Biomedical subjects

Palak Shah

Publications and source records attributed to Palak Shah.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Care Models for the Genetic Evaluation of Dilated Cardiomyopathy at Sites of the DCM Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Clinical genetic evaluation for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is minimally implemented, and models of care are not well defined. To understand current genetic care for DCM, a systematic needs assessment was conducted. METHODS: Principal investigators of the DCM Consortium convened at the Summer Scientific Symposium in July 2025. An electronic needs assessment was conducted among the 24 principal investigators in advance to define current care models by evaluating which genetic evaluation components recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America were conducted, by whom, and the time required for each component. Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize model features. Focus group discussions explored barriers and facilitators to implementing genetic services. RESULTS: Four care models emerged from the principal investigator responses: model 1: Traditional-Synchronous (25%, n=6, requiring the most time per patient); model 2: Traditional-Asynchronous (33%, n=8); model 3: Externally Sourced (17%, n=4); and model 4: Physician/Advanced Practice Provider Conducted (25%, n=6, requiring the least time per patient). All models used genetic testing, whereas other components were implemented variably or not at all. Models 1 (15.7±4.1) and 2 (15.4±3.0) were rated more acceptable than model 4 (9.8±2.9; model 1 versus model 4; P=0.027; model 2 versus model 4; P=0.023). Notably, 88% of principal investigators used genetic information for treatment decisions, including implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement (83%; n=20) and cardiac transplantation (63%; n=15). Major facilitator themes from focus group discussions included having a genetic counselor as part of the heart failure team and developing authoritative standards directing provision of DCM genetic services. Barrier themes included operational challenges, limited personnel, clinician under-recognition, need for new service delivery models, and billing/reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: DCM genetic care models and components were highly variable across the 24 sites of the DCM Consortium, although all sites discussed similar factors that enable or hinder the implementation of genetic services for DCM. Understanding the basis of practice model variability may provide insight to yield more scalable care approaches.

cardiomyopathy, dilated↗

PubMed2026

Care Models for the Genetic Evaluation of Dilated Cardiomyopathy at Sites of the DCM Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Clinical genetic evaluation for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is minimally implemented and models of care are not defined. To understand current genetics care for DCM, a systematic needs assessment was conducted. METHODS: Principal Investigators (PIs) of the DCM Consortium convened at the Summer Scientific Symposium in July 2025. An electronic needs assessment was collected from the 24 PIs in advance to define current care models by evaluating which Heart Failure Society of America-recommended genetic evaluation components are conducted, by whom, and time required. Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize model features. Focus group discussions explored barriers and facilitators to implementing genetic services. RESULTS: Four care models emerged from the PI responses: 1 - Traditional-Synchronous (25%, n=6, requiring the most time per patient), 2 - Traditional-Asynchronous (33%, n=8), 3 - Externally Sourced (17%, n=4), and 4 - Physician/Advanced Practice Provider Conducted (25%, n=6, requiring the least time per patient). All models used genetic testing, whereas other components were implemented variably or not at all. Models 1 (15.7±4.1) and 2 (15.4±3.0) were rated more acceptable than Model 4 (9.8±2.9; 1 vs 4: p=0.027; 2 vs 4, p=0.023). Notably, 88% of PIs used genetic information for treatment decisions, including ICD placement (83%; n=20) or cardiac transplant (63%; n=15). Major facilitator themes from focus group discussions included having a genetic counselor on the HF team and developing authoritative standards directing provision of DCM genetic services. Barrier themes included operational challenges, limited personnel, clinician under-recognition, need for new service delivery models, and billing/reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: DCM genetic care models and components were highly variable across the 24 sites of the DCM Consortium, even though all sites discussed similar factors that enable or hinder implementing genetic services for DCM. Understanding the basis of practice model variability may provide insight to yield more scalable care approaches.

clinical genetics↗

PubMed2025

Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA Stratifies Risk of Mortality and Graft Dysfunction in Severe Acute Cardiac Allograft Rejection.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac acute rejection (AR) is a risk factor for poor outcomes, however there are limited risk prediction models to stratify patients for death or sustained LV dysfunction. This study assesses the prognostic utility of percentage donor-derived cell-free DNA (%dd-cfDNA) at the diagnosis of AR for poor outcomes. METHODS: The prospective multicenter GRAfT study enrolled heart transplant recipients and collected serial plasma samples to quantitate %dd-cfDNA. AR was defined as acute cellular rejection (ACR), antibody-mediated rejection (AMR), as well as biopsy-negative AMR (donor-specific antibody positivity with LV dysfunction). AR was classified as mild-to-moderate (ACR grade 2 or AMR grade 1) or severe (ACR grade ≥3, AMR grade ≥2, or DSA+/LV dysfunction) and further stratified by a %dd-cfDNA threshold of 0.25%. Regression models assessed the association between AR and %dd-cfDNA levels at the AR diagnosis with the primary composite outcome of sustained LVEF decline <50% and/or death. RESULTS: The study included 275 patients and 3,190 %dd-cfDNA assessments. Over the median of 4.6 (IQR 1.8 - 5.0) years follow-up, 51 patients experienced the composite outcome of death or prolonged EF reduction, and 75 patients developed AR, including 16.2% patients with ACR, 9.4% with pathologic AMR, and 6.6% with DSA+/LV dysfunction. Thirty-two (42.7%) patients had severe AR and 43 (57.3%) had mild-to-moderate AR. Severe-but not mild-to-moderate-AR was associated with an increased risk of the primary composite endpoint (HR = 5.17, 95% CI 2.38 - 11.3, p < 0.001). Among those with severe AR, a %dd-cfDNA level greater than 0.25% at diagnosis was associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome (HR, 6.06, 95% CI, 1.78-20.6; p = 0.004). Percent dd-cfDNA remained elevated in severe AR patients with adverse outcomes. CONCLUSION: Severe AR with high %dd-cfDNA levels is associated with an increased risk of poor outcomes, offering novel prognostic utility.

Acute Rejection↗

PubMed2025

Utility of Plasma Cell-free Chromatin Immunoprecipitation to Detect Cardiac Allograft Rejection.

BACKGROUND: Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) remains the major risk factor for allograft loss across all solid organ transplantation. Unfortunately, its diagnosis relies on biopsy, an invasive gold standard that often sample unaffected allograft tissue leading to missed diagnosis. Plasma donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) is noninvasive biomarker that has high sensitivity but low specificity for AMR diagnosis. This proof-of-concept study assessed the utility of cell-free chromatin immunoprecipitation (cfChIP) as a surrogate for gene expression to detect cardiac AMR and the associated pathobiology. METHODS: The discovery GRAfT multicenter cohort of heart transplant patients (NCT02423070) identified AMR, acute cellular rejection (ACR), and stable controls based on biopsy and ddcfDNA results. Plasma cfChIP-sequencing was performed to identify peaks, associated genes and pathobiological pathways. Plasma from an external cohort (GTD, NCT01985412) was also analyzed to verify pathways identified. Digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) assays targeting differential regions were constructed to test the diagnostic performance of cfDNA to detect AMR/ACR from stable controls (rejection-specific assays) or AMR from ACR (AMR-specific assays). RESULTS: The cohort included 21 AMR, 28 ACR, and 45 stable controls from GRAfT and GTD, and 23 healthy controls. cfChIP detected expected active genes, including housekeeping genes and gene targets of transplant immunosuppressive drugs but not inactive genes. Unsupervised clustering of the discovery GRAfT cohort assigned 95% of samples correctly as AMR, ACR or stable control. Differential analysis identified pathobiological pathways of AMR such as neutrophil degranulation and complement activation. The pathways were consistent in GTD samples. Rejection-specific assays detected AMR/ACR from controls with AUC of 0.78 - 0.95. AMR-specific assays detected AMR from ACR with AUC of 0.71 - 0.85, sensitivities of 0.73 - 0.94 and specificities of 0.73 - 0.80. CONCLUSION: This study provides valuable preliminary data supporting the use of cfChIP to detect AMR and the associated pathobiological pathways.

Allograft rejection↗