Determining the association of medical co-morbidity with subjective and objective cognitive performance in an inner city memory disorders clinic: a retrospective chart review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Medical co-morbidity may be associated with impaired cognitive function based on prior studies. However, no studies to date have determined to what extent this association is linked to medical illness or other factors that may be linked to medical illness (such as education, income levels, depression or subjective memory loss). The present study examined how medical co-morbidity, socioeconomic status (defined as residential SES), education and depression are associated with subjective and objective memory function in a sample of patients recruited from a university affiliated Memory Disorders Clinic located in a large Canadian inner city teaching hospital.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data was collected from 85 consecutive referrals to an Inner City Memory Disorders Clinic including socio-demographic characteristics, cognitive status and medical co-morbidity. Descriptive and correlational analyses were conducted.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Impaired objective cognitive function correlated significantly with increased medical co-morbidity and partially with education but not with residential SES or depression. Elevated memory complaints correlated significantly with depression, inversely with residential SES and not at all with medical co-morbidity or education.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Increased medical co-morbidity is significantly associated with impaired cognitive performance but not with subjective memory complaints in an Inner City Memory Clinic sample.</p

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P &lt; 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Safety and efficacy of pioglitazone for the delay of cognitive impairment in people at risk of Alzheimer's disease (TOMMORROW): a prognostic biomarker study and a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background: The identification of people at risk of cognitive impairment is essential for improving recruitment in secondary prevention trials of Alzheimer's disease. We aimed to test and qualify a biomarker risk assignment algorithm (BRAA) to identify participants at risk of developing mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease within 5 years, and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of low-dose pioglitazone to delay onset of mild cognitive impairment in these at-risk participants. Methods: In this phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, we enrolled cognitively healthy, community living participants aged 65–83 years from 57 academic affiliated and private research clinics in Australia, Germany, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA. By use of the BRAA, participants were grouped as high risk or low risk. Participants at high risk were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral pioglitazone (0·8 mg/day sustained release) or placebo, and all low-risk participants received placebo. Study investigators, site staff, sponsor personnel, and study participants were masked to genotype, risk assignment, and treatment assignment. The planned study duration was the time to accumulate 202 events of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease in White participants who were at high risk (the population on whom the genetic analyses that informed the BRAA development was done). Primary endpoints were time-to-event comparisons between participants at high risk and low risk given placebo (for the BRAA objective), and between participants at high risk given pioglitazone or placebo (for the efficacy objective). The primary analysis included all participants who were randomly assigned, received at least one dose of study drug, and had at least one valid post-baseline visit, with significance set at p=0·01. The safety analysis included all participants who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study medication. An efficacy futility analysis was planned for when approximately 33% of the anticipated events occurred in the high-risk, White, non-Hispanic or Latino group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01931566. Findings: Between Aug 28, 2013, and Dec 21, 2015, we enrolled 3494 participants (3061 at high risk and 433 at low risk). Of those participants, 1545 were randomly assigned to pioglitazone and 1516 to placebo. 1104 participants discontinued treatment (464 assigned to the pioglitazone group, 501 in the placebo high risk group, and 139 in the placebo low risk group). 3399 participants had at least one dose of study drug or placebo and at least one post-baseline follow-up visit, and were included in the efficacy analysis. 3465 participants were included in the safety analysis (1531 assigned to the pioglitazone group, 1507 in the placebo high risk group, and 427 in the placebo low risk group). In the full analysis set, 46 (3·3%) of 1406 participants at high risk given placebo had mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease, versus four (1·0%) of 402 participants at low risk given placebo (hazard ratio 3·26, 99% CI 0·85–12·45; p=0·023). 39 (2·7%) of 1430 participants at high risk given pioglitazone had mild cognitive impairment, versus 46 (3·3%) of 1406 participants at high risk given placebo (hazard ratio 0·80, 99% CI 0·45–1·40; p=0·307). In the safety analysis set, seven (0·5%) of 1531 participants at high risk given pioglitazone died versus 21 (1·4%) of 1507 participants at high risk given placebo. There were no other notable differences in adverse events between groups. The study was terminated in January, 2018, after failing to meet the non-futility threshold. Interpretation: Pioglitazone did not delay the onset of mild cognitive impairment. The biomarker algorithm demonstrated a 3 times enrichment of events in the high risk placebo group compared with the low risk placebo group, but did not reach the pre-specified significance threshold. Because we did not complete the study as planned, findings can only be considered exploratory. The conduct of this study could prove useful to future clinical development strategies for Alzheimer's disease prevention studies. Funding: Takeda and Zinfandel

Safety and efficacy of pioglitazone for the delay of cognitive impairment in people at risk of Alzheimer's disease (TOMMORROW): a prognostic biomarker study and a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background: The identification of people at risk of cognitive impairment is essential for improving recruitment in secondary prevention trials of Alzheimer's disease. We aimed to test and qualify a biomarker risk assignment algorithm (BRAA) to identify participants at risk of developing mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease within 5 years, and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of low-dose pioglitazone to delay onset of mild cognitive impairment in these at-risk participants. Methods: In this phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, we enrolled cognitively healthy, community living participants aged 65&#x2013;83 years from 57 academic affiliated and private research clinics in Australia, Germany, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA. By use of the BRAA, participants were grouped as high risk or low risk. Participants at high risk were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral pioglitazone (0&#xB7;8 mg/day sustained release) or placebo, and all low-risk participants received placebo. Study investigators, site staff, sponsor personnel, and study participants were masked to genotype, risk assignment, and treatment assignment. The planned study duration was the time to accumulate 202 events of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease in White participants who were at high risk (the population on whom the genetic analyses that informed the BRAA development was done). Primary endpoints were time-to-event comparisons between participants at high risk and low risk given placebo (for the BRAA objective), and between participants at high risk given pioglitazone or placebo (for the efficacy objective). The primary analysis included all participants who were randomly assigned, received at least one dose of study drug, and had at least one valid post-baseline visit, with significance set at p=0&#xB7;01. The safety analysis included all participants who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study medication. An efficacy futility analysis was planned for when approximately 33% of the anticipated events occurred in the high-risk, White, non-Hispanic or Latino group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01931566. Findings: Between Aug 28, 2013, and Dec 21, 2015, we enrolled 3494 participants (3061 at high risk and 433 at low risk). Of those participants, 1545 were randomly assigned to pioglitazone and 1516 to placebo. 1104 participants discontinued treatment (464 assigned to the pioglitazone group, 501 in the placebo high risk group, and 139 in the placebo low risk group). 3399 participants had at least one dose of study drug or placebo and at least one post-baseline follow-up visit, and were included in the efficacy analysis. 3465 participants were included in the safety analysis (1531 assigned to the pioglitazone group, 1507 in the placebo high risk group, and 427 in the placebo low risk group). In the full analysis set, 46 (3&#xB7;3%) of 1406 participants at high risk given placebo had mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease, versus four (1&#xB7;0%) of 402 participants at low risk given placebo (hazard ratio 3&#xB7;26, 99% CI 0&#xB7;85&#x2013;12&#xB7;45; p=0&#xB7;023). 39 (2&#xB7;7%) of 1430 participants at high risk given pioglitazone had mild cognitive impairment, versus 46 (3&#xB7;3%) of 1406 participants at high risk given placebo (hazard ratio 0&#xB7;80, 99% CI 0&#xB7;45&#x2013;1&#xB7;40; p=0&#xB7;307). In the safety analysis set, seven (0&#xB7;5%) of 1531 participants at high risk given pioglitazone died versus 21 (1&#xB7;4%) of 1507 participants at high risk given placebo. There were no other notable differences in adverse events between groups. The study was terminated in January, 2018, after failing to meet the non-futility threshold. Interpretation: Pioglitazone did not delay the onset of mild cognitive impairment. The biomarker algorithm demonstrated a 3 times enrichment of events in the high risk placebo group compared with the low risk placebo group, but did not reach the pre-specified significance threshold. Because we did not complete the study as planned, findings can only be considered exploratory. The conduct of this study could prove useful to future clinical development strategies for Alzheimer's disease prevention studies. Funding: Takeda and Zinfandel