Background In the context of an aging end-stage renal disease population with multiple comorbidities, transplantation professionals face challenges in evaluating the global health of patients awaiting kidney transplantation. Functional status might be useful for identifying which patients will derive a survival benefit from transplantation versus dialysis. Study Design Retrospective cohort study of wait-listed patients using data on functional status from a national dialysis provider linked to United Network for Organ Sharing registry data. Setting & Participants Adult kidney transplant candidates added to the waiting list between the years 2000 and 2006. Predictor Physical function scale of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Healthy Survey, analyzed as a time-varying covariate. Outcomes Kidney transplantation; Survival benefit of transplantation versus remaining wait-listed. Measurements We used multivariable Cox regression to assess the association between physical function with study outcomes. In survival benefit analyses, transplant status was modeled as a time-varying covariate. Results The cohort comprised 19,242 kidney transplant candidates (median age, 51 years; 36% black race) receiving maintenance dialysis. Candidates in the lowest baseline physical function quartile were more likely to be inactivated (adjusted HR vs. highest quartile, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.39) and less likely to undergo transplantation (adjusted HR vs. highest quartile, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.61-0.68). After transplantation, worse physical function was associated with shorter 3-year survival (84% vs. 92% for the lowest vs. highest function quartiles). However, compared to dialysis, transplantation was associated with a statistically significant survival benefit by 9 months for patients in every function quartile. Limitations Functional status is self-reported. Conclusions Even patients with low function appear to live longer with kidney transplantation versus dialysis. For waitlisted patients, global health measures like functional status may be more useful in counseling patients about the probability of transplantation than in identifying who will derive a survival benefit from it.

Background It is becoming increasingly important to study common and distinct etiologies, clinical and pathological features, and mechanisms related to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s disease (PD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). These comparative studies rely on powerful database tools to quickly generate data sets which match diverse and complementary criteria set by the studies. Methods In this paper, we present a novel Integrated NeuroDegenerative Disease (INDD) database developed at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) through a consortium of Penn investigators. Since these investigators work on AD, PD, ALS and FTLD, this allowed us to achieve the goal of developing an INDD database for these major neurodegenerative disorders. We used Microsoft SQL Server as the platform with built-in “backwards” functionality to provide Access as a front-end client to interface with the database. We used PHP hypertext Preprocessor to create the “front end” web interface and then integrated individual neurodegenerative disease databases using a master lookup table. We also present methods of data entry, database security, database backups, and database audit trails for this INDD database. Results We compare the results of a biomarker study using the INDD database to those using an alternative approach by querying individual database separately. Conclusions We have demonstrated that the Penn INDD database has the ability to query multiple database tables from a single console with high accuracy and reliability. The INDD database provides a powerful tool for generating data sets in comparative studies across several neurodegenerative diseases.

Considerations of risks and benefits, informed consent, and fair subject selection do not require the use of blinded enrollment for AD prevention trials. Blinded enrollment in AD prevention trials may sometimes be necessary because of the need for scientific validity, not because it prevents coercion or undue influence.

No abstract

Several large clinical trials are underway to discover therapies to delay or prevent the onset of dementia caused by Alzheimer’s disease (AD). A common feature of these trials is that they are testing therapies in people who do not yet have changes in memory or thinking—that is, who are cognitively unimpaired—but who have a biologically defined risk of developing dementia caused by AD. When these trials eventually succeed, it is reasonable to expect the widespread adoption of biomarker and genetic testing of cognitively unimpaired individuals into clinical practice, as well as treatment prescribed to individuals at heightened risk. Here, we report results from two qualitative studies that sought to understand with whom, why, and how individuals share their AD biomarker and genetic testing results, respectively. We found that sharing is common within the confines of close relationships. However, when sharing outside such relationships, people have multiple concerns, including stigma and discrimination. These concerns highlight the need for additional legal protections and policy changes in anticipation of the coming transformation of AD clinical care.

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) Stroke Trial would not have been completed in a timely fashion without subjects enrolled by surrogate consent. Furthermore, exclusion of subjects who could not provide their own consent would have severely limited the generalizability and value of trial results.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Future digital health research hinges on methodologies to conduct remote clinical assessments and in-home monitoring. The Collaborative Aging Research Using Technology (CART) initiative was introduced to establish a digital technology research platform that could widely assess activity in the homes of diverse cohorts of older adults and detect meaningful change longitudinally. This paper reports on the built end-to-end design of the CART platform, its functionality, and the resulting research capabilities. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> CART platform development followed a principled design process aiming for scalability, use case flexibility, longevity, and data privacy protection while allowing sharability. The platform, comprising ambient technology, wearables, and other sensors, was deployed in participants’ homes to provide continuous, long-term (months to years), and ecologically valid data. Data gathered from CART homes were sent securely to a research server for analysis and future data sharing. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The CART system was created, iteratively tested, and deployed to 232 homes representing four diverse cohorts (African American, Latinx, low-income, and predominantly rural-residing veterans) of older adults (<i>n</i> = 301) across the USA. Multiple measurements of wellness such as cognition (e.g., mean daily computer use time = 160–169 min), physical mobility (e.g., mean daily transitions between rooms = 96–155), sleep (e.g., mean nightly sleep duration = 6.3–7.4 h), and level of social engagement (e.g., reports of overnight visitors = 15–45%) were collected across cohorts. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The CART initiative resulted in a minimally obtrusive digital health-enabled system that met the design principles while allowing for data capture over extended periods and can be widely used by the research community. The ability to monitor and manage health digitally within the homes of older adults is an important alternative to in-person assessments in many research contexts. Further advances will come with wider, shared use of the CART system in additional settings, within different disease contexts, and by diverse research teams.

Of 88 hospices identified, 17 (19%) reported that they had participated in research in the past year. Hospices that participated in research were more likely to be urban, affiliated with an academic institution, and were more likely to have an inpatient unit. Hospices cited several barriers to research participation, including time commitments, staffing resources, ethical concerns, and burdens to patients and families. The most important concern was lack of staffing resources. Hospices indicated that they would be most willing to support research regarding pain management and timing of referral to hospice.