Extramural US Federal Research Grants For Health Outcomes Associated With Climate Change Inadequate, Too Narrow In Focus.

Climate change causes and exacerbates disease, creates and worsens health disparities, disrupts health care delivery, and imposes a significant disease burden in the US and globally. Critical knowledge gaps hinder an evidence-based response and are perpetuated by scarce federal research funds. We identified and described extramural US federal research funding (that is, grants provided to organizations and institutions outside of federal agencies) that both addressed health outcomes associated with climate change and was awarded between 2010 and 2020. During this eleven-year period, 102 grants met our criteria, totaling approximately $58.7 million, or approximately $5.3 million per year (2020 adjusted US dollars). Federal investments in climate change and health research during this period failed to address the breadth of climate-sensitive exposures, health outcomes, and impacts on vulnerable populations. Moving forward, in addition to increasing investment in climate and health research across all known hazards, critical attention should be placed on vulnerable populations and health equity. To achieve this, increased federal research coordination and cooperation are needed, as well as a mechanism to track this funding.

Can the Healthcare System Improve Food Security? A Need for Collaborative Community Partnerships.

The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the food insecurity crisis in Canada, and existing supports have been largely insufficient to meet the food needs of communities. In response to increasing reports of food insecurity among Toronto residents during the pandemic, the Food RX program was developed as a collaborative initiative between FoodShare Toronto - a local, community-based food justice organization - and the University Health Network, a large university-affiliated hospital network in downtown Toronto, ON. This commentary describes the Food RX program, highlights the lessons learned during its early implementation and offers a set of recommendations for building community partnerships moving forward.

Multivariable risk scores for predicting short-term outcomes for emergency department patients with unexplained syncope: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) patients with unexplained syncope are at risk of experiencing an adverse event within 30 days. Our objective was to systematically review the accuracy of multivariate risk stratification scores for identifying adult syncope patients at high and low risk of an adverse event over the next 30 days. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and CINAHL) from database creation until May 2020. We sought studies evaluating prediction scores of adults presenting to an ED with syncope. We included studies that followed patients for up to 30 days to identify adverse events such as death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiac surgery. We only included studies with a blinded comparison between baseline clinical features and adverse events. We calculated likelihood ratios and confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We screened 13,788 abstracts. We included 17 studies evaluating nine risk stratification scores on 24,234 patient visits, where 7.5% (95% CI = 5.3% to 10%) experienced an adverse event. A Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) of 4 or more was associated with a high likelihood of an adverse event (LRscore≥4  = 11, 95% CI = 8.9 to 14). A CSRS of 0 or less (LRscore≤0  = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.20) was associated with a low likelihood of an adverse event. Other risk scores were not validated on an independent sample, had low positive likelihood ratios for identifying patients at high risk, or had high negative likelihood ratios for identifying patients at low risk. CONCLUSION: Many risk stratification scores are not validated or not sufficiently accurate for clinical use. The CSRS is an accurate validated prediction score for ED patients with unexplained syncope. Its impact on clinical decision making, admission rates, cost, or outcomes of care is not known.

Did This Patient Have Cardiac Syncope?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review.

Importance: Syncope can result from a reduction in cardiac output from serious cardiac conditions, such as arrhythmias or structural heart disease (cardiac syncope), or other causes, such as vasovagal syncope or orthostatic hypotension. Objective: To perform a systematic review of studies of the accuracy of the clinical examination for identifying patients with cardiac syncope. Study Selection: Studies of adults presenting to primary care, emergency departments, or referred to specialty clinics. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Relevant data were abstracted from articles in databases through April 9, 2019, and methodologic quality was assessed. Included studies had an independent comparison to a reference standard. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs). Results: Eleven studies of cardiac syncope (N = 4317) were included. Age at first syncope of at least 35 years was associated with greater likelihood of cardiac syncope (n = 323; sensitivity, 91% [95% CI, 85%-97%]; specificity, 72% [95% CI, 66%-78%]; LR, 3.3 [95% CI, 2.6-4.1]), while age younger than 35 years was associated with a lower likelihood (LR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.06-0.25]). A history of atrial fibrillation or flutter (n = 323; sensitivity, 13% [95% CI, 6%-20%]; specificity, 98% [95% CI, 96%-100%]; LR, 7.3 [95% CI, 2.4-22]), or known severe structural heart disease (n = 222; range of sensitivity, 35%-51%, range of specificity, 84%-93%; range of LR, 3.3-4.8; 2 studies) were associated with greater likelihood of cardiac syncope. Symptoms prior to syncope that were associated with lower likelihood of cardiac syncope were mood change or prodromal preoccupation with details (n = 323; sensitivity, 2% [95% CI, 0%-5%]; specificity, 76% [95% CI, 71%-81%]; LR, 0.09 [95% CI, 0.02-0.38]), feeling cold (n = 412; sensitivity, 2% [95% CI, 0%-5%]; specificity, 89% [95% CI, 85%-93%]; LR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.06-0.64]), or headache (n = 323; sensitivity, 3% [95% CI, 0%-7%]; specificity, 80% [95% CI, 75%-85%]; LR, 0.17 [95% CI, 0.06-0.55]). Cyanosis witnessed during the episode was associated with higher likelihood of cardiac syncope (n = 323; sensitivity, 8% [95% CI, 2%-14%]; specificity, 99% [95% CI, 98%-100%]; LR, 6.2 [95% CI, 1.6-24]). Mood changes after syncope (n = 323; sensitivity, 3% [95% CI, 0%-7%]; specificity, 83% [95% CI, 78%-88%]; LR, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.06-0.65]) and inability to remember behavior prior to syncope (n = 323; sensitivity, 5% [95% CI, 0%-9%]; specificity, 82% [95% CI, 77%-87%]; LR, 0.25, [95% CI, 0.09-0.69]) were associated with lower likelihood of cardiac syncope. Two studies prospectively validated the accuracy of the multivariable Evaluation of Guidelines in Syncope Study (EGSYS) score, which is based on 6 clinical variables. An EGSYS score of less than 3 was associated with lower likelihood of cardiac syncope (n = 456; range of sensitivity, 89%-91%, range of specificity, 69%-73%; range of LR, 0.12-0.17; 2 studies). Cardiac biomarkers show promising diagnostic accuracy for cardiac syncope, but diagnostic thresholds require validation. Conclusions and Relevance: The clinical examination, including the electrocardiogram as part of multivariable scores, can accurately identify patients with and without cardiac syncope.