Infections with long latency in international refugees, immigrants, and migrants seen at GeoSentinel sites, 2016-2018.

BACKGROUND: The continued increase in global migration compels clinicians to be aware of specific health problems faced by refugees, immigrants, and migrants (RIM). This analysis aimed to characterize RIM evaluated at GeoSentinel sites, their migration history, and infectious diseases detected through screening and diagnostic workups. METHODS: A case report form was used to collect data on demographics, migration route, infectious diseases screened, test results, and primary infectious disease diagnosis for RIM patients seen at GeoSentinel sites. Descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: Between October 2016 and November 2018, 5,319 RIM patients were evaluated at GeoSentinel sites in 19 countries. Africa was the region of birth for 2,436 patients (46 %), followed by the Americas (1,644, 31 %), and Asia (1,098, 21 %). Tuberculosis (TB) was the most common infection screened and reported as positive (853/2,273, 38 % positive by any method). TB, strongyloidiasis, and hepatitis B surface antigen positivity were observed across all migration administrative categories and regions of birth. Chagas disease was reported only among RIM patients from the Americas (393/394, 100 %) and schistosomiasis predominantly in those from Africa (480/510, 94 %). TB infection (694/5,319, 13 %) and Chagas disease (524/5,319, 10 %) were the leading primary infectious disease diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Several infections of long latency (e.g. TB, hepatitis B, and strongyloidiasis) with potential for long-term sequelae were seen among RIM patients across all migration administrative categories and regions of origin. Obtaining detailed epidemiologic information from RIM patients is critical to optimize detection of diseases of individual and public health importance, particularly those with long latency periods.

Understanding COVID-19 Health Disparities With Birth Country and Language Data.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding of COVID-19-related disparities in the U.S. is largely informed by traditional race/ethnicity categories that mask important social group differences. This analysis utilizes granular information on patients' country of birth and preferred language from a large health system to provide more nuanced insights into health disparities. METHODS: Data from patients seeking care from a large Midwestern health system between January 1, 2019 and July 31, 2021 and COVID-19-related events occurring from March 18, 2020 to July 31, 2021 were used to describe COVID-19 disparities. Statistics were performed between January 1, 2022 and March 15, 2023. Age-adjusted generalized linear models estimated RR across race/ethnicity, country of birth grouping, preferred language, and multiple stratified groups. RESULTS: The majority of the 1,114,895 patients were born in western advanced economies (58.6%). Those who were Hispanic/Latino, were born in Latin America and the Caribbean, and preferred Spanish language had highest RRs of infection and hospitalization. Black-identifying patients born in sub-Saharan African countries had a higher risk of infection than their western advanced economies counterparts. Subanalyses revealed elevated hospitalization and death risk for White-identifying patients from Eastern Europe and Central Asia and Asian-identifying patients from Southeast Asia and the Pacific. All non-English languages had a higher risk of all COVID-19 outcomes, most notably Hmong and languages from Burma/Myanmar. CONCLUSIONS: Stratifications by country of birth grouping and preferred language identified culturally distinct groups whose vulnerability to COVID-19 would have otherwise been masked by traditional racial/ethnic labels. Routine collection of these data is critical for identifying social groups at high risk and for informing linguistically and culturally relevant interventions.

Innovative Approaches to Improve COVID-19 Case Investigation and Contact Tracing Among Refugees, Immigrants, and Migrants: Lessons Learned from a Newly Established National Resource Center.

Effective COVID-19 case investigation and contact tracing (CICT) among refugee, immigrant, and migrant (RIM) communities requires innovative approaches to address linguistic, cultural and community specific preferences. The National Resource Center for Refugees, Immigrants, and Migrants (NRC-RIM) is a CDC-funded initiative to support state and local health departments with COVID-19 response among RIM communities, including CICT. This note from the field will describe NRC-RIM and initial outcomes and lessons learned, including the use of human-centered design to develop health messaging around COVID-19 CICT; training developed for case investigators, contact tracers, and other public health professionals working with RIM community members; and promising practices and other resources related to COVID-19 CICT among RIM communities that have been implemented by health departments, health systems, or community-based organizations.

Evaluation of Preferred Language and Timing of COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Disease Outcomes.

Importance: Beyond traditional race and ethnicity demographic characteristics, additional discrete data variables are needed for informed health interventions in the US. Objective: To examine whether COVID-19 vaccine uptake patterns and associated disease outcomes differ among language preference groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cohort study of 851 410 individuals aged 18 years or older in a large multispecialty health system in Minnesota and western Wisconsin was conducted between December 15, 2020, and March 31, 2022. Exposure: Self-identified language preference and limited English proficiency (LEP) as measured by interpreter need were used to create subgroups using US census categories and attention to capture languages known to represent refugee groups. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was COVID-19 vaccination uptake rates and time to first vaccine. Secondary outcomes were rates of COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death. Results: Most of the 851 410 participants (women, 493 910 [58.0%]; median age, 29 [IQR, 35-64] years) were US-born English speakers; 7.5% were born in other countries, 4.0% had a language preference other than English (LPOE), and 3.0% indicated LEP as measured by interpreter need. Marked temporal clusters were observed for COVID-19 vaccination uptake, hospitalizations, and deaths associated with primary series vaccine eligibility, booster availability, and COVID-19 variants. Delayed first-dose vaccine was observed with LPOE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.82-0.84) and interpreter need (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.80-0.82) compared with those with English language preference and proficiency. Patients with LPOE were approximately twice as likely to be hospitalized (rate ratio [RR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.63-2.08) or die (RR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.65-2.69). Patients with LEP experienced even higher rates of hospitalization (RR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.73-2.25) and COVID-19-associated death (RR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.79-2.95). Outcomes varied for individual language preference groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, delayed time to first-dose vaccine was associated with increased COVID-19 hospitalization and death rates for specific LPOE and LEP groups. The findings suggest that data collection of language preference and interpreter need provides actionable health intervention information. Standardized system-level data collection, including at a national level, may improve efficient identification of social groups with disproportionate health disparities and provide key information on improving health equity in the US.

Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for populations from strongyloidiasis high-risk areas globally who will initiate corticosteroid treatment in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The risk of developing strongyloidiasis hyperinfection syndrome appears to be elevated among individuals who initiate corticosteroid treatment. Presumptive treatment or treatment after screening for populations from Strongyloides stercoralis-endemic areas has been suggested before initiating corticosteroids. However, potential clinical and economic impacts of preventative strategies have not been evaluated. METHODS: Using a decision tree model for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals from S. stercoralis-endemic areas globally initiating corticosteroid treatment, we evaluated clinical and economic impacts of two interventions, 'Screen and Treat' (i.e. screening and ivermectin treatment after a positive test), and 'Presumptively Treat,' compared to current practice (i.e. 'No Intervention'). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness (net cost per death averted) of each strategy using broad ranges of pre-intervention prevalence and hospitalization rates for chronic strongyloidiasis patients initiating corticosteroid treatment. RESULTS: For the baseline parameter estimates, 'Presumptively Treat' was cost-effective (i.e. clinically superior with cost per death averted less than a threshold of $10.6 million per life) compared to 'No Intervention' ($532 000 per death averted) or 'Screen and Treat' ($39 000 per death averted). The two parameters contributing the most uncertainty to the analysis were the hospitalization rate for individuals with chronic strongyloidiasis who initiate corticosteroids (baseline 0.166%) and prevalence of chronic strongyloidiasis (baseline 17.3%) according to a series of one-way sensitivity analyses. For hospitalization rates greater than 0.022%, 'Presumptively Treat' would remain cost-effective. Similarly, 'Presumptively Treat' remained preferred at prevalence rates of 4% or above; 'Screen and Treat' was preferred for prevalence between 2% and 4%, and 'No Intervention' was preferred for prevalence less than 2%. CONCLUSIONS: The findings support decision-making for interventions for populations from S. stercoralis endemic areas before initiating corticosteroid treatment. Although some input parameters are highly uncertain and prevalence varies across endemic countries, 'Presumptively Treat' would likely be preferred across a range for many populations given plausible parameters.

Transplantation and immigration: Comparing infectious complications and outcomes between foreign-born and US-born kidney transplant recipients in Minnesota.

BACKGROUND: Foreign-born kidney transplant recipients (FBKTRs) are at increased risk for reactivation of latent infections that may impact outcomes. We aimed to compare the etiology of infections and outcomes between FBKTR and United States KTRs (USKTR). METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent kidney transplantation between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 at two transplant centers in Minnesota. Frequency and etiology of infections as well as outcomes (graft function, rejection, and patient survival) at 1-year post-transplant between FBKTR and USKTR were compared. RESULTS: Of the 573 transplant recipients, 124 (21.6%) were foreign-born and 449 (78.4%) US-born. At least one infection occurred in 411 (71.7%) patients (38.2% bacterial, 55% viral, 9.4% fungal). Viral infections were more frequent in FBKTR, particularly BK viremia (38.7% vs. 21.2%, p < .001). No statistical differences were found for bacterial or fungal infections; no parasitic infections were identified in either group. No geographically-restricted infections were noted aside from a single case of Madura foot in a FBKTR. Rejection episodes were more common in USKTR (p = .037), but stable/improving graft function (p = .976) and mortality (p = .451) at 1-year posttransplantation were similar in both groups. After adjusting for covariates, previous transplantation was associated with a higher number of infections (IRR 1.35, 95% confidence intervals 1.05-1.73, p = .020). CONCLUSION: Although viral infections were more frequent in FBKTR, overall frequency and etiology of most infections and outcomes were similar between FBKTR and USKTR suggesting that comprehensive transplant care is providing timely prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of latent infections in FBKTR.

Costs of malaria treatment in the United States.

We estimated inpatient and outpatient payments for malaria treatment in the USA. The mean cost per hospitalized patient was significantly higher than for non-hospitalized patients (e.g. $27 642 vs $1177 among patients with private insurance). Patients with severe malaria payed two to four times more than those hospitalized with uncomplicated malaria.

Use of Point-of-Care Handheld Ultrasound for Splenomegaly in United States-Bound Refugees: A Novel Technology with Far-Reaching Implications.

Ultrasound (US) is an invaluable clinical tool. New point-of-care US technology holds great promise for hard-to-reach and mobile populations such as refugees. The implementation of US in unique and challenging settings has been hindered by cost, fragility of equipment, need for uninterrupted electricity, training, and difficulty in sharing data/image files impeding quality assurance. The recent development of more flexible, durable, high-quality, low-cost, handheld US technology has offered increased potential to address many of these barriers. We describe a pilot program using a new point-of-care US technology to identify and monitor splenomegaly in United States-bound Congolese refugees. This experience and model may hold lessons for planning and development of similar approaches in other hard-to-reach mobile populations.

Food and Drug Administration Approval of Artesunate for Severe Malaria: Enough to Achieve Best Practice?

Intravenous artesunate has been the global standard of care for severe malaria for over 2 decades. Yet, until recently, artesunate has only been available to patients through an expanded-access protocol from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In May 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved artesunate, allowing US hospitals to stock the drug and ensuring prompt treatment for this life-threatening infection. However, because of artesunate's high cost and the infrequency of severe malaria in the United States, hospitals may be reluctant to stock the drug. As US health systems weigh the decision to stock artesunate, we propose a hospital tier framework to inform this decision and support clinicians caring for patients who present with severe malaria.

Low Treatment Rates of Parasitic Diseases with Standard-of-Care Prescription Drugs in the United States, 2013-2019.

To assess appropriate drug treatment of parasitic diseases in the United States, we examined the treatment rates of 11 selected parasitic infections with standard-of-care prescription drugs and compared them to the treatment rates of two more common bacterial infections (Clostridioides difficile and streptococcal pharyngitis). We used the 2013 to 2019 IBM® MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters and MarketScan® Multi-State Medicaid databases, which included up to 7 years of data for approximately 88 million and 17 million individuals, respectively, to estimate treatment rates of each infection. The number of patients diagnosed with each parasitic infection varied from 57 to 5,266, and from 12 to 2,018, respectively, across the two databases. Treatment rates of 10 of 11 selected parasitic infections (range, 0-56%) were significantly less than those for streptococcal pharyngitis and Clostridioides difficile (range, 65-85%); giardiasis treatment (64%) was comparable to Clostridioides difficile (65%) in patients using Medicaid. Treatment rates for patients with opisthorchiasis, clonorchiasis, and taeniasis were less than 10%. Although we could not verify that patients had active infections because of limitations inherent to claims data, including coding errors and the inability to review patients' charts, these data suggest a need for improved treatment of parasitic infections. Further research is needed to verify the results and identify potential clinical and public health consequences.

Low Use of Standard-of-Care Antiparasitic Drugs and Increased Estimated Outpatient Payments for Treating Schistosomiasis in the United States, 2013-19.

Drug utilization and payment estimates for standard-of-care treatment of schistosomiasis have not been reported previously in the United States. This study estimates the utilization of praziquantel (standard-of-care drug) among patients with schistosomiasis and outpatient payments among those who were treated with praziquantel, and investigates the factors associated with praziquantel use from 2013-19 using IBM's MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters database. Claims data showed that only 21% of patients with schistosomiasis diagnoses were treated with praziquantel. The mean total drug payments per patient treated with praziquantel increased from $110 in 2013-14 to $612 in 2015-18 (P < 0.01), and use decreased. These factors, including residing in a rural area, having a documented Schistosoma haematobium infection, or having a first schistosomiasis diagnosis in 2015-16, were associated with a decreased likelihood of patients receiving standard-of-care treatment. Policy solutions to exorbitant drug pricing, and better awareness and education among healthcare providers about schistosomiasis-especially those practicing in rural areas with high immigrant populations-are needed.

Healthcare worker perspectives on COVID-19 vaccines: Implications for increasing vaccine acceptance among healthcare workers and patients.

OBJECTIVE: To understand COVID-19 vaccine perspectives among healthcare workers serving diverse communities. METHODS: A dual English/Spanish survey was distributed to healthcare workers in the United States from 3/12/2021-4/22/2021 by the Migrant Clinicians Network, Society of Refugee Healthcare Providers, a Federally Qualified Healthcare Center, and social media advertisement to general primary care workers. RESULTS: 517 responses were at least 50% complete and included in the analysis. Among these, 88% (457/517) indicated vaccine acceptance. Factors associated with acceptance included not reporting any vaccine concerns, identifying as male, ≥65 years of age, being a physician or advanced practice provider, and interacting directly with patients from refugee, immigrant, and migrant (RIM) communities. Participants identified educational information as most helpful for themselves when making a vaccine decision, but a healthcare provider's recommendation as most helpful for their patients. CONCLUSION: Healthcare workers, especially those serving RIM communities, are vaccine accepting. Tailoring vaccine-related information to healthcare workers may improve vaccine confidence for both themselves and patients who rely on them for information.

Global Health Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Challenges, Adaptations, and Lessons Learned.

Global health education programs should strive continually to improve the quality of education, increase access, create communities that foster excellence in global health practices, and ensure sustainability. The COVID-19 pandemic forced the University of Minnesota's extensive global health education programs, which includes a decade of hybrid online and in-person programing, to move completely online. We share our experience, a working framework for evaluating global health educational programming, and lessons learned. Over the decades we have moved from a predominantly passive, lecture-based, in-person course to a hybrid online (passive) course with an intensive hands-on 2-week requirement. The pandemic forced us to explore new active online learning models. We retained our on-demand, online passive didactics, which used experts' time efficiently and was widely accessible and well received. In addition, we developed a highly effective synchronous online component that we felt replaced some of the hands-on activities effectively and led us to develop new and innovative "hands-on" experiences. This new, fully online model combining quality asynchronous and synchronous learning provided many unanticipated advantages, such as increasing access while decreasing our carbon footprint dramatically. By sharing our experience, lessons learned, and resources, we hope to inspire other programs likewise to innovate to improve quality, access, community, and sustainability in global health, especially if these innovations can help decrease negative aspects of global health education such as its environmental impact.

The Value and Interpretation of Race and Ethnicity Data in the Era of Global Migration: A Change Is in Order.

Human migration and travel are leading to increasingly diverse populations throughout the world. Data collection practices need to adapt to these changes to expand our understanding of health disparities and to optimize the efforts to address health equity, particularly during public health emergencies such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. Race and ethnicity classifications in the United States have failed to evolve since the 1970s despite an increasingly diverse population. Current commonly collected categories are inadequate to accurately describe the economic, educational, and sociopolitical circumstances of different groups. Further, these categories lend little practical information to inform health policy. More predictive and actionable variables should be routinely collected to improve appropriateness and timeliness of health interventions. The immediate adoption of the collection of primary/preferred language and country of birth/origin by public health organizations, health systems, and clinical providers would be a concrete and valuable first step.

Global Is Local: Does Formal Resident Global Health Medical Education Improve Clinical Care in the United States?

We administered a standardized 41-item questionnaire to a convenience sample of graduates of five residency programs with formal global health pathways and compared findings to a national cohort of practicing physicians to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of an overarching global health pathway on residency program graduates. Compared with the national cohort database, global health pathway graduates self-reported that they felt better prepared to treat immigrants, refugees, patients with limited English proficiency (LEP), racial/ethnic minorities, those with non-Western health beliefs, international travelers, and military veterans (P < 0.05). They were more likely to report using best practices when working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning patients, immigrant and refugee patients, patients with non-Western health beliefs, patients with LEP, and patients communicating via American Sign Language (P < 0.05). They also reported being more familiar with 11 of 14 high-impact or common infections encountered in travelers, immigrants, and military personnel (P < 0.05). Our findings suggest that formal postgraduate training focused on global health improves knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported medical practices when caring for diverse and marginalized populations in the United States.

The cost of global connectivity: Faster and more efficient spread of antimicrobial resistance by international travelers - A controversial commentary.

Although the relationship between human mobility and global dissemination of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is well established, there are important aspects regarding dynamics and character of this spread that have not been well described such as the decreasing time from emergence to global dissemination. In addition, AMR spread through migrants is increasingly being discussed and examined. We believe caution should be exercised to not overly focus on this population since we believe migrants play a minor role and there is a history of stigmatizing and blaming migrants for emerging infections and disease outbreaks. International travelers are proportionately much more likely to perpetuate AMR spread due to the vastly greater volume combined with the increasing efficiency and speed at which they travel. Research, infection prevention measures, and policy development are likely to have the greatest impact if focused on the international traveler rather than on migrant populations.