Medication and procedural abortion uptake during a period of increasing abortion hostility.

Hundreds of state-level abortion restrictions were implemented in the US between 2010 and 2020. Medication abortion was being widely adopted during this same period. Understanding the impact of health policies and political climate will improve the delivery of and access to reproductive healthcare in a period of rapid change. To measure the association between state abortion hostility and mifepristone and procedural abortion rates, we conducted a state-level repeated cross-sectional study using 2010-2020 employer-sponsored insurance claims data from Merative MarketScan. The exposure of interest was a 13-point state-level abortion hostility score based on the presence of policies which either reduce or protect access to abortion. Outcomes of interest were annual mifepristone and procedural abortion claims per 100,000 enrollees. We used a linear mixed model adjusting for urbanicity, age group, and year. We assessed whether temporal trends in abortion claims were modified by state abortion hostility by interacting year with two measurements of abortion hostility: baseline score in 2010 and change from baseline score. We found that median state-level mifepristone claims increased from 20 to 37 per 100,000 included enrollees; meanwhile, median procedural abortions claims decreased from 69 to 20 per 100. For mifepristone, every unit increase in a state's baseline abortion hostility score was associated with 7.5 (CI, -12 to -3.6) fewer mifepristone claims per 100,000 in 2010. For states with baseline hostility and change scores of zero, we did not observe a significant time trend over the 11 year study period. For every unit increase in baseline hostility, the time trend changed by 0.5 fewer claims (CI, -0.8 to -0.2) per 100,000 per year. States with higher baseline abortion hostility had fewer overall abortions, less uptake of mifepristone abortions, and slower decline in procedural abortions between 2010 and 2020. Changes in hostility from new restrictions during this time period did not significantly impact claims. Advocates for abortion access must simultaneously attend to individual abortion policies and the overall political climate. Updated research on the relationship between political climate and the evolving clinical landscape of abortion care is needed to inform this work.

Elaborate biologic approval process delays care of patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.

Background: mAbs (biologics) are indicated in patients with poorly controlled moderate-to-severe asthma. The process of prior authorization and administration of a biologic requires exceptional commitment from clinical teams. Objective: Our aim was to evaluate the process of approval and administration of biologics for asthma and determine the most common reasons associated with denials of biologics and delays in administration. Methods: We examined the records of patients with asthma who were prescribed biologics from January 2018 to January 2020 at 2 centers, Montefiore Medical Center (Bronx, NY) and Scripps Clinics (San Diego, Calif). Demographics, insurance information, and details on the approval process were collected. Results: After querying of electronic health records, the records of 352 and 70 patients with moderate-to-severe asthma were included from Montefiore and Scripps, respectively. Most patients at Montefiore (58.2%) were insured under Managed Care Medicaid (MC Medicaid), whereas most patients at Scripps (61.4%) had commercial insurance. The median times from prescription to administration of a biologic were similar: 34 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 18-63 days) and 34 days (IQR = 22.5-56.0 days) (P = .97) for Montefiore and Scripps, respectively. However, the median approval time for Montefiore was 6 days (IQR = 1-20 days) and that for Scripps was 22 days (IQR = 10-36 days) (P < .001). Approval times for prescriptions requiring appeals were significantly longer than for prescriptions approved after the initial submission: 23 days versus 2.5 days and 40.5 days versus 15.5 days (for Montefiore and Scripps, respectively [P < .001 for both]). Conclusions: Lengthy appeals contribute to delays between prescribing and administering a biologic. Site-specific practices and insurance coverage influence approval timing of the biologics for asthma.

Social, political, and economic determinants of access to biologics: A scoping review of structural determinants in the clinical disparities literature.

BACKGROUND: The number of biologics among new medication approvals is increasing. Social, political, and economic factors influence access to these expensive medications. Disparities in access to new medications can exacerbate health disparities. The notion of "structural determinants" provides a theoretical framework for broadly evaluating the integration of upstream social, political, and economic determinants in the clinical study of access. OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on access to FDA approved biologic medications with particular focus on the integration of social, political, and economic determinants into study design and interpretation. METHODS: We used PRISMA guidelines to review studies on racial and socioeconomic disparities in biologic access through August 2020. We assessed whether the design or interpretation of studies considered key economic determinants of access: the biologics supply chain, trade agreements, patents, drug research and development, insurance reimbursement, and non-insurance drug policies. RESULTS: 100 studies met our inclusion criteria. Sixty-six studies considered insurance reimbursement, but trade law, patents, and other key economic determinants were rarely considered. The literature focuses on a small number of older biologics. CONCLUSIONS: A small number of studies model the integration of structural determinants into clinical research on access to biologics, but overall this literature has many limitations and lacks integration of structural determinants. Increased interdisciplinary collaboration, availability of manufacturer data, and use of disease registries can help create structurally grounded understandings of the relationship between the political economy of expensive medications and clinical disparities.

The Embryonic Transcriptome of the Red-Eared Slider Turtle (Trachemys scripta).

The bony shell of the turtle is an evolutionary novelty not found in any other group of animals, however, research into its formation has suggested that it has evolved through modification of conserved developmental mechanisms. Although these mechanisms have been extensively characterized in model organisms, the tools for characterizing them in non-model organisms such as turtles have been limited by a lack of genomic resources. We have used a next generation sequencing approach to generate and assemble a transcriptome from stage 14 and 17 Trachemys scripta embryos, stages during which important events in shell development are known to take place. The transcriptome consists of 231,876 sequences with an N50 of 1,166 bp. GO terms and EC codes were assigned to the 61,643 unique predicted proteins identified in the transcriptome sequences. All major GO categories and metabolic pathways are represented in the transcriptome. Transcriptome sequences were used to amplify several cDNA fragments designed for use as RNA in situ probes. One of these, BMP5, was hybridized to a T. scripta embryo and exhibits both conserved and novel expression patterns. The transcriptome sequences should be of broad use for understanding the evolution and development of the turtle shell and for annotating any future T. scripta genome sequences.