Analysis of the Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) training and identity needs in the United States: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) is the highest attainable degree in the field of public health, specifically designed to prepare professionals to address complex public health challenges in practical settings. This study was designed to explore the importance of achieving a shared and uniform understanding of DrPH education, assess the optimal direction for DrPH training, and investigate the specific curriculum requirements by gathering insights from current DrPH students and alumni in the United States. METHODS: A total of 13 focus group discussions and two in-depth interviews (total participants: 50) were conducted through Zoom to see how DrPH students and alumni assessed their DrPH educational programs. RESULTS: Three overarching findings emerged from the analysis of focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. First, participants expressed a preference against a national DrPH board examination, but advocated for a standardized common core curriculum that extends across the entire nation. Second, the ideal direction for DrPH training was perceived to involve a practice-based approach, emphasizing the importance of multi-, inter-, and trans-disciplinary instruction delivered by faculty with practical experience. Last, there was a demand for a DrPH-specific unique curriculum encompassing areas such as mixed method analysis, leadership and management, applied communication, crisis and change management, proficiency in addressing contemporary topics, and tailored applied and integrative learning requirements specific to the DrPH program. CONCLUSIONS: We explored a range of DrPH training and identity needs among 50 participants, comprised of students and alumni who directly benefit from DrPH education. By considering these inputs, individuals from institutions that offer the DrPH degree can further enhance the quality of public health practice training and make significant contributions to the overall advancement of the field of public health.

Perspectives on the Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) education among students and alumni in the United States: a cross-sectional national online survey.

BACKGROUND: This study explored the current and desired identity of the DrPH degree, focusing on whether the competencies set by the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) adequately prepare DrPH graduates for effective public health practice. Additionally, the study investigated the necessity of standardization in DrPH training, referring to a consensus-driven approach that equips future public health practitioners with practical skillsets applicable in real-world scenarios. METHODS: A national cross-sectional online survey titled "National DrPH leaders & practitioners needs assessment" was conducted from November 2020 to February 2021. The survey was based on a self-report by DrPH students and DrPH professionals, consisting of the following two main components: (1) how their DrPH training aligns with CEPH competencies and (2) how they perceive the identity of the DrPH degree. Convenience sampling was used to collect the data, which may have limited representation for all DrPH institutions in the United States. RESULTS: A total of 222 participants (140 current DrPH students and 82 alumni) completed the survey. The mean of the 10-point Likert scale for the degree to which the DrPH training aligns with 26 CEPH competencies (1: not at all - 10: absolutely) ranged from 6.3 (SD: 2.78) to 7.96 (SD: 2.16). The majority of participants (191/222, 86.04%) were satisfied with the knowledge and skills reflected in their training based on the CEPH competencies. However, more than half of the participants (117/222, 52.70%) sought additional professional development/training outside their institutions. DrPH leaders and practitioners faced barriers where the value of their work might not be fully recognized and endorsed. Participants indicated that the DrPH education should be further distinguished from the PhD education. CONCLUSIONS: The DrPH degree holds significant value within the academic sphere of public health practice in the United States. However, its distinction from PhD programs poses a challenge for employers and organizations in the field, requiring attention from higher education programs. By solidifying the DrPH's identity, graduates can effectively address diverse public health issues and contribute to creating a safe and healthy environment, including addressing the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Accurate long-term prediction of death for patients with cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cirrhosis is a major cause of death and is associated with extensive health care use. Patients with cirrhosis have complex treatment choices due to risks of morbidity and mortality. To optimally counsel and treat patients with cirrhosis requires tools to predict their longer-term liver-related survival. We sought to develop and validate a risk score to predict longer-term survival of patients with cirrhosis. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with cirrhosis with no major life-limiting comorbidities. Adults with cirrhosis within the Veterans Health Administration were used for model training and internal validation, and external validation used the OneFlorida Clinical Research Consortium. We used four model-building approaches including variables predictive of cirrhosis-related mortality, focused on discrimination at key time points (1, 3, 5, and 10 years). Among 30,263 patients with cirrhosis ≤75 years old without major life-limiting comorbidities and complete laboratory data during the baseline period, the boosted survival tree models had the highest discrimination, with 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year survival rates of 0.77, 0.81, 0.84, and 0.88, respectively. The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year discrimination was nearly identical in external validation. Secondary analyses with imputation of missing data and subgroups by etiology of liver disease had similar results to the primary model. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated (internally and externally) a risk score to predict longer-term survival of patients with cirrhosis. This score would transform management of patients with cirrhosis in terms of referral to specialty care and treatment decision-making for non-liver-related care.

Eastern European and Asian-born populations are prone to gastric cancer: an epidemiologic analysis of foreign-born populations and gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: The highest incidence of gastric cancer is in East Asia, corresponding to a high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), yet other regions with a similarly high prevalence of H. pylori have lower cancer rates. Foreign-born persons who immigrate to the United States are thought to remain at high-risk for gastric cancer, but this has not been confirmed by large population-based studies. METHODS: We evaluated total and foreign-born populations in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). Cardia and non-cardia gastric adenocarcinomas diagnosed between 2006 and 2016 were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Generalized linear regression models determined whether the incidence of gastric cancer in each MSA was associated with specific foreign-born populations. RESULTS: Among 32 MSAs, we identified 55,937 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma. A greater percentage of Eastern European-born individuals in an MSA was associated with a higher incidence of cardia cancers (coefficient 1.32, P=0.02). Evaluating Asian-born populations alone, a greater percentage of Japanese-born individuals was associated with a higher incidence of non-cardia cancers (coefficient 2.48, P=0.03), whereas Korean or Chinese origin was not associated with a significantly higher risk. CONCLUSIONS: On a population level, a greater percentage of Eastern European-born individuals is associated with a higher incidence of cardia gastric adenocarcinomas. Among Asian-born individuals, Korean or Chinese origin was not associated with a significantly higher risk, but a greater percent of persons born in other Asian countries, including Japan, was associated with a higher incidence of non-cardia gastric adenocarcinomas in an MSA.

Development and Validation of a Model to Predict Long-Term Survival After Liver Transplantation.

Patients are prioritized for liver transplantation (LT) under an "urgency-based" system using the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score. This system focuses solely on waitlist mortality, without considerations of posttransplant morbidity, mortality, and health care use. We sought to develop and internally validate a continuous posttransplant risk score during 5-year and 10-year time horizons. This retrospective cohort study used national registry data of adult deceased donor LT (DDLT) recipients with ≥90 days of pretransplant waiting time from February 27, 2002 to December 31, 2018. We fit Cox regression models at 5 and 10 years to estimate beta coefficients for a risk score using manual variable selection and calculated the absolute predicted survival time. Among 21,103 adult DDLT recipients, 11 variables were selected for the final model. The area under the curves at 5 and 10 years were 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.66) and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.64-0.70), respectively. The group with the highest ("best") scores had 5-year and 10-year survivals of 89.4% and 85.4%, respectively, compared with 45.9% and 22.2% for those with the lowest ("worst") scores. Our score was significantly better at predicting long-term survival compared with the existing scores. We developed and validated a risk score using nearly 17 years of data to prioritize patients with end-stage liver disease based on projected posttransplant survival. This score can serve as the building block by which the transplant field can change the entire approach to prioritizing patients to an approach that is based on considerations of maximizing benefits (ie, survival benefit-based allocation) rather than simply waitlist mortality.

Predicting survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma using the LiTES-HCC score.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Liver transplant priority in the US and Europe follows the 'sickest-first' principle. However, for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), priority is based on binary tumor criteria to expedite transplant for patients with 'acceptable' post-transplant outcomes. Newer risk scores developed to overcome limitations of these binary criteria are insufficient to be used for waitlist priority as they focus solely on HCC-related pre-transplant variables. We sought to develop a risk score to predict post-transplant survival for patients using HCC- and non-HCC-related variables. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using national registry data on adult deceased-donor liver transplant (DDLT) recipients with HCC from 2/27/02-12/31/18. We fit Cox regression models focused on 5- and 10-year survival to estimate beta coefficients for a risk score using manual variable selection. We then calculated absolute predicted survival time and compared it to available risk scores. RESULTS: Among 6,502 adult DDLT recipients with HCC, 11 variables were selected in the final model. The AUCs at 5- and 10-years were: 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.67 and 0.65, 95% CI 0.58-0.72, which was not statistically significantly different to the Metroticket and HALT-HCC scores. The LiTES-HCC score was able to discriminate patients based on post-transplant survival among those meeting Milan and UCSF criteria. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated a risk score to predict post-transplant survival for patients with HCC. By including HCC- and non-HCC-related variables (e.g., age, chronic kidney disease), this score could allow transplant professionals to prioritize patients with HCC in terms of predicted survival. In the future, this score could be integrated into survival benefit-based models to lead to meaningful improvements in life-years at the population level. LAY SUMMARY: We created a risk score to predict how long patients with liver cancer will live if they get a liver transplant. In the future, this could be used to decide which waitlisted patients should get the next transplant.

Race, Education, and Gender Disparities in Transplantation of Kidneys From Hepatitis C Viremic Donors.

BACKGROUND: Transplantation of kidneys from hepatitis C virus (HCV)-viremic donors into HCV-negative patients followed by direct-acting antiviral therapy was an important breakthrough to increase the number of life-saving kidney transplants. Data suggest that these transplants offer several benefits; however, it is unknown whether adoption of this practice has been shared equitably, especially among disadvantaged groups. METHODS: We evaluated United Network for Organ Sharing data on HCV-seronegative adult deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients from January 1, 2017, to June 12, 2020. We compared recipients of a kidney from an HCV antibody- (Ab-)/nucleic acid test- (NAT-), HCV Ab+/NAT-, and HCV NAT+ donor. The primary covariates were as follows: (1) race/ethnicity; (2) female sex; and (3) highest level of education. Models included variables associated with being offered an HCV NAT+ kidney. We fit mixed-effects multinomial logistic regression models with the center as a random effect to account for patient clustering. RESULTS: Of 48 255 adult kidney-alone deceased-donor kidney transplant HCV-seronegative recipients, 1641 (3.4%) donors were HCV NAT+-, increasing from 0.3% (January 2017-June 2017) to 6.9% (January 2020-June 2020). In multivariable models, racial/ethnic minorities, women, and those with less education were significantly less likely to receive a kidney from an HCV NAT+ donor relative to an HCV Ab-/NAT- and HCV Ab+/NAT- donor. The disparities were most pronounced among Hispanic and Asian patients with less educational attainment (grade school, high school, or some college/tech school). CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in transplants from HCV NAT+ donors, we found substantial racial/ethnic disparities in transplantation of these kidneys. These data highlight how the benefits of a scientific breakthrough are often made less available to disadvantaged patients.

Rapid improvement in organ procurement organization performance: Potential for change and impact of new leadership.

Recently proposed rulemaking from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would change how organ procurement organizations (OPOs) are evaluated. The proposals include using national inpatient death data to define a standardized denominator to calculate comparable donation rates among OPOs. Based on these objective metrics, OPOs not performing at a prespecified threshold will be required to rapidly improve performance to avoid decertification. We sought to determine whether rapid OPO improvement was possible based on objective donation metrics, and whether leadership change was associated with rapid improvement. We evaluated United Network for Organ Sharing and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data from 2011 to 2018, and measured donation rates using CDC data on inpatient deaths from causes consistent with donation, based on the location of deaths. During the two 4-year cycles, we found that an OPO's ranking relative to other OPOs was fairly static, with more than 90% of the OPOs at risk of flagging at the end of each 4-year cycle (2014, 2018) being in the bottom 75% of OPOs in the preceding 3 years. In multivariable logistic regression models, leadership changes were only statistically significantly associated with an improvement in OPO rankings during the 2011-2014 cycle. These data demonstrate that rapid improvements in OPO performance are uncommon, and while leadership changes increase the odds of rapid improvement, they do not guarantee improvement.

Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells Ameliorate Aging Frailty: A Phase II Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Aging frailty, characterized by decreased physical and immunological functioning, is associated with stem cell depletion. Human allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells (allo-hMSCs) exert immunomodulatory effects and promote tissue repair. METHODS: This is a randomized, double-blinded, dose-finding study of intravenous allo-hMSCs (100 or 200-million [M]) vs placebo delivered to patients (n = 30, mean age 75.5 ± 7.3) with frailty. The primary endpoint was incidence of treatment-emergent serious adverse events (TE-SAEs) at 1-month postinfusion. Secondary endpoints included physical performance, patient-reported outcomes, and immune markers of frailty measured at 6 months postinfusion. RESULTS: No therapy-related TE-SAEs occurred at 1 month. Physical performance improved preferentially in the 100M-group; immunologic improvement occurred in both the 100M- and 200M-groups. The 6-minute walk test, short physical performance exam, and forced expiratory volume in 1 second improved in the 100M-group (p = .01), not in the 200M- or placebo groups. The female sexual quality of life questionnaire improved in the 100M-group (p = .03). Serum TNF-α levels decreased in the 100M-group (p = .03). B cell intracellular TNF-α improved in both the 100M- (p < .0001) and 200M-groups (p = .002) as well as between groups compared to placebo (p = .003 and p = .039, respectively). Early and late activated T-cells were also reduced by MSC therapy. CONCLUSION: Intravenous allo-hMSCs were safe in individuals with aging frailty. Treated groups had remarkable improvements in physical performance measures and inflammatory biomarkers, both of which characterize the frailty syndrome. Given the excellent safety and efficacy profiles demonstrated in this study, larger clinical trials are warranted to establish the efficacy of hMSCs in this multisystem disorder. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov: CRATUS (#NCT02065245).

Dose Comparison Study of Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy (The TRIDENT Study).

RATIONALE: Cell dose and concentration play crucial roles in phenotypic responses to cell-based therapy for heart failure. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of 2 doses of allogeneic bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stem cells identically delivered in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy received in a blinded manner either 20 million (n=15) or 100 million (n=15) allogeneic human mesenchymal stem cells via transendocardial injection (0.5 cc per injection × 10 injections per patient). Patients were followed for 12 months for safety and efficacy end points. There were no treatment-emergent serious adverse events at 30 days or treatment-related serious adverse events at 12 months. The Major Adverse Cardiac Event rate was 20.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.9% to 50.0%) in 20 million and 13.3% (95% CI, 3.5% to 43.6%) in 100 million (P=0.58). Worsening heart failure rehospitalization was 20.0% (95% CI, 6.9% to 50.0%) in 20 million and 7.1% (95% CI, 1.0% to 40.9%) in 100 million (P=0.27). Whereas scar size reduced to a similar degree in both groups: 20 million by -6.4 g (interquartile range, -13.5 to -3.4 g; P=0.001) and 100 million by -6.1 g (interquartile range, -8.1 to -4.6 g; P=0.0002), the ejection fraction improved only with 100 million by 3.7 U (interquartile range, 1.1 to 6.1; P=0.04). New York Heart Association class improved at 12 months in 35.7% (95% CI, 12.7% to 64.9%) in 20 million and 42.9% (95% CI, 17.7% to 71.1%) in 100 million. Importantly, proBNP (pro-brain natriuretic peptide) increased at 12 months in 20 million by 0.32 log pg/mL (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.62; P=0.039), but not in 100 million (-0.07 log pg/mL; 95% CI, -0.36 to 0.23; P=0.65; between group P=0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Although both cell doses reduced scar size, only the 100 million dose increased ejection fraction. This study highlights the crucial role of cell dose in the responses to cell therapy. Determining optimal dose and delivery is essential to advance the field, decipher mechanism(s) of action and enhance planning of pivotal Phase III trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02013674.

Allogeneic Human Mesenchymal Stem Cell Infusions for Aging Frailty.

BACKGROUND: Impaired endogenous stem cell repair capacity is hypothesized to be a biologic basis of frailty. Therapies that restore regenerative capacity may therefore be beneficial. This Phase 1 study evaluated the safety and potential efficacy of intravenous, allogeneic, human mesenchymal stem cell (allo-hMSC)-based therapy in patients with aging frailty. METHODS: In this nonrandomized, dose-escalation study, patients received a single intravenous infusion of allo-hMSCs: 20-million (n = 5), 100-million (n = 5), or 200-million cells (n = 5). The primary endpoint was incidence of any treatment-emergent serious adverse events measured at 1 month postinfusion. The secondary endpoints were functional efficacy domains and inflammatory biomarkers, measured at 3 and 6 months, respectively. RESULTS: There were no treatment-emergent serious adverse events at 1-month postinfusion or significant donor-specific immune reactions during the first 6 months. There was one death at 258 days postinfusion in the 200-million group. In all treatment groups, 6-minute walk distance increased at 3 months (p = .02) and 6 months (p = .001) and TNF-α levels decreased at 6 months (p < .0001). Overall, the 100-million dose showed the best improvement in all parameters, with the exception of TNF-α, which showed an improvement in both the 100- and 200-million groups (p = .0001 and p = .0001, respectively). The 100-million cell-dose group also showed significant improvements in the physical component of the SF-36 quality of life assessment at all time points relative to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Allo-hMSCs are safe and immunologically tolerated in aging frailty patients. Improvements in functional and immunologic status suggest that ongoing clinical development of cell-based therapy is warranted for frailty.

Randomized Comparison of Allogeneic Versus Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Nonischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy: POSEIDON-DCM Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) have been tested in ischemic cardiomyopathy, few studies exist in chronic nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM). OBJECTIVES: The authors conducted a randomized comparison of safety and efficacy of autologous (auto) versus allogeneic (allo) bone marrow-derived hMSCs in NIDCM. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients were randomized to either allo- or auto-hMSCs in a 1:1 ratio. Patients were recruited between December 2011 and July 2015 at the University of Miami Hospital. Patients received hMSCs (100 million) by transendocardial stem cell injection in 10 left ventricular sites. Treated patients were evaluated at baseline, 30 days, and 3-, 6-, and 12-months for safety (serious adverse events [SAE]), and efficacy endpoints: ejection fraction, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, 6-min walk test, major adverse cardiac events, and immune biomarkers. RESULTS: There were no 30-day treatment-emergent SAEs. Twelve-month SAE incidence was 28.2% with allo-hMSCs versus 63.5% with auto-hMSCs (p = 0.1004 for the comparison). One allo-hMSC patient developed an elevated (>80) donor-specific calculated panel reactive antibody level. The ejection fraction increased in allo-hMSC patients by 8.0 percentage points (p = 0.004) compared with 5.4 with auto-hMSCs (p = 0.116; allo vs. auto p = 0.4887). The 6-min walk test increased with allo-hMSCs by 37.0 m (p = 0.04), but not auto-hMSCs at 7.3 m (p = 0.71; auto vs. allo p = 0.0168). MLHFQ score decreased in allo-hMSC (p = 0.0022) and auto-hMSC patients (p = 0.463; auto vs. allo p = 0.172). The major adverse cardiac event rate was lower, too, in the allo group (p = 0.0186 vs. auto). Tumor necrosis factor-α decreased (p = 0.0001 for each), to a greater extent with allo-hMSCs versus auto-hMSCs at 6 months (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrated safety and clinically meaningful efficacy of allo-hMSC versus auto-hMSC in NIDCM patients. Pivotal trials of allo-hMSCs are warranted based on these results. (Percutaneous Stem Cell Injection Delivery Effects on Neomyogenesis in Dilated Cardiomyopathy [PoseidonDCM]; NCT01392625).

Transendocardial mesenchymal stem cells and mononuclear bone marrow cells for ischemic cardiomyopathy: the TAC-HFT randomized trial.

IMPORTANCE: Whether culture-expanded mesenchymal stem cells or whole bone marrow mononuclear cells are safe and effective in chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the safety of transendocardial stem cell injection with autologous mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMCs) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A phase 1 and 2 randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled study involving 65 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction less than 50% (September 1, 2009-July 12, 2013). The study compared injection of MSCs (n=19) with placebo (n = 11) and BMCs (n = 19) with placebo (n = 10), with 1 year of follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Injections in 10 LV sites with an infusion catheter. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Treatment-emergent 30-day serious adverse event rate defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for worsening heart failure, perforation, tamponade, or sustained ventricular arrhythmias. RESULTS: No patient had a treatment-emergent serious adverse events at day 30. The 1-year incidence of serious adverse events was 31.6% (95% CI, 12.6% to 56.6%) for MSCs, 31.6% (95% CI, 12.6%-56.6%) for BMCs, and 38.1% (95% CI, 18.1%-61.6%) for placebo. Over 1 year, the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure score improved with MSCs (-6.3; 95% CI, -15.0 to 2.4; repeated measures of variance, P=.02) and with BMCs (-8.2; 95% CI, -17.4 to 0.97; P=.005) but not with placebo (0.4; 95% CI, -9.45 to 10.25; P=.38). The 6-minute walk distance increased with MSCs only (repeated measures model, P = .03). Infarct size as a percentage of LV mass was reduced by MSCs (-18.9%; 95% CI, -30.4 to -7.4; within-group, P = .004) but not by BMCs (-7.0%; 95% CI, -15.7% to 1.7%; within-group, P = .11) or placebo (-5.2%; 95% CI, -16.8% to 6.5%; within-group, P = .36). Regional myocardial function as peak Eulerian circumferential strain at the site of injection improved with MSCs (-4.9; 95% CI, -13.3 to 3.5; within-group repeated measures, P = .03) but not BMCs (-2.1; 95% CI, -5.5 to 1.3; P = .21) or placebo (-0.03; 95% CI, -1.9 to 1.9; P = .14). Left ventricular chamber volume and ejection fraction did not change. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Transendocardial stem cell injection with MSCs or BMCs appeared to be safe for patients with chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy and LV dysfunction. Although the sample size and multiple comparisons preclude a definitive statement about safety and clinical effect, these results provide the basis for larger studies to provide definitive evidence about safety and to assess efficacy of this new therapeutic approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00768066.