Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:There is increasing evidence questioning the use of warfarin for atrial fibrillation (AF) among older adults with end stage renal disease (ESRD). We assessed the patterns and determinants of warfarin utilization among these patients in the US. METHODS:We assembled a cohort of older adults (age ≥65) undergoing dialysis with incident AF from July 2007 to November 2011 from the US Renal Data System (USRDS). We used descriptive statistics to characterize warfarin utilization within 30 days of AF discharge, and logistic regression to quantify patient characteristics associated with warfarin initiation. RESULTS:Among 5730 older adults undergoing dialysis with incident AF, 15.5% initiated warfarin. Among 2906 patients with high risk of bleeding, 12.7% initiated warfarin; whereas 14.9% initiated warfarin among 4824 patients with high risk of stroke. After adjustment for patient characteristics, warfarin initiation was lower among patients who were older [odds ratio (OR) = 0.74 per 10-year increase, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.83] and those with a history of diabetes (OR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.63-0.90), myocardial infarction (OR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.80), or bleeding (OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.50-0.80). There was no association between sex, race, or dialysis modality and warfarin initiation. Among patients who initiated warfarin, 46.8% discontinued warfarin use after a median treatment length of 8.6 months. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite the unclear benefit and increased bleeding risk of warfarin treatment in patients with ESRD, 1 in 8 older adults undergoing dialysis with incident AF in the US who had high risk of bleeding used warfarin. Changes to warfarin therapy due to discontinuation were common after initiation.

BACKGROUND:Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a cornerstone of secondary prevention of ischemic heart disease. It is critically important in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), where the burden of ischemic heart disease is substantial and growing. However, the availability and utilization of CR in LMIC is not systematically known. OBJECTIVES:This study sought to characterize the availability, use, and barriers to the use of CR. METHODS:Electronic databases (Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science) were searched from January 1, 1980 to May 31, 2013 for articles on CR in LMIC. Citations on availability, use, and/or barriers to CR were screened for inclusion by title, abstract, and full text. Data were summarized by region or country to determine the characteristics of CR in LMIC and gaps in the peer-reviewed biomedical publications. RESULTS:Our search yielded a total of 5,805 citations, of which 34 satisfied full inclusion and exclusion criteria. The total number of CR programs available ranged from 1 in Algeria and Paraguay to 51 in Serbia. Referral rates for CR ranged from 5.0% in Mexico to 90.3% in Lithuania. Attendance rates ranged from 31.7% in Bulgaria to 95.6% in Lithuania, and CR attendance was correlated with higher educational background. The most commonly cited barrier to CR in LMIC was lack of physician referral. CONCLUSIONS:Our results illustrate that the published reports reflects heterogeneity of CR availability and use in LMIC. Overall, CR is insufficiently available and underutilized. Further characterization of CR in LMIC, especially in Asia and Africa, is necessary to develop targeted strategies to improve availability and utilization. Patient, physician, and systems factors must be addressed to overcome barriers to participation in CR in LMIC.

Little is known about oncology provider recommendations regarding best practices in contraception use during cancer treatment and through survivorship for adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients. This review examined the literature to identify related studies on contraception recommendations, counseling discussions, and methods of contraception in the AYA oncology population. A literature review was conducted using PubMed, including all peer-reviewed journals with no publication date exclusions. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using combinations of the following phrases or keywords: "oncology OR cancer" AND "contraception, family planning, contraceptive devices, contraceptive agents, intrauterine devices OR IUD, vaccines, spermatocidal agents, postcoital, immunologic, family planning, vasectomy, tubal ligation, sterilization" AND "young adult OR adolescent" AND "young adult AND adolescent". Reviewers assessed articles using the "Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies" which considers: (1) selection bias; (2) study design; (3) confounders; (4) blinding; (5) data collection methods; and (6) withdrawals and dropouts. A total of five articles were included and all studies were quantitative. Results showed no consistent recommendations among providers, references to guidelines, or methods of contraceptive types. Provider guidelines for discussions with AYA patients should be expanded to provide comprehensive, consistent, and quality cancer care in the AYA population.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent and young adults with cancer (AYACs) face unique medical, psychosocial, and supportive care needs. The purpose of this study was to identify AYACs perceptions and expectations of cancer care services on and off treatment. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 23 AYACs aged 19-38 years (13 on and 10 off treatment), who were receiving care at a comprehensive cancer center. Verbatim transcripts were created from audiotaped interviews and hand coded using inductive content analysis methodology. RESULTS: Perceptions of optimal care were reported by AYACs through two main themes as follows: perceived barriers and facilitators during treatment. Within each main theme were three subthemes, including perceived facilitators reported as the provision of social support, the website and patient portal, and the educational information provided by the cancer center. Younger female AYACs (age 19-31) on active treatment reported perceived barriers to optimal care related to the management of physical and mental health symptoms, while older patients (age 32 and up) on active treatment endorsed a fear of cancer returning. The third perceived barrier equally endorsed by patients both on and off treatment and across age ranges included limited assistance with financial issues. CONCLUSIONS: AYACs reported perceived barriers and facilitators to optimal care. Implications for these findings are discussed in the context of the importance of adding a patient navigator to the AYACs care team.

Creatinine-based glomerular filtration rate estimation (eGFR_cr) has been improved and refined since the 1970s through both the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation in 1999 and the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation in 2009, with current clinical practice dependent primarily on eGFR for accurate assessment of GFR. However, researchers and clinicians have recognized limitations of relying on creatinine as the only filtration marker, which can lead to inaccurate GFR estimates in certain populations due to the influence of non-GFR determinants of serum or plasma creatinine. Therefore, recent literature has proposed incorporation of multiple serum or plasma filtration markers into GFR estimation to improve precision and accuracy and decrease the impact of non-GFR determinants for any individual biomarker. To this end, the CKD-EPI combined creatinine-cystatin C equation (eGFR_cr-cys) was developed in 2012 and demonstrated superior accuracy to equations relying on creatinine or cystatin C alone (eGFR_cr or eGFR_cys). Now, the focus has broadened to include additional novel filtration markers to further refine and improve GFR estimation. Beta-2-microglobulin (B2M) and beta-trace-protein (BTP) are two filtration markers with established assays that have been proposed as candidates for improving both GFR estimation and risk prediction. GFR estimating equations based on B2M and BTP have been developed and validated, with the CKD-EPI combined BTP-B2M equation (eGFR_BTP-B2M) demonstrating similar performance to eGFR and eGFR. Additionally, several studies have demonstrated that both B2M and BTP are associated with outcomes in CKD patients, including cardiovascular events, ESRD and mortality. This review will primarily focus on these two biomarkers, and will highlight efforts to identify additional candidate biomarkers through metabolomics-based approaches.

OBJECTIVE:Severe hypoglycemia is a rare but important complication of type 2 diabetes. Few studies have examined the epidemiology of hypoglycemia in a community-based population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:We included 1,206 Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study participants with diagnosed diabetes (baseline: 1996-1998). Severe hypoglycemic events were identified through 2013 by ICD-9 codes from claims for hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and ambulance use. We used Cox regression to evaluate risk factors for severe hypoglycemia. RESULTS:score: HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.33-1.84). In an analysis of nontraditional risk factors, low 1,5-anhydroglucitol, difficulty with activities of daily living, Medicaid insurance, and antidepressant use were positively associated with severe hypoglycemia after multivariate adjustment. CONCLUSIONS:Poor glycemic control, glycemic variability as captured by 1,5-anhydroglucitol, kidney damage, and measures of cognitive and functional impairments were strongly associated with increased risk of severe hypoglycemia. These factors should be considered in hypoglycemia risk assessments when individualizing diabetes care for older adults.

BACKGROUND:An increasing proportion of prostate cancer is being managed conservatively. However, there are no randomized trials or consensus regarding the optimal follow-up strategy. OBJECTIVE:To compare life expectancy and quality of life between watchful waiting (WW) versus different strategies of active surveillance (AS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:A Markov model was created for US men starting at age 50, diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who chose conservative management by WW or AS using different testing protocols (prostate-specific antigen every 3-6 mo, biopsy every 1-5 yr, or magnetic resonance imaging based). Transition probabilities and utilities were obtained from the literature. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS/UNASSIGNED:Primary outcomes were life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Secondary outcomes include radical treatment, metastasis, and prostate cancer death. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:All AS strategies yielded more life years compared with WW. Lifetime risks of prostate cancer death and metastasis were, respectively, 5.42% and 6.40% with AS versus 8.72% and 10.30% with WW. AS yielded more QALYs than WW except in cohorts age >65 yr at diagnosis, or when treatment-related complications were long term. The preferred follow-up strategy was also sensitive to whether people value short-term over long-term benefits (time preference). Depending on the AS protocol, 30-41% underwent radical treatment within 10 yr. Extending the surveillance biopsy interval from 1 to 5 yr reduced life years slightly, with a 0.26 difference in QALYs. CONCLUSIONS:AS extends life more than WW, particularly for men with higher-risk features, but this is partly offset by the decrement in quality of life since many men eventually receive treatment. PATIENT SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:More intensive active surveillance protocols extend life more than watchful waiting, but this is partly offset by decrements in quality of life from subsequent treatment.

Strong evidence now supports the notion that organophosphate pesticides damage the fetal brain and produce cognitive and behavioral dysfunction through multiple mechanisms, including thyroid disruption. A regulatory ban was proposed, but actions to end the use of one such pesticide, chlorpyrifos, in agriculture were recently stopped by the Environmental Protection Agency under false scientific pretenses. This manuscript describes the costs and consequences of this policy failure and notes how this case study is emblematic of a broader dismissal of scientific evidence and attacks on scientific norms. Scientists have a responsibility to rebut and decry these serious challenges to human health and scientific integrity.

Background: The relation between breastfeeding and early motor development is difficult to characterize because of the problems in existing studies such as incomplete control for confounding, retrospective assessment of infant feeding, and even the assessment of some motor skills too early.Objective: We sought to estimate associations between infant feeding and time to achieve major motor milestones in a US cohort.Design: The Upstate New York Infant Development Screening Program (Upstate KIDS Study) enrolled mothers who delivered live births in New York (2008-2010). Mothers of 4270 infants (boys: 51.7%) reported infant motor development at 4, 8, 12, 18, and 24 mo postpartum; information on infant feeding was reported at 4 mo. Accelerated failure time models were used to compare times to standing or walking across feeding categories while adjusting for parental characteristics, daycare, region, and infant plurality, sex, rapid weight gain, and baseline neurodevelopmental test results. Main models were stratified by preterm birth status.Results: The prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding in preterm infants was lower than in term infants at 4 mo postpartum (8% compared with 19%). After adjustment for confounders, term infants who were fed solids in addition to breast milk at 4 mo postpartum achieved both standing [acceleration factor (AF): 0.93; 95% CI: 0.87, 0.99] and walking (AF: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.88, 0.98) 7% faster than did infants who were exclusively breastfed, but these findings did not remain statistically significant after correction for multiple testing. We did not identify feeding-associated differences in motor milestone achievement in preterm infants.Conclusion: Our results suggest that differences in feeding likely do not translate into large changes in motor development. The Upstate KIDS Study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03106493.