Advancing Global Health Surveillance of Mycotoxin Exposures using Minimally Invasive Sampling Techniques: A State-of-the-Science Review.

Mycotoxins are a heterogeneous group of toxins produced by fungi that can grow in staple crops (e.g., maize, cereals), resulting in health risks due to widespread exposure from human consumption and inhalation. Dried blood spot (DBS), dried serum spot (DSS), and volumetric tip microsampling (VTS) assays were developed and validated for several important mycotoxins. This review summarizes studies that have developed these assays to monitor mycotoxin exposures in human biological samples and highlights future directions to facilitate minimally invasive sampling techniques as global public health tools. A systematic search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase (Elsevier), and CINAHL (EBSCO) was conducted. Key assay performance metrics were extracted to provide a critical review of the available methods. This search identified 11 published reports related to measuring mycotoxins (ochratoxins, aflatoxins, and fumonisins) using DBS/DSS and VTS assays. Multimycotoxin assays adapted for DBS/DSS and VTS have undergone sufficient laboratory validation for applications in large-scale population health and human biomonitoring studies. Future work should expand the number of mycotoxins that can be measured in multimycotoxin assays, continue to improve multimycotoxin assay sensitivities of several biomarkers with low detection rates, and validate multimycotoxin assays across diverse populations with varying exposure levels. Validated low-cost and ultrasensitive minimally invasive sampling methods should be deployed in human biomonitoring and public health surveillance studies to guide policy interventions to reduce inequities in global mycotoxin exposures.

Process Evaluation of a Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of a Quadruple Ultra-Low-Dose Treatment for Hypertension Within a Federally Qualified Health Center Network (QUARTET USA).

BACKGROUND: This convergent parallel-design mixed-methods process evaluation of the QUARTET USA (Quadruple Ultra-Low-Dose Treatment for Hypertension USA) clinical trial (NCT03640312) explores patient and health care professional perceptions about the use of low-dose quadruple therapy (LDQT) as a novel strategy for hypertension management. METHODS AND RESULTS: A survey of all 62 patients enrolled in the QUARTET USA trial was conducted. A subsample of 13 patients and 11 health care professionals, recruited via purposive sampling, took part in semistructured interviews. At enrollment, 68% of participants (mean [SD] age, 51.7 [11.5] years; 56% self-identified as Hispanic: Mexican ethnicity, 16% as Hispanic: other ethnicity, 16% as Black race, 8% as White race, and 1.6% as South Asian race) reported that their current health depended on blood pressure medications, and 48% were concerned about blood pressure medications. At trial completion, 80% were satisfied with LDQT, 96% were certain the benefits of taking LDQT outweighed the disadvantages, and 96% reported that LDQT was convenient to take. Both patients and health care professionals found LDQT acceptable because it reduced patients' perceived pill burden and facilitated medication adherence. Health care professionals stated that a perceived limitation of LDQT was the inability to titrate doses. Steps to facilitate LDQT implementation include introducing stepped-care combinations and treatment protocols, inclusion in clinical practice guidelines, and eliminating patient cost barriers. CONCLUSIONS: LDQT was an acceptable strategy for hypertension treatment among patients and health care professionals involved in the QUARTET USA clinical trial. Although LDQT was generally perceived as beneficial for maintaining patients' blood pressure control and facilitating adherence, some clinicians perceived limitations in titration inflexibility, adverse effects, and costs. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03640312.

A state-of-the-science review and guide for measuring environmental exposure biomarkers in dried blood spots.

BACKGROUND: Dried blood spot (DBS) sampling is a simple, cost-effective, and minimally invasive alternative to venipuncture for measuring exposure biomarkers in public health and epidemiological research. DBS sampling provides advantages in field-based studies conducted in low-resource settings and in studies involving infants and children. In addition, DBS samples are routinely collected from newborns after birth (i.e., newborn dried blood spots, NDBS), with many states in the United States permitting access to archived NDBS samples for research purposes. OBJECTIVES: We review the state of the science for analyzing exposure biomarkers in DBS samples, both archived and newly collected, and provide guidance on sample collection, storage, and blood volume requirements associated with individual DBS assays. We discuss recent progress regarding analytical methods, analytical sensitivity, and specificity, sample volume requirements, contamination considerations, estimating extracted blood volumes, assessing stability and analyte recovery, and hematocrit effects. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase (Elsevier), and CINAHL (EBSCO) was conducted in March 2022. DBS method development and application studies were divided into three main chemical classes: environmental tobacco smoke, trace elements (including lead, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic), and industrial chemicals (including endocrine-disrupting chemicals and persistent organic pollutants). DBS method development and validation studies were scored on key quality-control and performance parameters by two members of the review team. RESULTS: Our search identified 47 published reports related to measuring environmental exposure biomarkers in human DBS samples. A total of 28 reports (37 total studies) were on methods development and validation and 19 reports were primarily the application of previously developed DBS assays. High-performing DBS methods have been developed, validated, and applied for detecting environmental exposures to tobacco smoke, trace elements, and several important endocrine-disrupting chemicals and persistent organic pollutants. Additional work is needed for measuring cadmium, arsenic, inorganic mercury, and bisphenol A in DBS and NDBS samples. SIGNIFICANCE: We present an inventory and critical review of available assays for measuring environmental exposure biomarkers in DBS and NDBS samples to help facilitate this sampling medium as an emerging tool for public health (e.g., screening programs, temporal biomonitoring) and environmental epidemiology (e.g., field-based studies).

Using implementation science to mitigate worsening health inequities in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the threat of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) enduring in the United States, effectively and equitably implementing testing, tracing, and self-isolation as key prevention and detection strategies remain critical to safely re-opening communities. As testing and tracing capacities increase, frameworks are needed to inform design and delivery to ensure their effective implementation and equitable distribution, and to strengthen community engagement in slowing and eventually stopping Covid-19 transmission. In this commentary, we highlight opportunities for integrating implementation research into planned and employed strategies in the United States to accelerate reach and effectiveness of interventions to more safely relax social distancing policies and open economies, schools, and other institutions. Implementation strategies, such as adapting evidence-based interventions based on contextual factors, promoting community engagement, and providing data audit and feedback on implementation outcomes, can support the translation of policies on testing, tracing, social distancing, and public mask use into reality. These data can demonstrate how interventions are put into practice and where adaptation in policy or practice is needed to respond to the needs of specific communities and socially vulnerable populations. Incorporating implementation research into Covid-19 policy design and translation into practice is urgently needed to mitigate the worsening health inequities in the pandemic toll and response. Applying rigorous implementation research frameworks and evaluation systems to the implementation of evidence-based interventions which are adapted to contextual factors can promote effective and equitable pandemic response and accelerate learning both among local stakeholders as well as between states to further inform their varied experiences and responses to the pandemic.