Interstitial Lung Disease Mortality Disparities Along the US-Mexico Border, 1999-2020.

BACKGROUND: Optimal diagnosis and management of interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) needs access to specialized centers, frequent monitoring, and complex therapeutic options. In underprivileged areas, these necessities can often lead to barriers in delivering care. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the ILD mortality disparities in the regions along the US-Mexico (US-MX) border? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We obtained ILD mortality information through death certificate queries from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention repository. Death data were adjusted for age and stratified by US-MX border regions and nonborder regions in the United States. Log-linear regression models were used to analyze mortality trends in the period from 1999 to 2020 followed by calculation of annual percentage changes (APCs). Age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) were compared across cumulative and subdemographic populations. RESULTS: ILD-related mortality among border regions (AAMR, 5.31) was higher than nonborder regions (AAMR, 4.86). Mortality within border regions remained unchanged from 1999 to 2020 (APC, 0.3; P = .269). Nonborder regions experienced a significant rise in mortality rates (APC, 2.6; P = .017) from 1999 to 2005 and remained unchanged from 2005 to 2020. Mortality was higher within both men (AAMR, 6.57) and women (AAMR, 4.36) populations among border regions compared with their nonborder counterparts (AAMR, 6.27 and 3.87, respectively). Hispanic populations among the border regions experienced higher mortality rates (AAMR, 6.15) than Hispanic populations within nonborder regions (AAMR, 5.44). Non-Hispanic populations encountered similar mortality rates between the two regions. Mortality rates among Hispanic (APC, 0.0; P = .938) and non-Hispanic (APC, 0.2; P = .531) populations in the border regions remained unchanged from 1999 to 2020. INTERPRETATION: These results revealed ILD-related mortality disparities among the US-MX border regions, emphasizing the importance of public health measures to increase access to equitable medical care and implement targeted interventions among these vulnerable populations.

Lung cancer mortality trends and disparities: A cross-sectional analysis 1999-2020.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Given the importance of epidemiological insight on lung cancer outcomes as the foundation for targeted interventions, we aimed to examine lung cancer death trends in the United States in the recent 22-year period, exploring demographic disparities and yearly mortality shifts. METHODS: Mortality information was obtained from the CDC Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database from the years 1999-2020. Demographic information included age, sex, race or ethnicity, and area of residence. We performed log-linear regression models to assess temporal mortality shifts and calculated average annual percentage change (AAPC) and compared age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMR) across demographic subpopulations. RESULTS: A total of 3,380,830 lung cancer deaths were identified. The AAMR decreased from 55.4 in 1999-31.8 in 2020 (p<0.001). Males (AAMR 57.6) and non-Hispanic (NH) (AAMR 47.5) populations were disproportionately impacted compared to females (AAMR 36.0) and Hispanic (AAMR 19.1) populations, respectively. NH Black populations had the highest AAMR (48.5) despite an overall reduction in lung cancer deaths (AAPC -3.3 %) over the study period. Although non-metropolitan regions were affected by higher mortality rates, the annual decrease in mortality among metropolitan regions (AAPC -2.8 %, p<0.001) was greater compared to non-metropolitan regions (AAPC -1.7 %, p<0.001). Individuals living in the Western US (AAPC -3.4 %, p<0.001) experienced the greatest decline in lung cancer mortality compared to other US census regions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings revealed lung cancer mortality inequalities in the US. By contextualizing these mortality shifts, we provide a larger framework of data-driven initiatives for societal and health policy changes for improving access to care, minimizing healthcare inequalities, and improving outcomes.

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen tests for COVID19 compared to the viral genetic test in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the currently available and upcoming point-of-care rapid antigen tests (RATs) used in primary care settings relative to the viral genetic real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test as a reference for diagnosing COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 in adults. INTRODUCTION: Accurate COVID-19 point-of-care diagnostic tests are required for real-time identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals. Real-time RT-PCR is the accepted gold standard for diagnostic testing, requiring technical expertise and expensive equipment that are unavailable in most primary care locations. RATs are immunoassays that detect the presence of a specific viral protein, which implies a current infection with SARS-CoV-2. RATs are qualitative or semi-quantitative diagnostics that lack thresholds that provide a result within a short time frame, typically within the hour following sample collection. In this systematic review, we synthesized the current evidence regarding the accuracy of RATs for detecting SARS-CoV-2 compared with RT-PCR. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies that included nonpregnant adults (18 years or older) with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptomology or disease severity, were included. The index test was any available SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care RAT. The reference test was any commercially distributed RT-PCR-based test that detects the RNA genome of SARS-CoV-2 and has been validated by an independent third party. Custom or in-house RT-PCR tests were also considered, with appropriate validation documentation. The diagnosis of interest was COVID-19 disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection. This review considered cross-sectional and cohort studies that examined the diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 infection where the participants had both index and reference tests performed. METHODS: The keywords and index terms contained in relevant articles were used to develop a full search strategy for PubMed and adapted for Embase, Scopus, Qinsight, and the WHO COVID-19 databases . Studies published from November 2019 to July 12, 2022, were included, as SARS-CoV-2 emerged in late 2019 and is the cause of a continuing pandemic. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were critically appraised using QUADAS-2. Using a customized tool, data were extracted from included studies and were verified prior to analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values were calculated and presented with 95% CIs. When heterogeneity was observed, outlier analysis was conducted, and the results were generated by removing outliers. RESULTS: Meta-analysis was performed on 91 studies of 581 full-text articles retrieved that provided true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative values. RATs can identify individuals who have COVID-19 with high reliability (positive predictive value 97.7%; negative predictive value 95.2%) when considering overall performance. However, the lower level of sensitivity (67.1%) suggests that negative test results likely need to be retested through an additional method. CONCLUSIONS: Most reported RAT brands had only a few studies comparing their performance with RT-PCR. Overall, a positive RAT result is an excellent predictor of a positive diagnosis of COVID-19. We recommend that Roche's SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test and Abbott's BinaxNOW tests be used in primary care settings, with the understanding that negative results need to be confirmed through RT-PCR. We recommend adherence to the STARD guidelines when reporting on diagnostic data. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020224250.