T1DBase () [Smink et al. (2005) Nucleic Acids Res., 33, D544–D549; Burren et al. (2004) Hum. Genomics, 1, 98–109] is a public website and database that supports the type 1 diabetes (T1D) research community. T1DBase provides a consolidated T1D-oriented view of the complex data world that now confronts medical researchers and enables scientists to navigate from information they know to information that is new to them. Overview pages for genes and markers summarize information for these elements. The Gene Dossier summarizes information for a list of genes. GBrowse [Stein et al. (2002) Genome Res., 10, 1599–1610] displays genes and other features in their genomic context, and Cytoscape [Shannon et al. (2003) Genome Res., 13, 2498–2504] shows genes in the context of interacting proteins and genes. The Beta Cell Gene Atlas shows gene expression in β cells, islets, and related cell types and lines, and the Tissue Expression Viewer shows expression across other tissues. The Microarray Viewer shows expression from more than 20 array experiments. The Beta Cell Gene Expression Bank contains manually curated gene and pathway annotations for genes expressed in β cells. T1DMart is a query tool for markers and genotypes. PosterPages are ‘home pages’ about specific topics or datasets. The key challenge, now and in the future, is to provide powerful informatics capabilities to T1D scientists in a form they can use to enhance their research.

Background: Racial and ethnic minority groups have been disproportionately affected by the US coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; however, nationwide data on COVID-19 outcomes stratified by race/ethnicity and adjusted for clinical characteristics are sparse. This study analyzed the impacts of race/ethnicity on outcomes among US patients with COVID-19. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis in the electronic health record from 01 February 2020 through 14 September 2020. Index encounter site, hospitalization, and mortality were assessed by race/ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black [Black], non-Hispanic White [White], non-Hispanic Asian [Asian], or Other/unknown). Associations between racial/ethnic categories and study outcomes adjusted for patient characteristics were evaluated using logistic regression. Findings: Among 202,908 patients with confirmed COVID-19, patients from racial/ethnic minority groups were more likely than White patients to be hospitalized on initial presentation (Hispanic: adjusted odds ratio 1¢690, 95% CI 1¢620À1¢763; Black: 1¢810, 1¢743À1¢880; Asian: 1¢503, 1¢381À1¢636) and during follow-up (Hispanic: 1¢700, 1¢638À1¢764; Black: 1¢578, 1¢526À1¢633; Asian: 1¢391, 1¢288À1¢501). Among hospitalized patients, adjusted mortality risk was lower for Black patients (0¢881, 0¢809À0¢959) but higher for Asian patients (1¢205, 1¢000À1¢452). Interpretation: Racial/ethnic minority patients with COVID-19 had more severe disease on initial presentation than White patients. Increased mortality risk was attenuated by hospitalization among Black patients but not Asian patients, indicating that outcome disparities may be mediated by distinct factors for different groups. In addition to enacting policies to facilitate equitable access to COVID-19Àrelated care, further analyses of disaggregated population-level COVID-19 data are needed.

Overall, it appears that in this patient population, ICS/LAMA/LABA as triple therapy is being initiated after use of a bronchodilator and/or after an exacerbation event, in accordance with accepted treatment recommendations.

BackgroundMaximizing response rates is critically important in order to provide the most generalizable and unbiased research results. High response rates reduce the chance of respondents being systematically different from non-respondents, and thus, reduce the risk of results not truly reflecting the study population. Monetary incentives are often used to improve response rates, but little is known about whether larger incentives improve response rates in those who previously have been unenthusiastic about participating in research. In this study we compared the response rates and cost-effectiveness of a $5 versus $2 monetary incentive accompanying a short survey mailed to patients who did not respond or refused to participate in research study with a face-to-face survey.Methods1,328 non-responders were randomly assigned to receive $5 or $2 and a short, 10-question survey by mail. Reminder postcards were sent to everyone; those not returning the survey were sent a second survey without incentive. Overall response rates, response rates by incentive condition, and odds of responding to the larger incentive were calculated. Total costs (materials, postage, and labor) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were also calculated and compared by incentive condition.ResultsAfter the first mailing, the response rate within the $5 group was significantly higher (57.8% vs. 47.7%, p < .001); after the second mailing, the difference narrowed by 80%, resulting in a non-significant difference in cumulative rates between the $5 and $2 groups (67.3% vs. 65.4%, respectively, p = .47). Regardless of incentive or number of contacts, respondents were significantly more likely to be male, white, married, and 50-75 years old. Total costs were higher with the larger versus smaller incentive ($13.77 versus $9.95 per completed survey).ConclusionsA $5 incentive provides a significantly higher response rate than a $2 incentive if only one survey mailing is used but not if two survey mailings are used.

Background This retrospective, administrative claims study aimed to describe clinical characteristics, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs of people with HIV (PWH) in US commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans by antiretroviral treatment (ART) experience and CD4+ cell count. Methods Data from the national Optum Research Database between January 1, 2014, and March 31, 2018, for adult PWH continuously enrolled 6 months before and ≥12 months after the first ART identified (follow-up) were summarized by treatment (heavily treatment experienced [HTE] with limited remaining ART options, treatment experienced but not HTE [non-HTE], or treatment naive starting a first antiretroviral regimen) and index CD4+ cell count (&lt;200, 200-500, or &gt;500 cells/mm3). Results Compared with non-HTE (n=7604) and treatment-naive PWH (n=4357), HTE PWH (n=2297) were older (53.5 vs 48.8 and 42.3 years), were more likely to have HIV-related emergency department visits (22.3% vs 12.4% and 18.6%) and inpatient stays (15.8% vs 7.1% and 10.3%), had a higher mean (SD) daily pill burden (9.7 [7.7] vs 5.1 [5.9] and 3.6 [5.3] pills/day), and a higher mortality rate (5.9% vs 2.9% and 2.3%) during follow-up (all P&lt;0.001). More HTE (21.8%) and treatment-naive PWH (27.0%) had &lt;200 CD4+ cells/mm 3 vs non-HTE PWH (8.0%; P&lt;0.001). All-cause and HIV-related costs were higher among HTE PWH in all CD4+ cell count strata and treatment-naive PWH with CD4+ cell counts &lt;200 cells/mm 3 vs non-HTE PWH in all CD4+ cell count strata. Conclusions Improved support and clinical monitoring of HTE PWH are needed to prevent worsening outcomes and increased costs.