Thick Liquids and Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias and Dysphagia.

Importance: Oropharyngeal dysphagia is common in hospitalized patients with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). Although the use of thick liquids in patients with dysphagia has been shown to reduce aspiration on direct visualization, there is no clear evidence that this practice translates into improved clinical outcomes. Objectives: To determine whether a diet of thick liquids compared with thin liquids is associated with improved outcomes in hospitalized patients with ADRD and dysphagia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adults aged 65 years and older with ADRD who were admitted to the medicine service across 11 diverse hospitals in New York between January 1, 2017, and September 20, 2022, with clinical suspicion of dysphagia during hospitalization and survival for at least 24 hours after hospital arrival. Patients were grouped according to whether at least 75% of their hospital diet consisted of a thick liquid diet or a thin liquid diet. Propensity score matching was used to balance covariates across the 2 groups for the following covariates: demographics (eg, age, sex), baseline clinical characteristics (eg, Charlson Comorbidity Index), and acute presentation (eg, respiratory diagnosis, illness severity, delirium). Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital outcomes included mortality (primary outcome), respiratory complications (eg, pneumonia), intubation, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results: Of 8916 patients with ADRD and dysphagia included in the propensity score matched analysis, the mean (SD) age was 85.7 (8.0) years and 4829 were female (54.2%). A total of 4458 patients receiving a thick liquid diet were matched with 4458 patients receiving a thin liquid diet. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality between the thick liquids and thin liquids groups (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.75-1.14]; P = .46). Compared with patients receiving thin liquids, patients receiving thick liquids were less likely to be intubated (odds ratio [OR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.80), but they were more likely to have respiratory complications (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.56-1.91). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study emphasizes the need for prospective studies that evaluate whether thick liquids are associated with improved clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with ADRD and dysphagia.

Protocol for randomized personalized trial for stress management compared to standard of care.

Stress is a significant public health burden in the United States, with most Americans reporting unhealthy levels of stress. Stress management techniques include various evidence-based treatments shown to be effective but with heterogeneous treatment responses, indicating a lack of uniform benefits for all individuals. Designed to assess a participant's response to a specific intervention, personalized (N-of-1) trials provide guidance for which treatment (s) work (s) best for the individual. Prior studies examining the effects of mindfulness meditation, yoga, and walking for stress reduction found all three interventions to be associated with significant reductions in self-reported measures of stress. Delivering these treatments using a personalized trial approach has the potential to assist clinicians in identifying the best stress management techniques for individuals with persistently high stress while fostering treatment decisions that consider their personal condition/barriers. This trial will evaluate a personalized approach compared to standard of care for three interventions (guided mindfulness meditation; guided yoga; and guided brisk walking) to manage perceived stress. Participants will respond to daily surveys and wear a Fitbit device for 18 weeks. After a 2-week baseline period, participants in the personalized trial groups will receive 12 weeks of interventions in randomized order, while participants in the standard-of-care group will have access to all interventions for self-directed stress management. After intervention, all participants will undergo 2 weeks of observation, followed by two additional weeks of the stress management intervention of their choosing while continuing outcome measurement. At study completion, all participants will be sent a satisfaction survey. The primary analysis will compare perceived stress levels between the personalized and standard of care arms. The results of this trial will provide further support for the use of personalized designs for managing stress. Clinical Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05408832. Protocol version: 9/14/2022, 21-0968-MRB.

A Series of Personalized Virtual Light Therapy Interventions for Fatigue: Feasibility Randomized Crossover Trial for N-of-1 Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms treated in primary care and can lead to deficits in mental health and functioning. Light therapy can be an effective treatment for symptoms of fatigue; however, the feasibility, scalability, and individual-level heterogeneity of light therapy for fatigue are unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of a series of personalized (N-of-1) interventions for the virtual delivery of bright light (BL) therapy and dim light (DL) therapy versus usual care (UC) treatment for fatigue in 60 participants. METHODS: Participants completed satisfaction surveys comprising the System Usability Scale (SUS) and items assessing satisfaction with the components of the personalized trial. Symptoms of fatigue were measured using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) daily, PROMIS weekly, and ecological momentary assessment (EMA) questionnaires delivered 3 times daily. Comparisons of fatigue between the BL, DL, and UC treatment periods were conducted using generalized linear mixed model analyses between participants and generalized least squares analyses within individual participants. RESULTS: Participants rated the usability of the personalized trial as acceptable (average SUS score=78.9, SD 15.6), and 92% (49/53) of those who completed satisfaction surveys stated that they would recommend the trial to others. The levels of fatigue symptoms measured using the PROMIS daily fatigue measure were lower or improved in the BL (B=-1.63, 95% CI -2.63 to -0.63) and DL (B=-1.44, 95% CI -2.50 to -0.38) periods relative to UC. The treatment effects of BL and DL on the PROMIS daily measure varied among participants. Similar findings were demonstrated for the PROMIS weekly and EMA measures of fatigue symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The participant scores on the SUS and satisfaction surveys suggest that personalized N-of-1 trials of light therapy for fatigue symptoms are both feasible and acceptable. Both interventions produced significant (P<.05) reductions in participant-reported PROMIS and EMA fatigue symptoms relative to UC. However, the heterogeneity of these treatment effects across participants indicated that the effect of light therapy was not uniform. This heterogeneity along with high ratings of usability and satisfaction support the use of personalized N-of-1 research designs in evaluating the effect of light therapy on fatigue for each patient. Furthermore, the results of this trial provide additional support for the use of a series of personalized N-of-1 research trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04707846; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04707846.

A Series of Remote Melatonin Supplement Interventions for Poor Sleep: Protocol for a Feasibility Pilot Study for a Series of Personalized (N-of-1) Trials.

BACKGROUND: Poor sleep, defined as short-duration or poor-quality sleep, is a frequently reported condition with many deleterious effects including poorer cognitive functioning, increased accidents, and poorer health. Melatonin has been shown to be an efficacious treatment to manage symptoms of poor sleep. However, the treatment effects of melatonin on sleep can vary greatly between participants. Personalized, or N-of-1, trial designs represent a method for identifying the best treatment for individual participants. Although using N-of-1 trials of melatonin to treat poor sleep is possible, the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of N-of-1 trials using melatonin are unknown. Using the National Institutes of Health Stage Model for Behavioral Intervention Development, a stage IB (intervention refinement, modification, and adaptation and pilot testing) design appeared to be needed to address these feasibility questions. OBJECTIVE: This trial series evaluates the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of a series of personalized interventions for remote delivery of melatonin dose (3 and 0.5 mg) versus placebo supplements for self-reported poor sleep among 60 participants. The goal of this study is to provide valuable information about implementing remote N-of-1 randomized controlled trials to improve poor sleep. METHODS: Participants will complete a 2-week baseline followed by six 2-week alternating intervention periods of 3 mg of melatonin, 0.5 mg of melatonin, and placebo. Participants will be randomly assigned to 2 intervention orders. The feasibility and acceptability of the personalized trial approach will be determined with participants' ratings of usability and satisfaction with the remote, personalized intervention delivery system. The effectiveness of the intervention will be measured using participants' self-reported sleep quality and duration and Fitbit tracker-measured sleep duration and efficiency. Additional measures will include ecological momentary assessment measures of fatigue, stress, pain, mood, concentration, and confidence as well as measures of participant adherence to the intervention, use of the Fitbit tracker, and survey data collection. RESULTS: As of the submission of this protocol, recruitment for this National Institutes of Health stage IB personalized trial series is approximately 78.3% complete (47/60). We expect recruitment and data collection to be finalized by June 2023. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of a series of personalized interventions of melatonin will address the longer term aim of this program of research-is integrating N-of-1 trials useful patient care? The personalized trial series results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will follow the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT 2015) reporting guidelines. This trial series was approved by the Northwell Health institutional review board. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05349188; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05349188. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/45313.

Series of virtual light therapy interventions for fatigue: a feasibility pilot study protocol for a series of personalised (N-of-1) trials.

INTRODUCTION: Fatigue is one of the most commonly recorded patient symptoms that can result in deficits in aspects of psychomotor functioning, cognition, work performance and mood. Research shows that bright light and dim light therapy may be an efficacious way to reduce symptoms of fatigue. Still, the feasibility, scalability, individual treatment effects and adverse event heterogeneity of these treatments are unknown. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The current study evaluates the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a series of personalised (N-of-1) interventions for virtual delivery of bright light therapy and dim light therapy versus usual care treatment for fatigue in 60 participants. We hypothesise that this study will provide valuable information about implementing virtual, N-of-1 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for fatigue. It will also offer results about determining participants' ratings of usability and satisfaction with the virtual, personalised intervention delivery system; evaluating participants' improvement of fatigue symptoms; and, in the long term, identify ways to integrate N-of-1 light therapy trials into patient care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial was approved by the Northwell Health Institutional Review Board. The trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. All publications resulting from this series of personalised trials will follow the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for N-of-1 trials CENT 2015 reporting guidelines. REGISTRATION DETAILS: This trial is registered in www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (number NCT04707846). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04707846.