Primary Care as a Protective Factor: A Vision to Transform Health Care Delivery and Overcome Disparities in Health

A large body of research demonstrates that experiences of trauma, especially when they occur in the absence of safe, stable, nurturing relationships (SSNRs) and environments— known as protective factors— interrupt healthy development and predispose both children and adults to the most common causes of physical and mental illness and early death.1,2 Because minoritized and low-income populations are exposed to more trauma and have access to fewer protective factors, they experience higher rates of trauma-related health and social problems and severe disparities in health.1–4 Primary care clinicians increasingly recognize the role that trauma plays in the health and well-being of their patients. Many nonetheless feel they lack the knowledge, skills, resources, and time to effectively address the causes and consequences of trauma. There also is little recognition that primary care, itself, can be a protective factor

Immunomodulatory responses of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from multiple sclerosis patients upon in vitro incubation with the flavonoid luteolin: additive effects of IFN-β

The study is aimed to determine the role of luteolin (3',4',5,7-tetrahydroxyflavone), alone and in combination with human interferon-beta (IFN-β), in modulating the immune response(s) of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) isolated from multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. PBMC proliferation in the presence or absence of these drugs was determined and the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, TNF-α), and the ratio of cell migration mediator MMP-9, and its inhibitor, TIMP-1 was assessed in the culture supernatants. Luteolin reduced, in a dose-dependent manner, the proliferation of PBMCs, and modulated the levels of IL-1β and TNF-α released by PBMCs in the culture supernatants. Luteolin reduced the MMP-9/TIMP-1 ratio via lowering MMP-9 production. In the majority of cases, luteolin, when combined with IFN-β, had additive effects in modulating cell proliferation, IL-1β, TNF-α, MMP-9 and TIMP-1

Including the infant in family therapy and systemic practice: charting a new frontier

This position paper from a core group of infant mental health academics and clinicians addresses the conspicuous underrepresentation of the infant in mainstream family therapy. Despite infants' social capacities and clear contributions to family dynamics, they remain largely overlooked within this therapeutic context. We suggest that family therapists have moral and professional responsibilities to support the participation, protection, and well-being of all family members, including the infant. Here, we emphasise the importance of including the infant in the family therapy setting. By highlighting their frequent omission, we aim to amplify infants' often unheard ‘voice,’ role, and contributions to family development, especially recovery from distress. A shift towards infant inclusion as the rule rather than the exception represents a new frontier of integration. We first highlight the relational nature of infant development with a focus on the infants' psychosocial capacities and vulnerabilities. We then consider reasons why the infant may be overlooked in family and systemic therapies and offer a rationale for inviting the infant into these settings, illustrated through the use of a clinical case vignette. To facilitate infant inclusion, we propose a series of guidelines to meaningfully incorporate infants into family therapy practices. We conclude by encouraging shifts in family therapy research, training, and practice to better incorporate and understand the unique contributions of the infant to family life

Adversity in early life and pregnancy are immunologically distinct from total life adversity: macrophage-associated phenotypes in women exposed to interpersonal violence

Early childhood and pregnancy are two sensitive periods of heightened immune plasticity, when exposure to adversity may disproportionately increase health risks. However, we need deeper phenotyping to disentangle the impact of adversity during sensitive periods from that across the total lifespan. This study examined whether retrospective reports of adversity during childhood or pregnancy were associated with inflammatory imbalance, in an ethnically diverse cohort of 53 low-income women seeking family-based trauma treatment following exposure to interpersonal violence. Structured interviews assessed early life adversity (trauma exposure ≤ age 5), pregnancy adversity, and total lifetime adversity. Blood serum was assayed for pro-inflammatory (TNF-a, IL-1ß, IL-6, and CRP) and anti-inflammatory (IL-1RA, IL-4, and IL-10) cytokines. CD14+ monocytes were isolated in a subsample (n = 42) and gene expression assayed by RNA sequencing (Illumina HiSeq 4000; TruSeq cDNA library). The primary outcome was a macrophage-associated M1/M2 gene expression phenotype. To evaluate sensitivity and specificity, we contrasted M1/M2 gene expression with a second, clinically-validated macrophage-associated immunosuppressive phenotype (endotoxin tolerance) and with pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokine levels. Adjusting for demographics, socioeconomic status, and psychopathology, higher adversity in early life (ß = .337, p = 0.029) and pregnancy (ß = .332, p = 0.032) were each associated with higher M1/M2 gene expression, whereas higher lifetime adversity (ß = −.341, p = 0.031) was associated with lower immunosuppressive gene expression. Adversity during sensitive periods was uniquely associated with M1/M2 imbalance, among low-income women with interpersonal violence exposure. Given that M1/M2 imbalance is found in sepsis, severe COVID-19 and myriad chronic diseases, these findings implicate novel immune mechanisms underlying the impact of adversity on health.publishedVersio

The COVID-19 pandemic and maternal mental health in a fragile and conflict-affected setting: A cohort study in Tumaco, Colombia

Background: The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health have been understudied among vulnerable populations, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected settings. We aimed to analyse how the pandemic is related to early changes in mental health and parenting stress among caregivers, many of whom are internally displaced persons (IDP), in a conflict-affected setting in Colombia. Methods: For this cohort study, we used longitudinal data from a psychosocial support programme in which 1376 caregivers were randomly assigned across four sequential cohorts. Recruitment of participants took place in March, 2018, for cohort 1; July, 2018, for cohort 2; March, 2019, for cohort 3; and July, 2019, for cohort 4. Participants completed assessments at baseline, 1-month, and 8-month follow-ups. The 8-month assessment occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic for participants in cohorts 1 and 2 (n=573), whereas those in cohorts 3 and 4 (n=803) were assessed during the early stages of the pandemic, 2–5 weeks after the national lockdown began on March 25, 2020. Primary caregiver anxiety and depression were measured with a scale adapted from the Symptoms Checklist-90-Revised and parenting stress was measured with the short form of the Parenting Stress Index. We estimated how mental health changed by comparing prepandemic and postpandemic 8-month outcomes using lagged-dependent variable models. Findings: Results showed that the likelihood of reporting symptoms above the risk threshold increased by 14 percentage points for anxiety (95% CI 10–17), 5 percentage points for depression (0·5–9), and 10 percentage points for parental stress (5–15). The deterioration in mental health was stronger for IDP, participants with lower education or pre-existing mental health conditions, and for those reporting a higher number of stressors, including food insecurity and job loss. Interpretation: Maternal mental health significantly worsened during the early stages of the pandemic. Considering the vulnerability and pre-existing mental health conditions of this population, the estimated effects are substantial. Policies in fragile and conflict-affected settings targeting IDP and other vulnerable people will be important to mitigate further mental health and socioeconomic problems

Oral linezolid compared with benzathine penicillin G for treatment of early syphilis in adults (Trep-AB Study) in Spain : a prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

Background: Management of syphilis, a sexually transmitted infection (STI) with increasing incidence, is challenged by drug shortages, scarcity of randomised trial data, an absence of non-penicillin alternatives for pregnant women with penicillin allergy (other than desensitisation), extended parenteral administration for neurosyphilis and congenital syphilis, and macrolide resistance. Linezolid was shown to be active against Treponema pallidum, the causative agent of syphilis, in vitro and in the rabbit model. We aimed to assess the efficacy of linezolid for treating early syphilis in adults compared with the standard of care benzathine penicillin G (BPG). Methods: We did a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of linezolid for treating early syphilis compared with BPG. We recruited participants with serological or molecular confirmation of syphilis (either primary, secondary, or early latent) at one STI unit in a public hospital and two STI community clinics in Catalonia (Spain). Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated block randomisation list with six participants per block, to receive either oral linezolid (600 mg once per day for 5 days) or intramuscular BPG (single dose of 2·4 million international units) and were assessed for signs and symptoms (once per week until week 6 and at week 12, week 24, and week 48) and reagin titres of non-treponemal antibodies (week 12, week 24, and week 48). The primary endpoint was treatment response, assessed using a composite endpoint that included clinical response, serological response, and absence of relapse. Clinical response was assessed at 2 weeks for primary syphilis and at 6 weeks for secondary syphilis following treatment initiation. Serological cure was defined as a four-fold decline in rapid plasma reagin titre or seroreversion at any of the 12-week, 24-week, or 48-week timepoints. The absence of relapse was defined as the presence of different molecular sequence types of T pallidum in recurrent syphilis. Non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates of treatment response was higher than -10%. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05069974) and was stopped for futility after interim analysis. Findings: Between Oct 20, 2021, and Sept 15, 2022, 62 patients were assessed for eligibility, and 59 were randomly assigned to linezolid (n=29) or BPG (n=30). In the per-protocol population, after 48 weeks' follow-up, 19 (70%) of 27 participants (95% CI 49·8 to 86·2) in the linezolid group had responded to treatment and 28 (100%) of 28 participants (87·7 to 100·0) in the BPG group (treatment difference -29·6, 95% CI -50·5 to -8·8), which did not meet the non-inferiority criterion. The number of drug-related adverse events (all mild or moderate) was similar in both treatment groups (five [17%] of 29, 95% CI 5·8 to 35·8 in the linezolid group vs five [17%] of 30, 5·6 to 34·7, in the BPG group). No serious adverse events were reported during follow-up. Interpretation: The efficacy of linezolid at a daily dose of 600 mg for 5 days did not meet the non-inferiority criteria compared with BPG and, as a result, this treatment regimen should not be used to treat patients with early syphilis. Funding: European Research Council and Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias

Behavioral economic implementation strategies to improve serious illness communication between clinicians and high-risk patients with cancer: protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic trial

Background Serious illness conversations (SICs) are an evidence-based approach to eliciting patients’ values, goals, and care preferences that improve patient outcomes. However, most patients with cancer die without a documented SIC. Clinician-directed implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics (“nudges”) that identify high-risk patients have shown promise in increasing SIC documentation among clinicians. It is unknown whether patient-directed nudges that normalize and prime patients towards SIC completion—either alone or in combination with clinician nudges that additionally compare performance relative to peers—may improve on this approach. Our objective is to test the effect of clinician- and patient-directed nudges as implementation strategies for increasing SIC completion among patients with cancer. Methods We will conduct a 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized pragmatic trial to test the effect of nudges to clinicians, patients, or both, compared to usual care, on SIC completion. Participants will include 166 medical and gynecologic oncology clinicians practicing at ten sites within a large academic health system and their approximately 5500 patients at high risk of predicted 6-month mortality based on a validated machine-learning prognostic algorithm. Data will be obtained via the electronic medical record, clinician survey, and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and patients. The primary outcome will be time to SIC documentation among high-risk patients. Secondary outcomes will include time to SIC documentation among all patients (assessing spillover effects), palliative care referral among high-risk patients, and aggressive end-of-life care utilization (composite of chemotherapy within 14 days before death, hospitalization within 30 days before death, or admission to hospice within 3 days before death) among high-risk decedents. We will assess moderators of the effect of implementation strategies and conduct semi-structured interviews with a subset of clinicians and patients to assess contextual factors that shape the effectiveness of nudges with an eye towards health equity. Discussion This will be the first pragmatic trial to evaluate clinician- and patient-directed nudges to promote SIC completion for patients with cancer. We expect the study to yield insights into the effectiveness of clinician and patient nudges as implementation strategies to improve SIC rates, and to uncover multilevel contextual factors that drive response to these strategies. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04867850 . Registered on April 30, 2021. Funding National Cancer Institute P50CA24469

Rationale and protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to improve tobacco treatment rates for cancer patients who smoke

Background Routine evidence-based tobacco use treatment minimizes cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, reduces treatment-related toxicity, and improves quality of life among patients receiving cancer care. Few cancer centers employ mechanisms to systematically refer patients to evidence-based tobacco cessation services. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics can increase tobacco use treatment engagement within oncology care. Methods A four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial will be conducted across nine clinical sites within the Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control Implementation Lab to compare the effect of behavioral economic implementation strategies delivered through embedded messages (or “nudges”) promoting patient engagement with the Tobacco Use Treatment Service (TUTS). Nudges are electronic medical record (EMR)-based messages delivered to patients, clinicians, or both, designed to counteract known patient and clinician biases that reduce treatment engagement. We used rapid cycle approaches (RCA) informed by relevant stakeholder experiences to refine and optimize our implementation strategies and methods prior to trial initiation. Data will be obtained via the EMR, clinician survey, and semi-structured interviews with a subset of clinicians and patients. The primary measure of implementation is penetration, defined as the TUTS referral rate. Secondary outcome measures of implementation include patient treatment engagement (defined as the number of patients who receive FDA-approved medication or behavioral counseling), quit attempts, and abstinence rates. The semi-structured interviews, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, will assess contextual factors and patient and clinician experiences with the nudges. Discussion This study will be the first in the oncology setting to compare the effectiveness of nudges to clinicians and patients, both head-to-head and in combination, as implementation strategies to improve TUTS referral and engagement. We expect the study to (1) yield insights into the effectiveness of nudges as an implementation strategy to improve uptake of evidence-based tobacco use treatment within cancer care, and (2) advance our understanding of the multilevel contextual factors that drive response to these strategies. These results will lay the foundation for how patients with cancer who smoke are best engaged in tobacco use treatment and may lead to future research focused on scaling this approach across diverse centers. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04737031 . Registered 3 February 2021