent with total number of participants reported in this arm because there are two levels of analysis, the patient level and at the transplant level. Some patients had multiple transplants. Also, not every patient triggered an alert in the dashboard, so the alert numbers may differ from the number of clinical participants.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Control ArmMedication Safety IssuesPercent of patient with missing labs733 Participants
Control ArmMedication Safety IssuesPercent of patients alarming lab values without follow up scheduled760 Participants
Control ArmMedication Safety IssuesImmunosuppression adherence, estimated using the proportion of days covered (PDC) <80%756 Participants
Control ArmMedication Safety IssuesPercent of patients with hospital discharge or ED visit without follow up scheduled196 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Graft Survival

Estimated graft survival rates, compared between the intervention and usual care groups and defined as the proportion of patients that continue to have a functioning allograft at the end of the 27-month study

Time frame: 27-months

Population: All participants who were assigned to the arm

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Control ArmNumber of Participants With Graft Survival864 Participants
Intervention ArmNumber of Participants With Graft Survival1255 Participants
p-value: 0.9064Chi-squared
Secondary

Patient Survival- Percentage of Patients That Died During Study

Estimated patient survival rates, compared between the intervention and usual care groups and defined as the proportion of patients alive at the end of the 27-month study. Number of patients who died during the study (March 2019 - June 2021), Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) or VA reported.

Time frame: 27-months

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Control ArmPatient Survival- Percentage of Patients That Died During Study144 Participants
Intervention ArmPatient Survival- Percentage of Patients That Died During Study195 Participants
p-value: 0.51Chi-squared
Secondary

Total Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control Groups

27-month total estimated health care costs, compared between the intervention and control groups (non-zero cost). Inpatient cost, outpatient cost, pharmacy cost, total cost Time Period (start to censor date) March 01, 2019 to June 30, 2021.

Time frame: 27-months

Population: The number analyzed in some of the rows of the outcome measure data table differ from the overall number of participants analyzed because not every patient had every type of cost - some didn't have any emergency department (ED) visits, some didn't have any hospitalizations, and a few didn't have any outpatient visits - no visit, no cost.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Control ArmTotal Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control GroupsInpatient costs37,505 dollars
Control ArmTotal Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control GroupsOutpatient costs17,077 dollars
Control ArmTotal Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control GroupsPharmacy costs10,306 dollars
Control ArmTotal Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control GroupsTotal costs36,255 dollars
Intervention ArmTotal Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control GroupsTotal costs51,811 dollars
Intervention ArmTotal Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control GroupsInpatient costs56,600 dollars
Intervention ArmTotal Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control GroupsPharmacy costs10,555 dollars
Intervention ArmTotal Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control GroupsOutpatient costs25,560 dollars
p-value: <0.001Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 21, 2026