Assessing one’s functional capacity

– in addition to neuropsychological performance

– is essential for determining neurocognitive status, and functional assessment is often provided via informant report. While informant characteristics have been shown to influence reports of participant functioning, the degree to which they moderate relationships between reported functioning and participant performance on neuropsychological testing is unclear. Moreover, associations among informant characteristics, reported functioning, and neuropsychological performance have not been directly examined with non-Hispanic Black (NHB) samples, despite this population’s disproportionately high risk for dementia.

In this cross-sectional observational study, we examined the influence of informant characteristics on (1) informant reports of participant functioning (assessed via the Functional Activity Questionnaire [FAQ]), and (2) associations between reported functioning and participant performance on neuropsychological testing, among NHB adult participants in the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center cohort (n=1024).

Younger age, female sex/gender, higher education, longer relationships with participants, and cohabitation were informant characteristics associated with poorer reported functioning (ps<.01). Moreover, poorer reported functioning was associated with poorer performance on (1) memory and language tests, particularly for participants with male (versus female) informants, and (2) the Multilingual Naming Test, particularly for participants with cohabitating (versus non-cohabitating) informants (ps<.01).

Within the context of neurocognitive evaluation of NHB adults, informant age, sex/gender, education, relationship length, and cohabitation status influence informant reports of participant functioning, and informant sex/gender and cohabitation status in turn moderate associations between reported functioning and participant performance on comprehensive neuropsychological testing.

After experiencing disappointment due to numerous patients not turning up to their memory assessment service (MAS) appointments as well as the effect of losing man-hours due to this we decided to investigate how best to improve the attendance rates of our MAS patients. The initial frustration occurred when several patients for multiple team members were not attending their appointments. When followed up they stated that they had not received the required letters or follow up telephone calls prompting them to attend their appointments. This led to the initial hypotheses that a formal structure was required in part to aid in the delivery of this service and improve attendance.

We initially investigated the percentage of patient's that did not attend their appointments from the period of August 2022 to December 2022. This was achieved utilising the trust's data collection team. From these initial raw data we processed and calculated the delay between appointment allocation and a letter being sent out as well as basic percentages of patients not attending each month. What we realised was that there was no strict average and our admin team were not aware of any pathway that they could utilise as a guideline for the management of patient appointments. We therefore outlined the overall process of the appointment pathway and formed this. Upon this foundation we subsequently ironed out the optimal points of contact between our admin team and patients and when this could be accomplished and documented. The aims of these points of contact overall was to improve the rates of patients not attending their appointments and improving our target of appointment attendance. We subsequently re-evaluated our patient attendance five months after the formation of the posters, which were affixed in the admin and memory nurse rooms at our base.

The results overall were quite promising and did appear to show a change based upon the formalisation of the MAS appointment pathway.

The results showed a positive improvement to the attendance rate of the MAS patients and also demonstrated the empowerment that a team can have when a formal pathway is in place. This fully completed audit cycle demonstrated the importance of such a pathway and how to address what is often a multi-faceted problem for many community based services. Our conclusion appears to support our hypotheses that a formal pathway can often improve the provision of a service.

We quantified hospital-acquired coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the early phases of the pandemic, and we evaluated solely temporal determinations of hospital acquisition.

Retrospective observational study during early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, March 1–November 30, 2020. We identified laboratory-detected severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from 30 days before admission through discharge. All cases detected after hospital day 5 were categorized by chart review as community or unlikely hospital-acquired cases, or possible or probable hospital-acquired cases.

The study was conducted in 2 acute-care hospitals in Chicago, Illinois.

The study included all hospitalized patients including an inpatient rehabilitation unit.

Each hospital implemented infection-control precautions soon after identifying COVID-19 cases, including patient and staff cohort protocols, universal masking, and restricted visitation policies.

Among 2,667 patients with SARS-CoV-2, detection before hospital day 6 was most common (n = 2,612; 98%); detection during hospital days 6–14 was uncommon (n = 43; 1.6%); and detection after hospital day 14 was rare (n = 16; 0.6%). By chart review, most cases after day 5 were categorized as community acquired, usually because SARS-CoV-2 had been detected at a prior healthcare facility (68% of cases on days 6–14 and 53% of cases after day 14). The incidence rates of possible and probable hospital-acquired cases per 10,000 patient days were similar for ICU- and non-ICU patients at hospital A (1.2 vs 1.3 difference, 0.1; 95% CI, −2.8 to 3.0) and hospital B (2.8 vs 1.2 difference, 1.6; 95% CI, −0.1 to 4.0).

Most patients were protected by early and sustained application of infection-control precautions modified to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Using solely temporal criteria to discriminate hospital versus community acquisition would have misclassified many “late onset” SARS-CoV-2–positive cases.

Lumateperone (lumateperone tosylate, ITI-007) is an investigational drug for the treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar depression, and other disorders. Lumateperone has a unique mechanism of action that simultaneously modulates serotonin, dopamine, and glutamate neurotransmission. This may provide advantages in the treatment of the broad symptoms associated with schizophrenia, including negative and depression symptoms. In 2 previous placebo-controlled trials in patients with acute schizophrenia, lumateperone 42mg (ITI-007 60mg) demonstrated statistically significant improvement in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Total score compared with placebo. In these studies, lumateperone was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to placebo. This open-label long-term study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of lumateperone 42mg in patients with schizophrenia and stable symptoms.

Patients with stable schizophrenia were treated for up to 1 year with lumateperone 42mg. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), body weight, laboratory parameters, and extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS)/motor symptom assessments. Efficacy analyses included evaluation of changes in PANSS Total score and in depression symptoms, as measured by the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS).

In the 1-year open-label study, 602 patients received at least 1 dose of lumateperone 42mg; at the time of this interim analysis, 107 patients had completed 1 year of treatment. Only 4 TEAEs occurred in ≥5% of patients (weight decrease, dry mouth, headache and diarrhea); the majority of AEs were mild or moderate in intensity. Most metabolic parameters and mean prolactin levels decreased from SOC baseline, as did mean body weight and BMI. Based on AE reporting and EPS/motor symptom scales, lumateperone treatment was associated with minimal EPS risk. Lumateperone 42mg treatment was associated with significant reductions in PANSS Total score from baseline, with continuing PANSS improvement throughout the study. In patients with moderate-to-severe depression symptoms at baseline (CDSS>5), mean CDSS scores decreased from 7.4 (baseline) to 3.1 (Day 300); 60% of patients met CDSS response criteria (50% improvement from baseline) by Day 75 and this response rate was maintained through day 300. Similar magnitude of CDSS improvement was seen regardless of concurrent antidepressant therapy.

In long-term treatment, lumateperone was associated with minimal metabolic, EPS, and cardiovascular safety issues relative to current SOC antipsychotic therapy. Lumateperone improved schizophrenia symptoms with continued long-term treatment. In patients with moderate-to-severe depression symptoms at baseline, lumateperone treatment was associated with marked improvement in CDSS scores. These data are consistent with and extend data previously reported in placebo-controlled studies in patients with acute schizophrenia treated with lumateperone.

Supported by funding from Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc.

Lumateperone (ITI-007) is in late-phase clinical development for schizophrenia. Lumateperone has a unique mechanism of action that modulates serotonin, dopamine, and glutamate neurotransmission. This pooled analysis of lumateperone in 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies was conducted to evaluate the safety and tolerability of lumateperone 42mg (ITI-007 60mg).

Data were pooled from the 3 controlled late-phase studies of lumateperone 42mg in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Safety assessments of all patients who received at least one dose of any treatment included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), changes in laboratory parameters, extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and vital signs.

The safety population comprised 1,073 patients (placebo [n=412], lumateperone 42mg [n=406], risperidone [n=255]). TEAEs that occurred in the lumateperone 42mg group at a rate of ≥5% and twice placebo were somnolence/sedation (24.1% vs 10.0%) and dry mouth (5.9% vs 2.2%). Rates of discontinuation due to TEAEs with lumateperone 42mg (0.5%) were similar to placebo (0.5%) and lower than risperidone (4.7%). Mean change in weight and rates of EPS-related TEAEs were less for lumateperone 42mg and placebo patients than risperidone patients. Mean change from baseline in metabolic parameters were similar or smaller for lumateperone 42mg vs placebo. Mean changes were notably higher in risperidone patients vs lumateperone 42mg and placebo for glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and prolactin.

In this pooled analysis, lumateperone 42mg showed good tolerability with potential benefits over risperidone for metabolic, prolactin, and EPS risks. The only TEAE that occurred in >10% of lumateperone patients was somnolence/sedation, which was impacted by morning administration; in subsequent studies that administered lumateperone in the evening, somnolence/sedation rates were markedly reduced. These results suggest that lumateperone 42mg may be a promising new treatment for schizophrenia.

Supported by funding from Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc.

Sleep disturbances are prevalent in cancer patients, especially those with advanced disease. There are few published intervention studies that address sleep issues in advanced cancer patients during the course of treatment. This study assesses the impact of a multidisciplinary quality of life (QOL) intervention on subjective sleep difficulties in patients with advanced cancer.

This randomized trial investigated the comparative effects of a multidisciplinary QOL intervention (n = 54) vs. standard care (n = 63) on sleep quality in patients with advanced cancer receiving radiation therapy as a secondary endpoint. The intervention group attended six intervention sessions, while the standard care group received informational material only. Sleep quality was assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), administered at baseline and weeks 4 (post-intervention), 27, and 52.

The intervention group had a statistically significant improvement in the PSQI total score and two components of sleep quality and daytime dysfunction than the control group at week 4. At week 27, although both groups showed improvements in sleep measures from baseline, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in any of the PSQI total and component scores, or ESS. At week 52, the intervention group used less sleep medication than control patients compared to baseline (p = 0.04) and had a lower ESS score (7.6 vs. 9.3, p = 0.03).

A multidisciplinary intervention to improve QOL can also improve sleep quality of advanced cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy. Those patients who completed the intervention also reported the use of less sleep medication.