Search

Introduction: Immune tolerance induction (ITI) is the only treatment to eradicate inhibitors in people with severe haemophilia A with inhibitors. Since the risk of inhibitor development is greater among Black and Hispanic persons, it has been hypothesized that race and ethnicity may influence ITI success. Limited studies have evaluated this hypothesis. Aim: To examine the success of ITI according to race and ethnicity. Methods: Participants who entered the Community Counts (CC) Registry between 2013 and 2017, were aged ≥3 years at study entry, and received ITI were included (n = 559). The proportion of participants with successful ITI was examined with adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Results: Among 559 participants, 56.9%, 19.1%, 18.1% and 4.3% were Non‐Hispanic (NH) White, NH Black, Hispanic and Asian, respectively, and 1.7% were coded as other or missing. Approximately 80% of Hispanic, NH Black and NH White participants had good/very good prognosis, defined as having a pre‐ITI peak inhibitor of < 200 Bethesda Units per millilitre. Nearly 60% of participants (59.7%) achieved successful ITI, 20.7% and 19.5% experienced partially successful or failed ITI, respectively. Successful ITI was non‐significantly lower in NH Black (54.2%; aPR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.62–1.44) and Hispanic (55.4%; aPR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.71–1.13) relative to NH White participants (62.6%). Conclusion: In this study, 60% of participants in the CC Registry had successful ITI, consistent with previous studies. The proportion with successful ITI was generally comparable across racial and ethnic groups with similar prognosis. These findings do not support the hypothesis that ITI response varies according to race or ethnicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this report, the authors provide comprehensive and up-to-date US data on disparities in cancer occurrence, major risk factors, and access to and utilization of preventive measures and screening by sociodemographic characteristics. They also review programs and resources that have reduced cancer disparities and provide policy recommendations to further mitigate these inequalities. The overall cancer death rate is 19% higher among Black males than among White males. Black females also have a 12% higher overall cancer death rate than their White counterparts despite having an 8% lower incidence rate. There are also substantial variations in death rates for specific cancer types and in stage at diagnosis, survival, exposure to risk factors, and receipt of preventive measures and screening by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. For example, kidney cancer death rates by sex among American Indian/Alaska Native people are ≥64% higher than the corresponding rates in each of the other racial/ethnic groups, and the 5-year relative survival for all cancers combined is 14% lower among residents of poorer counties than among residents of more affluent counties. Broad and equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as increasing health insurance coverage through Medicaid expansion or other initiatives, could substantially reduce cancer disparities. However, progress will require not only equitable local, state, and federal policies but also broad interdisciplinary engagement to elevate and address fundamental social inequities and longstanding systemic racism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, US unemployment rates rose to historic highs, and they remain nearly double those of prepandemic levels. Employers are the most common source of health insurance among nonelderly adults. Thus, job loss may lead to a loss of health insurance and reduce access to cancer screening. This study examined associations between unemployment, health insurance, and cancer screening to inform the pandemic's potential impacts on early cancer detection. Methods: Up‐to‐date and past‐year breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening prevalences were computed for nonelderly respondents (aged <65 years) with 2000‐2018 National Health Interview Survey data. Multivariable logistic regression models with marginal probabilities were used to estimate unemployed‐versus‐employed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios. Results: Unemployed adults (2000‐2018) were 4 times more likely to lack insurance than employed adults (41.4% vs 10.0%; P <.001). Unemployed adults had a significantly lower up‐to‐date prevalence of screening for cervical cancer (78.5% vs 86.2%; P <.001), breast cancer (67.8% vs 77.5%; P <.001), colorectal cancer (41.9 vs 48.5%; P <.001), and prostate cancer (25.4% vs 36.4%; P <.001). These differences were eliminated after accounting for health insurance coverage. Conclusions: Unemployment was adversely associated with up‐to‐date cancer screening, and this was fully explained by a lack of health insurance. Ensuring the continuation of health insurance coverage after job loss may mitigate the pandemic's economic distress and future economic downturns' impact on cancer screening. Unemployment is adversely associated with up‐to‐date cancer screening, and this is fully explained by a lack of health insurance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Breast cancer screening utilization steeply dropped at the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. However, the effects on breast cancer screening in lower income populations are unknown. This study examined changes in breast cancer screening rates (BCSRs) during the pandemic among 32 community health centers (CHCs) that provided health care to lower income populations. Methods: Secondary data from 32 CHCs participating in an American Cancer Society grant program to increase breast cancer screening services were used. BCSRs were defined as the percentage of women aged 50 to 74 years who had a medical visit in the past 12 months (142,207 in 2018, 142,003 in 2019, and 150,630 in 2020) and received a screening mammogram within the last 27 months. BCSRs in July 2020, July 2019, and June 2018 were compared with screening rate ratios (SRRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: BCSRs significantly rose by 18% between 2018 and 2019 (from 45.8% to 53.9%; SRR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17‐1.18) and then declined by 8% between 2019 and 2020 (from 53.9% to 49.6%; SRR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.92‐0.93). If the 2018‐2019 BCSR trends had continued through 2020, 63.3% of women would have been screened in 2020 in contrast to the 49.6% who were; this potentially translated into 47,517 fewer mammograms and 242 missed breast cancer diagnoses in this population. Conclusions: In this study of 32 CHCs, BCSRs declined by 8% from July 2019 to 2020, and this reversed an 18% improvement between July 2018 and 2019. Declining BCSRs among CHCs during the COVID‐19 pandemic call for policies to support and resources to identify women in need of screening. In this study of 32 community health centers, breast cancer screening rates declined by 8% from July 2019 to 2020. This reverses an 18% improvement between July 2018 and 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]