Disparities in COVID-19 testing and outcomes among Asian American and Pacific Islanders: an observational study in a large health care system.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted racial and ethnic minorities in the United States, including Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (Asian Americans and NH/PIs). However, few studies have highlighted nor disaggregated these disparities by Asian Americans and NH/PIs ethnic subgroups. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional observational study aimed to assess variation of Asian Americans and NH/PIs COVID-19 testing and outcomes compared to non-Hispanic Whites (NHW). The study utilized data from the electronic health records (EHR) and the COVID-19 Universal Registry for Vital Evaluations (CURVE) from all patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 (n = 556,690) at a large, health system in Northern and Central California between February 20, 2020 and March 31, 2021. Chi-square tests were used for testing differences in the severity of COVID-19 (hospitalization, ICU admission, death) and patient demographic and clinical characteristics across the Asian Americans and NH/PIs subgroups and NHW. Unadjusted and adjusted Odds Ratios (ORs) were estimated for measuring effect of race ethnicity on severity of COVID-19 using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the entire tested population, 70,564/556,690 (12.7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 positivity of Asian subgroups varied from 4% in the Chinese and Korean populations, to 11.2%, 13.5%, and 12.5% for Asian Indian, Filipino, and "other Asian" populations respectively. Pacific Islanders had the greatest subgroup test positivity at 20.1%. Among Asian Americans and NH/PIs patients with COVID-19 disease, Vietnamese (OR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.30-3.25), "Other Asian" (OR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.79-2.54), Filipino (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.34-2.23), Japanese (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.10-2.88), and Chinese (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.34-2.23) subgroups had almost double the odds of hospitalization compared to NHW. Pacific Islander (OR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.19-2.10) and mixed race subgroups (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.10-2.20) had more than one and a half times odds of hospitalization compared to NHW. Adjusted odds of ICU admission or death among hospitalized patients by different Asian subgroups varied but were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Variation of COVID-19 testing and hospitalization by Asian subgroups was striking in our study. A focus on the Asian Americans and NH/PIs population with disaggregation of subgroups is crucial to understand nuances of health access, utilization, and outcomes among subgroups to create health equity for these underrepresented populations.

Patient and Health Professional Perceptions of Telemonitoring for Hypertension Management: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is the most prevalent and important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, affecting nearly 50% of the US adult population; however, only 30% of these patients achieve controlled blood pressure (BP). Incorporating strategies into primary care that take into consideration individual patient needs, such as remote BP monitoring, may improve hypertension management. OBJECTIVE: From March 2018 to December 2018, Stanford implemented a precision health pilot called Humanwide, which aimed to leverage high-technology and high-touch medicine to tailor individualized care for conditions such as hypertension. We examined multi-stakeholder perceptions of hypertension management in Humanwide to evaluate the program's acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and sustainability. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 16 patients and 15 health professionals to assess their experiences with hypertension management in Humanwide. We transcribed and analyzed the interviews using a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive analysis to identify common themes around hypertension management and consensus methods to ensure reliability and validity. RESULTS: A total of 63% (10/16) of the patients and 40% (6/15) of the health professionals mentioned hypertension in the context of Humanwide. These participants reported that remote BP monitoring improved motivation, BP control, and overall clinic efficiency. The health professionals discussed feasibility challenges, including the time needed to analyze BP data and provide individualized feedback, integration of BP data, technological difficulties with the BP cuff, and decreased patient use of remote BP monitoring over time. CONCLUSIONS: Remote BP monitoring for hypertension management in Humanwide was acceptable to patients and health professionals and appropriate for care. Important challenges need to be addressed to improve the feasibility and sustainability of this approach by leveraging team-based care, engaging patients to sustain remote BP monitoring, standardizing electronic medical record integration of BP measurements, and finding more user-friendly BP cuffs.