Back to Authors

Xie, Zhigang

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2007-1706

Mayo Clinic

University of Florida

Citations 4

Does concurrent pharmacotherapy enhance behavioral interventions for mild cognitive impairment? Evidence from the HABIT program
Xie, Zhigang , Locke, Dona E.C. , Shandera-Ochsner, Anni, Hamadi, Hanadi , Santos, Octavio, Boots, Elizabeth A., Aghamoosa, Stephanie , Grant, Jeremy, Smith, Glenn, Chandler, Melanie, Grant, Jeremy , Locke, Dona E C , Hamadi, Hanadi Y , Wit, Liselotte De , Boots, Elizabeth A. , Grant, Jeremy, Smith, Glenn E. , Chandler, Melanie

Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease | July 27, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1177/13872877261471921 Get It

Background Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) represents a critical window for both pharmacological therapies and non-pharmacological interventions to delay cognitive decline. Objective To evaluate whether combining pharmacotherapy with multicomponent behavioral interventions enhances outcomes relative to behavioral interventions alone. Methods The sample included people with MCI (pwMCI) of any etiology who completed the HABIT Healthy Action to Benefit Independence & Thinking ® program. Baseline pharmacotherapy (acetylcholinesterase inhibitor and/or glutamate regulators) use was dichotomized (yes/no). Multivariate linear mixed-effects models examined changes from baseline in care partner-reported everyday functional skills, quality of life, self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, and HABIT compliance at post-intervention, 6 months, and 12 months, adjusting for baseline cognitive impairment severity and relevant demographic covariates. Results Among 1074 pwMCI, 413 (38.5%) were receiving pharmacotherapy at baseline. Pharmacotherapy use was more prevalent among White than non-White participants (39.4% versus 23.3%, p = 0.01). At baseline, pharmacotherapy users had more severe cognitive impairment and lower utilization of rehabilitation strategies (all p < 0.05). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements across all outcomes at post-intervention. During follow-up (mean score change compared to baseline), pharmacotherapy users showed greater increases in HABIT compliance at 6 months (3.2 versus 2.0) and 12 months (2.1 versus 1.4). In contrast, by 12 months, pharmacotherapy users experienced greater worsening of everyday functional skills related to memory (−2.1 versus −1.3) and executive function (−5.8 versus-3.7). Conclusions pwMCI undergoing pharmacotherapy entered the HABIT program with more advanced cognitive impairment. The pharmacotherapy was not associated with greater intervention-related benefit or attenuation of long-term cognitive decline.
Effects of care partner type on outcomes from a multicomponent behavioral intervention for mild cognitive impairment
Xie, Zhigang , Aghamoosa, Stephanie , Ying, Gelan , Shandera‐Ochsner, Anne L., Smith, G.J.W., Santos, Octavio, Grant, Jeremy , Shen, Chen, Carriere, Lucille, Chandler, Melanie , Locke, Dona Ec, Shandera-Ochsner, Anne, Chandler, Melanie J, Locke, Dona E.C. , Wit, Liselotte De , Boots, Elizabeth A.

Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions | March 8, 2026 | Volume: 12 | Issue: 1 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/trc2.70222 Get It

Abstract INTRODUCTION Multicomponent non‐pharmacological interventions, such as the HABIT Healthy Action to Benefit Independence & Thinking® program, have shown promise for improving emotional well‐being, functioning, and self‐efficacy in both people with mild cognitive impairment (pwMCI) and their care partners. However, limited research has examined whether outcomes differ based on type of care partner who co‐enrolls with the pwMCI. METHODS We analyzed data from 875 pwMCI−care partner dyads who completed the HABIT program. Multivariate linear mixed‐effects regression models evaluated changes from baseline in outcomes by care partner type (spouse vs. non‐spouse) at post‐intervention, 6‐months, and 12‐ months. RESULTS At post‐intervention, pwMCI with spousal care partners demonstrated significant improvements across all outcomes from baseline, whereas those with non‐spousal partners improved in five out of seven outcomes. Across subsequent follow‐ups, pwMCI with spousal care partners showed sustained mean reductions in anxiety (post‐intervention: −2.0; 12‐month: −0.9) and increased compliance (post‐intervention: 5.7; 12‐month: 0.9). Everyday functioning in memory (post‐intervention: −0.9; 12‐months: 1.8) and executive functioning (post‐intervention: −0.7; 12‐months: 4.8) improved at post‐intervention but declined thereafter. Spousal care partners reported reduced anxiety (−1.2) and depression (−1.3) at post‐intervention, but by 12‐months they experienced increased burden, anxiety, and depression relative to baseline. Non‐spousal pwMCI–care partner dyads did not show significant change at 6 or 12‐months. DISCUSSION The HABIT intervention may have more favorable outcomes for pwMCI and care partners in spousal compared to non‐spousal dyads. These findings highlight the potential impact of care partner characteristics on both immediate and long‐term response to behavioral interventions for MCI. Highlights At post‐intervention, people with mild cognitive impairment (pwMCI) with spousal care partners showed significant improvements across all outcomes, while those with non‐spousal partners improved in five of seven outcomes. Gains attenuated over time for both spousal and non‐spousal dyads Spousal care partners reported reduced anxiety and depression at post‐intervention, but by 12 months they experienced increased burden, anxiety, and depression relative to baseline. Non‐spousal pwMCI–care partner dyads did not show significant change at 6 or 12 months.
Inpatient Palliative Care and Healthcare Utilization Among Older Patients With Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementia (ADRD) and High Risk of Mortality in U.S. Hospitals
Xie, Zhigang , Chen, Guanming , Hamadi, Hanadi , Montgomery, Lucinda, Robinson, Maisha T. , Hong, Young‐Rock , Hamadi, Hanadi Y , Hong, Young-Rock , Oladeru, Oluwadamilola T.

American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® | May 6, 2024 | Volume: 42 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 261-272

10.1177/10499091241252685 Get It

Background . Despite the potential of palliative care (PC) to enhance the quality of life for patients with advanced dementia, there is limited knowledge of its inpatient utilization patterns. This study investigated inpatient PC consultation utilization patterns and evaluated its impact on hospital length of stay (LOS) and medical costs among older patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementia who were at a high risk of mortality (ADRD-HRM). Methods . Using the 2016-2019 National Inpatient Sample database, we conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify individual and hospital characteristics influencing PC consultation utilization. We subsequently performed generalized linear models to estimate LOS (using Poisson distribution) and hospital charges (via log-transformation). Results . Our sample encompassed 965,644 hospital discharges (weighted n = 4,828,219) of patients aged 65 years and above with ADRD-HRM. Among them, 14.6% received inpatient PC. There was a notable uptrend in PC consultation utilization from 13.3% in 2016 to 16.3% in 2019 ( p trend<.001). Factors positively influencing and associated with PC utilization included patients that are older, non-Hispanic White, with higher income, receiving care from teaching hospitals, and facilitated with greater bed capacity (all P < .05). Although patients who received PC were more likely to have 3.0% longer LOS ( P < .001), they had 19.2% lower hospital charges ( P < .001). Conclusions . PC substantially reduced hospital expenditures for older patients with ADRD-HRM, but the prevalence remained low at 14.6% in the study period. Future studies should explore the unmet needs of patients with lower sociodemographic status and those in rural hospitals to further increase their PC consultation utilization.
Real‐world experience of carfilzomib‐associated cardiovascular adverse events: SEER‐Medicare data set analysis
Bishnoi, Rohit , Xie, Zhigang , Bian, Jiang , Murthy, Hemant S. , Farhadfar, Nosha , Farhadfar, Nosha , Murthy, Hemant S , Bian, Jiang , Shah, Chintan , Wingard, John R.

Cancer Medicine | November 10, 2020 | Volume: 10 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 70-78

10.1002/cam4.3568 Get It

Abstract Carfilzomib was approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma in 2012 and since then there have been concerns for cardiovascular toxicity from its use. With this study, we aim to further study the hazards and underlying risk factors for cardiovascular adverse events associated with carfilzomib. This study was conducted using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)‐Medicare data set of multiple myeloma from 2001 to 2015. Data were analyzed for hazards ratio of cardiovascular adverse events between carfilzomib users and nonusers. We identified 7330 patients with multiple myeloma of whom 815 were carfilzomib users. Carfilzomib users had a statistically significant hazard ratio of 1.41 with p < 0.0001 for all cardiovascular adverse events as compared to nonusers. Carfilzomib use was significantly associated with increased risk of heart failure (HR 1.47, p = 0.0002), ischemic heart disease (HR 1.45, p = 0.0002), and hypertension (HR 3.33, p < 0.0001), whereas there was no association between carfilzomib use and cardiac conduction disorders (arrhythmia and heart blocks). Carfilzomib users were at higher risk of new‐onset edema (HR 5.09, p < 0.0001), syncope (HR 4.27, p < 0.0001), dyspnea (HR 1.33, p < 0.0001), and chest pain (HR 1.18, p < 0.0001) as compared to carfilzomib nonusers. Age above 75 years, preexisting cardiovascular disease, obesity, and twice a week carfilzomib schedule were significant risk factors associated with cardiovascular adverse events in carfilzomib users. The median time of the onset for all cardiovascular adverse events was 3.1 months. This study has identified a significantly higher likelihood of cardiovascular adverse events in elderly Medicare patients receiving carfilzomib.