Purpose Few studies have estimated population prevalence and morbidity of primary immunodeficiency diseases (PIDD). We used administrative healthcare databases to estimate the prevalence of PIDD diagnoses in the United States from 2001 to 2007. Methods MarketScan databases compile claims from commercial health insurance plans and Medicaid, recording individual diagnoses for outpatient encounters and hospital stays. We used a cross sectional survey to estimate prevalence of PIDD using related ICD-9 codes (279.0, 279.1, 279.2, 279.8, 279.9, 288.1 and 288.2). Persons with secondary immunodeficiency diagnoses were excluded from analysis. Results Between 2001 and 2007, prevalence of any PIDD diagnosis increased from 38.9 to 50.5 per 100,000 among privately insured and from 29.1 to 41.1 per 100,000 among publicly insured persons. B cell defects predominated. Prevalence was more than twice as high among Whites as among Blacks or Hispanics. Conclusion In this large database, we found a higher prevalence of diagnosed PIDD than has been reported previously from registries. Increased awareness may have contributed to the increasing prevalence.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe characteristics of the full population of women who participated in the Zika Contraception Access Network program in Puerto Rico during the virus outbreak and to examine factors associated with removal of a long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) method by a Zika Contraception Access Network provider during the program's duration (May 2016–September 2017). METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study. The Zika Contraception Access Network program was designed to increase access to contraception services in Puerto Rico for women who chose to prevent pregnancy during the Zika virus outbreak as a primary strategy to reduce adverse Zika virus–related pregnancy and birth outcomes. Among program participants, an observational cohort of women served by the Zika Contraception Access Network Program, we describe their demographic and program-specific characteristics, including contraceptive method mix before and after the program. We also report on LARC removals by Zika Contraception Access Network providers during the program. We examined factors associated with LARC removal using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 29,221 women received an initial Zika Contraception Access Network visit during the program. Ninety-six percent (27,985) of women received same-day provision of a contraceptive method and 70% (20,381) chose a LARC method. While the program was active, 719 (4%) women who chose a LARC at the initial visit had it removed. Women with a college degree or higher were more likely to have their LARC removed (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.24); breastfeeding women (aPR 0.67) and those using a LARC method before Zika Contraception Access Network (aPR 0.55) were less likely to have their LARC removed. CONCLUSION: The Zika Contraception Access Network program was designed as a short-term response for rapid implementation of contraceptive services in a complex emergency setting in Puerto Rico and served more than 29,000 women. The Zika Contraception Access Network program had high LARC uptake and a low proportion of removals by a Zika Contraception Access Network provider during the program. A removal-inclusive design, with access to removals well beyond the program period, maximizes women's reproductive autonomy to access LARC removal when desired. This model could be replicated in other settings where the goal is to increase contraception access.