Closing the Gap Between Observational Research and Randomized Controlled Trials for Prevention of Alzheimer Disease and Dementia.

Although observational studies have identified modifiable risk factors for Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of risk factor modification for ADRD prevention have been inconsistent or inconclusive. This finding suggests a need to improve translation between observational studies and RCTs. However, many common features of observational studies reduce their relevance to designing related RCTs. Observational studies routinely differ from RCTs with respect to eligibility criteria, study population, length of follow-up, treatment conditions, outcomes, and effect estimates. Using the motivating example of blood pressure reduction for ADRD prevention, we illustrate the need for a tighter connection between observational studies and RCTs, discuss barriers to using typically reported observational evidence in developing RCTs, and highlight methods that may be used to make observational research more relevant to clinical trial design. We conclude that the questions asked and answered by observational research can be made more relevant to clinical trial design and that better use of observational data may increase the likelihood of successful, or at least definitive, trials. Although we focus on improving translation of observational studies on risk factors for ADRD to RCTs in ADRD prevention, the overarching themes are broadly applicable to many areas of biomedical research.

The association between a patient-centered quality of care index and self-efficacy among cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: The number of cancer survivors in the US surpassed 18.1 million in 2022 and this number continues to grow. Patient self-efficacy, a patient's confidence in his or her ability to self-manage symptoms and healthcare concerns, has been linked to improved health outcomes. We thus set out to examine the association between a patient-centered care quality index and self-efficacy among cancer survivors. METHODS: Data from 777 survivors of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers at 32 cancer centers nationwide were collected 6 months after an initial survivorship visit. Patients completed surveys assessing patient-centered care (36 items under seven factors) and individual self-efficacy (eight items). Multiple linear regression was used to examine the association between patient-centered care and patient self-efficacy, adjusting for demographics, cancer-related characteristics, and organizational characteristics of high-quality patient-centered survivorship care. RESULTS: In descriptive analyses, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic or cancer-related characteristics between cancer survivors by quality of patient-centered care. In regression models, a one-unit increase in patient-centered care was associated with a 0.23 (95% CI 0.14-0.32) increase in mean self-efficacy compared to low quality of patient-centered care when adjusting for demographics, cancer-related characteristics, and indicators of high-quality survivorship care. Individually, four of the seven factors of quality patient-centered care were statistically significantly associated with greater self-efficacy. Having a medical home was associated with the greatest increase in self-efficacy among survivors. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that higher quality patient-centered care is associated with greater cancer survivor self-efficacy. Given that self-efficacy is correlated with improved health outcomes and quality of life, this finding further supports the importance of high-quality patient-centered survivorship care. IMPLICATIONS OF CANCER SURVIVORS: High-quality patient-centered survivorship care was associated with higher patient self-efficacy. This association should further be explored among cancer survivors with diverse characteristics.

International Survey of Antiseizure Medication Use in Patients with Complicated Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A New York Neurotrauma Consortium Study.

BACKGROUND: Seizures and epilepsy after traumatic brain injury (TBI) negatively affect quality of life and longevity. Antiseizure medication (ASM) prophylaxis after severe TBI is associated with improved outcomes; these medications are rarely used in mild TBI. However, a paucity of research is available to inform ASM use in complicated mild TBI (cmTBI) and no empirically based clinical care guidelines for ASM use in cmTBI exist. We aim to identify seizure prevention and management strategies used by clinicians experienced in treating patients with cmTBI to characterize standard care and inform a systematic approach to clinical decision making regarding ASM prophylaxis. METHODS: We recruited a multidisciplinary international cohort through professional organizational listservs and social media platforms. Our questionnaire assessed factors influencing ASM prophylaxis after cmTBI at the individual, institutional, and health system-wide levels. RESULTS: Ninety-two providers with experience managing cmTBI completed the survey. We found a striking diversity of ASM use in cmTBI, with 30% of respondents reporting no/infrequent use and 42% reporting frequent use; these tendencies did not differ by provider or institutional characteristics. Certain conditions universally increased or decreased the likelihood of ASM use and represent consensus. Based on survey results, ASMs are commonly used in patients with cmTBI who experience acute secondary seizure or select positive neuroimaging findings; we advise caution in elderly patients and those with concomitant neuropsychiatric illness. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to characterize factors influencing clinical decision making in ASM prophylaxis after cmTBI based on multidisciplinary multicenter provider practices. Prospective controlled studies are necessary to inform standardized guideline development.

Estimation of dementia prevalence at the local level in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Ensuring adequate and equitable distribution of resources to support persons living with dementia relies on understanding the burden and distribution of dementia in a population. Our goal was to develop an approach to estimate dementia prevalence at the local level in the United States using publicly available data. METHODS: Our approach combines publicly available data on dementia prevalence and demographic data from the US Census to estimate dementia prevalence. We illustrate this approach by estimating dementia prevalence in persons aged 65 and older in Philadelphia, PA; Chicago, IL; and Atlanta, GA. RESULTS: Overall, we estimate the prevalence of dementia among those 65 and older to be 11.9% in Philadelphia, 11.8% Chicago, and 12.3% in Atlanta. Estimates across Philadelphia localities vary from 9.3% to 15.9%. DISCUSSION: Our approach provides a cost-effective method to generate estimates of dementia prevalence at the local level. HIGHLIGHTS: Brain health needs assessments require understanding of local dementia prevalence.Our approach can be used to estimate dementia prevalence in individual communities.This information can inform decisions about distribution of resources.