Berbari, Elie

Introduction/Objective Opportunistic salpingectomy (OS) has been shown to reduce high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) by 42-80%, yet awareness of this strategy outside of obstetrics and gynecology remains limited. The objective of this study was to assess awareness and counseling practices regarding OS for HGSOC prevention among primary care providers (PCPs). Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey study using a 6-item electronic survey evaluating PCP knowledge and counseling practices related to HGSOC prevention through OS. The study was conducted at a single tertiary care center with gynecologic oncology services. Survey items assessed awareness of HGSOC origin, awareness of OS as a preventative strategy, counseling frequency in the setting of abdominal or pelvic surgery, counseling comfort, and resources needed to increase confidence in recommending OS. Response formats included Likert scales and Yes/No/Unsure options. The survey was distributed by email to attending physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) in the Department of Family Medicine (FM) and Internal Medicine (IM). Results Of 398 providers surveyed, 136 responded (34% overall response rate; FM 44%, IM 28%), including 96 attending physicians and 40 APPs. Most PCPs were unaware that HGSOC originates in the fallopian tubes (60%) and were unaware of OS as a preventive strategy (71%). Counseling was uncommon: 11% had ever counseled on OS, while 74% had not and 15% reported it was outside their scope. Most respondents (63%) reported being not at all comfortable counseling patients about OS. Providers identified clinical guidelines (60%), CME or training modules (50%), eligibility criteria (48%), gynecology collaboration pathways (48%), and patient-friendly materials (44%) as key supports to improve counseling confidence. Conclusion PCP awareness and counseling regarding OS are limited. Given that guideline support for OS has solidified only in recent years, these gaps are not surprising—and they represent a clear, actionable opportunity. PCPs are well-positioned to lead the expansion of ovarian cancer prevention beyond specialty care with the right tools and support.

Abstract Background The number of arthroplasty procedures and infection-related complications, including prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) and surgical site infections (SSIs), continues to rise. Although current guidelines recommend cefazolin or cefuroxime as the first-line perioperative prophylactic antibiotic, substitutions with non-cephalosporins remain common, especially among patients with reported β-lactam allergies. These substitutions may increase infection risk and healthcare costs. Evidence comparing outcomes across antibiotic classes remains variable. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing single-agent cephalosporin versus single-agent non-cephalosporin prophylaxis in adults undergoing primary arthroplasty. Cochrane, Embase, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from database inception through January 2025. Random-effect or fixed-effect models were used to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analyses stratified results by cephalosporin type, study era, and risk of bias. Results Twenty-three studies (7 randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies) were included, encompassing 191 527 arthroplasties in the cephalosporin arm and 20 058 in the non-cephalosporin arm. The odds of PJI were lower with cephalosporins (OR 0.59; 95% CI, .46–.75). No overall difference was observed for SSI (OR 0.70; 95% CI, .36–1.36), though post-2013 studies and the cefazolin subgroup demonstrated a significant protective effect. Randomized trial estimates were limited and heterogeneous and did not reach statistical significance. Certainty of evidence was graded as moderate. Conclusions Cephalosporins, particularly cefazolin or cefuroxime, remain the preferred prophylactic agents for primary arthroplasty. This quantitative synthesis reinforces their protective association against prosthetic joint infection and supports adherence to guideline-endorsed prophylaxis.

AbstractIn a COVID‐19 sero‐surveillance cohort study with predominantly healthy and vaccinated individuals, the objectives were (i) to investigate longitudinally the factors associated with the quantitative dynamics of antispike (anti‐S1) IgG antibody levels, (ii) to evaluate whether the levels were associated with protection from SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, and (iii) to assess whether the association was different in the pre‐Omicron compared with the Omicron period. The QuantiVac Euroimmun ELISA test was used to quantify anti‐S1 IgG levels. The entire study period (16 months), the 11‐month pre‐Omicron period and the cross‐sectional analysis before the Omicron surge included 3219, 2310, and 895 reactive serum samples from 949, 919, and 895 individuals, respectively. Mixed‐effect linear, mixed‐effect time‐to‐event, and logistic regression models were used to achieve the objectives. Age and time since infection or vaccination were the only factors associated with a decline of anti‐S1 IgG levels. Higher antibody levels were significantly associated with protection from SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82–0.97), and the association was higher during the time period when Omicron was predominantly circulating compared with the ones when Alpha and Delta variants were predominant (adjusted hazard ratio for interaction 0.66, 95% CI 0.53–0.84). In a prediction model, it was estimated that >8000 BAU/mL anti‐S1 IgG was required to reduce the risk of infection with Omicron variants by approximately 20%–30% for 90 days. Though, such high levels were only found in 1.9% of the samples before the Omicron surge, and they were not durable for 3 months. Anti‐S1 IgG antibody levels are statistically associated with protection from SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. However, the prediction impact of the antibody level findings on infection protection is limited.

AbstractIntroductionTo assess the risk for COVID‐19 of police officers, we are studying the seroprevalence in a cohort. The baseline cross‐sectional investigation was performed before a vaccination campaign in January/February 2021, and demonstrated a seroprevalence of 12.9%. Here, we demonstrate serosurveillance results after a vaccination campaign.MethodsThe cohort consists of 1022 study participants. The 3‐ and 6‐month follow‐up visits were performed in April/May and September 2021. Data on infection and vaccination rates were obtained via measuring antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein and spike protein and online questionnaires.ResultsThe mean age of the population was 41 (SD 8.8) years, 72% were male and 76% had no comorbidity. Seroconversion was identified in 1.05% of the study population at the 3‐month visit and in 0.73% at the 6‐month visit, resulting in an infection rate of 1.8% over a time period of 6 months. In comparison, the infection rate in the general population over the same time period was higher (3.18%, p = .018). At the 6‐month visit, 77.8% of participants reported being vaccinated once and 70.5% twice; 81% had an anti‐S antibody titer of >250 U/ml and 87.1% of ≥2 U/ml. No significant association between infection and job role within the department, working region, or years of experience in the job was found. Anti‐spike antibody titers of vaccinated study participants showed a calculated decreasing trend 150–200 days after the second vaccine dose.ConclusionThese data confirm the value of the vaccination campaign in an exposed group other than healthcare professionals.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected underserved and minority populations in the United States. This is partially attributable to limited access to diagnostic testing from deeply rooted structural inequities precipitating higher infection and mortality rates. We describe the process of establishing a drive-through collection site by leveraging an academic–community partnership between a medical institution and a federally qualified health center in Minnesota. Over 10 weeks, 2006 COVID-19 tests were provided to a socioeconomically disadvantaged population of racial/ethnic minorities and low-income essential workers.

AbstractBackgroundDescriptions of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have focused on the nonpregnant adult population. This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics and perinatal outcomes of COVID-19 in pregnancy.MethodsWe searched databases from December 2019 to 30 April 2020. Eligible studies reported clinical characteristics, radiological findings, and/or laboratory testing of pregnant women during infection. Data were pooled across studies using a random-effects model.ResultsTwenty-four studies (136 women) were included. The most common symptoms were fever (62.9%) and cough (36.8%). Laboratory findings included elevated C-reactive protein (57%) and lymphocytopenia (50%). Ground-glass opacity was the most common radiological finding (81.7%). Preterm birth rate was 37.7% and cesarean delivery rate was 76%. There was 1 maternal death. There were 2 fetal COVID-19 cases.ConclusionsThe clinical picture in pregnant women with COVID-19 did not differ from the nonpregnant population; however, the rate of preterm birth and cesarean delivery are considerably higher than international averages.

Background: Surgical-site infection after implant-based breast reconstruction adversely affects surgical outcomes and increases health care costs. This 11-year case-control study examines risk factors specific for surgical-site infection after immediate tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods: The authors performed a retrospective review to identify all consecutive patients with breast implant infections between 2006 and 2016. Patients who developed surgical-site infection after immediate tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction were included. Surgical-site infection was defined using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria; specifically, infections requiring hospital admission, intravenous antibiotics, or surgical intervention were included. The authors matched a control patient to each infection case by patient age and date of surgery. Patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and perioperative surgical variables were examined. Univariate and multivariable conditional logistic regression models were constructed. Results: A total of 270 breasts in 252 patients were evaluated. On multivariate analysis, patients with a higher body mass index (OR, 1.1 per 1 body mass index point increase; 95 percent CI, 1.0 to 1.2; p = 0.02), hypertension (OR, 6.5; 95 percent CI, 1.9 to 22.3; p = 0.002), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR, 2.6; 95 percent CI, 1.0 to 6.3; p = 0.04), axillary lymph node dissection (OR, 7.1; 95 percent CI, 1.7 to 29.2; p = 0.006), seroma formation (OR, 15.34; 95 percent CI, 3.7 to 62.5; p = 0.0001), and wound healing complications (OR, 23.91; 95 percent CI, 6.1 to 93.4; p < 0.0001) were significantly associated with surgical-site infection. Conclusions: Women with obesity, women with hypertension, and those treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy are at increased risk of surgical-site infection. Further risks are also associated with postoperative seroma and wound complications. This may help patient selection and counseling, adjusted based on risk factors regarding complications of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.