Patient Priorities-Aligned Care For Older adults With Multiple Conditions: a Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

IMPORTANCE: Older adults with multiple conditions receive health care that may be burdensome, of uncertain benefit, and not focused on what matters to them. Identifying and aligning care with patients\u27 health priorities may improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: to assess the association of receiving patient priorities care (PPC) vs usual care (UC) with relevant clinical outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this nonrandomized controlled trial with propensity adjustment, enrollment occurred between August 21, 2020, and May 14, 2021, with follow-up continuing through February 26, 2022. Patients who were aged 65 years or older and with 3 or more chronic conditions were enrolled at 1 PPC and 1 UC site within the Cleveland Clinic primary care multisite practice. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to August 2023. INTERVENTION: Health professionals at the PPC site guided patients through identification of values, health outcome goals, health care preferences, and top priority (ie, health problem they most wanted to focus on because it impeded their health outcome goal). Primary clinicians followed PPC decisional strategies (eg, use patients\u27 health priorities as focus of communication and decision-making) to decide with patients what care to stop, start, or continue. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Main outcomes included perceived treatment burden, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) social roles and activities, CollaboRATE survey scores, the number of nonhealthy days (based on healthy days at home), and shared prescribing decision quality measures. Follow-up was at 9 months for patient-reported outcomes and 365 days for nonhealthy days. RESULTS: A total of 264 individuals participated, 129 in the PPC group (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [6.1] years; 66 women [48.9%]) and 135 in the UC group (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [6.5] years; 55 women [42.6%]). Characteristics between sites were balanced after propensity score weighting. At follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in perceived treatment burden score between groups in multivariate models (difference, -5.2 points; 95% CI, -10.9 to -0.50 points; P = .07). PPC participants were almost 2.5 times more likely than UC participants to endorse shared prescribing decision-making (adjusted odds ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 0.90 to 6.40; P = .07), and participants in the PPC group experienced 4.6 fewer nonhealthy days (95% CI, -12.9 to -3.6 days; P = .27) compared with the UC participants. These differences were not statistically significant. CollaboRATE and PROMIS Social Roles and Activities scores were similar in the 2 groups at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This nonrandomized trial of priorities-aligned care showed no benefit for social roles or CollaboRATE. While the findings for perceived treatment burden and shared prescribing decision-making were not statistically significant, point estimates for the findings suggested that PPC may hold promise for improving these outcomes. Randomized trials with larger samples are needed to determine the effectiveness of priorities-aligned care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04510948

Validation of lay‐administered mental health assessments in a large Army National Guard cohort

To report the reliability and validity of key mental health assessments in an ongoing study of the Ohio Army National Guard (OHARNG). The 2616 OHARNG soldiers received hour‐long structured telephone surveys including the post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) checklist (PCV‐C) and Patient Health Questionnaire – 9 (PHQ‐9). A subset ( N  = 500) participated in two hour clinical reappraisals, using the Clinician‐Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID). The telephone survey assessment for PTSD and for any depressive disorder were both highly specific [92% (standard error, SE 0.01), 83% (SE 0.02)] with moderate sensitivity [54% (SE 0.09), 51% (SE 0.05)]. Other psychopathologies assessed included alcohol abuse [sensitivity 40%, (SE 0.04) and specificity 80% (SE 0.02)] and alcohol dependence [sensitivity, 60% (SE 0.05) and specificity 81% (SE 0.02)].The baseline prevalence estimates from the telephone study suggest alcohol abuse and dependence may be higher in this sample than the general population. Validity and reliability statistics suggest specific, but moderately sensitive instruments. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd .Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106694/1/mpr1416.pd

The association between lithium use and neurocognitive performance in patients with bipolar disorder

Lithium remains the gold standard for the treatment of bipolar disorder (BD); however, its use has declined over the years mainly due to the side effects and the subjective experience of cognitive numbness reported by patients. In the present study, we aim to methodically test the effects of lithium on neurocognitive functioning in the largest single cohort (n = 262) of BD patients reported to date by harnessing the power of a multi-site, ongoing clinical trial of lithium monotherapy. At the cross-sectional level, multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted to examine potential group differences across neurocognitive tests [California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT trials 1–5,CVLT delayed recall), Wechsler Digit Symbol, Trail-making Test parts A and B (TMT-A; TMT-B), and a global cognition index]. At the longitudinal level, on a subset of patients (n = 88) who achieved mood stabilization with lithium monotherapy, we explored the effect of lithium treatment across time on neurocognitive functioning. There were no differences at baseline between BD patients that were taking lithium compared with those that were not. At follow-up a significant neurocognitive improvement in the global cognitive index score [F = 31.69; p < 0.001], CVLT trials 1–5 [F = 29.81; p < 0.001], CVLT delayed recall [F = 15.27; p < 0.001], and TMT-B [F = 6.64, p = 0.012] was detected. The cross-sectional and longitudinal (on a subset of 88 patients) investigations suggest that lithium may be beneficial to neurocognitive functioning in patients with BD and that at the very least it does not seem to significantly impair cognition when used therapeutically.acceptedVersio

Focal adhesion is associated with lithium response in bipolar disorder: evidence from a network-based multi-omics analysis

Lithium (Li) is one of the most effective drugs for treating bipolar disorder (BD), however, there is presently no way to predict response to guide treatment. The aim of this study is to identify functional genes and pathways that distinguish BD Li responders (LR) from BD Li non-responders (NR). An initial Pharmacogenomics of Bipolar Disorder study (PGBD) GWAS of lithium response did not provide any significant results. As a result, we then employed network-based integrative analysis of transcriptomic and genomic data. In transcriptomic study of iPSC-derived neurons, 41 significantly differentially expressed (DE) genes were identified in LR vs NR regardless of lithium exposure. In the PGBD, post-GWAS gene prioritization using the GWA-boosting (GWAB) approach identified 1119 candidate genes. Following DE-derived network propagation, there was a highly significant overlap of genes between the top 500- and top 2000-proximal gene networks and the GWAB gene list (Phypergeometric = 1.28E–09 and 4.10E–18, respectively). Functional enrichment analyses of the top 500 proximal network genes identified focal adhesion and the extracellular matrix (ECM) as the most significant functions. Our findings suggest that the difference between LR and NR was a much greater effect than that of lithium. The direct impact of dysregulation of focal adhesion on axon guidance and neuronal circuits could underpin mechanisms of response to lithium, as well as underlying BD. It also highlights the power of integrative multi-omics analysis of transcriptomic and genomic profiling to gain molecular insights into lithium response in BD.publishedVersio

Network-based integrative analysis of lithium response in bipolar disorder using transcriptomic and GWAS data

Abstract Lithium (Li) is one of the most effective drugs for treating bipolar disorder (BD), however, there is presently no way to predict response to guide treatment. The aim of this study is to identify functional genes and pathways that distinguish BD Li responders (LR) from BD Li non-responders (NR). An initial Pharmacogenomics of Bipolar Disorder study (PGBD) GWAS of lithium response did not provide any significant results. As a result, we then employed network-based integrative analysis of transcriptomic and genomic data. In transcriptomic study of iPSC-derived neurons, 41 significantly differentially expressed (DE) genes were identified in LR vs NR regardless of lithium exposure. In the PGBD, post-GWAS gene prioritization using the GWA- boosting (GWAB) approach identified 1119 candidate genes. Following DE-derived network propagation, there was a highly significant overlap of genes between the top 500- and top 2000-proximal gene networks and the GWAB gene list ( P hypergeometric =1.28E- 09 and 4.10E-18, respectively). Functional enrichment analyses of the top 500 proximal network genes identified focal adhesion and the extracellular matrix (ECM) as the most significant functions. Our findings suggest that the difference between LR and NR was a much greater effect than that of lithium. The direct impact of dysregulation of focal adhesion on axon guidance and neuronal circuits could underpin mechanisms of response to lithium, as well as underlying BD. It also highlights the power of integrative multi-omics analysis of transcriptomic and genomic profiling to gain molecular insights into lithium response in BD

The association between lithium use and neurocognitive performance in patients with bipolar disorder

Lithium remains the gold standard for the treatment of bipolar disorder (BD); however, its use has declined over the years mainly due to the side effects and the subjective experience of cognitive numbness reported by patients. In the present study, we aim to methodically test the effects of lithium on neurocognitive functioning in the largest single cohort (n = 262) of BD patients reported to date by harnessing the power of a multi-site, ongoing clinical trial of lithium monotherapy. At the cross-sectional level, multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted to examine potential group differences across neurocognitive tests [California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT trials 1–5,CVLT delayed recall), Wechsler Digit Symbol, Trail-making Test parts A and B (TMT-A; TMT-B), and a global cognition index]. At the longitudinal level, on a subset of patients (n = 88) who achieved mood stabilization with lithium monotherapy, we explored the effect of lithium treatment across time on neurocognitive functioning. There were no differences at baseline between BD patients that were taking lithium compared with those that were not. At follow-up a significant neurocognitive improvement in the global cognitive index score [F = 31.69; p < 0.001], CVLT trials 1–5 [F = 29.81; p < 0.001], CVLT delayed recall [F = 15.27; p < 0.001], and TMT-B [F = 6.64, p = 0.012] was detected. The cross-sectional and longitudinal (on a subset of 88 patients) investigations suggest that lithium may be beneficial to neurocognitive functioning in patients with BD and that at the very least it does not seem to significantly impair cognition when used therapeutically