Faculty Bibliography

Doctors have long linked one known as the antinuclear auto-antibody with a number of diseases, including lupus. But while many people who have the antinuclear auto-antibody later develop lupus, many more do not. There has been no reliable way to predict which people with the antinuclear antibody will develop lupus, in part because scientists have not conducted extensive studies to explore the development of such antibodies in the disease. Some auto-antibodies develop years before lupus, others just before the onset of the disease. The auto-antibodies that seemed to correlate with the onset of lupus are known as the anti-nuclear ribonucleoprotein and anti-Sm antibodies. Dr. [John B. Harley] said his team believed that Epstein-Barr virus infection was necessary to start the lupus process but required other factors because while the overwhelming majority of Americans are infected with that virus, only a small percentage get lupus

Influenza affects up to 20% of the U.S. population in a given year, with 114,000 people hospitalized on average. While roughly 70 million Americans receive the flu vaccine every year, another 70 million should get it but don't. Health care workers, older people, those with respiratory or chronic illnesses, pregnant women and anyone who may come in close contact with the flu all should be vaccinated. In fact, it may not be long before the vaccine is recommended for everyone. WHO also has done a good job of not spreading panic by connecting the flu to the media megaphone the way SARS was. During the past century, three influenza pandemics -- diseases spreading over a large region -- caused millions of deaths worldwide, social disruption and profound economic losses. The scourge of 1918 wiped out 33,000 people just in New York City. Luckily, no one is hyping this history. This year has been a bad flu season in Australia and Chile, which might be a harbinger for a bad flu season here. In addition, since we have just experienced two mild flu seasons, some experts say that a severe one is due. But such speculation is about as sure as predicting the stock market. We are better off preparing, not predicting

Disparities in breast cancer survival have been observed between African American and white women. There are also known differences in mean baseline white blood cell (WBC) count among racial and ethnic groups. If the WBC count falls below conventionally defined treatment thresholds for patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy, reduced doses or treatment delays may occur, which could lead to race-based differences in treatment duration. We used the tumor registry at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center to identify 1178 women with newly diagnosed stage I and II breast cancer from whom we collected base-line information for 73 African American women and 126 age- and tumor stage-matched white women. Of these women, 43 African American and 93 white women underwent adjuvant chemotherapy. African American women had statistically significantly lower WBC counts than white women at diagnosis (6.2 x 10(9)/L for African American women versus 7.4 x 10(9)/L for white women, difference = 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.2 to 1.2; P =.02) and after treatment (5.3 x 10(9)/L for African American women versus 6.4 x 10(9)/L for white women, difference = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.2 to 2.5; P =.03). Overall, African American women required a statistically significantly longer duration of treatment than white women (19 weeks versus 15 weeks, respectively, difference = 4 weeks, 95% CI = 0.5 to 7.2 weeks; P =.03). The lower baseline WBC counts and longer duration of treatment for early-stage breast cancer in African American women compared with those in white women result in lower dose intensity of treatment for African American women, possibly contributing to observed racial differences in breast cancer survival

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease results in >19 million deaths annually, and coronary heart disease accounts for the majority of this toll. Despite major advances in treatment of coronary heart disease patients, a large number of victims of the disease who are apparently healthy die suddenly without prior symptoms. Available screening and diagnostic methods are insufficient to identify the victims before the event occurs. The recognition of the role of the vulnerable plaque has opened new avenues of opportunity in the field of cardiovascular medicine. This consensus document concludes the following. (1) Rupture-prone plaques are not the only vulnerable plaques. All types of atherosclerotic plaques with high likelihood of thrombotic complications and rapid progression should be considered as vulnerable plaques. We propose a classification for clinical as well as pathological evaluation of vulnerable plaques. (2) Vulnerable plaques are not the only culprit factors for the development of acute coronary syndromes, myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death. Vulnerable blood (prone to thrombosis) and vulnerable myocardium (prone to fatal arrhythmia) play an important role in the outcome. Therefore, the term 'vulnerable patient' may be more appropriate and is proposed now for the identification of subjects with high likelihood of developing cardiac events in the near future. (3) A quantitative method for cumulative risk assessment of vulnerable patients needs to be developed that may include variables based on plaque, blood, and myocardial vulnerability. In Part I of this consensus document, we cover the new definition of vulnerable plaque and its relationship with vulnerable patients. Part II of this consensus document will focus on vulnerable blood and vulnerable myocardium and provide an outline of overall risk assessment of vulnerable patients. Parts I and II are meant to provide a general consensus and overviews the new field of vulnerable patient. Recently developed assays (eg, C-reactive protein), imaging techniques (eg, CT and MRI), noninvasive electrophysiological tests (for vulnerable myocardium), and emerging catheters (to localize and characterize vulnerable plaque) in combination with future genomic and proteomic techniques will guide us in the search for vulnerable patients. It will also lead to the development and deployment of new therapies and ultimately to reduce the incidence of acute coronary syndromes and sudden cardiac death. We encourage healthcare policy makers to promote translational research for screening and treatment of vulnerable patients

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease results in >19 million deaths annually, and coronary heart disease accounts for the majority of this toll. Despite major advances in treatment of coronary heart disease patients, a large number of victims of the disease who are apparently healthy die suddenly without prior symptoms. Available screening and diagnostic methods are insufficient to identify the victims before the event occurs. The recognition of the role of the vulnerable plaque has opened new avenues of opportunity in the field of cardiovascular medicine. This consensus document concludes the following. (1) Rupture-prone plaques are not the only vulnerable plaques. All types of atherosclerotic plaques with high likelihood of thrombotic complications and rapid progression should be considered as vulnerable plaques. We propose a classification for clinical as well as pathological evaluation of vulnerable plaques. (2) Vulnerable plaques are not the only culprit factors for the development of acute coronary syndromes, myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death. Vulnerable blood (prone to thrombosis) and vulnerable myocardium (prone to fatal arrhythmia) play an important role in the outcome. Therefore, the term 'vulnerable patient' may be more appropriate and is proposed now for the identification of subjects with high likelihood of developing cardiac events in the near future. (3) A quantitative method for cumulative risk assessment of vulnerable patients needs to be developed that may include variables based on plaque, blood, and myocardial vulnerability. In Part I of this consensus document, we cover the new definition of vulnerable plaque and its relationship with vulnerable patients. Part II of this consensus document focuses on vulnerable blood and vulnerable myocardium and provide an outline of overall risk assessment of vulnerable patients. Parts I and II are meant to provide a general consensus and overviews the new field of vulnerable patient. Recently developed assays (eg, C-reactive protein), imaging techniques (eg, CT and MRI), noninvasive electrophysiological tests (for vulnerable myocardium), and emerging catheters (to localize and characterize vulnerable plaque) in combination with future genomic and proteomic techniques will guide us in the search for vulnerable patients. It will also lead to the development and deployment of new therapies and ultimately to reduce the incidence of acute coronary syndromes and sudden cardiac death. We encourage healthcare policy makers to promote translational research for screening and treatment of vulnerable patients

PROBLEM STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND: Cross-cultural experiences are in increasing demand by both graduate and undergraduate medical students, yet the benefits of these experiences are not clearly established. METHOD: A review of the literature was conducted to identify articles on the outcomes of cross-cultural experiences. Themes were identified and categorized into domains. RESULTS: Forty-two studies were found; 27 articles used qualitative methods, nine used quantitative methods, and six used both. Most (24) were from the nursing literature, 18 were from the medical literature. All studies reported positive outcomes along four domains: students' professional development, students' personal development, medical school benefits, and host population benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Studies reviewed were primarily case controlled or case series. Future research is needed that more clearly defines outcome measures and uses more rigorous methods. Although results suggest positive outcomes in all domains, additional research is needed before cross-cultural rotations can be supported based on evidence.

The New York University School of Medicine has a rich tradition of cultivating programs in medical humanities and professionalism. They are drawn from the departments, centers, students, and faculty in the School of Medicine, have linkages throughout the university, and are interwoven into the fabric and culture of the institution. Some are centrally based in the School of Medicine's deans' office, and others are located in individual departments and receive support from the dean's office. This article describes representative programs for medical students and faculty. Curricular initiatives, the fundamental components of medical students' learning, include a course entitled 'The Physician, Patient, and Society,' a clerkship essay in the Medicine Clerkship, an opportunity for reflection during the medicine clerkship, and a medical humanities elective. In 2002, the Professionalism Initiative was launched to enhance and reflect the values of the medical profession. Its curriculum consists of a series of events that coordinate, particularly, with existing elements of the first-year curriculum (e.g., orientation week, a session during anatomy, a self-assessment workshop, and a peer-assessment workshop). The Master Scholars Program is a group of five, theme-based master societies consisting of faculty and students who share common interests around the society's themes. Programs developed for the societies include colloquia, faculty-led seminars, a mandatory student-mentoring program, and visiting scholars. Finally, the authors describe three high-quality literary publications created at New York University School of Medicine. Each of the initiatives undergoes regular critical examination and reflection that drive future planning