Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Because of the association of mental health and substance use disorders with higher HIV mortality and decreased retention in care, we investigated their frequency and impact on tuberculosis preventive therapy (TPT) adherence and completion among people with HIV (PWHIV) initiating TPT. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted a prospective, longitudinal cohort study with a nested mixed methods study in 2 Johannesburg, South Africa, facilities. Participants were PWHIV on antiretroviral therapy initiating TPT between August and December 2023. We measured TPT adherence and completion with electronic medication boxes. We used validated tools to measure symptoms of anxiety, depression, alcohol use, and other substance use at enrollment and 12 weeks. We constructed multivariable regression models to determine associations of these variables with TPT adherence and completion, adjusting for age, sex, and time on antiretroviral therapy. We interviewed participants about mental health and experiences with TPT and analyzed responses using deductive content analysis. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:= .021). Participant narratives highlighted the negative influence of mental health on adherence and the need for social and psychological support services. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Symptoms of depression, anxiety, unhealthy alcohol use, and tobacco use were common among PWHIV initiating TPT. Depression symptoms were strongly and independently associated with TPT nonadherence and noncompletion.

BACKGROUND:Healthy Days at Home (HDaH) is a patient-centered outcome measure quantifying the number of days individuals spend at home without hospitalizations or emergency department (ED) visits, while maintaining functional independence. This study examines the association between HDaH and prognosis among US older adults with serious life-limiting illnesses (commonly heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, advanced cancer, and end-stage kidney disease) and explores how this relationship differs by cancer status. METHODS:For this prospective cohort design study, we pooled Medicare Claims data of older adults (aged 66 or greater) with serious life-limiting illnesses who visited one of 30 EDs participating in the Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine study between 2015 and 2019. The main exposure was prognosis, measured using the Gagne index, a short-term predictor of mortality. We controlled for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and used cancer diagnosis as a secondary predictor and stratification variable. The outcome, HDaH, was defined as 180 days minus the days a patient spent in healthcare institutions, including hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and hospice care. We used generalized linear mixed-effects models with a log (180) offset to estimate the adjusted rate ratios (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS:The cohort included 122,579 seriously ill older adults,11% (n = 13,452) of whom had cancer. The median (IQR) HDaH was 115 (26-174) days. Each unit increase in Gagne index score was associated with a 6.0% decrease in the rate of HDaH (aRR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.94 to 0.94), a pattern observed in both cancer and non-cancer groups. Cancer diagnosis was associated with 7.0% increase in HDaH (aRR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.07). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:While poor prognosis is associated with fewer healthy days at home, cancer diagnosis is associated with more healthy days at home. Our findings highlight the need for tailored care models to reduce hospitalizations and increase HDaH for patients with serious life-limiting illnesses other than cancer.

BACKGROUND:Inclusion of patients, caregivers, and community members in scientific research should be essential for patient-centered care. Patients’ lived experiences can propose new areas of focus that may not have previously been considered, ensure that potentially sensitive topics are addressed thoughtfully, contribute to the interpretation of findings, and identify future directions of research. Further, their inclusion in the drafting of manuscripts can ensure that research findings are translatable to real-world practice. To achieve this goal, the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) consortium developed a Representative Authorship system for development of scientific manuscripts that report RECOVER data. This paper describes a Quality Improvement (QI) project that was conducted to identify system strengths and improvement opportunities. METHODS:An online QI survey was distributed to RECOVER’s Representative Authors about a year into the implementation of the Representative Authorship System. The survey focused on several key aspects, including the clarity regarding the authorship process, training opportunities, the matching process, communication within writing groups, and the perceived impact of the representative engagement on the quality and applicability of research. The survey also explored participants’ satisfaction with compensation, support, and involvement in the system, as well as areas for improvement. RESULTS:The survey was sent to 49 representative authors with 17 respondents (35%). Most respondents reported positive experiences, highlighting the effective matching to manuscripts based on their expertise and the perceived positive impact of their involvement on research outcomes. Additionally, participants felt that including diverse voices enhanced the relevance of research for clinical practice. Several areas for improvement were identified, including communication challenges within writing groups, the utility of manuscript orientation calls, and the fairness of compensation. Respondents also indicated a need for more training opportunities and logistical support. CONCLUSIONS:RECOVER’s Representative Authorship system is effective in fostering collaboration and improving the inclusivity of scientific research. The survey findings indicate that there are logistical changes around communication, training, and compensation that could enhance the experience for all collaborators. Based on these findings, we plan to implement changes to improve awareness, understanding, and collaboration. Additional work is needed to solicit feedback from investigators and administrative staff to obtain a more holistic understanding of the system. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-025-12914-3.

Environmental exposure-associated diseases, particularly in the context of rising air pollution and inhalant use, are an active area of research. Our group is dedicated to the study of exposure-related inflammation and its downstream adverse health effects. While many studies have focused on the impact of environmental exposures on respiratory sequelae, there is growing evidence of the involvement of other systems including gastrointestinal. This systematic review provides updates on the associations between inhalation exposures and the risk of upper gastrointestinal disease. Primary search identified N = 764 PubMed and N = 1,036 Web of Science studies, of which N = 111 met eligibility criteria. Our systematic review and meta-analysis showed significant associations between inhalational exposures (cigarette smoking, waterpipe smoking, and particulate matter) and upper gastrointestinal diseases. The pooled estimate of esophagitis was 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.65; I²:86%), gastroesophageal reflux disease was 1.71 (1.14-2.55; I²:94%), peptic ulcer disease was 1.21 (1.03-1.43; I²:93%), esophageal cancer was 1.83 (1.54-2.18; I²:73%), and gastric cancer was 1.71 (1.39-2.10; I²:73%). However, the pooled estimate for Barrett's esophagus was 0.93 (0.65-1.34; I²:76%), indicating no significant association. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. Risk of bias assessment showed most studies were of good quality. Our findings emphasize the impact of inhalational exposures on gastrointestinal disease risk, highlighting the need for further research to better understand this interaction and targeted public health interventions.

OBJECTIVE:To obtain perspectives about existing compensation structures in gynecologic oncology, including common challenges and successful strategies within diverse systems. METHODS:Electronic mail was used to recruit OB/GYN department chairs and directors of cancer centers who were gynecologic oncologists and responsible for administering compensation structures at their institution. Using a semi-structured guide, three interviewers conducted 30-min qualitative interviews, which were recorded and transcribed. Two coders used the constant comparative method to summarize key themes. RESULTS:Response rate was 65 %, resulting in 17 interviewees. Participants were a third women and in their current position for a median of 7 years. The most prominent theme was the tension of balancing reimbursement for revenue-generating clinical activities with non-clinical work in research and education. Chair discretionary funds were useful to offset unfunded responsibilities. Broad clinical productivity measures were used: from more traditional work Relative Value Units (wRVUs) to measures that captured downstream impact, such as number of new patients or surgeries. Even in institutions with centralized funds flow systems, disparities were frequently noted for the monetary value assigned per wRVU. Academic scorecards were described as a method to ascribe value for academic work, often for bonus incentives. Another common stressor unique to gynecologic oncology was low reimbursement for chemotherapy-related services compared to surgery. Provision of regular productivity reports was common, but full transparency was controversial. CONCLUSIONS:Our inquiry demonstrates that our academic leaders are unable to use compensation to fully support areas they deem important.

The Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular EVENTS (PREVENT) equations, created and endorsed by the American Heart Association, provide cardiovascular risk estimates for the general population, but have not yet been tested in multiethnic populations. In the present study, in a large nationwide multiethnic sample of US veterans, the utility of PREVENT to predict the risk of total cardiovascular disease (CVD: fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke or heart failure; PREVENT-CVD), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD: fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke; PREVENT ASCVD) and heart failure was evaluated. We assessed the discrimination and calibration performance of ASCVD prediction with PREVENT ASCVD compared with a previous risk-prediction score, pooled cohort equations (PCEs). Among 2,500,291 veterans aged 30-79 years (93.9% men and 6.1% women), 407,342 total CVD events occurred over a median (interquartile range (IQR)) follow-up of 5.8 (IQR = 3.1-8.3) years. The Concordance index (C-index) (95% confidence interval (CI)) for PREVENT-CVD was 0.65 (95% CI = 0.65-0.65) in the overall sample and was similar across different race and ethnic groups (Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 0.70 (95% CI = 0.69-0.71); Hispanic, 0.70 (95% CI = 0.69-0.70); non-Hispanic Black. 0.68 (95% CI = 0.68-0.69) and non-Hispanic White, 0.65 (95% CI = 0.64-0.65)). C-indices were similar between PREVENT ASCVD and PCEs and ranged from 0.61 to 0.63. Calibration slopes for PREVENT-CVD and -ASCVD in the overall sample were 1.09 (s.e. = 0.04) and 1.15 (s.e. = 0.04), respectively. In contrast, PCEs demonstrated overprediction for ASCVD with a calibration slope of 0.51 (s.e. = 0.06). Calibration slopes for PREVENT and PCEs were similar across race and ethnic groups. Among US veterans, the PREVENT equations accurately estimated CVD and ASCVD risk with some variability across race and ethnicity groups and outperformed PCEs for ASCVD risk prediction.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:SARS-CoV-2 infection has been linked to neurotoxic effects and cognitive deficits. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To determine whether decreases in cognitive function were accelerated after SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with individuals not infected. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:Multicenter, prospective cohort study from 2016 to 2022 among 3525 participants alive on March 1, 2020, and enrolled in The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study and the Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research study who completed a prepandemic cognitive assessment and a pandemic-era assessment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Final analyses performed in November 2024. EXPOSURE/UNASSIGNED:SARS-CoV-2 infection determined via self-report of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or health care professional diagnosis of COVID-19, a positive SARS-CoV-2 antinucleocapsid antibody response, or presence of an administrative code for COVID-19 on medical records. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:A neuropsychological battery assessed multiple cognitive domains, and a cocalibrated confirmatory factor analysis generated factor scores for global cognitive function. The primary outcome was the rate of excess change in cognitive function. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:The 3525 eligible participants had a mean (SD) age of 80.8 (4.7) years, 2085 (59.1%) were female, 752 (21.4%) were Black, and 2773 (78.6%) were White. SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected among 307 participants (8.7%), 103 of whom (33.6%) were hospitalized. Among uninfected participants, the mean annualized change in cognitive function was -0.09 (95% CI, -0.13 to -0.04). Compared with this rate, change was faster (β = -0.06; 95% CI, -0.09 to -0.02) among participants hospitalized for infection, but not different from participants who were infected but not hospitalized (β = 0.00; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.03). The association among participants hospitalized for infection was evident in the cognitive domains of memory and executive function, but not language. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:This cohort study of older participants found accelerated decreases in cognition among individuals hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 infection, but not nonhospitalized infection, in comparison with individuals not yet infected.

Public health can be immediately and substantially improved by policies that also mitigate climate change over the longer term. However, implementation of these policies has been slowed at least in part by doubts and lack of awareness of these health co-benefits. To address this barrier to progress, we demonstrate how an illustrative set of interventions led to environmental, health, and economic benefits, in addition to mitigating climate change. These case studies include the closure of a coal coking plant near Pittsburgh, PA, USA, which was followed by substantial immediate and longer-term reductions in respiratory and cardiovascular health conditions in the affected local community; the health and economic benefits associated with the Barcelona, Spain Superblock program and, the air quality, health, and economic benefits from air pollution initiatives implemented in China. While improvements in air pollution are among the most obvious examples of the co-benefits achievable through climate-friendly interventions, others that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as the sustainable food systems in Sweden, forest conservation in Tanzania, and a plant-based food program in New York City, further illustrate how such initiatives can align with better nutrition, economic gains, and improved health. We conclude that more assessments of such interventions are needed internationally to more widely document their health and climate benefits and thereby motivate greater implementation of these interventions. Now is the time to showcase how we can improve the public's health and well-being, while also protecting our planet, the only home future generations will have.