Bridging the technological divide: Stigmas and challenges with technology in digital brain health studies of older adults

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased adoption of remote assessments in clinical research. However, longstanding stereotypes persist regarding older adults\u27 technology familiarity and their willingness to participate in technology-enabled remote studies. We examined the validity of these stereotypes using a novel technology familiarity assessment

Effect of race on prediction of brain amyloidosis by plasma Aβ42/Aβ40, phosphorylated tau, and neurofilament light

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether plasma biomarkers of amyloid (Aβ42/Aβ40), tau (p-tau181 and p-tau231), and neuroaxonal injury (neurofilament light chain [NfL]) detect brain amyloidosis consistently across racial groups. METHODS: Individuals enrolled in studies of memory and aging who self-identified as African American (AA) were matched 1:1 to self-identified non-Hispanic White (NHW) individuals by age, RESULTS: There were 76 matched pairs of AA and NHW participants (n = 152 total). For both AA and NHW groups, the median age was 68.4 years, 42% were DISCUSSION: Models predicting brain amyloidosis using a high-performance plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 assay may provide an accurate and consistent measure of brain amyloidosis across AA and NHW groups, but models based on plasma p-tau181, p-tau231, and NfL may perform inconsistently and could result in disproportionate misdiagnosis of AA individuals

Effect of Race on Prediction of Brain Amyloidosis by Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40, Phosphorylated Tau, and Neurofilament Light

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether plasma biomarkers of amyloid (Aβ42/Aβ40), tau (p-tau181 and p-tau231) and neuroaxonal injury (neurofilament light chain [NfL]) detect brain amyloidosis consistently across racial groups. METHODS: Individuals enrolled in studies of memory and aging who self-identified as African American (AA) were matched 1:1 to self-identified non-Hispanic White (NHW) individuals by age, APOE ε4 carrier status and cognitive status. Each participant underwent blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) collection, and amyloid PET was performed in 103 participants (68%). Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 was measured by a high-performance immunoprecipitation-mass spectrometry assay. Plasma p-tau181, p-tau231, and NfL were measured by Simoa immunoassays. CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 and amyloid PET status were used as primary and secondary reference standards of brain amyloidosis, respectively. RESULTS: There were 76 matched pairs of AA and NHW participants (n=152 total). For both AA and NHW groups, the median age was 68.4 years, 42% were APOE ε4 carriers and 91% were cognitively normal. AA were less likely than NHW to have brain amyloidosis by CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 (22% versus 43% positive, p = 0.003). The Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curve (ROC AUC) of CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 status with the plasma biomarkers was as follows: Aβ42/Aβ40, 0.86 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.79-0.92); p-tau181, 0.76 (0.68-0.84); p-tau231, 0.69 (0.60-0.78); and NfL, 0.64 (0.55-0.73). In models predicting CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 status with plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 that included covariates (age, sex, APOE ε4 carrier status, race, and cognitive status), race did not affect the probability of CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 positivity. In similar models based on plasma p-tau181, p-tau231 or Nfl, AA had a lower probability of CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 positivity (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.31 [95% CI 0.13-0.73], OR 0.30 [0.13-0.71]) and OR 0.27 [0.12-0.64], respectively. Models of amyloid PET status yielded similar findings. CONCLUSIONS: Models predicting brain amyloidosis using a high performance plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 assay may provide an accurate and consistent measure of brain amyloidosis across AA and NHW groups, but models based on plasma p-tau181, p-tau231, and NfL may perform inconsistently and could result in disproportionate misdiagnosis of AA

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Bridging the technological divide: Stigmas and challenges with technology in clinical studies of older adults.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased adoption of remote assessments in clinical research. However, longstanding stereotypes persist regarding older adults’ technology familiarity and their willingness to participate in technology-enabled remote studies. We examined the validity of these stereotypes using a novel technology familiarity assessment (n = 342) and with a critical evaluation of participation factors from an intensive smartphone study of cognition in older adults (n = 445). The technology assessment revealed that older age was strongly associated with less technology familiarity, less frequent engagement with technology, and higher difficulty ratings. Despite this, the majority (86.5%) of older adults elected to participate in the smartphone study and showed exceptional adherence (85.7%). Furthermore, among those enrolled, neither technology familiarity, knowledge, perceived difficulty, nor gender, race, or education were associated with adherence. These results suggest that while older adults remain significantly less familiar with technology than younger generations, with thoughtful study planning that emphasizes participant support and user-centered design, they are willing and capable participants in technology-enabled studies. And once enrolled, they are remarkably adherent

Using Garden Cafés to engage community stakeholders in health research.

Science Cafés, informal venues to promote bidirectional dialog, inquiry and learning about science between community members, scientists, healthcare and service providers, hold promise as an innovative tool for healthcare researchers and community members to improve health outcomes, especially among populations with health disparities. However, the process of optimizing science cafés is under-studied. We describe the pilot evaluation of a series of Science Cafés, called Garden Cafés (n = 9), conducted from September 2015 through April 2016 in Olmsted County, MN and Duval County, FL to connect Mayo Clinic researchers and local service providers with the community. Selection of discussion topics was guided by a county health needs assessment, which identified community priorities. Before leaving the events, community participants completed a brief anonymous survey assessing sociodemographics and their knowledge of research benefits, readiness to participate as a partner in health research, and health and science literacy confidence. Of the 112 attendees who responded, 51% were female and 51% were Black. Respondents reported that participating in the event significantly improved (all at p<0.001) their understanding on all three measures. Preliminary findings suggest that Garden Cafés are an effective forum to increase community understanding and disposition to collaborate in health research, especially in members from diverse backgrounds

Support person interventions to increase use of quitline services among racially diverse low-income smokers: A pilot study

Introduction: Social support from nonsmokers may have a role in prompting smokers to use evidence-based cessation treatment. Prior studies found that an intervention for nonsmoking support persons (SPs) was effective for promoting smokers' use of free, state quitline services. This pilot study adapted and assessed feasibility of this intervention for a racially diverse, low-income population. Methods: Single group, non-randomized design enrolling SP-smoker dyads with low income status enrolled in one of three study “waves” of 10 pairs each. Participants were recruited using flyers and in-person outreach methods. The SP intervention included a 1-session coaching call and written materials; study waves 2 and 3 also included text messaging and a monetary incentive for smokers who used quitline services. Using content analysis, the intervention was iteratively adapted based on SP feedback. Baseline measures assessed socio-demographics, dyad and tobacco use characteristics. Follow-up assessments were conducted among SPs at 1-month follow-up and among smokers at 3-months follow-up. Feasibility indicators were recruitment, retention, and SP intervention acceptability and adherence. Secondary outcomes were smokers' use of any quitline service verified by quitline staff and 7-day, point prevalence, biochemically verified smoking abstinence at 3 months. Results: Recruitment of 30 dyads was feasible; in-person recruitment methods were the most successful. SPs who completed follow-up assessments found the intervention acceptable, suggesting only minor content modifications, and they perceived the quitline information as novel. But the study had some feasibility challenges (e.g., SP coaching call completion: 60% and SP study retention: 53%). At 3 months, 2 smokers (7%) had used any quitline service and 13% were biochemically confirmed smoking abstinent. Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrated feasibility of recruiting SP-smoker dyads from diverse, low-income communities. While the intervention was well received, its delivery was not feasible in this population. Results suggest that further consumer adaptation of the intervention is needed among both SPs and smokers. Keywords: Smoking, Social support, Low-income, Intervention, Treatmen