Browsing by Author "Taylor, Lisa"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A pathway linking pulse pressure to dementia in adults with Down syndrome
    (Oxford University Press, 2024-05-09) Rizvi, Batool; Lao, Patrick J.; Sathishkumar, Mithra; Taylor, Lisa; Queder, Nazek; McMillan, Liv; Edwards, Natalie C.; Keator, David B.; Doran, Eric; Hom, Christy; Nguyen, Dana; Rosas, H. Diana; Lai, Florence; Schupf, Nicole; Gutierrez, Jose; Silverman, Wayne; Lott, Ira T.; Mapstone, Mark; Wilcock, Donna M.; Head, Elizabeth; Yassa, Michael A.; Brickman, Adam M.; Neurology, School of Medicine
    Adults with Down syndrome are less likely to have hypertension than neurotypical adults. However, whether blood pressure measures are associated with brain health and clinical outcomes in this population has not been studied in detail. Here, we assessed whether pulse pressure is associated with markers of cerebrovascular disease and is linked to a diagnosis of dementia in adults with Down syndrome via structural imaging markers of cerebrovascular disease and atrophy. The study included participants with Down syndrome from the Alzheimer’s Disease - Down Syndrome study (n = 195, age = 50.6 ± 7.2 years, 44% women, 18% diagnosed with dementia). Higher pulse pressure was associated with greater global, parietal and occipital white matter hyperintensity volume but not with enlarged perivascular spaces, microbleeds or infarcts. Using a structural equation model, we found that pulse pressure was associated with greater white matter hyperintensity volume, which in turn was related to increased neurodegeneration, and subsequent dementia diagnosis. Pulse pressure is an important determinant of brain health and clinical outcomes in individuals with Down syndrome despite the low likelihood of frank hypertension.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Barriers impacting the POINT pragmatic trial: the unavoidable overlap between research and intervention procedures in “real-world” research
    (BMC, 2021-02-04) Dir, Allyson L.; Watson, Dennis P.; Zhiss, Matthew; Taylor, Lisa; Bray, Bethany C.; McGuire, Alan; Psychiatry, School of Medicine
    Background: This manuscript provides a research update to the ongoing pragmatic trial of Project POINT (Planned Outreach, Intervention, Naloxone, and Treatment), an emergency department-based peer recovery coaching intervention for linking patients with opioid use disorder to evidence-based treatment. The research team has encountered a number of challenges related to the "real-world" study setting since the trial began. Using an implementation science lens, we sought to identify and describe barriers impacting both the intervention and research protocols of the POINT study, which are often intertwined in pragmatic trials due to the focus on external validity. Method: Qualitative data were collected from 3 peer recovery coaches, 2 peer recovery coach supervisors, and 3 members of the research team. Questions and deductive qualitative analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: Nine unique barriers were noted, with 5 of these barriers impacting intervention and research protocol implementation simultaneously. These simultaneous barriers were timing of intervention delivery, ineffective communication with emergency department staff, lack of privacy in the emergency department, the fast-paced emergency department setting, and patient's limited resources. Together, these barriers represent the intervention characteristics, inner setting, and outer setting domains of the CFIR. Conclusion: Results highlight the utility of employing an implementation science framework to assess implementation issues in pragmatic trials and how this approach might be used as a quality assurance mechanism given the considerable overlap that exists between research and intervention protocols in real-world trial settings. Previously undocumented changes to the trial design that have been made as a result of the identified barriers are discussed.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Joint-label fusion brain atlases for dementia research in Down syndrome
    (Wiley, 2022-05-25) Queder, Nazek; Phelan, Michael J.; Taylor, Lisa; Tustison, Nicholas; Doran, Eric; Hom, Christy; Nguyen, Dana; Lai, Florence; Pulsifer, Margaret; Price, Julie; Kreisl, William C.; Rosas, Herminia D.; Krinsky-McHale, Sharon; Brickman, Adam M.; Yassa, Michael A.; Schupf, Nicole; Silverman, Wayne; Lott, Ira T.; Head, Elizabeth; Mapstone, Mark; Keator, David B.; Alzheimer’s Biomarkers Consortium; Neurology, School of Medicine
    Research suggests a link between Alzheimer's Disease in Down Syndrome (DS) and the overproduction of amyloid plaques. Using Positron Emission Tomography (PET) we can assess the in-vivo regional amyloid load using several available ligands. To measure amyloid distributions in specific brain regions, a brain atlas is used. A popular method of creating a brain atlas is to segment a participant's structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan. Acquiring an MRI is often challenging in intellectually-imparied populations because of contraindications or data exclusion due to significant motion artifacts or incomplete sequences related to general discomfort. When an MRI cannot be acquired, it is typically replaced with a standardized brain atlas derived from neurotypical populations (i.e. healthy individuals without DS) which may be inappropriate for use in DS. In this project, we create a series of disease and diagnosis-specific (cognitively stable (CS-DS), mild cognitive impairment (MCI-DS), and dementia (DEM-DS)) probabilistic group atlases of participants with DS and evaluate their accuracy of quantifying regional amyloid load compared to the individually-based MRI segmentations. Further, we compare the diagnostic-specific atlases with a probabilistic atlas constructed from similar-aged cognitively-stable neurotypical participants. We hypothesized that regional PET signals will best match the individually-based MRI segmentations by using DS group atlases that aligns with a participant's disorder and disease status (e.g. DS and MCI-DS). Our results vary by brain region but generally show that using a disorder-specific atlas in DS better matches the individually-based MRI segmentations than using an atlas constructed from cognitively-stable neurotypical participants. We found no additional benefit of using diagnose-specific atlases matching disease status. All atlases are made publicly available for the research community.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Patterns of opioid use behaviors among patients seen in the emergency department: Latent class analysis of baseline data from the POINT pragmatic trial
    (Elsevier, 2023) Bray, Bethany C.; Watson, Dennis P.; Salisbury-Afshar, Elizabeth; Taylor, Lisa; McGuire, Alan; Psychology, School of Science
    Introduction: The nation's overdose epidemic has been characterized by increasingly potent opioids resulting in more emergency department (ED) encounters over time. ED-based opioid use interventions are growing in popularity; however, they tend to treat people who use opioids as a homogenous population. The current study sought to understand heterogeneity among people who use opioids who encounter the ED by identifying qualitatively different subgroups among participants in an opioid use intervention clinical trial at baseline and examining associations between subgroup membership and multiple correlates. Methods: Participants were from a larger pragmatic clinical trial of the Planned Outreach, Intervention, Naloxone, and Treatment (POINT) intervention (n = 212; 59.2 % male, 85.3 % Non-Hispanic White, mean age = 36.6 years). The study employed latent class analysis (LCA) using five indicators of opioid use behavior: preference for opioids, preference for stimulants, usually use drugs alone, injection drug use, and opioid-related problem at ED encounter. Correlates of interest included participants' demographics, prescription histories, health care contact histories, and recovery capital (e.g., social support, naloxone knowledge). Results: The study identified three classes: (1) noninjecting opioid preferers, (2) injecting opioid and stimulant preferers, and (3) social nonopioid preferers. We identified limited significant differences in correlates across the classes: differences existed for select demographics, prescription histories, and recovery capital but not for health care contact histories. For example, members of Class 1 were the most likely to be a race/ethnicity other than non-Hispanic White, oldest on average, and most likely to have received a benzodiazepine prescription, whereas members of Class 2 had the highest average barriers to treatment and members of Class 3 were the least likely to have been diagnosed with a major mental health illness and had the lowest average barriers to treatment. Conclusions: LCA identified distinct subgroups among POINT trial participants. Knowledge of such subgroups assists with the development of better-targeted interventions and can help staff to identify the most appropriate treatment and recovery pathways for patients.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Results from the POINT pragmatic randomized trial: An emergency department-based peer recovery coach intervention to increase opioid use disorder treatment linkage and reduce recurrent overdose
    (Sage, 2024) Watson, Dennis P.; Tillson, Martha; Taylor, Lisa; Xu, Huiping; Ouyang, Fangqian; Beaudoin, Francesca; O’Donnell, Daniel; McGuire, Alan B.; Biostatistics and Health Data Science, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health
    Background: People with opioid use disorder (OUD) frequently present at the emergency department (ED), a potentially critical point for intervention and treatment linkage. Peer recovery support specialist (PRSS) interventions have expanded in US-based EDs, although evidence supporting such interventions has not been firmly established. Methods: Researchers conducted a pragmatic trial of POINT (Project Planned Outreach, Intervention, Naloxone, and Treatment), an ED-initiated intervention for harm reduction and recovery coaching/treatment linkage in 2 Indiana EDs. Cluster randomization allocated patients to the POINT intervention (n = 157) versus a control condition (n = 86). Participants completed a structured interview, and all outcomes were assessed using administrative data from an extensive state health exchange and state systems. Target patients (n = 243) presented to the ED for a possible opioid-related reason. The primary outcome was overdose-related ED re-presentation. Key secondary outcomes included OUD medication treatment linkage, duration of medication in days, all-cause ED re-presentation, all-cause inpatient re-presentation, and Medicaid enrollment. All outcomes were assessed at 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-enrollment. Ad hoc analyses were performed to assess treatment motivation and readiness. Results: POINT and standard care participants did not differ significantly on any outcomes measured. Participants who presented to the ED for overdose had significantly lower scores (3.5 vs 4.2, P < .01) regarding readiness to begin treatment compared to those presenting for other opioid-related issues. Conclusions: This is the first randomized trial investigating overdose outcomes for an ED peer recovery support specialist intervention. Though underpowered, results suggest no benefit of PRSS services over standard care. Given the scope of PRSS, future work in this area should assess more recovery- and harm reduction-oriented outcomes, as well as the potential benefits of integrating PRSS within multimodal ED-based interventions for OUD.