INTRAVITREAL ANTI-VASCULAR ENDOTHELIAL GROWTH FACTOR PHARMACEUTICAL UTILIZATION AND FINANCIAL IMPACT IN A VALUE-BASED CARE PROGRAM.

PURPOSE: To investigate trends and the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the utilization of intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) pharmaceuticals in an accountable care organization (ACO). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services beneficiary claims for all patients in the Houston Methodist Coordinated Care ACO registry during the years 2018, 2019, and 2020. RESULTS: Across the 3 years studied, a mean of 708 patients received anti-VEGF injections per year. The percentage of patients who received anti-VEGF injections decreased in each sequential year, with a steeper decline during the COVID-19 pandemic in the year 2020 (decrease by 0.4% from 2019 to 2020, P < 0.001; decrease by 0.2% from 2018 to 2019, P = 0.1453). The percentage of patients receiving bevacizumab of the total number of patients receiving any anti-VEGF treatment decreased (bevacizumab decreased by 6% from 2019 to 2020, P = 0.0174; decreased by 7% from 2018 to 2019, P = 0.0074). The COVID-19 pandemic did not seem to correlate with a change in the distribution of the specific anti-VEGF injection used. CONCLUSION: Despite the lower price which may correlate with value-based care, bevacizumab was the least used anti-VEGF treatment. COVID-19 correlated with a larger decrease in the utilization of all three anti-VEGF drugs.

Disparities in COVID-19 hospitalizations and mortality among black and Hispanic patients: cross-sectional analysis from the greater Houston metropolitan area.

BACKGROUND: Disparate racial/ethnic burdens of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may be attributable to higher susceptibility to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or to factors such as differences in hospitalization and care provision. METHODS: In our cross-sectional analysis of lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases from a tertiary, eight-hospital healthcare system across greater Houston, multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to evaluate hospitalization and mortality odds for non-Hispanic Blacks (NHBs) vs. non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs) and Hispanics vs. non-Hispanics. RESULTS: Between March 3rd and July 18th, 2020, 70,496 individuals were tested for SARS-CoV-2; 12,084 (17.1%) tested positive, of whom 3536 (29.3%) were hospitalized. Among positive cases, NHBs and Hispanics were significantly younger than NHWs and Hispanics, respectively (mean age NHBs vs. NHWs: 46.0 vs. 51.7 years; p < 0.001 and Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic: 44.0 vs. 48.7 years; p < 0.001). Despite younger age, NHBs (vs. NHWs) had a higher prevalence of diabetes (25.2% vs. 17.6%; p < 0.001), hypertension (47.7% vs. 43.1%; p < 0.001), and chronic kidney disease (5.0% vs. 3.3%; p = 0.001). Both minority groups resided in lower median income (median income [USD]; NHBs vs. NHWs: 63,489 vs. 75,793; p < 0.001, Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic: 59,104 vs. 68,318; p < 0.001) and higher population density areas (median population density [per square mile]; NHBs vs. NHWs: 3257 vs. 2742; p < 0.001, Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic: 3381 vs. 2884; p < 0.001). In fully adjusted models, NHBs (vs. NHWs) and Hispanics (vs. non-Hispanic) had higher likelihoods of hospitalization, aOR (95% CI): 1.42 (1.24-1.63) and 1.61 (1.46-1.78), respectively. No differences were observed in intensive care unit (ICU) utilization or treatment parameters. Models adjusted for demographics, vital signs, laboratory parameters, hospital complications, and ICU admission vital signs demonstrated non-significantly lower likelihoods of in-hospital mortality among NHBs and Hispanic patients, aOR (95% CI): 0.65 (0.40-1.03) and 0.89 (0.59-1.31), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data did not demonstrate racial and ethnic differences in care provision and hospital outcomes. Higher susceptibility of racial and ethnic minorities to SARS-CoV-2 and subsequent hospitalization may be driven primarily by social determinants.

Social Determinants of Adherence to COVID-19 Risk Mitigation Measures Among Adults With Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDOH) may limit the practice of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) risk mitigation guidelines with health implications for individuals with underlying cardiovascular disease (CVD). Population-based evidence of the association between SDOH and practicing such mitigation strategies in adults with CVD is lacking. We used the National Opinion Research Center's COVID-19 Household Impact Survey conducted between April and June 2020 to evaluate sociodemographic disparities in adherence to COVID-19 risk mitigation measures in a sample of respondents with underlying CVD representing 18 geographic areas of the United States. METHODS: CVD status was ascertained by self-reported history of receiving heart disease, heart attack, or stroke diagnosis. We built de novo, a cumulative index of SDOH burden using education, insurance, economic stability, 30-day food security, urbanicity, neighborhood quality, and integration. We described the practice of measures under the broad strategies of personal protection (mask, hand hygiene, and physical distancing), social distancing (avoiding crowds, restaurants, social activities, and high-risk contact), and work flexibility (work from home, canceling/postponing work). We reported prevalence ratios and 95% CIs for the association between SDOH burden (quartiles of cumulative indices) and practicing these measures adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, and interview wave. RESULTS: Two thousand thirty-six of 25 269 (7.0%) adults, representing 8.69 million in 18 geographic areas of the United States, reported underlying CVD. Compared with the least SDOH burden, fewer individuals with the greatest SDOH burden practiced all personal protection (75.6% versus 89.0%) and social distancing measures (41.9% versus 58.9%) and had any flexible work schedule (26.2% versus 41.4%). These associations remained statistically significant after full adjustment: personal protection (prevalence ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.96]; P=0.009), social distancing (prevalence ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.51-0.94]; P=0.018), and work flexibility (prevalence ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.36-0.79]; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: SDOH burden is associated with lower COVID-19 risk mitigation practices in the CVD population. Identifying and prioritizing individuals whose medical vulnerability is compounded by social adversity may optimize emerging preventive efforts, including vaccination guidelines.

Sex differences in susceptibility, severity, and outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019: Cross-sectional analysis from a diverse US metropolitan area.

INTRODUCTION: Sex is increasingly recognized as an important factor in the epidemiology and outcome of many diseases. This also appears to hold for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Evidence from China and Europe has suggested that mortality from COVID-19 infection is higher in men than women, but evidence from US populations is lacking. Utilizing data from a large healthcare provider, we determined if males, as compared to females have a higher likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility, and if among the hospitalized COVID-19 patients, male sex is independently associated with COVID-19 severity and poor in-hospital outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from a COVID-19 Surveillance and Outcomes Registry (CURATOR). Data were extracted from Electronic Medical Records (EMR). A total of 96,473 individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal swab specimens via Polymerized Chain Reaction (PCR) tests were included. For hospital-based analyses, all patients admitted during the same time-period were included. Of the 96,473 patients tested, 14,992 (15.6%) tested positive, of whom 4,785 (31.9%) were hospitalized and 452 (9.5%) died. Among all patients tested, men were significantly older. The overall SARS-CoV-2 positivity among all tested individuals was 15.5%, and was higher in males as compared to females 17.0% vs. 14.6% [OR 1.20]. This sex difference held after adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, marital status, insurance type, median income, BMI, smoking and 17 comorbidities included in Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) [aOR 1.39]. A higher proportion of males (vs. females) experienced pulmonary (ARDS, hypoxic respiratory failure) and extra-pulmonary (acute renal injury) complications during their hospital course. After adjustment, length of stay (LOS), need for mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality were significantly higher in males as compared to females. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of a large US cohort, males were more likely to test positive for COVID-19. In hospitalized patients, males were more likely to have complications, require ICU admission and mechanical ventilation, and had higher mortality than females, independent of age. Sex disparities in COVID-19 vulnerability are present, and emphasize the importance of examining sex-disaggregated data to improve our understanding of the biological processes involved to potentially tailor treatment and risk stratify patients.

Racial and ethnic disparities in SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: analysis of a COVID-19 observational registry for a diverse US metropolitan population.

INTRODUCTION: Data on race and ethnic disparities for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are limited. We analysed sociodemographic factors associated with higher likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection and explore mediating pathways for race and ethnic disparities in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of the COVID-19 Surveillance and Outcomes Registry, which captures data for a large healthcare system, comprising one central tertiary care hospital, seven large community hospitals and an expansive ambulatory/emergency care network in the Greater Houston area. Nasopharyngeal samples for individuals inclusive of all ages, races, ethnicities and sex were tested for SARS-CoV-2. We analysed sociodemographic (age, sex, race, ethnicity, household income, residence population density) and comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index, hypertension, diabetes, obesity) factors. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to provide adjusted OR (aOR) and 95% CI for likelihood of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Structural equation modelling (SEM) framework was used to explore three mediation pathways (low income, high population density, high comorbidity burden) for the association between non-Hispanic black (NHB) race, Hispanic ethnicity and SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Among 20 228 tested individuals, 1551 (7.7%) tested positive. The overall mean (SD) age was 51.1 (19.0) years, 62% were females, 22% were black and 18% were Hispanic. NHB and Hispanic ethnicity were associated with lower socioeconomic status and higher population density residence. In the fully adjusted model, NHB (vs non-Hispanic white; aOR, 2.23, CI 1.90 to 2.60) and Hispanic ethnicity (vs non-Hispanic; aOR, 1.95, CI 1.72 to 2.20) had a higher likelihood of infection. Older individuals and males were also at higher risk of infection. The SEM framework demonstrated a significant indirect effect of NHB and Hispanic ethnicity on SARS-CoV-2 infection mediated via a pathway including residence in densely populated zip code. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence of race and ethnic disparities in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that are potentially mediated through unique social determinants of health.