Clinical Information Search
Search Results for "depression"
- Online Learning Center (10)
- Policy Library (251)
- Performance Measures (13)
- Annals of Internal Medicine (1481)
- Annals of Internal Medicine: Clinical Cases (75)
- IM Matters (173)
- ACP Hospitalist (267)
- ACP Diabetes Monthly (52)
- ACP Gastroenterology Monthly (61)
Displaying 111 - 120 of 251 in Policy Library
Displaying 111 - 120 of 1481 in Annals of Internal Medicine
These Annals of Internal Medicine results only contain recent articles.
- Visit annals.org to search all content back to 1927.
- View Annals of Internal Medicine CME by topic here.
Cumulative All-Cause Mortality in Diverse Hispanic/Latino Adults: A Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 177, No 3
Background: All-cause mortality among diverse Hispanic/Latino groups in the United States and factors underlying mortality differences have not been examined prospectively. Objective: To describe cumulative all-cause mortality (and factors underlying differences) by Hispanic/Latino background, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Prospective, multicenter cohort study. Setting: Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. Participants: 15 568 adults aged 18 to 74 years at baseline (2008 to 2011) of Central American, Cuban, Dominican, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South American, and other backgrounds from the Bronx, New York; Chicago, Illinois; Miami, Florida; and San Diego, California. Measurements: Sociodemographic, acculturation-related, lifestyle, and clinical factors were assessed at baseline, and vital status was ascertained through December 2021 (969 deaths; 173 444 person-years of follow-up). Marginally adjusted cumulative all-cause mortality risks (11-year before the pandemic and 2-year during the pandemic) were examined using progressively adjusted Cox regression. Results: Before the pandemic, 11-year cumulative mortality risks adjusted for age and sex were higher in the Puerto Rican and Cuban groups (6.3% [95% CI, 5.2% to 7.6%] and 5.7% [CI, 5.0% to 6.6%], respectively) and lowest in the South American group (2.4% [CI, 1.7% to 3.5%]). Differences were attenuated with adjustment for lifestyle and clinical factors. During the pandemic, 2-year cumulative mortality risks adjusted for age and sex ranged from 1.1% (CI, 0.6% to 2.0%; South American) to 2.0% (CI, 1.4% to 3.0%; Central American); CIs overlapped across groups. With adjustment for lifestyle factors, 2-year cumulative mortality risks were highest in persons of Central American and Mexican backgrounds and lowest among those of Puerto Rican and Cuban backgrounds. Limitation: Lack of data on race and baseline citizenship status; correlation between Hispanic/Latino background and site. Conclusion: Differences in prepandemic mortality risks across Hispanic/Latino groups were explained by lifestyle and clinical factors. Mortality patterns changed during the pandemic, with higher risks in persons of Central American and Mexican backgrounds than in those of Puerto Rican and Cuban backgrounds. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.
Would You Screen This Patient for Cognitive Impairment?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 176, No 10
Dementia, according to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, is defined by a significant decline in 1 or more cognitive domains that interferes with a person’s independence in daily activities. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) differs from dementia in that the impairment is not sufficient to interfere with independence. For the purposes of this discussion, cognitive impairment (CI) includes both dementia and MCI. Various screening tests are available for CI. These tests ask patients to perform a series of tasks that assess 1 or more domains of cognitive function or ask a caregiver to report on the patient’s abilities. A positive result on a screening test does not equate to a diagnosis of CI; rather, it should lead to additional testing to confirm the diagnosis. On review of the evidence, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concluded in 2020 that the evidence was insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for CI in older adults (“I statement”). The USPSTF did clarify that although there is insufficient evidence, there may be important reasons to identify CI. In this article, 2 experts review the available evidence to answer the following questions: What screening tools are available, and how effective are they in identifying patients with CI? What interventions are available for patients found to have CI, to what extent do they improve patient outcomes, and what, if any, negative effects occur? And, would they recommend screening for CI, and why or why not?
Effectiveness of Existing Insomnia Therapies for Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis: A Randomized Clinical Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 177, No 2
Background: Chronic insomnia is common in patients undergoing in-center hemodialysis, yet there is limited evidence on effective treatments for this population. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), trazodone, and placebo for insomnia in patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis. Design: Randomized, multicenter, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03534284) Setting: 26 dialysis units in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Seattle, Washington. Participants: Patients with Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) score of 10 or greater, with sleep disturbances on 3 or more nights per week for 3 or more months. Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of CBT-I, trazodone, or placebo. Measurements: The primary outcome was the ISI score at 7 and 25 weeks from randomization. Results: A total of 923 patients were prescreened, and of the 411 patients with chronic insomnia, 126 were randomly assigned to CBT-I (n = 43), trazodone (n = 42), or placebo (n = 41). The change in ISI scores from baseline to 7 weeks with CBT-I or trazodone was no different from placebo: CBT-I, −3.7 (95% CI, −5.5 to −1.9); trazodone, −4.2 (CI, −5.9 to −2.4); and placebo, −3.1 (CI, −4.9 to −1.3). There was no meaningful change in ISI scores from baseline to 25 weeks: CBT-I, −4.8 (CI, −7.0 to −2.7); trazodone, −4.0 (CI, −6.0 to −1.9); and placebo, −4.3 (CI, −6.4 to −2.2). Serious adverse events (SAEs), particularly serious cardiovascular events, were more frequent with trazodone (annualized cardiovascular SAE incidence rates: CBT-I, 0.05 [CI, 0.00 to 0.29]; trazodone, 0.64 [CI, 0.34 to 1.10]; and placebo, 0.21 [CI, 0.06 to 0.53]). Limitation: Modest sample size and most participants had mild or moderate insomnia. Conclusion: In patients undergoing hemodialysis with mild or moderate chronic insomnia, there was no difference in the effectiveness of 6 weeks of CBT-I or trazodone compared with placebo. The incidence of SAEs was higher with trazodone. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
Clinical Effectiveness of Cognitively Enhanced Tai Ji Quan Training on Global Cognition and Dual-Task Performance During Walking in Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment or Self-Reported Memory Concerns: A Randomized Controlled Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 176, No 11
Background: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) negatively impacts cognition and dual-task abilities. A physical–cognitive integrated treatment approach could mitigate this risk for dementia. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of cognitively enhanced tai ji quan versus standard tai ji quan or stretching exercise in improving global cognition and reducing dual-task walking costs in older adults with MCI or self-reported memory concerns. Design: 3-group, randomized (1:1:1), superiority trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04070703) Setting: Community residential homes. Participants: 318 older adults with self-reported memory decline or concern and a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global score of 0.5 or lower at baseline. Intervention: Cognitively enhanced tai ji quan (n = 105), standard tai ji quan (n = 107), or stretching (n = 106). All groups exercised at home via real-time videoconferencing, 1 hour semiweekly for 24 weeks. Measurements: The co–primary endpoints were change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA; range, 0 to 30) and dual-task walking costs (difference between single- and dual-task gait speed, expressed in percentage) from baseline to 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes included CDR–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), Trail Making Test B, Digit Span Backward (DSB), and physical performance tests. Outcomes were assessed at 16, 24 (primary endpoint), and 48 weeks (6 months after intervention). Results: A total of 304 participants (96%) completed the 24-week assessment. Cognitively enhanced tai ji quan outperformed standard tai ji quan and stretching with a greater improvement in MoCA score (mean difference, 1.5 points [98.75% CI, 0.7 to 2.2 points] and 2.8 points [CI, 2.1 to 3.6 points], respectively) and in dual-task walking (mean difference, 9.9% [CI, 2.8% to 16.6%] and 22% [CI, 13% to 31%], respectively). The intervention effects persisted at 48-week follow-up. Limitation: There was no nonexercise control group; participants had subjective or mild cognitive impairment. Conclusion: Among community-dwelling older adults with MCI, cognitively enriched tai ji quan therapy was superior to standard tai ji quan and stretching exercise in improving global cognition and reducing dual-task gait interference, with outcomes sustained at 48 weeks. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Aging.
Effectiveness of Nirmatrelvir–Ritonavir Against the Development of Post–COVID-19 Conditions Among U.S. Veterans: A Target Trial Emulation: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 176, No 11
Background: COVID-19 has been linked to the development of many post–COVID-19 conditions (PCCs) after acute infection. Limited information is available on the effectiveness of oral antivirals used to treat acute COVID-19 in preventing the development of PCCs. Objective: To measure the effectiveness of outpatient treatment of COVID-19 with nirmatrelvir–ritonavir in preventing PCCs. Design: Retrospective target trial emulation study comparing matched cohorts receiving nirmatrelvir–ritonavir versus no treatment. Setting: Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Participants: Nonhospitalized veterans in VHA care who were at risk for severe COVID-19 and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during January through July 2022. Intervention: Nirmatrelvir–ritonavir treatment for acute COVID-19. Measurements: Cumulative incidence of 31 potential PCCs at 31 to 180 days after treatment or a matched index date, including cardiac, pulmonary, renal, thromboembolic, gastrointestinal, neurologic, mental health, musculoskeletal, endocrine, and general conditions and symptoms. Results: Eighty-six percent of the participants were male, with a median age of 66 years, and 17.5% were unvaccinated. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between participants treated with nirmatrelvir–ritonavir and matched untreated comparators. No differences were observed between participants treated with nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (n = 9593) and their matched untreated comparators in the incidence of most PCCs examined individually or grouped by organ system, except for lower combined risk for venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism (subhazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.97]; cumulative incidence difference, −0.29 percentage points [CI, −0.52 to −0.05 percentage points]). Limitations: Ascertainment of PCCs using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, codes may be inaccurate. Evaluation of many outcomes could have resulted in spurious associations with combined thromboembolic events by chance. Conclusion: Out of 31 potential PCCs, only combined thromboembolic events seemed to be reduced by nirmatrelvir–ritonavir. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Quality Indicators for Osteoporosis in Adults: A Review of Performance Measures by the American College of Physicians
Primary osteoporosis is characterized by decreasing bone mass and density and reduced bone strength that leads to a higher risk for fracture, especially hip and spine fractures. The prevalence of osteoporosis in the United States is estimated at 12.6% for adults older than 50 years. Although it is most frequently diagnosed in White and Asian females, it still affects males and females of all ethnicities. Osteoporosis is considered a major health issue, which has prompted the development and use of several performance measures to assess and improve the effectiveness of screening, diagnosis, and treatment. These performance measures are often used in accountability, public reporting, and/or payment programs. However, the reliability, validity, evidence, attribution, and meaningfulness of performance measures have been questioned. The purpose of this paper is to present a review of current performance measures on osteoporosis and inform physicians, payers, and policymakers in their selection of performance measures for this condition. The Performance Measurement Committee identified 6 osteoporosis performance measures relevant to internal medicine physicians, only 1 of which was found valid at all levels of attribution. This paper also proposes a performance measure concept to address a performance gap for the initial approach to therapy for patients with a new diagnosis of osteoporosis based on the current American College of Physicians guideline.
Effects of Remote Patient Monitoring Use on Care Outcomes Among Medicare Patients With Hypertension: An Observational Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 176, No 11
Background: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) is a promising tool for improving chronic disease management. Use of RPM for hypertension monitoring is growing rapidly, raising concerns about increased spending. However, the effects of RPM are still unclear. Objective: To estimate RPM’s effect on hypertension care and spending. Design: Matched observational study emulating a longitudinal, cluster randomized trial. After matching, effect estimates were derived from a regression analysis comparing changes in outcomes from 2019 to 2021 for patients with hypertension at high-RPM practices versus those at matched control practices with little RPM use. Setting: Traditional Medicare. Patients: Patients with hypertension. Intervention: Receipt of care at a high-RPM practice. Measurements: Primary outcomes included hypertension medication use (medication fills, adherence, and unique medications received), outpatient visit use, testing and imaging use, hypertension-related acute care use, and total hypertension-related spending. Results: 192 high-RPM practices (with 19 978 patients with hypertension) were matched to 942 low-RPM control practices (with 95 029 patients with hypertension). Compared with patients with hypertension at matched low-RPM practices, patients with hypertension at high-RPM practices had a 3.3% (95% CI, 1.9% to 4.8%) relative increase in hypertension medication fills, a 1.6% (CI, 0.7% to 2.5%) increase in days’ supply, and a 1.3% (CI, 0.2% to 2.4%) increase in unique medications received. Patients at high-RPM practices also had fewer hypertension-related acute care encounters (−9.3% [CI, −20.6% to 2.1%]) and reduced testing use (−5.9% [CI, −11.9% to 0.0%]). However, these patients also saw increases in primary care physician outpatient visits (7.2% [CI, −0.1% to 14.6%]) and a $274 [CI, $165 to $384]) increase in total hypertension-related spending. Limitation: Lacked blood pressure data; residual confounding. Conclusion: Patients in high-RPM practices had improved hypertension care outcomes but increased spending. Primary Funding Source: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.