Faculty Bibliography

Background: Integrative medicine (IM) is a growing subspecialty among the American healthcare system, but little is known about geographical and sociodemographic variability in access to services. Objective: To better understand access to IM healthcare services, we aim to: 1.) document the number of IM providers within the hospital service area (HSA) of various hospitals across the United States (US) and, 2.) explore the relationship between age, income, and race as predictors of the number of IM providers. Methods: We conducted an environmental scan to document the number of IM providers including naturopathic, acupuncture, chiropractic, and massage therapy providers within the HSA of 16 US hospitals using state and national search databases. We examined predictors of the number of providers per HSA using population and demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Search database quality was evaluated using the Center for Disease Control and Prevention Clear Communication Index. Results: The number of IM providers varied from 11.6 "“ 67.4 providers/100,000 persons. Massage therapists were the most prevalent (n = 13.8/100,000), followed by chiropractors (n = 5.2/100,000), acupuncturists (n = 4.6/100,000), and naturopathic physicians (n =.5/100,000). Higher average household income and population >65 years old were associated with more IM providers within an HSA (Rate Ratio (RR) 4.22, 95% CI 1.49-12.01; and 1.14, 1.05 - 1.24, respectively). In addition, the quality of publicly available search databases varied widely among US states (4.84 - 8.00/10), but less so among IM provider types (6.21 - 7.57/10). Conclusions: The high variability in number of IM providers and search database quality among various HSAs across the US warrants further investigation into factors influencing access to services. Our findings regarding income and older adult population raise concern for inequitable access to care, but are also promising when considering the increasing demand for healthcare services among the older adult population.

BACKGROUND:In 2021, Delta became the predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant worldwide. While vaccines have effectively prevented COVID-19 hospitalization and death, vaccine breakthrough infections increasingly occurred. The precise role of clinical and genomic determinants in Delta infections is not known, and whether they contributed to increased rates of breakthrough infections compared to unvaccinated controls. METHODS:We studied SARS-CoV-2 variant distribution, dynamics, and adaptive selection over time in relation to vaccine status, phylogenetic relatedness of viruses, full genome mutation profiles, and associated clinical and demographic parameters. FINDINGS/RESULTS:We show a steep and near-complete replacement of circulating variants with Delta between May and August 2021 in metropolitan New York. We observed an increase of the Delta sublineage AY.25 (14% in vaccinated, 7% in unvaccinated), its spike mutation S112L, and AY.44 (8% in vaccinated, 2% in unvaccinated) with its nsp12 mutation F192V in breakthroughs. Delta infections were associated with younger age and lower hospitalization rates than Alpha. Delta breakthrough infections increased significantly with time since vaccination, and, after adjusting for confounders, they rose at similar rates as in unvaccinated individuals. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:We observed a modest adaptation of Delta genomes in breakthrough infections in New York, suggesting an improved genomic framework to support Delta's epidemic growth in times of waning vaccine protection despite limited impact on vaccine escape. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:The study was supported by NYU institutional funds. The NYULH Genome Technology Center is partially supported by the Cancer Center Support Grant P30CA016087 at the Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Effective communication is essential to good health care, and hearing loss disrupts patient-provider communication. For the more than 2 million veterans with severe hearing loss, communication is particularly challenging in noisy health care environments such as emergency departments. The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe patient and provider perspectives of feasibility and potential benefit of providing a hearing assistance device, a personal amplifier, during visits to an emergency department in an urban setting affiliated with the Department of Veterans Affairs. METHODS:This qualitative descriptive study was conducted in parallel with a randomized controlled study. We completed a semistructured interview with 11 veterans and 10 health care providers to elicit their previous experiences with patient-provider communication in the ED setting and their perspectives on hearing screening and using the personal amplifier in the emergency department. Interview data were analyzed using content analysis and Atlas.ti V8.4 software (Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany). RESULTS:The veteran sample (n = 11) had a mean age of 80.3 years (SD = 10.2). The provider sample included 7 nurses and 3 physicians. In the ED setting, hearing loss disrupts patient-provider communication. Screening for hearing loss in the emergency department was feasible except in urgent/emergent cases. The use of the personal amplifier made communication more effective and less effortful for both veterans and providers. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Providing the personal amplifier improved the ED experience for veterans and offers a promising intervention that could improve health care quality and safety for ED patient populations.

To determine whether an opt-out approach is effective for referral to treatment for tobacco use, we designed a clinical reminder for nurses in a primary care setting that provides a referral for patients who smoke cigarettes. We will use a two-arm, cluster-randomized design to assign nurses at the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System to test which mode of referral (opt-in vs opt-out) is more effective. All patients will be referred to evidence-based treatment for tobacco cessation including counseling from the New York State Quitline, and VetsQuit, a text messaging-based system for tobacco cessation counseling. We will measure patient engagement with the referral both in the short and long term to determine if referral modality had an impact on tobacco cessation treatment. We will also measure nurse engagement with the referral before, during, and after the implementation of the reminder to determine whether an opt-out approach is cost effective at the health system level. At the conclusion of this project, we expect to have developed and tested an opt-out system for increasing tobacco cessation treatment for Veterans in VA primary care and to have a thorough understanding of factors associated with implementation. Trial Registration:Clinicaltrials.govIdentifierNCT03477435.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Identifying successful strategies to increase COVID-19 vaccination among skilled nursing facility (SNF) residents and staff is integral to preventing future outbreaks in a continually overwhelmed system. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To determine whether a multicomponent vaccine campaign would increase vaccine rates among SNF residents and staff. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This was a cluster randomized trial with a rapid timeline (December 2020-March 2021) coinciding with the Pharmacy Partnership Program (PPP). It included 133 SNFs in 4 health care systems across 16 states: 63 and 70 facilities in the intervention and control arms, respectively, and participants included 7496 long-stay residents (>100 days) and 17 963 staff. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Multicomponent interventions were introduced at the facility level that included: (1) educational material and electronic messaging for staff; (2) town hall meetings with frontline staff (nurses, nurse aides, dietary, housekeeping); (3) messaging from community leaders; (4) gifts (eg, T-shirts) with socially concerned messaging; (5) use of a specialist to facilitate consent with residents' proxies; and (6) funds for additional COVID-19 testing of staff/residents. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcomes of this study were the proportion of residents (from electronic medical records) and staff (from facility logs) who received a COVID-19 vaccine (any), examined as 2 separate outcomes. Mixed-effects generalized linear models with a binomial distribution were used to compare outcomes between arms, using intent-to-treat approach. Race was examined as an effect modifier in the resident outcome model. Results/UNASSIGNED:Most facilities were for-profit (95; 71.4%), and 1973 (26.3%) of residents were Black. Among residents, 82.5% (95% CI, 81.2%-83.7%) were vaccinated in the intervention arm, compared with 79.8% (95% CI, 78.5%-81.0%) in the usual care arm (marginal difference 0.8%; 95% CI, -1.9% to 3.7%). Among staff, 49.5% (95% CI, 48.4%-50.6%) were vaccinated in the intervention arm, compared with 47.9% (95% CI, 46.9%-48.9%) in usual care arm (marginal difference: -0.4%; 95% CI, -4.2% to 3.1%). There was no association of race with the outcome among residents. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:A multicomponent vaccine campaign did not have a significant effect on vaccination rates among SNF residents or staff. Among residents, vaccination rates were high. However, half the staff remained unvaccinated despite these efforts. Vaccination campaigns to target SNF staff will likely need to use additional approaches. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04732819.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Many investigators of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (AD/ADRD) are unfamiliar with the embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) and the indispensable pilot phase preceding ePCTs. This paper provides a much-needed example for such a pilot phase and discusses implementation barriers and additional infrastructure and implementation strategies developed in preparation for a nationwide AD/ADRD ePCT. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS/METHODS:Two pilot trials were conducted in two hospices sequentially to refine and test Aliviado Dementia Care-Hospice Edition, a complex quality improvement intervention for advanced dementia symptom management. Readiness for the subsequent full-scale ePCT was assessed by three milestones: ≥80% training completion rate ("feasibility"), ≥80% post-training survey respondents indicating intention for practice changes ("applicability"), and at least one Aliviado care plan/assessment instrument administered in ≥75% of dementia patients admitted to home hospice within one-month post training ("fidelity"). RESULTS:Participants included 72 interdisciplinary team (IDT) members and 11 patients with AD/ADRD across the pilots. Feasibility, applicability, and fidelity outcomes (92%, 93%, and 100%, respectively) all surpassed the pre-established milestones (80%, 80%, and 75%). Main implementation challenges were related to hospice staff turnover, integration of the Aliviado toolbox materials within the electronic health records, and hospices' limited research experience and infrastructure. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS/UNASSIGNED:This pilot phase demonstrated feasibility, applicability, and fidelity required to proceed to the full-scale ePCT. Our study findings and discussions of additional infrastructure and implementation strategies developed following the pilot phase can inform researchers and clinicians interested in conducting AD/ADRD-related pilot studies for ePTCs or quality improvement initiatives. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER/UNASSIGNED:NCT03681119.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:There is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To determine the safety and efficacy of CCP compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving noninvasive supplemental oxygen. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:CONTAIN COVID-19, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, was conducted at 21 US hospitals from April 17, 2020, to March 15, 2021. The trial enrolled 941 participants who were hospitalized for 3 or less days or presented 7 or less days after symptom onset and required noninvasive oxygen supplementation. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:A unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline). Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcome was participant scores on the 11-point World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on day 14 after randomization; the secondary outcome was WHO scores determined on day 28. Subgroups were analyzed with respect to age, baseline WHO score, concomitant medications, symptom duration, CCP SARS-CoV-2 titer, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, and enrollment quarter. Outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian proportional cumulative odds model. Efficacy of CCP was defined as a cumulative adjusted odds ratio (cOR) less than 1 and a clinically meaningful effect as cOR less than 0.8. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 941 participants randomized (473 to placebo and 468 to CCP), 556 were men (59.1%); median age was 63 years (IQR, 52-73); 373 (39.6%) were Hispanic and 132 (14.0%) were non-Hispanic Black. The cOR for the primary outcome adjusted for site, baseline risk, WHO score, age, sex, and symptom duration was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.75-1.18) with posterior probability (P[cOR<1] = 72%); the cOR for the secondary adjusted outcome was 0.92 (95% CrI, 0.74-1.16; P[cOR<1] = 76%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity of treatment effect: at day 28, cORs were 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.13; P[cOR<1] = 93%) for participants enrolled in April-June 2020 and 0.65 (95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.02; P[cOR<1] = 97%) for those not receiving remdesivir and not receiving corticosteroids at randomization. Median CCP SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer used in April to June 2020 was 1:175 (IQR, 76-379). Any adverse events (excluding transfusion reactions) were reported for 39 (8.2%) placebo recipients and 44 (9.4%) CCP recipients (P = .57). Transfusion reactions occurred in 2 (0.4) placebo recipients and 8 (1.7) CCP recipients (P = .06). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In this trial, CCP did not meet the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes for CCP efficacy. However, high-titer CCP may have benefited participants early in the pandemic when remdesivir and corticosteroids were not in use. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737.

Importance:Identifying which patients with COVID-19 are likely to benefit from COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) treatment may have a large public health impact. Objective:To develop an index for predicting the expected relative treatment benefit from CCP compared with treatment without CCP for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 using patients' baseline characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants:This prognostic study used data from the COMPILE study, ie, a meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data from 8 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP vs control in adults hospitalized for COVID-19 who were not receiving mechanical ventilation at randomization. A combination of baseline characteristics, termed the treatment benefit index (TBI), was developed based on 2287 patients in COMPILE using a proportional odds model, with baseline characteristics selected via cross-validation. The TBI was externally validated on 4 external data sets: the Expanded Access Program (1896 participants), a study conducted under Emergency Use Authorization (210 participants), and 2 RCTs (with 80 and 309 participants). Exposure:Receipt of CCP. Main Outcomes and Measures:World Health Organization (WHO) 11-point ordinal COVID-19 clinical status scale and 2 derivatives of it (ie, WHO score of 7-10, indicating mechanical ventilation to death, and WHO score of 10, indicating death) at day 14 and day 28 after randomization. Day 14 WHO 11-point ordinal scale was used as the primary outcome to develop the TBI. Results:A total of 2287 patients were included in the derivation cohort, with a mean (SD) age of 60.3 (15.2) years and 815 (35.6%) women. The TBI provided a continuous gradation of benefit, and, for clinical utility, it was operationalized into groups of expected large clinical benefit (B1; 629 participants in the derivation cohort [27.5%]), moderate benefit (B2; 953 [41.7%]), and potential harm or no benefit (B3; 705 [30.8%]). Patients with preexisting conditions (diabetes, cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases), with blood type A or AB, and at an early COVID-19 stage (low baseline WHO scores) were expected to benefit most, while those without preexisting conditions and at more advanced stages of COVID-19 could potentially be harmed. In the derivation cohort, odds ratios for worse outcome, where smaller odds ratios indicate larger benefit from CCP, were 0.69 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.48-1.06) for B1, 0.82 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.11) for B2, and 1.58 (95% CrI, 1.14-2.17) for B3. Testing on 4 external datasets supported the validation of the derived TBIs. Conclusions and Relevance:The findings of this study suggest that the CCP TBI is a simple tool that can quantify the relative benefit from CCP treatment for an individual patient hospitalized with COVID-19 that can be used to guide treatment recommendations. The TBI precision medicine approach could be especially helpful in a pandemic.

Importance:COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is a potentially beneficial treatment for COVID-19 that requires rigorous testing. Objective:To compile individual patient data from randomized clinical trials of CCP and to monitor the data until completion or until accumulated evidence enables reliable conclusions regarding the clinical outcomes associated with CCP. Data Sources:From May to August 2020, a systematic search was performed for trials of CCP in the literature, clinical trial registry sites, and medRxiv. Domain experts at local, national, and international organizations were consulted regularly. Study Selection:Eligible trials enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19, not receiving mechanical ventilation, and randomized them to CCP or control. The administered CCP was required to have measurable antibodies assessed locally. Data Extraction and Synthesis:A minimal data set was submitted regularly via a secure portal, analyzed using a prespecified bayesian statistical plan, and reviewed frequently by a collective data and safety monitoring board. Main Outcomes and Measures:Prespecified coprimary end points-the World Health Organization (WHO) 11-point ordinal scale analyzed using a proportional odds model and a binary indicator of WHO score of 7 or higher capturing the most severe outcomes including mechanical ventilation through death and analyzed using a logistic model-were assessed clinically at 14 days after randomization. Results:Eight international trials collectively enrolled 2369 participants (1138 randomized to control and 1231 randomized to CCP). A total of 2341 participants (median [IQR] age, 60 [50-72] years; 845 women [35.7%]) had primary outcome data as of April 2021. The median (IQR) of the ordinal WHO scale was 3 (3-6); the cumulative OR was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.74-1.19; posterior probability of OR <1 of 71%). A total of 352 patients (15%) had WHO score greater than or equal to 7; the OR was 0.94 (95% CrI, 0.69-1.30; posterior probability of OR <1 of 65%). Adjusted for baseline covariates, the ORs for mortality were 0.88 at day 14 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.26; posterior probability of OR <1 of 77%) and 0.85 at day 28 (95% CrI, 0.62-1.18; posterior probability of OR <1 of 84%). Heterogeneity of treatment effect sizes was observed across an array of baseline characteristics. Conclusions and Relevance:This meta-analysis found no association of CCP with better clinical outcomes for the typical patient. These findings suggest that real-time individual patient data pooling and meta-analysis during a pandemic are feasible, offering a model for future research and providing a rich data resource.