Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:Estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among New York City Health and Hospitals (NYC H+H) healthcare workers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and describe demographic and occupational factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers. DESIGN:Descriptive, observational, cross-sectional study using a convenience sample of data from SARS-CoV-2 serological tests accompanied by a demographic and occupational survey administered to healthcare workers. SETTING:A large, urban public healthcare system in NYC. PARTICIPANTS:Participants were employed by NYC H+H and either completed serological testing at NYC H+H between 30 April 2020 and 30 June 2020, or completed SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing outside of NYC H+H and were able to self-report results from the same time period. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE:SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, stratified by key demographic and occupational characteristics reported through the demographic and occupational survey. RESULTS:Seven hundred and twenty-seven survey respondents were included in analysis. Participants had a mean age of 46 years (SD=12.19) and 543 (75%) were women. Two hundred and fourteen (29%) participants tested positive or reported testing positive for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgG+). Characteristics associated with positive SARS-CoV-2 serostatus were Black race (25% IgG +vs 15% IgG-, p=0.001), having someone in the household with COVID-19 symptoms (49% IgG +vs 21% IgG-, p<0.001), or having a confirmed COVID-19 case in the household (25% IgG +vs 5% IgG-, p<0.001). Characteristics associated with negative SARS-CoV-2 serostatus included working on a COVID-19 patient floor (27% IgG +vs 36% IgG-, p=0.02), working in the intensive care unit (20% IgG +vs 28% IgG-, p=0.03), being employed in a clinical occupation (64% IgG +vs 78% IgG-, p<0.001) or having close contact with a patient with COVID-19 (51% IgG +vs 62% IgG-, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS:Results underscore the significance that community factors and inequities might have on SARS-CoV-2 exposure for healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Obesity is an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), and platelet hyperactivation in obesity may contribute to this association. Olive oil consumption is associated with lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in the general population. However, little is known for individuals with obesity. We investigated whether olive oil intake is associated with platelet activation in obesity. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:. Olive oil intake was stratified into <1 time/week (n = 21), 1-3 times/week (n = 18), ≥4 times/week (n = 24). Strata did not differ by age, BMI or platelet count. Unstimulated P-selectin expression did not differ by olive oil consumption. Subjects with more frequent olive oil intake exhibited lower P-selectin expression on submaximal thrombin exposure. CONCLUSIONS:More frequent olive oil intake is associated with reduced thrombin-induced platelet activation in obesity.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD) arises from calcium pyrophosphate deposition throughout the body, leading to different clinical syndromes that may be diagnosed using various imaging modalities. The purpose of this review is to highlight recent updates in the imaging of CPPD. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Conventional radiography remains the initial test when imaging CPPD; but musculoskeletal ultrasound and conventional computed tomography (CT) may also assist in diagnosing and characterizing CPP deposits, with increased sensitivity. Dual-energy CT is also being used to differentiate CPP crystals from other crystal deposition diseases. CPP discitis has been diagnosed with MRI, but MRI has lower sensitivity and specificity than the aforementioned imaging studies in CPPD diagnosis. Assorted imaging modalities are increasingly used to diagnose CPPD involving atypical joints, avoiding invasive procedures. Each modality has its advantages and disadvantages. Future imaging may be able to provide more utility than what is currently available.

BACKGROUND:Patients infected with novel COVID-19 virus have a spectrum of illnesses ranging from asymptomatic to death. Data have shown that age, sex, and obesity are strongly correlated with poor outcomes in COVID-19-positive patients. Bariatric surgery is the only treatment that provides significant, sustained weight loss in the severely obese. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Examine if prior bariatric surgery correlates with increased risk of hospitalization and outcome severity after COVID-19 infection. SETTING/METHODS:test or Fisher's exact test. Additionally, overall length of stay and duration of time in intensive care unit (ICU) were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test. Conditional logistic regression analyses were done to determine both unadjusted (UOR) and adjusted odds ratios (AOR). RESULTS:(SD = 6.5, P < .0001). There was also less burden of diabetes in the bariatric group (32%) compared with the control group (48%) (P = .0019). Patients with a history of bariatric surgery were less likely to be admitted through the emergency room (UOR = .39, P = .0001), less likely to require a ventilator during the admission (UOR=.42, P = .028), had a shorter length of stay in both the ICU (P = .033) and overall (UOR = .44, P = .0002), and were less likely to be deceased at discharge compared with the control group (OR = .42, P = .028). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A history of bariatric surgery significantly decreases the risk of emergency room admission, mechanical ventilation, prolonged ICU stay, and death in patients with COVID-19. Even when adjusted for BMI and the co-morbidities associated with obesity, patients with a history of bariatric surgery still have a significant decrease in the risk of emergency room admission.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Extended-release buprenorphine (XRB), a monthly injectable long-acting opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, has not been studied for use in corrections facilities. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To compare treatment retention following release from jail among adults receiving daily sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (SLB) vs those receiving XRB. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:This open-label, randomized comparative effectiveness study included 52 incarcerated adults in New York City observed for 8 weeks postrelease between June 2019 and May 2020. Participants were soon-to-be-released volunteers from 1 men's and 1 women's jail facility who had OUDs already treated with SLB. Follow-up treatment was received at a primary care clinic in Manhattan. Data were analyzed between June 2020 and December 2020. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:XRB treatment was offered prior to release and continued monthly through 8 weeks after release. SLB participants continued to receive daily directly observed in-jail SLB administration, were provided a 7-day SLB supply at jail release, and followed up at a designated clinic (or other preferred clinics). Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Buprenorphine treatment retention at 8 weeks postrelease. Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 52 participants were randomized 1:1 to XRB (26 participants) and SLB (26 participants). Participants had a mean (SD) age of 42.6 (10.0) years; 45 participants (87%) were men; and 40 (77%) primarily used heroin prior to incarceration. Most participants (30 [58%]) reported prior buprenorphine use; 18 (35%) reported active community buprenorphine treatment prior to jail admission. Twenty-one of 26 assigned to XRB received 1 or more XRB injection prior to release; 3 initiated XRB postrelease; and 2 did not receive XRB. Patients in the XRB arm had fewer jail medical visits compared with daily SLB medication administration (mean [SD] visits per day: XRB, 0.11 [0.03] vs SLB, 1.06 [0.08]). Community buprenorphine treatment retention at week 8 postrelease was 18 participants in the XRB group (69.2%) vs 9 in the SLB group (34.6%), and rates of opioid-negative urine tests were 72 of 130 tests in the XRB group (55.3%) and 50 of 130 tests in the SLB group (38.4%). There were no differences in rates of serious adverse events, no overdoses, and no deaths. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:XRB was acceptable among patients currently receiving SLB, and patients had fewer in-jail clinic visits and increased community buprenorphine treatment retention when compared with standard daily SLB treatment. These results support wider use and further study of XRB as correctional and reentry OUD treatment. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03604159.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The role of overcrowded and multigenerational households as a risk factor for COVID-19 remains unmeasured. The objective of this study is to examine and quantify the association between overcrowded and multigenerational households and COVID-19 in New York City (NYC). STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Cohort study. METHODS:We conducted a Bayesian ecological time series analysis at the ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) level in NYC to assess whether ZCTAs with higher proportions of overcrowded (defined as the proportion of the estimated number of housing units with more than one occupant per room) and multigenerational households (defined as the estimated percentage of residences occupied by a grandparent and a grandchild less than 18 years of age) were independently associated with higher suspected COVID-19 case rates (from NYC Department of Health Syndromic Surveillance data for March 1 to 30, 2020). Our main measure was an adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) of suspected COVID-19 cases per 10,000 population. Our final model controlled for ZCTA-level sociodemographic factors (median income, poverty status, White race, essential workers), the prevalence of clinical conditions related to COVID-19 severity (obesity, hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, asthma, smoking status, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and spatial clustering. RESULTS: = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.99-1.00). CONCLUSIONS:Overcrowdedness and multigenerational housing are independent risk factors for suspected COVID-19. In the early phase of the surge in COVID cases, social distancing measures that increase house-bound populations may inadvertently but temporarily increase SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk and COVID-19 disease in these populations.