Search

ObjectiveWe performed a scoping review of algorithms using electronic health record (EHR) data to identify patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), to advance their use in research and clinical care.Materials and methodsStarting with a previous scoping review of EHR phenotypes, we performed a cumulative update (April 2020 through March 1, 2023) using Pubmed, PheKB, and expert review with exclusive focus on ADRD identification. We included algorithms using EHR data alone or in combination with non-EHR data and characterized whether they identified patients at high risk of or with a current diagnosis of ADRD.ResultsFor our cumulative focused update, we reviewed 271 titles meeting our search criteria, 49 abstracts, and 26 full text papers. We identified 8 articles from the original systematic review, 8 from our new search, and 4 recommended by an expert. We identified 20 papers describing 19 unique EHR phenotypes for ADRD: 7 algorithms identifying patients with diagnosed dementia and 12 algorithms identifying patients at high risk of dementia that prioritize sensitivity over specificity. Reference standards range from only using other EHR data to in-person cognitive screening.ConclusionA variety of EHR-based phenotypes are available for use in identifying populations with or at high-risk of developing ADRD. This review provides comparative detail to aid in choosing the best algorithm for research, clinical care, and population health projects based on the use case and available data. Future research may further improve the design and use of algorithms by considering EHR data provenance.

Outcome measures for embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) should reflect the lived experience of people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers, yet patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes (PCROs) are rarely available in large clinical and administrative data sources. Although pragmatic methods may lead to use of existing administrative data rather than new data collected directly from PLWD, interventions are truly impactful only when they change outcomes prioritized by PLWD and their caregivers. The Patient- and Caregiver-Reported Outcomes Core (PCRO Core) of the IMbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and AD-Related Dementias Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory aims to promote optimal use of outcomes relevant to PLWD and their caregivers in pragmatic trials. The PCRO Core will address key scientific challenges limiting outcome measurement, such as gaps in existing measures, methodologic constraints, and burdensome data capture. PCRO Core investigators will create a searchable library of AD/AD-related dementias (ADRD) clinical outcome measures, including measures in existing data sources with potential for AD/ADRD ePCTs, and will support best practices in measure development, including pragmatic adaptation of PCROs. Working together with other Cores and Teams within the IMPACT Collaboratory, the PCRO Core will support investigators to select from existing outcome measures, and to innovate in methods for measurement and data capture. In the future, the work of the IMPACT Collaboratory may galvanize broader embedded use of outcomes that matter to PLWD and their care partners in large health systems. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:S55-S61, 2020.

Background: Many interventions improve care and outcomes for people with Alzheimer's Disease and related dementias (ADRD), yet are never disseminated. Pragmatic trials facilitate the adoption and dissemination of best practices, but gaps in pragmatic outcome measurement are a critical obstacle. Our objectives are (1) to describe the development and structure of the IMbedded Pragmatic ADRD Clinical Trials Collaboratory (IMPACT) iLibrary of potential outcome measures for ADRD pragmatic trials, and (2) to assess their pragmatic characteristics. Methods: We identified potential outcome measures from several sources: a database of administrative and clinical outcome measures from ADRD clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, published reviews, and IMPACT pilot pragmatic trial outcome measures. The iLibrary reports (a) number of items, (b) completion time, (c) readability for diverse populations, (d) cost or copyright barriers to use, (e) method of administration, (f) assessor training burden, and (g) feasibility of data capture and interpretation in routine care; a summary of pragmatic characteristics of each outcome measure (high, moderate, low); items or descriptions of items; and links to primary citations regarding development or psychometric properties. Results: We included 140 outcome measures in the iLibrary: 66 administrative (100% were pragmatic) and 74 clinical (52% were pragmatic). The most commonly addressed outcome domains from administrative assessments included physical function, quality of care or communication concerns, and psychological symptoms or distress behaviors. The most commonly addressed outcome domains from clinical assessments were psychological symptoms or distress behaviors, physical function, cognitive function, and health‐related quality of life. Conclusions: Pragmatic outcome measures are brief, meaningful to diverse populations, easily scored and interpreted by clinicians, and available in electronic format for analysis. The iLibrary can facilitate the selection of measures for a wide range of outcomes relevant to people with ADRD and their care partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The National Institute on Aging (NIA) Imbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Related Dementia Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory convened a Lived Experience Panel (LEP) to inform the development of research priorities and provide input on conducting embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) of dementia care interventions. Given the importance of people with lived experience to dementia research, and the unique considerations of engaging people with dementia, we report on our process for the recruitment, selection, and initial convening of the IMPACT LEP. Methods: The IMPACT Engaging Partners Team, in partnership with the Alzheimer's Association, sought nominations of individuals with mild cognitive impairment or early‐stage dementia, care partners of other people living with dementia (PLWD), and proxy representatives for individuals with mid‐to‐late stage dementia. The 11‐member LEP was composed of individuals with diverse personal experiences in part due to their age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, geography, disability, or type of dementia. In its first year, the LEP met with IMPACT's Patient and Caregiver Relevant Outcomes Core and Ethics and Regulation Core. Results: LEP members provided valuable insights and nuanced discussion of issues relevant to ePCTs in dementia care from a broad range of personal experience. Panelists identified key research priorities and provided insight on outcomes often studied by researchers. The LEP also informed investigators' approaches to waivers and modifications of written informed consent and evaluation of minimal risk. Summary reports of the LEP meetings with each Core are available on the IMPACT website. At the end of the first year, changes were made to the composition of the LEP, and opportunities were identified for expanding panelist engagement with IMPACT investigators, as were priorities and scope for future input. Conclusions: The IMPACT LEP provides a model for engaging PLWD and care partners in the research process as collaborators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify real‐world patterns of first line treatment, treatment sequence and outcomes for older adults diagnosed with advanced melanoma who received immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Methods: The study population included older adults (ages 65+) diagnosed with unresectable or metastatic melanoma between 2012 and 2017 and who received first line immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Using the linked surveillance, epidemiology, and end results‐medicare data, we described patterns of first line treatment and treatment sequence through 2018. We used descriptive statistics to report patient and provider characteristics by first line treatment receipt and changes in first line therapy use over calendar time. We also described overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) by first line treatment using the Kaplan–Meier method. For patterns of treatment sequence, we reported commonly observed treatment switch patterns by treatment sub‐category and calendar year. Results: The analyses included 584 patients (mean age = 76.3 years). A majority (n = 502) received first line immunotherapy. There was a sustained increase in immunotherapy uptake, most notably from 2015 to 2016. The estimated median OS and TTF were longer with first line immunotherapy than with targeted therapy. Individuals treated with CTLA‐4 + PD‐1 inhibitors had the longest median OS (28.4 months). The most common treatment switch pattern was from a first line CTLA‐4 inhibitor to a second line PD‐1 inhibitor. Conclusions: Our findings inform understanding of treatment patterns of currently used immunotherapies and targeted therapies in older adults with advanced melanoma. Immunotherapy use has increased steadily with PD‐1 inhibitors becoming a dominant treatment option since 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Many large-scale population-based surveys, research studies, and clinical care allow for inclusion of proxy reporting as a strategy to collect outcomes when patients are unavailable or unable to provide reliable self-report. Prior work identified an absence of methodological guidelines regarding proxy reporting in adult populations, including who can serve as a proxy, and considerations for data collection, analysis, and reporting. The primary objective of this work by the ISOQOL Proxy Task Force was to review documents and clinical outcome assessment measures with respect to proxy reporting and to develop, through consensus, considerations for proxy reporting. Methods: We assembled an international group with clinically relevant and/or methodological expertise on proxy use in adult populations. We conducted a targeted review of documentation based on regulatory, non-regulatory, professional society, and individual measure sources. Using a standardized collection form, proxy-related information was extracted from each source including definitions of a proxy, characteristics of a proxy, domains addressable or addressed by a proxy, and observer-reporting. Results: The definition of proxy was inconsistent across 39 sources, except regulatory documents which defined a proxy as a person other than the patient who reports on an outcome as if she/he were the patient. While proxy report was discouraged in regulatory documentation, it was acknowledged there were instances where self-report was impossible. Many documentation sources indicated proxies would be well-justified in certain contexts, but did not indicate who could act as a proxy, when proxies could be used, what domains of patient health they could report on, or how data should be reported. Observer-reported outcomes were typically defined as those based on observed behaviors, however there was not a consistent differentiation between proxy and observer reporting. Based on information extracted from these resources, we developed a checklist of considerations when including proxy-reported measures or using proxies in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting of proxy reported data. Conclusion: Our targeted review highlights a lack of clarity in capturing, interpreting and reporting data from proxies in adult populations. We provide a checklist of considerations to assist researchers and clinicians with including proxies in research studies and clinical care. Lastly, our review identified areas where further guidance and future research are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]