Search

Purpose: We describe the design of a longitudinal cohort study to determine SARS-CoV-2 incidence and prevalence among a population-based sample of adults living in six San Francisco Bay Area counties., Methods: Using an address-based sample, we stratified households by county and by census-tract risk. Risk strata were determined by using regression models to predict infections by geographic area using census-level sociodemographic and health characteristics. We disproportionately sampled high and medium risk strata, which had smaller population sizes, to improve precision of estimates, and calculated a desired sample size of 3400. Participants were primarily recruited by mail and were followed monthly with PCR testing of nasopharyngeal swabs, testing of venous blood samples for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid antigens, and testing of the presence of neutralizing antibodies, with completion of questionnaires about socio-demographics and behavior. Estimates of incidence and prevalence will be weighted by county, risk strata and sociodemographic characteristics of non-responders, and will take into account laboratory test performance., Results: We enrolled 3842 adults from August to December 2020, and completed follow-up March 31, 2021. We reached target sample sizes within most strata., Conclusions: Our stratified random sampling design will allow us to recruit a robust general population cohort of adults to determine the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Identifying risk strata was unique to the design and will help ensure precise estimates, and high-performance testing for presence of virus and antibodies will enable accurate ascertainment of infections., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

More than 3000 clinical trials related to COVID-19 have been registered through clinicaltrials.gov. With so many trials, there is a risk that many will be inconclusive due to being underpowered or due to an inability to recruit patients. At academic medical centers, multiple trials are competing for the same resources; the success of one may come at the expense of another. The COVID-19 Outpatient Pragmatic Protocol Study (COPPS) is a flexible phase 2, multi-site, randomized, blinded trial based at Stanford University designed to overcome these issues by simultaneously evaluating multiple COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting in one common platform with shared controls. This approach reduces the overall number of patients required for statistical power, while improving the likelihood that any enrolled patient receives active treatment. The platform study has two main domains designed to evaluate COVID-19 treatments by assessing their ability to reduce viral shedding (Viral Domain), measured with self-collected nasal swabs, or improve clinical outcomes (Clinical Domain), measured through self-reported symptomology data. Data are collected on both domains for all participants enrolled. Participants are followed over a 28-day period. COPPS has the advantage of pragmatism created around its workflow that is also appealing to potential participants because of a lower probability of inactive treatment. At the conclusion of this clinical trial we expect to have identified potentially effective therapeutic strategy/ies for treating COVID-19 in the outpatient setting, which will have a transformative impact on medicine and public health., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lung transplant candidates can be waitlisted at more than one transplant center, a practice known as multiple listing. The factors associated with multiple listing and whether multiple listing modifies waitlist mortality or likelihood of lung transplant is unknown. US lung transplant waitlist candidates were identified as either single or multiple listed using data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Characteristics of single and multiple listed candidates were compared and multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate associations with multiple listing. Multiple listed candidates were matched to single listed candidates using a combination of exact and propensity score matching methods. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the relationship of multiple listing on waitlist mortality and receiving a transplant. Multiple listing occurred in 2.3% of lung transplant waitlist candidates. Younger age, female gender, white race, short stature, high antibody sensitization, college or postcollege education, lower lung allocation score, and a cystic fibrosis diagnosis were independently associated with multiple listing. Multiple listing was associated with an increased likelihood of lung transplant (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.74, 95% CI 2.37 to 3.16) but was not associated with waitlist mortality (aHR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.44)., (© 2018 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: The United States lung transplant registry data demonstrate differences in adult waitlist mortality by race/ethnicity. It is unknown whether these differences persist after risk adjustment or occur secondary to disparities in disease severity at the time of listing., Methods: Adult lung transplant waitlist candidates between May 4, 2005 and March 5, 2015 were identified and compared by non-Hispanic white (NHW), non-Hispanic black (NHB), Hispanic and Asian race/ethnicity. A competing risk proportional hazards model was used to assess the association of race/ethnicity with the unadjusted and adjusted risk of waitlist death or removal for too sick, transplant, or removal for other reason. Disease illness severity at transplant listing was compared by race/ethnicity., Results: There were 20,684 lung transplant candidates identified (82% NHW, 9% NHB, 6% Hispanic, 2% Asian and 1% other). Non-white candidates had higher unadjusted waitlist mortality, which was fully mitigated by adjusting for other risk factors (NHB: hazard ratio [HR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 to 1.18; Hispanic: HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.18; Asian: HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.16). Adjusted waitlist access to transplant was lower in non-white candidates (NHB: HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; Hispanic: HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; Asian: HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96). NHW candidates with obstructive lung disease and pulmonary fibrosis were older with less illness severity at listing than non-white candidates., Conclusions: Within the current lung allocation system, there is no difference in risk-adjusted waitlist mortality by race/ethnicity, but non-white waitlist candidates have lower risk-adjusted access to lung transplant. Non-white candidates are generally younger with greater disease-specific illness severity at the time of lung transplant listing., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Diabetes is highly prevalent, affecting over 25 million adults in the US, yet it can be effectively prevented through lifestyle interventions, including the well-tested Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP). American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) adults, the majority of whom live in urban settings, are more than twice as likely to develop diabetes as non-Hispanic whites. Additionally, prevalent mental health issues and psychosocial stressors may facilitate progression to diabetes and hinder successful implementation of lifestyle interventions for AIAN adults. This 2-phased study first engaged community stakeholders to develop culturally-tailored strategies to address mental health concerns and psychosocial stressors. Pilot testing (completed) refined those strategies that increase engagement in an enhanced DPP for urban AIAN adults. Second, the enhanced DPP will be compared to a standard DPP in a randomized controlled trial (ongoing) with a primary outcome of body mass index (BMI) and a secondary outcome of quality of life (QoL) over 12months. Obese self-identified AIAN adults residing in an urban setting with one or more components of the metabolic syndrome (excluding waist circumference) will be randomized to the enhanced or standard DPP (n=204). We hypothesize that addressing psychosocial barriers within a culturally-tailored DPP will result in clinical (BMI) and superior patient-centered (QoL) outcomes as compared to a standard DPP. Exploratory outcomes will include cardiometabolic risk factors (e.g., waist circumference, blood pressure, fasting glucose) and health behaviors (e.g., diet, physical activity). Results of this trial may be applicable to other urban AIAN or minority communities or even diabetes prevention in general., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although controlled donation after circulatory determination of death (cDCDD) could increase the supply of donor lungs within the United States, the yield of lungs from cDCDD donors remains low compared with donation after neurologic determination of death (DNDD). To explore the reason for low lung yield from cDCDD donors, Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient data were used to assess the impact of donor lung quality on cDCDD lung utilization by fitting a logistic regression model. The relationship between center volume and cDCDD use was assessed, and the distance between center and donor hospital was calculated by cDCDD status. Recipient survival was compared using a multivariable Cox regression model. Lung utilization was 2.1% for cDCDD donors and 21.4% for DNDD donors. Being a cDCDD donor decreased lung donation (adjusted odds ratio 0.101, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.085-0.120). A minority of centers have performed cDCDD transplant, with higher volume centers generally performing more cDCDD transplants. There was no difference in center-to-donor distance or recipient survival (adjusted hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.78-1.37) between cDCDD and DNDD transplants. cDCDD lungs are underutilized compared with DNDD lungs after adjusting for lung quality. Increasing transplant center expertise and commitment to cDCDD lung procurement is needed to improve utilization., Competing Interests: The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation., (© Copyright 2015 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of worldwide cancer deaths. While smoking is its leading risk factor, few prospective cohort studies have reported on the association of lung cancer with both active and passive smoking. This study aimed to determine the relationship between lung cancer incidence with both active and passive smoking (childhood, adult at home, and at work)., Patients and Methods: The Women's Health Initiative Observational Study (WHI-OS) was a prospective cohort study conducted at 40 US centers that enrolled postmenopausal women from 1993 to 1999. Among 93 676 multiethnic participants aged 50-79, 76 304 women with complete smoking and covariate data comprised the analytic cohort. Lung cancer incidence was calculated by Cox proportional hazards models, stratified by smoking status., Results: Over 10.5 mean follow-up years, 901 lung cancer cases were identified. Compared with never smokers (NS), lung cancer incidence was much higher in current [hazard ratio (HR) 13.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 10.80-16.75] and former smokers (FS; HR 4.20, 95% CI 3.48-5.08) in a dose-dependent manner. Current and FS had significantly increased risk for all lung cancer subtypes, particularly small-cell and squamous cell carcinoma. Among NS, any passive smoking exposure did not significantly increase lung cancer risk (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.52-1.49). However, risk tended to be increased in NS with adult home passive smoking exposure ≥30 years, compared with NS with no adult home exposure (HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.00-2.58)., Conclusions: In this prospective cohort of postmenopausal women, active smoking significantly increased risk of all lung cancer subtypes; current smokers had significantly increased risk compared with FS. Among NS, prolonged passive adult home exposure tended to increase lung cancer risk. These data support continued need for smoking prevention and cessation interventions, passive smoking research, and further study of lung cancer risk factors in addition to smoking. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT00000611., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)