Alemtuzumab preconditioning with tacrolimus monotherapy - The impact of serial monitoring for donor-specific antibody

BACKGROUND. Antibody preconditioning with tacrolimus monotherapy has allowed many renal allograft recipients to be maintained on spaced weaning. METHODS. Of 279 renal allograft recipients transplanted between March 2003 and December 2004, 222 (80%) had spaced weaning (i.e., reduction of tacrolimus monotherapy dosing to every other day, three times a week, twice a week, or once a week) attempted. Routine monitoring for donor-specific antibody (DSA) was begun in September 2004. Mean follow-up is 34±6.5 months after transplantation and 26±8.1 months after the initiation of spaced weaning. RESULTS. One hundred and twenty-two (44%) patients remained on spaced weaning. One- and 2-year actual patient/graft survival was 99%/99%, and 97%/96%. Fifty-six (20%) patients experienced acute rejection after initiation of spaced weaning. One- and 2-year actual patient/graft survival was 100%/98%, and 94%/78%. Forty-two (15%) patients with stable renal function had spaced weaning stopped because of the development of DSA, which disappeared in 17 (40%). One- and 2-year actual patient and graft survival was 100% and 100%. CONCLUSION. Adult renal transplant recipients who are able to be maintained on spaced weaning have excellent outcomes. Patients with stable renal function who have reversal of weaning because of the development of DSA also have excellent outcomes. Routine monitoring for DSA may allow patients to avoid late rejection after spaced weaning. © 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc

Kidney after nonrenal transplantation-the impact of alemtuzumab induction

BACKGROUND.: Calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity in nonrenal allograft recipients can lead to end-stage renal disease and the need for kidney transplantation. We sought to evaluate the role of alemtuzumab induction in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS.: We evaluated 144 patients undergoing kidney transplantation after nonrenal transplantation between May 18, 1998, and October 8, 2007. Seventy-two patients transplanted between January 15, 2003, and October 8, 2007, received alemtuzumab induction and continued their pretransplant immunosuppression. Seventy-two patients transplanted between May 18, 1998, and July 21, 2007, did not receive alemtuzumab induction, but received additional steroids and maintenance immunosuppression. Donor and recipient demographics were comparable. RESULTS.: Overall, 1-and 3-year patient survival and renal function were comparable between the two groups. One-and 3-year graft survival was 93.0% and 75.3% in the alemtuzumab group and 83.3% and 68.7% in the no alemtuzumab group, respectively (P=0.051). The incidence of acute rejection was lower in the alemtuzumab group, 15.3%, than in the no alemtuzumab group, 41.7% (P=0.0001). The incidence of delayed graft function was lower in the alemtuzumab group, 9.7%, than in the no alemtuzumab group, 25.0% (P=0.003). The incidence of viral complications was comparable. CONCLUSION.: Alemtuzumab induction with simple resumption of baseline immunosuppression in patients undergoing kidney transplantation after nonrenal transplantation represents a reasonable immunosuppressive strategy. Copyright © 2009 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Alemtuzumab induction and tacrolimus monotherapy in pancreas transplantation: One- and two-year outcomes

BACKGROUND. Alemtuzumab (Campath-1H) induction with tacrolimus monotherapy has been shown to provide effective immunosuppression for kidney, liver, lung, and small bowel transplantation. This drug combination was evaluated in pancreas transplant recipients. METHODS. Sixty consecutive pancreas transplants (30 simultaneous pancreas-kidney, 20 pancreas after kidney, and 10 pancreas alone) were carried out under this protocol between July 2003 to January 2005. The mean follow-up was 22 months (range 17-33). RESULTS. One-year patient, pancreas, and kidney allograft survival were 95%, 93%, and 90%, respectively. With 22 months follow-up, patient, pancreas, and kidney survival were 94%, 89%, and 87%, respectively. The rejection rate was 30% (18/60), with four patients (7%) experiencing steroid-resistant rejection. Major infection occurred in three (5%) patients resulting in two (3.3%) deaths from disseminated histoplasmosis and a herpes virus infection. One patient with cryptococcal meningitis was successfully treated. Seven (11.7%) patients experienced cytomegalovirus infection, all of whom responded to treatment with ganciclovir. One (1.7%) case of polymorphic posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease was seen, which regressed with a temporary discontinuation of tacrolimus and high-dose ganciclovir. The mean serum creatinine of the 30 simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants at one year posttransplant was 1.37±0.33 mg/ml. The preexisting creatinine in pancreas after kidney transplants was not adversely affected by this immunosuppressive protocol. CONCLUSION. A single dose of perioperative alemtuzumab followed by daily tacrolimus monotherapy provides effective immunosuppression for pancreas transplantation, but the optimal use of this drug combination is not yet clear. © 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc

Randomized Kaczmarz solver for noisy linear systems

The Kaczmarz method is an iterative algorithm for solving systems of linear equations Ax=b. Theoretical convergence rates for this algorithm were largely unknown until recently when work was done on a randomized version of the algorithm. It was proved that for overdetermined systems, the randomized Kaczmarz method converges with expected exponential rate, independent of the number of equations in the system. Here we analyze the case where the system Ax=b is corrupted by noise, so we consider the system where Ax is approximately b + r where r is an arbitrary error vector. We prove that in this noisy version, the randomized method reaches an error threshold dependent on the matrix A with the same rate as in the error-free case. We provide examples showing our results are sharp in the general context

Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation

A1 Introduction to the 8(th) Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation: Optimizing Personal and Population Health David Chambers, Lisa Simpson D1 Discussion forum: Population health D&I research Felicia Hill-Briggs D2 Discussion forum: Global health D&I research Gila Neta, Cynthia Vinson D3 Discussion forum: Precision medicine and D&I research David Chambers S1 Predictors of community therapists’ use of therapy techniques in a large public mental health system Rinad Beidas, Steven Marcus, Gregory Aarons, Kimberly Hoagwood, Sonja Schoenwald, Arthur Evans, Matthew Hurford, Ronnie Rubin, Trevor Hadley, Frances Barg, Lucia Walsh, Danielle Adams, David Mandell S2 Implementing brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in primary care: Clinicians' experiences from the field Lindsey Martin, Joseph Mignogna, Juliette Mott, Natalie Hundt, Michael Kauth, Mark Kunik, Aanand Naik, Jeffrey Cully S3 Clinician competence: Natural variation, factors affecting, and effect on patient outcomes Alan McGuire, Dominique White, Tom Bartholomew, John McGrew, Lauren Luther, Angie Rollins, Michelle Salyers S4 Exploring the multifaceted nature of sustainability in community-based prevention: A mixed-method approach Brittany Cooper, Angie Funaiole S5 Theory informed behavioral health integration in primary care: Mixed methods evaluation of the implementation of routine depression and alcohol screening and assessment Julie Richards, Amy Lee, Gwen Lapham, Ryan Caldeiro, Paula Lozano, Tory Gildred, Carol Achtmeyer, Evette Ludman, Megan Addis, Larry Marx, Katharine Bradley S6 Enhancing the evidence for specialty mental health probation through a hybrid efficacy and implementation study Tonya VanDeinse, Amy Blank Wilson, Burgin Stacey, Byron Powell, Alicia Bunger, Gary Cuddeback S7 Personalizing evidence-based child mental health care within a fiscally mandated policy reform Miya Barnett, Nicole Stadnick, Lauren Brookman-Frazee, Anna Lau S8 Leveraging an existing resource for technical assistance: Community-based supervisors in public mental health Shannon Dorsey, Michael Pullmann S9 SBIRT implementation for adolescents in urban federally qualified health centers: Implementation outcomes Shannon Mitchell, Robert Schwartz, Arethusa Kirk, Kristi Dusek, Marla Oros, Colleen Hosler, Jan Gryczynski, Carolina Barbosa, Laura Dunlap, David Lounsbury, Kevin O'Grady, Barry Brown S10 PANEL: Tailoring Implementation Strategies to Context - Expert recommendations for tailoring strategies to context Laura Damschroder, Thomas Waltz, Byron Powell S11 PANEL: Tailoring Implementation Strategies to Context - Extreme facilitation: Helping challenged healthcare settings implement complex programs Mona Ritchie S12 PANEL: Tailoring Implementation Strategies to Context - Using menu-based choice tasks to obtain expert recommendations for implementing three high-priority practices in the VA Thomas Waltz S13 PANEL: The Use of Technology to Improve Efficient Monitoring of Implementation of Evidence-based Programs - Siri, rate my therapist: Using technology to automate fidelity ratings of motivational interviewing David Atkins, Zac E. Imel, Bo Xiao, Doğan Can, Panayiotis Georgiou, Shrikanth Narayanan S14 PANEL: The Use of Technology to Improve Efficient Monitoring of Implementation of Evidence-based Programs - Identifying indicators of implementation quality for computer-based ratings Cady Berkel, Carlos Gallo, Irwin Sandler, C. Hendricks Brown, Sharlene Wolchik, Anne Marie Mauricio S15 PANEL: The Use of Technology to Improve Efficient Monitoring of Implementation of Evidence-based Programs - Improving implementation of behavioral interventions by monitoring emotion in spoken speech Carlos Gallo, C. Hendricks Brown, Sanjay Mehrotra S16 Scorecards and dashboards to assure data quality of health management information system (HMIS) using R Dharmendra Chandurkar, Siddhartha Bora, Arup Das, Anand Tripathi, Niranjan Saggurti, Anita Raj S17 A big data approach for discovering and implementing patient safety insights Eric Hughes, Brian Jacobs, Eric Kirkendall S18 Improving the efficacy of a depression registry for use in a collaborative care model Danielle Loeb, Katy Trinkley, Michael Yang, Andrew Sprowell, Donald Nease S19 Measurement feedback systems as a strategy to support implementation of measurement-based care in behavioral health Aaron Lyon, Cara Lewis, Meredith Boyd, Abigail Melvin, Semret Nicodimos, Freda Liu, Nathanial Jungbluth S20 PANEL: Implementation Science and Learning Health Systems: Intersections and Commonalities - Common loop assay: Methods of supporting learning collaboratives Allen Flynn S21 PANEL: Implementation Science and Learning Health Systems: Intersections and Commonalities - Innovating audit and feedback using message tailoring models for learning health systems Zach Landis-Lewis S22 PANEL: Implementation Science and Learning Health Systems: Intersections and Commonalities - Implementation science and learning health systems: Connecting the dots Anne Sales S23 Facilitation activities of Critical Access Hospitals during TeamSTEPPS implementation Jure Baloh, Marcia Ward, Xi Zhu S24 Organizational and social context of federally qualified health centers and variation in maternal depression outcomes Ian Bennett, Jurgen Unutzer, Johnny Mao, Enola Proctor, Mindy Vredevoogd, Ya-Fen Chan, Nathaniel Williams, Phillip Green S25 Decision support to enhance treatment of hospitalized smokers: A randomized trial Steven Bernstein, June-Marie Rosner, Michelle DeWitt, Jeanette Tetrault, James Dziura, Allen Hsiao, Scott Sussman, Patrick O’Connor, Benjamin Toll S26 PANEL: Developing Sustainable Strategies for the Implementation of Patient-Centered Care across Diverse US Healthcare Systems - A patient-centered approach to successful community transition after catastrophic injury Michael Jones, Julie Gassaway S27 PANEL: Developing Sustainable Strategies for the Implementation of Patient-Centered Care across Diverse US Healthcare Systems - Conducting PCOR to integrate mental health and cancer screening services in primary care Jonathan Tobin S28 PANEL: Developing Sustainable Strategies for the Implementation of Patient-Centered Care across Diverse US Healthcare Systems - A comparative effectiveness trial of optimal patient-centered care for US trauma care systems Douglas Zatzick S29 Preferences for in-person communication among patients in a multi-center randomized study of in-person versus telephone communication of genetic test results for cancer susceptibility Angela R Bradbury, Linda Patrick-Miller, Brian Egleston, Olufunmilayo I Olopade, Michael J Hall, Mary B Daly, Linda Fleisher, Generosa Grana, Pamela Ganschow, Dominique Fetzer, Amanda Brandt, Dana Farengo-Clark, Andrea Forman, Rikki S Gaber, Cassandra Gulden, Janice Horte, Jessica Long, Rachelle Lorenz Chambers, Terra Lucas, Shreshtha Madaan, Kristin Mattie, Danielle McKenna, Susan Montgomery, Sarah Nielsen, Jacquelyn Powers, Kim Rainey, Christina Rybak, Michelle Savage, Christina Seelaus, Jessica Stoll, Jill Stopfer, Shirley Yao and Susan Domchek S30 Working towards de-implementation: A mixed methods study in breast cancer surveillance care Erin Hahn, Corrine Munoz-Plaza, Jianjin Wang, Jazmine Garcia Delgadillo, Brian Mittman Michael Gould S31Integrating evidence-based practices for increasing cancer screenings in safety-net primary care systems: A multiple case study using the consolidated framework for implementation research Shuting (Lily) Liang, Michelle C. Kegler, Megan Cotter, Emily Phillips, April Hermstad, Rentonia Morton, Derrick Beasley, Jeremy Martinez, Kara Riehman S32 Observations from implementing an mHealth intervention in an FQHC David Gustafson, Lisa Marsch, Louise Mares, Andrew Quanbeck, Fiona McTavish, Helene McDowell, Randall Brown, Chantelle Thomas, Joseph Glass, Joseph Isham, Dhavan Shah S33 A multicomponent intervention to improve primary care provider adherence to chronic opioid therapy guidelines and reduce opioid misuse: A cluster randomized controlled trial protocol Jane Liebschutz, Karen Lasser S34 Implementing collaborative care for substance use disorders in primary care: Preliminary findings from the summit study Katherine Watkins, Allison Ober, Sarah Hunter, Karen Lamp, Brett Ewing S35 Sustaining a task-shifting strategy for blood pressure control in Ghana: A stakeholder analysis Juliet Iwelunmor, Joyce Gyamfi, Sarah Blackstone, Nana Kofi Quakyi, Jacob Plange-Rhule, Gbenga Ogedegbe S36 Contextual adaptation of the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) in a tobacco cessation study in Vietnam Pritika Kumar, Nancy Van Devanter, Nam Nguyen, Linh Nguyen, Trang Nguyen, Nguyet Phuong, Donna Shelley S37 Evidence check: A knowledge brokering approach to systematic reviews for policy Sian Rudge S38 Using Evidence Synthesis to Strengthen Complex Health Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Etienne Langlois S39 Does it matter: timeliness or accuracy of results? The choice of rapid reviews or systematic reviews to inform decision-making Andrea Tricco S40 Evaluation of the veterans choice program using lean six sigma at a VA medical center to identify benefits and overcome obstacles Sherry Ball, Anne Lambert-Kerzner, Christine Sulc, Carol Simmons, Jeneen Shell-Boyd, Taryn Oestreich, Ashley O'Connor, Emily Neely, Marina McCreight, Amy Labebue, Doreen DiFiore, Diana Brostow, P. Michael Ho, David Aron S41 The influence of local context on multi-stakeholder alliance quality improvement activities: A multiple case study Jillian Harvey, Megan McHugh, Dennis Scanlon S42 Increasing physical activity in early care and education: Sustainability via active garden education (SAGE) Rebecca Lee, Erica Soltero, Nathan Parker, Lorna McNeill, Tracey Ledoux S43 Marking a decade of policy implementation: The successes and continuing challenges of a provincial school food and nutrition policy in Canada Jessie-Lee McIsaac, Kate MacLeod, Nicole Ata, Sherry Jarvis, Sara Kirk S44 Use of research evidence among state legislators who prioritize mental health and substance abuse issues Jonathan Purtle, Elizabeth Dodson, Ross Brownson S45 PANEL: Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Designs: Clarifications, Refinements, and Additional Guidance Based on a Systematic Review and Reports from the Field - Hybrid type 1 designs Brian Mittman, Geoffrey Curran S46 PANEL: Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Designs: Clarifications, Refinements, and Additional Guidance Based on a Systematic Review and Reports from the Field - Hybrid type 2 designs Geoffrey Curran S47 PANEL: Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Designs: Clarifications, Refinements, and Additional Guidance Based on a Systematic Review and Reports from the Field - Hybrid type 3 designs Jeffrey Pyne S48 Linking team level implementation leadership and implementation climate to individual level attitudes, behaviors, and implementation outcomes Gregory Aarons, Mark Ehrhart, Elisa Torres S49 Pinpointing the specific elements of local context that matter most to implementation outcomes: Findings from qualitative comparative analysis in the RE-inspire study of VA acute stroke care Edward Miech S50 The GO score: A new context-sensitive instrument to measure group organization level for providing and improving care Edward Miech S51 A research network approach for boosting implementation and improvement Kathleen Stevens, I.S.R.N. Steering Council S52 PANEL: Qualitative methods in D&I Research: Value, rigor and challenge - The value of qualitative methods in implementation research Alison Hamilton S53 PANEL: Qualitative methods in D&I Research: Value, rigor and challenge - Learning evaluation: The role of qualitative methods in dissemination and implementation research Deborah Cohen S54 PANEL: Qualitative methods in D&I Research: Value, rigor and challenge - Qualitative methods in D&I research Deborah Padgett S55 PANEL: Maps & models: The promise of network science for clinical D&I - Hospital network of sharing patients with acute and chronic diseases in California Alexandra Morshed S56 PANEL: Maps & models: The promise of network science for clinical D&I - The use of social network analysis to identify dissemination targets and enhance D&I research study recruitment for pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV (PrEP) among men who have sex with men Rupa Patel S57 PANEL: Maps & models: The promise of network science for clinical D&I - Network and organizational factors related to the adoption of patient navigation services among rural breast cancer care providers Beth Prusaczyk S58 A theory of de-implementation based on the theory of healthcare professionals’ behavior and intention (THPBI) and the becker model of unlearning David C. Aron, Divya Gupta, Sherry Ball S59 Observation of registered dietitian nutritionist-patient encounters by dietetic interns highlights low awareness and implementation of evidence-based nutrition practice guidelines Rosa Hand, Jenica Abram, Taylor Wolfram S60 Program sustainability action planning: Building capacity for program sustainability using the program sustainability assessment tool Molly Hastings, Sarah Moreland-Russell S61 A review of D&I study designs in published study protocols Rachel Tabak, Alex Ramsey, Ana Baumann, Emily Kryzer, Katherine Montgomery, Ericka Lewis, Margaret Padek, Byron Powell, Ross Brownson S62 PANEL: Geographic variation in the implementation of public health services: Economic, organizational, and network determinants - Model simulation techniques to estimate the cost of implementing foundational public health services Cezar Brian Mamaril, Glen Mays, Keith Branham, Lava Timsina S63 PANEL: Geographic variation in the implementation of public health services: Economic, organizational, and network determinants - Inter-organizational network effects on the implementation of public health services Glen Mays, Rachel Hogg S64 PANEL: Building capacity for implementation and dissemination of the communities that care prevention system at scale to promote evidence-based practices in behavioral health - Implementation fidelity, coalition functioning, and community prevention system transformation using communities that care Abigail Fagan, Valerie Shapiro, Eric Brown S65 PANEL: Building capacity for implementation and dissemination of the communities that care prevention system at scale to promote evidence-based practices in behavioral health - Expanding capacity for implementation of communities that care at scale using a web-based, video-assisted training system Kevin Haggerty, David Hawkins S66 PANEL: Building capacity for implementation and dissemination of the communities that care prevention system at scale to promote evidence-based practices in behavioral health - Effects of communities that care on reducing youth behavioral health problems Sabrina Oesterle, David Hawkins, Richard Catalano S68 When interventions end: the dynamics of intervention de-adoption and replacement Virginia McKay, M. Margaret Dolcini, Lee Hoffer S69 Results from next-d: can a disease specific health plan reduce incident diabetes development among a national sample of working-age adults with pre-diabetes? Tannaz Moin, Jinnan Li, O. Kenrik Duru, Susan Ettner, Norman Turk, Charles Chan, Abigail Keckhafer, Robert Luchs, Sam Ho, Carol Mangione S70 Implementing smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings (STOP): using the interactive systems framework Peter Selby, Laurie Zawertailo, Nadia Minian, Dolly Balliunas, Rosa Dragonetti, Sarwar Hussain, Julia Lecce S71 Testing the Getting To Outcomes implementation support intervention in prevention-oriented, community-based settings Matthew Chinman, Joie Acosta, Patricia Ebener, Patrick S Malone, Mary Slaughter S72 Examining the reach of a multi-component farmers’ market implementation approach among low-income consumers in an urban context Darcy Freedman, Susan Flocke, Eunlye Lee, Kristen Matlack, Erika Trapl, Punam Ohri-Vachaspati, Morgan Taggart, Elaine Borawski S73 Increasing implementation of evidence-based health promotion practices at large workplaces: The CEOs Challenge Amanda Parrish, Jeffrey Harris, Marlana Kohn, Kristen Hammerback, Becca McMillan, Peggy Hannon S74 A qualitative assessment of barriers to nutrition promotion and obesity prevention in childcare Taren Swindle, Geoffrey Curran, Leanne Whiteside-Mansell, Wendy Ward S75 Documenting institutionalization of a health communication intervention in African American churches Cheryl Holt, Sheri Lou Santos, Erin Tagai, Mary Ann Scheirer, Roxanne Carter, Janice Bowie, Muhiuddin Haider, Jimmie Slade, Min Qi Wang S76 Reduction in hospital utilization by underserved patients through use of a community-medical home Andrew Masica, Gerald Ogola, Candice Berryman, Kathleen Richter S77 Sustainability of evidence-based lay health advisor programs in African American communities: A mixed methods investigation of the National Witness Project Rachel Shelton, Lina Jandorf, Deborah Erwin S78 Predicting the long-term uninsured population and analyzing their gaps in physical access to healthcare in South Carolina Khoa Truong S79 Using an evidence-based parenting intervention in churches to prevent behavioral problems among Filipino youth: A randomized pilot study Joyce R. Javier, Dean Coffey, Sheree M. Schrager, Lawrence Palinkas, Jeanne Miranda S80 Sustainability of elementary school-based health centers in three health-disparate southern communities Veda Johnson, Valerie Hutcherson, Ruth Ellis S81 Childhood obesity prevention partnership in Louisville: creative opportunities to engage families in a multifaceted approach to obesity prevention Anna Kharmats, Sandra Marshall-King, Monica LaPradd, Fannie Fonseca-Becker S82 Improvements in cervical cancer prevention found after implementation of evidence-based Latina prevention care management program Deanna Kepka, Julia Bodson, Echo Warner, Brynn Fowler S83 The OneFlorida data trust: Achieving health equity through research & training capacity building Elizabeth Shenkman, William Hogan, Folakami Odedina, Jessica De Leon, Monica Hooper, Olveen Carrasquillo, Renee Reams, Myra Hurt, Steven Smith, Jose Szapocznik, David Nelson, Prabir Mandal S84 Disseminating and sustaining medical-legal partnerships: Shared value and social return on investment James Teufe

The Costs of Voter ID Requirements

Debates over voter identification laws tend to focus on two impacts of such laws. The first is whether requiring a voter ID deters voter fraud. The second is whether the existence of such a requirement deters legitimate voters from casting ballots in elections. But there is a third impact that has received less attention: the cost of obtaining an ID. Individuals bearing these costs are disproportionately likely to be either young or old or impoverished or both, since these are the people least likely to have a driver’s license that could satisfy the law. In a recent paper, we used two techniques that have never been used before in debates over voter ID to assess the costs of a particular voter ID law in North Carolina. The first technique takes advantage of burden estimates that federal agencies have made under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Whenever agencies wish to collect information from 10 or more people, they must estimate the burden of that collection. Numerous federal collections approximate the requirement of getting an ID—passports, social security cards, and other documents—and hence their approvals have required estimates of the burden of obtaining such IDs. The second technique we used was simply a mapping tool called ArcGIS, which allowed us to calculate average distances between people’s homes and the nearest place for them to secure an ID. We did this to obtain average travel times across the state of North Carolina and also to look more closely at three counties in particular—Wake, Randolph, and Swain Counties. North Carolina first passed a voter ID law in 2013. It was one of the strictest in the nation. We were asked to assess the burden of this law as part of a lawsuit seeking to overturn the law, and our estimates are based on the earliest version of the North Carolina voter ID requirement. A federal appeals court struck down the requirement in 2016. This year, however, in a referendum, North Carolina voters approved a requirement that the voters show ID at the polls. The burden of getting the required identification to vote can be broken into three categories: the time to gather the necessary supporting documentation; the time to drive or walk to the nearest DMV office (this may be a burden for the person seeking the ID and a person to drive them); and the wait time at the DMV. To convert these durations into a monetary estimate, we multiplied the sum of these times by an estimate of both the minimum wage and the living wage in North Carolina. Seventy of North Carolina’s 100 counties have only one DMV office and 10 of those have only mobile units making occasional visits. Five counties have no DMV office. As a result, costs to voters vary widely by location. In Wake County, with multiple DMV locations and more robust public transportation, we calculated median drive times at under five minutes. In suburban Randolph County—with just one DMV location, that median time more than doubled. Rural voters, whose counties have fewer or no DMV locations, minimal or non-existent public transportation, and higher proportions of voters without ID, will bear the highest costs associated with photo ID. Our calculations for the time to gather documents, get to a DMV, and wait at the DMV, when multiplied by the estimated 400,000 voters lacking the requisite ID under the previous law, put the total time burden for gathering documents and travel time in a range that at its upper end was nearly one million hours. In total, we calculated the range of the economic burden on North Carolina citizens without ID at $4.8 to$7.2 million using the minimum wage—and as high as $9 million using the still modest living wage. We then added estimates of the cost to the state of administering a voter ID requirement, which brought the total cost of the requirement to a range of$13.4 to $17.2 million. If this estimate is extended on a per capita basis across the country, then we can say that if every state imposed a strict voter ID requirement like the one in North Carolina, the total cost would be between$426 and $548 million. And this cost would disproportionately be borne by the most vulnerable members of society. Of course, not everyone who lacks an ID will get one. Indeed, due to the costs, some of those individuals will be deterred from voting. The deterrence of legal voters from voting in elections is a distinct cost that is imposed upon all of us by the weakening of our democratic system. In that sense, the cost of actually getting a voter ID is a minimal estimate of the cost of voter ID laws because it does not include the broader social costs. The other aspect of voter ID laws that is commonly debated—the prevention of voter fraud—is the purported benefit of such requirements. But studies have repeatedly documented that such fraud is rare. One cannot help but conclude that in passing voter ID laws, we are imposing millions of dollars in costs on those who can least afford them, and thus are damaging democracy, all in search of a benefit that is at best extremely questionable

The Costs of Voter ID Requirements

Debates over voter identification laws tend to focus on two impacts of such laws. The first is whether requiring a voter ID deters voter fraud. The second is whether the existence of such a requirement deters legitimate voters from casting ballots in elections. But there is a third impact that has received less attention: the cost of obtaining an ID. Individuals bearing these costs are disproportionately likely to be either young or old or impoverished or both, since these are the people least likely to have a driver’s license that could satisfy the law. In a recent paper, we used two techniques that have never been used before in debates over voter ID to assess the costs of a particular voter ID law in North Carolina. The first technique takes advantage of burden estimates that federal agencies have made under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Whenever agencies wish to collect information from 10 or more people, they must estimate the burden of that collection. Numerous federal collections approximate the requirement of getting an ID—passports, social security cards, and other documents—and hence their approvals have required estimates of the burden of obtaining such IDs. The second technique we used was simply a mapping tool called ArcGIS, which allowed us to calculate average distances between people’s homes and the nearest place for them to secure an ID. We did this to obtain average travel times across the state of North Carolina and also to look more closely at three counties in particular—Wake, Randolph, and Swain Counties. North Carolina first passed a voter ID law in 2013. It was one of the strictest in the nation. We were asked to assess the burden of this law as part of a lawsuit seeking to overturn the law, and our estimates are based on the earliest version of the North Carolina voter ID requirement. A federal appeals court struck down the requirement in 2016. This year, however, in a referendum, North Carolina voters approved a requirement that the voters show ID at the polls. The burden of getting the required identification to vote can be broken into three categories: the time to gather the necessary supporting documentation; the time to drive or walk to the nearest DMV office (this may be a burden for the person seeking the ID and a person to drive them); and the wait time at the DMV. To convert these durations into a monetary estimate, we multiplied the sum of these times by an estimate of both the minimum wage and the living wage in North Carolina. Seventy of North Carolina’s 100 counties have only one DMV office and 10 of those have only mobile units making occasional visits. Five counties have no DMV office. As a result, costs to voters vary widely by location. In Wake County, with multiple DMV locations and more robust public transportation, we calculated median drive times at under five minutes. In suburban Randolph County—with just one DMV location, that median time more than doubled. Rural voters, whose counties have fewer or no DMV locations, minimal or non-existent public transportation, and higher proportions of voters without ID, will bear the highest costs associated with photo ID. Our calculations for the time to gather documents, get to a DMV, and wait at the DMV, when multiplied by the estimated 400,000 voters lacking the requisite ID under the previous law, put the total time burden for gathering documents and travel time in a range that at its upper end was nearly one million hours. In total, we calculated the range of the economic burden on North Carolina citizens without ID at $4.8 to$7.2 million using the minimum wage—and as high as $9 million using the still modest living wage. We then added estimates of the cost to the state of administering a voter ID requirement, which brought the total cost of the requirement to a range of$13.4 to $17.2 million. If this estimate is extended on a per capita basis across the country, then we can say that if every state imposed a strict voter ID requirement like the one in North Carolina, the total cost would be between$426 and $548 million. And this cost would disproportionately be borne by the most vulnerable members of society. Of course, not everyone who lacks an ID will get one. Indeed, due to the costs, some of those individuals will be deterred from voting. The deterrence of legal voters from voting in elections is a distinct cost that is imposed upon all of us by the weakening of our democratic system. In that sense, the cost of actually getting a voter ID is a minimal estimate of the cost of voter ID laws because it does not include the broader social costs. The other aspect of voter ID laws that is commonly debated—the prevention of voter fraud—is the purported benefit of such requirements. But studies have repeatedly documented that such fraud is rare. One cannot help but conclude that in passing voter ID laws, we are imposing millions of dollars in costs on those who can least afford them, and thus are damaging democracy, all in search of a benefit that is at best extremely questionable

PCSK9 Association With Lipoprotein(a)

RATIONALE: Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a highly atherogenic low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-like particle characterized by the presence of apoprotein(a) [apo(a)] bound to apolipoprotein B (apoB). Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin type 9 (PCSK9) selectively binds LDL, we hypothesized that it can also be associated with Lp(a) in plasma. OBJECTIVE: Characterize the association of PCSK9 and Lp(a) in 39 subjects with high Lp(a) levels (range 39-320 mg/dl) and in transgenic mice expressing either human apo(a) only or human Lp(a) (via co-expression of human apo(a) and human apoB). METHODS AND RESULTS: We show that PCSK9 is physically associated with Lp(a) in vivo using three different approaches: (i) Analysis of Lp(a) fractions isolated by ultracentrifugation; (ii) Immunoprecipitation of plasma using antibodies to PCSK9 and immunodetection of apo(a); (iii) ELISA quantification of Lp(a)-associated PCSK9. Plasma PCSK9 levels correlated with Lp(a) levels, but not with the number of kringle IV-2 repeats. PCSK9 did not bind to apo(a) only and the association of PCSK9 with Lp(a) was not affected by the loss of the apo(a) region responsible for binding oxidized phospholipids. Preferential association of PCSK9 with Lp(a) vs. LDL (1.7-fold increase) was seen in subjects with high Lp(a) and normal LDL. Finally, Lp(a)-associated PCSK9 levels directly correlated with plasma Lp(a) levels but not with total plasma PCSK9 levels. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show, for the first time, that plasma PCSK9 is found in association with Lp(a) particles in humans with high Lp(a) levels and in mice carrying human Lp(a). Lp(a)-bound PCSK9 may be pursued as a biomarker for cardiovascular risk

PCSK9 Association With Lipoprotein(a)

International audienc