Category: Statistics

JAMA. 2021 Aug 17;326(7):637-648. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.9907.

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: The elimination of racial and ethnic differences in health status and health care access is a US goal, but it is unclear whether the country has made progress over the last 2 decades.

OBJECTIVE: To determine 20-year trends in the racial and ethnic differences in self-reported measures of health status and health care access and affordability among adults in the US.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Serial cross-sectional study of National Health Interview Survey data, 1999-2018, that included 596 355 adults.

EXPOSURES: Self-reported race, ethnicity, and income level.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates and racial and ethnic differences in self-reported health status and health care access and affordability.

RESULTS: The study included 596 355 adults (mean [SE] age, 46.2 [0.07] years, 51.8% [SE, 0.10] women), of whom 4.7% were Asian, 11.8% were Black, 13.8% were Latino/Hispanic, and 69.7% were White. The estimated percentages of people with low income were 28.2%, 46.1%, 51.5%, and 23.9% among Asian, Black, Latino/Hispanic, and White individuals, respectively. Black individuals with low income had the highest estimated prevalence of poor or fair health status (29.1% [95% CI, 26.5%-31.7%] in 1999 and 24.9% [95% CI, 21.8%-28.3%] in 2018), while White individuals with middle and high income had the lowest (6.4% [95% CI, 5.9%-6.8%] in 1999 and 6.3% [95% CI, 5.8%-6.7%] in 2018). Black individuals had a significantly higher estimated prevalence of poor or fair health status than White individuals in 1999, regardless of income strata (P < .001 for the overall and low-income groups; P = .03 for middle and high-income group). From 1999 to 2018, racial and ethnic gaps in poor or fair health status did not change significantly, with or without income stratification, except for a significant decrease in the difference between White and Black individuals with low income (-6.7 percentage points [95% CI, -11.3 to -2.0]; P = .005); the difference in 2018 was no longer statistically significant (P = .13). Black and White individuals had the highest levels of self-reported functional limitations, which increased significantly among all groups over time. There were significant reductions in the racial and ethnic differences in some self-reported measures of health care access, but not affordability, with and without income stratification.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In a serial cross-sectional survey study of US adults from 1999 to 2018, racial and ethnic differences in self-reported health status, access, and affordability improved in some subgroups, but largely persisted.

PMID:34402830 | DOI:10.1001/jama.2021.9907

JAMA. 2021 Aug 17;326(7):660-669. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.7217.

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Gestational diabetes is associated with adverse maternal and offspring outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether rates of gestational diabetes among individuals at first live birth changed from 2011 to 2019 and how these rates differ by race and ethnicity in the US.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Serial cross-sectional analysis using National Center for Health Statistics data for 12 610 235 individuals aged 15 to 44 years with singleton first live births from 2011 to 2019 in the US.

EXPOSURES: Gestational diabetes data stratified by the following race and ethnicity groups: Hispanic/Latina (including Central and South American, Cuban, Mexican, and Puerto Rican); non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander (including Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipina, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese); non-Hispanic Black; and non-Hispanic White.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were age-standardized rates of gestational diabetes (per 1000 live births) and respective mean annual percent change and rate ratios (RRs) of gestational diabetes in non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander (overall and in subgroups), non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic/Latina (overall and in subgroups) individuals relative to non-Hispanic White individuals (referent group).

RESULTS: Among the 12 610 235 included individuals (mean [SD] age, 26.3 [5.8] years), the overall age-standardized gestational diabetes rate significantly increased from 47.6 (95% CI, 47.1-48.0) to 63.5 (95% CI, 63.1-64.0) per 1000 live births from 2011 to 2019, a mean annual percent change of 3.7% (95% CI, 2.8%-4.6%) per year. Of the 12 610 235 participants, 21% were Hispanic/Latina (2019 gestational diabetes rate, 66.6 [95% CI, 65.6-67.7]; RR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.13-1.18]), 8% were non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander (2019 gestational diabetes rate, 102.7 [95% CI, 100.7-104.7]; RR, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.74-1.82]), 14% were non-Hispanic Black (2019 gestational diabetes rate, 55.7 [95% CI, 54.5-57.0]; RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-0.99]), and 56% were non-Hispanic White (2019 gestational diabetes rate, 57.7 [95% CI, 57.2-58.3]; referent group). Gestational diabetes rates were highest in Asian Indian participants (2019 gestational diabetes rate, 129.1 [95% CI, 100.7-104.7]; RR, 2.24 [95% CI, 2.15-2.33]). Among Hispanic/Latina participants, gestational diabetes rates were highest among Puerto Rican individuals (2019 gestational diabetes rate, 75.8 [95% CI, 71.8-79.9]; RR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.24-1.39]). Gestational diabetes rates increased among all race and ethnicity subgroups and across all age groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among individuals with a singleton first live birth in the US from 2011 to 2019, rates of gestational diabetes increased across all racial and ethnic subgroups. Differences in absolute gestational diabetes rates were observed across race and ethnicity subgroups.

PMID:34402831 | DOI:10.1001/jama.2021.7217

JAMA. 2021 Aug 17;326(7):628-636. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.10413.

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: There are racial inequities in health care access and quality in the United States. It is unknown whether such differences for racial and ethnic minority beneficiaries differ between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare or whether access and quality are better for minority beneficiaries in 1 of the 2 programs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare differences in rates of enrollment, ambulatory care access, and ambulatory care quality by race and ethnicity in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Exploratory observational cohort study of a nationally representative sample of 45 833 person-years (26 887 persons) in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey from 2015 to 2018, comparing differences in program enrollment and measures of access and quality by race and ethnicity.

EXPOSURES: Minority race and ethnicity (Black, Hispanic, Native American, or Asian/Pacific Islander) vs White or multiracial; Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare enrollment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Six patient-reported measures of ambulatory care access (whether a beneficiary had a usual source of care in the past year, had a primary care clinician usual source of care, or had a specialist visit) and quality (influenza vaccination, pneumonia vaccination, and colon cancer screening).

RESULTS: The final sample included 6023 persons (mean age, 68.9 [SD, 12.6] years; 57.3% women) from minority groups and 20 864 persons (mean age, 71.9 [SD, 10.8] years; 54.9% women) from White or multiracial groups, who accounted for 9816 and 36 017 person-years, respectively. Comparing Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare among minority beneficiaries, those in Medicare Advantage had significantly better rates of access to a primary care clinician usual source of care (79.1% vs 72.5%; adjusted marginal difference, 4.0%; 95% CI, 1.0%-6.9%), influenza vaccinations (67.3% vs 63.0%; adjusted marginal difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, 1.9%-8.5%), pneumonia vaccinations (70.7% vs 64.6%; adjusted marginal difference, 6.1%; 95% CI, 2.7%-9.4%), and colon cancer screenings (69.4% vs 61.1%; adjusted marginal difference, 7.1%; 95% CI, 3.8%-10.3%). Comparing minority vs White or multiracial beneficiaries across both programs, minority beneficiaries had significantly lower rates of access to a primary care clinician usual source of care (adjusted marginal difference, 4.7%; 95% CI, 2.5%-6.8%), specialist visits (adjusted marginal difference, 10.8%; 95% CI, 8.3%-13.3%), influenza vaccinations (adjusted marginal difference, 4.3%; 95% CI, 1.2%-7.4%), and pneumonia vaccinations (adjusted marginal difference, 6.4%; 95% CI, 3.9%-9.0%). The interaction of race and ethnicity with insurance type was not statistically significant for any of the 6 outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this exploratory study of Medicare beneficiaries in 2015-2018, enrollment in Medicare Advantage vs traditional Medicare was significantly associated with better outcomes for access and quality among minority beneficiaries; however, minority beneficiaries were significantly more likely to experience worse outcomes for most access and quality measures than White or multiracial beneficiaries in both programs.

PMID:34402828 | DOI:10.1001/jama.2021.10413

JAMA. 2021 Aug 17;326(7):649-659. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.9937.

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Measuring health care spending by race and ethnicity is important for understanding patterns in utilization and treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate, identify, and account for differences in health care spending by race and ethnicity from 2002 through 2016 in the US.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This exploratory study included data from 7.3 million health system visits, admissions, or prescriptions captured in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2002-2016) and the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (2002-2012), which were combined with the insured population and notified case estimates from the National Health Interview Survey (2002; 2016) and health care spending estimates from the Disease Expenditure project (1996-2016).

EXPOSURE: Six mutually exclusive self-reported race and ethnicity groups.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total and age-standardized health care spending per person by race and ethnicity for each year from 2002 through 2016 by type of care. Health care spending per notified case by race and ethnicity for key diseases in 2016. Differences in health care spending across race and ethnicity groups were decomposed into differences in utilization rate vs differences in price and intensity of care.

RESULTS: In 2016, an estimated $2.4 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI], $2.4 trillion-$2.4 trillion) was spent on health care across the 6 types of care included in this study. The estimated age-standardized total health care spending per person in 2016 was $7649 (95% UI, $6129-$8814) for American Indian and Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) individuals; $4692 (95% UI, $4068-$5202) for Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic) individuals; $7361 (95% UI, $6917-$7797) for Black (non-Hispanic) individuals; $6025 (95% UI, $5703-$6373) for Hispanic individuals; $9276 (95% UI, $8066-$10 601) for individuals categorized as multiple races (non-Hispanic); and $8141 (95% UI, $8038-$8258) for White (non-Hispanic) individuals, who accounted for an estimated 72% (95% UI, 71%-73%) of health care spending. After adjusting for population size and age, White individuals received an estimated 15% (95% UI, 13%-17%; P < .001) more spending on ambulatory care than the all-population mean. Black (non-Hispanic) individuals received an estimated 26% (95% UI, 19%-32%; P < .001) less spending than the all-population mean on ambulatory care but received 19% (95% UI, 3%-32%; P = .02) more on inpatient and 12% (95% UI, 4%-24%; P = .04) more on emergency department care. Hispanic individuals received an estimated 33% (95% UI, 26%-37%; P < .001) less spending per person on ambulatory care than the all-population mean. Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (non-Hispanic) individuals received less spending than the all-population mean on all types of care except dental (all P < .001), while American Indian and Alaska Native (non-Hispanic) individuals had more spending on emergency department care than the all-population mean (estimated 90% more; 95% UI, 11%-165%; P = .04), and multiple-race (non-Hispanic) individuals had more spending on emergency department care than the all-population mean (estimated 40% more; 95% UI, 19%-63%; P = .006). All 18 of the statistically significant race and ethnicity spending differences by type of care corresponded with differences in utilization. These differences persisted when controlling for underlying disease burden.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the US from 2002 through 2016, health care spending varied by race and ethnicity across different types of care even after adjusting for age and health conditions. Further research is needed to determine current health care spending by race and ethnicity, including spending related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

PMID:34402829 | DOI:10.1001/jama.2021.9937

Emerg Microbes Infect. 2021 Aug 17:1-32. doi: 10.1080/22221751.2021.1969869. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

Male sex was repeatedly identified as a risk factor for death and intensive care admission. However, it is yet unclear whether sex hormones are associated with disease severity in COVID-19 patients. In this study, we analyzed sex hormone levels (estradiol and testosterone) of male and female COVID-19 patients (n=50) admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) in comparison to control non-COVID-19 patients at the ICU (n=42), non-COVID-19 patients with the most prevalent comorbidity (coronary heart diseases) present within the COVID-19 cohort (n=39) and healthy individuals (n=50). We detected significantly elevated estradiol levels in critically ill male COVID-19 patients compared to all control cohorts. Testosterone levels were significantly reduced in critically ill male COVID-19 patients compared to control cohorts. No statistically significant differences in sex hormone levels were detected in critically ill female COVID-19 patients, albeit similar trends towards elevated estradiol levels were observed. Linear regression analysis revealed that among a broad range of cytokines and chemokines analyzed, IFN-γ levels are positively associated with estradiol levels in male and female COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, male COVID-19 patients with elevated estradiol levels were more likely to receive ECMO treatment. Thus, we herein identified that disturbance of sex hormone metabolism might present a hallmark in critically ill male COVID-19 patients.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04979091..

PMID:34402750 | DOI:10.1080/22221751.2021.1969869

J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2021 Aug 17:1-17. doi: 10.1080/02646838.2021.1959538. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Unintended pregnancy is a risk factor for less maternal-fetal attachment (MFA) and low levels of psychological well-being. This study was conducted to determine the effect of an MFA-based training programme on maternal anxiety, depression and worries following an unintended pregnancy.

METHODS: This randomised clinical trial was conducted on 68 women with an unintended pregnancy in north of Iran during 2018-2019. Participants were allocated to the trained and control groups through simple randomisation. The trained group received the MFA-based training for three 90-min sessions. Demographic questionnaire, London measure of unplanned pregnancy, Cranley’s MFA scale, Edinburgh postnatal depression, Spielberger anxiety and prenatal distress questionnaires were used. Data were analysed by descriptive statistics, chi square, Fisher’s exact test, independent and paired-samples t-tests, Mann-Whitney U, analysis of covariance, and multivariate analysis of variance.

RESULTS: After the intervention, the mean MFA, anxiety and depression scores were not significantly different between the trained and control groups Worry was significantly decreased in the trained group (p = 0.001) and increased in the control group (p = 0.03).

DISCUSSION: Although the MFA-based training could not significantly improve MFA, maternal anxiety and depression, it has been effective on worry in women with the unintended pregnancies.

PMID:34402709 | DOI:10.1080/02646838.2021.1959538

Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2021 Aug 17:1-12. doi: 10.1080/13825585.2021.1962794. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

The current study investigated whether memory self-efficacy and beliefs about the controllability of memory abilities relate to older adults’ perceptions of the difficulty and effectiveness of various strategies for improving their everyday memory. One hundred and fifteen older adults (ages 65-89) completed the Personal Beliefs about Memory Instrument to evaluate their beliefs about their own memory abilities and the Memory Strategies Questionnaire to assess perceptions of the difficulty and effectiveness of utilizing six different strategic approaches for optimizing memory function. Results showed that memory-self efficacy related to older adults’ perceptions of how difficult various memory strategies are to implement, whereas control beliefs related to perceptions of memory strategy effectiveness. These results advance our understanding of how memory beliefs influence older adults’ selection of approaches to improve their everyday memory abilities.

PMID:34402742 | DOI:10.1080/13825585.2021.1962794

Emerg Microbes Infect. 2021 Aug 17:1-50. doi: 10.1080/22221751.2021.1969868. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: A common trait among RNA viruses is their high capability to acquire genetic variability due to viral and host mechanisms. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis enables deep study of the viral quasispecies in samples from infected individuals.

METHODS: In this study, the viral quasispecies complexity and single nucleotide polymorphisms of the SARS-CoV-2 spike gene of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with mild or severe disease was investigated using next-generation sequencing (Illumina platform).

RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 spike variability was higher in patients with long-lasting infection. Most substitutions found were present at frequencies lower than 1%, and had an A → G or T → C pattern, consistent with variants caused by adenosine deaminase acting on RNA-1 (ADAR1). ADAR1 affected a small fraction of replicating genomes, but produced multiple, mainly non-synonymous mutations.

CONCLUSIONS: ADAR1 editing during replication rather than the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (nsp12) was the predominant mechanism generating SARS-CoV-2 genetic variability. However, the mutations produced are not fixed in the infected human population, suggesting that ADAR1 may have an antiviral role, whereas nsp12-induced mutations occurring in patients with high viremia and persistent infection are the main source of new SARS-CoV-2 variants.

PMID:34402744 | DOI:10.1080/22221751.2021.1969868

Ann Coloproctol. 2021 Aug 11. doi: 10.3393/ac.2020.01060.0151. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This study was aimed to assess the feasibility of laparoscopic rectal surgery, comparing quality of surgical specimen, morbidity, and mortality.

METHODS: Prospectively acquired data from consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, at 2 minimally invasive colorectal units, operated by the same team was included. Locally advanced rectal tumors were identified as T3B or T4 with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging scans. All the patients were operated on by the same team. The 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to create a perfect match in terms of tumor height.

RESULTS: Total of 418 laparoscopic resections were performed, out of which 109 patients had locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and were propensity score matched with non-LARC (NLARC) patients. Median operation time was higher for the LARC group (270 minutes vs. 250 minutes, P=0.011). However, conversion to open surgery was done in 5 vs. 2 patients (P=0.445), reoperation in 8 vs. 7 (P=0.789), clinical anastomotic leak was found in 3 vs. 2 (P=0.670), and 30-day mortality rates was 2 vs. 1 (P>0.999) between LARC and NLARC, respectively. Readmission rate was higher in the NLARC group (33 patients vs. 19 patients, P=0.026), due to stoma-related issues. There was no statistically significant difference in the R0 resection between the 2 groups (99 patients in LARC vs. 104 patients in NLARC, P=0.284).

CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that standardized approach to laparoscopy is safe and feasible in LARC. Comparable postoperative short-term clinical and pathological outcomes were seen between LARC and NLARC groups.

PMID:34399445 | DOI:10.3393/ac.2020.01060.0151

Thromb Haemost. 2021 Aug 16. doi: 10.1055/a-1588-8867. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated stroke risk in patients with single timepoint screen-detected atrial fibrillation (AF) and the effect of oral anticoagulants (OAC).

METHODS: Consecutive patients aged ≥65 years attending medical outpatient clinics were prospectively enrolled for AF-screening using handheld single-lead ECG (AliveCor) from 12/2014 to 12/2017 (NCT02409654). Repeated screening was performed in patients with >1 visit during this period. Three cohorts were formed, screen-detected AF, clinically-diagnosed AF and no AF. Ischemic stroke risk was estimated using adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratios (aSHR) from multivariate regression and no AF as reference, and stratified according to OAC use.

RESULTS: Of 11,972 subjects enrolled, 2,238 (18.7%) had clinically-diagnosed AF at study enrollment. The yield of screen-detected AF on initial screening was 2.3% (n=223/9,734). AF was clinically-diagnosed during follow-up in 2.3% (n=216/9,440) and during subsequent screening in 71 initially screen-negative patients. Compared to no AF, patients with screen-detected AF without OAC treatment had the highest stroke risk (aSHR 2.63; 95% confidence interval 1.46-4.72), while aSHR for clinically-diagnosed AF without OAC use was 2.01 (1.54-2.62). Among screen-detected AF the risk of stroke was significantly less with OAC (no strokes in 196 person-years) compared with those not given OAC (12 strokes in 429 person-years), p=0.01.

CONCLUSION: The prognosis of single timepoint ECG screen-detected AF is not benign. The risk of stroke is high enough to warrant OAC use, and reduced by OAC.

PMID:34399432 | DOI:10.1055/a-1588-8867