Citations

Objective As part of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–funded American College of Rheumatology (ACR) initiative, we sought to develop quality measures related to Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) use for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) clinical care. Methods An expert workgroup composed of physician, patient, and researcher representatives convened to identify patient‐reported outcome (PRO) domains of greatest importance to people with SLE. A patient advisory panel separately ranked domains. PROMs assessing priority domains were identified through structured literature review, and detailed psychometric reviews were conducted for each PROM. In a Delphi process, the expert workgroup rated PROMs on content validity, psychometric quality, feasibility of implementation, and importance for guiding patient self‐management. The patient advisory panel reviewed PROMs in parallel and contributed to the final recommendations. Results Among relevant PRO domains, the workgroup and patient partners ranked depression, physical function, pain, cognition, and fatigue as high‐priority domains. The workgroup recommended at least once yearly measurement for (1) assessment of depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire or Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression scales; (2) assessment of physical function using PROMIS physical function scales or the Multi‐Dimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire; and (3) optional assessments of fatigue and cognition. Pain scales evaluated were not found to be sufficiently superior to what is already assessed in most SLE clinic visits. Conclusion Expert workgroup members and patient partners recommend that clinicians assess depression and physical function at least once yearly in all people with SLE. Additional PROMs addressing cognition and fatigue can also be assessed. Next steps are to incorporate PROM‐based quality measures into the ACR The Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness registry.

Background: Approximately 75% of all head and neck cancer patients are treated with radiotherapy (RT). RT to the oral cavity results in acute and late adverse events which can be severe and detrimental to a patient’s quality of life and function. The purpose of this study was to explore associations between RT dose to a defined oral cavity organ-at-risk (OAR) avoidance structure, provider- and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), opioid use, and hospitalization. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively obtained outcomes using multivariable modeling. The study included 196 patients treated with RT involving the oral cavity for a head and neck tumor. A defined oral cavity OAR avoidance structure was used in all patients for RT treatment planning. Validated PROs were collected prospectively. Opioid use and hospitalization were abstracted electronically from medical records. Results: Multivariable modeling revealed the mean dose to the oral cavity OAR was significantly associated with opioid use (p = 0.0082) and hospitalization (p = 0.0356) during and within 30 days of completing RT. Conclusions: The findings of this study may be valuable in RT treatment planning for patients with tumors of the head and neck region to reduce the need for opioid use and hospitalization during treatment.

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management has become increasingly complex, and education varies across fellowship programs. IBD 101 was designed to introduce first-year gastroenterology (GI) fellows to IBD care and training. Methods In 2019, a cohort of fellows participated in a 1-day course with small group learning and group observed structured clinical examinations. Pre- and postcourse surveys were administered to evaluate the course. To assess the long-term impact, surveys were emailed in May 2022 to all third-year fellows from previously participating programs. The primary outcome was comfort managing IBD scenarios and information regarding each fellow’s exposure to IBD education. Results Fifty-five fellows from 32 programs participated. A total of 49 (89%) of 55 completed pre- and postcourse surveys. All fellows agreed that the course content was appropriate. In the postcourse survey, all fellows reported increased comfort managing IBD patients. Ninety-six percent of attendees stated that they would strongly recommend this course. Thirty-six fellows completed surveys in 2022, 21 (58%) attendees and 15 (42%) nonattendees. Attendees reported equivalent or higher levels of comfort compared with nonattendees. Higher global competence was noted among attendees (odds ratio, 5.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-29.9; P = .06) after adjusting for presence of a local IBD specialist, number of IBD patients seen monthly (≤5 vs >5), and rotation through an IBD service. Conclusions IBD 101, an introductory course for first-year GI trainees, was associated with increased comfort managing IBD with a durable benefit independent of individual access to IBD education. Continuation of this program will further enhance the IBD education of future GI fellows.

Delirium is common in hospitalised patients, and there is currently no specific treatment. Identifying and treating underlying somatic causes of delirium is the first priority once delirium is diagnosed. Several international guidelines provide clinicians with an evidence-based approach to screening, diagnosis and symptomatic treatment. However, current guidelines do not offer a structured approach to identification of underlying causes. A panel of 37 internationally recognised delirium experts from diverse medical backgrounds worked together in a modified Delphi approach via an online platform. Consensus was reached after five voting rounds. The final product of this project is a set of three delirium management algorithms (the Delirium Delphi Algorithms), one for ward patients, one for patients after cardiac surgery and one for patients in the intensive care unit.

Purpose To systematically review the relationship between functional testing at the time of return to sport (RTS) and short‐term outcomes, such as second anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear and return to a preinjury level of sport, among athletes who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Methods A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies examining athletes who underwent functional RTS testing and were followed for at least 12 months following ACLR. Studies were screened by 2 reviewers. A standardized template was used to extract information regarding study characteristics, ACLR information, functional test results, and risk factors associated with retear or reduced RTS. Results Of the 937 studies identified, 22 met the inclusion criteria. The average time between ACLR and RTS testing was 8.5 months. Single leg hop for distance performance had no association with retear risk in any study and no association with RTS rates in most studies. Quadriceps strength had conflicting results in relation to retear risk, whereas it had no relationship with RTS rates. Rates of reinjury and RTS were similar between patients who passed and did not pass combined hop and strength batteries. Asymmetric knee extension and hip moments, along with increased knee valgus and knee flexion angles, demonstrated increased risk of retear. Conclusions Individual hop and strength tests that are often used in RTS protocols following ACLR may have limited and inconsistent value in predicting ACL reinjury and reduced RTS when used in isolation. Combined hop and strength test batteries also demonstrate low sensitivity and negative predictive value, highlighting conflicting evidence to suggest RTS testing algorithm superiority. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level I‐IV studies.

Abstract The Infectious Diseases Society of America Training Program Directors Committee met in October 2022 and discussed an observed increase in clinical volume and acuity on infectious diseases (ID) services, and its impact on fellow education. Committee members sought to develop specific goals and strategies related to improving training program culture, preserving quality education on inpatient consult services and in the clinic, and negotiating change at the annual IDWeek Training Program Director meeting. This paper outlines a presentation of ideas brought forth at the meeting and is meant to serve as a reference document for infectious diseases training program directors seeking guidance in this area.

PURPOSE Oncology advanced practice providers (APPs), including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacists, contribute significantly to quality cancer care. Understanding the research-related roles of APPs in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) could lead to enhanced protocol development, trial conduct, and accrual. METHODS The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment Survey asked two questions about the utilization and roles of APPs in the NCORP. RESULTS A total of 271 practice groups completed the 2022 survey, with a response rate of 90%. Of the 259 nonpediatric exclusive practice groups analyzed in this study, 92% used APPs for clinical care activities and 73% used APPs for research activities. APPs most often provided clinical care for patients enrolled in trials (97%), followed by assistance with coordination (65%), presenting/explaining clinical trials (59%), screening patients (49%), ordering investigational drugs (37%), and consenting participants (24%). Some groups reported APPs as an enrolling investigator (18%) and/or participating in institutional oversight/selection of trials (15%). Only 5% of NCORP sites reported APPs as a site primary investigator for trials, and very few (3%) reported APPs participating in protocol development. CONCLUSION Practice groups report involving APPs in clinical research within the NCORP network; however, opportunities for growth exists. As team-based care has enhanced clinical practice in oncology, this same approach can be used to enhance successful research. Suggested strategies include supporting APP research-related time, recognition, and education. The findings of this survey and subsequent recommendations may be applied to all adult oncology practices that participate in clinical research.

AbstractBackgroundHearing loss is associated with greater cognitive decline and incident dementia. Whether hearing intervention could reduce cognitive decline in older adults with hearing loss is unknown.MethodThe ACHIEVE study is a randomized trial (NCT03243422) of 70‐84 year‐old adults with untreated hearing loss and free from substantial cognitive impairment that took place at four U.S. sites. Participants were recruited from two study populations: 1) a group of adults participating in a longstanding observational study of cardiovascular health (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities [ARIC] study), and 2) a group of healthy de novo community volunteers. Participants were randomised (1:1) to hearing intervention (HI; audiological counseling and provision of hearing aids) or a successful aging health education control intervention (SA; sessions with a health educator on chronic disease prevention). The primary intention‐to‐treat endpoint was 3‐year change in a global cognition standardized factor score from a comprehensive neurocognitive battery.Result977 participants (238 ARIC, 739 de novo) underwent randomisation; 490 were assigned to HI and 487 to SA control. Participants from ARIC were older, had more risk factors for cognitive decline, and had lower baseline cognitive scores than the de novo group. In the primary analysis combining the ARIC and de novo groups, 3‐year cognitive change (in S.D. units) was not significantly different between HI and SA control (HI: ‐0·200 [95% CI: ‐0·256,‐0·144]; SA: ‐0·202 [‐0·258,‐0·145]; Difference 0·002 [‐0·077,0·081],p = 0·96). However, prespecified analyses demonstrated significant differences in the effect of HI on cognitive change between the ARIC and de novo group (p interaction = 0·010). In the ARIC group, HI was associated with a 48% reduction in 3‐year cognitive change compared to SA control (HI: ‐0·211 [‐0·349,‐0·073]; SA: ‐0·402 [‐0·536, ‐0·267]; Difference 0·191 [0·022,0·360,p = 0·027]). In the de novo group, cognitive change was not significantly different between HI and SA control (HI: ‐0·213 [‐0·277,‐0·148]; SA: ‐0·151 [‐0·215,‐0·087]; Difference ‐0·061 [‐0·151,0·028,p = 0·18]). The rate of cognitive change among control participants was observed to be 2.7‐fold faster in the ARIC versus de novo group.ConclusionHearing intervention may have a significant effect on reducing cognitive change over 3 years in populations of older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline.

AbstractBackgroundHearing loss is associated with cognitive decline and dementia. The ongoing ACHIEVE Study was the first randomized trial to test the effects of hearing treatment on three‐year cognitive change. The ACHIEVE – Brain Health Follow‐Up Study will extend follow‐up to six years post‐randomization to determine the long‐term and potentially nonlinear effects of hearing treatment vs. health education control with delayed treatment on dementia and cognitive decline.MethodsParticipants will be recruited from the 977 participants enrolled in the ACHIEVE Study. After Year 3, hearing intervention participants will continue to receive hearing care and the control group will be offered the hearing intervention. Co‐primary study outcomes will be cognitive decline and a composite of incident mild cognitive impairment (MCI)/probable dementia. Secondary outcomes include domain‐specific cognitive decline, brain structural changes on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and other functional outcomes (e.g., physical activity, social isolation). Power analyses for the co‐primary outcomes assumed an annual attrition rate of 10% and an immediate, lagged, or cumulative treatment effect.ResultsWhen comparing multi‐year cognitive decline (Table 1), in the scenario of a constant treatment effect that assumes a strong and immediate treatment effect, the benefit of extended follow‐up is not greater power, but additional information on the long‐term effects of hearing intervention. In a scenario of a lagged treatment effect, a two‐year lag in the treatment effect causes the Year 3 assessment to be severely underpowered (28%) but provides sufficient power (80%) at Year 6 despite attrition. In a scenario of a cumulative treatment effect that increases with time, analyses are similarly underpowered at Year 3 (65%) but not at Year 6 (82%). The same pattern is evident when estimating the power at Year 3 (57%) and Year 6 (80%) to detect incident MCI/probable dementia in a Cox regression model that assumes a protective hazard ratio of 0.70 (Figure 1).ConclusionAcross all non‐constant scenarios of potential treatment effect, six years of follow‐up increases precision and provides valuable information to better delineate long‐term cognitive trajectories. The ACHIEVE ‐ Brain Health Follow‐Up Study will be completed in 2025.