Citations

The American Geriatrics Society convened a conference in Bethesda, Maryland, to explore models and studies of aging. This was the second of three conferences, supported by a U13 grant from the National Institute on Aging, to aid recipients of Grants for Early Medical/Surgical Specialists Transition to Aging Research (GEMSSTAR) in integrating geriatrics into their specialties. Recognizing that aging is the largest risk factor for multiple chronic diseases and age‐related loss of resilience, the conference organizers focused scientific sessions on how targeting age‐related mechanisms can delay, prevent, or reverse geriatric syndromes, age‐related chronic diseases, and loss of resilience. The rationale for studying models of aging as well as study designs, strategies, and challenges of studying human aging were reviewed. This article provides a summary of the full conference report, Models and Studies of Aging: Report from the U13 Conference Series, and summarizes key take‐home messages that were designed to support GEMSSTAR awardees in developing their research careers focused on aging research (see supplementary text for the full report). J Am Geriatr Soc 67:428–433, 2019.

AbstractAs part of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, “Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy‐relevant Patient‐centered Research Agenda,” a panel of representatives from the Office of Emergency Care Research, the Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the American Heart Association, the John A. Hartford Foundation, and the Emergency Care Coordination Center were assembled to discuss funding opportunities for future research in this field. This article summarizes their discussion of funding priorities and examples of successfully funded projects related to shared decision making in emergency medicine.

AbstractShared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as an approach to selecting medical tests and treatments for many situations. The goal of SDM is to ensure that patients are well informed, are meaningfully involved in decisions, and receive treatments that meet their goals and preferences. There is considerable evidence about the tools used to promote SDM, called patient decision aids, and many different measures have been developed to assess the impact of SDM. However, fairly little is known about the applicability of the tools and measures in the emergency department (ED) setting. This article builds on insights from two keynote lectures presented at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference discussing the state of the science for measurement of SDM and the design of patient decision aids to promote SDM conversations and highlights some key areas for further research to advance SDM in the ED.

AbstractShared decision making (SDM) is essential to advancing patient‐centered care in emergency medicine. Despite many documented benefits of SDM, prior research has demonstrated persistently low levels of patient engagement by clinicians across many disciplines, including emergency medicine. An effective dissemination and implementation (D&I) framework could be used to alter the process of delivering care and to facilitate SDM in routine clinical emergency medicine practice. Here we outline a research and policy agenda to support the D&I strategy needed to integrate SDM into emergency care.

AbstractShared decision making in emergency medicine has the potential to improve the quality, safety, and outcomes of emergency department (ED) patients. Given that the ED is the gateway to care for patients with a variety of illnesses and injuries and the safety net for patients otherwise unable to access care, shared decision making in the ED is relevant to numerous disciplines and the interests of the United States (U.S.) public. On May 10, 2016 the 16th annual Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference, “Shared Decision Making: Development of a Policy‐Relevant Patient‐Centered Research Agenda” was held in New Orleans, Louisiana. During this one‐day conference clinicians, researchers, policy‐makers, patient and caregiver representatives, funding agency representatives, trainees, and content experts across many areas of medicine interacted to define high priority areas for research in 1 of 6 domains: 1) diagnostic testing; 2) policy, 3) dissemination/implementation and education, 4) development and testing of shared decision making approaches and tools in practice, 5) palliative care and geriatrics, and 6) vulnerable populations and limited health literacy. This manuscript describes the current state of shared decision making in the ED context, provides an overview of the conference planning process, the aims of the conference, the focus of each respective breakout session, the roles of patient and caregiver representatives and an overview of the conference agenda. The results of this conference published in this issue of AEM provide an essential summary of the future research priorities for shared decision making to increase quality of care and patient‐centered outcomes.

AbstractDiagnostic imaging is integral to the evaluation of many emergency department (ED) patients. However, relatively little effort has been devoted to patient‐centered outcomes research (PCOR) in emergency diagnostic imaging. This article provides background on this topic and the conclusions of the 2015 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference PCOR work group regarding “Diagnostic Imaging in the Emergency Department: A Research Agenda to Optimize Utilization.” The goal was to determine a prioritized research agenda to establish which outcomes related to emergency diagnostic imaging are most important to patients, caregivers, and other key stakeholders and which methods will most optimally engage patients in the decision to undergo imaging. Case vignettes are used to emphasize these concepts as they relate to a patient's decision to seek care at an ED and the care received there. The authors discuss applicable research methods and approaches such as shared decision‐making that could facilitate better integration of patient‐centered outcomes and patient‐reported outcomes into decisions regarding emergency diagnostic imaging. Finally, based on a modified Delphi process involving members of the PCOR work group, prioritized research questions are proposed to advance the science of patient‐centered outcomes in ED diagnostic imaging.

Abstract Purpose: The interaction of programmed death-1 ligand (PD-L1) with its receptor (PD-1) on T cells inactivates antitumor immune responses. PD-L1 expression has been associated with poor outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) but has not been investigated in advanced RCC patients receiving VEGF-targeted therapy. Experimental Design: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens were collected at baseline from patients in the COMPARZ trial. Tumor cell PD-L1 expression by IHC was evaluated using H-score (HS). Dual PD-L1/CD68 staining was used to differentiate PD-L1 tumor expression from tumor-associated macrophages. Intratumor CD8-positive T cells were quantified morphometrically. Associations between biomarkers and survival were investigated using the log-rank test. Results: HS data were available from 453 of 1,110 patients. Sixty-four percent of patients had negative PD-L1 expression (HS = 0). Patients with HS > 55 (n = 59, 13%) had significantly shorter overall survival (OS) than those with HS ≤ 55 in both pazopanib and sunitinib arms (median 15.1 vs. 35.6 and 15.3 vs. 27.8 months, respectively, P = 0.03). In both arms, median OS was shortest in patients with HS > 55 and intratumor CD8-positive T-cell counts > 300 (9.6 and 11.9 months with pazopanib and sunitinib, respectively). Median OS in patients with HS ≤ 55 and CD8-positive T-cell counts ≤ 300 was 36.8 and 28.0 months with pazopanib and sunitinib, respectively. Progression-free survival results were similar to OS results. Conclusions: Increased tumor cell PD-L1, or PD-L1 plus tumor CD8-positive T-cell counts, were associated with shorter survival in patients with metastatic RCC receiving VEGF-targeted agents. These findings may have implications for future design of randomized clinical trials in advanced RCC. Clin Cancer Res; 21(5); 1071–7. ©2014 AACR.