Real-World Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes Remission in a U.S. Insured Population Using a Large Administrative Claims Database.

Objective: A 2021 international consensus statement defined type 2 diabetes remission as A1C <6.5% measured at least 3 months after cessation of glucose-lowering therapy. We aimed to investigate whether retrospective claims-based data can assess remission based on this definition, whether three increasingly strict alternative definitions affect the prevalence of remission and characteristics of remission cohorts, and how cohorts with and without sufficient data to assess for remission differ. Research design and methods: We used de-identified administrative claims from commercially insured and Medicare Advantage members, enriched with laboratory values, to assess diabetes remission. We used alternative glycemic, temporal, and pharmacologic criteria to assess the sensitivity of remission definitions to changes in claims-based logic. Results: Among 524,076 adults with type 2 diabetes, 185,285 (35.4%) had insufficient additional laboratory and/or enrollment data to assess for remission. While more likely to be younger, these individuals had similar initial A1C values and geographical distribution as the 338,791 (64.6%) assessed for remission. Of those assessed for remission, 10,694 (3.2%) met the 2021 consensus statement definition. The proportion of individuals meeting the three alternative definitions ranged from 0.8 to 2.3%. Across all criteria, those meeting the remission definition were more likely to be female, had a lower initially observed A1C, and had a higher prevalence of bariatric surgery. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility of laboratory-value enriched claims-based assessments of type 2 diabetes remission. Establishing stable claims-based markers of remission can enable population assessments of diabetes remission and evaluate the association between remission and clinical outcomes.

Comparative effectiveness of the sars-CoV-2 vaccines during delta dominance.

Background: Several vaccines with demonstrated efficacy for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) are available. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the COVID mRNA based and adenovector based vaccines' differential effectiveness during the time of circulation of the Delta variant and determine what impact this would have on population health and cost effectiveness. Methods: We used de-identified claims in a research database that included vaccination status and Covid-positivity status. Individuals ≥18 years, fully vaccinated with Ad26.COV2·S/J&J/Janssen, mRNA-1273/Moderna, or BNT162b2/Pfizer-BioNTech by September 30, 2021, were included. Outcomes were SARS-CoV-2-infection, emergency department visits, outpatient visits, inpatient hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) transfers, death, and hospice transfers through September 30, 2021. Results: Among ∼6.5 million fully vaccinated individuals in the UHC Medicare Advantage and our commercially insured research database, mRNA-1273 performed better than BNT162b2 for infection, composite-hospitalization (hospitalization/ICU transfer/hospice transfer/death), and composite-ICU transfer (ICU transfer/hospice transfer/death) caused by B.1.612.7 (delta) variant infection. 26 CE.COV2.S performed worse than BNT162b2 for infection, composite-hospitalization, and composite-ICU transfers. The number needed to vaccinate (NNV) with mRNA1273 to prevent one hospitalization at 90 days was 3130 compared to 26 CE.COV2·S and 15,472 compared to BNT162b2. The NNV with mRNA1273 to prevent one ICU transfer at 90 days was 6358 compared to 26 CE.COV2·S and 34,279 compared to BNT162b2. For every one million individuals vaccinated with BNT162b compared to mRNA-1273, the approximate incremental inpatient cost would be $405,000 and the approximate incremental ICU cost would be $662,000. Conclusions: The two-dose mRNA vaccines' effectiveness significantly exceeded the single-dose Ad26.COV2·S vaccine's effectiveness from population health and cost-effectiveness perspectives. The mRNA1273 vaccine showed slightly more effectiveness than the BNT162b vaccine.

The Development of a Measure Assessing U.S. Adults' Motives for Marriage.

Despite the existing literature assessing various aspects of marriage, there is a lack of understanding of adults' motives for pursuing marriage. Thus, this research advanced the literature by assessing adults' motives for marriage via four novel studies in which the Motives for Marriage Scale (MMS) was developed, refined, and validated. In study one, semi-structured focus groups were conducted to capture the range of motives for marriage. In study two, the factor structure of the MMS was assessed. The factor structure was then validated and the psychometric properties were established in study three. Finally, the temporal consistency of the scale was established in study four. The results confirmed that adults' marital motives are complex and that they are best conceptualized using Social Determination Theory (i.e., intrinsic, extrinsic, and instrumental motives). Investigation of the psychometric properties demonstrated the MMS to be reliable and valid. Implications for investigators and practitioners are discussed.

Comparative effectiveness over time of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine and the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine.

Real-world analysis of the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection post vaccination is important in determining the comparative effectiveness of the available vaccines. In this retrospective cohort study using deidentified administrative claims for Medicare Advantage and commercially insured individuals in a research database we examine over 3.5 million fully vaccinated individuals, including 8,848 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection, with a follow-up period between 14 and 151 days after their second dose. Our primary outcome was the rate of Covid-19 infection occurring at 30, 60, and 90 days at least 14 days after the second dose of either the mRNA-1273 vaccine or the BNT162b2 vaccine. Sub-analyses included the incidence of hospitalization, ICU admission, and death/hospice transfer. Separate analysis was conducted for individuals above and below age 65 and those without a prior diagnosis of Covid-19. We show that immunization with mRNA-1273, compared to BNT162b2, provides slightly more protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection that reaches statistical significance at 90 days with a number needed to vaccinate of >290. There are no differences in vaccine effectiveness for protection against hospitalization, ICU admission, or death/hospice transfer (aOR 1.23, 95% CI (0.67, 2.25)).