Aubrey Miller’s research while affiliated with National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health and other places

Understanding the complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors in disease etiology and the role of gene-environment interactions (GEIs) across human development stages is important. We review the state of GEI research, including challenges in measuring environmental factors and advantages of GEI analysis in understanding disease mechanisms. We discuss the evolution of GEI studies from candidate gene-environment studies to genome-wide interaction studies (GWISs) and the role of multi-omics in mediating GEI effects. We review advancements in GEI analysis methods and the importance of large-scale datasets. We also address the translation of GEI findings into precision environmental health (PEH), showcasing real-world applications in healthcare and disease prevention. Additionally, we highlight societal considerations in GEI research, including environmental justice, the return of results to participants, and data privacy. Overall, we underscore the significance of GEI for disease prediction and prevention and advocate for integrating the exposome into PEH omics studies.

Objective To examine the frequency of, and risk factors for, disease flare following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with systemic rheumatic disease (SRD). Methods An international study was conducted from April 2 to August 16, 2021, using an online survey of 5619 adults with SRD for adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including flares of disease requiring a change in treatment. We examined risk factors identified a priori based on published associations with SRD activity and SARS-CoV-2 severity, including demographics, SRD type, comorbidities, vaccine type, cessation of immunosuppressive medications around vaccination, and history of reactions to non-COVID-19 vaccines, using multivariable logistic regression. Results Flares requiring a change in treatment following COVID-19 vaccination were reported by 4.9% of patients. Compared with rheumatoid arthritis, certain SRD, including systemic lupus erythematosus (OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.03, 2.20), psoriatic arthritis (OR 1.95, 95%CI 1.20, 3.18), and polymyalgia rheumatica (OR 1.94, 95%CI 1.08, 2.48) were associated with higher odds of flare, while idiopathic inflammatory myopathies were associated with lower odds for flare (OR 0.54, 95%CI 0.31–0.96). The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was associated with higher odds of flare relative to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (OR 1.44, 95%CI 1.07, 1.95), as were a prior reaction to a non-COVID-19 vaccine (OR 2.50, 95%CI 1.76, 3.54) and female sex (OR 2.71, 95%CI 1.55, 4.72). Conclusion SRD flares requiring changes in treatment following COVID-19 vaccination were uncommon in this large international study. Several potential risk factors, as well as differences by disease type, warrant further examination in prospective cohorts.

Importance: Exposure to hydrocarbons, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and other chemicals from the April 20, 2010, Deepwater Horizon disaster may be associated with increased blood pressure and newly detected hypertension among oil spill response and cleanup workers. Objective: To determine whether participation in cleanup activities following the disaster was associated with increased risk of developing hypertension. Design, setting, and participants: This cohort study was conducted via telephone interviews and in-person home exams. Participants were 6846 adults who had worked on the oil spill cleanup (workers) and 1505 others who had completed required safety training but did not do cleanup work (nonworkers). Eligible participants did not have diagnosed hypertension at the time of the oil spill. Statistical analyses were performed from June 2018 to December 2021. Exposures: Engagement in cleanup activities following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster, job classes, quintiles of cumulative total hydrocarbons exposure level, potential exposure to burning or flaring oil, and estimated PM2.5 were examined. Main outcomes and measures: Systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements were collected during home exams from 2011 to 2013 using automated oscillometric monitors. Newly detected hypertension was defined as antihypertensive medication use or elevated blood pressure since the spill. Log binomial regression was used to calculate prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% CIs for associations between cleanup exposures and hypertension. Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate exposure effects on continuous blood pressure levels. Results: Of 8351 participants included in this study, 6484 (77.6%) were male, 517 (6.2%) were Hispanic, 2859 (34.2%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 4418 (52.9%) were non-Hispanic White; the mean (SD) age was 41.9 (12.5) years at enrollment. Among workers, the prevalence of newly detected hypertension was elevated in all quintiles (Q) of cumulative total hydrocarbons above the first quintile (PR for Q3, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.13-1.46], PR for Q4, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.10-1.43], and PR for Q5, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.15-1.50]). Both exposure to burning and/or flaring oil and gas (PR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.02-1.33]) and PM2.5 from burning (PR, 1.26 [95% CI, 0.89-1.71]) for the highest exposure category were associated with increased risk of newly detected hypertension, as were several types of oil spill work including cleanup on water (PR, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.08-1.66]) and response work (PR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.20-1.90]). Conclusions and relevance: Oil spill exposures were associated with newly detected hypertension after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. These findings suggest that blood pressure screening should be considered for workers with occupational hydrocarbon exposures.

Research conducted in the context of a disaster or public health emergency is essential to improve knowledge about its short- and long-term health consequences, as well as the implementation and effectiveness of response and recovery strategies. Integrated approaches to conducting Disaster Research Response (DR2) can answer scientific questions, while also providing attendant value for operational response and recovery. Here, we propose a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) template to guide the collaborative development and implementation of DR2 among academic public health and public health agencies, informed by previous literature, semi-structured interviews with disaster researchers from academic public health across the United States, and discussion groups with public health practitioners. The proposed CONOPS outlines actionable strategies to address DR2 issues before, during, and after disasters for public health scholars and practitioners who seek to operationalize or enhance their DR2 programs. Additional financial and human resources will be necessary to promote widespread implementation of collaborative DR2 programs.

Purpose of Review Disasters are becoming more common and challenge national and global resiliency and response efforts. As a result, government agencies have increased interest in disaster research to understand their environmental impact and health-related consequences. With the research field greatly expanding, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are being asked to review research protocols aimed at assessing health risks, exposures, and outcomes from disaster survivors. Few IRBs have experience reviewing disaster research protocols. This article describes approaches for IRB preparedness in reviewing disaster research. Recent Findings From a human research protections perspective, primary attention has focused on vulnerability of individuals and/or populations affected by a disaster who may serve as research participants [3, 4]. From our review of the current literature, there is a lack of best practices and/or guidance for IRBs in the review of disaster research protocols. Summary The growth of the disaster research field has brought more attention to potential ethical concerns of disaster research studies. Disaster survivors, responders, and those that assist in cleanup and remedial efforts may be left with significant unmet needs and long-term physical and emotional challenges as a result of their experiences. It is important for IRBs and investigators to collaboratively address how best to protect the welfare of individuals and communities affected by a disaster. A new approach is needed to systematically consider the various factors relevant to an assessment of human research protection issues following disasters.

Leveraging the community of practice recently established through the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Disaster Research Response (DR2) working group, we used a modified Delphi method to identify and prioritize environmental health sciences Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and associated Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) research questions. Twenty-six individuals with broad expertise across a variety of environmental health sciences subdisciplines were selected to participate among 45 self-nominees. In Round 1, panelists submitted research questions and brief justifications. In Round 2, panelists rated the priority of each question on a nine-point Likert scale. Responses were trichotomized into priority categories (low priority; medium priority; and high priority). A research question was determined to meet consensus if at least 69.2% of panelists rated it within the same priority category. Research needs that did not meet consensus in round 2 were redistributed for re-rating. Fourteen questions met consensus as high priority in round 2, and an additional 14 questions met consensus as high priority in round 3. We discuss the impact and limitations of using this approach to identify and prioritize research questions in the context of a disaster response.