Citations

Hypertension is the single most important modifiable risk factor for preventable disability and death worldwide and disproportionately affects socially disadvantaged populations. We face a paradox—blood pressure control is low and recent trends suggest it is even declining, despite the availability of inexpensive and effective therapies. A variety of barriers on the system, patient, and healthcare provider side hinder effective drug-based risk factor management. Clinical inertia represents a major barrier on the clinician side, as well as workload and limited education. Common barriers on the patient side include limited English proficiency, low health literacy, and nonadherence with misaligned incentives, limited resources, lack of structured clinical pathways, and reimbursement issues. New innovations in the field of RNA-targeted therapies and device-based interventions could prevent and potentially even cure diseases previously designated as chronic health conditions, such as hypertension. Such novel therapies could potentially overcome several major barriers to effective treatment, including nonadherence. Drug development of novel, long-acting treatments requires consideration of specific clinical trial design aspects, including safety collection, benefit: risk assessment, the development and assessment of novel, qualitative surrogate end points, such as time-in-therapeutic range, the use of representative trial settings as well as the definition of standard of care in placebo-controlled trials, which should be of reasonably high-quality allowing for credible evaluation of effectiveness. Here, we provide an overview on barriers to effective treatment and a framework for trials assessing novel treatments for cardiovascular disease risk factors, including early and broad implementation programs.

Background: The American opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose epidemic require physicians and advanced care providers to be prepared to care for patients with this life-threatening condition. Learning to identify, engage, and treat patients with OUD with medications is an essential skill for providers, as is developing requisite confidence and therapeutic attitudes regarding the care of patients with OUD (CP-OUD). To address the need for improved OUD treatment education, our team built and implemented a 12-module asynchronous course entitled, “Care of Patients with Opioid Use Disorder”, in 3 Doctor of Medicine (MD) programs and a Graduate School of Nursing (GSN) program. Methods: Students self-reported their attitudes and confidence regarding the CP-OUD before and after each module. Twelve questions assessed confidence, and 12 questions assessed attitude. Students’ change in confidence and attitudes before and after training was calculated. Results: Responses were collected between January 2021 and November 2024. The number of students completing each module ranged from 552 to 967 MD students and 81 to 149 GSN students. Students reported improved confidence after completing each of the 12 modules (<0.0001). Students reported improved attitudes after completing 10 of the 12 modules (<0.0001). Differences ranging from small to medium size were observed between MD and GSN student’s baseline confidence for 4 modules, and baseline attitudes for 6 modules. Conclusions: Asynchronous learning modules can be effectively implemented in medical and nursing education to improve confidence and attitudes regarding the CP-OUD. The use of asynchronous training modules allows for flexible deployment, as evidenced by their use in 3 MD programs and a GSN program. Future research should investigate whether improved confidence and attitudes during medical and nursing education result in more graduates caring for patients with OUD post-training.

Importance SARS-CoV-2 infection has been linked to neurotoxic effects and cognitive deficits. Objective To determine whether decreases in cognitive function were accelerated after SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with individuals not infected. Design, Setting, and Participants 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 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 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 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 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.

Abstract Rationale: SARS-CoV-2 infection may be associated with new or worsening respiratory symptoms that, if persistent, may contribute to “Long COVID.” Research is needed on the prevalence and risk determinants of Long COVID and related respiratory symptoms in adults with and without pre-existing obstructive lung disease or smoking history. Methods: C4R is a prospective, observational study that collected information on SARS-CoV-2 infection using standardized methods across 14 NIH-funded cohorts. The third wave of C4R questionnaires, administered June 2023 to January 2025, assessed self-reported Long COVID via the question, “Do you think that you are experiencing, or have ever experienced, what has been called “long COVID,” or symptoms related to COVID at least a month after your infection?” Questionnaires also assessed the presence (vs absence) of 22 symptoms that have been linked to Long COVID, including cough, shortness of breath, and post-exertional malaise. Pre-pandemic obstructive lung disease (COPD or asthma) and smoking status (ever/never) were harmonized from self-reported data collected at the most recent pre-pandemic cohort exam. Poisson regression was used to assess prevalence ratios (PRs) adjusting for age, sex, BMI, education, and pre-pandemic hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and depressive symptoms. PRs for respiratory symptoms were tested according to self-reported Long COVID and history of non-hospitalized or hospitalized infection; effect modification by pre-pandemic lung disease and smoking was assessed by multiplicative interaction terms and in fully stratified models. Results: Among 23,434 questionnaire respondents, 1,484 (6.3%) self-reported Long COVID, including 246/1,262 (19.5%) with pre-pandemic lung disease and 664/4,018 (16.5%) with smoking history. The adjusted PR for Long COVID was 1.17 (95%CI:0.99-1.39;P=0.06) comparing participants with/without lung disease and 1.17 (95%CI:1.04-1.32;P=0.01) comparing participants with/without smoking history. Respiratory symptoms were more prevalent in those with self-reported Long COVID, as well as in those with a history of hospitalized or non-hospitalized infection (Table). Associations were generally stronger in participants without pre-pandemic lung disease (p-interaction&lt;0.05 for all comparisons). Respiratory symptoms were also more prevalent with a history of repeated, and pre-Omicron infections, and were less prevalent among participants vaccinated prior to their first infection; findings were similar even after excluding participants with self-reported Long COVID. Conclusions: Long COVID is common, particularly in adults with pre-existing COPD or asthma or smoking history. Long COVID and history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, including non-hospitalized infections, was associated with greater respiratory symptom burden. Whether SARS-CoV-2 infection or Long COVID are associated with development or progression of obstructive lung diseases warrants future studies.

Abstract RATIONALE: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common in the general population and is associated with inflammation and compromised immune function. Since these mechanisms are hypothesized to promote severe COVID-19, we tested associations of pre-pandemic CKD with incident COVID-19 hospitalization or death in a large, multi-ethnic, US general population-based meta-cohort of adults. METHODS: Data were harmonized and pooled from 9 NIH-funded longitudinal cohorts participating in the Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research (C4R). CKD was classified by KDIGO 2024 CKD guideline (Low Risk, Moderately Increased Risk, High Risk, Very High Risk) using pre-pandemic urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (uACR) and estimated glomerular filtration rate using creatinine (eGFRcr). Incident COVID-19 hospitalization or death was ascertained over 2020−2023 via self-report and active surveillance, with medical record adjudication in a subset. In our primary analysis, we assessed associations between CKD stages and incident COVID-19 hospitalization or death. A secondary analysis examined joint association of CKD stages and the number of comorbidities (obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) with the severe COVID-19. Multivariable hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by cause-specific Cox regression, adjusting for socio-demographics and smoking. RESULTS: Among 26,039 multi-ethnic adult participants (mean age 66.1±14.8, 60.6 % female, 28.6% Whites, 3.2% Asians, 20.6% Blacks, 41.3% Hispanics, 6.3% American Indians) with a median follow-up of 550 days since the onset of the pandemic (baseline: March 1, 2020), there were 734 incident COVID-19 hospitalizations or deaths. The mean time since CKD markers were measured before the baseline was 6.5 years. The cumulative incidence of severe COVID-19 was 2.3, 3.5, 6.5, and 7.3% across CKD risk stages, and similar patterns were observed within variant types (Figure 1). Compared to participants with Low Risk of CKD, there was a graded increased hazards of severe COVID-19 across CKD stages, with HRs (95% CIs) of 1.27 (1.03−1.55) for Moderately Increased Risk, 2.33 (1.77−3.06) for High Risk, and 2.72 (1.89−3.92) for Very High Risk. In a joint analysis, both increased CKD risk and a higher number of comorbidities were associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19, showing the highest HR of 12.29 (5.75−26.27) in Very High Risk individuals with four comorbidities compared to Low Risk individuals with none. CONCLUSIONS: Higher CKD stages were associated with a greater risk of COVID-19 hospitalization or death and the risk is substantially heightened with additional comorbidities. These results suggest that adults with CKD and related comorbidities may merit enhanced COVID-19 risk mitigation.

Background: Despite the availability of effective vaccines and a recent decrease in annual deaths, coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) remains a leading cause of death. Serological studies of anti-nucleocapsid (N) antibody response to infection provide insights into host immunobiology of adaptive immune response, which holds promise for identifying high-risk individuals for adverse acute and chronic COVID-19 outcomes. Hypothesis: Among participants previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, traditional vascular disease risk factors are associated with higher anti-N antibodies while vaccination is associated with lower anti-N antibodies. Methods: Among previously infected participants, anti-N antibodies were measured from dried blood spots collected between February 2021-February 2023 among 1,419 Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research (C4R) participants with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. We measured anti-N IgG antibodies reported as median fluorescence intensity (MFI) units; reactivity (i.e., seropositivity) was defined based on MFI above a validated threshold. Vascular disease risk factors were assessed via pre-pandemic in-person examination, questionnaires, and medical record review. Multivariable generalized linear models regressed anti-N reactivity (modified Poisson) or LN transformed MFI (linear). Results: Among 1,419 participants with prior infection, mean age (standard deviation) was 65.8(12.1) years, 61% were women, and 42.8% were self-reported from a race/ethnicity minority group. Participant reactivity to nucleocapsid peaked at 69% by 4 months post-infection and waned to only 44% ≥12 months after infection. After multivariable adjustment, higher anti-N antibody response was associated with older age, Hispanic (vs. White) or American Indian (vs. White) race/ethnicity, lower income and education, former smoking, and higher anti-spike antibody levels. Asian race (vs. White) and vaccination ( even after infection ) were associated with lower nucleocapsid reactivity; common cardiometabolic co-morbidities were not associated with anti-N reactivity or levels (Figures 1 and 2). Conclusions: Among participants previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, select sociodemographic and behavioral risk factors were associated with higher anti-N antibody levels while vaccination was associated with lower anti-N antibody levels. The observation that vaccination, even after infection, is related to lower anti-N antibody levels merits further investigation.

Background: Thrombo-inflammation is a hallmark of acute Covid-19, with higher thrombo-inflammatory markers during infection associated with adverse outcomes. We hypothesized that higher pre-pandemic biomarkers, reflecting a higher thrombo-inflammatory setpoint, might identify people at greater risk of severe manifestations of Covid-19. Hypothesis: Pre-pandemic inflammation markers are associated with risk of hospitalized or fatal (hereafter, “severe”) Covid-19 in a multi-ethnic US sample. Methods: From 2020-2023, C4R harmonized pre-pandemic measures and ascertained Covid-19 across 14 longstanding cohort studies. In 12 cohorts, we assessed biomarker data and covariates from the study visit closest to the pandemic for 6 analytes shown in the Table. HRs of severe Covid-19 by pre-pandemic biomarkers were estimated using cause-specific Cox regression, treating non-severe Covid-19 as a competing risk, and adjusting for pre-pandemic sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Biomarkers were measured a mean of 20 years before the pandemic with different sample sizes for each (Table footnote). Mean age at the start of the pandemic was in the 60s or 70s depending on the biomarker. The most represented race or ethnic groups were White and Black. The largest sample was for C-reactive protein, and there were 1,001 severe Covid-19 cases among 38,784 participants. In the adjusted models, considered individually, higher CRP, leukocyte count, factor VIII and fibrinogen, but not other markers, were associated with greater risk of severe Covid-19 (Table).Associations were robust across subgroups and time since biomarker measurement (example for C-reactive protein in Figure). Conclusions: In this prospective multi-study analysis of a multi-ethnic population, higher basal levels of thrombo-inflammation markers were associated with greater risk of severe Covid-19. Since we considered non-severe Covid-19 as a competing risk, associations may reflect factors related to progression to more serious Covid-19 illness.

Abstract Despite the availability of effective vaccines and a recent decrease in annual deaths, COVID-19 remains a leading cause of death. Serological studies provide insights into host immunobiology of adaptive immune response to infection, which holds promise for identifying high-risk individuals for adverse COVID-19 outcomes. We investigated correlates of anti-nucleocapsid antibody responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection in a US population-based meta-cohort of adults participating in longstanding National Institutes of Health–funded cohort studies. Anti-nucleocapsid antibodies were measured from dried blood spots collected between February 2021 and February 2023. Among 1419 Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research participants with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, the mean age (standard deviation) was 65.8 (12.1), 61% were women, and 42.8% self-reported membership in a race/ethnicity minority group. The proportion of participants reactive to nucleocapsid peaked at 69% by 4 months after infection and waned to only 44% ≥12 months after infection. Higher anti-nucleocapsid antibody response was associated with older age, Hispanic or American Indian Alaskan Native (vs White) race/ethnicity, lower income, lower education, former smoking, and higher anti-spike antibody levels. Asian race (vs White) and vaccination (even after infection) were associated with lower nucleocapsid reactivity. Neither vaccine manufacturer nor common cardiometabolic comorbidities were not associated with anti-nucleocapsid response. These findings inform the underlying immunobiology of adaptive immune response to infection, as well as the potential utility of anti-nucleocapsid antibody response for clinical practice and COVID-19 serosurveillance.

ImportancePersistent symptoms and disability following SARS-CoV-2 infection, known as post–COVID-19 condition or “long COVID,” are frequently reported and pose a substantial personal and societal burden.ObjectiveTo determine time to recovery following SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify factors associated with recovery by 90 days.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsFor this prospective cohort study, standardized ascertainment of SARS-CoV-2 infection was conducted starting in April 1, 2020, across 14 ongoing National Institutes of Health–funded cohorts that have enrolled and followed participants since 1971. This report includes data collected through February 28, 2023, on adults aged 18 years or older with self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection.ExposurePreinfection health conditions and lifestyle factors assessed before and during the pandemic via prepandemic examinations and pandemic-era questionnaires.Main Outcomes and MeasuresProbability of nonrecovery by 90 days and restricted mean recovery times were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to assess multivariable-adjusted associations with recovery by 90 days.ResultsOf 4708 participants with self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection (mean [SD] age, 61.3 [13.8] years; 2952 women [62.7%]), an estimated 22.5% (95% CI, 21.2%-23.7%) did not recover by 90 days post infection. Median (IQR) time to recovery was 20 (8-75) days. By 90 days post infection, there were significant differences in restricted mean recovery time according to sociodemographic, clinical, and lifestyle characteristics, particularly by acute infection severity (outpatient vs critical hospitalization, 32.9 days [95% CI, 31.9-33.9 days] vs 57.6 days [95% CI, 51.9-63.3 days]; log-rank P &amp;lt; .001). Recovery by 90 days post infection was associated with vaccination prior to infection (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.11-1.51) and infection during the sixth (Omicron variant) vs first wave (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06-1.49). These associations were mediated by reduced severity of acute infection (33.4% and 17.6%, respectively). Recovery was unfavorably associated with female sex (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92) and prepandemic clinical cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99). No significant multivariable-adjusted associations were observed for age, educational attainment, smoking history, obesity, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or elevated depressive symptoms. Results were similar for reinfections.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, more than 1 in 5 adults did not recover within 3 months of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recovery within 3 months was less likely in women and those with preexisting cardiovascular disease and more likely in those with COVID-19 vaccination or infection during the Omicron variant wave.

Context Gene editing–based therapies are currently in development in the areas of oncology, inherited disease, and infectious disease. These potentially life-altering therapies are derived from decades of research in both academic and industry settings that developed technologies rooted in principles and products of nature. However, with such technologic developments come many important considerations, including adverse risks, high cost, and ethical questions. Objective To educate pathologists about gene editing technologies, inform them of potential indications and risks, outline regulatory and practical issues that could affect hospital-based practice and laboratory testing, and advocate that pathologists need to be present at discussions among industry and regulators pertaining to gene editing–based therapies. Design A Gene Editing Workgroup, facilitated by the College of American Pathologists Personalized Health Care Committee and consisting of pathologists of various backgrounds, was convened to develop an educational paper to serve as a stimulus to increase pathologist involvement and inquiry in gene editing therapeutic and diagnostic implementation. Results Through multiple discussions and literature review, the workgroup identified potential gaps in pathologists' knowledge of gene editing. Additional topics that could impact pathology and laboratory medicine were also identified and summarized in order to facilitate pathologists as stakeholders in gene editing therapy administration and monitoring and potential use in diagnostics. Conclusions Gene editing therapy is a complex but potentially transformative area of medicine. This article serves as an introduction to pathologists to assist them in future discussions with colleagues and potentially identify and alter pathology practices that relate to gene editing.