Delivering Complex Oncologic Care to the Veteran’s “Front Door”: A Case Report of Leveraging Nationwide VA Expertise

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 11/20/2023 - 14:50

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation of medical services is a significant barrier in modern patient care with contributing factors including patient and system level details. The Veterans Affairs (VA) department is the largest integrated health care organization in the US. Given the complex challenges of such a system, the VA has developed resources to lessen the impact of care fragmentation, potentially widening services and diminishing traditional barriers to care. We present a patient case as an example of how VA programs are impacting current veteran oncologic care.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 86-year-old veteran with shortness of breath and fatigue was found to have macrocytic anemia. Located nearly 200 miles from the closest VA with hematology services he was referred through the National TeleOncology (NTO) service to see hematology using clinical video telehealth (CVT) technology stationed at a VA approximately 100 miles from his home. Consultation led to lab work revealing no viral, nutritional, or rheumatologic explanation. A bone marrow biopsy was completed without clear diagnosis though molecular alterations demonstrated ASXL1, TET2 and CBL mutations. Hematopathology services were sought, and the patient’s case was presented at the NTO virtual hematologic tumor board where expert VA hematopathology, radiology and medical hematology opinions were available. A diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome was rendered with care recommendations including the novel agent luspatercept. Given patient age and comorbidities, transportation remained a barrier. The patient was set up to receive services through home based primary care (HBPC) with weekly lab draws and medication administration. Ultimately, the patient was able to receive the first dose of luspatercept through the NTO affiliated VA with subsequent administrations to be given by HBPC. Additional visits planned using at home VA video Connect (VVC) service and CVT visits with NTO hematology at his local community based outpatient center (CBOC) located 30 miles from his home.

DISCUSSION

Located over 3 hours from the closest in-person VA hematologist, this patient was able to receive complex care thanks to a marriage of in-person and virtual services involving specialty nurses, pharmacists, and physicians from across VA. Services such as the NTO hub-spoke model, virtual tumor boards and HBPC, reveal a care framework unique to the VA.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(4)s
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S22
Sections

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation of medical services is a significant barrier in modern patient care with contributing factors including patient and system level details. The Veterans Affairs (VA) department is the largest integrated health care organization in the US. Given the complex challenges of such a system, the VA has developed resources to lessen the impact of care fragmentation, potentially widening services and diminishing traditional barriers to care. We present a patient case as an example of how VA programs are impacting current veteran oncologic care.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 86-year-old veteran with shortness of breath and fatigue was found to have macrocytic anemia. Located nearly 200 miles from the closest VA with hematology services he was referred through the National TeleOncology (NTO) service to see hematology using clinical video telehealth (CVT) technology stationed at a VA approximately 100 miles from his home. Consultation led to lab work revealing no viral, nutritional, or rheumatologic explanation. A bone marrow biopsy was completed without clear diagnosis though molecular alterations demonstrated ASXL1, TET2 and CBL mutations. Hematopathology services were sought, and the patient’s case was presented at the NTO virtual hematologic tumor board where expert VA hematopathology, radiology and medical hematology opinions were available. A diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome was rendered with care recommendations including the novel agent luspatercept. Given patient age and comorbidities, transportation remained a barrier. The patient was set up to receive services through home based primary care (HBPC) with weekly lab draws and medication administration. Ultimately, the patient was able to receive the first dose of luspatercept through the NTO affiliated VA with subsequent administrations to be given by HBPC. Additional visits planned using at home VA video Connect (VVC) service and CVT visits with NTO hematology at his local community based outpatient center (CBOC) located 30 miles from his home.

DISCUSSION

Located over 3 hours from the closest in-person VA hematologist, this patient was able to receive complex care thanks to a marriage of in-person and virtual services involving specialty nurses, pharmacists, and physicians from across VA. Services such as the NTO hub-spoke model, virtual tumor boards and HBPC, reveal a care framework unique to the VA.

INTRODUCTION

Fragmentation of medical services is a significant barrier in modern patient care with contributing factors including patient and system level details. The Veterans Affairs (VA) department is the largest integrated health care organization in the US. Given the complex challenges of such a system, the VA has developed resources to lessen the impact of care fragmentation, potentially widening services and diminishing traditional barriers to care. We present a patient case as an example of how VA programs are impacting current veteran oncologic care.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 86-year-old veteran with shortness of breath and fatigue was found to have macrocytic anemia. Located nearly 200 miles from the closest VA with hematology services he was referred through the National TeleOncology (NTO) service to see hematology using clinical video telehealth (CVT) technology stationed at a VA approximately 100 miles from his home. Consultation led to lab work revealing no viral, nutritional, or rheumatologic explanation. A bone marrow biopsy was completed without clear diagnosis though molecular alterations demonstrated ASXL1, TET2 and CBL mutations. Hematopathology services were sought, and the patient’s case was presented at the NTO virtual hematologic tumor board where expert VA hematopathology, radiology and medical hematology opinions were available. A diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome was rendered with care recommendations including the novel agent luspatercept. Given patient age and comorbidities, transportation remained a barrier. The patient was set up to receive services through home based primary care (HBPC) with weekly lab draws and medication administration. Ultimately, the patient was able to receive the first dose of luspatercept through the NTO affiliated VA with subsequent administrations to be given by HBPC. Additional visits planned using at home VA video Connect (VVC) service and CVT visits with NTO hematology at his local community based outpatient center (CBOC) located 30 miles from his home.

DISCUSSION

Located over 3 hours from the closest in-person VA hematologist, this patient was able to receive complex care thanks to a marriage of in-person and virtual services involving specialty nurses, pharmacists, and physicians from across VA. Services such as the NTO hub-spoke model, virtual tumor boards and HBPC, reveal a care framework unique to the VA.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(4)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 40(4)s
Page Number
S22
Page Number
S22
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
Clinical Practice
Gate On Date
Sun, 09/10/2023 - 20:00
Un-Gate On Date
Sun, 09/10/2023 - 20:00
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Sun, 09/10/2023 - 20:00
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

COVID-19 Outcomes in Veterans With Hematologic Malignancies

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 08/29/2023 - 09:38
Display Headline
COVID-19 Outcomes in Veterans with Hematologic Malignancies
References
  1. Parker S. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(1):2 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00713-0
  2. Englum BR et al. Cancer. 2022;128(5):1048-1056. doi:10.1002/cncr.34011
  3. Leuva H et al. Semin Oncol. 2022:49(5):363-370. doi:10.1053/j.seminoncol.2022.07.005
  4. Wu JTY et al. JAMA Oncol. 2022;8(2):281-286. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.5771
  5. Fillmore NR et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(6):691-698. doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa159
  6. Morawska M. Eur J Haematol. 2022;108(2):91-98. doi:10.1111/ejh.13722
  7. Passamonti F et al. Hematol Oncol. 2023;41(1):3-15. doi:10.1002/hon.3086
Author and Disclosure Information

Thomas D. Rodgers, MD
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Durham VA Medical Center
Duke University School of Medicine
Durham, NC

Publications
Topics
Author and Disclosure Information

Thomas D. Rodgers, MD
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Durham VA Medical Center
Duke University School of Medicine
Durham, NC

Author and Disclosure Information

Thomas D. Rodgers, MD
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Durham VA Medical Center
Duke University School of Medicine
Durham, NC

References
  1. Parker S. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(1):2 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00713-0
  2. Englum BR et al. Cancer. 2022;128(5):1048-1056. doi:10.1002/cncr.34011
  3. Leuva H et al. Semin Oncol. 2022:49(5):363-370. doi:10.1053/j.seminoncol.2022.07.005
  4. Wu JTY et al. JAMA Oncol. 2022;8(2):281-286. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.5771
  5. Fillmore NR et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(6):691-698. doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa159
  6. Morawska M. Eur J Haematol. 2022;108(2):91-98. doi:10.1111/ejh.13722
  7. Passamonti F et al. Hematol Oncol. 2023;41(1):3-15. doi:10.1002/hon.3086
References
  1. Parker S. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23(1):2 doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00713-0
  2. Englum BR et al. Cancer. 2022;128(5):1048-1056. doi:10.1002/cncr.34011
  3. Leuva H et al. Semin Oncol. 2022:49(5):363-370. doi:10.1053/j.seminoncol.2022.07.005
  4. Wu JTY et al. JAMA Oncol. 2022;8(2):281-286. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.5771
  5. Fillmore NR et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(6):691-698. doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa159
  6. Morawska M. Eur J Haematol. 2022;108(2):91-98. doi:10.1111/ejh.13722
  7. Passamonti F et al. Hematol Oncol. 2023;41(1):3-15. doi:10.1002/hon.3086
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
COVID-19 Outcomes in Veterans with Hematologic Malignancies
Display Headline
COVID-19 Outcomes in Veterans with Hematologic Malignancies
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
Slideshow
Gate On Date
Fri, 06/30/2023 - 13:15
Un-Gate On Date
Fri, 06/30/2023 - 13:15
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Fri, 06/30/2023 - 13:15
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Article Slideshow Optional Introduction

Slideshow below.

The COVID–19 pandemic has forever changed the world, but the true extent of its lasting impact remains unclear. There were immediate diagnostic and treatment ramifications at the start of the pandemic. Stay-at-home ordinances, fear of infection, and decreased staffing availability made in-person health care appointments more challenging. A stark decline in diagnostic screening procedures and imaging was observed early during the pandemic.1,2 There was a paucity of information to help guide health care practitioners as they designed treatment strategies in anticipation of potential COVID–19 infections in their patients with cancer. The unknown relationship between cancer therapy and COVID–19 infection introduced uncertainty and confusion for patients and hindered ongoing surveillance efforts.

Several studies performed within the VA have highlighted the concern that although vaccination is effective in reducing infection and mortality rates in patients with cancer, such benefits are distributed unequally. Despite vaccination status, patients with hematologic malignancies appear more likely to contract COVID–19 and have worse COVID–19–related outcomes. Nevertheless, vaccinated patients fare better than their unvaccinated counterparts, demonstrating the ongoing importance of immunization.3-5 We now know that cancer treatment history also affects vaccine efficacy, which is critical to consider when deciding on potential chemotherapy and targeted agents for cancer treatment.6,7

We now have more robust data to help guide decision-making along with an expanding armamentarium of vaccines and therapeutics to lower the risk of COVID–19 infection. Vaccines, while less effective in patients with hematologic malignancies, continue to reduce severity of COVID–19. This knowledge has led to increased risk mitigation strategies for our patients with hematologic malignancies, particularly those receiving cancer therapy, such as recommendations for increased masking in social situations and administration of antiviral and monoclonal antibody therapy. Practitioners remain uniquely positioned to help guide their vulnerable patients through these turbulent times. This relationship undoubtedly saves lives.

Slide
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Slide Media
Image
Caption
<p>An analysis of &gt; 915,000 veterans who were tested for COVID-19 between December 2020 and January 2022 compared outcomes in patients with vs without cancer, as well as in those who were vaccinated vs unvaccinated.<sup>3</sup></p>
Disable zoom
Off
Media Folder
Image
Caption
<p>Another study looked at vaccine effectiveness beginning 14 days after administration of the second dose in veterans with cancer.<sup>4</sup></p>
Disable zoom
Off
Media Folder
Image
Caption
<p>COVID-19 vaccination was associated with lower infection rates in patients with cancer, based on a cohort study of 184,485 patients from December 2020 to May 2021.&nbsp;</p><p>The study matched newly vaccinated patients 1:1 with unvaccinated controls based on age, race/ethnicity, VA facility, geographical location, cancer type, and type/timing of treatment.<sup>4</sup></p>
Disable zoom
Off
Media Folder
Image
Caption
<p>A review of health records in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) looked at the relationship between cancer treatment and vaccination responsiveness.<sup>6</sup></p>
Disable zoom
Off
Media Folder
Image
Caption
<p>A similar review of outcomes in patients with lymphomas found more promising rates of vaccine effectiveness, but varying mortality rates based on current treatment regimens.<sup>7</sup></p>
Disable zoom
Off
Media Folder