Understanding COVID-19 Health Disparities With Birth Country and Language Data.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding of COVID-19-related disparities in the U.S. is largely informed by traditional race/ethnicity categories that mask important social group differences. This analysis utilizes granular information on patients' country of birth and preferred language from a large health system to provide more nuanced insights into health disparities. METHODS: Data from patients seeking care from a large Midwestern health system between January 1, 2019 and July 31, 2021 and COVID-19-related events occurring from March 18, 2020 to July 31, 2021 were used to describe COVID-19 disparities. Statistics were performed between January 1, 2022 and March 15, 2023. Age-adjusted generalized linear models estimated RR across race/ethnicity, country of birth grouping, preferred language, and multiple stratified groups. RESULTS: The majority of the 1,114,895 patients were born in western advanced economies (58.6%). Those who were Hispanic/Latino, were born in Latin America and the Caribbean, and preferred Spanish language had highest RRs of infection and hospitalization. Black-identifying patients born in sub-Saharan African countries had a higher risk of infection than their western advanced economies counterparts. Subanalyses revealed elevated hospitalization and death risk for White-identifying patients from Eastern Europe and Central Asia and Asian-identifying patients from Southeast Asia and the Pacific. All non-English languages had a higher risk of all COVID-19 outcomes, most notably Hmong and languages from Burma/Myanmar. CONCLUSIONS: Stratifications by country of birth grouping and preferred language identified culturally distinct groups whose vulnerability to COVID-19 would have otherwise been masked by traditional racial/ethnic labels. Routine collection of these data is critical for identifying social groups at high risk and for informing linguistically and culturally relevant interventions.

Conflicts of Interest Among Infectious Diseases Clinical Practice Guideline Authors and the Pharmaceutical Industry.

This cross-sectional study assesses the prevalence of conflicts of interest (COI) associated with guideline-recommended drugs among Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline authors and compliance with the Council on Medical Specialty Societies and Institute of Medicine guidelines.

Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for populations from strongyloidiasis high-risk areas globally who will initiate corticosteroid treatment in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The risk of developing strongyloidiasis hyperinfection syndrome appears to be elevated among individuals who initiate corticosteroid treatment. Presumptive treatment or treatment after screening for populations from Strongyloides stercoralis-endemic areas has been suggested before initiating corticosteroids. However, potential clinical and economic impacts of preventative strategies have not been evaluated. METHODS: Using a decision tree model for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals from S. stercoralis-endemic areas globally initiating corticosteroid treatment, we evaluated clinical and economic impacts of two interventions, 'Screen and Treat' (i.e. screening and ivermectin treatment after a positive test), and 'Presumptively Treat,' compared to current practice (i.e. 'No Intervention'). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness (net cost per death averted) of each strategy using broad ranges of pre-intervention prevalence and hospitalization rates for chronic strongyloidiasis patients initiating corticosteroid treatment. RESULTS: For the baseline parameter estimates, 'Presumptively Treat' was cost-effective (i.e. clinically superior with cost per death averted less than a threshold of $10.6 million per life) compared to 'No Intervention' ($532 000 per death averted) or 'Screen and Treat' ($39 000 per death averted). The two parameters contributing the most uncertainty to the analysis were the hospitalization rate for individuals with chronic strongyloidiasis who initiate corticosteroids (baseline 0.166%) and prevalence of chronic strongyloidiasis (baseline 17.3%) according to a series of one-way sensitivity analyses. For hospitalization rates greater than 0.022%, 'Presumptively Treat' would remain cost-effective. Similarly, 'Presumptively Treat' remained preferred at prevalence rates of 4% or above; 'Screen and Treat' was preferred for prevalence between 2% and 4%, and 'No Intervention' was preferred for prevalence less than 2%. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support decision-making for interventions for populations from S. stercoralis endemic areas before initiating corticosteroid treatment. Although some input parameters are highly uncertain and prevalence varies across endemic countries, 'Presumptively Treat' would likely be preferred across a range for many populations given plausible parameters.

Costs of malaria treatment in the United States.

We estimated inpatient and outpatient payments for malaria treatment in the USA. The mean cost per hospitalized patient was significantly higher than for non-hospitalized patients (e.g. $27 642 vs $1177 among patients with private insurance). Patients with severe malaria payed two to four times more than those hospitalized with uncomplicated malaria.

Antifungal drug price increases in the United States, 2000-2019.

BACKGROUND: Antifungal drugs treat a variety of conditions, ranging from localised dermatologic disease to life-threatening systemic infections. Some common antifungal drugs experienced large price increases in recent years, however, factors contributing to these price increases are poorly understood. We sought to examine trends in antifungal drug prices and determine underlying drivers of price changes. METHODS: Antifungal drug products in the United States were identified using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Label database. For each product, we determined the wholesale acquisition cost per unit over time between 2000 and 2019, adjusting for inflation, and examined variables that could impact price: route of administration, number of FDA indications, the quantity of professional guideline recommendations, use for prophylaxis, number of FDA-approved manufacturers, and whether it was compounded. Price trajectories were clustered into four groups: (1) stable, 2) moderate, (3) high, and (4) extreme price increases. RESULTS: Of 139 identified drug products, one outlier was removed due to exorbitant price increases. Cluster 1 (n = 31) demonstrated the most stable prices with a 25% mean price increase. Clusters 2 (n = 97), 3 (n = 7), and 4 (n = 3) demonstrated moderate, high, and extreme price increases with 52%, 318%, and 900% mean price increases, respectively. Atypical routes of administration and compounding were over-represented in clusters 3 and 4. There was no correlation between the number of manufacturers and price changes. CONCLUSIONS: Antifungal drugs exhibited large, inflation-adjusted price increases. Atypical routes of administration and compounding were over-represented within clusters exhibiting extraordinary price increases. Our data support policies aiming to curb large price increases for medically important drugs.

Drug-dispensing limits within Medicaid during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SUMMARY The 1-month drug-dispensing limit is a common drug utilization tool used by state Medicaid agencies to control spending. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, many states relaxed the 1-month dispensing limit restriction in order to align with social distancing recommendations. Yet, some states have not relaxed this limit and have differed substantially regarding the policies that have been implemented. Among states that relaxed the 1-month supply limit, determining which chronic disease drugs qualified for this extension can be challenging for patients and clinicians. As more commercial and Medicare insurance beneficiaries are offered 90-day drug supplies, the 30-day drug supply limit with Medicaid has become a health equity issue, since many individuals insured by Medicaid have already experienced a disproportionate impact from and remain at high risk for severe COVID-19 disease. Thus, we propose policy solutions to ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries have safe and uninterrupted access to chronic disease medications during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for this work. Alpern has received funding from Arnold Ventures for research related to the use and spending of off-patent drugs, unrelated to this work, and is a member of the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee at Regions Hospital, St. Paul, MN. DeSilva has received CDC support for work on Vaccine Safety Datalink, VISION network, and Center of Excellence for Newcomer Health, unrelated to this work. Chomilo is Medicaid Medical Director for the State of Minnesota's Department of Human Services.