Behavioral health coaching for rural-living older adults with diabetes and depression: an open pilot of the HOPE Study

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes are at increased risk for depression, compounding the burden of disease. When comorbid with diabetes, depression leads to poorer health outcomes and often complicates diabetes self-management. Unfortunately, treatment options for these complex patients are limited and comprehensive services are rarely available for patients in rural settings. METHODS: A small open trial was conducted to test the acceptability, feasibility and preliminary outcomes of a telephone-delivered coaching intervention for rural-dwelling older adults with uncontrolled diabetes and comorbid, clinically significant depressive symptoms. A total of eight older adults were enrolled in Healthy Outcomes through Patient Empowerment (HOPE), a 10-session (12-week), telephone-based coaching intervention. Primary study constructs included measures of diabetes control (Hemoglobin [Hb] A1c), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]), and diabetes-related distress (Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale [PAID]). Assessments were conducted at baseline, post-intervention, and 6-month follow-up. Acceptability and feasibility were evaluated using patient surveys, focused exit interviews, and session attendance data. RESULTS: Clinically significant improvements were realized post-intervention and at 6-month follow-up for outcomes related to diabetes and depression. Effect sizes using Cohen's d were determined post-intervention and at 6-month follow-up, respectively, for HbA1c (d=0.36; d=0.28), PHQ-9 (d=1.48; d=1.67, and PAID (d=1.50; d=1.06) scores. Among study participants, HbA1c improved from baseline by a mean (M) of 1.13 (SD=1.70) post-intervention and M=0.84 (SD=1.62) at 6 months. Depression scores, measured by the PHQ-9, improved from baseline by M=5.14 (SD=2.27) post-intervention and M=7.03 (SD=4.43) at 6-month follow-up. PAID scores also improved by M=17.68 (SD=10.7) post-intervention and M=20.42 (SD=20.66) from baseline to 6-month follow-up. Case examples are provided for additional context and to more fully articulate salient intervention concepts. CONCLUSION: Although preliminary, data from this small open trial suggest that HOPE holds the potential to improve both physical (diabetes) and emotional (diabetes distress, depression) health outcomes and that changes can be maintained over a 6-month time period. As envisioned by the authors, HOPE may function as an extension of traditional primary care for rural-dwelling older adults with multiple comorbidities. A future randomized clinical trial will test HOPE’s broader effectiveness with rural-dwelling older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT0127471

Comparison of Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System and MYelofibrosis SECondary to PV and ET Prognostic Model for Prediction of Outcome in Polycythemia Vera and Essential Thrombocythemia Myelofibrosis after Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation

We aimed to validate the MYelofibrosis SECondary to PV and ET prognostic model (MYSEC-PM) in 159 patients with myelofibrosis secondary to polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation registry undergoing transplantation from matched siblings or unrelated donors. Furthermore, we aimed to test its prognostic performance in comparison with the Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS). Score performance was analyzed using the concordance index (C): the probability that a patient who experienced an event had a higher risk score than a patient who did not (C > .5 suggesting predictive ability). Median follow-up of the total cohort was 41 months (range, 34 to 54), 45 months in post-PV and 38 months in post-ET myelofibrosis. Survival at 1, 2, and 4 years was 70% (95% CI, 63% to 77%), 61% (95% CI, 53% to 69%), and 52% (95% CI, 43% to 61%) for the total cohort; 70% (95% CI, 59% to 80%), 61% (95% CI, 49% to 73%), and 51% (95% CI, 38% to 64%) for post-PV; and 71% (95% CI, 61% to 81%), 61% (95% CI, 50% to 72%), and 54% (95% CI, 42% to 66%) for post-ET myelofibrosis (P = .78). Overall, the DIPSS was not significantly predictive of outcome (P = .28). With respect to the MYSEC-PM, overall survival at 4 years was 69% for the low-risk, 55% for the intermediate 1-risk, 47% for the intermediate 2-risk, and 22% (0% to 45%) for the high-risk groups. The prognostic model was predictive of survival overall (P = .05), whereas groups with intermediate 2 and high risk showed no significant difference (P = .44). Assessment of prognostic utility yielded a C-index of .575 (95% CI, .502 to .648) for the DIPSS, whereas assessment of the MYSEC-PM resulted in a C-statistics of .636 (95% CI, .563 to .708), indicating improvement in prediction of post-transplant survival using the new MYSEC-PM. In addition, transplantations from an unrelated donor in comparison with an HLA-identical sibling showed worse outcome (P = .04), and transplant recipients seropositive for cytomegalovirus in comparison with seronegative recipients (P = .01) showed worse survival. In conclusion, incorporating transplant-specific and clinical and mutational information together with the MYSEC-PM may enhance risk stratification