Citations

Limited studies have explored the effects of individual and environmental factors on sleep disturbance in individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which is vital for informing future sleep interventions. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore the possible mediated effects of potential precipitating and/or perpetuating factors on the relationship between sleep disturbance and symptoms in adults with IBD. This is a correlational study of adults with IBD recruited from ResearchMatch. Survey questions asked about demographics, clinical characteristics, sleep hygiene, sleep beliefs and attitudes, sleep environment, sleep control, and symptoms (sleep disturbance, abdominal pain, anxiety, depression, fatigue). Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, and mediation analysis. We included 250 adults with IBD ( M = 37.9 years old, 64.8% female, 72.4% white). Fifty-four percent of the sample self-reported having a diagnosed sleep disorder. Sleep hygiene and sleep beliefs and attitudes significantly mediated the relationship between sleep disturbance and symptoms (i.e., fatigue, depression, anxiety, and abdominal pain). Whereas the sleep environment and sleep control did not significantly mediate the relationship between sleep disturbance and symptoms. Individuals with IBD experience sleep disturbances, alongside symptoms of anxiety, depression, abdominal pain, and fatigue. Mediation analysis identified sleep hygiene and sleep beliefs, and attitudes as partial mediators. Considering cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia is recommended for restructuring these mediating factors. Participants also faced moderate environmental disturbances, suggesting a need for further investigation in this population.

Abstract US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all—including primary care—clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. Through a modified‐Delphi approach and guideline‐development process (7374 publications were reviewed; 133 met inclusion criteria) an expert workgroup developed recommendations as steps in a patient‐centered evaluation process. This summary focuses on recommendations, appropriate for any practice setting, forming core elements of a high‐quality, evidence‐supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive–behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes specialist recommendations. If clinicians use this guideline and health‐care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings. Highlights US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all—including primary care—clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. This summary focuses on recommendations, appropriate for any practice setting, forming core elements of a high‐quality, evidence‐supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive–behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes specialist recommendations. If clinicians use this guideline and health‐care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings.

Abstract US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or a related dementia (ADRD) are two decades old. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. An expert workgroup conducted a review of 7374 publications (133 met inclusion criteria) and developed recommendations as steps in an evaluation process. This summary briefly reviews core recommendations and details specialist recommendations of a high‐quality, evidence‐supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive–behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes primary care recommendations. If clinicians use the recommendations in this guideline and health‐care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings. Highlights US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all—including primary care—clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. This summary focuses on recommendations appropriate for specialty practice settings, forming key elements of a high‐quality, evidence‐supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive–behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes primary care recommendations. If clinicians use this guideline and health‐care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings.

Abstract US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's Disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all—including primary care—clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. As part of the modified Delphi approach and guideline development process (7374 publications were reviewed; 133 met inclusion criteria) an expert workgroup developed recommendations as steps in a patient‐centered evaluation process. The workgroup provided a summary of validated instruments to measure symptoms in daily life (including cognition, mood and behavior, and daily function) and to test for signs of cognitive impairment in the office. This article distills this information to provide a resource to support clinicians in the implementation of this approach in clinical practice. The companion articles provide context for primary care and specialty clinicians with regard to how to fit these instruments into the workflow and actions to take when integration of performance on these instruments with clinical profile and clinician judgment support potential cognitive impairment.

Abstract Background and Aims Individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) experience a high symptom burden, including abdominal pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances; yet, little is known regarding the relationship between sex and gender on symptoms. We sought to report symptom severity for cisgender men, cisgender women, and transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals. In addition, we used network analysis to identify core symptoms and explore if symptoms and their relationships differ between cisgender men and cisgender women. Methods This was a cross-sectional study. We recruited adults with IBD online through ResearchMatch. Individuals responded to Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information symptom questionnaires, as well as demographic and clinical questionnaires. Network analysis was used to identify the core symptoms driving the symptom structure. Results One-hundred and fifty-seven (63.3%) participants identified as cisgender women, 84 (33.9%) as cisgender men, and 7 (2.8%) as TGD. Cisgender men (M = 61.8) and TGD (M = 61.3) groups reported higher abdominal pain levels compared with cisgender women (M = 57.8; P = .02). Transgender and gender-diverse individuals reported higher depression levels (M = 64.8) compared with cisgender men (M = 56.7) and cisgender women (M = 54.4; P = .01). Using a network analysis approach, anxiety and fatigue emerged as core symptoms for the entire sample (clinically active and inactive disease), and among only those with active clinical disease. Fatigue was a top core symptom for cisgender women; anxiety emerged as a top core symptom for cisgender men. Conclusions This study highlights that fatigue and anxiety are core symptoms among individuals with IBD and demonstrates a potential sex and/or gender difference in core symptoms. Replication of this study is needed with further consideration of inclusion of TGD patients.

AbstractBackgroundWhite matter hyper‐intensities (WMH) are observed on FLAIR MRI, increase with age and are more prominent in neurodegenerative diseases such as in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s disease (PD). The aim of this study was to assess the association between WMH and neuropathological staging of amyloid‐beta, neurofibrillary tangles (NFT) and α‐synuclein (α‐syn).MethodIn‐situ 3T‐MRI 3DT1‐weighted and 3D‐FLAIR data were collected for 77 clinically defined and pathologically‐confirmed brain donors; 31 AD, 21 PD and PD dementia (PDD), and 25 controls. WMH were segmented on FLAIR using an in‐house developed multiview convolutional neural network, followed by manual checking, and volume was obtained with FSL. Fifteen brain regions were dissected at autopsy, immunostained and evaluated for neuropathological diagnosis, including Thal amyloid phase, CAA type, and Braak stages for NFT and α‐syn. Group differences were assessed with linear models (corrected for age, gender, post‐mortem delay), and associations with Spearman and Pearson partial correlations.ResultCompared to controls, WMH load was higher in AD (p<0.001), specifically amnestic AD (p = 0.003) rather than non‐amnestic AD (p = 0.053), and higher in PD (p = 0.016), specifically non‐demented PD (p = 0.015) rather than PDD (p = 1.0). No difference in gender was observed (p = 0.38). Without the influence of pathology (in controls), WMH was associated with age (r = 0.49,p = 0.016).In the whole cohort, WMH was associated with Fazekas score (r = 0.67; p<0.001), normalized brain volume (NBV; r = ‐0.31,p = 0.007), gray matter volume (NGMV; r = ‐0.36,p = 0.002), Thal phase (r = 0.24,p0.034), Braak NFT stage (r = 0.33,p = 0.004), and Braak α‐syn stage (r = 0.27, p0.018).Across controls and AD, WMH associated with NBV (r = ‐0.39,p = 0.004), NGMV (r = ‐0.42,p = 0.002), left and right hippocampal volume (r = ‐0.36,p = 0.008 and r = ‐0.32,p = 0.022), Braak NFT (r = 0.41,p<0.001), Thal phase (r = 0.41,p = 0.002), and CAA (r = 0.34,p = 0.01). Amnestic and non‐amnestic AD showed similar results, except for CAA, which was associated with WMH in non‐amnestic AD only (r = 0.33,p = 0.04).Across controls and PD(D), WMH associated with Braak NFT stage (r = 0.39,p = 0.008) and Braak α‐syn stage (r = 0.60,p<0.001), but not with MRI outcome measures. In this respect PD and PDD showed different results; in PD WMH associated with NGMV (r = ‐0.37,p = 0.031), in PDD with left and right hippocampal volume (r = ‐0.44,p = 0.014 and r = ‐0.44,p = 0.015).ConclusionWMH associate with pathological stages of AD and PD(D), and contributes to MRI atrophy.

AbstractBackgroundWhite matter hyper‐intensities (WMH) are observed on FLAIR MRI, increase with age and are more prominent in neurodegenerative diseases such as in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s disease (PD). The aim of this study was to assess the association between WMH and neuropathological staging of amyloid‐beta, neurofibrillary tangles (NFT) and a‐synuclein (a‐syn).MethodIn‐situ 3T‐MRI 3DT1‐weighted and 3D‐FLAIR data were collected for 77 clinically defined and pathologically‐confirmed brain donors; 31 AD, 21 PD and PD dementia (PDD), and 25 controls. WMH were segmented on FLAIR using an in‐house developed multiview convolutional neural network, followed by manual checking, and volume was obtained with FSL. Fifteen brain regions were dissected at autopsy, immunostained and evaluated for neuropathological diagnosis, including Thal amyloid phase, CAA type, and Braak stages for NFT and a‐syn. Group differences were assessed with linear models (corrected for age, gender, post‐mortem delay), and associations with Spearman and Pearson partial correlations.ResultCompared to controls, WMH load was higher in AD (p<0.001), specifically amnestic AD (p = 0.003) rather than non‐amnestic AD (p = 0.053), and higher in PD (p = 0.016), specifically non‐demented PD (p = 0.015) rather than PDD (p = 1.0). No difference in gender was observed (p = 0.38). Without the influence of pathology (in controls), WMH was associated with age (r = 0.49,p = 0.016). In the whole cohort, WMH was associated with Fazekas score (r = 0.67; p<0.001), normalized brain volume (NBV; r = ‐0.31,p = 0.007), gray matter volume (NGMV; r = ‐0.36,p = 0.002), Thal phase (r = 0.24,p0.034), Braak NFT stage (r = 0.33,p = 0.004), and Braak a‐syn stage (r = 0.27, p0.018). Across controls and AD, WMH associated with NBV (r = ‐0.39,p = 0.004), NGMV (r = ‐0.42,p = 0.002), left and right hippocampal volume (r = ‐0.36,p = 0.008 and r = ‐0.32,p = 0.022), Braak NFT (r = 0.41,p<0.001), Thal phase (r = 0.41,p = 0.002), and CAA (r = 0.34,p = 0.01). Amnestic and non‐amnestic AD showed similar results, except for CAA, which was associated with WMH in non‐amnestic AD only (r = 0.33,p = 0.04). Across controls and PD(D), WMH associated with Braak NFT stage (r = 0.39,p = 0.008) and Braak a‐syn stage (r = 0.60,p<0.001), but not with MRI outcome measures. In this respect PD and PDD showed different results; in PD WMH associated with NGMV (r = ‐0.37,p = 0.031), in PDD with left and right hippocampal volume (r = ‐0.44,p = 0.014 and r = ‐0.44,p = 0.015).ConclusionWMH associate with pathological stages of AD and PD(D), and contributes to MRI atrophy.

AbstractModern fluoroscopes used for image guidance have become quite complex. Adding to this complexity are the many regulatory and accreditation requirements that must be fulfilled during acceptance testing of a new unit. Further, some of these acceptance tests have pass/fail criteria, whereas others do not, making acceptance testing a subjective and time‐consuming task. The AAPM Task Group 272 Report spells out the details of tests that are required and gives visibility to some of the tests that while not yet required are recommended as good practice. The organization of the report begins with the most complicated fluoroscopes used in interventional radiology or cardiology and continues with general fluoroscopy and mobile C‐arms. Finally, the appendices of the report provide useful information, an example report form and topics that needed their own section due to the level of detail.

AbstractBackgroundMultiple myeloma (MM) measurable residual disease (MRD) evaluated by flow cytometry is a surrogate for progression‐free and overall survival in clinical trials. However, analysis and reporting between centers lack uniformity. We designed and evaluated a consensus protocol for MM MRD analysis to reduce inter‐laboratory variation in MM MRD reporting.MethodsSeventeen participants from 13 countries performed blinded analysis of the same eight de‐identified flow cytometry files from patients with/without MRD using their own method (Stage 1). A consensus gating protocol was then designed following survey and discussions, and the data re‐analyzed for MRD and other bone marrow cells (Stage 2). Inter‐laboratory variation using the consensus strategy was reassessed for another 10 cases and compared with earlier results (Stage 3).ResultsIn Stage 1, participants agreed on MRD+/MRD− status 89% and 68% of the time respectively. Inter‐observer variation was high for total numbers of analyzed cells, total and normal plasma cells (PCs), limit of detection, lower limit of quantification, and enumeration of cell populations that determine sample adequacy. The identification of abnormal PCs remained relatively consistent. By consensus method, average agreement on MRD− status improved to 74%. Better consistency enumerating all parameters among operators resulted in near‐unanimous agreement on sample adequacy.ConclusionUniform flow cytometry data analysis substantially reduced inter‐laboratory variation in reporting multiple components of the MM MRD assay. Adoption of a harmonized approach would meet an important need for conformity in reporting MM MRD for clinical trials, and wider acceptance of MM MRD as a surrogate clinical endpoint.