OBJECTIVE: Health care delivery systems transformed rapidly at the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to slow the spread of the virus while identifying novel methods for providing care. In many ways, the pandemic affected both persons with neurologic illness and neurologists. This study describes the perspectives and experiences of community neurologists providing care for patients with neurodegenerative illnesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with 20 community neurologists from a multisite comparative-effectiveness trial of outpatient palliative care from July 23, 2020, to November 11, 2020. Participants were interviewed individually about the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on their professional and personal lives. Interviews were analyzed with matrix analysis to identify key themes. RESULTS: Four main themes illustrated the impact of the pandemic on community neurologists: (1) challenges of the current political climate, (2) lack of support for new models of care, (3) being on the frontline of suffering, and (4) clinician self-care. Taken together, the themes capture the unusual environment in which community neurologists practice, the lack of clinician trust among some patients, patient and professional isolation, and opportunities to support quality care delivery. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic and pandemic politics created an environment that made care provision challenging for community neurologists. Efforts to improve care delivery should proactively work to reduce clinician burnout while incorporating support for new models of care adopted due to the pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03076671.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has impacted persons with serious illness, including those with chronic, neurodegenerative conditions. While there are several reports on COVID-19s impact on inpatient palliative care, literature is limited about the impact on outpatient care which may be more relevant for these patients. AIM: To generate a person-centered description of the impact of COVID-19 from the perspectives of patients living with neurodegenerative disease and caregivers to improve outpatient palliative care delivery. DESIGN: This qualitative study used rapid analysis via matrix design to identify emergent themes related to participant perspectives on the challenges of COVID-19. Data sources included semi-structured interviews, open-ended survey responses, medical record documentation and participant-researcher communications. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Data was collected from 108 patients with Parkinsons disease, Alzheimers disease or related disorders and 90 caregivers enrolled in a multicenter, clinical trial of community-based, outpatient palliative care between March 20, 2020 and August 8, 2020 (NCT03076671). RESULTS: Four main themes emerged: (1) disruptions to delivery of healthcare and other supportive services; (2) increased symptomatic and psychosocial needs; (3) increased caregiver burden; (4) limitations of telecommunications when compared to in-person contact. We observed that these themes interacted and intersected. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and caregivers have unmet care needs because of the pandemic, exacerbated by social isolation. While telemedicine has helped improve access to healthcare, patients and caregivers perceive clear limitations compared to in-person services. Changes in society and healthcare delivery in response to COVID-19 highlight ongoing and novel gaps that must be addressed to optimize future outpatient palliative care for neurologic illness.

CONTEXT: Parkinsons disease and related disorders (PDRD) are fatal neurodegenerative disorders characterized by a fluctuating course that can complicate prognostication. The surprise question (SQ: Would you be surprised if your patient died in the next year?) has been used to identify patients with limited prognosis but has not been assessed in PDRD. OBJECTIVES: To determine the validity of the SQ in predicting 12-month mortality in PDRD. METHODS: Data was analyzed from 301 patients and 34 community-based neurologists who were participating in a clinical trial of outpatient palliative care for patients with PDRD. Clinicians answered the SQ for each patient at baseline. Descriptive statistics at baseline, chi-square tests of independence, 2 × 2 and 2 × 3 cross tables were used. Survival analysis compared SQ responses using Kaplan-Meier curves. Risk estimate analyses identified patient characteristics associated with clinicians responses. RESULTS: Mortality was 10.3% (N = 31) at 1 year. The sensitivity and specificity of the SQ was 80.7% and 58.9%, respectively with AUC = 0.70, positive predictive value of 18.4% and negative predictive value of 96.4%. Older age, atypical parkinsonism, and dementia were associated with responding no to the SQ. CONCLUSION: The SQ is sensitive to 12-month mortality in PDRD, with a high negative predictive value. The SQ may be useful for identifying patients less likely to die within a year and may be useful for identifying patients with palliative care needs outside of end-of-life care. This latter use may assist in mobilizing early and timely referral to specialist palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care has the potential to address significant unmet needs in people with Parkinsons disease and related disorders, but models that rely on in-person specialty palliative care teams have limited scalability. AIM: To describe patient and care partner experiences with a novel, community-based palliative care intervention for Parkinsons disease. DESIGN: Qualitative study embedded in a randomized clinical trial to document participant experiences with a novel palliative care intervention (community neurologist training and remote team-based specialist palliative care). Transcripts were coded and thematically analyzed through a combination of team-based inductive and deductive coding. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight patients and 33 care partners purposively sampled from participants in a randomized clinical trial of a palliative care intervention for Parkinsons disease and related disorders conducted at nine sites. RESULTS: Benefits of the intervention included management of a wider range of non-motor symptoms, facilitation of conversations about the future, greater engagement with the health care team, and increased referrals to resources. Participants identified areas of improvement, including uptake of palliative care training by community neurologists, additional prognostic counseling, and clarity and timeliness of communication with the multidisciplinary team. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians caring for people with Parkinsons disease and related disorders should screen for non-motor symptoms, provide regular prognostic counseling, and refer to specialty palliative care services earlier in the course of illness. Future interventions should be designed to promote uptake of palliative care training by community neurologists and further optimize referral to and coordination with in-person or remote specialty palliative teams.

BACKGROUND: Aggression is one manifestation of behavioral disturbances in neurodegenerative disease with emerging literature suggesting a high prevalence in Parkinsons disease and related disorders (PDRD). OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to describe characteristics, associated factors, and consequences of aggression towards caregivers in PDRD. METHODS: This is a convergent mixed methods study, leveraging data from 296 PDRD patient-caregiver dyads in a clinical trial of palliative care and semi-structured interviews with a subgroup of 14 caregivers who reported aggression. The primary outcome was baseline caregiver-reported aggression. Using multivariate linear regression, baseline dyad characteristics (eg, measures of disease, psychosocial issues, caregiver strain) were examined to identify factors associated with aggression. Thematic analysis of interviews was used to augment these findings. RESULTS: Associated variables included disease duration (r = 0.15, P < 0.05), patient grief (r = 0.22, P< 0.001), symptom burden (r = 0.18, r < 0.01), resistance to care (r = 0.40, P < 0.01), caregivers depression (r = 0.16, P < 0.05), and caregiving burden (r = 0.34, P < 0.001). We identified five themes: (1) Aggressive behaviors range from verbal abuse to threats of physical violence; (2) Caregivers believe that aggressive behaviors result from the difficulty patients experience in coping with disease progression and related losses; (3) Caregivers stress and mental health are worsened by aggressive behaviors; (4) Aggressive behaviors negatively affect patient-caregiver relationships; (5) Caregivers are ill-prepared to manage aggressive behaviors and cope with the consequences on their own. CONCLUSIONS: Aggression in PDRD is driven by diverse factors (eg, grief, fluctuations in cognition) with serious consequences for caregivers. Neurologists and movement specialists should consider screening for aggression while prioritizing caregiver education and wellbeing.

Context

Increasing evidence demonstrates the benefits of palliative care among individuals with Parkinson's disease and related disorders (PDRD), but the critical components that contribute to therapeutic effects are not well understood.

Objectives

To determine the specific items most responsive to a palliative care intervention in PDRD and identify key correlates of improvement in patient and care partner outcomes.

Methods

The main trial was a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial of outpatient integrated palliative care compared to standard care among participants with PDRD (NCT02533921), showing significantly higher patient QOL at six months and lower care partner burden at 12 months. We used longitudinal regression models to analyze changes in subdomains of patient QOL and care partner burden and Spearman correlations to evaluate key correlates of change scores in patient and care partner outcomes. We performed a secondary analysis of data from 210 patients and 175 care partners.

Results

Compared to controls, patients in the intervention reported greater improvement in perceptions of the "self as a whole" at six months (coeff = 0.22, P < 0.05) and care partners reported greater reduction in stress, anger, and loss of control at 12 months (coeff = -.40, -0.25, -0.31, P < 0.05). Positive change in numerous patient non-motor symptoms and grief correlated with improved patient QOL, reduced patient anxiety, and increased care partner spirituality. Alleviation of care partner anxiety and depression correlated with reduced care partner burden.

Conclusion

Specific benefits of an integrated palliative approach in PDRD include improvement in patient holistic self-impressions, care partner self-efficacy, and non-motor symptoms.

Background

Chronic diseases that drive morbidity, mortality, and health care costs are largely influenced by human behavior. Behavioral health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders can often be effectively managed. The majority of patients in need of behavioral health care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some primary care practices are providing integrated behavioral health care (IBH), where primary care and behavioral health providers work together, in one location, using a team-based approach. Research suggests there may be an association between IBH and improved patient outcomes. However, it is often difficult for practices to achieve high levels of integration. The Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care study responds to this need by testing the effectiveness of a comprehensive practice-level intervention designed to improve outcomes in patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral health conditions by increasing the practice's degree of behavioral health integration.

Methods

Forty-five primary care practices, with existing onsite behavioral health care, will be recruited for this study. Forty-three practices will be randomized to the intervention or usual care arm, while 2 practices will be considered "Vanguard" (pilot) practices for developing the intervention. The intervention is a 24-month supported practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Each practice's degree of behavioral health integration will be measured using the Practice Integration Profile. Approximately 75 patients with both chronic medical and behavioral health conditions from each practice will be asked to complete a series of surveys to measure patient-centered outcomes. Change in practice degree of behavioral health integration and patient-centered outcomes will be compared between the two groups. Practice-level case studies will be conducted to better understand the contextual factors influencing integration.

Discussion

As primary care practices are encouraged to provide IBH services, evidence-based interventions to increase practice integration will be needed. This study will demonstrate the effectiveness of one such intervention in a pragmatic, real-world setting.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02868983 . Registered on August 16, 2016.

Few animal groups can claim the level of wonder that cephalopods instill in the minds of researchers and the general public. Much of cephalopod biology, however, remains unexplored: the largest invertebrate brain, difficult husbandry conditions, and complex (meta-)genomes, among many other things, have hindered progress in addressing key questions. However, recent technological advancements in sequencing, imaging, and genetic manipulation have opened new avenues for exploring the biology of these extraordinary animals. The cephalopod molecular biology community is thus experiencing a large influx of researchers, emerging from different fields, accelerating the pace of research in this clade. In the first post-pandemic event at the Cephalopod International Advisory Council (CIAC) conference in April 2022, over 40 participants from all over the world met and discussed key challenges and perspectives for current cephalopod molecular biology and evolution. Our particular focus was on the fields of comparative and regulatory genomics, gene manipulation, single-cell transcriptomics, metagenomics, and microbial interactions. This article is a result of this joint effort, summarizing the latest insights from these emerging fields, their bottlenecks, and potential solutions. The article highlights the interdisciplinary nature of the cephalopod-omics community and provides an emphasis on continuous consolidation of efforts and collaboration in this rapidly evolving field.

In a preregistered, cross-sectional study, we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n = 4148) or negative (C19-; n = 546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean ± SD, C19+: -82.5 ± 27.2 points; C19-: -59.8 ± 37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC = 0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g., fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4 < OR < 10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable.

Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments, such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation, and initial results of a multilingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in 3 distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, and 8 others, aged 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste, and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change ±100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 ± 28.7, mean ± standard deviation), taste (-69.0 ± 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 ± 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and the lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus strain 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.