Plasma proteome profiling identifies changes associated to AD but not to FTD

Background Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is caused by frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD), characterized mainly by inclusions of Tau (FTLD-Tau) or TAR DNA binding43 (FTLD-TDP) proteins. Plasma biomarkers are strongly needed for specific diagnosis and potential treatment monitoring of FTD. We aimed to identify specific FTD plasma biomarker profiles discriminating FTD from AD and controls, and between FTD pathological subtypes. In addition, we compared plasma results with results in post-mortem frontal cortex of FTD cases to understand the underlying process. Methods Plasma proteins (n = 1303) from pathologically and/or genetically confirmed FTD patients (n = 56; FTLD-Tau n = 16; age = 58.2 +/- 6.2; 44% female, FTLD-TDP n = 40; age = 59.8 +/- 7.9; 45% female), AD patients (n = 57; age = 65.5 +/- 8.0; 39% female), and non-demented controls (n = 148; 61.3 +/- 7.9; 41% female) were measured using an aptamer-based proteomic technology (SomaScan). In addition, exploratory analysis in post-mortem frontal brain cortex of FTD (n = 10; FTLD-Tau n = 5; age = 56.2 +/- 6.9, 60% female, and FTLD-TDP n = 5; age = 64.0 +/- 7.7, 60% female) and non-demented controls (n = 4; age = 61.3 +/- 8.1; 75% female) were also performed. Differentially regulated plasma and tissue proteins were identified by global testing adjusting for demographic variables and multiple testing. Logistic lasso regression was used to identify plasma protein panels discriminating FTD from non-demented controls and AD, or FTLD-Tau from FTLD-TDP. Performance of the discriminatory plasma protein panels was based on predictions obtained from bootstrapping with 1000 resampled analysis. Results Overall plasma protein expression profiles differed between FTD, AD and controls (6 proteins; p = 0.005), but none of the plasma proteins was specifically associated to FTD. The overall tissue protein expression profile differed between FTD and controls (7-proteins; p = 0.003). There was no difference in overall plasma or tissue expression profile between FTD subtypes. Regression analysis revealed a panel of 12-plasma proteins discriminating FTD from AD with high accuracy (AUC: 0.99). No plasma protein panels discriminating FTD from controls or FTD pathological subtypes were identified. Conclusions We identified a promising plasma protein panel as a minimally-invasive tool to aid in the differential diagnosis of FTD from AD, which was primarily associated to AD pathophysiology. The lack of plasma profiles specifically associated to FTD or its pathological subtypes might be explained by FTD heterogeneity, calling for FTD studies using large and well-characterize cohorts

Patients' functioning as predictor of nursing workload in acute hospital units providing rehabilitation care: a multi-centre cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Management decisions regarding quality and quantity of nurse staffing have important consequences for hospital budgets. Furthermore, these management decisions must address the nursing care requirements of the particular patients within an organizational unit. In order to determine optimal nurse staffing needs, the extent of nursing workload must first be known. Nursing workload is largely a function of the composite of the patients' individual health status, particularly with respect to functioning status, individual need for nursing care, and severity of symptoms. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the derived subsets, the so-called ICF Core Sets, are a standardized approach to describe patients' functioning status. The objectives of this study were to (1) examine the association between patients' functioning, as encoded by categories of the Acute ICF Core Sets, and nursing workload in patients in the acute care situation, (2) compare the variance in nursing workload explained by the ICF Core Set categories and with the Barthel Index, and (3) validate the Acute ICF Core Sets by their ability to predict nursing workload.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients' functioning at admission was assessed using the respective Acute ICF Core Set and the Barthel Index, whereas nursing workload data was collected using an established instrument. Associations between dependent and independent variables were modelled using linear regression. Variable selection was carried out using penalized regression.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In patients with neurological and cardiopulmonary conditions, selected ICF categories and the Barthel Index Score explained the same variance in nursing workload (44% in neurological conditions, 35% in cardiopulmonary conditions), whereas ICF was slightly superior to Barthel Index Score for musculoskeletal conditions (20% versus 16%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A substantial fraction of the variance in nursing workload in patients with rehabilitation needs in the acute hospital could be predicted by selected categories of the Acute ICF Core Sets, or by the Barthel Index score. Incorporating ICF Core Set-based data in nursing management decisions, particularly staffing decisions, may be beneficial.</p

Using Cognitive Pre-Testing Methods in the Development of a New Evidenced-Based Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instrument

Background: Variation in development methods of Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Instruments has led to inconsistent inclusion of risk factors and concerns about content validity. A new evidenced-based Risk Assessment Instrument, the Pressure Ulcer Risk Primary Or Secondary Evaluation Tool - PURPOSE-T was developed as part of a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) funded Pressure Ulcer Research Programme (PURPOSE: RP-PG-0407-10056). This paper reports the pre-test phase to assess and improve PURPOSE-T acceptability, usability and confirm content validity. Methods: A descriptive study incorporating cognitive pre-testing methods and integration of service user views was undertaken over 3 cycles comprising PURPOSE-T training, a focus group and one-to-one think-aloud interviews. Clinical nurses from 2 acute and 2 community NHS Trusts, were grouped according to job role. Focus group participants used 3 vignettes to complete PURPOSE-T assessments and then participated in the focus group. Think-aloud participants were interviewed during their completion of PURPOSE-T. After each pre-test cycle analysis was undertaken and adjustment/improvements made to PURPOSE-T in an iterative process. This incorporated the use of descriptive statistics for data completeness and decision rule compliance and directed content analysis for interview and focus group data. Data were collected April 2012-June 2012. Results: Thirty-four nurses participated in 3 pre-test cycles. Data from 3 focus groups, 12 think-aloud interviews incorporating 101 PURPOSE-T assessments led to changes to improve instrument content and design, flow and format, decision support and item-specific wording. Acceptability and usability were demonstrated by improved data completion and appropriate risk pathway allocation. The pre-test also confirmed content validity with clinical nurses. Conclusions: The pre-test was an important step in the development of the preliminary PURPOSE-T and the methods used may have wider instrument development application. PURPOSE-T proposes a new approach to pressure ulcer risk assessment, incorporating a screening stage, the inclusion of skin status to distinguish between those who require primary prevention and those who require secondary prevention/treatment and the use of colour to support pathway allocation and decision making. Further clinical evaluation is planned to assess the reliability and validity of PURPOSE-T and it’s impact on care processes and patient outcomes