Citations

Purpose of reviewThere has been recent debate about the lack of compelling scientific evidence on the efficacy of cognitive interventions. The goal of this study is to review the current state of cognitive interventions in Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease, present emerging mechanisms, and discuss the role of imaging in designing effective intervention strategies.Recent findingsCognitive interventions appear to be promising in Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. Although feasibility has been shown in mild cognitive impairment, early Alzheimer's disease, and mild to moderate Parkinson's disease, studies to investigate long-term efficacy and mechanisms underlying these interventions are still needed.SummaryThere is a need to conduct scientifically rigorous studies to validate the efficacy of cognitive intervention trials. Future studies will greatly benefit from including longitudinal imaging in their study design. Imaging can be used to demonstrate the efficacy and mechanisms by measuring brain changes over the intervention period. Imaging can also be used to determine biological and disease-related factors that may influence the treatment response, that is, the effect modifiers. Consideration of effect modifiers will allow us to measure the treatment response in biomarkers and cognition with greater sensitivity and also aid in designing trials that will lead to better patient outcomes.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening for all persons aged 13 to 64 years who present to a health care provider. We sought to improve adherence to the CDC guidelines on the Internal Medicine Resident Hospital Service. We surveyed residents about the CDC guidelines, sent email reminders, provided education, and engaged them in friendly competition. Credit for guideline adherence was awarded if an offer of HIV screening was documented at admission, if a screening test was performed, or if a notation in the resident sign out sheet indicated why screening was not performed. We examined HIV screening of a postintervention group of patients admitted between August 8, 2012, and June 30, 2013, and compared them to a preintervention group admitted between August 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012. Postintervention offers of HIV screening increased significantly (7.9% [44/559] vs 55.5% [300/541]; P<.001), as did documentation of residents' contemplation of screening (8.9% [50/559] vs 67.5% [365/541]; P<.001). A significantly higher proportion of HIV screening tests was ordered postintervention (7.7% [43/559] vs 44.4% [240/541]; P<.001). Monthly HIV screening documentation ranged from 0% (0/53) to 17% (9/53) preintervention, whereas it ranged from 30.6% (11/36) to 100% (62/62) postintervention. HIV screening adherence can be improved through resident education, friendly competition, and system reminders. Barriers to achieving sustained adherence to the CDC guidelines include a heterogeneous patient population and provider discomfort with the subject.