Faculty Bibliography

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Health care systems can help protect patients from the increasing threat of extreme heat-driven morbidity and mortality. Electronic health records (EHRs) provide insight into trends and local variation in thresholds above which extreme heat is associated with emergency department (ED) use among at-risk patient populations. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To examine associations between extreme heat exposure and all-cause ED visits among patients aged 65 years and older. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This matched case-control study of patients seeking emergency care at an urban health care system during the summer (May 1 to September 30) from 2022 to 2024. Two New York City (NYC) EDs were included: (1) ED-1, predominantly serving Medicaid-enrolled patients from minoritized racial and ethnic groups, and (2) ED-2, predominantly serving White, privately insured patients. Included patients were aged 65 years or older and presented to ED-1 and ED-2 during the study period. Data were analyzed from April to August 2025. EXPOSURES/UNASSIGNED:Daily maximum heat index (HImax) values during the summer were calculated from the National Centers for Environmental Information monitor-derived recordings. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Daily all-cause ED use counts were derived from EHRs, and extreme heat exposure-outcome curves were calculated. Daily HImax anomalies were calculated based on a 30-year baseline average. The cumulative odds ratio (OR) and 95% CIs were calculated. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:This study included 55 200 ED encounters and represented 15 092 unique patients at ED-1 and 19 559 at ED-2 with a mean (SD) age of 74.9 (8.92) years at ED-1 and 74.9 (8.72) years at ED-2. Compared with ED-2, more ED-1 patients were female (8589 [56.9%] vs 10 767 [55.0%]), Hispanic (3544 [23.5%] vs 2576 [13.2%]), and Medicaid-enrolled (1321 [8.8%] vs 824 [4.2%]). At ED-1, daily HImax associations increased after 66 °F (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.01-1.21]), peaking at 101 °F (OR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.11-1.39]), and were higher on days with HImax anomalies between 15 °F (OR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.01-1.13]) and 18 °F (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.01-1.20]) warmer than average. At ED-2, daily HImax ED use associations were not significant and were significantly negative for days with HImax anomalies above 16 °F, nadiring at 21 °F (0.84, 95% CI [0.73, 0.95]) warmer than average. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:In this case-control study of the association between heat exposure and ED use in adults aged 65 years and older, positive associations were only observed at ED-1, which served a predominantly lower-income population from minoritized racial and ethnic groups. These association thresholds were not fully captured by NYC heat advisories, which were triggered by 2 days above HImax 95 °F or any time above 100 °F, highlighting an opportunity for future research to develop targeted, risk-informed health care system-based heat warning strategies.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate whether the risk of long COVID among individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during pregnancy differs from that of individuals who were not pregnant at time of virus acquisition. METHODS:We conducted a multicenter observational cohort study at 79 NIH RECOVER (Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery) sites. Individuals assigned female at birth aged 18-45 years with an index (first) SARS-CoV-2 infection on or after December 1, 2021, were included. The exposure was pregnancy (any gestational age) at the time of index SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was long COVID 6 months after index infection , defined as RECOVER-Adult Long COVID Research Index score 11 or higher based on a detailed symptom survey. To account for confounding and differential selection between participants who were pregnant and not pregnant at infection, propensity score-matching methods were used to balance the groups on variables potentially associated with both pregnancy status and long COVID. RESULTS:Overall 2,423 participants were included; 580 (23.9%) were pregnant at index SARS-CoV-2 infection. The median age at infection was 33 years (interquartile range 28-38 years), and 2,131 of participants (90.0%) with known vaccination status were vaccinated. After propensity score matching, the adjusted long COVID prevalence estimates 6 months after index infection were 10.2% (95% CI, 6.2-14.3%) among those pregnant at infection and 10.6% (95% CI, 8.8-12.4%) among those not pregnant at infection. Pregnancy was not associated with a difference in adjusted risk of long COVID (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% CI, 0.63-1.48). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy was not associated with a differential risk of long COVID at 6 months compared with similar-aged individuals who acquired SARS-CoV-2 outside of pregnancy.

IMPORTANCE/OBJECTIVE:Patients with poor glycaemic control have a high risk for major cardiovascular events. Improving glycaemic monitoring in patients with diabetes can improve morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE:To assess the effectiveness of a patient portal message in prompting patients with poorly controlled diabetes without a recent glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) result to have their HbA1c repeated. DESIGN/METHODS:A pragmatic, randomised clinical trial. SETTING/METHODS:A large academic health system consisting of over 350 ambulatory practices. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Patients who had an HbA1c greater than 10% who had not had a repeat HbA1c in the prior 6 months. EXPOSURES/METHODS:A single electronic health record (EHR)-based patient portal message to prompt patients to have a repeat HbA1c test versus usual care. MAIN OUTCOMES/RESULTS:The primary outcome was a follow-up HbA1c test result within 90 days of randomisation. RESULTS:The study included 2573 patients with a mean (SD) HbA1c of 11.2%. Among 1317 patients in the intervention group, 24.2% had follow-up HbA1c tests completed within 90 days, versus 21.1% of 1256 patients in the control group (p=0.07). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to log into the patient portal within 60 days as compared with the control group (61.2% vs 52.3%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with poorly controlled diabetes and no recent HbA1c result, a brief patient portal message did not significantly increase follow-up testing but did increase patient engagement with the patient portal. Automated patient messages could be considered as a part of multipronged efforts to involve patients in their diabetes care.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:A minority of childhood cancer survivors (CCS) receive post-therapy survivorship surveillance at their oncology center (OC) within 5 years of diagnosis. Primary care providers (PCPs) could be a promising alternative. We determined CCS' preferences for the site of surveillance, associated factors, and rationale. METHODS:CCS diagnosed with cancer at < 21 years at one of four participating hospitals, 2-4 years post-therapy, and English- or Spanish-speaking (or their caregivers if CCS < 18 years) indicated their preference and reasons for site of survivorship surveillance (OC vs. PCP vs. no preference) at baseline prior to randomization into the BRIDGES trial (NCT05448560). Multivariable logistic regression models estimated prevalence ratios for site preference and examined associations with patient characteristics. Qualitative methods examined reasons for preference. RESULTS:Of 235 participants, 92% (n = 214; 48% female, 36% Hispanic, 46% public insurance, median age 12 years at enrollment) indicated their preference. The majority (63%) were amenable to PCP-based surveillance (21% preferred PCP, 42% no preference). Preference for OC was associated with identifying as non-Hispanic "other" (Black, Asian, multi-racial) vs. non-Hispanic White (PR 4.7, p = 0.005, 95% CI 1.68, 13.84) and older age (PR 1.1/year, p = 0.02, 95% CI 1.01, 1.15), but not insurance or area-level social determinants of health (SDoH) indices. Reasons for preference comprised two themes: practical (facts, logistics) and psychological (emotions, beliefs). OCs were preferred for psychological reasons (46/60; 77%); PCPs were preferred for practical reasons (25/35; 74%). CONCLUSIONS:Among diverse CCS, most were amenable to PCP-based survivorship surveillance, independent of SDoH factors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS/CONCLUSIONS:Survivorship surveillance by PCPs may be a useful alternative for CCS.

Longitudinal trajectories of Long COVID remain ill-defined, yet are critically needed to advance clinical trials, patient care, and public health initiatives for millions of individuals with this condition. Long COVID trajectories were determined prospectively among 3,659 participants (69% female; 99.6% Omicron era) in the National Institutes of Health Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Adult Cohort. Finite mixture modeling was used to identify distinct longitudinal profiles based on a Long COVID research index measured 3 to 15 months after infection. Eight longitudinal profiles were identified. Overall, 195 (5%) had persistently high Long COVID symptom burden, 443 (12%) had non-resolving, intermittently high symptom burden, and 526 (14%) did not meet criteria for Long COVID at 3 months but had increasing symptoms by 15 months, suggestive of distinct pathophysiologic features. At 3 months, 377 (10%) met the research index threshold for Long COVID. Of these, 175 (46%) had persistent Long COVID, 132 (35%) had moderate symptoms, and 70 (19%) appeared to recover. Identification of these Long COVID symptom trajectories is critically important for targeting enrollment for future studies of pathophysiologic mechanisms, preventive strategies, clinical trials and treatments.

BACKGROUND:This study evaluated the impact of aging on the frequency and prevalent symptoms of Long COVID, also termed post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2, using a previously developed Long COVID research index (LCRI) of 41 self-reported symptoms in which those with 12 or more points were classified as likely to have Long COVID. METHODS:We analyzed community-dwelling participants ≥ 60 years old (2662 with prior infection, 461 controls) compared to participants 18-59 years (7549 infected, 728 controls) in the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery adult (RECOVER-Adult) cohort ≥ 135 days post-onset. RESULTS:Compared to the Age 18-39 group, the adjusted odds of LCRI ≥ 12 were higher for the Age 40-49 group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.40, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.21-1.61, p < 0.001) and 50-59 group (OR = 1.31, CI = 1.14-1.51, p < 0.001), similar for the Age 60-69 group (OR = 1.09, CI = 0.93-1.27, p = 0.299), and lower for the ≥ 70 group (OR = 0.68, CI = 0.54-0.85, p < 0.001). Participants ≥ 70 years had smaller adjusted differences between infected and uninfected symptom prevalence rates than those aged 18-39 for the following symptoms: hearing loss, fatigue, pain (including joint, back, chest pain and headache), post-exertional malaise, sleep disturbance, hair loss, palpitations, and sexual desire/capacity, making these symptoms less discriminating for Long COVID in older adults than in younger. Symptom clustering, as described in Thaweethai et al. (JAMA 2023) also exhibited age-related shifts: clusters 1 (anosmia and ageusia) and 2 (gastrointestinal, chronic cough and palpitations, without anosmia, ageusia or brain fog) were more likely, and clusters 3 (brain fog, but no loss of smell or taste) and 4 (a mix of symptoms) less likely to be found in older adults (relative risk ratios for clusters 3-4 ranging from 0.10-0.34, p < 0.001 vs. 18-39 year-olds). CONCLUSIONS:Within the limits of this observational study, we conclude that in community-dwelling older adults, aging alters the prevalence and pattern of reported Long COVID.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Olfactory dysfunction is common after SARS-CoV-2 infection and has been associated with cognitive loss in other conditions. Formal testing is needed to characterize the presence, severity, and patterns of olfactory dysfunction. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To characterize long-term olfactory dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This prospective cohort study included adults enrolled in the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER)-Adult study. All those with and a random sample of those without self-reported change or loss in smell or taste were offered olfactory testing, performed at 83 sites in 35 US states and territories. Participants included 2956 enrollees with prior infection (1393 with and 1563 without self-reported change or loss) and 569 without prior infection (9 with and 560 without self-reported change or loss in taste) who underwent olfactory testing a mean (SD) of 671.6 (417.8) days after the index date. Data were collected from October 29, 2021, to June 6, 2025. EXPOSURE/UNASSIGNED:SARS-CoV-2 infection. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Olfactory function, as defined by age- and sex-standardized performance on the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), a well-validated test comprising 40 unique odors. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:The study included 3525 participants with a mean (SD) age of 47.6 (15.2) years; of 3520 with data available, 2548 (72.4%) were female or intersex. Among 1393 infected participants with self-reported change or loss, 1111 (79.8%) had hyposmia on the UPSIT, including 321 (23.0%) with severe microsmia or anosmia. Among 1563 infected participants without self-reported change or loss, 1031 (66.0%) had hyposmia, including 128 (8.2%) with severe microsmia or anosmia. Participants with prior infection and self-reported change or loss scored at the 16th age- and sex-standardized UPSIT percentile, compared with the 23rd and 28th percentiles for those without self-reported change or loss with and without prior known infection, respectively. Younger women had scores corresponding to lower mean age- and sex-standardized percentiles. Among participants who self-reported change or loss in smell, those with abnormal UPSIT scores more often reported cognitive problems (742 of 1111 [66.8%]) than those with normal UPSIT scores (179 of 282 [63.5%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:In this cohort study of RECOVER-Adult participants, self-reported change or loss in smell or taste was an accurate signal of verified hyposmia, but a high rate of hyposmia among those with no reported change or loss was also observed. Formal smell testing may be considered in those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection to diagnose occult hyposmia and counsel patients about risks.