Economic burden of cardiorespiratory hospitalizations associated with respiratory syncytial virus among United States adults in 2017-2019.

Morbidity and mortality caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older adults and those with underlying health conditions can be potentially alleviated through vaccination. To assist vaccine policy decision-makers and payers, we estimated the annual economic burden of RSV-associated cardiorespiratory hospitalizations among insured US adults aged ≥18 y in the Merative MarketScan claims database from September through August of 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. Negative binomial regression models were used to estimate the number of RSV-associated cardiorespiratory hospitalizations using MarketScan-identified cardiorespiratory diagnosis codes in the presence or absence of RSV circulation per weekly laboratory test positivity percentages from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This number was multiplied by mean cardiorespiratory hospitalization costs to estimate total costs for RSV-associated cardiorespiratory hospitalizations. Number and cost for International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-coded RSV hospitalizations were quantified from MarketScan. In 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, respectively, 18,515,878 and 16,462,120 adults with commercial or Medicare supplemental benefits were assessed. In 2017-2018, 301,248 cardiorespiratory hospitalizations were observed; 0.32% had RSV-specific ICD codes, costing $44,916,324, and 5.52% were RSV-associated cardiorespiratory hospitalizations, costing $734,078,602 (95% CI: $460,826,580-$1,103,358,799). In 2018-2019, 215,525 cardiorespiratory hospitalizations were observed; 0.34% had RSV-specific ICD codes, costing $33,053,105, and 3.14% were RSV-associated cardiorespiratory hospitalizations, costing $287,549,472 (95% CI: $173,377,778-$421,884,259). RSV contributes to substantial economic burden of cardiorespiratory hospitalizations among US adults. Modeling excess risk using viral positivity data provides a comprehensive estimation of RSV hospitalization burden and associated costs, compared with relying on ICD diagnosis codes alone.

Assessing ascertainment bias in atrial fibrillation across US minority groups.

The aim of this study is to define atrial fibrillation (AF) prevalence and incidence rates across minority groups in the United States (US), to aid in diversity enrollment target setting for randomized controlled trials. In AF, US minority groups have lower clinically detected prevalence compared to the non-Hispanic or Latino White (NHW) population. We assess the impact of ascertainment bias on AF prevalence estimates. We analyzed data from adults in Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database from 2017-2020 in a cohort study. Presence of AF at baseline was identified from inpatient and/or outpatient encounters claims using validated ICD-10-CM diagnosis algorithms. AF incidence and prevalence rates were determined both in the overall population, as well as in a population with a recent stroke event, where monitoring for AF is assumed. Differences in prevalence across cohorts were assessed to determine if ascertainment bias contributes to the variation in AF prevalence across US minority groups. The period prevalence was respectively 4.9%, 3.2%, 2.1% and 5.9% in the Black or African American, Asian, Hispanic or Latino, and NHW population. In patients with recent ischemic stroke, the proportion with AF was 32.2%, 24.3%, 25%, and 24.5%, respectively. The prevalence of AF among the stroke population was approximately 7 to 10 times higher than the prevalence among the overall population for the Asian and Hispanic or Latino population, compared to approximately 5 times higher for NHW patients. The relative AF prevalence difference of the Asian and Hispanic or Latino population with the NHW population narrowed from respectively, -46% and -65%, to -22% and -24%. The study findings align with previous observational studies, revealing lower incidence and prevalence rates of AF in US minority groups. Prevalence estimates of the adult population, when routine clinical practice is assumed, exhibit higher prevalence differences compared to settings in which monitoring for AF is assumed, particularly among Asian and Hispanic or Latino subgroups.