Transplant
Conditions
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
Technology-enabled pharmacist intervention
Sponsors
Study design
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
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
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Any Hospitalization or Any Emergency Room Visits | 24-months | 24-month count hospitalization and emergency room visits compared between the intervention and usual care groups |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Participants With Graft Survival | 27-months | 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 |
| Patient Survival- Percentage of Patients That Died During Study | 27-months | 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. |
| Medication Safety Issues | 23-months | 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 |
| Total Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control Groups | 27-months | 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. |
| Dashboard-Accepted Interventions | 23-months | 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 |
| Average Time Responding to Dashboard Alerts | 23-months | Average time each intervention pharmacist spent on assessing the dashboard alerts per week over the course of 23 months. |
| Clinically Relevant Alerts | 22-months | Proportion 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
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| Total | 2,196 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Death | 144 | 195 |
| Overall Study | Graft Loss | 32 | 45 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Intervention Arm | Total | Control Arm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 66 years | 66 years | 67 years |
| Emergency department visits year prior to study | 0.9 visits STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.7 | 1.0 visits STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.8 | 1.1 visits STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.9 |
| Inpatient stays year prior to study | 0.4 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 Participants | 86 Participants | 39 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity Non-Hispanic Black | 386 Participants | 592 Participants | 206 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity Non-Hispanic White | 834 Participants | 1442 Participants | 608 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity Other or Missing | 33 Participants | 76 Participants | 43 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States Midwest | 961 Participants | 1109 Participants | 148 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States Northeast | 0 Participants | 269 Participants | 269 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States Northwest | 0 Participants | 274 Participants | 274 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States Southeast | 339 Participants | 544 Participants | 205 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 57 Participants | 98 Participants | 41 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 1243 Participants | 2098 Participants | 855 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 144 / 896 | 195 / 1,300 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 412 / 896 | 436 / 1,300 |
Outcome results
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Any Hospitalization or Any Emergency Room Visits | Any ED Visit During Study | 497 Participants |
| Control Arm | Any Hospitalization or Any Emergency Room Visits | Any Inpatient stay During Study | 380 Participants |
| Intervention Arm | Any Hospitalization or Any Emergency Room Visits | Any ED Visit During Study | 574 Participants |
| Intervention Arm | Any Hospitalization or Any Emergency Room Visits | Any Inpatient stay During Study | 391 Participants |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Average Time Responding to Dashboard Alerts | 70 Minutes | Standard Deviation 188 |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_UNITS) |
|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Clinically Relevant Alerts | 15013 Dashboard alerts |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Dashboard-Accepted Interventions | Patients with an alert addressed by a non-pharmacist | 570 Participants |
| Control Arm | Dashboard-Accepted Interventions | Patients with an alert that led to a pharmacist conducting a medication change | 102 Participants |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Medication Safety Issues | Percent of patient with missing labs | 733 Participants |
| Control Arm | Medication Safety Issues | Percent of patients alarming lab values without follow up scheduled | 760 Participants |
| Control Arm | Medication Safety Issues | Immunosuppression adherence, estimated using the proportion of days covered (PDC) <80% | 756 Participants |
| Control Arm | Medication Safety Issues | Percent of patients with hospital discharge or ED visit without follow up scheduled | 196 Participants |
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
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Number of Participants With Graft Survival | 864 Participants |
| Intervention Arm | Number of Participants With Graft Survival | 1255 Participants |
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
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Patient Survival- Percentage of Patients That Died During Study | 144 Participants |
| Intervention Arm | Patient Survival- Percentage of Patients That Died During Study | 195 Participants |
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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | Total Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control Groups | Inpatient costs | 37,505 dollars |
| Control Arm | Total Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control Groups | Outpatient costs | 17,077 dollars |
| Control Arm | Total Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control Groups | Pharmacy costs | 10,306 dollars |
| Control Arm | Total Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control Groups | Total costs | 36,255 dollars |
| Intervention Arm | Total Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control Groups | Total costs | 51,811 dollars |
| Intervention Arm | Total Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control Groups | Inpatient costs | 56,600 dollars |
| Intervention Arm | Total Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control Groups | Pharmacy costs | 10,555 dollars |
| Intervention Arm | Total Estimated Health Care Costs, Compared Between the Intervention and Control Groups | Outpatient costs | 25,560 dollars |