Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/AIMS/UNASSIGNED:High follow-up is critical in randomized clinical trials. We developed novel approaches to modify in-person visits and complete follow-up during COVID-19. Since these strategies are broadly applicable to circumstances wherein follow-up is difficult, they may help in contingency planning. The objective of this article is to develop and evaluate new approaches to replace detailed, in-person study visits for two trials focused on preventing diabetic foot complications. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A quasi-experimental pre-post design compared approaches for follow-up during COVID-19 to approaches pre-COVID-19. Study subjects were outpatients at two Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Following a research "hold," research resumed in February 2021 for Self-monitoring, Thermometry and Educating Patients for Ulcer Prevention (STEP UP) (n = 241), which focused on preventing recurrent foot ulcers, and in April 2021 for Preventing Amputation by Tailored Risk-based Intervention to Optimize Therapy (PATRIOT) (n = 406), which focused on preventing pre-ulcerative and ulcerative lesions. To complete data collection, we shortened visits, focused on primary and secondary outcomes, and conducted virtual visits when appropriate. For STEP UP, we created a 20-min assessment process that could be administered by phone. Since PATRIOT required plantar photographs to assess foot lesions, we conducted short face-to-face visits. We explored differences and assessed proportion completing visit, visit completion/100 person-months and compared COVID-19 to pre- COVID-19 using unadjusted risk ratios, incidence rate ratios, all with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Finally, we report time-to-visit curves. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:In both studies, participants whose follow-up concluded pre- COVID-19 seemed older than those whose follow-up concluded during COVID-19 (PATRIOT: 68.0 (67.2, 68.9) versus 65.2 years (61.9, 68.5); STEP UP: 67.5 (66.2, 68.9) versus 65.3 (63.3, 67.3)). For STEP UP, we completed 91 visits pre- COVID-19 (37.8% (31.6%, 44.2%)) and 63 visits during COVID-19 (78.8% (68.2%, 87.1%)). This was over 1309 person-months pre-COVID-19, and over 208.8 person-months during COVID-19; the visit completion rate/100 person-months were: pre-COVID-19 7.0 (5.6, 8.5), COVID-19 30.2 (23.2, 38.6); risk ratio: 2.1 (1.7, 2.5); and incidence rate ratio 4.3 (3.1, 5.9). Similarly, for PATRIOT, we completed 316 visits pre-COVID-19 (77.8% (73.5%, 81.8%)) and 27 assessments during COVID-19 (84.4% (67.2%, 94.7%)). This was over 1192.7 person-months pre-COVID-19 and 39.3 person-months during COVID-19. The visit completion rate/100 person-months in PATRIOT were: pre-COVID-19 2.7 (2.4, 3.0), COVID-19 6.9 (4.5, 10); risk ratio 1.1 (0.9, 1.3); incidence rate ratio 2.6 (1.8, 3.8). For both studies, the follow-up curves began separating at < 2 months. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:We achieved higher completion rates during COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID-19 by modifying visits and focusing on primary and secondary outcomes. These strategies prevent excessive missing data, support more valid conclusions, and improve efficiency. They may provide important alternative strategies to achieving higher follow-up in randomized clinical trials.

More than 20 years have elapsed since the September 11, 2001 (9/11) terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC), Pentagon and at Shanksville, PA. Many persons continue to suffer a variety of physical and mental health conditions following their exposures to a mixture of incompletely characterized toxicants and psychological stressors at the terrorist attack sites. Primary care and specialized clinicians should ask patients who may have been present at any of the 9/11 sites about their 9/11 exposures, especially patients with cancer, respiratory symptoms, chronic rhinosinusitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, psychiatric symptoms, and substance use disorders. Clinicians, especially those in the NY metropolitan area, should know how to evaluate, diagnose, and treat patients with conditions that could be associated with exposure to the 9/11 attacks and its aftermath. As such, this issue of Archives contains a series of updates to clinical best practices relevant to medical conditions whose treatment is covered by the WTC Health Program. This first paper in the 14-part series describes the purpose of this series, defines the WTC Health Program and its beneficiaries, and explains how relevant Clinical Practice Guidelines were identified. This paper also reminds readers that because physical and mental health conditions are often intertwined, a coordinated approach to care usually works best and referral to health centers affiliated with the WTC Health Program may be necessary, since all such Centers offer multidisciplinary care.

BACKGROUND:The coexistence of Neuromyelitis Optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) with other autoimmune diseases (AD-NMOSD) presents worse clinical outcomes and healthcare costs than NMOSD alone (NMOSD-only). NMOSD and other autoimmune diseases also have a higher prevalence and morbidity in Black. We aim to compare clinical features and treatment responses in NMOSD patients with and without overlapping autoimmunity in a predominantly Black cohort. We further identify predictors associated with each clinical subtype. METHODS:AD-NMOSD (n = 14) and NMOSD-only (n = 27) patients were identified retrospectively. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, imaging, and response to treatment data were examined. RESULTS:Our cohort was predominately Black (82.9%). The prevalence of grouped-comorbidities, history of infections, sensory symptoms, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) before treatment, double-stranded DNA, antinuclear, ribonucleoprotein, and antiphospholipid antibodies, spinal-cord edema, white matter occipital lesions, and the levels of C-reactive protein, urine protein/creatinine, white blood cell count in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), were higher in AD-NMOSD patients (p < 0.05 and/or Cramer's V > 30, Cohen's d > 50), whereas the age of males, visual symptoms, serum albumin, platelet count, and optic nerve enhancement were lower. EDSS after treatment improved in both groups being more evident in NMOSD-only patients (p = 0.003, SE = 0.58 vs p = 0.075, SE = 0.51). Other variables had a close to moderate SE, and others did not differ between NMOSD subtypes. A higher frequency of grouped-comorbidities, lower serum albumin, and platelet count were independently associated with a higher risk for AD-NMOSD. CONCLUSIONS:Some clinical features between AD-NMOSD and NMOSD-only patients were similar, while others differed. Comorbidities, serum albumin, and platelet count may be independent predictors of AD-NMOSD.

A cancer diagnosis can upend work and family life, leading patients to reallocate resources away from essentials such as food. Estimates of the percentage of people navigating a cancer diagnosis and food insecurity range between 17% and 55% of the cancer patient population. The complexity of addressing food insecurity among those diagnosed with cancer during different phases of treatment is multifactorial and often requires an extensive network of support throughout each phase. This commentary explores the issue of food insecurity in the context of cancer care, explores current mitigation efforts, and offers a call to action to create a path for food insecurity mitigation in the context of cancer. Three programs that address food insecurity among those with cancer at various stages of care are highlighted, drawing attention to current impact and actionable recommendations to make programs like these scalable and sustainable. Recommendations are grounded in the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine social care framework through 5 essential domain areas: awareness, adjustment, assistance, alignment, and advocacy. This commentary seeks to highlight opportunities for the optimization of cancer care and reframe food access as an essential part of treatment and long-term care plans.

DISCLAIMER/CONCLUSIONS:In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Despite progress in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the development of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), more clinical data to support the use of mAbs in outpatients with COVID-19 is needed. This study is designed to determine the impact of bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab/etesevimab, or casirivimab/imdevimab on clinical outcomes within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS:A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single academic medical center with 3 campuses in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Long Island, NY. Patients 12 years of age or older who tested positive for COVID-19 or were treated with a COVID-19-specific therapy, including COVID-19 mAb therapies, at the study site between November 24, 2020, and May 15, 2021, were included. The primary outcomes included rates of emergency department (ED) visit, inpatient admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or death within 30 days from the date of COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS:A total of 1,344 mAb-treated patients were propensity matched to 1,344 patients with COVID-19 patients who were not treated with mAb therapy. Within 30 days of diagnosis, among the patients who received mAb therapy, 101 (7.5%) presented to the ED and 79 (5.9%) were admitted. Among the patients who did not receive mAb therapy, 165 (12.3%) presented to the ED and 156 (11.6%) were admitted (relative risk [RR], 0.61 [95% CI, 0.50-0.75] and 0.51 [95% CI, 0.40-0.64], respectively). Four mAb patients (0.3%) and 2.64 control patients (0.2%) were admitted to the ICU (RR, 01.51; 95% CI, 0.45-5.09). Six mAb-treated patients (0.4%) and 3.37 controls (0.3%) died and/or were admitted to hospice (RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.54-4.83). mAb therapy in ambulatory patients with COVID-19 decreases the risk of ED presentation and hospital admission within 30 days of diagnosis.

PURPOSE:Sustained minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity is associated with long-term survival in multiple myeloma. The gut microbiome is affected by diet, and in turn can modulate host immunity, for example through production of short-chain fatty acids including butyrate. We hypothesized that dietary factors affect the microbiome (abundance of butyrate-producing bacteria or stool butyrate concentration) and may be associated with multiple myeloma outcomes. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:We examined the relationship of dietary factors (via a food frequency questionnaire), stool metabolites (via gas chromatography-mass spectrometry), and the stool microbiome (via 16S sequencing - α-diversity and relative abundance of butyrate-producing bacteria) with sustained MRD negativity (via flow cytometry at two timepoints 1 year apart) in myeloma patients on lenalidomide maintenance. The Healthy Eating Index 2015 score and flavonoid nutrient values were calculated from the food frequency questionnaire. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to evaluate associations with two-sided P < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS:At 3 months, higher stool butyrate concentration (P = 0.037), butyrate producers (P = 0.025), and α-diversity (P = 0.0035) were associated with sustained MRD negativity. Healthier dietary proteins, (from seafood and plants), correlated with butyrate at 3 months (P = 0.009) and sustained MRD negativity (P = 0.05). Consumption of dietary flavonoids, plant nutrients with antioxidant effects, correlated with stool butyrate concentration (anthocyanidins P = 0.01, flavones P = 0.01, and flavanols P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:This is the first study to demonstrate an association between a plant-based dietary pattern, stool butyrate production, and sustained MRD negativity in multiple myeloma, providing rationale to evaluate a prospective dietary intervention.

Background Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) reduce mortality and hospitalization for patients with heart failure. However, relatively high copayments for ARNI may contribute to suboptimal adherence, thus potentially limiting their benefits. Methods and Results We conducted a retrospective cohort study within a large, multi-site health system. We included patients with: ARNI prescription between November 20, 2020 and June 30, 2021; diagnosis of heart failure or left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%; and available pharmacy or pharmacy benefit manager copayment data. The primary exposure was copayment, categorized as $0, $0.01 to $10, $10.01 to $100, and >$100. The primary outcome was prescription fill nonadherence, defined as the proportion of days covered <80% over 6 months. We assessed the association between copayment and nonadherence using multivariable logistic regression, and nonbinarized proportion of days covered using multivariable Poisson regression, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and neighborhood-level covariates. A total of 921 patients met inclusion criteria, with 192 (20.8%) having $0 copayment, 228 (24.8%) with $0.01 to $10 copayment, 206 (22.4%) with $10.01 to $100, and 295 (32.0%) with >$100. Patients with higher copayments had higher rates of nonadherence, ranging from 17.2% for $0 copayment to 34.2% for copayment >$100 (P<0.001). After multivariable adjustment, odds of nonadherence were significantly higher for copayment of $10.01 to $100 (odds ratio [OR], 1.93 [95% CI, 1.15-3.27], P=0.01) or >$100 (OR, 2.58 [95% CI, 1.63-4.18], P<0.001), as compared with $0 copayment. Similar associations were seen when assessing proportion of days covered as a proportion. Conclusions We found higher rates of not filling ARNI prescriptions among patients with higher copayments, which persisted after multivariable adjustment. Our findings support future studies to assess whether reducing copayments can increase adherence to ARNI and improve outcomes for heart failure.