Contribution of Genetic Background, Traditional Risk Factors, and HIV-Related Factors to Coronary Artery Disease Events in HIV-Positive Persons

We show in human immunodeficiency virus-positive persons that the coronary artery disease effect of an unfavorable genetic background is comparable to previous studies in the general population, and comparable in size to traditional risk factors and antiretroviral regimens known to increase cardiovascular ris

Buildout and integration of an automated high-throughput CLIA laboratory for SARS-CoV-2 testing on a large urban campus

In 2019, the first cases of SARS-CoV-2 were detected in Wuhan, China, and by early 2020 the first cases were identified in the United States. SARS-CoV-2 infections increased in the US causing many states to implement stay-at-home orders and additional safety precautions to mitigate potential outbreaks. As policies changed throughout the pandemic and restrictions lifted, there was an increase in demand for COVID-19 testing which was costly, difficult to obtain, or had long turn-around times. Some academic institutions, including Boston University (BU), created an on-campus COVID-19 screening protocol as part of a plan for the safe return of students, faculty, and staff to campus with the option for in-person classes. At BU, we put together an automated high-throughput clinical testing laboratory with the capacity to run 45,000 individual tests weekly by Fall of 2020, with a purpose-built clinical testing laboratory, a multiplexed reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) test, robotic instrumentation, and trained staff. There were many challenges including supply chain issues for personal protective equipment and testing materials in addition to equipment that were in high demand. The BU Clinical Testing Laboratory (CTL) was operational at the start of Fall 2020 and performed over 1 million SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests during the 2020-2021 academic year.Boston UniversityPublished versio

News Media Framing of Serious Mental Illness and Gun Violence in the United States, 1997-2012

exterior, entrance portal on street, 200

Effect of exposure to visual campaigns and narrative vignettes on addiction stigma among health care professionals: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Stigma toward people with opioid use disorder (OUD) is pervasive in clinical settings, impeding delivery of high-quality care. To date, no study has evaluated the effect of different stigma-reduction messages or messengers among health care professionals. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of OUD-related messages delivered by different messengers on stigma and attitudes toward people with OUD among health care professionals. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized clinical trial examined the effects of OUD-related messages delivered by a visual campaign alone or in combination with a written narrative vignette from the perspective of 1 of 3 messengers. Health care professionals in the US were recruited from 2 national online survey panels (Ipsos KnowledgePanel and SurveyHealthcareGlobus). A total of 1842 participants completed a web-based survey measuring stigma toward people with OUD from November 13 to 30, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Eight groups were exposed to 1 of 2 message frames. One frame (Words Matter) emphasized the harm of stigmatizing language, and the other (Medication Treatment Works) focused on the effectiveness of medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of OUD. Message frames were communicated through either a visual campaign alone or a visual campaign in combination with a written narrative vignette from the perspective of a simulated patient with OUD, a clinician, or a health care system administrator. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Dimensions of stigma toward people with OUD were measured on 5-point Likert scales that included items about desire for social distance from people with OUD, perception of individual blame for OUD, perspective of OUD as a medical condition, and support for increased governmental spending on OUD treatment. The level of warmth felt toward people with OUD was measured by a feeling thermometer (range, 0-100 points). RESULTS: Among 1842 participants, the mean (SD) age was 47 (13) years; 1324 participants (71.9%) were female, 145 (7.9%) were Hispanic, 140 (7.6%) were non-Hispanic Black, 1344 (73.0%) were non-Hispanic White, and 213 (11.6%) were of other non-Hispanic race (ie, individuals who did not self-report race as Black or White and did not self-report ethnicity as Hispanic). Compared with nonexposure, exposure to the combination of visual campaign and narrative vignette communicating the importance of nonstigmatizing language from the perspective of a patient with OUD was associated with a lower probability (difference, −16.8 percentage points, 95% CI, −26.1 to −7.4; P < .001) of unwillingness to have a person with OUD marry into the family (a measure of social distance preference) and a 7.2-point (95% CI, 3.2-11.1; P < .001) higher warmth rating. Participants exposed to the combined visual campaign and patient vignette about the value of medication treatment for OUD also had significantly lower levels of stigma compared with those in the nonexposed control group (eg, unwillingness to have a person with OUD as a neighbor: difference, −15.3 percentage points; 95% CI, −24.6 to −6.0; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, messages about nonstigmatizing language and effective medication for OUD reduced stigma among health care professionals. Stigma-reduction efforts targeting health care professionals may improve health care system capacity to serve people with OUD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0512770

Protocol: mixed-methods study to evaluate implementation, enforcement, and outcomes of U.S. state laws intended to curb high-risk opioid prescribing

Abstract Background The U.S. opioid epidemic has been driven by the high volume of opioids prescribed by healthcare providers. U.S. states have recently enacted four types of laws designed to curb high-risk prescribing practices, such as high-dose and long-term opioid prescribing, associated with opioid-related mortality: (1) mandatory Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP) enrollment laws, which require prescribers to enroll in their state’s PDMP, an electronic database of patients’ controlled substance prescriptions, (2) mandatory PDMP query laws, which require prescribers to query the PDMP prior to prescribing an opioid, (3) opioid prescribing cap laws, which limit the dose and/or duration of opioid prescriptions, and (4) pill mill laws, which strictly regulate pain clinics to prevent nonmedical opioid prescribing. Some pain experts have expressed concern that these laws could negatively affect pain management among patients with chronic non-cancer pain. This paper describes the protocol for a mixed-methods study analyzing the independent effects of these four types of laws on opioid prescribing patterns and chronic non-cancer pain treatment, accounting for variation in implementation and enforcement of laws across states. Methods Many states have enacted multiple opioid prescribing laws at or around the same time. To overcome this issue, our study focuses on 18 treatment states that each enacted a single law of interest, and no other potentially confounding laws, over a 4-year period (2 years pre-/post-law). Qualitative interviews with key leaders in each of the 18 treatment states will characterize the timing, scope, and strength of each state law’s implementation and enforcement. This information will inform the design and interpretation of synthetic control models analyzing the effects of each of the two types of laws on two sets of outcomes: measures of (1) high-risk opioid prescribing and (2) non-opioid treatments for chronic non-cancer pain. Discussion Study of mandatory PDMP enrollment, mandatory PDMP query, opioid prescribing cap, and pill mill laws is timely given a dynamic policy environment in which numerous states pass, revise, implement, and enforce varied laws to address opioid prescribing each year. Findings will inform enactment, implementation, and enforcement of these laws in additional states

Public Support for Policies to Increase Housing Stability During the COVID-19 Pandemic

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated longstanding housing precarity. This study measures the public support for policies designed to increase housing stability and gauges whether support levels are associated with views about the role of evictions in COVID-19 transmission and the existence of racial inequities in the housing market.MethodsA cross-sectional survey with a representative sample of U.S. adults in November 2020 assessed support for 4 housing policies. Logistic regression models estimated the adjusted levels of support for each policy, with separate models testing the association with whether or not a respondent recognized the role of evictions in increased COVID-19 transmission or acknowledged racial inequities in the housing market.ResultsMost U.S. adults supported policies aimed to increase housing stability during the COVID-19 pandemic, including extending moratoriums on evictions (63%) and foreclosures (67%) and increasing emergency rental assistance (63%). In total, 54% supported increased government spending on housing vouchers. Adults who agreed that averting eviction would slow COVID-19 transmission had higher support for housing stability policies, as did those who agreed that it was easier for White families to find affordable, high-quality housing than Black families.ConclusionsSupport for housing stability policies was strong among U.S. adults, particularly among those who agreed that preventing evictions slowed COVID-19 transmission and among those who acknowledged racial inequities in the housing market. Raising public awareness of the connections among unstable housing, infectious disease transmission, and racial inequity could broaden the support for policies to keep people in their homes through the pandemic