Search

Background Diabetes mellitus affects almost 10% of U.S. adults, leading to human and financial burden. Underserved populations experience a higher risk of diabetes and related complications resulting from a combination of limited disposable income, inadequate diet, and lack of insurance coverage. Without the requisite resources, underserved populations lack the ability to access healthcare and afford prescription drugs to manage their condition. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the findings from cost-effectiveness studies of diabetes management in underserved populations. Methods Original, English, peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness studies of diabetes management in U.S. underserved populations were obtained from 8 databases, and PRISMA 2009 reporting guidelines were followed. Evidence was categorized as strong or weak based on a combination of GRADE and American Diabetes Association guidelines. Internal validity was assessed by the Cochrane methodology. Studies were classified by incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as very cost-effective (ICER≤US$25,000), cost-effective (US$25,000US$100,000). Reporting and quality of economic evaluations was assessed using the CHEERS guidelines and Recommendations of Second Panel for Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, respectively. Findings Fourteen studies were included. All interventions were found to be cost-effective or very cost-effective. None of the studies reported all 24 points of the CHEERS guidelines. Given the considered cost categories vary significantly between studies, assessing cost-effectiveness across studies has many limitations. Program costs were consistently analyzed, and a third of the included studies (n = 5) only examined these costs, without considering other costs of diabetes care. Interpretation Cost-effectiveness studies are not based on a standardized methodology and present incomplete or limited analyses. More accurate assessment of all direct and indirect costs could widen the gap between intervention and usual care. This demonstrates the urgent need for a more standardized and comprehensive cost-effectiveness framework for future studies.

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.