Alzheimer's "Prevention" vs. "Risk Reduction": Transcending Semantics for Clinical Practice.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hodes JF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6348710 | biostudies-other | 2018
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Alzheimer's "Prevention" vs. "Risk Reduction": Transcending Semantics for Clinical Practice.
Hodes John F JF Oakley Carlee I CI O'Keefe James H JH Lu Peilin P Galvin James E JE Saif Nabeel N Bellara Sonia S Rahman Aneela A Kaufman Yakir Y Hristov Hollie H Rajji Tarek K TK Fosnacht Morgan Anne Marie AM Patel Smita S Merrill David A DA Kaiser Scott S Meléndez-Cabrero Josefina J Melendez Juan A JA Krikorian Robert R Isaacson Richard S RS
Frontiers in neurology 20190121
The terms "prevention" and "risk reduction" are often used interchangeably in medicine. There is considerable debate, however, over the use of these terms in describing interventions that aim to <i>preserve cognitive health</i> and/or <i>delay disease progression</i> of Alzheimer's disease (AD) for patients seeking clinical care. Furthermore, it is important to distinguish between Alzheimer's <i>disease</i> prevention and Alzheimer's <i>dementia</i> prevention when using these terms. While prior ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Like virtually all age-related chronic diseases, late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) develops over an extended preclinical period and is associated with modifiable lifestyle and environmental factors. We hypothesize that multimodal interventions that address many risk factors simultaneously and are individually tailored to patients may help reduce AD risk. We describe a novel clinical methodology used to evaluate and treat patients at two Alzheimer's Prevention Clinics. The framework applies evidence-based principles of clinical precision medicine to tailor individualized recommendations, follow patients longitudinally to continually refine the interventions, and evaluate N-of-1 effectiveness (trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03687710). Prior preliminary results suggest that the clinical practice of AD risk reduction is feasible, with measurable improvements in cognition and biomarkers of AD risk. We propose using these early findings as a foundation to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of personalized risk management within an international network of clinician researchers in a cohort study possibly leading to a randomized controlled trial.
| S-EPMC6373477 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Randomized clinical trials have shown that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy saves lives. Whether the survival of patients who received an ICD in primary prevention clinical trials differs from that of trial-eligible patients receiving a primary prevention ICD in clinical practice is unknown.To determine whether trial-eligible patients who received a primary prevention ICD as documented in a large national registry have a survival rate that differs from the survival rate of similar patients who received an ICD in the 2 largest primary prevention clinical trials, MADIT-II (n = 742) and SCD-HeFT (n = 829).Retrospective analysis of data for patients enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007, meeting the MADIT-II criteria (2464 propensity score-matched patients) or the SCD-HeFT criteria (3352 propensity score-matched patients). Mortality data for the registry patients were collected through December 31, 2009.Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare mortality from any cause.The median follow-up time in MADIT-II, SCD-HeFT, and the ICD Registry was 19.5, 46.1, and 35.2 months, respectively. Compared with patients enrolled in the clinical trials, patients in the ICD Registry were significantly older and had a higher burden of comorbidities. In the matched cohorts, there was no significant difference in survival between MADIT-II-like patients in the registry and MADIT-II patients randomized to receive an ICD (2-year mortality rates: 13.9% and 15.6%, respectively; adjusted ICD Registry vs trial hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.31; P = .62). Likewise, the survival among SCD-HeFT-like patients in the registry was not significantly different from survival among patients randomized to receive ICD therapy in SCD-HeFT (3-year mortality rates: 17.3% and 17.4%, respectively; adjusted registry vs trial hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.97-1.38; P = .11).There was no significant difference in survival between clinical trial patients randomized to receive an ICD and a similar group of clinical registry patients who received a primary prevention ICD. Our findings support the continued use of primary prevention ICDs in similar patients seen in clinical practice.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000609.
| S-EPMC3638257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:Practice effects (PEs) present a potential confound in clinical trials with cognitive outcomes. A single-blind placebo run-in design, with repeated cognitive outcome assessments before randomization to treatment, can minimize effects of practice on trial outcome. Methods:We investigated the potential implications of PEs in Alzheimer's disease prevention trials using placebo arm data from the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study donepezil/vitamin E trial in mild cognitive impairment. Frequent ADAS-Cog measurements early in the trial allowed us to compare two competing trial designs: a 19-month trial with randomization after initial assessment, versus a 15-month trial with a 4-month single-blind placebo run-in and randomization after the second administration of the ADAS-Cog. Standard power calculations assuming a mixed-model repeated-measure analysis plan were used to calculate sample size requirements for a hypothetical future trial designed to detect a 50% slowing of cognitive decline. Results:On average, ADAS-Cog 13 scores improved at first follow-up, consistent with a PE and progressively worsened thereafter. The observed change for a 19-month trial (1.18 points) was substantively smaller than that for a 15-month trial with 4-month run-in (1.79 points). To detect a 50% slowing in progression under the standard design (i.e., a 0.59 point slowing), a future trial would require 3.4 times more subjects than would be required to detect the comparable percent slowing (i.e., 0.90 points) with the run-in design. Discussion:Assuming the improvement at first follow-up observed in this trial represents PEs, the rate of change from the second assessment forward is a more accurate representation of symptom progression in this population and is the appropriate reference point for describing treatment effects characterized as percent slowing of symptom progression; failure to accommodate this leads to an oversized clinical trial. We conclude that PEs are an important potential consideration when planning future trials.
| S-EPMC5671629 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Demonstrating a slowing in the rate of cognitive decline is a common outcome measure in clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Selection of cognitive endpoints typically includes modeling candidate outcome measures in the many, richly phenotyped observational cohort studies available. An important part of choosing cognitive endpoints is a consideration of improvements in performance due to repeated cognitive testing (termed "practice effects"). As primary and secondary AD prevention trials are comprised predominantly of cognitively unimpaired participants, practice effects may be substantial and may have considerable impact on detecting cognitive change. The extent to which practice effects in AD prevention trials are similar to those from observational studies and how these potential differences impact trials is unknown. In the current study, we analyzed data from the recently completed DIAN-TU-001 clinical trial (TU) and the associated DIAN-Observational (OBS) study. Results indicated that asymptomatic mutation carriers in the TU exhibited persistent practice effects on several key outcomes spanning the entire trial duration. Critically, these practice related improvements were larger on certain tests in the TU relative to matched participants from the OBS study. Our results suggest that the magnitude of practice effects may not be captured by modeling potential endpoints in observational studies where assessments are typically less frequent and drug expectancy effects are absent. Using alternate instrument forms (represented in our study by computerized tasks) may partly mitigate practice effects in clinical trials but incorporating practice effects as outcomes may also be viable. Thus, investigators must carefully consider practice effects (either by minimizing them or modeling them directly) when designing cognitive endpoint AD prevention trials by utilizing trial data with similar assessment frequencies.
| S-EPMC9244171 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe purpose of this guideline is to make recommendations regarding the care of women who harbour a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in BRCA1 and BRCA2.MethodsDraft recommendations were formulated based on evidence obtained through a systematic review of RCTs, comparative retrospective studies and guideline endorsement. The draft recommendations underwent an internal review by clinical and methodology experts, and an external review by clinical practitioners.ResultsThe literature search yielded 1 guideline, 5 systematic reviews, and 15 studies that met the eligibility criteria.ConclusionsIn women who harbour a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in BRCA1 and BRCA2 screening for ovarian cancer is not recommended. Risk-reducing surgery is recommended to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer. In the absence of contraindications, premenopausal women undergoing RRSO should be offered hormone therapy until menopause. Systemic hormone replacement therapy, is not recommended for women who have had a personal history of breast cancer. RRSO should be considered for breast cancer risk reduction in women younger than 50 years. After a breast cancer diagnosis, RRSO for breast cancer mortality reduction can be considered within two years to women who harbour a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in BRCA1 if younger than the recommended age range for ovarian cancer risk reduction. RRSO before the age of 40 and specifically for breast cancer treatment in BRCA2 should be considered only if recommended by their breast cancer oncologist. Following RRSO, it is not recommended to do surveillance for peritoneal cancer.
| S-EPMC8474940 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWidespread application of research findings to improve patient outcomes remains inadequate, and failure to routinely translate research findings into daily clinical practice is a major barrier for the implementation of any evidence-based guideline. Strategies to increase guideline uptake in primary care pediatric practices and to facilitate adherence to recommendations are required.ObjectiveOur objective was to operationalize the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Integrated Guidelines for Cardiovascular Health and Risk Reduction in Children and Adolescents into a mobile clinical decision support (CDS) system for healthcare providers, and to describe the process development and outcomes.MethodsTo overcome the difficulty of translating clinical practice guidelines into a computable form that can be used by a CDS system, we used a multilayer framework to convert the evidence synthesis into executable knowledge. We used an iterative process of design, testing, and revision through each step in the translation of the guidelines for use in a CDS tool to support the development of 4 validated modules: an integrated risk assessment; a blood pressure calculator; a body mass index calculator; and a lipid management instrument.ResultsThe iterative revision process identified several opportunities to improve the CDS tool. Operationalizing the integrated guideline identified numerous areas in which the guideline was vague or incorrect and required more explicit operationalization. Iterative revisions led to workable solutions to problems and understanding of the limitations of the tool.ConclusionsThe process and experiences described provide a model for other mobile CDS systems that translate written clinical practice guidelines into actionable, real-time clinical recommendations.
| S-EPMC5378042 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Emerging evidence suggesting the possibility that interventions able to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) may also be effective in the prevention of cancer have recently stimulated great interest in the medical community. In particular, data from both experimental and observational studies have demonstrated that aspirin may play a role in preventing different types of cancer. Although the use of aspirin in the secondary prevention of CVD is well established, aspirin in primary prevention is not systematically recommended because the absolute cardiovascular event reduction is similar to the absolute excess in major bleedings. By adding to its cardiovascular prevention benefits, the potential beneficial effect of aspirin in reducing the incidence of mortality and cancer could tip the balance between risks and benefits of aspirin therapy in primary prevention in favor of the latter and broaden the indication for treatment with aspirin in populations at average risk. Prospective and randomized studies are currently investigating the effect of aspirin in prevention of both cancer and CVD; however, clinical efforts at the individual level to promote the use of aspirin in global (or total) primary prevention already could be made on the basis of a balanced evaluation of the benefit/risk ratio.
| S-EPMC6711075 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLimited information is available regarding primary care clinicians' response to pharmacogenomic clinical decision support (PGx-CDS) alerts integrated in the electronic health record.MethodsIn February 2015, 159 clinicians in the Mayo Clinic primary care practice were sent e-mail surveys to understand their perspectives on the implementation and use of pharmacogenomic testing in their clinical practice. Surveys assessed how the clinicians felt about pharmacogenomics and whether they thought electronic PGx-CDS alerts were useful. Information was abstracted on the number of CDS alerts the clinicians received between October 2013 and the date their survey was returned. CDS alerts were grouped into 2 categories: the alert recommended caution using the prescription, or the alert recommended an alternate prescription. Finally, data were abstracted regarding whether the clinician changed their prescription in response to the alert recommendation.ResultsThe survey response rate was 57% (n = 90). Overall, 52% of the clinicians did not expect to use or did not know whether they would use pharmacogenomic information in their future prescribing practices. Additionally, 53% of the clinicians felt that the alerts were confusing, irritating, frustrating, or that it was difficult to find additional information. Finally, only 30% of the clinicians that received a CDS alert changed their prescription to an alternative medication.ConclusionsOur results suggest a lack of clinician comfort with integration of pharmacogenomic data into primary care. Further efforts to refine PGx-CDS alerts to make them as useful and user-friendly as possible are needed to improve clinician satisfaction with these new tools.
| S-EPMC5600492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Extracting concepts (such as drugs, symptoms, and diagnoses) from clinical narratives constitutes a basic enabling technology to unlock the knowledge within and support more advanced reasoning applications such as diagnosis explanation, disease progression modeling, and intelligent analysis of the effectiveness of treatment. The recent release of annotated training sets of de-identified clinical narratives has contributed to the development and refinement of concept extraction methods. However, as the annotation process is labor-intensive, training data are necessarily limited in the concepts and concept patterns covered, which impacts the performance of supervised machine learning applications trained with these data. This paper proposes an approach to minimize this limitation by combining supervised machine learning with empirical learning of semantic relatedness from the distribution of the relevant words in additional unannotated text. The approach uses a sequential discriminative classifier (Conditional Random Fields) to extract the mentions of medical problems, treatments and tests from clinical narratives. It takes advantage of all Medline abstracts indexed as being of the publication type "clinical trials" to estimate the relatedness between words in the i2b2/VA training and testing corpora. In addition to the traditional features such as dictionary matching, pattern matching and part-of-speech tags, we also used as a feature words that appear in similar contexts to the word in question (that is, words that have a similar vector representation measured with the commonly used cosine metric, where vector representations are derived using methods of distributional semantics). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first effort exploring the use of distributional semantics, the semantics derived empirically from unannotated text often using vector space models, for a sequence classification task such as concept extraction. Therefore, we first experimented with different sliding window models and found the model with parameters that led to best performance in a preliminary sequence labeling task. The evaluation of this approach, performed against the i2b2/VA concept extraction corpus, showed that incorporating features based on the distribution of words across a large unannotated corpus significantly aids concept extraction. Compared to a supervised-only approach as a baseline, the micro-averaged F-score for exact match increased from 80.3% to 82.3% and the micro-averaged F-score based on inexact match increased from 89.7% to 91.3%. These improvements are highly significant according to the bootstrap resampling method and also considering the performance of other systems. Thus, distributional semantic features significantly improve the performance of concept extraction from clinical narratives by taking advantage of word distribution information obtained from unannotated data.
| S-EPMC3272090 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10812090 | biostudies-literature