The Impact of Changing Race-Specific Equations for Lung Function Tests among Veterans with COPD.

RATIONALE: The American Thoracic Society recommended a single reference equation for spirometry but the impact to patients is not known. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of changing to a single reference equation among Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Cross-sectional study including Veterans aged ≥40 to ≤89 years with COPD and spirometry results from 21 facilities between 2010 - 2019. We collected race/ethnicity data from the electronic health record. We estimated the percentage change in the number of Veterans with lung function meeting clinical thresholds used to determine eligibility for lung resection for cancer, lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS), and lung transplant referral. We estimated the change for each level of VA service connection and financial impact. RESULTS: We identified 44,892 Veterans; Asian (0.5%), Black (11.8%), White (80.8%), and Hispanic (1.8%). When changing to a single reference equation, Asian and Black Veterans had reduced predicted lung function that could result in less surgical lung resection (4.4% and 11.1% respectively), while increasing LVRS (1.7% and 3.8%), and lung transplant evaluation for Black Veterans (1.2%). White Veterans had increased predicted lung function and could experience increased lung resection (8.1%), with less LVRS (3.3%), and lung transplant evaluation (0.9%). Some Asian and Black Veterans could experience an increase in monthly disability payments (+$540.38 and $398.38), while Hispanic White and White Veterans could see a decrease (-$588.79). When aggregated, Hispanic Veterans experienced changes attributable to their racial identity, and because this sample was predominantly Hispanic White, had similar results to White Veterans. CONCLUSIONS: Changing the reference equation could affect access to treatment and disability benefits, depending on race. If adopted, the use of discrete clinical thresholds needs to be reassessed, considering patient-centered outcomes.

Assessment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Among Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Primary Care.

Study Objectives: Observational studies link untreated obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with adverse outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The first step in addressing OSA is a clinical assessment. However, given competing demands and a lack of high-quality evidence, it is unclear how often such assessments occur. We explored the documentation of OSA assessment among patients with COPD in primary care, and the patient and provider characteristics associated with these assessments. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients with clinically diagnosed COPD at 2 primary care practices. We abstracted charts to determine whether providers assessed OSA, defined as documentation of symptoms, treatment, or a referral to sleep medicine. We performed multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to assess the associations of patient and provider characteristics with OSA assessment. Results: Among 641 patients with clinically diagnosed COPD, 146 (23%) had OSA assessed over a 1-year period. Positive associations with OSA assessment included body mass index ≥ 30 (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-7.0), pulmonary subspecialist visits (OR 3.9, 95%CI 2.4-6.3), and a prior sleep study demonstrating OSA documented within the electronic medical record (OR 18.0, 95%CI 9.0-35.8). Notably, patients identifying as Black were less likely to have OSA assessed than those identifying as White (OR 0.5, 95%CI 0.2-0.9). Conclusions: Providers document an assessment of OSA among a quarter of patients with COPD. Our findings highlight the importance of future work to rigorously test the impact of assessment on important health outcomes. Our findings also reinforce that additional strategies are needed to improve the equitable delivery of care.

Inhaler Formulary Change in COPD and the Association with Exacerbations, Health Care Utilization, and Costs.

Rationale: Prescription formularies specify which medications are available to patients. Formularies change frequently, potentially forcing patients to switch medications for nonclinical indications (nonmedical switching). Nonmedical switching is known to impact disease control and adherence. The consequences of nonmedical switching have not been rigorously studied in COPD. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of Veterans with COPD on inhaler therapy in January 2016 when formoterol was removed from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) national formulary. A 2-point difference-in-differences analysis using multivariable negative binomial and generalized linear models was performed to estimate the association of the formulary change with patient outcomes in the 6 months before and after the change. Our primary outcome was the number of COPD exacerbations in 6 months, with secondary outcomes of total health care encounters and encounter-related costs in 6 months. Results: We identified 10,606 Veterans who met our inclusion criteria, of which 409 (3.9%) experienced nonmedical switching off formoterol. We did not identify a change in COPD exacerbations (-0.04 exacerbations; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.12, 0.03) associated with the formulary change. In secondary outcome analysis, we did not observe a change in the number of health care encounters (-0.12 visits; 95% CI -1.00, 0.77) or encounter-related costs ($369; 95% CI -$1141, $1878). Conclusions: Among COPD patients on single inhaler therapy, nonmedical inhaler switches due to formulary discontinuation of formoterol were not associated with changes in COPD exacerbations, encounters, or encounter-related costs. Additional research is needed to confirm our findings in more severe disease and other settings.

Risks of Zolpidem among Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Rationale: Nonbenzodiazepine benzodiazepine receptor agonists (NBZRA, e.g., zolpidem) are frequently used to treat insomnia among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, multiple observational studies find that patients with COPD who are prescribed NBZRAs have greater risks for mortality and respiratory complications than patients without such prescriptions. Without an active comparator, these studies are susceptible to confounding by indication. Objectives: Compare the risk of death or inpatient COPD exacerbation among patients receiving zolpidem relative to patients receiving other hypnotics. Methods: Using nationwide Veterans Health Administration (VA) data, we identified patients with clinically diagnosed COPD and new receipt of zolpidem or another hypnotic available on VA formulary without prior authorization (melatonin, trazodone, doxepin). We excluded those receiving traditional benzodiazepines or multiple concurrent hypnotics. We propensity-matched patients receiving zolpidem to other hypnotics on 32 variables, including demographics, comorbidities, and markers of COPD severity. We compared risk of the primary composite outcome of death or inpatient COPD exacerbation over 1 year. In secondary analyses, we propensity-matched patients receiving zolpidem to those without hypnotic receipt. Results: Among 283,740 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 1,126 (0.4%) received zolpidem and 3,057 (1.1%) received other hypnotics. We propensity-matched patients receiving zolpidem 1:1 to peers receiving other hypnotics. We did not find a difference in the primary composite outcome of death or inpatient exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-1.23). In secondary analyses comparing patients receiving zolpidem to matched peers without hypnotic receipt, we observed greater risk of death or inpatient exacerbation with zolpidem (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.09-1.81). Conclusions: Among patients with COPD, we did not observe greater risks after new receipt of zolpidem relative to other hypnotics. However, we did observe greater risks relative to those without hypnotic receipt. This latter finding may reflect: 1) residual, unmeasured confounding related to insomnia; or 2) true adverse effects of hypnotics across classes. Future work is needed to better understand the risks of hypnotics in COPD.

Protocol for a pragmatic trial testing a self-directed lifestyle program targeting weight loss among patients with obstructive sleep apnea (POWER Trial).

BACKGROUND: Obesity comprises the single greatest reversible risk factor for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Despite the potential of lifestyle-based weight loss services to improve OSA severity and symptoms, these programs have limited reach. POWER is a pragmatic trial of a remote self-directed weight loss care among patients with OSA. METHODS: POWER randomizes 696 patients with obesity (BMI 30-45 kg/m2) and recent diagnosis or re-confirmation of OSA 1:1 to either a self-directed weight loss intervention or usual care. POWER tests whether such an intervention improves co-primary outcomes of weight and sleep-related quality of life at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include sleep symptoms, global ratings of change, and cardiovascular risk scores. Finally, consistent with a hybrid type 1 approach, the trial embeds an implementation process evaluation. We will use quantitative and qualitative methods including budget impact analyses and qualitative interviews to assess barriers to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of POWER will inform population health approaches to the delivery of weight loss care. A remote self-directed program has the potential to be disseminated widely with limited health system resources and likely low-cost.

Sleep Testing and Mortality in a Propensity-matched Cohort of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Rationale: Many advocate the application of propensity-matching methods to real-world data to answer key questions around obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) management. One such question is whether identifying undiagnosed OSA impacts mortality in high-risk populations, such as those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives: Assess the association of sleep testing with mortality among patients with COPD and a high likelihood of undiagnosed OSA. Methods: We identified patients with COPD and a high likelihood of undiagnosed OSA. We then distinguished those receiving sleep testing within 90 days of index COPD encounters. We calculated propensity scores for testing based on 37 variables and compared long-term mortality in matched groups. In sensitivity analyses, we compared mortality using inverse propensity weighting and instrumental variable methods. We also compared the incidence of nonfatal events including adverse outcomes (hospitalizations and COPD exacerbations) and routine services that are regularly indicated in COPD (influenza vaccination and pulmonary function testing). We compared the incidence of each nonfatal event as a composite outcome with death and separately compared the marginal probability of each nonfatal event independently, with death as a competing risk. Results: Among 135,958 patients, 1,957 (1.4%) received sleep testing. We propensity matched all patients with sleep testing to an equal number without testing, achieving excellent balance on observed confounders, with standardized differences < 0.10. We observed lower mortality risk among patients with sleep testing (incidence rate ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.99) and similar results using inverse propensity weighting and instrumental variable methods. Contrary to mortality, we found that sleep testing was associated with a similar or greater risk for nonfatal adverse events, including inpatient COPD exacerbations (subhazard ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.02-1.62) and routine services like influenza vaccination (subhazard ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.17-1.36). Conclusions: Our disparate findings can be interpreted in multiple ways. Sleep testing may indeed cause both reduced mortality and greater incidence of nonfatal adverse outcomes and routine services. However, it is also possible that our findings stem from residual confounding by patients' likelihood of accessing care. Given the limitations of propensity-based analyses, we cannot confidently distinguish these two possibilities. This uncertainty highlights the limitations of using propensity-based analyses to guide patient care and policy decisions.

Strategies to Assess the Effect of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure on Long-Term Clinically Important Outcomes among Patients with Symptomatic Obstructive Sleep Apnea: An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report.

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the first-line treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Although CPAP improves symptoms (e.g., daytime sleepiness), there is a lack of high-quality evidence that CPAP prevents many long-term outcomes, including cognitive impairment, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Observational studies suggest that patients with symptoms may be particularly likely to experience these preventive benefits with CPAP, but ethical and practical concerns limited the participation of such patients in prior long-term randomized trials. As a result, there is uncertainty about the full benefits of CPAP, and resolving this uncertainty is a key priority for the field. This workshop assembled clinicians, researchers, ethicists, and patients to identify strategies to understand the causal effects of CPAP on long-term clinically important outcomes among patients with symptomatic OSA. Quasi-experimental designs can provide valuable information and are less time and resource intensive than trials. Under specific conditions and assumptions, quasi-experimental studies may be able to provide causal estimates of CPAP's effectiveness from generalizable observational cohorts. However, randomized trials represent the most reliable approach to understanding the causal effects of CPAP among patients with symptoms. Randomized trials of CPAP can ethically include patients with symptomatic OSA, as long as there is outcome-specific equipoise, adequate informed consent, and a plan to maximize safety while minimizing harm (e.g., monitoring for pathologic sleepiness). Furthermore, multiple strategies exist to ensure the generalizability and practicality of future randomized trials of CPAP. These strategies include reducing the burden of trial procedures, improving patient-centeredness, and engaging historically excluded and underserved populations.

Trends and Rural-Urban Differences in the Initial Prescription of Low-Value Inhaled Corticosteroids among U.S. Veterans with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Rationale: Guidelines recommend inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and select indications, including asthma history, high exacerbation risk, or high serum eosinophils. ICS are commonly prescribed outside of these indications, despite evidence of harm. We defined a "low-value" ICS prescription as the receipt of an ICS without evidence of a guideline-recommended indication. ICS prescription patterns are not well characterized and could inform health system interventions to reduce low-value practices. Objectives: To evaluate the national trends in initial low-value ICS prescriptions in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and to determine whether rural-urban differences in low-value ICS prescribing exist. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study between January 4, 2010, and December 31, 2018, identifying veterans with COPD who were new users of inhaler therapy. We defined low-value ICS as prescriptions in patients with 1) no asthma, 2) low risk of future exacerbation (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease group A or B), and 3) serum eosinophils <300 cells/µl. We performed multivariable logistic regression to evaluate trends in low-value ICS prescription over time, adjusting for potential confounders. We performed fixed effects logistic regression to assess rural-urban prescribing patterns. Results: We identified a total of 131,009 veterans with COPD starting inhaler therapy, 57,472 (44%) of whom were prescribed low-value ICS as initial therapy. From 2010 to 2018, the probability of receiving low-value ICS as initial therapy increased by 0.42 percentage points per year (95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.53). Compared with urban residence, rural residence was associated with a 2.5-percentage-point (95% confidence interval, 1.9-3.1) higher probability of receiving low-value ICS as initial therapy. Conclusions: The prescription of low-value ICS as initial therapy is common and increasing slightly over time for both rural and urban veterans. Given the widespread and persistent nature of low-value ICS prescribing, health system leaders should consider system-wide approaches to address this low-value prescribing practice.

Impact of mail-based continuous positive airway pressure initiation on treatment usage and effectiveness.

PURPOSE: In-person visits with a trained therapist have been standard care for patients initiating continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). These visits provide an opportunity for hands-on training and an in-person assessment of mask fit. However, to improve access, many health systems are shifting to remote CPAP initiation with equipment mailed to patients. While there are potential benefits of a mailed approach, relative patient outcomes are unclear. Specifically, many have concerns that a lack of in-person training may contribute to reduced CPAP adherence. To inform this knowledge gap, we aimed to compare treatment usage after in-person or mailed CPAP initiation. METHODS: Our medical center shifted from in-person to mailed CPAP dispensation in March 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. We assembled a cohort of patients with newly diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) who initiated CPAP in the months before (n = 433) and after (n = 186) this shift. We compared 90-day adherence between groups. RESULTS: Mean nightly PAP usage was modest in both groups (in-person 145.2, mailed 140.6 min/night). We did not detect between-group differences in either unadjusted or adjusted analyses (adjusted difference - 0.2 min/night, 95% - 27.0 to + 26.5). CONCLUSIONS: Mail-based systems of CPAP initiation may be able to improve access without reducing CPAP usage. Future work should consider the impact of mailed CPAP on patient-reported outcomes and the impact of different remote setup strategies.

Primary Care Provider Experience With Proactive E-Consults to Improve COPD Outcomes and Access to Specialty Care.

Background: Often patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receive poor quality care with limited access to pulmonologists. We tested a novel intervention, INtegrating Care After Exacerbation of COPD (InCasE), that improved patient outcomes after hospitalization for COPD. InCasE used population-based identification of patients for proactive e-consultation by pulmonologists, and tailored recommendations with pre-populated orders timed to follow-up with primary care providers (PCPs). Although adoption by PCPs was high, we do not know how PCPs experienced the intervention. Objective: Our objective was to assess PCPs' experience with proactive pulmonary e-consults after hospitalization for COPD. Methods: We conducted a convergent mixed methods study among study PCPs at 2 medical centers and 10 outpatient clinics. PCPs underwent semi-structured interviews and surveys. We performed descriptive analyses on quantitative data and inductive and deductive coding based on prespecified themes of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility for qualitative data. Key Results: We conducted 10 interviews and 37 PCPs completed surveys. PCPs perceived InCasE to be acceptable and feasible. Facilitators included the proactive consult approach to patient identification and order entry. PCPs also noted the intervention was respectful and collegial. PCPs had concerns regarding appropriateness related to an unclear role in communicating recommendations to patients. PCPs also noted a potential decrease in autonomy if overused. Conclusion: This evaluation indicates that a proactive e-consult intervention can be deployed to collaboratively manage the health of populations with COPD in a way that is acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for primary care. Lessons learned from this study suggest the intervention may be transferable to other settings and specialties.

Effect of a Remotely Delivered Self-directed Behavioral Intervention on Body Weight and Physical Health Status Among Adults With Obesity: The D-ELITE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of remotely delivered, self-directed, weight loss programs in routine clinical practice is largely unknown. Objective: To test whether a self-directed, remotely administered behavioral lifestyle intervention improves weight and self-reported general health status compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial, 511 adults with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more and less than 45 (based on electronic health record [EHR] weight and height), were enrolled from 30 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) sites between February 15, 2018, and December 18, 2018 (final follow-up February 18, 2021). Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n = 254) or the control group (n = 257). Both received usual care. Participants randomized to the intervention received Diabetes Prevention Program-based self-directed videos, handouts, and coaching messages via an online platform or US mail for 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were weight measured in primary care and recorded in the EHR and self-reported general health status using the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) physical component score (PCS; higher scores are better [range, 0-100]) at the 12-month follow-up. The between-group minimal clinically important differences are 3 kg for weight and 5 points for the SF-12 PCS. Linear mixed models used weights and SF-12 PCS measured at either time point, with participants analyzed according to randomization assignment. Statistical significance for each coprimary outcome was based on a 2-sided α level of .025. Results: Among 511 participants randomized (mean age, 57.4 [SD, 13.9] years; 231 female [45%]), 429 (84.0%) had EHR-based weights and 410 (80.2%) had SF-12 PCS data at 12 months. The unadjusted mean weight at 12 months declined from 102.7 kg to 99.8 kg in the intervention group compared with 101.9 kg to 101.0 kg in the control group (adjusted between-group mean difference, -1.93 [97.5% CI, -3.24 to -0.61]; P = .001). At 12 months, the unadjusted mean SF-12 PCS scores declined from 44.8 to 44.3 among intervention participants compared with 44.5 to 43.2 among control participants (adjusted between-group mean difference, intervention minus control, 0.69 [97.5% CI, -1.11 to 2.49]; P = .39). Cardiovascular events represented the highest percentage of serious adverse events, accounting for 25% of events in the intervention group and 35% in the control group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with obesity, a remotely delivered self-directed, behavioral lifestyle intervention, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significantly greater weight loss at 12 months, although the difference was not clinically important. There was no significant difference in self-reported general physical health status at 12 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03260140.

Timely Colonoscopy After Positive Fecal Immunochemical Tests in the Veterans Health Administration: A Qualitative Assessment of Current Practice and Perceived Barriers.

INTRODUCTION: The Veterans Health Administration introduced a clinical reminder system in 2018 to help address process gaps in colorectal cancer screening, including the diagnostic evaluation of positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results. We conducted a qualitative study to explore the differences between facilities who performed in the top vs bottom decile for follow-up colonoscopy. METHODS: Seventeen semistructured interviews with gastroenterology (GI) providers and staff were conducted at 9 high-performing and 8 low-performing sites. RESULTS: We identified 2 domains, current practices and perceived barriers, and most findings were described by both high- and low-performing sites. Findings exclusive to 1 group mainly pertained to current practices, especially arranging colonoscopy for FIT-positive patients. We observed only 1 difference in the perceived barriers domain, which pertained to primary care providers. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that what primarily distinguishes high- and low-performing sites is not a difference in barriers but rather in the GI clinical care process. Developing and disseminating patient education materials about the importance of diagnostic colonoscopy, eliminating in-person precolonoscopy visits when clinically appropriate, and involving GI in missed colonoscopy appointments and outside referrals should all be considered to increase follow-up colonoscopy rates. Our study illustrates the challenges of performing a timely colonoscopy after a positive FIT result and provides insights on improving the clinical care process for patients who are at substantially increased risk for colorectal cancer.