One dose versus two doses of COVID-19 vaccine for the prevention of breakthrough infections among people previously infected with SARS-Cov-2.

Studies have suggested the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 reinfection among those previously infected. However, it is not yet clear if one dose of the vaccine is enough to prevent breakthrough infections compared to two doses. Using data from Optum deidentified COVID-19 Electronic Health Record (EHR) data set, we assessed breakthrough infection risks in individuals previously infected, comparing those with one vaccine dose to those with two doses. Propensity scores were applied to mitigate confounding factors. Follow-up spanned 6 months, beginning 2 weeks postvaccination. Among 213 845 individuals, those receiving one vaccine dose had a significantly higher breakthrough infection risk than the two-dose group (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.54-1.85). This pattern was observed across genders, racial/ethnic groups, age categories, and vaccine types. This study reveals a substantial disparity in the risk of breakthrough infections between individuals receiving one versus two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, suggesting that a single dose may not provide adequate protection against reinfection.

Cost Effectiveness of Additional Preoperative Telephone Call to Increase Surgical Preparedness: Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is a need for cost effective interventions that increase surgical preparedness in urogynecology. METHODS: We performed an ancillary prospective economic evaluation of the Telehealth Intervention to Increase Patient Preparedness for Surgery (TIPPS) Trial, a randomized multicenter trial that evaluated the impact of a preoperative telehealth call on surgical preparedness in women undergoing urogynecologic surgery. A within-trial analysis from the health care sector and societal perspective was performed. Cost-effectiveness was computed from health care sector and societal perspectives, with an 8-week time horizon. RESULTS: A total of 126 women were included in our analysis. QALYs gained were similar between groups (telehealth 0.1414 + 0.0249; usual care 0.1409 + 0.0179). The cumulative mean per-person costs at 8 weeks from the healthcare sector perspective were telehealth call: $8696 +/- 3341; usual care: $8473 +/- 3118 (p = 0.693) and from the societal perspective were telehealth call: $11,195 + 5191; usual care: $11,213 +/- 4869 (p = 0.944). The preoperative telehealth call intervention was not cost effective from the health care sector perspective with an ICER of $460,091/QALY (95%CI -$7,382,608/QALY, $7,673,961) using the generally accepted maximum willingness to pay threshold of $150,000/QALY (Neumann et al. N Engl J Med. 371(9):796-7, 2014). From the societal perspective, because incremental costs per QALY gained were negative $-35,925/QALY (95%CI, -$382,978/QALY, $317,226), results suggest that preoperative telehealth call dominated usual care. CONCLUSIONS: A preoperative telehealth call is cost effective from the society perspective. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with http://ClinicalTrials.gov . Date of registration: March 26, 2019 Date of initial participant enrollment: June 5, 2019 URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03890471 Clinical trial identification number: NCT03890471.

Cost-Effectiveness of Population-Based Multigene Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Prevention.

Importance: The current method of BRCA testing for breast and ovarian cancer prevention, which is based on family history, often fails to identify many carriers of pathogenic variants. Population-based genetic testing offers a transformative approach in cancer prevention by allowing for proactive identification of any high-risk individuals and enabling early interventions. Objective: To assess the lifetime incremental effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of population-based multigene testing vs family history-based testing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a microsimulation model to assess the cost-effectiveness of multigene testing (BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2) for all women aged 30 to 35 years compared with the current standard of care that is family history based. Carriers of pathogenic variants were offered interventions, such as magnetic resonance imaging with or without mammography, chemoprevention, or risk-reducing mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy, to reduce cancer risk. A total of 2000 simulations were run on 1 000 000 women, using a lifetime time horizon and payer perspective, and costs were adjusted to 2022 US dollars. This study was conducted from September 1, 2020, to December 15, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quantified as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Secondary outcomes included incremental cost, additional breast and ovarian cancer cases prevented, and excess deaths due to coronary heart disease (CHD). Results: The study assessed 1 000 000 simulated women aged 30 to 35 years in the US. In the base case, population-based multigene testing was more cost-effective compared with family history-based testing, with an ICER of $55 548 per QALY (95% CI, $47 288-$65 850 per QALY). Population-based multigene testing would be able to prevent an additional 1338 cases of breast cancer and 663 cases of ovarian cancer, but it would also result in 69 cases of excess CHD and 10 excess CHD deaths per million women. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses show that the probability that population-based multigene testing is cost-effective was 100%. When the cost of the multigene test exceeded $825, population-based testing was no longer cost-effective (ICER, $100 005 per QALY; 95% CI, $87 601-$11 6323). Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic analysis of population-based multigene testing, population-based testing was a more cost-effective strategy for the prevention of breast cancer and ovarian cancer when compared with the current family history-based testing strategy at the $100 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. These findings support the need for more comprehensive genetic testing strategies to identify pathogenic variant carriers and enable informed decision-making for personalized risk management.

Cervical cancer screening utilization among kidney transplant recipients, 2001-2018.

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) have elevated risks of cervical pre-cancers and cancers, and guidelines recommend more frequent cervical cancer screening exams. However, little is known about current trends in cervical cancer screening in this unique population. We described patterns in the uptake of cervical cancer screening exams among female KTRs and identified factors associated with screening utilization. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included female KTRs between 20-65 years old, with Texas Medicare fee-for-service coverage, who received a transplant between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2017. We determined the cumulative incidence of receiving cervical cancer screening post-transplant using ICD-9, ICD-10, and CPT codes and assessed factors associated with screening utilization, using the Fine and Gray model to account for competing events. Subdistribution hazards models were used to assess factors associated with screening uptake. RESULTS: Among 2,653 KTRs meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the 1-, 2-, and 3-year cumulative incidences of initiating a cervical cancer screening exam post-transplant were 31.7% (95% confidence interval (CI), 30.0-33.6%), 48.0% (95% CI, 46.2-49.9%), and 58.5% (95% CI, 56.7-60.3%), respectively. KTRs who were 55-64 years old (vs. <45 years old) and those with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Score post-transplant were less likely to receive cervical cancer screening post-transplant. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical cancer screening uptake is low in the years immediately following a kidney transplant. IMPACT: Our findings highlight a need for interventions to improve cervical cancer screening utilization among KTRs.

Temporal Trends in Treatment and Outcomes of Endometrial Carcinoma in the United States, 2005-2020.

Endometrial cancer has continued to see a rising incidence in the US over the years. The main aim of this study was to assess current trends in patients' characteristics and outcomes of treatment for endometrial carcinoma over 16 years. A dataset from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for patients diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma from 2005 to 2020 was used in this retrospective, case series study. The main outcomes and measures of interest included tumor characteristics, hospitalization, treatments, mortality, and overall survival. Then, 569,817 patients who were diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma were included in this study. The mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 62.7 (11.6) years, but 66,184 patients (11.6%) were younger than 50 years, indicating that more patients are getting diagnosed at younger ages. Of the patients studied, 37,079 (6.3%) were Hispanic, 52,801 (9.3%) were non-Hispanic Black, 432,058 (75.8%) were non-Hispanic White, and 48,879 (8.6%) were other non-Hispanic. Patients in the 4th period from 2017 to 2020 were diagnosed more with stage IV (7.1% vs. 5.2% vs. 5.4% vs. 5.9%; p < 0.001) disease compared with those in the other three periods. More patients with severe comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index score of three) were seen in period 4 compared to the first three periods (3.9% vs. ≤1.9%). Systemic chemotherapy use (14.1% vs. 17.7% vs. 20.4% vs. 21.1%; p < 0.001) and immunotherapy (0.01% vs. 0.01% vs. 0.2% vs. 1.1%; p < 0.001) significantly increased from period 1 to 4. The use of laparotomy decreased significantly from 42.1% in period 2 to 16.7% in period 4, while robotic surgery usage significantly increased from 41.5% in period 2 to 64.3% in period 4. The 30-day and 90-day mortality decreased from 0.6% in period 1 to 0.2% in period 4 and 1.4% in period 1 to 0.6% in period 4, respectively. Over the period studied, we found increased use of immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and minimally invasive surgery for the management of endometrial cancer. Overall, the time interval from cancer diagnosis to final surgery increased by about 6 days. The improvements observed in the outcomes examined can probably be associated with the treatment trends observed.