Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Available evidence is mixed concerning associations between smoking status and COVID-19 clinical outcomes. Effects of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and vaccination status on COVID-19 outcomes in smokers are unknown. METHODS:Electronic health record data from 104 590 COVID-19 patients hospitalized February 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 in 21 U.S. health systems were analyzed to assess associations of smoking status, in-hospital NRT prescription, and vaccination status with in-hospital death and ICU admission. RESULTS:Current (n = 7764) and never smokers (n = 57 454) did not differ on outcomes after adjustment for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, body mass index, and comorbidities. Former (vs never) smokers (n = 33 101) had higher adjusted odds of death (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17) and ICU admission (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.11). Among current smokers, NRT prescription was associated with reduced mortality (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82). Vaccination effects were significantly moderated by smoking status; vaccination was more strongly associated with reduced mortality among current (aOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.66) and former smokers (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39-0.57) than for never smokers (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57, 0.79). Vaccination was associated with reduced ICU admission more strongly among former (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83) than never smokers (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97). CONCLUSIONS:Former but not current smokers hospitalized with COVID-19 are at higher risk for severe outcomes. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with better hospital outcomes in COVID-19 patients, especially current and former smokers. NRT during COVID-19 hospitalization may reduce mortality for current smokers. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Prior findings regarding associations between smoking and severe COVID-19 disease outcomes have been inconsistent. This large cohort study suggests potential beneficial effects of nicotine replacement therapy on COVID-19 outcomes in current smokers and outsized benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in current and former smokers. Such findings may influence clinical practice and prevention efforts and motivate additional research that explores mechanisms for these effects.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:The role of plasma soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor (sTNFR)1 and sTNFR2 in the prognosis of clinical events after hospitalization with or without acute kidney injury (AKI) is unknown. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Prospective cohort. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Hospital survivors from the Assessment, Serial Evaluation, and Subsequent Sequelae of Acute Kidney Injury (ASSESS-AKI) and AKI Risk in Derby (ARID) with and without AKI during the index hospitalization who had baseline serum samples for biomarker measurements. PREDICTORS/METHODS:We measured sTNFR1 and sTNFR2 obtained 3 months post-discharge. OUTCOMES/RESULTS:The associations between biomarkers with longitudinal kidney disease incidence and progression, heart failure and death were evaluated. ANALYTICAL APPROACH/METHODS:Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS:Among 1474 participants with plasma biomarker measurements, 19% developed kidney disease progression, 14% had later heart failure, and 21% died over a median follow-up of 4.4 years. For the kidney outcome, the adjusted HRs per doubling in concentration were 2.9 (2.2-3.9) for sTNFR1 and 1.9 (1.5-2.5) for sTNFR2. AKI during the index hospitalization did not modify the association between biomarkers and kidney events. For heart failure, the adjusted HRs per doubling in concentration were 1.9 (1.4-2.5) for sTNFR1 and 1.5 (1.2-2.0) for sTNFR2. For mortality, the adjusted HRs were 3.3 (2.5-4.3) for sTNFR1 and 2.5 (2.0-3.1) for sTNFR2. The findings in ARID were qualitatively similar for the magnitude of association between biomarkers and outcomes. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Different biomarker platforms, AKI definitions, limited generalizability to other ethnic groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Plasma sTNFR1 and sTNFR2 measured 3 months after discharge were independently associated with clinical events, regardless of AKI status during the index admission. sTNFR1 and sTNFR2 may assist with the risk stratification of patients during follow-up.

BACKGROUND:There is mixed evidence about the relations of current versus past cancer with severe COVID-19 outcomes and how they vary by patient and cancer characteristics. METHODS:Electronic health record data of 104,590 adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were obtained from 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. In-hospital mortality and ICU admission were predicted from current and past cancer diagnoses. Moderation by patient characteristics, vaccination status, cancer type, and year of the pandemic was examined. RESULTS:6.8% of the patients had current (n = 7,141) and 6.5% had past (n = 6,749) cancer diagnoses. Current cancer predicted both severe outcomes but past cancer did not; adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for mortality were 1.58 (95% CI: 1.46, 1.70) and 1.04 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.13), respectively. Mortality rates decreased over the pandemic but the incremental risk of current cancer persisted, with the increment being larger among younger vs. older patients. Prior COVID-19 vaccination reduced mortality generally and amongst those with current cancer (aOR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.90). CONCLUSIONS:Current cancer, especially amongst younger patients, posed a substantially increased risk for death and ICU admission among COVID-19 patients; prior COVID-19 vaccination mitigated the risk associated with current cancer. Past history of cancer was not associated with higher risks for severe COVID-19 outcomes for most cancer types. IMPACT/CONCLUSIONS:This study clarifies the characteristics that modify the risk associated with cancer on severe COVID-19 outcomes across the first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND:Although efforts are underway to address social determinants of health (SDOH), little is known about physicians' SDOH practices despite evidence that failing to fully elicit and respond to social needs can compromise patient safety and undermine both the quality and effectiveness of treatment. In particular, interventions designed to enhance response to social needs have not been assessed using actual practice behaviour. In this study, we evaluate the degree to which providing primary care physicians with feedback on their SDOH practice behaviours is associated with increased rates of eliciting and responding to housing and social isolation needs. METHODS:Unannounced standardised patients (USPs), actors trained to consistently portray clinical scenarios, were sent, incognito, to all five primary care teams in an urban, safety-net healthcare system. Scenarios involved common primary care conditions and each included an underlying housing (eg, mould in the apartment, crowding) and social isolation issue and USPs assessed whether the physician fully elicited these needs and if so, whether or not they addressed them. The intervention consisted of providing physicians with audit/feedback reports of their SDOH practices, along with brief written educational material. A prepost comparison group design was used to evaluate the intervention; four teams received the intervention and one team served as a 'proxy' comparison (no intervention). Preintervention (February 2017 to December 2017) rates of screening for and response to the scripted housing and social needs were compared with intervention period (January 2018 to March 2019) rates for both intervention and comparison teams. RESULTS:108 visits were completed preintervention and 183 during the intervention period. Overall, social needs were not elicited half of the time and fully addressed even less frequently. Rates of identifying the housing issue increased for teams that received audit/feedback reports (46%-60%; p=0.045) and declined for the proxy comparison (61%-42%; p=0.174). Rates of responding to housing needs increased significantly for intervention teams (15%-41%; p=0.004) but not for the comparison team (21%-29%; p=0.663). Social isolation was identified more frequently postintervention (53%) compared with baseline (39%; p=0.041) among the intervention teams but remained unchanged for the comparison team (39% vs 32%; p=0.601). Full exploration of social isolation remained low for both intervention and comparison teams. CONCLUSIONS:Results suggest that physicians may not be consistently screening for or responding to social needs but that receiving feedback on those practices, along with brief targeted education, can improve rates of SDOH screening and response.

BACKGROUND & AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Understanding the epidemiology of bleeding and thromboembolism (clotting) in liver cirrhosis provides important data for future studies and policymaking; however, head-to-head comparisons of bleeding and clotting remain limited. METHODS:This is a populational retrospective cohort study using the US National Readmission Database of 2018 to compare the incidence and outcomes of bleeding and clotting events in patients with liver cirrhosis. The primary outcomes were the 11-month incidence proportion of bleeding and clotting events. RESULTS:Of 1 304 815 participants, 26 569 had liver cirrhosis (45.0% women, mean age 57.2 [SD, 12.7] years). During the 11-month follow-up, in patients with cirrhosis, for bleeding and clotting events, the incidence proportions was 15.3% and 6.6%; the risk-standardized all-cause mortality rates were 2.4% and 1.0%; the rates of intensive care intervention were 4.1% and 1.9%; the rates of rehabilitation transfer were .2% and .2%; the cumulative length of stays were 45 100 and 23 566 days; total hospital costs were 147 and 84 million US dollars; total hospital charges were 620 and 365 million US dollars. Compared to non-cirrhosis, liver cirrhosis was associated with higher rates of bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.02 [95% CI, 2.85-3.20]) and portal vein thrombosis (PVT) (18.46 [14.86-22.92]), and slightly lower risks of other non-PVT venous thromboembolic events (.82 [.75-.89]). CONCLUSIONS:Bleeding is more common than thromboembolism in patients with liver cirrhosis, causes higher morbidity, mortality and resource utilization. Liver cirrhosis is an independent risk factor for bleeding and PVT, but not non-PVT thromboembolism including venous thromboembolism, acute myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND:Gender-based differences are reported in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) pathogenesis, but their impacts on IBD outcomes are not well known. We determined gender-based differences in response to treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapies in individuals with ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS:We used the Yale University Open Data Access (YODA) platform to abstract individual participant data from randomized clinical trials to study infliximab and golimumab as induction and maintenance therapies in moderately to severely active UC. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined associations between gender and the endpoints of clinical remission, mucosal healing, and clinical response for each study individually and in a meta-analysis. RESULTS:Of 1639 patients included in induction trials (Program of Ulcerative Colitis Research Studies Utilizing an Investigational Treatment-Subcutaneous [PURSUIT-SC], active ulcerative colitis trials [ACT] 1 and 2) and 1280 patients included in maintenance trials (Program of Ulcerative Colitis Research Studies Utilizing an Investigational Treatment-Maintenance [PURSUIT-IM], ACT 1 and 2), 696 (42.5%) and 534 (41.7%) were women, respectively. In a meta-analysis of induction trials, the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of clinical remission (aOR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.97), mucosal healing (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27-0.83), and clinical response (aOR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.90) in the treatment arm and of clinical remission in the placebo arm (aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.82) were lower in men compared to women. There were no differences in outcomes by gender in the treatment and placebo arms in the meta-analysis of maintenance trials. CONCLUSIONS:Men are less likely to achieve clinical remission, mucosal healing, and clinical response compared to women during induction treatment with TNFi for UC, but not during the maintenance phase. Future studies delineating the mechanisms underlying these observations would be informative.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The rapidly aging and diversifying U.S. population is challenged by increases in prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and aging-related disorders. We conducted a scoping review to assess equitable inclusion of diverse older adult populations in aging research focused on National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored research. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS/METHODS:The scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-Scr) Protocol. The search was limited to NIH-funded studies focusing on aging, AD and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias (ADRD) and included adults aged 55+. The priority populations and health disparities put forth by the NIA Health Disparities Framework serve as a model for guiding inclusion criteria and for interpreting the representation of these underrepresented groups, including racial ethnic minorities, socioeconomically disadvantaged, rural populations, groups with disabilities, and LGBTQ communities. RESULTS:Our search identified 1,177 records, of which 436 articles were included in the analysis. Inclusion of individuals with ADRD and mild cognitive impairment, racial ethnic minorities, rural populations, socioeconomically disadvantaged, groups with disabilities, and LGBTQ communities were poorly specified in most studies. Studies used multiple recruitment methods, conducting studies in community settings (59%) and hospitals/clinics (38%) most frequently. Incentives, convenience factors, and sustained engagement via community-based and care partners were identified as key strategies for improved retention. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:This scoping review identified gaps in existing literature and aims for future work, including stronger research focus on, better inclusion of, and improved data collection and reporting of older adults from underrepresented groups.

The transition from medical student to resident is a pivotal step in the medical education continuum. For applicants, successfully obtaining a residency position is the actualization of a dream after years of training and has life-changing professional and financial implications. These high stakes contribute to a residency application and Match process in the United States that is increasingly complex and dysfunctional, and that does not effectively serve applicants, residency programs, or the public good. In July 2020, the Coalition for Physician Accountability (Coalition) formed the Undergraduate Medical Education-Graduate Medical Education Review Committee (UGRC) to critically assess the overall transition to residency and offer recommendations to solve the growing challenges in the system. In this Invited Commentary, the authors reflect on their experience as the trainee representatives on the UGRC. They emphasize the importance of trainee advocacy in medical education change efforts; reflect on opportunities, concerns, and tensions with the final UGRC recommendations (released in August 2021); discuss factors that may constrain implementation; and call for the medical education community-and the Coalition member organizations in particular-to accelerate fully implementing the UGRC recommendations. By seizing the momentum created by the UGRC, the medical education community can create a reimagined transition to residency that reshapes its approach to training a more diverse, competent, and growth-oriented physician workforce.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), as an indicator of heightened systemic inflammatory response, predicts increased disease burden and poor oncological outcomes in urothelial carcinoma (UC). The study was undertaken with an aim to evaluate the association of NLR with clinicopathological variables and survival outcomes. METHODS:A total of 80 patients of UC were enrolled in the current retrospective study. Pre-operative NLR (within one month prior to the procedure), patient age, sex, tumour grade, pathological stage, recurrence free survival (RFS), progression free survival (PFS) and cancer specific survival (CSS) were recorded. We chose a cut-off value of 2.7 for NLR and patients were divide into two groups (NLR <2.7 and ≥2.7). RESULTS:NLR ≥2.7 was significantly associated with advanced tumour stage (p=0.001), but not with tumour grade (p=0.116). Progression (p=0.032) and death rates (p=0.026) were high in patients with NLR ≥2.7. Mean RFS (p=0.03), PFS (p=0.04) and CSS (p=0.04) were reduced in patients with NLR ≥2.7. On univariate analysis, NLR ≥2.7 predicted worse RFS (HR=2.928, p=0.007), PFS (HR=3.180, p=0.006) and CSS (HR=3.109, p=0.016). However, it was not an independent predictor of outcomes on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS:Tumour stage and grade are the only independent predictors of RFS, PFS and CSS. High NLR at a cut-off value of ≥2.7 is associated with advanced pathological stage, but does not have an independent predictive value for RFS, PFS and CSS.