Search

Background and Aim: There is no gold‐standard and considerable heterogeneity in outcome measures used to evaluate treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD) along the opioid treatment cascade. The aim of this study was to develop the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) opioid use disorder core outcomes set (OUD–COS). Design: Four‐round, e‐Delphi expert panel consensus study and plenary research group discussion and targeted consultation. Setting: United States. Participants: A panel of 25 members including clinical practitioners, clinical researchers and administrative staff from the CTN, the network's affiliated clinical and community sites and the NIDA Centre for the CTN. Measurements From a pool of 24 candidate items in four domains (biomedical/disease status; behaviors, symptoms and functioning; opioid treatment cascade; and morbidity and mortality), the panel completed an on‐line questionnaire to rank items with defined specification on a 9‐point scale for importance, with a standard 70% consensus criterion. Findings After the fourth round of the questionnaire and subsequent discussion, consensus was reached for five outcomes: two patient‐reported (global impression of improvement and incident non‐fatal overdose); one clinician‐reported (illicit/non‐medical drug toxicology); and two from administrative records (duration of treatment and fatal opioid poisoning). Conclusions: An e‐Delphi consensus study has produced the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network opioid use disorder core outcomes set (version 1) for opioid use disorder treatment efficacy and effectiveness research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle (AIBL) Study is a prospective study collecting extensive cognitive, clinical, fluid, and imaging biomarkers data from older adults living in Australia. Integration of outcomes between large prospective studies of AD will provide greater precision in models of AD brain‐behavior relationships, so it is important to align composite scores for cognitive domains between such studies. Methods: Detailed methods for AIBL, the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) have been published. Briefly, AIBL participants had cognition assessed with an extensive neuropsychological test battery alongside health and biomarker assessments at entry and each 18‐months thereafter. Granular‐level cognitive data were obtained and an expert panel of two neuropsychologists and a behavioral neurologist categorized each element as assessing memory, executive functioning, language, visuospatial, or none of these, exactly as we have done previously. We also identified elements we had previously calibrated from other studies; after careful quality control and confirmation these served as anchors enabling co‐calibration. We used confirmatory factor analysis bi‐factor models to calibrate the AIBL battery with other studies. We used those calibrations to obtain co‐calibrated scores for all AIBL participants at every study visit. Here we show descriptive statistics for baseline visits, separately by diagnosis (normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), dementia) for two enrollment waves for AIBL as well as for each phase of ADNI and across the Uniform Data Set (UDS) 1 & 2 (UDS1/2) and UDS3 time periods for NACC. Results: Box plots for memory, executive functioning, language, and visuospatial for people with normal cognition are in Figure 1, MCI in Figure 2, and dementia in Figure 3. These figures show there is substantial cognitive variation across waves within these disease stage groups and across studies. Conclusion: Co‐calibrated neuropsychological domain scores provide a common metric for integrating cognitive data across studies. Co‐calibrated scores aggregated across large prospective AD studies such as AIBL, ADNI, and NACC provide a foundation for large‐scale models of the development of AD and can serve as phenotypes for genetics studies. Co‐calibrated scores are available from AIBL, ADNI, and from NACC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethnoracial minority status contributes to an increased risk for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after trauma exposure, beyond other risk factors. A population-based sampling frame was used to examine the associations between ethnoracial groups and early PTSD symptoms while adjusting for relevant clinical and demographic characteristics. Acutely injured trauma center inpatients (N = 623) were screened with the PTSD Checklist. American Indian and African American patients reported the highest levels of posttraumatic stress and preinjury cumulative trauma burden. African American heritage was independently associated with an increased risk of higher acute PTSD symptom levels. Disparities in trauma history, PTSD symptoms, and event related factors emphasize the need for acute care services to incorporate culturally competent approaches for treating these diverse populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]