Citations

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) platforms can potentially enhance clinical decision-making (CDM) in primary care settings. OpenEvidence (OE), an AI tool, draws from trusted sources to generate evidence-based medicine (EBM) recommendations to address clinical questions. However, its effectiveness in real-world primary care cases remains unknown. Objective: To evaluate the performance of OE in providing EBM recommendations for five common chronic conditions in primary care: hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus type 2, depression, and obesity. Methods: Five patient cases were retrospectively analyzed. Physicians posed specific clinical questions, and OE responses were evaluated on clarity, relevance, evidence support, impact on CDM, and overall satisfaction. Four independent physicians provided ratings using a 0 to 4 scale. Results: OE provided accurate, evidence-based recommendations in all cases, aligning with physician plans. OE was scored on a scale of zero to four, where zero was very unclear, and four was very clear. Mean scores across cases were clarity (3.55 ± 0.60), relevance (3.75 ± 0.44), support (3.35 ± 0.49), and satisfaction (3.60 ± 0.60). However, the impact on CDM was limited (1.95 ± 1.05), as OE primarily reinforced rather than modified plans. Conclusion: OE was rated high in clarity, relevance, and evidence-based support, reinforcing physician decisions in common chronic conditions. While the impact on CDM was minimal due to the study’s retrospective nature, OE shows promise in augmenting the primary care physician. Prospective trials are needed to evaluate its utility in complex cases and multidisciplinary settings.

Despite ongoing efforts to employ structure-based methods to discover targeted protein degraders (TPD), the prevailing strategy remains synthesizing a focused set of heterobifunctional compounds and screening them for target protein degradation.

Abstract Objective: Patients with Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) are prone to Multidrug-Resistant Organism (MDRO) colonization and infections, thus at risk for worse outcomes during critical illness. Understanding the prevalence and predictors of MDRO infections is essential to optimize interventions and treatments. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: The study evaluated the prevalence of MDRO isolation among adults with OUD admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) between January 1, 2018, and July 31, 2023. It included adults admitted to an ICU with bacterial infections and positive cultures obtained within 48 hours of admission. Demographics, clinical traits, and MDRO isolation rates were analyzed using descriptive statistics, univariate methods, and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression. Results: MDRO isolation occurred in 178 of 790 patients (22.5%), with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus as the most frequently isolated organism. LASSO regression identified housing insecurity (OR: 1.79, 95% CI 1.09–2.93, P = .022), no receipt of medications for OUD treatment (OR: 1.56, 95% CI 1.06–2.29, P = .023), positive hepatitis C virus (HCV) status (OR: 2.19, 95% CI 1.19–4.03, P = .012), and intravenous antibiotic use in the prior 90 days (OR: 1.04 per 24 h, 95% CI 1.01–1.07, P = .007) as significant predictors of MDRO isolation. Conclusions: The study highlights a high prevalence of MDRO isolation in critically ill OUD patients admitted for infection-related issues with positive cultures obtained within 48 hours of admission, influenced by factors like housing insecurity, no receipt of medications for OUD treatment, HCV status, and prior antibiotic use.

Introduction Targeted immunomodulators (eg, advanced therapies) effectively achieve symptomatic remission in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, ~25%–50% of patients with IBD achieving symptomatic remission with an advanced therapy may have continued endoscopically/radiologically active bowel inflammation, and it is uncertain whether changing alternative advanced therapies in asymptomatic patients with IBD will reduce bowel inflammation and achieve durable deep remission. Methods and analysis The QUality Outcomes Treating IBD to Target (QUOTIENT) study is an open-label, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial that aims to compare the efficacy and safety of switching to an alternative advanced therapy targeting endoscopic/radiological remission (treat-to-target) versus continuing the initial, or index, advanced therapy, in asymptomatic patients with IBD with moderate-to-severe endoscopic/radiological bowel inflammation. Enrolment is planned for ~250 participants in Canada/USA, randomised 1:1 to switching to alternative advanced therapy or continuing index advanced therapy, and then followed 104 weeks within routine clinical practice. Patient-reported outcomes measure efficacy and quality of life/treatment burden/safety. Primary endpoint is the time from randomisation to treatment failure. Ethics and dissemination The study is conducted in compliance with the protocol, ICH Good Clinical Practice, applicable regulatory requirements and appropriate review boards/independent ethics committees (approval numbers: Pro00077486; Pro00061437; STUDY00002062; 22-004171; i22-01269; IRB22-0890; IRB_00154397; 2000032384; SHIRB#2022.095-2; STUDY00007146; MMC#2024-18; REB#125290; 17784; Pro00142214; 20240660-01H), with documented written informed consent. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, scientific presentations, and publicly available Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) websites, including lay summaries. The Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation Education, Support, and Advocacy Department, and our patient advocacy stakeholder, will develop educational and marketing resources to communicate findings to a broad audience (>250 000 patients/caregivers/healthcare professionals). Trial registration number NCT05230173 .

Background: Cognitive change is an important factor in understanding dementia. Estimating effects of exposures on cognitive change requires choosing an analytical timescale, typically time on study or current age. There is limited consensus regarding timescale choice in epidemiologic cognitive aging research. Methods: Using a coordinated analytic approach in 10 cohorts of older adults, we evaluated whether estimated effects of two exposures on memory change differed depending on timescale (time on study or current age). We modeled effects of apolipoprotein-E (APOE) ε4 genotype (a time-invariant exposure) and diabetes (a potentially time-varying/acquired exposure evaluated at baseline) using mixed-effects models with linear and nonlinear time specifications for both timescales. Results: Among APOE ε4 carriers, model-estimated memory scores at baseline (time on study timescale) or at each cohort’s median baseline age (current age timescale) were lower, and the average rate of decline was faster than among APOE ε4 noncarriers. Model-estimated memory scores at baseline or at median baseline age were generally similar across baseline diabetes status, with variability across cohorts in the diabetes-memory change association. In some cohorts, trends in diabetes-memory change associations differed in direction across timescales. Conclusions: Timescale was largely inconsequential for estimated effects of APOE genotype, but yielded differences in estimated diabetes effects, raising questions about the appropriate scale. The current age scale may be problematic because diabetes was measured heterogeneously in age across individuals, a common issue in aging cohorts. Our work demonstrates approaches to evaluate alternative timescales, including in multicohort analyses, and highlights potential implications for estimated exposure effects on cognitive change.

Summary Introduction Peroral plication of the esophagus (POPE) can reduce sump size and improve symptoms in end-stage achalasia. However, its long-term efficacy and safety are unknown. Methods Patients with end-stage achalasia who underwent POPE at our institution (2016–2024) were identified. Data were abstracted for patient demographics, procedural details, and clinical and radiographic outcomes. Results Twelve patients underwent POPE. The technical success rate was 100%, with mean procedural time of 57 minutes and without adverse events. Symptomatic improvement occurred in 75% of patients (mean follow-up of 15 months), while 86% had radiographic improvement in sump size. Repeat POPE in 6 (50%) patients a mean of 2.6 years after index POPE and a third POPE in four (33%) patients a mean of 3.1 years later was performed, with similar technical success rates and outcomes to the index POPE. Conclusions POPE is a safe and repeatable long-term therapeutic option in end-stage achalasia.