The Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioral ALS Screen (ECAS) in frontotemporal dementia

To examine the usefulness of the Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioral Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Screen (ECAS) as a cognitive screening tool for the detection of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD). A secondary aim was to determine whether people with FTD combined with ALS (ALS-FTD) exhibit a similar ECAS profile to that of people with bvFTD alone. Methods: Patients with ALS-FTD and bvFTD and healthy controls were recruited. Participants were administered the ECAS, which comprises tests of language, verbal fluency, executive functions, memory, and visual-spatial functions. They also carried out analogous, full-length cognitive tests that examine naming, spelling, sentence completion, and social cognition skills. Results: The study cohort comprised 20 ALS-FTD patients, 23 with bvFTD, and 30 controls. Highly significant group differences were elicited for all cognitive domains, reflecting poorer performance in patients compared to controls. No significant differences in overall test scores were found between ALS-FTD and bvFTD patients, although ALS-FTD patients showed a higher frequency of impairment on verbal fluency. Correlative analyses revealed inter-relationships in patients (but not controls) between scores in different domains, most marked in bvFTD. There were strong correlations between performance on ECAS subtests and analogous cognitive tasks. Conclusion: The ECAS is a sensitive and valuable tool for the assessment of FTD. Executive, language and behavioral breakdown may, however, compromise performance in other cognitive domains, reducing the specificity of the ‘frontotemporal’ cognitive profile. Subtle differences observed between ALS-FTD and bvFTD raise questions regarding the precise relationship between bvFTD with and without ALS

Baseline representativeness of patients in clinics enrolled in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial: comparison of trial and non-trial clinics in the same health systems

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic primary care trials aim to test interventions in real world health care settings, but clinics willing and able to participate in trials may not be representative of typical clinics. This analysis compared patients in participating and non-participating clinics from the same health systems at baseline in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial. METHODS: This observational analysis relied on secondary electronic health record and administrative claims data in 5 of 6 health systems in the PROUD trial. The sample included patients 16-90 years at an eligible primary care visit in the 3 years before randomization. Each system contributed 2 randomized PROUD trial clinics and 4 similarly sized non-trial clinics. We summarized patient characteristics in trial and non-trial clinics in the 2 years before randomization ( baseline ). Using mixed-effect regression models, we compared trial and non-trial clinics on a baseline measure of the primary trial outcome (clinic-level patient-years of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, scaled per 10,000 primary care patients seen) and a baseline measure of the secondary trial outcome (patient-level days of acute care utilization among patients with OUD). RESULTS: Patients were generally similar between the 10 trial clinics (n = 248,436) and 20 non-trial clinics (n = 341,130), although trial clinics\u27 patients were slightly younger, more likely to be Hispanic/Latinx, less likely to be white, more likely to have Medicaid/subsidized insurance, and lived in less wealthy neighborhoods. Baseline outcomes did not differ between trial and non-trial clinics: trial clinics had 1.0 more patient-year of OUD treatment per 10,000 patients (95% CI: - 2.9, 5.0) and a 4% higher rate of days of acute care utilization than non-trial clinics (rate ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.76, 1.42). CONCLUSIONS: trial clinics and non-trial clinics were similar regarding most measured patient characteristics, and no differences were observed in baseline measures of trial primary and secondary outcomes. These findings suggest trial clinics were representative of comparably sized clinics within the same health systems. Although results do not reflect generalizability more broadly, this study illustrates an approach to assess representativeness of clinics in future pragmatic primary care trials

Differential diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease using spectrochemical analysis of blood

The progressive aging of the world’s population makes a higher prevalence of neurodegenerative diseases inevitable. The necessity for an accurate, but at the same time, inexpensive and minimally invasive, diagnostic test is urgently required, not only to confirm the presence of the disease but also to discriminate between different types of dementia to provide the appropriate management and treatment. In this study, attenuated total reflection FTIR (ATR-FTIR) spectroscopy combined with chemometric techniques were used to analyze blood plasma samples from our cohort. Blood samples are easily collected by conventional venepuncture, permitting repeated measurements from the same individuals to monitor their progression throughout the years or evaluate any tested drugs. We included 549 individuals: 347 with various neurodegenerative diseases and 202 age-matched healthy individuals. Alzheimer’s disease (AD; n = 164) was identified with 70% sensitivity and specificity, which after the incorporation of apolipoprotein ε4 genotype (APOE ε4) information, increased to 86% when individuals carried one or two alleles of ε4, and to 72% sensitivity and 77% specificity when individuals did not carry ε4 alleles. Early AD cases (n = 14) were identified with 80% sensitivity and 74% specificity. Segregation of AD from dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB; n = 34) was achieved with 90% sensitivity and specificity. Other neurodegenerative diseases, such as frontotemporal dementia (FTD; n = 30), Parkinson’s disease (PD; n = 32), and progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP; n = 31), were included in our cohort for diagnostic purposes. Our method allows for both rapid and robust diagnosis of neurodegeneration and segregation between different dementias

PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial protocol: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized implementation trial in primary care for opioid use disorder treatment

BACKGROUND: Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here. METHODS: PROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16-90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be \u3e 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims ( electronic health records, [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization. DISCUSSION: The PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings

Genome-wide analyses reveal a potential role for the MAPT, MOBP, and APOE loci in sporadic frontotemporal dementia

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is the second most common cause of early-onset dementia after Alzheimer disease (AD). Efforts in the field mainly focus on familial forms of disease (fFTDs), while studies of the genetic etiology of sporadic FTD (sFTD) have been less common. In the current work, we analyzed 4,685 sFTD cases and 15,308 controls looking for common genetic determinants for sFTD. We found a cluster of variants at the MAPT (rs199443; p = 2.5 × 10−12, OR = 1.27) and APOE (rs6857; p = 1.31 × 10−12, OR = 1.27) loci and a candidate locus on chromosome 3 (rs1009966; p = 2.41 × 10−8, OR = 1.16) in the intergenic region between RPSA and MOBP, contributing to increased risk for sFTD through effects on expression and/or splicing in brain cortex of functionally relevant in-cis genes at the MAPT and RPSA-MOBP loci. The association with the MAPT (H1c clade) and RPSA-MOBP loci may suggest common genetic pleiotropy across FTD and progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) (MAPT and RPSA-MOBP loci) and across FTD, AD, Parkinson disease (PD), and cortico-basal degeneration (CBD) (MAPT locus). Our data also suggest population specificity of the risk signals, with MAPT and APOE loci associations mainly driven by Central/Nordic and Mediterranean Europeans, respectively. This study lays the foundations for future work aimed at further characterizing population-specific features of potential FTD-discriminant APOE haplotype(s) and the functional involvement and contribution of the MAPT H1c haplotype and RPSA-MOBP loci to pathogenesis of sporadic forms of FTD in brain cortex

Genome-wide analyses reveal a potential role for the MAPT, MOBP, and APOE loci in sporadic frontotemporal dementia

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is the second most common cause of early-onset dementia after Alzheimer disease (AD). Efforts in the field mainly focus on familial forms of disease (fFTDs), while studies of the genetic etiology of sporadic FTD (sFTD) have been less common. In the current work, we analyzed 4,685 sFTD cases and 15,308 controls looking for common genetic determinants for sFTD. We found a cluster of variants at the MAPT (rs199443; p = 2.5 × 10−12, OR = 1.27) and APOE (rs6857; p = 1.31 × 10−12, OR = 1.27) loci and a candidate locus on chromosome 3 (rs1009966; p = 2.41 × 10−8, OR = 1.16) in the intergenic region between RPSA and MOBP, contributing to increased risk for sFTD through effects on expression and/or splicing in brain cortex of functionally relevant in-cis genes at the MAPT and RPSA-MOBP loci. The association with the MAPT (H1c clade) and RPSA-MOBP loci may suggest common genetic pleiotropy across FTD and progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) (MAPT and RPSA-MOBP loci) and across FTD, AD, Parkinson disease (PD), and cortico-basal degeneration (CBD) (MAPT locus). Our data also suggest population specificity of the risk signals, with MAPT and APOE loci associations mainly driven by Central/Nordic and Mediterranean Europeans, respectively. This study lays the foundations for future work aimed at further characterizing population-specific features of potential FTD-discriminant APOE haplotype(s) and the functional involvement and contribution of the MAPT H1c haplotype and RPSA-MOBP loci to pathogenesis of sporadic forms of FTD in brain cortex

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations

Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

Introduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p<0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p<0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p<0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP >5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification