Colorectal Cancer

In 2020, the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) increased the recommended colon polyp surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas from 5 to 10 years to 7 to 10 years.¹ This change was prompted by emerging research indicating that rates of CRC and advanced neoplasia among patients with a history of only 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas are lower than initially estimated.^2,3 This extension provides an opportunity to increase endoscopy capacity and improve access to colonoscopies by retroactively applying the 2020 guidelines to surveillance interval recommendations made before their introduction. For example, based on the updated guidelines, patients previously recommended to undergo colon polyp surveillance colonoscopy 5 years after an index colonoscopy could extend their surveillance interval by 2 to 5 years. Increasing endoscopic capacity could address the growing demand for colonoscopies from new screening guidelines that reduced the age of initial CRC screening from 50 years to 45 years and the backlog of procedures due to COVID-19 restrictions.⁴

As part of a project to increase endoscopic capacity at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS), this study assessed the potential impact of retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity. These results may be informative for other VA and private-sector health care systems seeking to identify strategies to improve endoscopy capacity.

Methods

VAPHS is an integrated health care system in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) serving 85,000 patients across 8 health care institutions in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. VAPHS manages colorectal screening recommendations for patients receiving medical care in the health care system regardless of whether their prior colonoscopy was performed at VAPHS or external facilities. The VA maintains a national CRC screening and surveillance electronic medical record reminder that prompts health care practitioners to order colon polyp surveillance based on interval recommendations from the index colonoscopy. This study reviewed all patients from the VAPHS panel with a reminder to undergo colonoscopy for screening for CRC or surveillance of colon polyps within 12 months from September 1, 2022.

Among patients with a reminder, 3 investigators reviewed index colonoscopy and pathology reports to identify CRC risk category, colonoscopy indication, procedural quality, and recommended repeat colonoscopy interval. Per the USMSTF guidelines, patients with incomplete colonoscopy or pathology records, high-risk indications (ie, personal history of inflammatory bowel disease, personal history of CRC, or family history of CRC), or inadequate bowel preparation (Boston Bowel Preparation Score < 6) were excluded. Additionally, patients who had CRC screening or surveillance discontinued due to age or comorbidities, had completed a subsequent follow-up colonoscopy, or were deceased at the time of review were excluded.

Retroactive Interval Reclassification

Among eligible patients, this study compared the repeat colonoscopy interval recommended by the prior endoscopist with those from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines. In cases where the interval was documented as a range of years, the lower end was considered the recommendation. Similarly, the lower end of the range from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines was used for the reclassified surveillance interval. Years extended per patient were quantified relative to September 1, 2023 (ie, 1 year after the review date). For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2016, the initial surveillance recommendation was 5 years, and the reclassified recommendation was 7 years, the interval extension beyond September 1, 2023, was 0 years.

Furthermore, because index surveillance recommendations are not always guideline concordant, the years extended per patient were calculated by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s recommendations with the guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy.⁵ For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2018, and the endoscopist recommended a 5-year follow-up for a patient with average risk for CRC, adequate bowel preparation, and no colorectal polyps, that patient is eligible to extend their colonoscopy to September 1, 2028, based on guideline recommendations at the time of index endoscopy recommending that the next colonoscopy occur in 10 years. In this analysis the 2012 USMSTF guidelines were applied to all index colonoscopies completed in 2021 or earlier to allow time for adoption of the 2020 guidelines. 

This project fulfilled a facility mandate to increase capacity to conduct endoscopic procedures. Institutional review board approval was not required by VAPHS policy relating to clinical operations projects. Approval for publication of clinical operations activity was obtained from the VAPHS facility director.

Results

Within 1 year of the September 1, 2022, review date, 637 patients receiving care at VAPHS had clinical reminders for an upcoming colonoscopy. Of these, 54 (8.4%) were already up to date or were deceased at the time of review. Of the 583 eligible patients, 96% were male, the median age was 74 years, the median index colonoscopy year was 2016, and 178 (30.5%) had an average-risk CRC screening indication at the index colonoscopy (Table).

Of the 583 patients due for colonoscopy, 331 (56.7%) had both colonoscopy and pathology reports available. The majority of those with incomplete records had the index colonoscopy completed outside VAPHS. Among these patients, 222 (67.0%) had adequate bowel preparation. Of those with adequate bowel preparation, 43 were not eligible for interval extension because of high-risk conditions and 13 were not eligible because there was no index surveillance interval recommendation from the index endoscopist. Of the patients due for colonoscopy, 166 (28.4%) were potentially eligible for surveillance interval extension (Figure).  

Sixty-five (39.2%) of the 166 patients had 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas on their index colonoscopy. Sixty-two patients were eligible for interval extension to 7 years, but this only resulted in ≥ 1 year of extension beyond the review date for 36 (6% of all 583 patients due for colonoscopy). The 36 patients were extended 63 years. By harmonizing the index endoscopists’ surveillance interval recommendation with the guideline at the time of the index colonoscopy, 29 additional patients could have their colonoscopy extended by ≥ 1 year. Harmonization extended colonoscopy intervals by 93 years. Retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines and harmonizing recommendations to guidelines extended the time of index colonoscopy by 153 years.

Discussion

With retroactive application of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines, 6% of patients due for an upcoming colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year by extending the surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas to 7 years. An additional 5% of patients could extend their interval by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s interval recommendation with polyp surveillance guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy. These findings are consistent with the results of 2 studies that demonstrated that about 14% of patients due for colonoscopy could have their interval extended.^6,7 The current study enhances those insights by separating the contribution of 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines from the contribution of harmonizing surveillance intervals with guidelines for other polyp histologies. This study found that there is an opportunity to improve endoscopic capacity by harmonizing recommendations with guidelines. This complements a 2023 study showing that even when knowledgeable about guidelines, clinicians do not necessarily follow recommendations.⁸ While this and previous research have identified that 11% to 14% of patients are eligible for extension, these individuals would also have to be willing to have their polyp surveillance intervals extended for there to be a real-world impact on endoscopic capacity. A 2024 study found that only 19% to 37% of patients with 1 to 2 small tubular adenomas were willing to have polyps surveillance interval extension.⁹ This suggests the actual effect on capacity may be even lower than reported.

Limitations

The overall impact of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity was blunted by the high prevalence of incomplete index colonoscopy records among the study population. Without data on bowel preparation quality or procedure indications, this study could not assess whether 43% of patients were eligible for surveillance interval extension. Most index colonoscopies with incomplete documentation were completed at community-care gastroenterology facilities. This high rate of incomplete documentation is likely generalizable to other VA health care systems—especially in the era of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, which increased veteran access to non-VA community care.¹⁰ Veterans due for colon polyp surveillance colonoscopies are more likely to have had their prior colonoscopy in community care compared with prior eras.¹¹ Furthermore, because the VHA is among the most established integrated health care systems offering primary and subspecialty care in the US, private sector health care systems may have even greater rates of care fragmentation for longitudinal CRC screening and colon polyp surveillance, as these systems have only begun to regionally integrate recently.^12,13

Another limitation is that nearly one-third of the individuals with documentation had inadequate bowel preparation for surveillance recommendations. This results in shorter surveillance follow-up colonoscopies and increases downstream demand for future colonoscopies. The low yield of extending colon polyp surveillance interval in this study emphasizes that improved efforts to obtain colonoscopy and pathology reports from community care, right-sizing the colon polyp surveillance intervals recommended by endoscopists, and improving quality of bowel preparation could have downstream health care system benefits in the future. These efforts could increase colonoscopy capacity at VA health care systems, thereby shortening colonoscopy wait times, decreasing fragmentation of care, and increasing the number of veterans who receive high-quality colonoscopies at VA health care systems.¹⁴

Conclusions

Eleven percent of patients in this study due for a colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year. About half of these extensions were directly due to the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance interval extension for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas. The rest resulted from harmonizing recommendations with guidelines at the time of the procedure. To determine whether retroactively applying polyp surveillance guidelines to follow-up interval recommendations will result in improved endoscopic capacity, health care system administrators should consider the degree of CRC screening care fragmentation in their patient population. Greater long-term gains in endoscopic capacity may be achieved by proactively supporting endoscopists in making guideline-concordant screening recommendations at the time of colonoscopy.

In 2020, the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) increased the recommended colon polyp surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas from 5 to 10 years to 7 to 10 years.¹ This change was prompted by emerging research indicating that rates of CRC and advanced neoplasia among patients with a history of only 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas are lower than initially estimated.^2,3 This extension provides an opportunity to increase endoscopy capacity and improve access to colonoscopies by retroactively applying the 2020 guidelines to surveillance interval recommendations made before their introduction. For example, based on the updated guidelines, patients previously recommended to undergo colon polyp surveillance colonoscopy 5 years after an index colonoscopy could extend their surveillance interval by 2 to 5 years. Increasing endoscopic capacity could address the growing demand for colonoscopies from new screening guidelines that reduced the age of initial CRC screening from 50 years to 45 years and the backlog of procedures due to COVID-19 restrictions.⁴

As part of a project to increase endoscopic capacity at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS), this study assessed the potential impact of retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity. These results may be informative for other VA and private-sector health care systems seeking to identify strategies to improve endoscopy capacity.

Methods

VAPHS is an integrated health care system in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) serving 85,000 patients across 8 health care institutions in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. VAPHS manages colorectal screening recommendations for patients receiving medical care in the health care system regardless of whether their prior colonoscopy was performed at VAPHS or external facilities. The VA maintains a national CRC screening and surveillance electronic medical record reminder that prompts health care practitioners to order colon polyp surveillance based on interval recommendations from the index colonoscopy. This study reviewed all patients from the VAPHS panel with a reminder to undergo colonoscopy for screening for CRC or surveillance of colon polyps within 12 months from September 1, 2022.

Among patients with a reminder, 3 investigators reviewed index colonoscopy and pathology reports to identify CRC risk category, colonoscopy indication, procedural quality, and recommended repeat colonoscopy interval. Per the USMSTF guidelines, patients with incomplete colonoscopy or pathology records, high-risk indications (ie, personal history of inflammatory bowel disease, personal history of CRC, or family history of CRC), or inadequate bowel preparation (Boston Bowel Preparation Score < 6) were excluded. Additionally, patients who had CRC screening or surveillance discontinued due to age or comorbidities, had completed a subsequent follow-up colonoscopy, or were deceased at the time of review were excluded.

Retroactive Interval Reclassification

Among eligible patients, this study compared the repeat colonoscopy interval recommended by the prior endoscopist with those from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines. In cases where the interval was documented as a range of years, the lower end was considered the recommendation. Similarly, the lower end of the range from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines was used for the reclassified surveillance interval. Years extended per patient were quantified relative to September 1, 2023 (ie, 1 year after the review date). For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2016, the initial surveillance recommendation was 5 years, and the reclassified recommendation was 7 years, the interval extension beyond September 1, 2023, was 0 years.

Furthermore, because index surveillance recommendations are not always guideline concordant, the years extended per patient were calculated by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s recommendations with the guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy.⁵ For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2018, and the endoscopist recommended a 5-year follow-up for a patient with average risk for CRC, adequate bowel preparation, and no colorectal polyps, that patient is eligible to extend their colonoscopy to September 1, 2028, based on guideline recommendations at the time of index endoscopy recommending that the next colonoscopy occur in 10 years. In this analysis the 2012 USMSTF guidelines were applied to all index colonoscopies completed in 2021 or earlier to allow time for adoption of the 2020 guidelines. 

This project fulfilled a facility mandate to increase capacity to conduct endoscopic procedures. Institutional review board approval was not required by VAPHS policy relating to clinical operations projects. Approval for publication of clinical operations activity was obtained from the VAPHS facility director.

Results

Within 1 year of the September 1, 2022, review date, 637 patients receiving care at VAPHS had clinical reminders for an upcoming colonoscopy. Of these, 54 (8.4%) were already up to date or were deceased at the time of review. Of the 583 eligible patients, 96% were male, the median age was 74 years, the median index colonoscopy year was 2016, and 178 (30.5%) had an average-risk CRC screening indication at the index colonoscopy (Table).

Of the 583 patients due for colonoscopy, 331 (56.7%) had both colonoscopy and pathology reports available. The majority of those with incomplete records had the index colonoscopy completed outside VAPHS. Among these patients, 222 (67.0%) had adequate bowel preparation. Of those with adequate bowel preparation, 43 were not eligible for interval extension because of high-risk conditions and 13 were not eligible because there was no index surveillance interval recommendation from the index endoscopist. Of the patients due for colonoscopy, 166 (28.4%) were potentially eligible for surveillance interval extension (Figure).  

Sixty-five (39.2%) of the 166 patients had 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas on their index colonoscopy. Sixty-two patients were eligible for interval extension to 7 years, but this only resulted in ≥ 1 year of extension beyond the review date for 36 (6% of all 583 patients due for colonoscopy). The 36 patients were extended 63 years. By harmonizing the index endoscopists’ surveillance interval recommendation with the guideline at the time of the index colonoscopy, 29 additional patients could have their colonoscopy extended by ≥ 1 year. Harmonization extended colonoscopy intervals by 93 years. Retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines and harmonizing recommendations to guidelines extended the time of index colonoscopy by 153 years.

Discussion

With retroactive application of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines, 6% of patients due for an upcoming colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year by extending the surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas to 7 years. An additional 5% of patients could extend their interval by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s interval recommendation with polyp surveillance guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy. These findings are consistent with the results of 2 studies that demonstrated that about 14% of patients due for colonoscopy could have their interval extended.^6,7 The current study enhances those insights by separating the contribution of 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines from the contribution of harmonizing surveillance intervals with guidelines for other polyp histologies. This study found that there is an opportunity to improve endoscopic capacity by harmonizing recommendations with guidelines. This complements a 2023 study showing that even when knowledgeable about guidelines, clinicians do not necessarily follow recommendations.⁸ While this and previous research have identified that 11% to 14% of patients are eligible for extension, these individuals would also have to be willing to have their polyp surveillance intervals extended for there to be a real-world impact on endoscopic capacity. A 2024 study found that only 19% to 37% of patients with 1 to 2 small tubular adenomas were willing to have polyps surveillance interval extension.⁹ This suggests the actual effect on capacity may be even lower than reported.

Limitations

The overall impact of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity was blunted by the high prevalence of incomplete index colonoscopy records among the study population. Without data on bowel preparation quality or procedure indications, this study could not assess whether 43% of patients were eligible for surveillance interval extension. Most index colonoscopies with incomplete documentation were completed at community-care gastroenterology facilities. This high rate of incomplete documentation is likely generalizable to other VA health care systems—especially in the era of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, which increased veteran access to non-VA community care.¹⁰ Veterans due for colon polyp surveillance colonoscopies are more likely to have had their prior colonoscopy in community care compared with prior eras.¹¹ Furthermore, because the VHA is among the most established integrated health care systems offering primary and subspecialty care in the US, private sector health care systems may have even greater rates of care fragmentation for longitudinal CRC screening and colon polyp surveillance, as these systems have only begun to regionally integrate recently.^12,13

Another limitation is that nearly one-third of the individuals with documentation had inadequate bowel preparation for surveillance recommendations. This results in shorter surveillance follow-up colonoscopies and increases downstream demand for future colonoscopies. The low yield of extending colon polyp surveillance interval in this study emphasizes that improved efforts to obtain colonoscopy and pathology reports from community care, right-sizing the colon polyp surveillance intervals recommended by endoscopists, and improving quality of bowel preparation could have downstream health care system benefits in the future. These efforts could increase colonoscopy capacity at VA health care systems, thereby shortening colonoscopy wait times, decreasing fragmentation of care, and increasing the number of veterans who receive high-quality colonoscopies at VA health care systems.¹⁴

Conclusions

Eleven percent of patients in this study due for a colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year. About half of these extensions were directly due to the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance interval extension for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas. The rest resulted from harmonizing recommendations with guidelines at the time of the procedure. To determine whether retroactively applying polyp surveillance guidelines to follow-up interval recommendations will result in improved endoscopic capacity, health care system administrators should consider the degree of CRC screening care fragmentation in their patient population. Greater long-term gains in endoscopic capacity may be achieved by proactively supporting endoscopists in making guideline-concordant screening recommendations at the time of colonoscopy.

In 2020, the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) increased the recommended colon polyp surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas from 5 to 10 years to 7 to 10 years.¹ This change was prompted by emerging research indicating that rates of CRC and advanced neoplasia among patients with a history of only 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas are lower than initially estimated.^2,3 This extension provides an opportunity to increase endoscopy capacity and improve access to colonoscopies by retroactively applying the 2020 guidelines to surveillance interval recommendations made before their introduction. For example, based on the updated guidelines, patients previously recommended to undergo colon polyp surveillance colonoscopy 5 years after an index colonoscopy could extend their surveillance interval by 2 to 5 years. Increasing endoscopic capacity could address the growing demand for colonoscopies from new screening guidelines that reduced the age of initial CRC screening from 50 years to 45 years and the backlog of procedures due to COVID-19 restrictions.⁴

As part of a project to increase endoscopic capacity at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pittsburgh Healthcare System (VAPHS), this study assessed the potential impact of retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity. These results may be informative for other VA and private-sector health care systems seeking to identify strategies to improve endoscopy capacity.

Methods

VAPHS is an integrated health care system in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) serving 85,000 patients across 8 health care institutions in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. VAPHS manages colorectal screening recommendations for patients receiving medical care in the health care system regardless of whether their prior colonoscopy was performed at VAPHS or external facilities. The VA maintains a national CRC screening and surveillance electronic medical record reminder that prompts health care practitioners to order colon polyp surveillance based on interval recommendations from the index colonoscopy. This study reviewed all patients from the VAPHS panel with a reminder to undergo colonoscopy for screening for CRC or surveillance of colon polyps within 12 months from September 1, 2022.

Among patients with a reminder, 3 investigators reviewed index colonoscopy and pathology reports to identify CRC risk category, colonoscopy indication, procedural quality, and recommended repeat colonoscopy interval. Per the USMSTF guidelines, patients with incomplete colonoscopy or pathology records, high-risk indications (ie, personal history of inflammatory bowel disease, personal history of CRC, or family history of CRC), or inadequate bowel preparation (Boston Bowel Preparation Score < 6) were excluded. Additionally, patients who had CRC screening or surveillance discontinued due to age or comorbidities, had completed a subsequent follow-up colonoscopy, or were deceased at the time of review were excluded.

Retroactive Interval Reclassification

Among eligible patients, this study compared the repeat colonoscopy interval recommended by the prior endoscopist with those from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines. In cases where the interval was documented as a range of years, the lower end was considered the recommendation. Similarly, the lower end of the range from the 2020 USMSTF guidelines was used for the reclassified surveillance interval. Years extended per patient were quantified relative to September 1, 2023 (ie, 1 year after the review date). For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2016, the initial surveillance recommendation was 5 years, and the reclassified recommendation was 7 years, the interval extension beyond September 1, 2023, was 0 years.

Furthermore, because index surveillance recommendations are not always guideline concordant, the years extended per patient were calculated by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s recommendations with the guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy.⁵ For example, if the index colonoscopy was completed on September 1, 2018, and the endoscopist recommended a 5-year follow-up for a patient with average risk for CRC, adequate bowel preparation, and no colorectal polyps, that patient is eligible to extend their colonoscopy to September 1, 2028, based on guideline recommendations at the time of index endoscopy recommending that the next colonoscopy occur in 10 years. In this analysis the 2012 USMSTF guidelines were applied to all index colonoscopies completed in 2021 or earlier to allow time for adoption of the 2020 guidelines. 

This project fulfilled a facility mandate to increase capacity to conduct endoscopic procedures. Institutional review board approval was not required by VAPHS policy relating to clinical operations projects. Approval for publication of clinical operations activity was obtained from the VAPHS facility director.

Results

Within 1 year of the September 1, 2022, review date, 637 patients receiving care at VAPHS had clinical reminders for an upcoming colonoscopy. Of these, 54 (8.4%) were already up to date or were deceased at the time of review. Of the 583 eligible patients, 96% were male, the median age was 74 years, the median index colonoscopy year was 2016, and 178 (30.5%) had an average-risk CRC screening indication at the index colonoscopy (Table).

Of the 583 patients due for colonoscopy, 331 (56.7%) had both colonoscopy and pathology reports available. The majority of those with incomplete records had the index colonoscopy completed outside VAPHS. Among these patients, 222 (67.0%) had adequate bowel preparation. Of those with adequate bowel preparation, 43 were not eligible for interval extension because of high-risk conditions and 13 were not eligible because there was no index surveillance interval recommendation from the index endoscopist. Of the patients due for colonoscopy, 166 (28.4%) were potentially eligible for surveillance interval extension (Figure).  

Sixty-five (39.2%) of the 166 patients had 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas on their index colonoscopy. Sixty-two patients were eligible for interval extension to 7 years, but this only resulted in ≥ 1 year of extension beyond the review date for 36 (6% of all 583 patients due for colonoscopy). The 36 patients were extended 63 years. By harmonizing the index endoscopists’ surveillance interval recommendation with the guideline at the time of the index colonoscopy, 29 additional patients could have their colonoscopy extended by ≥ 1 year. Harmonization extended colonoscopy intervals by 93 years. Retroactively applying the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines and harmonizing recommendations to guidelines extended the time of index colonoscopy by 153 years.

Discussion

With retroactive application of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines, 6% of patients due for an upcoming colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year by extending the surveillance interval for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas to 7 years. An additional 5% of patients could extend their interval by harmonizing the index endoscopist’s interval recommendation with polyp surveillance guidelines at the time of the index colonoscopy. These findings are consistent with the results of 2 studies that demonstrated that about 14% of patients due for colonoscopy could have their interval extended.^6,7 The current study enhances those insights by separating the contribution of 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines from the contribution of harmonizing surveillance intervals with guidelines for other polyp histologies. This study found that there is an opportunity to improve endoscopic capacity by harmonizing recommendations with guidelines. This complements a 2023 study showing that even when knowledgeable about guidelines, clinicians do not necessarily follow recommendations.⁸ While this and previous research have identified that 11% to 14% of patients are eligible for extension, these individuals would also have to be willing to have their polyp surveillance intervals extended for there to be a real-world impact on endoscopic capacity. A 2024 study found that only 19% to 37% of patients with 1 to 2 small tubular adenomas were willing to have polyps surveillance interval extension.⁹ This suggests the actual effect on capacity may be even lower than reported.

Limitations

The overall impact of the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance guidelines on endoscopic capacity was blunted by the high prevalence of incomplete index colonoscopy records among the study population. Without data on bowel preparation quality or procedure indications, this study could not assess whether 43% of patients were eligible for surveillance interval extension. Most index colonoscopies with incomplete documentation were completed at community-care gastroenterology facilities. This high rate of incomplete documentation is likely generalizable to other VA health care systems—especially in the era of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, which increased veteran access to non-VA community care.¹⁰ Veterans due for colon polyp surveillance colonoscopies are more likely to have had their prior colonoscopy in community care compared with prior eras.¹¹ Furthermore, because the VHA is among the most established integrated health care systems offering primary and subspecialty care in the US, private sector health care systems may have even greater rates of care fragmentation for longitudinal CRC screening and colon polyp surveillance, as these systems have only begun to regionally integrate recently.^12,13

Another limitation is that nearly one-third of the individuals with documentation had inadequate bowel preparation for surveillance recommendations. This results in shorter surveillance follow-up colonoscopies and increases downstream demand for future colonoscopies. The low yield of extending colon polyp surveillance interval in this study emphasizes that improved efforts to obtain colonoscopy and pathology reports from community care, right-sizing the colon polyp surveillance intervals recommended by endoscopists, and improving quality of bowel preparation could have downstream health care system benefits in the future. These efforts could increase colonoscopy capacity at VA health care systems, thereby shortening colonoscopy wait times, decreasing fragmentation of care, and increasing the number of veterans who receive high-quality colonoscopies at VA health care systems.¹⁴

Conclusions

Eleven percent of patients in this study due for a colonoscopy could extend their follow-up by ≥ 1 year. About half of these extensions were directly due to the 2020 USMSTF polyp surveillance interval extension for 1 to 2 subcentimeter tubular adenomas. The rest resulted from harmonizing recommendations with guidelines at the time of the procedure. To determine whether retroactively applying polyp surveillance guidelines to follow-up interval recommendations will result in improved endoscopic capacity, health care system administrators should consider the degree of CRC screening care fragmentation in their patient population. Greater long-term gains in endoscopic capacity may be achieved by proactively supporting endoscopists in making guideline-concordant screening recommendations at the time of colonoscopy.

Testosterone therapy is administered following pragmatic diagnostic evaluation and workup to assess whether an adult male is hypogonadal, based on symptoms consistent with androgen deficiency and low morning serum testosterone concentrations on ≥ 2 occasions. Effects of testosterone administration include the development or maintenance of secondary sexual characteristics and increases in libido, muscle strength, fat-free mass, and bone density.

Testosterone prescriptions have markedly increased in the past 20 years, including within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system.^1-3 This trend may be influenced by various factors, including patient perceptions of benefit, an increase in marketing, and the availability of more user-friendly formulations. 

Since 2006, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines have recommended specific clinical and laboratory evaluation and counseling prior to starting testosterone replacement therapy (TRT).^4-8 However, research has shown poor adherence to these recommendations, including at the VA, which raises concerns about inappropriate TRT initiation without proper diagnostic evaluation.^9,10 Observational research has suggested a possible link between testosterone therapy and increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events. The US Food and Drug Administration prescribing information includes boxed warnings about potential risks of high blood pressure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and CV-related mortality with testosterone treatment, contact transfer of transdermal testosterone, and pulmonary oil microembolism with testosterone undecanoate injections.^11-15

A VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) review of VA clinician adherence to clinical and laboratory evaluation guidelines for testosterone deficiency found poor adherence among VA practitioners and made recommendations for improvement.^4,15 These focused on establishing clinical signs and symptoms consistent with testosterone deficiency, confirming hypogonadism by repeated testosterone testing, determining the etiology of hypogonadism by measuring gonadotropins, initiating a discussion of risks and benefits of TRT, and assessing clinical improvement and obtaining an updated hematocrit test within 3 to 6 months of initiation.

The VA Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS) developed a local prior authorization template to assist health care practitioners (HCPs) to address the OIG recommendations. This testosterone order template (TOT) aimed to improve the diagnosis, evaluation, and monitoring of TRT in males with hypogonadism, combined with existing VA pharmacy criteria for the use of testosterone based on Endocrine Society guidelines. A version of the VAPSHCS TOT was approved as the national VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) template.

Preliminary evaluation of the TOT suggested improved short-term adherence to guideline recommendations following implementation.¹⁶ This quality improvement study sought to assess the long-term effectiveness of the TOT with respect to clinical practice guideline adherence. The OIG did not address prostate-specific antigen (PSA) monitoring because understanding of the relationship between TRT and the risks of elevated PSA levels remains incomplete.^6,17 This project hypothesized that implementation of a pharmacy-managed TOT incorporated into CPRS would result in higher adherence rates to guideline-recommended clinical and laboratory evaluation, in addition to counseling of men with hypogonadism prior to initiation of TRT.

Methods

Eligible participants were cisgender males who received a new testosterone prescription, had ≥ 2 clinic visits at VAPSHCS, and no previous testosterone prescription in the previous 2 years. Individuals were excluded if they had testosterone administered at VAPSHCS; were prescribed testosterone at another facility (VA or community-based); pilot tested an initial version of the TOT prior to November 30, 2019; or had an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes for hypopituitarism, gender identity disorder, history of sexual assignment, or Klinefelter syndrome for which testosterone therapy was already approved. Patients who met the inclusion criteria were identified by an algorithm developed by the VAPSHCS pharmacoeconomist.

This quality improvement project used a retrospective, pre-post experimental design. Electronic chart review and systematic manual review of all eligible patient charts were performed for the pretemplate period (December 1, 2018, to November 30, 2019) and after the template implementation, (December 1, 2021, to November 30, 2022).

An initial version of the TOT was implemented on July 1, 2019, but was not fully integrated into CPRS until early 2020; individuals in whom the TOT was used prior to November 30, 2019, were excluded. Data from the initial period of the COVID-19 pandemic were avoided because of alterations in clinic and prescribing practices. As a quality improvement project, the TOT evaluation was exempt from formal review by the VAPSHCS Institutional Review Board, as determined by the Director of the Office of Transformation/Quality/Safety/Value.

Interventions

Testosterone is a Schedule III controlled substance with potential risks and a propensity for varied prescribing practices. It was designated as a restricted drug requiring a prior authorization drug request (PADR) for which a specific TOT was developed, approved by the VAPSHCS Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, and incorporated into CPRS. A team of pharmacists, primary care physicians, geriatricians, endocrinologists, and health informatics experts created and developed the TOT. Pharmacists managed and monitored its completion.

The process for prescribing testosterone via the TOT is outlined in the eAppendix. When an HCP orders testosterone in CPRS, reminders prompt them to use the TOT and indicate required laboratory measurements (an order set is provided). Completion of TOT is not necessary to order testosterone for patients with an existing diagnosis of an organic cause of hypogonadism (eg, Klinefelter syndrome or hypopituitarism) or transgender women (assigned male at birth). In the TOT, the prescriber must also indicate signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency; required laboratory tests; and counseling regarding potential risks and benefits of TRT. A pharmacist reviews the TOT and either approves or rejects the testosterone prescription and provides follow-up guidance to the prescriber. The completed TOT serves as documentation of guideline adherence in CPRS. The TOT also includes sections for first renewal testosterone prescriptions, addressing guideline recommendations for follow-up laboratory evaluation and clinical response to TRT. Due to limited completion of this section in the posttemplate period, evaluating adherence to follow-up recommendations was not feasible.

Measures

This project assessed the percentage of patients in the posttemplate period vs pretemplate period with an approved PADR. Documentation of specific guideline-recommended measures was assessed: signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency; ≥ 2 serum testosterone measurements (≥ 2 total, free and total, or 2 free testosterone levels, and ≥ 1 testosterone level before 10 am); serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) tests; discussion of the benefits and risks of testosterone treatment; and hematocrit measurement.

The project also assessed the proportion of patients in the posttemplate period vs pretemplate period who had all hormone tests (≥ 2 serum testosterone and LH and FSH concentrations), all laboratory tests (hormone tests and hematocrit), and all 5 guideline-recommended measures.

Analysis

Statistical comparisons between the proportions of patients in the pretemplate and posttemplate periods for each measure were performed using a χ² test, without correction for multiple comparisons. All analyses were conducted using Stata version 10.0. A P value < .05 was considered significant for all comparisons.

Results

Chart review identified 189 patients in the pretemplate period and 113 patients in the posttemplate period with a new testosterone prescription (Figure). After exclusions, 91 and 49 patients, respectively, met eligibility criteria (Table 1). Fifty-six patients (62%) pretemplate and 40 patients (82%) posttemplate (P = .015) had approved PADRs and comprised the groups that were analyzed (Table 2).

The mean age and body mass index were similar in the pretemplate and posttemplate periods, but there was variation in the proportions of patients aged < 70 years and those with a body mass index < 30 between the groups. The most common diagnosis in both groups was testicular hypofunction, and the most common comorbidity was type 2 diabetes mellitus. Concomitant use of opioids or glucocorticoids that can lower testosterone levels was rare. Most testosterone prescriptions originated from primary care clinics in both periods: 68 (75%) in the pretemplate period and 35 (71%) in the posttemplate period. Most testosterone treatment was delivered by intramuscular injection. 

In the posttemplate period vs pretemplate period, the proportion of patients with an approved PADR (82% vs 62%, P = .02), and documentation of signs and symptoms of hypogonadism (93% vs 71%, P = .002) prior to starting TRT were higher, while the percentage of patients having ≥ 2 testosterone measurements (85% vs 89%, P = .53), ≥ 1 testosterone level before 10 AM (78% vs 75%, P = .70), and hematocrit measured (95% vs 91%, P = .47) were similar. Rates of LH and FSH testing were higher in the posttemplate period (80%) vs the pretemplate period (63%) but did not achieve statistical significance (P = .07), and discussion of the risks and benefits of TRT was higher in the posttemplate period (58%) vs the pretemplate period (34%) (P = .02). The percentage of patients who had all hormone measurements (total and/or free testosterone, LH, and FSH) was higher in the posttemplate period (78%) vs the pretemplate period (59%) but did not achieve statistical significance (P = .06). The rates of all guideline-recommended laboratory test orders were higher in the posttemplate period (78%) vs the pretemplate period (55%) (P = .03), and all 5 guideline-recommended clinical and laboratory measures were higher in the posttemplate period (45%) vs the pretemplate period (18%) (P = .004).

Discussion

The implementation of a pharmacy-managed TOT in CPRS demonstrated higher adherence to evidence-based guidelines for diagnosing and evaluating hypogonadism before TRT. After TOT implementation, a higher proportion of patients had documented signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency, underwent all recommended laboratory tests, and had discussions about the risks and benefits of TRT. Adherence to 5 clinical and laboratory measures recommended by Endocrine Society guidelines was higher after TOT implementation, indicating improved prescribing practices.⁴

The requirement for TOT completion before testosterone prescription and its management by trained pharmacists likely contributed to higher adherence to guideline recommendations than previously reported. Integration of the TOT into CPRS with pharmacy oversight may have enhanced adherence by summarizing and codifying evidence-based guideline recommendations for clinical and biochemical evaluation prior to TRT initiation, offering relevant education to clinicians and pharmacists, automatically importing pertinent clinical information and laboratory results, and generating CPRS documentation to reduce clinician burden during patient care. 

The proportion of patients with documented signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency before TRT increased from the pretemplate period (71%) to the posttemplate period (93%), indicating that most patients receiving TRT had clinical manifestations of hypogonadism. This aligns with Endocrine Society guidelines, which define hypogonadism as a clinical disorder characterized by clinical manifestations of testosterone deficiency and persistently low serum testosterone levels on ≥ 2 separate occasions.^4,6 However, recent trends in direct-to-consumer advertising for testosterone and the rise of “low T” clinics may contribute to increased testing, varied practices, and inappropriate testosterone therapy initiation (eg, in men with low testosterone levels who lack symptoms of hypogonadism).¹⁸ Improved adherence in documenting clinical hypogonadism with implementation of the TOT reinforces the value of incorporating educational material, as previously reported.¹¹

Adherence to guideline recommendations following implementation of the TOT in this project was higher than those previously reported. In a study of 111,631 outpatient veterans prescribed testosterone from 2009 to 2012, only 18.3% had ≥ 2 testosterone prescriptions, and 3.5% had ≥ 2 testosterone, LH, and FSH levels measured prior to the initiation of a TRT.⁹ In a report of 63,534 insured patients who received TRT from 2010 to 2012, 40.3% had ≥ 2 testosterone prescriptions, and 12% had LH and/or FSH measured prior to the initiation.⁸

Low rates of guideline-recommended laboratory tests prior to initiation of testosterone treatment were reported in prior non-VA studies.^19,20 Poor guideline adherence reinforces the need for clinician education or other methods to improve TRT and ensure appropriate prescribing practices across health care systems. The TOT described in this project is a sustainable clinical tool with the potential to improve testosterone prescribing practices. 

The high rates of adherence to guideline recommendations at VAPSHCS likely stem from local endocrine expertise and ongoing educational initiatives, as well as the requirement for template completion before testosterone prescription. However, most testosterone prescriptions were initiated by primary care and monitored by pharmacists with varying degrees of training and clinical experience in hypogonadism and TRT.

However, adherence to guideline recommendations was modest, suggesting there is still an opportunity for improvement. The decision to initiate therapy should be made only after appropriate counseling with patients regarding its potential benefits and risks. Reports on the CV risk of TRT have been mixed. The 2023 TRAVERSE study found no increase in major adverse CV events among older men with hypogonadism and pre-existing CV risks undergoing TRT, but noted higher instances of pulmonary embolism, atrial fibrillation, and acute kidney injury.²¹ This highlights the need for clinicians to continue to engage in informed decision-making with patients. Effective pretreatment counseling is important but time-consuming; future TOT monitoring and modifications could consider mandatory checkboxes to document counseling on TRT risks and benefits.

The TOT described in this study could be adapted and incorporated into the prescribing process and electronic health record of larger health care systems. Use of an electronic template allows for automatic real-time dashboard monitoring of organization performance. The TOT described could be modified or simplified for specialty or primary care clinics or individual practitioners to improve adherence to evidence-based guideline recommendations and quality of care.

Strengths

A strength of this study is the multidisciplinary team (composed of stakeholders with experience in VA health care system and subject matter experts in hypogonadism) that developed and incorporated a user-friendly template for testosterone prescriptions; the use of evidence-based guideline recommendations; and the use of a structured chart review permitted accurate assessment of adherence to recommendations to document signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency and a discussion of potential risks and benefits prior to TRT. To our knowledge, these recommendations have not been assessed in previous reports.

Limitations

The retrospective pre-post design of this study precludes a conclusion that implementation of the TOT caused the increase in adherence to guideline recommendations. Improved adherence could have resulted from the ongoing development of the preauthorization process for testosterone prescriptions or other changes over time. However, the preauthorization process had already been established for many years prior to template implementation. Forty-nine patients had new prescriptions for testosterone in the posttemplate period compared to 91 in the pretemplate period, but TRT was initiated in accordance with guideline recommendations more appropriately in the posttemplate period. The study’s sample size was small, and many eligible patients were excluded; however, exclusions were necessary to evaluate men who had new testosterone prescriptions for which the template was designed. Most men excluded were already taking testosterone.

Conclusions

The implementation of a CPRS-based TOT improved adherence to evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis, evaluation, and counseling of patients with hypogonadism before starting TRT. While there were improvements in adherence with the TOT, the relatively low proportion of patients with documentation of TRT risks and benefits and all guideline recommendations highlights the need for additional efforts to further strengthen adherence to guideline recommendations and ensure appropriate evaluation, counseling, and prescribing practices before initiating TRT.

Testosterone therapy is administered following pragmatic diagnostic evaluation and workup to assess whether an adult male is hypogonadal, based on symptoms consistent with androgen deficiency and low morning serum testosterone concentrations on ≥ 2 occasions. Effects of testosterone administration include the development or maintenance of secondary sexual characteristics and increases in libido, muscle strength, fat-free mass, and bone density.

Testosterone prescriptions have markedly increased in the past 20 years, including within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system.^1-3 This trend may be influenced by various factors, including patient perceptions of benefit, an increase in marketing, and the availability of more user-friendly formulations. 

Since 2006, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines have recommended specific clinical and laboratory evaluation and counseling prior to starting testosterone replacement therapy (TRT).^4-8 However, research has shown poor adherence to these recommendations, including at the VA, which raises concerns about inappropriate TRT initiation without proper diagnostic evaluation.^9,10 Observational research has suggested a possible link between testosterone therapy and increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events. The US Food and Drug Administration prescribing information includes boxed warnings about potential risks of high blood pressure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and CV-related mortality with testosterone treatment, contact transfer of transdermal testosterone, and pulmonary oil microembolism with testosterone undecanoate injections.^11-15

A VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) review of VA clinician adherence to clinical and laboratory evaluation guidelines for testosterone deficiency found poor adherence among VA practitioners and made recommendations for improvement.^4,15 These focused on establishing clinical signs and symptoms consistent with testosterone deficiency, confirming hypogonadism by repeated testosterone testing, determining the etiology of hypogonadism by measuring gonadotropins, initiating a discussion of risks and benefits of TRT, and assessing clinical improvement and obtaining an updated hematocrit test within 3 to 6 months of initiation.

The VA Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS) developed a local prior authorization template to assist health care practitioners (HCPs) to address the OIG recommendations. This testosterone order template (TOT) aimed to improve the diagnosis, evaluation, and monitoring of TRT in males with hypogonadism, combined with existing VA pharmacy criteria for the use of testosterone based on Endocrine Society guidelines. A version of the VAPSHCS TOT was approved as the national VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) template.

Preliminary evaluation of the TOT suggested improved short-term adherence to guideline recommendations following implementation.¹⁶ This quality improvement study sought to assess the long-term effectiveness of the TOT with respect to clinical practice guideline adherence. The OIG did not address prostate-specific antigen (PSA) monitoring because understanding of the relationship between TRT and the risks of elevated PSA levels remains incomplete.^6,17 This project hypothesized that implementation of a pharmacy-managed TOT incorporated into CPRS would result in higher adherence rates to guideline-recommended clinical and laboratory evaluation, in addition to counseling of men with hypogonadism prior to initiation of TRT.

Methods

Eligible participants were cisgender males who received a new testosterone prescription, had ≥ 2 clinic visits at VAPSHCS, and no previous testosterone prescription in the previous 2 years. Individuals were excluded if they had testosterone administered at VAPSHCS; were prescribed testosterone at another facility (VA or community-based); pilot tested an initial version of the TOT prior to November 30, 2019; or had an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes for hypopituitarism, gender identity disorder, history of sexual assignment, or Klinefelter syndrome for which testosterone therapy was already approved. Patients who met the inclusion criteria were identified by an algorithm developed by the VAPSHCS pharmacoeconomist.

This quality improvement project used a retrospective, pre-post experimental design. Electronic chart review and systematic manual review of all eligible patient charts were performed for the pretemplate period (December 1, 2018, to November 30, 2019) and after the template implementation, (December 1, 2021, to November 30, 2022).

An initial version of the TOT was implemented on July 1, 2019, but was not fully integrated into CPRS until early 2020; individuals in whom the TOT was used prior to November 30, 2019, were excluded. Data from the initial period of the COVID-19 pandemic were avoided because of alterations in clinic and prescribing practices. As a quality improvement project, the TOT evaluation was exempt from formal review by the VAPSHCS Institutional Review Board, as determined by the Director of the Office of Transformation/Quality/Safety/Value.

Interventions

Testosterone is a Schedule III controlled substance with potential risks and a propensity for varied prescribing practices. It was designated as a restricted drug requiring a prior authorization drug request (PADR) for which a specific TOT was developed, approved by the VAPSHCS Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, and incorporated into CPRS. A team of pharmacists, primary care physicians, geriatricians, endocrinologists, and health informatics experts created and developed the TOT. Pharmacists managed and monitored its completion.

The process for prescribing testosterone via the TOT is outlined in the eAppendix. When an HCP orders testosterone in CPRS, reminders prompt them to use the TOT and indicate required laboratory measurements (an order set is provided). Completion of TOT is not necessary to order testosterone for patients with an existing diagnosis of an organic cause of hypogonadism (eg, Klinefelter syndrome or hypopituitarism) or transgender women (assigned male at birth). In the TOT, the prescriber must also indicate signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency; required laboratory tests; and counseling regarding potential risks and benefits of TRT. A pharmacist reviews the TOT and either approves or rejects the testosterone prescription and provides follow-up guidance to the prescriber. The completed TOT serves as documentation of guideline adherence in CPRS. The TOT also includes sections for first renewal testosterone prescriptions, addressing guideline recommendations for follow-up laboratory evaluation and clinical response to TRT. Due to limited completion of this section in the posttemplate period, evaluating adherence to follow-up recommendations was not feasible.

Measures

This project assessed the percentage of patients in the posttemplate period vs pretemplate period with an approved PADR. Documentation of specific guideline-recommended measures was assessed: signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency; ≥ 2 serum testosterone measurements (≥ 2 total, free and total, or 2 free testosterone levels, and ≥ 1 testosterone level before 10 am); serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) tests; discussion of the benefits and risks of testosterone treatment; and hematocrit measurement.

The project also assessed the proportion of patients in the posttemplate period vs pretemplate period who had all hormone tests (≥ 2 serum testosterone and LH and FSH concentrations), all laboratory tests (hormone tests and hematocrit), and all 5 guideline-recommended measures.

Analysis

Statistical comparisons between the proportions of patients in the pretemplate and posttemplate periods for each measure were performed using a χ² test, without correction for multiple comparisons. All analyses were conducted using Stata version 10.0. A P value < .05 was considered significant for all comparisons.

Results

Chart review identified 189 patients in the pretemplate period and 113 patients in the posttemplate period with a new testosterone prescription (Figure). After exclusions, 91 and 49 patients, respectively, met eligibility criteria (Table 1). Fifty-six patients (62%) pretemplate and 40 patients (82%) posttemplate (P = .015) had approved PADRs and comprised the groups that were analyzed (Table 2).

The mean age and body mass index were similar in the pretemplate and posttemplate periods, but there was variation in the proportions of patients aged < 70 years and those with a body mass index < 30 between the groups. The most common diagnosis in both groups was testicular hypofunction, and the most common comorbidity was type 2 diabetes mellitus. Concomitant use of opioids or glucocorticoids that can lower testosterone levels was rare. Most testosterone prescriptions originated from primary care clinics in both periods: 68 (75%) in the pretemplate period and 35 (71%) in the posttemplate period. Most testosterone treatment was delivered by intramuscular injection. 

In the posttemplate period vs pretemplate period, the proportion of patients with an approved PADR (82% vs 62%, P = .02), and documentation of signs and symptoms of hypogonadism (93% vs 71%, P = .002) prior to starting TRT were higher, while the percentage of patients having ≥ 2 testosterone measurements (85% vs 89%, P = .53), ≥ 1 testosterone level before 10 AM (78% vs 75%, P = .70), and hematocrit measured (95% vs 91%, P = .47) were similar. Rates of LH and FSH testing were higher in the posttemplate period (80%) vs the pretemplate period (63%) but did not achieve statistical significance (P = .07), and discussion of the risks and benefits of TRT was higher in the posttemplate period (58%) vs the pretemplate period (34%) (P = .02). The percentage of patients who had all hormone measurements (total and/or free testosterone, LH, and FSH) was higher in the posttemplate period (78%) vs the pretemplate period (59%) but did not achieve statistical significance (P = .06). The rates of all guideline-recommended laboratory test orders were higher in the posttemplate period (78%) vs the pretemplate period (55%) (P = .03), and all 5 guideline-recommended clinical and laboratory measures were higher in the posttemplate period (45%) vs the pretemplate period (18%) (P = .004).

Discussion

The implementation of a pharmacy-managed TOT in CPRS demonstrated higher adherence to evidence-based guidelines for diagnosing and evaluating hypogonadism before TRT. After TOT implementation, a higher proportion of patients had documented signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency, underwent all recommended laboratory tests, and had discussions about the risks and benefits of TRT. Adherence to 5 clinical and laboratory measures recommended by Endocrine Society guidelines was higher after TOT implementation, indicating improved prescribing practices.⁴

The requirement for TOT completion before testosterone prescription and its management by trained pharmacists likely contributed to higher adherence to guideline recommendations than previously reported. Integration of the TOT into CPRS with pharmacy oversight may have enhanced adherence by summarizing and codifying evidence-based guideline recommendations for clinical and biochemical evaluation prior to TRT initiation, offering relevant education to clinicians and pharmacists, automatically importing pertinent clinical information and laboratory results, and generating CPRS documentation to reduce clinician burden during patient care. 

The proportion of patients with documented signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency before TRT increased from the pretemplate period (71%) to the posttemplate period (93%), indicating that most patients receiving TRT had clinical manifestations of hypogonadism. This aligns with Endocrine Society guidelines, which define hypogonadism as a clinical disorder characterized by clinical manifestations of testosterone deficiency and persistently low serum testosterone levels on ≥ 2 separate occasions.^4,6 However, recent trends in direct-to-consumer advertising for testosterone and the rise of “low T” clinics may contribute to increased testing, varied practices, and inappropriate testosterone therapy initiation (eg, in men with low testosterone levels who lack symptoms of hypogonadism).¹⁸ Improved adherence in documenting clinical hypogonadism with implementation of the TOT reinforces the value of incorporating educational material, as previously reported.¹¹

Adherence to guideline recommendations following implementation of the TOT in this project was higher than those previously reported. In a study of 111,631 outpatient veterans prescribed testosterone from 2009 to 2012, only 18.3% had ≥ 2 testosterone prescriptions, and 3.5% had ≥ 2 testosterone, LH, and FSH levels measured prior to the initiation of a TRT.⁹ In a report of 63,534 insured patients who received TRT from 2010 to 2012, 40.3% had ≥ 2 testosterone prescriptions, and 12% had LH and/or FSH measured prior to the initiation.⁸

Low rates of guideline-recommended laboratory tests prior to initiation of testosterone treatment were reported in prior non-VA studies.^19,20 Poor guideline adherence reinforces the need for clinician education or other methods to improve TRT and ensure appropriate prescribing practices across health care systems. The TOT described in this project is a sustainable clinical tool with the potential to improve testosterone prescribing practices. 

The high rates of adherence to guideline recommendations at VAPSHCS likely stem from local endocrine expertise and ongoing educational initiatives, as well as the requirement for template completion before testosterone prescription. However, most testosterone prescriptions were initiated by primary care and monitored by pharmacists with varying degrees of training and clinical experience in hypogonadism and TRT.

However, adherence to guideline recommendations was modest, suggesting there is still an opportunity for improvement. The decision to initiate therapy should be made only after appropriate counseling with patients regarding its potential benefits and risks. Reports on the CV risk of TRT have been mixed. The 2023 TRAVERSE study found no increase in major adverse CV events among older men with hypogonadism and pre-existing CV risks undergoing TRT, but noted higher instances of pulmonary embolism, atrial fibrillation, and acute kidney injury.²¹ This highlights the need for clinicians to continue to engage in informed decision-making with patients. Effective pretreatment counseling is important but time-consuming; future TOT monitoring and modifications could consider mandatory checkboxes to document counseling on TRT risks and benefits.

The TOT described in this study could be adapted and incorporated into the prescribing process and electronic health record of larger health care systems. Use of an electronic template allows for automatic real-time dashboard monitoring of organization performance. The TOT described could be modified or simplified for specialty or primary care clinics or individual practitioners to improve adherence to evidence-based guideline recommendations and quality of care.

Strengths

A strength of this study is the multidisciplinary team (composed of stakeholders with experience in VA health care system and subject matter experts in hypogonadism) that developed and incorporated a user-friendly template for testosterone prescriptions; the use of evidence-based guideline recommendations; and the use of a structured chart review permitted accurate assessment of adherence to recommendations to document signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency and a discussion of potential risks and benefits prior to TRT. To our knowledge, these recommendations have not been assessed in previous reports.

Limitations

The retrospective pre-post design of this study precludes a conclusion that implementation of the TOT caused the increase in adherence to guideline recommendations. Improved adherence could have resulted from the ongoing development of the preauthorization process for testosterone prescriptions or other changes over time. However, the preauthorization process had already been established for many years prior to template implementation. Forty-nine patients had new prescriptions for testosterone in the posttemplate period compared to 91 in the pretemplate period, but TRT was initiated in accordance with guideline recommendations more appropriately in the posttemplate period. The study’s sample size was small, and many eligible patients were excluded; however, exclusions were necessary to evaluate men who had new testosterone prescriptions for which the template was designed. Most men excluded were already taking testosterone.

Conclusions

The implementation of a CPRS-based TOT improved adherence to evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis, evaluation, and counseling of patients with hypogonadism before starting TRT. While there were improvements in adherence with the TOT, the relatively low proportion of patients with documentation of TRT risks and benefits and all guideline recommendations highlights the need for additional efforts to further strengthen adherence to guideline recommendations and ensure appropriate evaluation, counseling, and prescribing practices before initiating TRT.

Testosterone therapy is administered following pragmatic diagnostic evaluation and workup to assess whether an adult male is hypogonadal, based on symptoms consistent with androgen deficiency and low morning serum testosterone concentrations on ≥ 2 occasions. Effects of testosterone administration include the development or maintenance of secondary sexual characteristics and increases in libido, muscle strength, fat-free mass, and bone density.

Testosterone prescriptions have markedly increased in the past 20 years, including within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system.^1-3 This trend may be influenced by various factors, including patient perceptions of benefit, an increase in marketing, and the availability of more user-friendly formulations. 

Since 2006, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines have recommended specific clinical and laboratory evaluation and counseling prior to starting testosterone replacement therapy (TRT).^4-8 However, research has shown poor adherence to these recommendations, including at the VA, which raises concerns about inappropriate TRT initiation without proper diagnostic evaluation.^9,10 Observational research has suggested a possible link between testosterone therapy and increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events. The US Food and Drug Administration prescribing information includes boxed warnings about potential risks of high blood pressure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and CV-related mortality with testosterone treatment, contact transfer of transdermal testosterone, and pulmonary oil microembolism with testosterone undecanoate injections.^11-15

A VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) review of VA clinician adherence to clinical and laboratory evaluation guidelines for testosterone deficiency found poor adherence among VA practitioners and made recommendations for improvement.^4,15 These focused on establishing clinical signs and symptoms consistent with testosterone deficiency, confirming hypogonadism by repeated testosterone testing, determining the etiology of hypogonadism by measuring gonadotropins, initiating a discussion of risks and benefits of TRT, and assessing clinical improvement and obtaining an updated hematocrit test within 3 to 6 months of initiation.

The VA Puget Sound Health Care System (VAPSHCS) developed a local prior authorization template to assist health care practitioners (HCPs) to address the OIG recommendations. This testosterone order template (TOT) aimed to improve the diagnosis, evaluation, and monitoring of TRT in males with hypogonadism, combined with existing VA pharmacy criteria for the use of testosterone based on Endocrine Society guidelines. A version of the VAPSHCS TOT was approved as the national VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) template.

Preliminary evaluation of the TOT suggested improved short-term adherence to guideline recommendations following implementation.¹⁶ This quality improvement study sought to assess the long-term effectiveness of the TOT with respect to clinical practice guideline adherence. The OIG did not address prostate-specific antigen (PSA) monitoring because understanding of the relationship between TRT and the risks of elevated PSA levels remains incomplete.^6,17 This project hypothesized that implementation of a pharmacy-managed TOT incorporated into CPRS would result in higher adherence rates to guideline-recommended clinical and laboratory evaluation, in addition to counseling of men with hypogonadism prior to initiation of TRT.

Methods

Eligible participants were cisgender males who received a new testosterone prescription, had ≥ 2 clinic visits at VAPSHCS, and no previous testosterone prescription in the previous 2 years. Individuals were excluded if they had testosterone administered at VAPSHCS; were prescribed testosterone at another facility (VA or community-based); pilot tested an initial version of the TOT prior to November 30, 2019; or had an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes for hypopituitarism, gender identity disorder, history of sexual assignment, or Klinefelter syndrome for which testosterone therapy was already approved. Patients who met the inclusion criteria were identified by an algorithm developed by the VAPSHCS pharmacoeconomist.

This quality improvement project used a retrospective, pre-post experimental design. Electronic chart review and systematic manual review of all eligible patient charts were performed for the pretemplate period (December 1, 2018, to November 30, 2019) and after the template implementation, (December 1, 2021, to November 30, 2022).

An initial version of the TOT was implemented on July 1, 2019, but was not fully integrated into CPRS until early 2020; individuals in whom the TOT was used prior to November 30, 2019, were excluded. Data from the initial period of the COVID-19 pandemic were avoided because of alterations in clinic and prescribing practices. As a quality improvement project, the TOT evaluation was exempt from formal review by the VAPSHCS Institutional Review Board, as determined by the Director of the Office of Transformation/Quality/Safety/Value.

Interventions

Testosterone is a Schedule III controlled substance with potential risks and a propensity for varied prescribing practices. It was designated as a restricted drug requiring a prior authorization drug request (PADR) for which a specific TOT was developed, approved by the VAPSHCS Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, and incorporated into CPRS. A team of pharmacists, primary care physicians, geriatricians, endocrinologists, and health informatics experts created and developed the TOT. Pharmacists managed and monitored its completion.

The process for prescribing testosterone via the TOT is outlined in the eAppendix. When an HCP orders testosterone in CPRS, reminders prompt them to use the TOT and indicate required laboratory measurements (an order set is provided). Completion of TOT is not necessary to order testosterone for patients with an existing diagnosis of an organic cause of hypogonadism (eg, Klinefelter syndrome or hypopituitarism) or transgender women (assigned male at birth). In the TOT, the prescriber must also indicate signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency; required laboratory tests; and counseling regarding potential risks and benefits of TRT. A pharmacist reviews the TOT and either approves or rejects the testosterone prescription and provides follow-up guidance to the prescriber. The completed TOT serves as documentation of guideline adherence in CPRS. The TOT also includes sections for first renewal testosterone prescriptions, addressing guideline recommendations for follow-up laboratory evaluation and clinical response to TRT. Due to limited completion of this section in the posttemplate period, evaluating adherence to follow-up recommendations was not feasible.

Measures

This project assessed the percentage of patients in the posttemplate period vs pretemplate period with an approved PADR. Documentation of specific guideline-recommended measures was assessed: signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency; ≥ 2 serum testosterone measurements (≥ 2 total, free and total, or 2 free testosterone levels, and ≥ 1 testosterone level before 10 am); serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) tests; discussion of the benefits and risks of testosterone treatment; and hematocrit measurement.

The project also assessed the proportion of patients in the posttemplate period vs pretemplate period who had all hormone tests (≥ 2 serum testosterone and LH and FSH concentrations), all laboratory tests (hormone tests and hematocrit), and all 5 guideline-recommended measures.

Analysis

Statistical comparisons between the proportions of patients in the pretemplate and posttemplate periods for each measure were performed using a χ² test, without correction for multiple comparisons. All analyses were conducted using Stata version 10.0. A P value < .05 was considered significant for all comparisons.

Results

Chart review identified 189 patients in the pretemplate period and 113 patients in the posttemplate period with a new testosterone prescription (Figure). After exclusions, 91 and 49 patients, respectively, met eligibility criteria (Table 1). Fifty-six patients (62%) pretemplate and 40 patients (82%) posttemplate (P = .015) had approved PADRs and comprised the groups that were analyzed (Table 2).

The mean age and body mass index were similar in the pretemplate and posttemplate periods, but there was variation in the proportions of patients aged < 70 years and those with a body mass index < 30 between the groups. The most common diagnosis in both groups was testicular hypofunction, and the most common comorbidity was type 2 diabetes mellitus. Concomitant use of opioids or glucocorticoids that can lower testosterone levels was rare. Most testosterone prescriptions originated from primary care clinics in both periods: 68 (75%) in the pretemplate period and 35 (71%) in the posttemplate period. Most testosterone treatment was delivered by intramuscular injection. 

In the posttemplate period vs pretemplate period, the proportion of patients with an approved PADR (82% vs 62%, P = .02), and documentation of signs and symptoms of hypogonadism (93% vs 71%, P = .002) prior to starting TRT were higher, while the percentage of patients having ≥ 2 testosterone measurements (85% vs 89%, P = .53), ≥ 1 testosterone level before 10 AM (78% vs 75%, P = .70), and hematocrit measured (95% vs 91%, P = .47) were similar. Rates of LH and FSH testing were higher in the posttemplate period (80%) vs the pretemplate period (63%) but did not achieve statistical significance (P = .07), and discussion of the risks and benefits of TRT was higher in the posttemplate period (58%) vs the pretemplate period (34%) (P = .02). The percentage of patients who had all hormone measurements (total and/or free testosterone, LH, and FSH) was higher in the posttemplate period (78%) vs the pretemplate period (59%) but did not achieve statistical significance (P = .06). The rates of all guideline-recommended laboratory test orders were higher in the posttemplate period (78%) vs the pretemplate period (55%) (P = .03), and all 5 guideline-recommended clinical and laboratory measures were higher in the posttemplate period (45%) vs the pretemplate period (18%) (P = .004).

Discussion

The implementation of a pharmacy-managed TOT in CPRS demonstrated higher adherence to evidence-based guidelines for diagnosing and evaluating hypogonadism before TRT. After TOT implementation, a higher proportion of patients had documented signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency, underwent all recommended laboratory tests, and had discussions about the risks and benefits of TRT. Adherence to 5 clinical and laboratory measures recommended by Endocrine Society guidelines was higher after TOT implementation, indicating improved prescribing practices.⁴

The requirement for TOT completion before testosterone prescription and its management by trained pharmacists likely contributed to higher adherence to guideline recommendations than previously reported. Integration of the TOT into CPRS with pharmacy oversight may have enhanced adherence by summarizing and codifying evidence-based guideline recommendations for clinical and biochemical evaluation prior to TRT initiation, offering relevant education to clinicians and pharmacists, automatically importing pertinent clinical information and laboratory results, and generating CPRS documentation to reduce clinician burden during patient care. 

The proportion of patients with documented signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency before TRT increased from the pretemplate period (71%) to the posttemplate period (93%), indicating that most patients receiving TRT had clinical manifestations of hypogonadism. This aligns with Endocrine Society guidelines, which define hypogonadism as a clinical disorder characterized by clinical manifestations of testosterone deficiency and persistently low serum testosterone levels on ≥ 2 separate occasions.^4,6 However, recent trends in direct-to-consumer advertising for testosterone and the rise of “low T” clinics may contribute to increased testing, varied practices, and inappropriate testosterone therapy initiation (eg, in men with low testosterone levels who lack symptoms of hypogonadism).¹⁸ Improved adherence in documenting clinical hypogonadism with implementation of the TOT reinforces the value of incorporating educational material, as previously reported.¹¹

Adherence to guideline recommendations following implementation of the TOT in this project was higher than those previously reported. In a study of 111,631 outpatient veterans prescribed testosterone from 2009 to 2012, only 18.3% had ≥ 2 testosterone prescriptions, and 3.5% had ≥ 2 testosterone, LH, and FSH levels measured prior to the initiation of a TRT.⁹ In a report of 63,534 insured patients who received TRT from 2010 to 2012, 40.3% had ≥ 2 testosterone prescriptions, and 12% had LH and/or FSH measured prior to the initiation.⁸

Low rates of guideline-recommended laboratory tests prior to initiation of testosterone treatment were reported in prior non-VA studies.^19,20 Poor guideline adherence reinforces the need for clinician education or other methods to improve TRT and ensure appropriate prescribing practices across health care systems. The TOT described in this project is a sustainable clinical tool with the potential to improve testosterone prescribing practices. 

The high rates of adherence to guideline recommendations at VAPSHCS likely stem from local endocrine expertise and ongoing educational initiatives, as well as the requirement for template completion before testosterone prescription. However, most testosterone prescriptions were initiated by primary care and monitored by pharmacists with varying degrees of training and clinical experience in hypogonadism and TRT.

However, adherence to guideline recommendations was modest, suggesting there is still an opportunity for improvement. The decision to initiate therapy should be made only after appropriate counseling with patients regarding its potential benefits and risks. Reports on the CV risk of TRT have been mixed. The 2023 TRAVERSE study found no increase in major adverse CV events among older men with hypogonadism and pre-existing CV risks undergoing TRT, but noted higher instances of pulmonary embolism, atrial fibrillation, and acute kidney injury.²¹ This highlights the need for clinicians to continue to engage in informed decision-making with patients. Effective pretreatment counseling is important but time-consuming; future TOT monitoring and modifications could consider mandatory checkboxes to document counseling on TRT risks and benefits.

The TOT described in this study could be adapted and incorporated into the prescribing process and electronic health record of larger health care systems. Use of an electronic template allows for automatic real-time dashboard monitoring of organization performance. The TOT described could be modified or simplified for specialty or primary care clinics or individual practitioners to improve adherence to evidence-based guideline recommendations and quality of care.

Strengths

A strength of this study is the multidisciplinary team (composed of stakeholders with experience in VA health care system and subject matter experts in hypogonadism) that developed and incorporated a user-friendly template for testosterone prescriptions; the use of evidence-based guideline recommendations; and the use of a structured chart review permitted accurate assessment of adherence to recommendations to document signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency and a discussion of potential risks and benefits prior to TRT. To our knowledge, these recommendations have not been assessed in previous reports.

Limitations

The retrospective pre-post design of this study precludes a conclusion that implementation of the TOT caused the increase in adherence to guideline recommendations. Improved adherence could have resulted from the ongoing development of the preauthorization process for testosterone prescriptions or other changes over time. However, the preauthorization process had already been established for many years prior to template implementation. Forty-nine patients had new prescriptions for testosterone in the posttemplate period compared to 91 in the pretemplate period, but TRT was initiated in accordance with guideline recommendations more appropriately in the posttemplate period. The study’s sample size was small, and many eligible patients were excluded; however, exclusions were necessary to evaluate men who had new testosterone prescriptions for which the template was designed. Most men excluded were already taking testosterone.

Conclusions

The implementation of a CPRS-based TOT improved adherence to evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis, evaluation, and counseling of patients with hypogonadism before starting TRT. While there were improvements in adherence with the TOT, the relatively low proportion of patients with documentation of TRT risks and benefits and all guideline recommendations highlights the need for additional efforts to further strengthen adherence to guideline recommendations and ensure appropriate evaluation, counseling, and prescribing practices before initiating TRT.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) guidelines increasingly are recommending prolonged exposure therapy (PET) and cognitive processing therapy (CPT) as first-line treatments, including the 2023 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and US Department of Defense clinical practice guideline.

Since 2006, > 6000 VA therapists have been trained in PET and CPT; the VA requires all veterans to have access to these treatments. However, despite strong clinical trial evidence supporting PET and CPT for the treatment of PTSD, a 2023 study found that only 11.6% of veterans who received a PTSD diagnosis between 2017 and 2019 initiated Trauma-Focused Evidence-Based Psychotherapy (TF-EBP) in their first year of treatment. Of those who initiated TF-EBP, 67% dropped out. Recent VA programs have attempted to expand the reach of PET with video telehealth to reach rural and remote veterans through virtual group programs.

Recent research has suggested ways to maximize the effectiveness of the programs and assist veterans in receiving the full benefits. Studies have found that swapping traditional longer-term treatments (usually spanning 8 to 15 weeks) for intensified, shorter versions (eg, 6 sessions) may enhance engagement and retention. 

Intensive PET for PTSD is safe and highly effective. A study involving patients with chronic PTSD and complex trauma showed significant reductions in PTSD symptom severity, with large effect sizes and sustained improvements at 3 and 6 months. Multiple 90-minute sessions over consecutive days, supplemented with in vivo exposure or followed by weekly booster sessions, were found to minimize treatment disruptions.

PET is among the most extensively studied treatments for PTSD and is supported by dozens of clinical trials involving thousands of patients. The intervention was originally developed and validated in civilian samples and includes psychoeducation, relaxation through breathing retraining, and in vivo and imaginal exposure to traumatic memories.

A recent study compared treatment outcomes among military veterans and civilian patients receiving treatment in a community setting. Although some studies have compared PET outcomes for military veterans and civilian participants in community settings, none have directly compared outcomes across trauma type (combat, terror, or civilian trauma) and veteran status (military vs civilian) within the same framework. The study notes that combat-related trauma significantly differs from other forms of trauma exposure, as it is typically more prolonged and severe and therefore is more often resistant to treatment. Military personnel also often find themselves both victims and aggressors, a duality that can intensify guilt, shame, anger, disgust, and emotional reactions to moral injury, complicating treatment. 

The study assessed the effects of 8 to 15 PET sessions on PTSD symptoms in 55 civilians and 43 veterans using the PTSD Symptom Scale–Interview Version (PSS-I). Participants showed significant symptom reductions across all trauma types and veteran statuses.

Although veterans and participants in the combat trauma subgroup showed higher levels of baseline symptom severity compared with civilians, all groups experienced similar symptom reductions. These findings differ from some meta-analyses, which have found that PET often produces smaller effect sizes in combat-related PTSD compared to civilian trauma samples.

The study compared treatment outcomes across different groups within the same treatment centers and under consistent supervision. The PET intervention was delivered in community mental health centers to all patients regardless of background. Only 2 prior studies have compared civilian and military veterans within the same locations.

Although the “traditional” number of PET sessions produce evidence-based outcomes, high dropout rates and relapses have catalyzed interest in approaches that boost the power of therapy, such as delivering PET in ever-shorter sequences. 

A study in a Swedish psychiatric outpatient clinic compared the effect of an 8-day intensified treatment program with traditionally spaced treatments on 101 participants with PTSD or complex PTSD. The study reported a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms at posttreatment, with large effect sizes in both conditions. Moreover, symptom reduction was maintained at follow-up. Dropout rates were significantly different between treatment groups: 4.3% in the intensified treatment program and 24.1% in the traditional group.

Another study used VA administrative data to assess the impact of sequenced psychotherapy (≥ 8 sessions of not trauma-focused individual or group psychotherapy delivered before trauma-focused care) on initiation and retention in CPT and PET over 2 years. Roughly 13% of 490,097 veterans who entered care for PTSD between 2014 and 2020 initiated VA-disseminated evidence-based treatment within 21 months (9.5% CPT, 3.4% PE). Among those who initiated treatment, retention was 46% and 42%, respectively. Individual therapy was associated with increased CPT and PET retention of 8.0% and 8.2%. For group therapy, retention increases were 3.4% and 8.7%. 

Another recent study examined the RESET (Reconsolidation, Exposure, and Short-term Emotional Transformation) clinical protocol, an intensive, structured trauma-focused intervention designed to treat PTSD within 6 daily sessions. The protocol includes psychoeducation, targeted exposure, dynamic case formulation, and guided trauma processing. This novel framework ensures therapy moves beyond symptom reduction, fostering a deep understanding of the patient’s core struggles and their broader psychological patterns, and integrates it with the reconsolidation of the index trauma narrative to form a more cohesive sense of self.” 

Clinical studies are ongoing to refine and enhance PET and CPT. They may serve to make therapy more useful and effective in easing—maybe erasing—veterans’ traumatic memories.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) guidelines increasingly are recommending prolonged exposure therapy (PET) and cognitive processing therapy (CPT) as first-line treatments, including the 2023 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and US Department of Defense clinical practice guideline.

Since 2006, > 6000 VA therapists have been trained in PET and CPT; the VA requires all veterans to have access to these treatments. However, despite strong clinical trial evidence supporting PET and CPT for the treatment of PTSD, a 2023 study found that only 11.6% of veterans who received a PTSD diagnosis between 2017 and 2019 initiated Trauma-Focused Evidence-Based Psychotherapy (TF-EBP) in their first year of treatment. Of those who initiated TF-EBP, 67% dropped out. Recent VA programs have attempted to expand the reach of PET with video telehealth to reach rural and remote veterans through virtual group programs.

Recent research has suggested ways to maximize the effectiveness of the programs and assist veterans in receiving the full benefits. Studies have found that swapping traditional longer-term treatments (usually spanning 8 to 15 weeks) for intensified, shorter versions (eg, 6 sessions) may enhance engagement and retention. 

Intensive PET for PTSD is safe and highly effective. A study involving patients with chronic PTSD and complex trauma showed significant reductions in PTSD symptom severity, with large effect sizes and sustained improvements at 3 and 6 months. Multiple 90-minute sessions over consecutive days, supplemented with in vivo exposure or followed by weekly booster sessions, were found to minimize treatment disruptions.

PET is among the most extensively studied treatments for PTSD and is supported by dozens of clinical trials involving thousands of patients. The intervention was originally developed and validated in civilian samples and includes psychoeducation, relaxation through breathing retraining, and in vivo and imaginal exposure to traumatic memories.

A recent study compared treatment outcomes among military veterans and civilian patients receiving treatment in a community setting. Although some studies have compared PET outcomes for military veterans and civilian participants in community settings, none have directly compared outcomes across trauma type (combat, terror, or civilian trauma) and veteran status (military vs civilian) within the same framework. The study notes that combat-related trauma significantly differs from other forms of trauma exposure, as it is typically more prolonged and severe and therefore is more often resistant to treatment. Military personnel also often find themselves both victims and aggressors, a duality that can intensify guilt, shame, anger, disgust, and emotional reactions to moral injury, complicating treatment. 

The study assessed the effects of 8 to 15 PET sessions on PTSD symptoms in 55 civilians and 43 veterans using the PTSD Symptom Scale–Interview Version (PSS-I). Participants showed significant symptom reductions across all trauma types and veteran statuses.

Although veterans and participants in the combat trauma subgroup showed higher levels of baseline symptom severity compared with civilians, all groups experienced similar symptom reductions. These findings differ from some meta-analyses, which have found that PET often produces smaller effect sizes in combat-related PTSD compared to civilian trauma samples.

The study compared treatment outcomes across different groups within the same treatment centers and under consistent supervision. The PET intervention was delivered in community mental health centers to all patients regardless of background. Only 2 prior studies have compared civilian and military veterans within the same locations.

Although the “traditional” number of PET sessions produce evidence-based outcomes, high dropout rates and relapses have catalyzed interest in approaches that boost the power of therapy, such as delivering PET in ever-shorter sequences. 

A study in a Swedish psychiatric outpatient clinic compared the effect of an 8-day intensified treatment program with traditionally spaced treatments on 101 participants with PTSD or complex PTSD. The study reported a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms at posttreatment, with large effect sizes in both conditions. Moreover, symptom reduction was maintained at follow-up. Dropout rates were significantly different between treatment groups: 4.3% in the intensified treatment program and 24.1% in the traditional group.

Another study used VA administrative data to assess the impact of sequenced psychotherapy (≥ 8 sessions of not trauma-focused individual or group psychotherapy delivered before trauma-focused care) on initiation and retention in CPT and PET over 2 years. Roughly 13% of 490,097 veterans who entered care for PTSD between 2014 and 2020 initiated VA-disseminated evidence-based treatment within 21 months (9.5% CPT, 3.4% PE). Among those who initiated treatment, retention was 46% and 42%, respectively. Individual therapy was associated with increased CPT and PET retention of 8.0% and 8.2%. For group therapy, retention increases were 3.4% and 8.7%. 

Another recent study examined the RESET (Reconsolidation, Exposure, and Short-term Emotional Transformation) clinical protocol, an intensive, structured trauma-focused intervention designed to treat PTSD within 6 daily sessions. The protocol includes psychoeducation, targeted exposure, dynamic case formulation, and guided trauma processing. This novel framework ensures therapy moves beyond symptom reduction, fostering a deep understanding of the patient’s core struggles and their broader psychological patterns, and integrates it with the reconsolidation of the index trauma narrative to form a more cohesive sense of self.” 

Clinical studies are ongoing to refine and enhance PET and CPT. They may serve to make therapy more useful and effective in easing—maybe erasing—veterans’ traumatic memories.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) guidelines increasingly are recommending prolonged exposure therapy (PET) and cognitive processing therapy (CPT) as first-line treatments, including the 2023 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and US Department of Defense clinical practice guideline.

Since 2006, > 6000 VA therapists have been trained in PET and CPT; the VA requires all veterans to have access to these treatments. However, despite strong clinical trial evidence supporting PET and CPT for the treatment of PTSD, a 2023 study found that only 11.6% of veterans who received a PTSD diagnosis between 2017 and 2019 initiated Trauma-Focused Evidence-Based Psychotherapy (TF-EBP) in their first year of treatment. Of those who initiated TF-EBP, 67% dropped out. Recent VA programs have attempted to expand the reach of PET with video telehealth to reach rural and remote veterans through virtual group programs.

Recent research has suggested ways to maximize the effectiveness of the programs and assist veterans in receiving the full benefits. Studies have found that swapping traditional longer-term treatments (usually spanning 8 to 15 weeks) for intensified, shorter versions (eg, 6 sessions) may enhance engagement and retention. 

Intensive PET for PTSD is safe and highly effective. A study involving patients with chronic PTSD and complex trauma showed significant reductions in PTSD symptom severity, with large effect sizes and sustained improvements at 3 and 6 months. Multiple 90-minute sessions over consecutive days, supplemented with in vivo exposure or followed by weekly booster sessions, were found to minimize treatment disruptions.

PET is among the most extensively studied treatments for PTSD and is supported by dozens of clinical trials involving thousands of patients. The intervention was originally developed and validated in civilian samples and includes psychoeducation, relaxation through breathing retraining, and in vivo and imaginal exposure to traumatic memories.

A recent study compared treatment outcomes among military veterans and civilian patients receiving treatment in a community setting. Although some studies have compared PET outcomes for military veterans and civilian participants in community settings, none have directly compared outcomes across trauma type (combat, terror, or civilian trauma) and veteran status (military vs civilian) within the same framework. The study notes that combat-related trauma significantly differs from other forms of trauma exposure, as it is typically more prolonged and severe and therefore is more often resistant to treatment. Military personnel also often find themselves both victims and aggressors, a duality that can intensify guilt, shame, anger, disgust, and emotional reactions to moral injury, complicating treatment. 

The study assessed the effects of 8 to 15 PET sessions on PTSD symptoms in 55 civilians and 43 veterans using the PTSD Symptom Scale–Interview Version (PSS-I). Participants showed significant symptom reductions across all trauma types and veteran statuses.

Although veterans and participants in the combat trauma subgroup showed higher levels of baseline symptom severity compared with civilians, all groups experienced similar symptom reductions. These findings differ from some meta-analyses, which have found that PET often produces smaller effect sizes in combat-related PTSD compared to civilian trauma samples.

The study compared treatment outcomes across different groups within the same treatment centers and under consistent supervision. The PET intervention was delivered in community mental health centers to all patients regardless of background. Only 2 prior studies have compared civilian and military veterans within the same locations.

Although the “traditional” number of PET sessions produce evidence-based outcomes, high dropout rates and relapses have catalyzed interest in approaches that boost the power of therapy, such as delivering PET in ever-shorter sequences. 

A study in a Swedish psychiatric outpatient clinic compared the effect of an 8-day intensified treatment program with traditionally spaced treatments on 101 participants with PTSD or complex PTSD. The study reported a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms at posttreatment, with large effect sizes in both conditions. Moreover, symptom reduction was maintained at follow-up. Dropout rates were significantly different between treatment groups: 4.3% in the intensified treatment program and 24.1% in the traditional group.

Another study used VA administrative data to assess the impact of sequenced psychotherapy (≥ 8 sessions of not trauma-focused individual or group psychotherapy delivered before trauma-focused care) on initiation and retention in CPT and PET over 2 years. Roughly 13% of 490,097 veterans who entered care for PTSD between 2014 and 2020 initiated VA-disseminated evidence-based treatment within 21 months (9.5% CPT, 3.4% PE). Among those who initiated treatment, retention was 46% and 42%, respectively. Individual therapy was associated with increased CPT and PET retention of 8.0% and 8.2%. For group therapy, retention increases were 3.4% and 8.7%. 

Another recent study examined the RESET (Reconsolidation, Exposure, and Short-term Emotional Transformation) clinical protocol, an intensive, structured trauma-focused intervention designed to treat PTSD within 6 daily sessions. The protocol includes psychoeducation, targeted exposure, dynamic case formulation, and guided trauma processing. This novel framework ensures therapy moves beyond symptom reduction, fostering a deep understanding of the patient’s core struggles and their broader psychological patterns, and integrates it with the reconsolidation of the index trauma narrative to form a more cohesive sense of self.” 

Clinical studies are ongoing to refine and enhance PET and CPT. They may serve to make therapy more useful and effective in easing—maybe erasing—veterans’ traumatic memories.

“Moral and mortal stressors may be intertwined in their contribution to the complex symptomatic outcomes” of combat exposure according to a recent study in the European Journal of Psychotraumatology. The study examined the effect moral injury has on Israel Defense Forces (IDF) combat veterans. The resulting trauma may be consolidated in a single category, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but stressors leading to that diagnosis may have been quite different. Properly defining the stressors to assist in better targeted treatment is a challenge.

Moral injury is the emotional distress of being involved in or witnessing actions that conflict with deeply held beliefs. Such experiences could be committing or failing to prevent a transgressive act or learning about or surviving a transgressive act.

The study defines moral injury outcomes as the psychological and emotional consequences that result from exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs): “This terminology is intended to distinguish the outcomes of moral injury from the broader and sometimes ambiguous use of ‘moral injury’ in the literature, which can refer to either the event, the experience, or the resulting symptoms.”

The study followed 374 male combat veterans for 5 years. Veterans served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in 4 primary combat roles: infantry, armored corps, special forces, and combat engineering. Psychological characteristics were measured 12 months prior to enlistment. PMIE exposure was measured during the final month of military service using the Moral Injury Events Scale. Moral injury outcomes were assessed 6 months postdischarge using the Expressions of Moral Injury Scale-Military Version-Short Form. Posttraumatic stress symptom (PTSS) clusters were evaluated 1 year postdischarge using the PTSD Checklist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. 

Nearly half (49%) of participants reported exposure to PMIEs, while 8% met criteria for probable PTSD. The researchers say elevated PMIE rates observed in their sample may be attributed, in part, to participants’ extended deployments in densely populated urban areas, carrying out operations in close proximity to civilians, where it is difficult to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. PTSD rates were somewhat lower than those reported in US studies (10% to 30%) among veterans; this may be attributed to the cohort not being engaged in a full-scale war, but deployed mostly in peacekeeping missions.

Longitudinal studies have described the effects of wartime atrocities on PTSD symptom severity. Studies have also linked moral injury outcomes and PTSS clusters (including negative alterations in cognition and mood [NACM]), depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. PMIEs can also include perceptions of betrayal from leaders, colleagues, or trusted others. The study of 374 male combat veterans found a direct effect of PMIE-betrayal on arousal and reactivity as well as NACM clusters. Results also showed indirect associations between exposure to all PMIE dimensions and PTSS clusters via moral injury outcomes. Combat exposure and experiencing PMIEs during military service significantly contributed to the emergence of PTSS during the first year after discharge. The study found 2 distinct paths PMIEs may lead to PTSS among veterans: experiencing acts of transgression and encountering betrayal. 

Betrayal has been linked to feelings of anger and humiliation, emotions thought to have evolved to trigger adaptive behavioral responses, such as aggression and revenge, to threats or transgressions by others. PMIE-betrayal also demonstrated direct effects on the arousal and reactivity and NACM symptom clusters, suggesting partial mediation. Another study (also on IDF veterans) found significant positive correlations between PMIE-betrayal and the NACM cluster, suggesting PMIE-betrayal as a link between PTSD and moral injury. While the link between betrayal and NACM is readily apparent, its connection to arousal and reactivity, a fear-based physiological symptom, is less evident. 

The findings of the study point to the need for assessment tools that separately measure exposure to PMIEs and individual reactions to them. A recent Federal Practitioner study of 100 veterans with a history of incarceration completed the Moral Injury Events Scale and an adapted version for legal-involved persons (MIES-LIP). The authors found that MIES-LIP demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including good reliability and convergent validity for legal-related moral injury.

The study cites a recent review of cognitive-behavioral psychotherapies for individuals experiencing moral injury that challenges the adequacy of existing evidence-based treatments for PTSD for addressing moral injury and its associated symptoms. It is important to evaluate individuals who express feelings of betrayal with tailored, evidence-based interventions such as adaptive disclosure or cognitive-processing therapy. Acceptance and commitment therapy may also help individuals experiencing emotions such as shame, humiliation, guilt, and anger following morally injurious events.

Newer therapy models like Multi-Modal Motion-Assisted Memory Desensitization and Reconsolidation allow clinicians to use personalized trauma cues to facilitate memory processing, reduce avoidance, and aid in emotional reconsolidation. Clinical research has demonstrated this model’s efficacy in reducing PTSD symptoms, depression, and anxiety, with high acceptability and low dropout rates among military personnel, veterans, and first responders.

Regardless of the treatment, the researchers encourage mental health professionals to approach veterans seeking help with the “utmost sensitivity and attentiveness to any expressions of (moral injury) outcomes.”

“Moral and mortal stressors may be intertwined in their contribution to the complex symptomatic outcomes” of combat exposure according to a recent study in the European Journal of Psychotraumatology. The study examined the effect moral injury has on Israel Defense Forces (IDF) combat veterans. The resulting trauma may be consolidated in a single category, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but stressors leading to that diagnosis may have been quite different. Properly defining the stressors to assist in better targeted treatment is a challenge.

Moral injury is the emotional distress of being involved in or witnessing actions that conflict with deeply held beliefs. Such experiences could be committing or failing to prevent a transgressive act or learning about or surviving a transgressive act.

The study defines moral injury outcomes as the psychological and emotional consequences that result from exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs): “This terminology is intended to distinguish the outcomes of moral injury from the broader and sometimes ambiguous use of ‘moral injury’ in the literature, which can refer to either the event, the experience, or the resulting symptoms.”

The study followed 374 male combat veterans for 5 years. Veterans served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in 4 primary combat roles: infantry, armored corps, special forces, and combat engineering. Psychological characteristics were measured 12 months prior to enlistment. PMIE exposure was measured during the final month of military service using the Moral Injury Events Scale. Moral injury outcomes were assessed 6 months postdischarge using the Expressions of Moral Injury Scale-Military Version-Short Form. Posttraumatic stress symptom (PTSS) clusters were evaluated 1 year postdischarge using the PTSD Checklist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. 

Nearly half (49%) of participants reported exposure to PMIEs, while 8% met criteria for probable PTSD. The researchers say elevated PMIE rates observed in their sample may be attributed, in part, to participants’ extended deployments in densely populated urban areas, carrying out operations in close proximity to civilians, where it is difficult to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. PTSD rates were somewhat lower than those reported in US studies (10% to 30%) among veterans; this may be attributed to the cohort not being engaged in a full-scale war, but deployed mostly in peacekeeping missions.

Longitudinal studies have described the effects of wartime atrocities on PTSD symptom severity. Studies have also linked moral injury outcomes and PTSS clusters (including negative alterations in cognition and mood [NACM]), depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. PMIEs can also include perceptions of betrayal from leaders, colleagues, or trusted others. The study of 374 male combat veterans found a direct effect of PMIE-betrayal on arousal and reactivity as well as NACM clusters. Results also showed indirect associations between exposure to all PMIE dimensions and PTSS clusters via moral injury outcomes. Combat exposure and experiencing PMIEs during military service significantly contributed to the emergence of PTSS during the first year after discharge. The study found 2 distinct paths PMIEs may lead to PTSS among veterans: experiencing acts of transgression and encountering betrayal. 

Betrayal has been linked to feelings of anger and humiliation, emotions thought to have evolved to trigger adaptive behavioral responses, such as aggression and revenge, to threats or transgressions by others. PMIE-betrayal also demonstrated direct effects on the arousal and reactivity and NACM symptom clusters, suggesting partial mediation. Another study (also on IDF veterans) found significant positive correlations between PMIE-betrayal and the NACM cluster, suggesting PMIE-betrayal as a link between PTSD and moral injury. While the link between betrayal and NACM is readily apparent, its connection to arousal and reactivity, a fear-based physiological symptom, is less evident. 

The findings of the study point to the need for assessment tools that separately measure exposure to PMIEs and individual reactions to them. A recent Federal Practitioner study of 100 veterans with a history of incarceration completed the Moral Injury Events Scale and an adapted version for legal-involved persons (MIES-LIP). The authors found that MIES-LIP demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including good reliability and convergent validity for legal-related moral injury.

The study cites a recent review of cognitive-behavioral psychotherapies for individuals experiencing moral injury that challenges the adequacy of existing evidence-based treatments for PTSD for addressing moral injury and its associated symptoms. It is important to evaluate individuals who express feelings of betrayal with tailored, evidence-based interventions such as adaptive disclosure or cognitive-processing therapy. Acceptance and commitment therapy may also help individuals experiencing emotions such as shame, humiliation, guilt, and anger following morally injurious events.

Newer therapy models like Multi-Modal Motion-Assisted Memory Desensitization and Reconsolidation allow clinicians to use personalized trauma cues to facilitate memory processing, reduce avoidance, and aid in emotional reconsolidation. Clinical research has demonstrated this model’s efficacy in reducing PTSD symptoms, depression, and anxiety, with high acceptability and low dropout rates among military personnel, veterans, and first responders.

Regardless of the treatment, the researchers encourage mental health professionals to approach veterans seeking help with the “utmost sensitivity and attentiveness to any expressions of (moral injury) outcomes.”

“Moral and mortal stressors may be intertwined in their contribution to the complex symptomatic outcomes” of combat exposure according to a recent study in the European Journal of Psychotraumatology. The study examined the effect moral injury has on Israel Defense Forces (IDF) combat veterans. The resulting trauma may be consolidated in a single category, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but stressors leading to that diagnosis may have been quite different. Properly defining the stressors to assist in better targeted treatment is a challenge.

Moral injury is the emotional distress of being involved in or witnessing actions that conflict with deeply held beliefs. Such experiences could be committing or failing to prevent a transgressive act or learning about or surviving a transgressive act.

The study defines moral injury outcomes as the psychological and emotional consequences that result from exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs): “This terminology is intended to distinguish the outcomes of moral injury from the broader and sometimes ambiguous use of ‘moral injury’ in the literature, which can refer to either the event, the experience, or the resulting symptoms.”

The study followed 374 male combat veterans for 5 years. Veterans served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in 4 primary combat roles: infantry, armored corps, special forces, and combat engineering. Psychological characteristics were measured 12 months prior to enlistment. PMIE exposure was measured during the final month of military service using the Moral Injury Events Scale. Moral injury outcomes were assessed 6 months postdischarge using the Expressions of Moral Injury Scale-Military Version-Short Form. Posttraumatic stress symptom (PTSS) clusters were evaluated 1 year postdischarge using the PTSD Checklist for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. 

Nearly half (49%) of participants reported exposure to PMIEs, while 8% met criteria for probable PTSD. The researchers say elevated PMIE rates observed in their sample may be attributed, in part, to participants’ extended deployments in densely populated urban areas, carrying out operations in close proximity to civilians, where it is difficult to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants. PTSD rates were somewhat lower than those reported in US studies (10% to 30%) among veterans; this may be attributed to the cohort not being engaged in a full-scale war, but deployed mostly in peacekeeping missions.

Longitudinal studies have described the effects of wartime atrocities on PTSD symptom severity. Studies have also linked moral injury outcomes and PTSS clusters (including negative alterations in cognition and mood [NACM]), depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. PMIEs can also include perceptions of betrayal from leaders, colleagues, or trusted others. The study of 374 male combat veterans found a direct effect of PMIE-betrayal on arousal and reactivity as well as NACM clusters. Results also showed indirect associations between exposure to all PMIE dimensions and PTSS clusters via moral injury outcomes. Combat exposure and experiencing PMIEs during military service significantly contributed to the emergence of PTSS during the first year after discharge. The study found 2 distinct paths PMIEs may lead to PTSS among veterans: experiencing acts of transgression and encountering betrayal. 

Betrayal has been linked to feelings of anger and humiliation, emotions thought to have evolved to trigger adaptive behavioral responses, such as aggression and revenge, to threats or transgressions by others. PMIE-betrayal also demonstrated direct effects on the arousal and reactivity and NACM symptom clusters, suggesting partial mediation. Another study (also on IDF veterans) found significant positive correlations between PMIE-betrayal and the NACM cluster, suggesting PMIE-betrayal as a link between PTSD and moral injury. While the link between betrayal and NACM is readily apparent, its connection to arousal and reactivity, a fear-based physiological symptom, is less evident. 

The findings of the study point to the need for assessment tools that separately measure exposure to PMIEs and individual reactions to them. A recent Federal Practitioner study of 100 veterans with a history of incarceration completed the Moral Injury Events Scale and an adapted version for legal-involved persons (MIES-LIP). The authors found that MIES-LIP demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including good reliability and convergent validity for legal-related moral injury.

The study cites a recent review of cognitive-behavioral psychotherapies for individuals experiencing moral injury that challenges the adequacy of existing evidence-based treatments for PTSD for addressing moral injury and its associated symptoms. It is important to evaluate individuals who express feelings of betrayal with tailored, evidence-based interventions such as adaptive disclosure or cognitive-processing therapy. Acceptance and commitment therapy may also help individuals experiencing emotions such as shame, humiliation, guilt, and anger following morally injurious events.

Newer therapy models like Multi-Modal Motion-Assisted Memory Desensitization and Reconsolidation allow clinicians to use personalized trauma cues to facilitate memory processing, reduce avoidance, and aid in emotional reconsolidation. Clinical research has demonstrated this model’s efficacy in reducing PTSD symptoms, depression, and anxiety, with high acceptability and low dropout rates among military personnel, veterans, and first responders.

Regardless of the treatment, the researchers encourage mental health professionals to approach veterans seeking help with the “utmost sensitivity and attentiveness to any expressions of (moral injury) outcomes.”