Search

Background: The Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study is a double-blind, prospective, clinical trial investigating analgesic effectiveness in the management of acute post-surgical pain after impacted third molar extraction across five clinical sites. Specifically, Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study examines a commonly prescribed opioid combination (hydrocodone/acetaminophen) against a non-opioid combination (ibuprofen/acetaminophen). The Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study employs a novel, electronic infrastructure, leveraging the functionality of its data management system, Research Electronic Data Capture, to not only serve as its data reservoir but also provide the framework for its quality management program. Methods: Within the Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study, Research Electronic Data Capture is expanded into a multi-function management tool, serving as the hub for its clinical data management, project management and credentialing, materials management, and quality management. Research Electronic Data Capture effectively captures data, displays/tracks study progress, triggers follow-up, and supports quality management processes. Results: At 72% study completion, over 12,000 subject data forms have been executed in Research Electronic Data Capture with minimal missing (0.15%) or incomplete or erroneous forms (0.06%). Five hundred, twenty-three queries were initiated to request clarifications and/or address missing data and data discrepancies. Conclusion: Research Electronic Data Capture is an effective digital health technology that can be maximized to contribute to the success of a clinical trial. The Research Electronic Data Capture infrastructure and enhanced functionality used in Opioid Analgesic Reduction Study provides the framework and the logic that ensures complete, accurate, data while guiding an effective, efficient workflow that can be followed by team members across sites. This enhanced data reliability and comprehensive quality management processes allow for better preparedness and readiness for clinical monitoring and regulatory reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This randomized clinical trial investigates the relative efficacy of Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement in addition to methadone treatment as usual compared with usual care only. Key Points: Question: What is the relative efficacy of Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE) as an adjunct to methadone treatment as usual (usual care) as compared with usual care only? Findings: In this randomized clinical trial of 154 individuals with chronic pain in methadone treatment for an opioid use disorder, relative to usual care, MORE plus usual care demonstrated efficacy for decreasing drug use, pain, and depression and increasing methadone treatment retention and adherence. Meaning: Phase 3 clinical trials of MORE and the development of strategies to train clinicians to integrate MORE into methadone treatment programs are warranted. Importance: Methadone treatment (MT) fails to address the emotion dysregulation, pain, and reward processing deficits that often drive opioid use disorder (OUD). New interventions are needed to address these factors. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of MT as usual (usual care) vs telehealth Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (MORE) plus usual care among people with an OUD and pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a randomized clinical trial conducted from August 2020 to June 2022. Participants receiving MT for OUD and experiencing chronic pain were recruited at 5 clinics in New Jersey. Interventions: In usual care, participants received MT, including medication and counseling. Participants receiving MORE plus usual care attended 8 weekly, 2-hour telehealth groups that provided training in mindfulness, reappraisal, and savoring in addition to usual care. Main Outcomes and Measure: Primary outcomes were return to drug use and MT dropout over 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were days of drug use, methadone adherence, pain, depression, and anxiety. Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat approach. Results: A total of 154 participants (mean [SD] age, 48.5 [11.8] years; 88 female [57%]) were included in the study. Participants receiving MORE plus usual care had significantly less return to drug use (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.90; P =.02) and MT dropout (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.18-0.96; P =.04) than those receiving usual care only after adjusting for a priori–specified covariates (eg, methadone dose and recent drug use, at baseline). A total of 44 participants (57.1%) in usual care and 39 participants (50.6%) in MORE plus usual care returned to drug use. A total of 17 participants (22.1%) in usual care and 10 participants (13.0%) in MORE plus usual care dropped out of MT. In zero-inflated models, participants receiving MORE plus usual care had significantly fewer days of any drug use (ratio of means = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.53-0.63; P <.001) than those receiving usual care only through 16 weeks. A significantly greater percentage of participants receiving MORE plus usual care maintained methadone adherence (64 of 67 [95.5%]) at the 16-week follow-up than those receiving usual care only (56 of 67 [83.6%]; χ2 = 4.49; P =.04). MORE reduced depression scores and ecological momentary assessments of pain through the 16-week follow-up to a significantly greater extent than usual care (group × time F2,272 = 3.13; P =.05 and group × time F16,13000 = 6.44; P <.001, respectively). Within the MORE plus usual care group, EMA pain ratings decreased from a mean (SD) of 5.79 (0.29) at baseline to 5.17 (0.30) at week 16; for usual care only, pain decreased from 5.19 (0.28) at baseline to 4.96 (0.29) at week 16. Within the MORE plus usual care group, mean (SD) depression scores were 22.52 (1.32) at baseline and 18.98 (1.38) at 16 weeks. In the usual care–only group, mean (SD) depression scores were 22.65 (1.25) at baseline and 20.03 (1.27) at 16 weeks. Although anxiety scores increased in the usual care–only group and decreased in the MORE group, this difference between groups did not reach significance (group × time unadjusted F2,272 = 2.10; P=.12; Cohen d =.44; adjusted F2,268 = 2.33; P =.09). Within the MORE plus usual care group, mean (SD) anxiety scores were 25.5 (1.60) at baseline and 23.45 (1.73) at 16 weeks. In the usual care–only group, mean (SD) anxiety scores were 23.27 (1.75) at baseline and 24.07 (1.73) at 16 weeks. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial demonstrated that telehealth MORE was a feasible adjunct to MT with significant effects on drug use, pain, depression, treatment retention, and adherence. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04491968 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Phosphoglycerate dehydrogenase (PHGDH), the first rate-limiting enzyme of serine synthesis, is frequently overexpressed in human cancer. PHGDH overexpression activates serine synthesis to promote cancer progression. Currently, PHGDH regulation in normal cells and cancer is not well understood. Parkin, an E3 ubiquitin ligase involved in Parkinson's disease, is a tumor suppressor. Parkin expression is frequently downregulated in many types of cancer, and its tumor-suppressive mechanism is poorly defined. Here, we show that PHGDH is a substrate for Parkin-mediated ubiquitination and degradation. Parkin interacted with PHGDH and ubiquitinated PHGDH at lysine 330, leading to PHGDH degradation to suppress serine synthesis. Parkin deficiency in cancer cells stabilized PHGDH and activated serine synthesis to promote cell proliferation and tumorigenesis, which was largely abolished by targeting PHGDH with RNA interference, CRISPR/Cas9 KO, or small-molecule PHGDH inhibitors. Furthermore, Parkin expression was inversely correlated with PHGDH expression in human breast cancer and lung cancer. Our results revealed PHGDH ubiquitination by Parkin as a crucial mechanism for PHGDH regulation that contributes to the tumor-suppressive function of Parkin and identified Parkin downregulation as a critical mechanism underlying PHGDH overexpression in cancer., Introduction Cancer cells reprogram their metabolism to meet their bioenergetic and biosynthetic needs for rapid growth and proliferation (1-3). Increased serine biosynthesis is an important metabolic adaptation in many human [...]

ObjectiveTo examine whether the presence of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is associated with an earlier age at mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Alzheimer disease (AD)-dementia onset in participants from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohort. We also examined whether continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) use is associated with delayed onset of cognitive decline.MethodsFrom the ADNI cohort, 3 subsets with progressively stringent criteria were created in a step-wise manner. Age at MCI or AD-dementia onset was the main outcome variable. Analyses were performed separately for each subset in untreated SDB+ vs SDB- and untreated SDB+ vs CPAP+ groups. Chi-square and t tests were performed to examine between-group differences. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, compared by the log-rank test, and assessed by multivariate Cox regression adjusting for potential confounders.ResultsSDB+ patients had a younger age at MCI onset in all subsets (MC1: 72.63 vs 83.67; MC2: 72.15 vs 83.45; MC3: 77.40 vs 89.89; p < 0.01). SDB+ patients had a younger age at AD-dementia onset only in our most conservative subset (AC3: 83.46 vs 88.13; p < 0.05). In a combined outcome analysis, SDB+ patients had a younger age at onset to MCI or AD-dementia in all subsets. In subsets 1 and 2, CPAP use delayed the age at MCI onset (CMC1: 72.63 vs 82.10; CMC2: 72.11 vs 82.10; p < 0.01).ConclusionsConsistent with our hypothesis, the presence of SDB was associated with an earlier age at cognitive decline. Our findings in CPAP+ participants suggest that CPAP treatment of SDB may delay progression of cognitive impairment.

Generalized linear mixed models are commonly used to describe relationships between correlated responses and covariates in medical research. In this paper, we propose a simple and easily implementable regularized estimation approach to select both fixed and random effects in generalized linear mixed model. Specifically, we propose to construct and optimize the objective functions using the confidence distributions of model parameters, as opposed to using the observed data likelihood functions, to perform effect selections. Two estimation methods are developed. The first one is to use the joint confidence distribution of model parameters to perform simultaneous fixed and random effect selections. The second method is to use the marginal confidence distributions of model parameters to perform the selections of fixed and random effects separately. With a proper choice of regularization parameters in the adaptive LASSO framework, we show the consistency and oracle properties of the proposed regularized estimators. Simulation studies have been conducted to assess the performance of the proposed estimators and demonstrate computational efficiency. Our method has also been applied to two longitudinal cancer studies to identify demographic and clinical factors associated with patient health outcomes after cancer therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with chronic physical symptoms (e.g., chronic pain) often have significant functional impairment (i.e., disability). The fear avoidance model is the dominant theoretical model of how the relationship between chronic physical symptoms and functional impairment develops and proposes a cyclical/bidirectional relationship. There has never been a definitive test of the proposed bi-directional relationship. The current study followed 767 Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom soldiers from pre-deployment, when they were relatively healthy, to 1 year after deployment, when it was anticipated that symptoms would increase or develop. Over the four assessment time points, physical symptom severity consistently predicted worse functional impairment at the subsequent time point. Functional impairment did not show a consistent relationship with worsening of physical symptom severity. These findings suggest that changes to functional impairment do not have a short-term impact on physical symptom severity., Author(s): Lisa M. McAndrew [sup.1] [sup.2] , Drew A. Helmer [sup.1] [sup.3] , Shou-En Lu [sup.1] [sup.4] , Helena K. Chandler [sup.1] , Sarah Slotkin [sup.2] , Karen S. Quigley [...]

ObjectivesCigarette smoking behavior in bipolar disorder (BPD), including the effects of mood-stabilizing medications, has not been well characterized.MethodsWe compared serum nicotine, nicotine metabolite levels, and smoking topography in 75 smokers with BPD to 86 control smokers (CON). For some comparisons, an additional control group of 75 smokers with schizophrenia (SCZ) were included.ResultsThere were no differences between the BPD and CON groups in baseline smoking characteristics or serum nicotine or cotinine levels. Fifty-one smokers with BPD (68.9%) were taking one of the following mood stabilizers: valproic acid, lamotrigine, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, lithium, or topiramate. The 3-hydroxycotinine-to-cotinine ratio, a marker of cytochrome P450 2A6 (CYP2A6) metabolic activity, was significantly higher in BPD versus CON and versus SCZ (0.68 versus 0.49 versus 0.54; p =0.002). The difference between groups, however, was no longer significant when the analysis was repeated with those taking hepatic enzyme-inducing drugs (carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate) included as a covariate. The time between puffs, or interpuff interval (IPI), was shorter in BPD versus CON by an average of 3.0sec (p

Abstract Background To evaluate the U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) and Framingham risk equations for predicting short-term risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) events among adults with long-standing type 2 diabetes, including those with and without preexisting CHD. Methods Prospective cohort of U.S. managed care enrollees aged ≥ 18 years and mean diabetes duration of more than 10 years, participating in the Translating Research into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD) study, was followed for the first occurrence of CHD events from 2000 to 2003. The UKPDS and Framingham risk equations were evaluated for discriminating power and calibration. Results A total of 8303 TRIAD participants, were identified to evaluate the UKPDS (n = 5914, 120 events), Framingham-initial (n = 5914, 218 events) and Framingham-secondary (n = 2389, 374 events) risk equations, according to their prior CHD history. All of these equations exhibited low discriminating power with Harrell’s c-index

BackgroundPatients who speak Spanish and/or have low socioeconomic status are at greater risk of suboptimal glycemic control. Inadequate intensification of anti-glycemic medications may partially explain this disparity.ObjectiveTo examine the associations between primary language, income, and medication intensification.DesignCohort study with 18-month follow-up.ParticipantsOne thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine patients with Type 2 diabetes who were not using insulin enrolled in the Translating Research into Action for Diabetes Study (TRIAD), a study of diabetes care in managed care.MeasurementsUsing administrative pharmacy data, we compared the odds of medication intensification for patients with baseline A1c ≥ 8%, by primary language and annual income. Covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, Charlson score, diabetes duration, baseline A1c, type of diabetes treatment, and health plan.ResultsOverall, 42.4% of patients were taking intensified regimens at the time of follow-up. We found no difference in the odds of intensification for English speakers versus Spanish speakers. However, compared to patients with incomes $75,000 (OR 2.22, 1.53-3.24) had increased odds of intensification. This latter pattern did not differ statistically by race.ConclusionsLow-income patients were less likely to receive medication intensification compared to higher-income patients, but primary language (Spanish vs. English) was not associated with differences in intensification in a managed care setting. Future studies are needed to explain the reduced rate of intensification among low income patients in managed care.