Development of a portfolio of learning for postgraduate family medicine training in South Africa: a Delphi study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Within the 52 health districts in South Africa, the family physician is seen as the clinical leader within a multi-professional district health team. Family physicians must be competent to meet 90% of the health needs of the communities in their districts. The eight university departments of Family Medicine have identified five unit standards, broken down into 85 training outcomes, for postgraduate training. The family medicine registrar must prove at the end of training that all the required training outcomes have been attained. District health managers must be assured that the family physician is competent to deliver the expected service. The Colleges of Medicine of South Africa (CMSA) require a portfolio to be submitted as part of the uniform assessment of all registrars applying to write the national fellowship examinations. This study aimed to achieve a consensus on the contents and principles of the first national portfolio for use in family medicine training in South Africa.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A workshop held at the WONCA Africa Regional Conference in 2009 explored the purpose and broad contents of the portfolio. The 85 training outcomes, ideas from the WONCA workshop, the literature, and existing portfolios in the various universities were used to develop a questionnaire that was tested for content validity by a panel of 31 experts in family medicine in South Africa, via the Delphi technique in four rounds. Eighty five content items (national learning outcomes) and 27 principles were tested. Consensus was defined as 70% agreement. For those items that the panel thought should be included, they were also asked how to provide evidence for the specific item in the portfolio, and how to assess that evidence.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Consensus was reached on 61 of the 85 national learning outcomes. The panel recommended that 50 be assessed by the portfolio and 11 should not be. No consensus could be reached on the remaining 24 outcomes and these were also omitted from the portfolio. The panel recommended that various types of evidence be included in the portfolio. The panel supported 26 of the 27 principles, but could not reach consensus on whether the portfolio should reflect on the relationship between the supervisor and registrar.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A portfolio was developed and distributed to the eight departments of Family Medicine in South Africa, and the CMSA, to be further tested in implementation.</p

Is using the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in a community sample the optimal way to assess mental health functioning?

An important characteristic of a screening tool is its discriminant ability or the measure’s accuracy to distinguish between those with and without mental health problems. The current study examined the inter-rater agreement and screening concordance of the parent and teacher versions of SDQ at scale, subscale and item-levels, with the view of identifying the items that have the most informant discrepancies; and determining whether the concordance between parent and teacher reports on some items has the potential to influence decision making. Cross-sectional data from parent and teacher reports of the mental health functioning of a community sample of 299 students with and without disabilities from 75 different primary schools in Perth, Western Australia were analysed. The study found that: a) Intraclass correlations between parent and teacher ratings of children’s mental health using the SDQ at person level was fair on individual child level; b) The SDQ only demonstrated clinical utility when there was agreement between teacher and parent reports using the possible or 90% dichotomisation system; and c) Three individual items had positive likelihood ratio scores indicating clinical utility. Of note was the finding that the negative likelihood ratio or likelihood of disregarding the absence of a condition when both parents and teachers rate the item as absent was not significant. Taken together, these findings suggest that the SDQ is not optimised for use in community samples and that further psychometric evaluation of the SDQ in this context is clearly warranted

Towards tailored teaching: using participatory action research to enhance the learning experience of Longitudinal Integrated Clerkship students in a South African rural district hospital

Background: The introduction of Stellenbosch University’s Longitudinal Integrated Clerkship (LIC) model as part of the undergraduate medical curriculum offers a unique and exciting training model to develop generalist doctors for the changing South African health landscape. At one of these LIC sites, the need for an improvement of the local learning experience became evident. This paper explores how to identify and implement a tailored teaching and learning intervention to improve workplace-based learning for LIC students. Methods: A participatory action research approach was used in a co-operative inquiry group (ten participants), consisting of the students, clinician educators and researchers, who met over a period of 5 months. Through a cyclical process of action and reflection this group identified a teaching intervention. Results: The results demonstrate the gaps and challenges identified when implementing a LIC model of medical education. A structured learning programme for the final 6 weeks of the students’ placement at the district hospital was designed by the co-operative inquiry group as an agreed intervention. The post-intervention group reflection highlighted a need to create a structured programme in the spirit of local collaboration and learning across disciplines. The results also enhance our understanding of both students and clinician educators’ perceptions of this new model of workplace-based training. Conclusions: This paper provides practical strategies to enhance teaching and learning in a new educational context. These strategies illuminate three paradigm shifts: (1) from the traditional medical education approach towards a transformative learning approach advocated for the 21st century health professional; (2) from the teaching hospital context to the district hospital context; and (3) from block-based teaching towards a longitudinal integrated learning model. A programme based on balancing structured and tailored learning activities is recommended in order to address the local learning needs of students in the LIC model. We recommend that action learning sets should be developed at these LIC sites, where the relevant aspects of work-place based learning are negotiated

Clinician-rated mental health in outpatient child and adolescent mental health services: associations with parent, teacher and adolescent ratings

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinician-rated measures are used extensively in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for Children and Adolescents (HoNOSCA) is a short clinician-rated measure developed for ordinary clinical practice, with increasing use internationally. Several studies have investigated its psychometric properties, but there are few data on its correspondence with other methods, rated by other informants. We compared the HoNOSCA with the well-established Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA) questionnaires: the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), the Teacher's Report Form (TRF), and the Youth Self-Report (YSR).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data on 153 patients aged 6-17 years at seven outpatient CAMHS clinics in Norway were analysed. Clinicians completed the HoNOSCA, whereas parents, teachers, and adolescents filled in the ASEBA forms. HoNOSCA <it>total score </it>and nine of its scales were compared with similar ASEBA scales. With a multiple regression model, we investigated how the ASEBA ratings predicted the clinician-rated HoNOSCA and whether the different informants' scores made any unique contribution to the prediction of the HoNOSCA scales.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found moderate correlations between the total problems rated by the clinicians (HoNOSCA) and by the other informants (ASEBA) and good correspondence between eight of the nine HoNOSCA scales and the similar ASEBA scales. The exception was HoNOSCA scale 8 <it>psychosomatic symptoms </it>compared with the ASEBA s<it>omatic problems </it>scale. In the regression analyses, the CBCL and TRF <it>total problems </it>scores together explained 27% of the variance in the HoNOSCA <it>total scores </it>(23% for the age group 11-17 years, also including the YSR). The CBCL provided unique information for the prediction of the HoNOSCA <it>total score</it>, HoNOSCA scale 1 <it>aggressive behaviour</it>, HoNOSCA scale 2 <it>overactivity or attention problems</it>, HoNOSCA scale 9 <it>emotional symptoms</it>, and HoNOSCA scale 10 <it>peer problems; </it>the TRF for all these except HoNOSCA scale 9 <it>emotional symptoms; </it>and the YSR for HoNOSCA scale 9 <it>emotional symptoms </it>only.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study supports the concurrent validity of the HoNOSCA. It also demonstrates that parents, teachers and adolescents all contribute unique information in relation to the clinician-rated HoNOSCA, indicating that the HoNOSCA ratings reflect unique perspectives from multiple informants.</p

A statistical framework for cross-tissue transcriptome-wide association analysis

Transcriptome-wide association analysis is a powerful approach to studying the genetic architecture of complex traits. A key component of this approach is to build a model to impute gene expression levels from genotypes by using samples with matched genotypes and gene expression data in a given tissue. However, it is challenging to develop robust and accurate imputation models with a limited sample size for any single tissue. Here, we first introduce a multi-task learning method to jointly impute gene expression in 44 human tissues. Compared with single-tissue methods, our approach achieved an average of 39% improvement in imputation accuracy and generated effective imputation models for an average of 120% more genes. We describe a summary-statistic-based testing framework that combines multiple single-tissue associations into a powerful metric to quantify the overall gene–trait association. We applied our method, called UTMOST (unified test for molecular signatures), to multiple genome-wide-association results and demonstrate its advantages over single-tissue strategies

Meta-analysis of genetic association with diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease identifies novel risk loci and implicates Abeta, Tau, immunity and lipid processing

Introduction Late-onset Alzheimer’s disease (LOAD, onset age > 60 years) is the most prevalent dementia in the elderly 1 , and risk is partially driven by genetics 2 . Many of the loci responsible for this genetic risk were identified by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) 3–8 . To identify additional LOAD risk loci, the we performed the largest GWAS to date (89,769 individuals), analyzing both common and rare variants. We confirm 20 previous LOAD risk loci and identify four new genome-wide loci ( IQCK , ACE , ADAM10 , and ADAMTS1 ). Pathway analysis of these data implicates the immune system and lipid metabolism, and for the first time tau binding proteins and APP metabolism. These findings show that genetic variants affecting APP and Aβ processing are not only associated with early-onset autosomal dominant AD but also with LOAD. Analysis of AD risk genes and pathways show enrichment for rare variants ( P = 1.32 × 10 −7 ) indicating that additional rare variants remain to be identified.ADGC. The National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging (NIH-NIA) supported this work through the following grants: ADGC, U01 AG032984, RC2 AG036528; Samples from the National Cell Repository for Alzheimer’s Disease (NCRAD), which receives government support under a cooperative agreement grant (U24 AG21886) awarded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), were used in this study. We thank contributors who collected samples used in this study, as well as patients and their families, whose help and participation made this work possible; Data for this study were prepared, archived, and distributed by the National Institute on Aging Alzheimer’s Disease Data Storage Site (NIAGADS) at the University of Pennsylvania (U24-AG041689-01); NACC, U01 AG016976; NIA LOAD (Columbia University), U24 AG026395, U24 AG026390, R01AG041797; Banner Sun Health Research Institute P30 AG019610; Boston University, P30 AG013846, U01 AG10483, R01 CA129769, R01 MH080295, R01 AG017173, R01 AG025259, R01 AG048927, R01AG33193, R01 AG009029; Columbia University, P50 AG008702, R37 AG015473, R01 AG037212, R01 AG028786; Duke University, P30 AG028377, AG05128; Emory University, AG025688; Group Health Research Institute, UO1 AG006781, UO1 HG004610, UO1 HG006375, U01 HG008657; Indiana University, P30 AG10133, R01 AG009956, RC2 AG036650; Johns Hopkins University, P50 AG005146, R01 AG020688; Massachusetts General Hospital, P50 AG005134; Mayo Clinic, P50 AG016574, R01 AG032990, KL2 RR024151; Mount Sinai School of Medicine, P50 AG005138, P01 AG002219; New York University, P30 AG08051, UL1 RR029893, 5R01AG012101, 5R01AG022374, 5R01AG013616, 1RC2AG036502, 1R01AG035137; North Carolina A&T University, P20 MD000546, R01 AG28786-01A1; Northwestern University, P30 AG013854; Oregon Health & Science University, P30 AG008017, R01 AG026916; Rush University, P30 AG010161, R01 AG019085, R01 AG15819, R01 AG17917, R01 AG030146, R01 AG01101, RC2 AG036650, R01 AG22018; TGen, R01 NS059873; University of Alabama at Birmingham, P50 AG016582; University of Arizona, R01 AG031581; University of California, Davis, P30 AG010129; University of California, Irvine, P50 AG016573; University of California, Los Angeles, P50 AG016570; University of California, San Diego, P50 AG005131; University of California, San Francisco, P50 AG023501, P01 AG019724; University of Kentucky, P30 AG028383, AG05144; University of Michigan, P50 AG008671; University of Pennsylvania, P30 AG010124; University of Pittsburgh, P50 AG005133, AG030653, AG041718, AG07562, AG02365; University of Southern California, P50 AG005142; University of Texas Southwestern, P30 AG012300; University of Miami, R01 AG027944, AG010491, AG027944, AG021547, AG019757; University of Washington, P50 AG005136, R01 AG042437; University of Wisconsin, P50 AG033514; Vanderbilt University, R01 AG019085; and Washington University, P50 AG005681, P01 AG03991, P01 AG026276. The Kathleen Price Bryan Brain Bank at Duke University Medical Center is funded by NINDS grant # NS39764, NIMH MH60451 and by Glaxo Smith Kline. Support was also from the Alzheimer’s Association (LAF, IIRG-08-89720; MP-V, IIRG-05-14147), the US Department of Veterans Affairs Administration, Office of Research and Development, Biomedical Laboratory Research Program, and BrightFocus Foundation (MP-V, A2111048). P.S.G.-H. is supported by Wellcome Trust, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Genotyping of the TGEN2 cohort was supported by Kronos Science. The TGen series was also funded by NIA grant AG041232 to AJM and MJH, The Banner Alzheimer’s Foundation, The Johnnie B. Byrd Sr. Alzheimer’s Institute, the Medical Research Council, and the state of Arizona and also includes samples from the following sites: Newcastle Brain Tissue Resource (funding via the Medical Research Council, local NHS trusts and Newcastle University), MRC London Brain Bank for Neurodegenerative Diseases (funding via the Medical Research Council),South West Dementia Brain Bank (funding via numerous sources including the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), Alzheimer’s Research Trust (ART), BRACE as well as North Bristol NHS Trust Research and Innovation Department and DeNDRoN), The Netherlands Brain Bank (funding via numerous sources including Stichting MS Research, Brain Net Europe, Hersenstichting Nederland Breinbrekend Werk, International Parkinson Fonds, Internationale Stiching Alzheimer Onderzoek), Institut de Neuropatologia, Servei Anatomia Patologica, Universitat de Barcelona. ADNI data collection and sharing was funded by the National Institutes of Health Grant U01 AG024904 and Department of Defense award number W81XWH-12-2-0012. ADNI is funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and through generous contributions from the following: AbbVie, Alzheimer’s Association; Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation; Araclon Biotech; BioClinica, Inc.; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; CereSpir, Inc.; Eisai Inc.; Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; EuroImmun; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and its affiliated company Genentech, Inc.; Fujirebio; GE Healthcare; IXICO Ltd.; Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development, LLC.; Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC.; Lumosity; Lundbeck; Merck & Co., Inc.; Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC.; NeuroRx Research; Neurotrack Technologies; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer Inc.; Piramal Imaging; Servier; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company; and Transition Therapeutics. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is providing funds to support ADNI clinical sites in Canada. Private sector contributions are facilitated by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (www.fnih.org). The grantee organization is the Northern California Institute for Research and Education, and the study is coordinated by the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study at the University of California, San Diego. ADNI data are disseminated by the Laboratory for Neuro Imaging at the University of Southern California. We thank Drs. D. Stephen Snyder and Marilyn Miller from NIA who are ex-officio ADGC members. EADI. This work has been developed and supported by the LABEX (laboratory of excellence program investment for the future) DISTALZ grant (Development of Innovative Strategies for a Transdisciplinary approach to ALZheimer’s disease) including funding from MEL (Metropole européenne de Lille), ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) and Conseil Régional Nord Pas de Calais. This work was supported by INSERM, the National Foundation for Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders, the Institut Pasteur de Lille and the Centre National de Génotypage, the JPND PERADES, GENMED, and the FP7 AgedBrainSysBio. The Three-City Study was performed as part of collaboration between the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (Inserm), the Victor Segalen Bordeaux II University and Sanofi- Synthélabo. The Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale funded the preparation and initiation of the study. The 3C Study was also funded by the Caisse Nationale Maladie des Travailleurs Salariés, Direction Générale de la Santé, MGEN, Institut de la Longévité, Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé, the Aquitaine and Bourgogne Regional Councils, Agence Nationale de la Recherche, ANR supported the COGINUT and COVADIS projects. Fondation de France and the joint French Ministry of Research/INSERM “Cohortes et collections de données biologiques” programme. Lille Génopôle received an unconditional grant from Eisai. The Three-city biological bank was developed and maintained by the laboratory for genomic analysis LAG-BRC - Institut Pasteur de Lille. This work was further supported by the CoSTREAM project (http://www.costream.eu/) and funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement 667375. Belgium samples: Research at the Antwerp site is funded in part by the Belgian Science Policy Office Interuniversity Attraction Poles program, the Belgian Alzheimer Research Foundation, the Flemish government-initiated Flanders Impulse Program on Networks for Dementia Research (VIND) and the Methusalem excellence program, the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), and the University of Antwerp Research Fund, Belgium. The Antwerp site authors thank the personnel of the VIB Neuromics Support Facility, the Biobank of the Institute Born-Bunge and neurology departments at the contributing hospitals. The authors acknowledge the members of the BELNEU consortium for their contributions to the clinical and pathological characterization of Belgium patients and the personnel of the Diagnostic Service Facility for the genetic testing. Finish sample collection: Financial support for this project was provided by Academy of Finland (grant number 307866), Sigrid Jusélius Foundation and the Strategic Neuroscience Funding of the University of Eastern Finland. Swedish sample collection: Financially supported in part by the Swedish Brain Power network, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council (521-2010-3134, 2015-02926), the King Gustaf V and Queen Victoria’s Foundation of Freemasons, the Regional Agreement on Medical Training and Clinical Research (ALF) between Stockholm County Council and the Karolinska Institutet, the Swedish Brain Foundation and the Swedish Alzheimer Foundation”. CHARGE. Infrastructure for the CHARGE Consortium is supported in part by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant HL105756 (Psaty) and RC2HL102419 (Boerwinkle) and the neurology working group by grants from the National Institute on Aging, R01 AG033193, U01 AG049505 and U01AG52409. Rotterdam (RS). This study was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW) as part of the Joint Programming for Neurological Disease (JPND)as part of the PERADES Program (Defining Genetic Polygenic, and Environmental Risk for Alzheimer’s disease using multiple powerful cohorts, focused Epigenetics and Stem cell metabolomics), Project number 733051021. This work was funded also by the European Union Innovative Medicine Initiative (IMI) programme under grant agreement No. 115975 as part of the Alzheimer’s Disease Apolipoprotein Pathology for Treatment Elucidation and Development (ADAPTED, https://www.imi-adapted.eu);and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme as part of the Common mechanisms and pathways in Stroke and Alzheimer’s disease CoSTREAM project (www.costream.eu, grant agreement No. 667375). The current study is supported by the Deltaplan Dementie and Memorabel supported by ZonMW (Project number 733050814) and Alzheimer Nederland. The Rotterdam Study is funded by Erasmus Medical Center and Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands Organization for the Health Research and Development (ZonMw), the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly (RIDE), the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sports, the European Commission (DG XII), and the Municipality of Rotterdam. The authors are grateful to the study participants, the staff from the Rotterdam Study and the participating general practitioners and pharmacists. The generation and management of GWAS genotype data for the Rotterdam Study (RS-I, RS-II, RS-III) was executed by the Human Genotyping Facility of the Genetic Laboratory of the Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. The GWAS datasets are supported by the Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research NWO Investments (Project number 175.010.2005.011, 911-03-012), the Genetic Laboratory of the Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly (014-93-015; RIDE2), the Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI)/Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) Netherlands Consortium for Healthy Aging (NCHA), project number 050-060-810. We thank Pascal Arp, Mila Jhamai, Marijn Verkerk, Lizbeth Herrera and Marjolein Peters, MSc, and Carolina Medina-Gomez, MSc, for their help in creating the GWAS database, and Karol Estrada, PhD, Yurii Aulchenko, PhD, and Carolina Medina-Gomez, MSc, for the creation and analysis of imputed data. AGES. The AGES study has been funded by NIA contracts N01-AG-12100 and HHSN271201200022C with contributions from NEI, NIDCD, and NHLBI, the NIA Intramural Research Program, Hjartavernd (the Icelandic Heart Association), and the Althingi (the Icelandic Parliament). Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). This research was supported by contracts HHSN268201200036C, HHSN268200800007C, N01HC55222, N01HC85079, N01HC85080, N01HC85081, N01HC85082, N01HC85083, and N01HC85086 and grant U01HL080295 and U01HL130114 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), with additional contribution from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Additional support was provided by R01AG033193, R01AG023629, R01AG15928, and R01AG20098 and by U01AG049505 from the National Institute on Aging (NIA). The provision of genotyping data was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, CTSI grant UL1TR000124, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease Diabetes Research Center (DRC) grant DK063491 to the Southern California Diabetes Endocrinology Research Center. A full list of CHS principal investigators and institutions can be found at https://chs-nhlbi.org/. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the US National Institutes of Health. Framingham Heart Study. This work was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Framingham Heart Study (contracts N01-HC-25195 and HHSN268201500001I). This study was also supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging: R01AG033193, U01AG049505, U01AG52409, R01AG054076 (S. Seshadri). S. Seshadri and A.L.D. were also supported by additional grants from the National Institute on Aging (R01AG049607, R01AG033040) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01- NS017950, NS100605). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the US National Institutes of Health. GR@ACE cohort. Fundació ACE We would like to thank patients and controls who participated in this project. Genome Resesarch @ Fundació ACE project (GR@ACE) is supported by Fundación bancaria “La Caixa”, Grifols SA, Fundació ACE and ISCIII. We also want to thank other private sponsors supporting the basic and clinical projects of our institution (Piramal AG, Laboratorios Echevarne, Araclon Biotech S.A. and Fundació ACE). We are indebted to Trinitat Port-Carbó legacy and her family for their support of Fundació ACE research programs. Fundació ACE collaborates with the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobreEnfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED, Spain) and is one of the participating centers of the Dementia Genetics Spanish Consortium (DEGESCO). A.R. and M.B. are receiving support from the European Union/EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking ADAPTED and MOPEAD projects (Grants No. 115975 and 115985 respectively). M.B. and A.R. are also supported by national grants PI13/02434, PI16/01861 and PI17/01474. Acción Estratégica en Salud integrated in the Spanish National R + D + I Plan and funded by ISCIII (Instituto de Salud Carlos III)-Subdirección General de Evaluación and the Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER- “Una manera de Hacer Europa”). Control samples and data from patients included in this study were provided in part by the National DNA Bank Carlos III (www.bancoadn.org, University of Salamanca, Spain) and Hospital Universitario Virgen de Valme (Sevilla, Spain) and they were processed following standard operating procedures with the appropriate approval of the Ethical and Scientific Committee. GERAD/PERADES. We thank all individuals who participated in this study. Cardiff University was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Alzheimer’s Society (AS; grant RF014/164), the Medical Research Council (MRC; grants G0801418/1, MR/K013041/1, MR/L023784/1), the European Joint Programme for Neurodegenerative Disease (JPND, grant MR/L501517/1), Alzheimer’s Research UK (ARUK, grant ARUK-PG2014-1), Welsh Assembly Government (grant SGR544:CADR), a donation from the Moondance Charitable Foundation, and the UK Dementia Research Institute at Cardiff. Cambridge University acknowledges support from the MRC. ARUK supported sample collections at the Kings College London, the South West Dementia Bank, Universities of Cambridge, Nottingham, Manchester and Belfast. King’s College London was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health and Biomedical Research Unit for Dementia at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Kings College London and the MRC. Alzheimer’s Research UK (ARUK) and the Big Lottery Fund provided support to Nottingham University. Ulster Garden Villages, AS, ARUK, American Federation for Aging Research, NI R&D Office and the Royal College of Physicians/Dunhill Medical Trust provided support for Queen’s University, Belfast. The University of Southampton acknowledges support from the AS. The MRC and Mercer’s Institute for Research on Ageing supported the Trinity College group. DCR is a Wellcome Trust Principal Research fellow. The South West Dementia Brain Bank acknowledges support from Bristol Research into Alzheimer’s and Care of the Elderly. The Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust supported the OPTIMA group. Washington University was funded by NIH grants, Barnes Jewish Foundation and the Charles and Joanne Knight Alzheimer’s Research Initiative. Patient recruitment for the MRC Prion Unit/UCL Department of Neurodegenerative Disease collection was supported by the UCLH/UCL Biomed- ical Centre and their work was supported by the NIHR Queen Square Dementia BRU. LASER-AD was funded by Lundbeck SA. The Bonn group would like to thank Dr. Heike Koelsch for her scientific support. The Bonn group was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF): Competence Network Dementia (CND) grant number 01GI0102, 01GI0711, 01GI0420. The AgeCoDe study group was supported by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research grants 01 GI 0710, 01 GI 0712, 01 GI 0713, 01 GI 0714, 01 GI 0715, 01 GI 0716, 01 GI 0717. Genotyping of the Bonn case-control sample was funded by the German centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Germany. The GERAD Consortium also used samples ascertained by the NIMH AD Genetics Initiative. HH was supported by a grant of the Katharina-Hardt-Foundation, Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, Germany. The KORA F4 studies were financed by Helmholtz Zentrum München; German Research Center for Environmental Health; BMBF; German National Genome Research Network and the Munich Center of Health Sciences. The Heinz Nixdorf Recall cohort was funded by the Heinz Nixdorf Foundation (Dr. Jur. G.Schmidt, Chairman) and BMBF. Coriell Cell Repositories is supported by NINDS and the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Aging. We acknowledge use of genotype data from the 1958 Birth Cohort collection, funded by the MRC and the Wellcome Trust which was genotyped by the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium and the Type-1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International. The Bonn samples are part of the German Dementia Competance Network (DCN) and the German Research Network on Degenerative Dementia (KNDD), which are funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grants KND: 01G10102, 01GI0420, 01GI0422, 01GI0423, 01GI0429, 01GI0431, 01GI0433, 04GI0434; grants KNDD: 01GI1007A, 01GI0710, 01GI0711, 01GI0712, 01GI0713, 01GI0714, 01GI0715, 01GI0716, 01ET1006B). Markus M Nothen is a member of the German Research Foundation (DFG) cluster of excellence ImmunoSensation. Funding for Saarland University was provided by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), grant number 01GS08125 to Matthias Riemenschneider. The University of Washington was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (R01-NS085419 and R01-AG044546), the Alzheimer’s Association (NIRG-11-200110) and the American Federation for Aging Research (Carlos Cruchaga was recipient of a New Investigator Award in Alzhei

Pharmacology of MDMA- and Amphetamine-Like New Psychoactive Substances

New psychoactive substances (NPS) with amphetamine-, aminoindan-, and benzofuran basic chemical structures have recently emerged for recreational drug use. Detailed information about their psychotropic effects and health risks is often limited. At the same time, it emerged that the pharmacological profiles of these NPS resemble those of amphetamine or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). Amphetamine-like NPS induce psychostimulation and euphoria mediated predominantly by norepinephrine (NE) and dopamine (DA) transporter (NET and DAT) inhibition and transporter-mediated release of NE and DA, thus showing a more catecholamine-selective profile. MDMA-like NPS frequently induce well-being, empathy, and prosocial effects and have only moderate psychostimulant properties. These MDMA-like substances primarily act by inhibiting the serotonin (5-HT) transporter (SERT) and NET, also inducing 5-HT and NE release. Monoamine receptor interactions vary considerably among amphetamine- and MDMA-like NPS. Clinically, amphetamine- and MDMA-like NPS can induce sympathomimetic toxicity. The aim of this chapter is to review the state of knowledge regarding these substances with a focus on the description of the in vitro pharmacology of selected amphetamine- and MDMA-like NPS. In addition, it is aimed to provide links between pharmacological profiles and in vivo effects and toxicity, which leads to the conclusion that abuse liability for amphetamine-like NPS may be higher than for MDMA-like NPS, but that the risk for developing the life-threatening serotonin syndrome may be increased for MDMA-like NPS