Faculty Bibliography

Prostate cancer remains one of the most commonly diagnosed malignancies worldwide. Early diagnosis and curative treatment seem to improve survival in men with unfavourable-risk cancers, but significant concerns exist regarding the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of men with lower-risk cancers. To this end, active surveillance (AS) has emerged as a primary management strategy in men with favourable-risk disease, and contemporary data suggest that use of AS has increased worldwide. Although published surveillance cohorts differ by protocol, reported rates of metastatic disease and prostate-cancer-specific mortality are exceedingly low in the intermediate term (5-10 years). Such outcomes seem to be closely associated with programme-specific criteria for selection, monitoring, and intervention, suggesting that AS--like other management strategies--could be individualized based on the level of risk acceptable to patients in light of their personal preferences. Additional data are needed to better establish the risks associated with AS and to identify patient-specific characteristics that could modify prognosis.

BACKGROUND: This study explores the feasibility and acceptability of a computer self-administered approach to substance use screening from the perspective of primary care patients. METHODS: Forty-eight patients from a large safety net hospital in New York City completed an audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI) version of the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) and a qualitative interview to assess feasibility and acceptability, comprehension, comfort with screening questions, and preferences for screening mode (interviewer or computer). Qualitative data analysis organized the participants' feedback into major themes. RESULTS: Participants overwhelmingly reported being comfortable with the ACASI ASSIST. Mean administration time was 5.2 minutes (range: 1.6-14.8 minutes). The major themes from the qualitative interviews were (1) ACASI ASSIST is feasible and acceptable to patients, (2) Social stigma around substance use is a barrier to patient disclosure, and (3) ACASI screening should not preclude personal interaction with providers. CONCLUSIONS: The ACASI ASSIST is an appropriate and feasible approach to substance use screening in primary care. Because of the highly sensitive nature of substance use, screening tools must explain the purpose of screening, assure patients that their privacy is protected, and inform patients of the opportunity to discuss their screening results with their provider.

BACKGROUND: There are five to nine million primary care office visits a year for migraine in the United States. However, migraine care is often suboptimal in the primary care setting. A prior study indicated that primary care physicians (PCPs) wanted direct contact with headache specialists to improve the migraine care they provide. OBJECTIVE: We sought to further examine PCPs' knowledge of migraine management and assess the feasibility of a multimodal migraine education program for PCPs. METHODS: We conducted a survey assessing PCPs' knowledge about migraine. We then held three live educational sessions and developed an email consultative service for PCPs to submit questions they had about migraine. We report both quantitative and qualitative findings. RESULTS: Twenty-one PCPs completed the survey. They were generally familiar with the epidemiology of migraine (mean prevalence of migraine reported was 12.6%+/-10.1), the psychiatric comorbidities (mean prevalence of comorbid depression was 24.5% +/- 16.7, mean prevalence of comorbid anxiety was 24.6% +/- 18.3), and evidence-based behavioral treatments. Fifty-six percent cited cognitive behavioral therapy, 78% cited biofeedback, and 61% cited relaxation therapy as evidence based treatments. Though most were aware of the prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities, they did not routinely assess for them (43% did not routinely assess for anxiety, 29% did not routinely assess for depression). PCPs reported frequently referring patients for non-level A evidence based treatments: special diets (60%), acupuncture (50%), physical therapy (30%), and psychoanalysis (20%). Relaxation therapy was a therapy recommended by 40% of the PCPs. Only 10% reported referring for cognitive behavioral therapy or biofeedback. Nineteen percent made minimal or no use of migraine preventive medications. Seventy-two percent were unaware of or only slightly aware of the American Academy of Neurology guidelines for migraine. There was variable attendance at the educational sessions (N=22 at 1st session, 6 at 2nd session, 15 at 3rd session). Very few PCPs used the email consultative service (N=4). CONCLUSIONS: Though PCPs are familiar with many aspects of migraine care, there is a need and opportunity for improvement. The three live sessions were poorly attended and the email consultative service was rarely used. We provide an in depth discussion of targeted areas for educational intervention, of the challenges in developing a migraine educational program for PCPs, and areas for future study.

BACKGROUND: Studies reveal that migraine is often under-recognized, misdiagnosed and inadequately treated in the primary care setting. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to assess primary care providers' (PCP) knowledge and needs regarding migraine diagnosis and management. METHODS: We held semi-structured group interviews and distributed a brief questionnaire to PCPs in our hospital network. Building on the information from the interviews, we developed a comprehensive survey assessing PCPs' knowledge about migraine. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: The initial interviews and brief questionnaires revealed that PCPs are aware of the prevalence of migraine but are uncertain about the details of management. Eighty-three of 120 physicians completed the comprehensive survey. Only 47% would order imaging for a new type of headache, 31% for worsening headache, and 35% for a headache unresponsive to treatment. Only 28% were familiar with the American Academy of Neurology guidelines on preventive treatment and 40% were familiar with the Choosing Wisely Campaign recommendations on migraine treatment. Just 34% were aware that opioids can cause medication-overuse headache. Non-pharmacologic treatment was not usually recommended. PCPs favored educational opportunities involving direct contact with headache physicians (56%). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs are not universally aware of the specific recommendations for managing migraine patients. Future work should focus on innovative ways to provide decision support and education for PCPs caring for migraineurs.

More than 37 million people are living with human immunodeficiency virus 1 (HIV), and more people than ever received lifesaving antiretroviral therapy worldwide. HIV-1 infection disrupts the intestinal immune system, leading to microbial translocation and systemic immune activation. We investigated the impact of HIV-1 infection on the GI microbiome and its association with host immune activation. The data indicated that the microbiome was different in HIV-positive and HIV-negative individuals. The initial sequence analysis of saliva indicated that there were major differences in the phyla of Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, and TM7. Phylum Tenericutes was only seen in HIV-positive saliva. At the family level, we identified differences in Streptococcacea, Prevotellaceae, Porphyromonadaceae, and Neisseriaceae, whereas data from various sites in GI tract indicated that Prevotella melaninigencia, Fusobacterium necrophorum, Burkholderia, Bradyrhizobium, Ralstonia, and Eubacterium biforme were predominant but differentially present at various sites. Furthermore, there was a decrease in seven proteins associated with the alternative complement pathway and an increase in 6 proteins associated with the lectin and classical complement pathways. The correlation with a shift in complement pathways suggests that compromised immunity could be responsible for the observed dysbiosis in the GI microbiome.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In 2006, the Institute of Medicine emphasized substantial potential to expand organ donation opportunities through uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCDD). We pilot an out-of-hospital uDCDD kidney program for New York City in partnership with communities that it was intended to benefit. We evaluate protocol process and outcomes while identifying barriers to success and means for improvement. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, participatory action research study in Manhattan from December 2010 to May 2011. Daily from 4 to 12 pm, our organ preservation unit monitored emergency medical services (EMS) frequencies for cardiac arrests occurring in private locations. After EMS providers independently ordered termination of resuscitation, organ preservation unit staff determined clinical eligibility and donor status. Authorized parties, persons authorized to make organ donation decisions, were approached about in vivo preservation. The study population included organ preservation unit staff, authorized parties, passersby, and other New York City agency personnel. Organ preservation unit staff independently documented shift activities with daily operations notes and teleconference summaries that we analyzed with mixed qualitative and quantitative methods. RESULTS: The organ preservation unit entered 9 private locations; all the deceased lacked previous registration, although 4 met clinical screening eligibility. No kidneys were recovered. We collected 837 notes from 35 organ preservation unit staff. Despite frequently recounting protocol breaches, most responses from passersby including New York City agencies were favorable. No authorized parties were offended by preservation requests, yielding a Bayesian posterior median 98% (95% credible interval 76% to 100%). CONCLUSION: In summary, the New York City out-of-hospital uDCDD program was not feasible. There were frequent protocol breaches and confusion in determining clinical eligibility. In the small sample of authorized persons we encountered during the immediate grieving period, negative reactions were infrequent.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost and cost-effectiveness of implementing Students for Nutrition and eXercise (SNaX), a 5-week middle school-based obesity-prevention intervention combining school-wide environmental changes, multimedia, encouragement to eat healthy school cafeteria foods, and peer-led education. METHODS: Five intervention and 5 control middle schools (mean enrollment, 1520 students) from the Los Angeles Unified School District participated in a randomized controlled trial of SNaX. Acquisition costs for materials and time and wage data for employees involved in implementing the program were used to estimate fixed and variable costs. Cost-effectiveness was determined using the ratio of variable costs to program efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: The costs of implementing the program over 5 weeks were $5433.26 per school in fixed costs and $2.11 per student in variable costs, equaling a total cost of $8637.17 per school, or $0.23 per student per day. This investment yielded significant increases in the proportion of students served fruit and lunch and a significant decrease in the proportion of students buying snacks. The cost-effectiveness of the program, per student over 5 weeks, was $1.20 per additional fruit served during meals, $8.43 per additional full-priced lunch served, $2.11 per additional reduced-price/free lunch served, and $1.69 per reduction in snacks sold. CONCLUSIONS: SNaX demonstrated the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of a middle school-based obesity-prevention intervention combining school-wide environmental changes, multimedia, encouragement to eat healthy school cafeteria foods, and peer-led education. Its cost is modest and unlikely to be a significant barrier to adoption for many schools considering its implementation.

We estimated the economic costs of female reproductive disorders attributable to endocrine disrupting chemical exposures. These may contribute substantially to fibroids and endometriosis, costing nearly euro1.5 billion annually.