Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
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.
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.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Arm | No Intervention | Usual Care | |
| Intervention Arm | Experimental | Technology-enabled pharmacist intervention |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health services delivery | Other | Technology-enabled pharmacist intervention |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Any Hospitalization or Any Emergency Room Visits | 24-month count hospitalization and emergency room visits compared between the intervention and usual care groups | 24-months |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | 27-months |
Not provided
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:
OR
oICD-10 codes:
AND
Actively receiving at least one anti-rejection medication dispensed by the VA site.
These medications include:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| David J. Taber, PharmD | Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, SC | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, SC | Charleston | South Carolina | 29401-5799 | United States |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30724092 | Result | Taber DJ, Ward R, Axon RN, Walker RJ, Egede LE, Gebregziabher M. The Impact of Dual Health Care System Use for Obtaining Prescription Medications on Nonadherence in Veterans With Type 2 Diabetes. Ann Pharmacother. 2019 Jul;53(7):675-682. doi: 10.1177/1060028019828681. Epub 2019 Feb 6. | |
| 37562577 | Result | Taber DJ, Ward RC, Buchanan CH, Axon RN, Milfred-LaForest S, Rife K, Felkner R, Cooney D, Super N, McClelland S, McKenna D, Santa E, Gebregziabher M. Results of a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled clinical trial testing the effectiveness of a bioinformatics-enabled pharmacist intervention in transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2023 Dec;23(12):1939-1948. doi: 10.1016/j.ajt.2023.08.004. Epub 2023 Aug 9. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Control Arm | 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. |
| FG001 | 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. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | 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. |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Median |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Any Hospitalization or Any Emergency Room Visits | 24-month count hospitalization and emergency room visits compared between the intervention and usual care groups | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | 24-months |
|
27-month study period
Only death and serious adverse events (SAEs) were assessed. SAEs are defined as patients who had an inpatient stay or graft lost during the study.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Control Arm | Usual Care, no intervention. 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 |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Graft Failure | General disorders | Non-systematic Assessment | Graft failure during study |
Not provided
This was a pragmatic study, utilization of the system was not required and not uniform across sites or pharmacists. Not all alerts produced were addressed or deemed clinically relevant by intervention site pharmacists. Only ED visits and hospitalizations that occurred within the VA system were captured and used for outcome assessment for this study, which is a limitation. SRTR data for acute rejections are not comprehensive as patients were, on average, 9-years post-transplant.
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dr. David J. Taber | Ralph H. Johnson VA Healthcare System | 843.789.6624 | David.Taber2@va.gov |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | Aug 11, 2021 | Jul 20, 2023 | Prot_SAP_000.pdf |
Not provided
Prospective, cluster-randomized controlled clinical trial at 10 sites, randomizing 5 sites to standard clinical care and 5 to the intervention.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| 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 |
| 27-months |
| 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. | 27-months |
| 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:
| 23-months |
| Clinically Relevant Alerts | Proportion of alerts that were deemed clinical relevant and actionable by the intervention pharmacists 22 months (August 2019-June 2021) | 22-months |
| 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 | 23-months |
| 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. | 23-months |
| 31573933 | Derived | Hall CL, Fominaya CE, Gebregziabher M, Milfred-LaForest SK, Rife KM, Taber DJ. Improving Transplant Medication Safety Through a Technology and Pharmacist Intervention (ISTEP): Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Res Protoc. 2019 Oct 1;8(10):e13821. doi: 10.2196/13821. |
| BG001 | 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. |
| BG002 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Emergency department visits year prior to study | Mean | Standard Deviation | visits |
|
| Inpatient stays year prior to study | Mean | Standard Deviation | stays |
|
| OG001 |
| Intervention Arm |
Patients received the technology-enabled pharmacist intervention in addition to the usual standard of care. The intervention consisted of increased review of patients by a pharmacist and increased scrutiny of patients' medication regimens and laboratory values using a dashboard surveillance system. |
|
|
|
| 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. | 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. | Posted | Median | Inter-Quartile Range | dollars | 27-months |
|
|
|
|
| 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 | All participants who were assigned to the arm | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | 27-months |
|
|
|
|
| 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. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | 27-months |
|
|
|
|
| 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:
| 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. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | 23-months |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Clinically Relevant Alerts | Proportion of alerts that were deemed clinical relevant and actionable by the intervention pharmacists 22 months (August 2019-June 2021) | 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. | Posted | Count of Units | Dashboard alerts | 22-months | Dashboard alerts | 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 | 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. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | 23-months |
|
|
|
| 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. | The dashboard intervention was not utilized in the control group and therefore could not be analyzed for this measure. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Minutes | 23-months |
|
|
|
| 144 |
| 896 |
| 412 |
| 896 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| EG001 | Intervention Arm | Technology-enabled pharmacist intervention Health services delivery: Technology-enabled pharmacist intervention | 195 | 1,300 | 436 | 1,300 | 0 | 0 |
|
| Inpatient hospitalization | General disorders | Systematic Assessment | Inpatient stays during study |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| Outpatient costs |
|
|
| Pharmacy costs |
|
|
| Total costs |
|
|
|
| Percent of patients with hospital discharge or ED visit without follow up scheduled |
|