Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Inferring risk for malignant transformation (MT) in patients with lesions diagnosed as mild or moderate oral epithelial dysplasia (low-grade OED) remains challenging. We developed two models assessing the risk of progression to high-grade OED (severe dysplasia or carcinoma in situ) or OSCC in patients with low-grade OED lesions. METHODS:We included demographic, risk habit and clinical data from participants with low-grade OED lesions enrolled in the BC Oral Cancer Prevention Program's Oral Cancer Prediction Longitudinal study. Cox proportional hazard models were fit to estimate the effects of anatomic site and toluidine blue findings and adjusted for confounders, as both are associated with MT in the literature but without a North American-specific cohort analysis. Our primary model included both variables of interest. A secondary model included only anatomic site since toluidine blue is not in widespread use. RESULTS:Five hundred and thirty-four participants with 605 lesions met final inclusion criteria, with 339 mild and 266 moderate OED at baseline. In the primary model, lesions at a high-risk anatomic site or with positive toluidine blue staining were associated with a 2.6 and 2.4-fold increased risk of progression, respectively. In the second model that did not incorporate toluidine blue, high-risk anatomic site remained a highly associated risk factor (2.7-fold increased risk of progression). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Lesion anatomic site is associated with higher risk of MT for the general practitioner, while a specialist with access to toluidine blue results can assume additional risk associated with positive staining. These models may inform decisions for surveillance and intervention for OED.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The impact of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection on fetal brain development during pregnancy remains unclear. Prior research has associated other antenatal infections with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in offspring. OBJECTIVE:To compare neurodevelopmental outcomes in infants born to mothers infected with SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy (COVID+) to infants without congenital exposure (COVID-). METHODS:This study included 77 COVID+ infants and 157 COVID- infants assessed at 6 and/or 12 months. Outcomes were based on maternal self-report, observed infant behavior and brain fMRI. RESULTS:Overall, COVID+ and COVID- infant groups showed no significant differences across a range of neurobehavioral measures. However, analyses not adjusted for multiple comparisons revealed differences: fewer night awakenings at 6 (t(154) = 2.24, p < 0.03) and 12 months (t(107) = 1.94, p < 0.05), and reduced duration of orienting at 12 months (t(55.38) = 2.15, p < 0.04) in COVID+ infants. Neural differences were noted in posterior-anterior midline, insular-frontal, insular-posterior cingulate, and frontal-cingulate regions at an uncorrected threshold of p < 0.01. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study of multi-level infant development suggests that infants born to mothers infected with COVID during pregnancy are not experiencing harmful effects of that exposure. IMPACT/CONCLUSIONS:This study contributes comprehensive data on infant neurodevelopmental outcomes following prenatal SARS-CoV-2 exposure, evaluating a wide range of behavioral and neural measures to address gaps in previous research. Findings suggest that congenital exposure to SARS-CoV-2 does not result in significant neurodevelopmental impairments in infants, offering reassurance amidst concerns about potential long-term effects of maternal prenatal COVID-19 infection. Results indicate that any observed differences, such as fewer night awakenings and functional neural connectivity patterns, may reflect a more mature developmental profile in the exposed group. Continued longitudinal research is necessary to understand behaviorally relevant and lasting neurodevelopmental effects of prenatal SARS-CoV-2 exposure.

BACKGROUND:Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of morbidity and mortality in kidney transplant recipients. Screening for coronary disease is frequently required prior to kidney transplantation, but coronary intervention has not been shown to be beneficial except in complex coronary artery disease. The likelihood of finding significant coronary artery disease and the benefits of routine pre-transplant screening are uncertain. METHODS:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medline & Embase were searched to identify manuscripts published between 1998 and 2024 reporting the results of pre-transplant screening. The primary endpoints were the frequency of detecting significant coronary lesions for which there are AHA class 1 indications for revascularization: a) >50% left main stenosis; or b) multi-vessel disease with ejection fraction < 35% during pre-kidney transplant screening. Secondary endpoints included frequency of detecting multivessel disease, proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) disease, and number of patients who underwent invasive coronary angiography. Meta-regression was used to explore outcome heterogeneity according to the presence of hypertension, diabetes, and age. RESULTS:We identified 1273 studies out of which 44 met eligibility criteria. The mean prevalence of class 1 indications was 2%, although the heterogeneity was high with estimates ranging from 0% to 17%. Estimated prevalence of proximal LAD disease was 2% and left main stenosis was 1%, whereas 10% of patients had multi-vessel coronary artery disease, and 35% were referred for invasive angiography. There was no evidence of significant heterogeneity according to sex of the population or prevalence of diabetes or hypertension. CONCLUSIONS:Identification of class I indications for revascularization during pre-transplant coronary screening was rare.

We developed and implemented a PrEP navigation program ("SNAPS") in a NYC safety-net hospital with the objectives to co-locate navigation, clinical PrEP services, and payment assistance. Adherence and retention to PrEP-related care were assessed by mean medication possession ratios (MPRs) and number of appointments over 12 months. Compared to the pre-SNAPS cohort, the post-SNAPS cohort was less likely to be cisgender male (64.8% vs. 84.2%), White (6.5% vs. 23%) and to speak English (33.3% vs. 80.6%) (all p < 0.001). Mean MPR was lower for post-SNAPS (0.68, SD = 0.33) compared to pre-SNAPS (0.89, SD = 0.22) (p = 0.001). Among post-SNAPS patients, cisgender men and MSM were more likely to be retained in PrEP care compared to cisgender women (p < 0.05). Although SNAPS linked diverse patients to PrEP-care, mean MPR was lower post-SNAPS compared to the pre-SNAPS. Continued investments to strengthen later stages of the PrEP cascade model for all populations vulnerable to HIV are needed.

Liver transplant (LT) recipients experience a wide range of comorbidities, leading to frequent healthcare encounters. Until now, national registries, which have limited exposures and outcomes, and laborious small cohort studies have been the main data sources for LT research. Cosmos database offers electronic health record (EHR)-based insights into LT recipients at the national level with granular data. We evaluated if Cosmos data is representative of the entire US LT recipient population. Using Cosmos (N=20,235) and the national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) (N=51,281), we identified adult, first-time LT recipients between 7/2016-12/2022. We compared demographics, clinical data, and mortality across datasets, calculating Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and multi-variable Cox regressions. Recipient characteristics were highly comparable (e.g., female: Cosmos=36.5% vs. SRTR=36.4%, Black: 6.8% vs. 7.2%; BMI: 28.5 kg/m2 [24.8-32.9] vs. 28.2 [24.6-32.4]). Lab values were similar across cohorts, including MELD (24 [17-30] vs. 23 [16-30]). Transplant indications, donor characteristics, and 5-year survival (Cosmos 83.1% [82.3-83.8) vs. SRTR 80.9% [80.4-81.3]) were similar. The associations of clinical factors with survival were similar across both groups. Cosmos database demonstrated acceptable generalizability to the general US LT recipient population, which may advance LT research through a better understanding about LT recipients' experiences and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE:To increase the rate of low dose aspirin (LDA) counseling and treatment in patients with 2 or more moderate risk factors of preeclampsia(PMRF) from 9% to 50% within a four-month period after implementation of interventions. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:A single-institution quality improvement initiative aimed at LDA screening and counseling of those with PMRF. Two groups were evaluated: pre-intervention (January - April 2022) and post-intervention (January - April 2023). This initiative focused on identifying PMRF and monitoring rates of LDA counseling and treatment. Rates were assessed at two-week intervals and presented on a run chart to visualize trends and measure progress over time. Providers underwent education utilizing preeclampsia (PEC) screening flowsheets and integrated a clinical decision-making (CDM) tool in initial prenatal visit documentation using a smart-tool. Patients were provided with educational flyers. RESULTS:In the pre-intervention group (n=126), 8.7% of patients received counseling on PMRF risk factors and LDA use, 7.9% were treated with LDA. In the post-intervention group (n=112) 52.7% of patients received counseling on PMRF risk factors and LDA use, and 35.7% were treated with LDA. There was an 83.5% increase in the percentage of patients counseled following intervention implementation. A progressive increase was noted in counseling rates within the 18 weeks post-intervention. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Integrating PEC screening flowsheets, clinical decision-making tools, and patient education flyers effectively enhances LDA counseling for patients with ≥2 PMRF with additional benefits seen in high-risk patients. These interventions offer a replicable model to enhance guideline adherence and reduce preeclampsia risk in vulnerable populations.

BACKGROUND:Hispanic/Latinx males and those who are non-English proficient are significantly less likely to receive germline genetic evaluation for prostate cancer. Undertesting can impact downstream outcomes, including reduced access to approved targeted therapies, barriers to precision medicine trials, and hereditary cancer assessment for patients and family members. The goal of our study was to explore the knowledge and perceptions of genetic testing among U.S. Hispanic males, with the ultimate goal to identify potentially actionable targets to increase guideline-concordant genetic evaluation. METHODS:We conducted a nationwide online survey including U.S. Hispanic males aged ≥ 40 in English and Spanish using the 9-item Knowledge of Hereditary Prostate Cancer Scale and adapted questions about desire for more information from the Behavioral Beliefs about BRCA Genetic Counseling scale. RESULTS:Among 807 participants, the mean score for genetic knowledge was 5.8 out of 9, with gaps in understanding of incomplete penetrance of genes and maternal genetic inheritance. Medical mistrust and lower health literacy were associated with significantly lower knowledge of prostate cancer genetics. Overall, attitudes toward genetic counseling were favorable, with the majority of participants endorsing that it would help with decision-making, is concordant with cultural beliefs, and that they were interested in more information. Concerns about genetic evaluation included cost and impact for insurance. CONCLUSIONS:Despite generally favorable attitudes toward genetic evaluation among Hispanic males, there are important knowledge gaps, including the importance of both maternal and paternal family history, as well as logistical concerns. Addressing these gaps through culturally targeted outreach may help to promote equitable uptake of germline genetic evaluation.